For anyone just joining the The Rabbit Files or you need a refresher on where we’re at and where we’ve been, I highly recommend you visit the The Rabbit Files summaries page which includes a summary of all The Rabbit Files up until 8.4.
I also invite you to visit the “Updates, Disclaimers, and Corrections” page which has been recently updated with some interesting new content. There’s also a Rabbit Files timeline although full disclosure it hasn’t been updated in awhile (oof, I’m working on it). If you notice any mistakes or have any information pertaining to The Rabbit Files, feel free to reach out to me so I can correct them.
In The Rabbit Files 9.0 series, we’re covering what happened during the “Who spoofed the Seth Rich files” incident in more detail and the shenanigans and lies that followed. I particularly recommend that you read the first two articles of this entire series, The Rabbit Files 1.0 and The Rabbit Files 1.1, for more background information.
In this article and for the remainder of the Rabbit Files 9.0 series, we’re going to look mainly at what happened after Jason Goodman and George Webb’s Crowdsource the Truth livestream about Trish Negron and the thumb drive she received from someone named “White Rabbit.”
The Webb/Goodman/Defango Video
Unfortunately, since the publishing of The Rabbit Files, multiple videos have been deleted or made private on Youtube like the June 1, 2017 Crowdsource the Truth livestream about the thumb drive and the video that Goodman and Negron posted in mid-June 2017 about Beth Bogaerts‘ role in the thumb drive debacle. Another livestream video of Webb, Goodman, and Defango discussing the thumb drive after the Crowdsource the Truth livestream is also no longer available and has been made private on Youtube.
The Webb/Goodman/Defango video was posted on Twitter sometime shortly after the Crowdsource the Truth livestream ended. The video link is here and I realize that the following will be WIDE OPEN to interpretation and possible denials because a. the video has been privatized so b. I’m not going to post it but I stand by the following and what was said in it. If anything has been misreported or misinterpreted, feel free to reach out to me about corrections.
The conversation between Webb, Goodman, and Defango obviously revolved around the files that White Rabbit had just given Negron, and Defango initially started by discussing Guccifer 2. He told them that he had looked at the files Webb and Goodman published earlier (the ones that Negron got from White Rabbit) and he noted that if Guccifer 2 actually did hack the DNC, he had created files from the Warren Flood account.
Remember Warren Flood? He’s the guy we’ve discussed ad nauseam throughout this series because in early March 2017, Beth Bogaerts’ associate, Anonymous Scandinavia, started pushing a bogus story that DNC worker, Warren Flood, was behind the Guccifer 2 persona and the story played directly into Cicada’s 2017 puzzle, “A Fludd Approaches…”
So Defango discussed how Flood used to work for the DNC back in 2008, and how he would have been the only person with access to everything that seemed to be in the files that White Rabbit gave Negron. However, in the totality of documents that Guccifer 2 dropped, there were only five files in which they deliberately added Russian fingerprints and only three files that had been cut and pasted into a single document template created earlier by Warren Flood, a DNC political strategist.
All of these files were released on June 15, 2017, so to be clear the .7z files do not contain any metadata about Warren Flood (at least not that I’m aware of), thus it’s unclear to me why Defango was talking about this in terms of White Rabbit’s thumb drive.
Then he noted that the Warren Flood story got little attention which is absurd because even WikiLeaks retweeted the bogus story obviously due to the fact that not even WikiLeaks could figure out that the story framed an innocent man of wrong doing…or they didn’t care.
As for what was in the actual .7z files and whether or not it was “old or new stuff,” Defango told Webb and Goodman that the only new stuff in the files was about Bernie Sanders having the election stolen from him which is absolutely not true. The .7z files contain nothing of the sort. I hate to keep beating a dead horse but as Stephen McIntyre pointed out, the files were “not-even-chickenfeed” files.
These were the same files that were released during a 2016 cyber conference via a PowerPoint allegedly submitted by Guccifer 2—the same conference where no one will confirm that the PowerPoint actually came from Guccifer 2, and where Bogaert’s associate, Anonymous Scandinavia, became the conference’s guest speaker in both 2018 and 2019.
Not even Mueller mentioned these files.
Defango also told Webb and Goodman that there was stuff peppered throughout the .7z files that didn’t relate to Rich “at least not on the front end,” and when he was asked if the files contained anything that WikiLeaks didn’t have and whether or not Webb/Goodman should send the files to them, Defango replied that there was material in the files that was not on WikiLeaks’ website.
Right. Because again they were “not-even-chickenfeed” files that had already been released by someone else at a 2016 cyber conference so no, WikiLeaks would not have published them on their website.
Finally (!), around the 11:12 mark, someone in the live chat mentioned that WikiLeaks retweeted the files in September 2016, and Goodman asked Defango if that was true. Defango’s response:
I mean, when I looked at the ones in September, I didn’t see anything that matched that and I’ve been keeping up on most of their leaks that have been dropping out. So, I mean, it doesn’t look exactly like the same thing and I have a folder with all the WikiLeaks stuff in it, you know, and […inaudible…] unless I missed that particular one, I would say that I haven’t seen that stuff before, at least this particular portion of it.
