Former UK Ambassador Has Met the DNC Leaker

0
Share
Craig Murray on the left

The controversial former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray is an ally of Julian Assange and he insists he has met the leaker of the DNC and Clinton emails and it is not the Russians. The Russians did not hack the emails according to his numerous interviews and writings. We reported on this once before but have been reluctant to repeat it since Mr. Murray has a very colorful history of making some comments that people might call extreme and, like Assange, he has ties to the far-left.

However, we are hearing extreme comments from the hysterical and conspiratorial left with their handful of GOP collaborators as well. The US left is now the fringe, so which fringe shall we believe?

On the 11th, Mr. Craig wrote on his website:

I have watched incredulous as the CIA’s blatant lie has grown and grown as a media story – blatant because the CIA has made no attempt whatsoever to substantiate it. There is no Russian involvement in the leaks of emails showing Clinton’s corruption.

He offers two point which are logical, more logical than what our administration is putting out:

A little simple logic demolishes the CIA’s claims. The CIA claim they “know the individuals” involved. Yet under Obama the USA has been absolutely ruthless in its persecution of whistleblowers, and its pursuit of foreign hackers through extradition. We are supposed to believe that in the most vital instance imaginable, an attempt by a foreign power to destabilise a US election, even though the CIA knows who the individuals are, nobody is going to be arrested or extradited, or (if in Russia) made subject to yet more banking and other restrictions against Russian individuals? Plainly it stinks. The anonymous source claims of “We know who it was, it was the Russians” are beneath contempt.

As Julian Assange has made crystal clear, the leaks did not come from the Russians. As I have explained countless times, they are not hacks, they are insider leaks – there is a major difference between the two.

The US administration and the anti-Trump left and right seem to want war with Russia or, in the least, they want to be certain that Trump either cannot form a good relationship with Putin or, if he does, he will be subject to endless accusations of being a collaborator.

The idea of pushing for war is not as outlandish as it might seem. Indeed, Hillary herself said she would go to war with Russia over cyber attacks. When the Iraq war loomed, The Washington Post and NY Times promoted it.

Even more likely is that this has been politicized to destroy Mr. Trump and certainly, if he can reset relations, something Hillary and Obama tried and could not do, then it would be an unacceptable success for the left.

Do you think that conspiratorial? Explain why the left has abandoned all debate, all reason, as they put out one excuse after another as to why the terrible candidate, Mrs. Clinton, failed. Explain why they are ratcheting up bad relations with Putin before a new president has even stepped into the Oval Office when they themselves cozied up to Russia and called Putin a friend while turning over to the Russians 20% of our uranium mine and US technology over the objections of US Army Intelligence and the FBI. Explain why they are taking reports with no evidence and pretending they are factual. Explain why they are conflating alleged hacking of voting machines with DNC and Clinton email leaks.

We could go on.

Mr. Murray has said that Julian Assange also said Russia is not behind this, adding, “in 10 years not one of the tens of thousands of documents WikiLeaks has released has had its authenticity successfully challenged. As for me, I have a reputation for inconvenient truth telling.”

Craig Murray said he has spoken with the leaker and it’s not the Russians. Should we believe him? His word is as good as that of our administration and the politicized intelligence agencies.

Do you remember this from one of the Wikileaks emails – Eric Schmidt (Alphabet/Google) plotting the Clinton strategy (he was at Trump’s roundtable Wednesday):

New tools should be developed to measure reach and impact of paid, earned and social media. The impact of press coverage should be measurable in reach and impact, and TV effectiveness measured by attention and other surveys.

Build tools that measure the rate and spread of stories and rumors, and model how it works and who has the biggest impact. Tools can tell us about the origin of stories and the impact of any venue, person or theme. Connect polling into this in some way.

It gives one a queazy feeling.

Then there is this from Donald Trump this morning.

We must include the latest tweets from Wikileaks for you to consider and do with as you please.

Share