Kim Dot Com Has Made His Statement On Seth Rich: “Panda Advised Me That He Was Working On Voter Analytics Tools…”

Archive

“I KNOW THAT SETH RICH WAS INVOLVED IN THE DNC LEAK.

I know this because in late 2014 a person contacted me about helping me to start a branch of the Internet Party in the United States. He called himself Panda. I now know that Panda was Seth Rich.

Panda advised me that he was working on voter analytics tools and other technologies that the Internet Party may find helpful.

I communicated with Panda on a number of topics including corruption and the influence of corporate money in politics….”

glassfrog

Full statement here: http://kim.com 

In other developments: Conservative periodical World Net Daily has published an article claiming Rod Wheeler has identified who from the DNC tried to stop his investigation into Seth Rich’s murder.

7 thoughts on “Kim Dot Com Has Made His Statement On Seth Rich: “Panda Advised Me That He Was Working On Voter Analytics Tools…””

  1. If I were going to research this (I am not) I would first look into the background of “Seth Rich” to see if he was a real person. Wikipedia would be a starting place, as it is the source of all lies, but written in such a way that insiders can easily understand if what is written is true or part of some psyop. I have learned to look for the clues over time, the first one an obvious slap in the face, that Rich supposedly died at age 27. That is an inside signal to other Intel agents that the event is fake. It is like a supposed murderer holding Catcher in the Rye when arrested. The book is a coded message telling the entire spook world what is happening.

    Since I have come to understand that Wikileaks is itself a psyop, an agent of Intelligence used to disseminate useful propaganda, initiate psyops, and perhaps act as a trap for real whistleblowers, its inclusion in the Seth Rich matter raises red flags. If Seth Rich was a real person really engaged in leaking important information, Wikileaks would have pointed him out to authorities.

    That said, that would not lead to his death. We are not dealing with cold-blooded killers. Most if not all of these deaths are fake. A real whistleblower would simply be warned, fired, intimidated, maybe even jailed for a period of time. Murder is overblown, rare, perhaps even nonexistent in psyops. I do not live in fear. These events are usually bloodless dramas.

    I would begin my research using as a working premise that “Seth Rich” is an invented persona, and that photos of him are merely some dude. His “murder” then would be a collection of fictions enhanced by reporting, and recently surfacing again to advance some other cause. The “leaked” material is then the object, as it is known to be either fake or leaked with purpose. So it too can be viewed from a distance is potentially misleading.

    It’s probably just another trap, a rabbit hole, clues leading everywhere and meaning precisely nothing. I’d look hard for any clues that anything is real. But I’ve been around the block a few times and know not to bother. Moving along here …

  2. Time after time, in recent decades, the right and left wing paranoids have conjured grandiose imaginings of conspiracy after conspiracy, ad nauseum.

    The imagined conspiracies come and go, one after another being disproven and then being hushed-up by those who promoted them.

    The promoters of the conspiracy imaginings never apologize, never admit that they acted irresponsibly. They just shut up and zip up, as if their hysterical accusations, criminalizations and defamations were only innocent missteps, innocent bumpings of their toes, innocent incidents of being misdirected, with no involvement of their own misjudgements, their own lack of judiciousness, their own lack of integrity and earnestness for sticking to ONLY the facts.

    ONLY the facts!

    Now cometh and goeth the Seth Rich assassination conspiracy imagining, and its promoters.

    I beseech those conspiracy imaginers who are here assembled, both right ring and left wing, please stop embarrassing yourselves, degrading your integrity, making yourselves appear to be paranoia-addicts who can’t go through a month without a fix of ENTIRELY imaginary conpiracy accusations, criminalizations and defamations which are ABSOLUTELY lacking ANY legitimate evidence at all.

    Please.

    You deserve better, from yourselves, for yourselves.

    https://www.yahoo.com/amphtml/news/seth-richs-parents-speak-unspeakably-cruel-conspiracy-theories-140341013.html

  3. The headline for the WND article is apparently false, or, to state that less discreetly, the headline is a lie. The article says only that Ms. Brazille inquired to the police about why the P.I. was “snooping”. The article does not state or provide evidence that Ms. Brazille did anything which can be described as “warn off” the P.I.; and the article does not state the Ms. Brazille ever spoke to the P.I., and so, therefore, the absence of her speaking to the P.I. is also the absence of her vocal endeavor to “warn off” the P.I.

    Yes?

    Furthermore, the Kim.com dude claims he has evidence of Mr. Rich being the source of the DNC emails sent to Wikileaks. BUT! he weasels out of providing that evidence to the public, by stating (at the link given in your original post above) that he will only release that evidence to U.S. federal authorities IF his lawyer can arrange circumstances for doing so, circumstances which the Kim.com dude does not specify. Sounds like a dodge, to me. Sounds like he’s weaseling, and making excuses for not showing something which he actually may not reaaly have.