First of all, I’m not aware of WikiLeaks leaking anything in September 2016, so I’m not sure how this is even relevant—unless he’s talking about the .7z files they retweeted which ARE the same files that White Rabbit gave to Negron. Second of all, either Defango wasn’t aware that WikiLeaks retweeted the files eight months prior or he was purposely derailing the conversation by talking about what WikiLeaks actually published, not what they retweeted, which was the question he was asked.
And if they retweeted the .7z files, they obviously had them in their possession regardless of whether or not they actually posted the documents on their website.
Bogaerts Completely Loses It Over Worthless Files
The one person who completely lost their shite over George Webb gaining possession of the .7z files was Beth Bogaerts. And no, the files were never hers to begin with, she never downloaded them personally, and yes, they had been publicly available to the entire world for over eight months at this point.
On the day that White Rabbit gave Negron the thumb drive, Bogaerts warned both of them not to give Webb the files. According to DMs between White Rabbit and Bogaerts:
White Rabbit: Why?
Bogaerts: Then that guy will have it…he worked for Mossad.
White Rabbit: Webb?
Bogaerts: Yeah Trish told me today
Bogaerts: Back off of it
White Rabbit: Why does she want to work for George?
Bogaerts: Just say something
White Rabbit: She’s on her way
Bogaerts: Call her and say you are sketched out Mossad
White Rabbit: What did she say?
Bogaerts: I said he [Webb] freaked you out a little when he messaged you
White Rabbit: Right
Bogaerts: So you could totally use that
Bogaerts: That’s when she told me about Mossad
White Rabbit: I’m working on it
At 5:07 p.m. on July 1, 2017, White Rabbit messaged Negron, “Are you working with George?” and then he messaged Bogaerts again, “I just asked her if she’s working with George.” Negron either didn’t respond to his question, or she did via telephone and/or they discussed it after they met in person.
So the gist of the problem for Bogaerts was that Negron told her earlier in the day that Webb said that he was Mossad because remember in the last Rabbit Files it was noted how Bogaerts brokered an introduction between Negron and her then friend, Trevor Fitzgibbon, which led to Fitzgibbon being interviewed by Webb and Goodman the day before the thumb drive incident? At no point did Bogaerts warn Fitzgibbon about speaking to Webb nor did she make any claims that he was a disinfo agent like she did after the Crowdsource the Truth livestream.
So here’s a dose of reality that puts this three-ring monkey LARP in perspective: These files had already been publicly available a few months short of a year and how Bogaerts actually thought that she and her friends were the only ones that noticed the files released back in September 2016, like Mossad had somehow missed them, is beyond me. After WikiLeaks advertised them, no less.
And yet, Bogaerts either believed or wanted everyone else to believe that the .7z files were so important that Mossad a.k.a. George Webb (according to her) shouldn’t get his hands on them. Don’t forget that White Rabbit was acting spooked about the files to Trish Negron, too. SMH.
There’s a reason why no one cared about these files when they were first released.
Perhaps the most disturbing part about all of this is that Bogaerts has repeatedly stated publicly and privately that she’s some sort of expert in documents and knows the entire WikiLeaks database (her background is allegedly interior design), and yet she somehow couldn’t figure out that the content of the .7z files was mostly garbage. Rather, according to Trish Negron, she tried to peddle them to her as something that might have come from Seth Rich.
She initially tried to peddle them to Jared Beck thinking it might assist him in his class action suit against the DNC despite the fact the files contain nothing about the the DNC rigging the nomination against Bernie Sanders or that “anyone had donated to the DNC on the promise that the committee and its employees would be completely impartial,” which was essentially the basis of the lawsuit.
According to Bogaerts’ own messages to Defango after the Crowdsource the Truth livestream, she also “talked to” him about the files “through Vetter,” and tried to peddle them to Lara Logan and/or her husband, the latter of which completely validates what Negron later alleged Bogaerts had done.
She (and others according to her use of “we”) also thought about sending the files to Adam Housely, the guy who was involved with publishing Malia Zimmerman’s FOX article about Seth Rich which was pulled six days after publication because peddling garbage files to a guy who helped publish a garbage story makes perfect sense.
And then she peddled them to Trish Negron. At least that’s the timeline according to Bogaerts’ own messages. So if she’s been telling anyone this isn’t true or defaming journalists over this information, it’s all right there in her own words. And it gets worse.
Hillary’s Missing Emails…Wut?
On June 2, 2017, either very early in the morning, perhaps around the time that the Crowdsource the Truth livestream ended, or later that day/evening, Bogaerts and Defango messaged each other:
Defango: Sorry she [Trish Negron] droppes [sic] the files like that
Bogaerts: It’s ok… I asked her not to because right before she met Rabbit she tells me that Webb was old guard Mossad
Bogaerts: But I’m happy it’s out. That was the purpose.
Bogaerts: And Rabbit is happy too
AGAIN, THESE ARE FILES THAT HAD ALREADY BEEN “OUT” FOR EIGHT MONTHS. These people are not heroes or whistleblowers FFS.
She also sent Defango this Kim Dotcom tweet and wrote, “From 2014” and then “2015 I meant.”
