There's a black guy who calls himself Wakka Flakka or some shit. Get the fuck out of here, people like stupid names.

Why wouldn't somebody name themselves Guccifer 2.0?

I mean, it can easily be argued that he's paying tribute by carrying on with the name.

You're oddly emotional and over-invested in this.

It's healthy to be skeptical, but just because something "makes no sense to me" doesn't mean anything. Life's weird. I'd take it all with a grain of salt. You are already aware of what corruption exists with the Clintons.

Also, a funny thing since you mentioned Picasso:

good artists copy, great artists steal

‐‐ PP

I'm not sure I agree that Guccifer 2.0 is an attempt to push Guccifer off search results, but it's an interesting theory and I thank you for it.

I have to say: One of the people I correspond with about conspiracy stuff didn't even know there were two Guccifers until I mentioned it to him last week.

And I, too, would like to know more---a LOT more---about the illuminati stuff. I'm sure you know he said there was a planned dirty bomb nuke for Chicago, which didn't happen---maybe because he gave us the headsup about it. Rahm Emmanuel is surely part of the fifth column that's (all but?) taken over the country.

Go ahead, google Guccifer. You are going to be buried in Guccifer2.0 info.

Learn how to use search engines better. It's easy to only get results about the Romanian hacker also known as Marcel Lazăr Lehel if that's what you're after.

Google for "Guccifer -2.0". That way youll get atleast some stuff from the original guccifer(search results with 2.0 in them are not shown).

FBI of course tells that he didn't manage to hack clinton's server: http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/286851-comey-hacker-guccifer-never-gained-access-to-clinton-server

According to this: https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2016/05/04/guccifer-why-hillary-is-toast/ "Sitting out there in “the cloud” is a 30 GB archive of “stuff” from a guy who used to read Hillary’s emails “for a few hours” and then go out to do gardening… What’s in it? Who knows."

Theres also a 5.87GB torrent named Guccifer Leaks - Hacks from Marcel Lazăr Lehel of Romania from 2014. Which might be contain this information: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/guccifer-archive-687543

If the 30GB file is indeed correct, then it seems that he failed to get it out. Russian intelligence services seemed to have access/were monitoring him, so they might have the information he uncovered.

He named himself after him because the original Guccifer was known for hacking and releasing politically sensitive documents. Carrying on in that tradition himself, I think it makes sense to use a name that is already associated with important leaks because it immediately identifies him as a hacktivist in the same vein/with similar motivations and grabs attention quickly. You're staring too deeply into the abyss, unknowingly gazing into yourself.

Im with you man it all seems shady as fuck to me

Stop with the down votes. We should be open to all interpretations of what we see.

Calling people names, is a terrible way to get your point across.... That being said, I'm wondering why his blog which is hosted at wordpress.com is still up and running, that always smelled a little fishy to me...

I'd assume that anyone attempting to do what he or she is doing wouldn't have a f*cking Wordpress site (or any site, at all).

Using common sense, I'd say that we'll never know the names of the people doing the "white hat" work.

That's very true and a great point. Much like an onion, there are many layers.

And in the middle is nothing.

Pro tip: Don't call people idiots. Plant the seed. What you are saying has something to it, and I've felt the same way as your comment above. You can lead a horse to the water, but you cannot make it drink it. Especially if you are yelling at it to. It spooks them and they will tune you out.

Yeah, but why would you skin a cat?

Pro tip: call them a communist instead. Much better.

How?

I've noticed that the more blatant, transparent and mainstream a given source of disinformation is, the more gullible fanboys it will have, who will race to its' defense, downvoting into oblivion anyone who dares to question it. Snowden and Assange are the usual suspects, but it happens with Anonymous as well.

Why anyone still believes anything that Anonymous says beats me. It makes me think, though; given the degree to which the group have destroyed the original meaning of the word "anonymous," and how thoroughly hijacked they are now, maybe said hijacking never actually happened in the first place. Maybe it was a psy op all along.

Part of the problem with studying conspiracy theories for years, is that in the end you have trouble knowing what to believe.

Im with you man it all seems shady as fuck to me