    Lastly, if Julian Assange wants to protect his source for the DNC emails, and that source is alive, then that means the source cannot be Seth Rich. If the source is dead, then there is no longer anyone to protect. I don’t believe that Assange would decline to tell us who the source was, to clear it up once and for all, if the source was dead. Therefore, I will continue to believe that Mr. Assange is protecting a LIVING person who was (or living persons who were) the source of those emails. I will maintain that assessment until SOMETHING/ANYTHING which is not weaseling or speculation-chasing reaches the status of a legitimate evidentiary exhibit.

    1. ” Sounds like a dodge, to me. ”

      I disagree. It sounds like he’s covering his ass as much as possible. In 2 weeks when his story is out of the news, Mr. Kim could end up like anybody else who’s crossed the Clinton gang.

      You know…dead.

      ” I don’t believe that Assange would decline to tell us who the source was, to clear it up once and for all, if the source was dead.”

      So you’re saying that there’s no way there was more than one person involved in the leak, and that one person, Seth Rich, could be dead, while the other (insert name) could still be alive?

      1. Stephen, my comment about Assange being at liberty to disclose the identity of a source who is dead, was clearly referring to the speculative scenario being proposed by those who are saying that Seth Rich acted alone.

        I wrote nothing even implying that “there’s no way there was more than one person involved in the leak”. I wrote nothing even implying that I have reason to think Mr. Rich had one or more accomplices, nor that the accomplice(s) is/are alive or dead.

        What I wrote in my first comment was plain and clear. Perhaps your question was intended​ to make a point, but I can’t see what that point was. Please tell me what it was, if indeed there was a point you were making.

        Everything I’ve read about Seth Rich being the leaker is claiming that he acted alone.

        1. Two More Noteworthy Contemplations:

          1.) In 1988, I was walking to the supermarket at around 10:00 p.m., in the city of Tampa, Florida.

          There was very little traffic on the highway beside which I was walking.

          Half way through the approximately 3/4-mile trek, I encountered approximately fifteen males whose ages ranged from around 17 to around 30-something. They were walking on the same side of the highway, heading in the direction opposite to mine.

          When we all reached the spot where they would be expected to make room for us to pass each other, they instead began to attempt to beat me to death.

          One of the older fellows used a brass knuckle accompaniment to his punches. His punches were the most savage. He fractured my skull in three places. One of those fractures never healed completely, and it still oozes fluid to this day.

          They left me in the highway, to die.

          Not a single one of them attempted to take my wallet, or to search my pockets for valuables. None of them made any demands before the beating started.

          I am very lucky that none of them had a gun, because I would surely be dead if a gun had been present.

          What happened to Seth Rich could be, and probably is, something akin to what happened to me. There are numerous incidents of non-robbery pleasure beatings and pleasure killings occurring every day and every night, in every state in this country.

          2.) In my adult life, I have had only a small fraction of the friends and cohorts that the Clintons have had in their adult lives. But, even amongst my comparatively much smaller number of friends and former cohorts, five have committed suicide, and four have been killed in “strange” automobile mishaps.

          Without solid evidence which justifies an arrest and prosecution of a suspect, it would be crazy for anyone to say that those nine people were assassinated, or to say that I assassinated them.

          I don’t know whether or not the Clintons ever had someone assassinated. I cannot believe that they did, unless there exists solid, unimpeachable evidence which justifies an arrest and prosecution of one or more suspects.

          All types of people die by suicide, and by automobile mishaps, and by every sort of “strange” circumstances which, in the matter of various Clinton friends and former cohorts, the rabidly anti-Clinton crowd alleges to be circumstances of conspiratorial assassination.

          I am not a pro-Clinton dude, but the paranoia used for attributing to the Clintons the so-called “strange” deaths of their friends and former cohorts, is patently ridiculous, in light of the fact that average Joes and Janes die “strange” or exceptionally unexpected violent deaths, every day, every night, everywhere across ths country.

          Isn’t it important to refrain from unevidenced hysterical speculation, unevidenced hysterical wishfulness​, unevidenced hysterical incrimination, no matter who the despised hypocrite is?

          Isn’t uncorrupted, unbiased, evidence-based due process of law the sacred and inviolable foundation of moral justice and civility?

          1. “Isn’t it important to refrain from unevidenced hysterical speculation, unevidenced hysterical wishfulness​, unevidenced hysterical incrimination, no matter who the despised hypocrite is?
            Isn’t uncorrupted, unbiased, evidence-based due process of law the sacred and inviolable foundation of moral justice and civility?”

            While I agree wholeheartedly with this comment I can’t help but wonder why you so casually cast aside such requirement of evidence when you accepted the unfounded, unsubstantiated and slanderous allegations of “rape”, “killing”, “misogyny”, “narcissism”, “bullying” and “communism” made against me by Celia. Or your own accusations of terrorism via an “unaccompanied backpack” of evidence demonstrating hypocrisy.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.