Then, at some point between June 2-4, 2017, Bogaerts sent him the Dotcom tweet again:
And notice what Bogaerts told Defango the second time she sent it to him, “This is Kimdotcom talking about it in Oct of 2015…Stuff for Mike.” The “Stuff for Mike” that she is referencing was a folder found inside the .7z files called exactly that: “Stuff for Mike.”
I can’t speak for Bogaerts and why exactly she sent this tweet twice to Defango but it certainly looks like she wanted him to believe that one of the .7z folders contained information about Hillary’s missing emails; how to get Hillary’s missing emails via the NSA spy cloud in Utah; Mike Rogers; X-Keyscore; or something along those lines which I’m told is complete and utter nonsense. They contain nothing of the sort.
I mean, I hope her inference here was NOT that the “Mike” in “Stuff for Mike” was a reference to Mike Rogers otherwise this is like Stage 5 LARPING.
So based on Bogaerts own words, it would appear that she tried to peddle these files as possible evidence that the DNC rigged the nomination, or that they were possibly the Seth Rich files (per Trish Negron), or (and after the livestream) they contained information about Clinton’s missing emails. But yes. The rest of us are the trolls.
Listen, if this lady was taken for a ride by others meaning she’s so gullible she believed three different versions about what an old set files contained or that the files were so important Mossad was willing to kill people over them, then show us, Mz. Bogaerts, who misled you instead of constantly dropping pathetically ambiguous tweets like, “They keep trying to say things about me that aren’t true and ruin my reputation.”
WHAT EXACTLY ARE PEOPLE SAYING ABOUT YOU THAT ISN’T TRUE BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE ABOVE IS COMING DIRECTLY FROM YOU, NO ONE ELSE.
The bottom line is that no one forced Bogaerts to peddle these files and yet she spends all of her time blaming and defaming literally everyone else for the same activities she herself deliberately took part in. I was under the impression that she was a grown woman capable of making her own decisions and her decision was to pass around old files to multiple people that had absolutely nothing to do with Seth Rich, nothing to do with the DNC rigging the nomination against Bernie Sanders, and nothing to do with Hillary’s missing emails or the NSA. That, or she at least said that she did.
The Rabbit Files 7.0
The Rabbit Files 7.1
The Rabbit Files 7.2
Disclaimer: Ten thousand more pages of disclaimers to follow.
If you were mentioned in this article because your associate(s) did or said something stupid/dishonest, that’s not a suggestion that you did or said something stupid/dishonest or that you took part in it. Of course, some may conclude on their own that you associate with stupid/dishonest individuals but that’s called having the right to an opinion. If I’ve questioned something that doesn’t make sense to me, that’s not me spinning the confusing material you’ve put out. That’s me trying to make sense out of something that doesn’t make sense. And if I’ve noted that you failed to back up your allegations that means I either missed where you posted it or you failed to back your shiz up.
If I haven’t specifically stated that I believe (my opinion) someone is associated with someone else or an event, then it means just that. I haven’t reported an association nor is there any inference of association on my part. For example, just because someone is mentioned in this article, it doesn’t mean that they’re involved or associated with everyone and everything else mentioned. If I believe that there’s an association between people and/or events, I’ll specifically report it.
If anyone mentioned in this article wants to claim that I have associated them with someone else or an event because I didn’t disclose every single person and event in the world that they are NOT associated with, that’s called gaslighting an audience and it’s absurd hogwash i.e. “They mentioned that I liked bananas but they didn’t disclose that I don’t like apples. Why are they trying to associate me with apples???” Or something similar to this lovely gem, “I did NOT give Trish the thumb drive!” in order to make their lazy audience believe that it was reported they gave Trish the thumb drive when, in fact, that was never reported, let alone inferred.
That’s some of the BS I’m talking about so try not to act like a psychiatric patient, intelligence agent, or paid cyber mercenary by doing these things. If you would like to share your story, viewpoint, or any evidence that pertains to this article, or feel strongly that something needs to be clarified or corrected (again, that actually pertains to the article), you can reach me at email@example.com with any questions or concerns.
I cannot confirm and am not confirming the legitimacy of any messages or emails in this article. Please see a doctor if sensitivity continues. If anyone asks, feel free to tell them that I work for Schoenberger, Fitzgibbon, Steven Biss, the CIA, or really just about any intelligence agency because your idiocy, ongoing defamation, and failure as a human is truly a sight to behold for the rest of us.
This is an Op-ed article. The information contained in this post is for general information purposes only. While we endeavor to keep the information up to date and correct, we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability with respect to the website or the information contained on the post for any purpose. The owner of this blog makes no representations as to the accuracy or completeness of any information on this site or found by following any link on this site.
The views or opinions represented in this blog do not represent those of people, institutions or organizations that the owner may or may not be associated with in professional or personal capacity, unless explicitly stated. Any views or opinions are not intended to malign any religion, ethnic group, club, organization, company, or individual.
The owner will not be liable for any errors or omissions in this information nor for the availability of this information. The owner will not be liable for any losses, injuries, or damages from the display or use of this information.