The person behind the “hack” of emails from the Democratic National Committee was not Russia, but a Democrat Party insider. In fact, it appears the source was a Bernie Sanders supporter!
Craig Murray, the former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, is refuting CIA claims of election interference by Russia. Murray is a close associate of Julian Assange and claims to know exactly who is behind it all.
He reveals that, contrary to the CIA’s claims, the reveal of Democratic National Committee emails was not a hack at all. Rather, it was a DNC insider who leaked the emails. In addition, the person behind the leak was actually motivated by Hillary Clinton’s corruption. The leaker was upset that Clinton colluded with the DNC to steal the nomination from Bernie Sanders.
How ironic is it that Clinton’s downfall came about because her corruption finally ticked off the wrong person?
There is no Russian involvement in the leaks of emails showing Clinton’s corruption. Yes this rubbish has been the lead today in the Washington Post in the US and the Guardian here, and was the lead item on the BBC main news. I suspect it is leading the American broadcasts also.
A little simple logic demolishes the CIA’s claims. The CIA claim they “know the individuals” involved. 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. If Hillary Clinton had not connived with the DNC to fix the primary schedule to disadvantage Bernie, if she had not received advance notice of live debate questions to use against Bernie, if she had not accepted massive donations to the Clinton foundation and family members in return for foreign policy influence, if she had not failed to distance herself from some very weird and troubling people, then none of this would have happened.
Murray also claims to have direct access to the source of the leak. He points out that reporter Jonathan Freedland of the UK Guardian is incorrect in supporting CIA claims of Russian interference. Murray says he knows who is behind the leak, and it certainly isn’t Russia.
Now both Julian Assange and I have stated definitively the leak does not come from Russia. Do we credibly have access? Yes, very obviously. Very, very few people can be said to definitely have access to the source of the leak. The people saying it is not Russia are those who do have access. After access, you consider truthfulness. Do Julian Assange and I have a reputation for truthfulness? Well 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.
Contrast this to the “credible sources” Freedland relies on. What access do they have to the whistleblower? Zero. They have not the faintest idea who the whistleblower is. Otherwise they would have arrested them. What reputation do they have for truthfulness? It’s the Clinton gang and the US government, for goodness sake.
Do not hold your breath and assume the American mainstream media will even give this story the time of day. It most likely will not happen.
** Please share this page on Facebook, Twitter, Email and other social media with the share tools on this page because OUR voice is YOUR voice! ***