Tuesday, December 13, 2016
Former UK Ambassador: “I’ve Met The DNC Wikileaks Leaker The Person Is An Insider Not Russian”
The former ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray a well known supporter associate and friend of Julian Assange has said that he met the DNC leaker/leakers “Guccifer 2” and that the person involved is an insider not a Russian agent.
On his website Craig Murray makes the argument that the CIA’s claims that they know who Russia and where the individuals or individual are bluntly is “absolute bull sh*t.”
Related FBI Rejects CIA Claim that Russia Assisted Trump in Presidential Election as “Fuzzy and Ambiguous”
Source - We Are Change
by Aaron Kesel, December 12th, 2016
He expresses that if this claim were true the people or person involved in the so called “hack” would already be arrested, adding “America has not been shy about arresting whistleblowers and it’s not been shy about extraditing hackers. They plainly have no knowledge whatsoever.”
“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,” Craig, writes.He is quite literally accusing the CIA the agency that coined the term disinformation of spreading disinformation and lying i.e mockingbird the dissemination of propaganda admitted in 1975 by CIA director William Colby and Senator Frank Church during the Church Hearings.
Related Fake News: Mainstream Media Says Russia Hacked US Election, Gives No Proof
Craig continues, “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. And it should be said again and again, that 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,”
Related Wikileaks Emails Proves Primary Was Rigged for Clinton: DNC Undermined Democracy
Julian Assange spoke to John Pilger in August which was released shortly before the election and Assange asserted that Russia was not responsible for the leak.
Murray then bashes the mainstream media for it’s poor journalism and integrity and notes that he talked with a Guardian reporter about the CIA hype story and for three hours they kept the true story up and then changed it.
“The continued ability of the mainstream media to claim the leaks lost Clinton the election because of “Russia”, while still never acknowledging the truths the leaks reveal, is Kafkaesque.The article Instead now reads the absolutely nutty headline the “FBI covered up Russian influence on Trump’s election win, Harry Reid claims.”Wait Harry Reid is the same guy that said he is not sure why Hillary lost? Well your arrogance is showing Harry she lost because she is corrupt and no one likes her not Russians not James Comey. It’s because Hillary isn’t seen as a likeable human being she is a horrible candidate and Wikileaks proved that she was scripted and almost robotic. Then there is the public and private opinions that was the nail in the coffin.
I had a call from a Guardian journalist this afternoon. The astonishing result was that for three hours, an article was accessible through the Guardian front page which actually included the truth among the CIA hype:
The Kremlin has rejected the hacking accusations, while the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has previously said the DNC leaks were not linked to Russia. A second senior official cited by the Washington Post conceded that intelligence agencies did not have specific proof that the Kremlin was “directing” the hackers, who were said to be one step removed from the Russian government.
Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, who is a close associate of Assange, called the CIA claims “bullshit”, adding: “They are absolutely making it up.”
“I know who leaked them,” Murray said. “I’ve met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it’s an insider. It’s a leak, not a hack; the two are different things.
“If what the CIA are saying is true, and the CIA’s statement refers to people who are known to be linked to the Russian state, they would have arrested someone if it was someone inside the United States.
“America has not been shy about arresting whistleblowers and it’s not been shy about extraditing hackers. They plainly have no knowledge whatsoever.”
“It’s easy to second-guess what Hillary did. I love Hillary Clinton, I am sorry she lost. I did everything I could to help … but there is no question in my mind she would have won this election without any problem if Comey had not been the Republican operative that he is,” the outgoing Nevada senator said in an interview with MSNBC.”For example … he came out against what the attorney general had recommend, against what common sense dictates. He is the reason she lost the election. He can be fat and happy in his office there for seven more years after having thrown the election to Donald Trump. If he feels good about that — thats nice,” Reid added.Murray further destroyed the mainstream media specifically mentioning a reporter for the Guardian Jonathan Freedland who said that “Few credible sources doubt that Russia was behind the hacking of internal Democratic party emails, whose release by Julian Assange was timed to cause maximum pain to Hillary Clinton and pleasure for Trump.” Murray then says what Freedland sees as a credible source is actually a way to say “establishment sources.” Craig then mentions that this is the truth of the “fake news” meme you are not allowed to read anything unless it is officially approved by the the elite and their presstitutes.
In the UK, one single article sums up the total abnegation of all journalistic standards. The truly execrable Jonathan Freedland of the Guardian writes “Few credible sources doubt that Russia was behind the hacking of internal Democratic party emails, whose release by Julian Assange was timed to cause maximum pain to Hillary Clinton and pleasure for Trump.” Does he produce any evidence at all for this assertion? No, none whatsoever. What does a journalist mean by a “credible source”? Well, any journalist worth their salt in considering the credibility of a source will first consider access. Do they credibly have access to the information they claim to have?Related Senate Quietly Passes The “Countering Disinformation And Propaganda Act”
In fact, the sources any serious journalist would view as “credible” give the opposite answer to the one Freedland wants. But in what passes for Freedland’s mind, “credible” is 100% synonymous with “establishment”. When he says “credible sources” he means “establishment sources”. That is the truth of the “fake news” meme. You are not to read anything unless it is officially approved by the elite and their disgusting, crawling whores of stenographers like Freedland."
Without citing one single shred of evidence the mainstream media has been adamant on publishing stories of well fake news with most of them reading a similar headline to this “CIA concludes Russia interfered to help Trump win election, say reports.” No public anecdotal evidence just anonymous sources and classified intelligence that the American people aren’t allowed to see right but this is supposedly involving the American people’s elections right? So if you have the evidence present it otherwise it’s hear say and we have every right not to believe and ask questions.
It’s also worth noting that the fake news that Russia hacked the U.S. elections is distracting from the real news of vote switching from Donald Trump to Hillary Clinton in several states that came out during the day of the election. Additionally it distracts from the recount in Detroit which was ruled to be ineligible because ballots in precinct poll books did not match those of voting machine printout reports in 59 percent of precincts, 392 of 662. Then to add on top of that on Nov 15th, Georgia said that it’s computers which housed voting record data was attempted to be hacked by someone at the DHS.
Related Project MOCKINGBIRD: Ongoing Covert Control of the Media -- Propaganda, Cointelpro, CIA, Mass Mind Control and Surveillance
So why not investigate the above instead of pushing for a baseless conspiracy fueled by Harry Reid and unknown anonymous CIA agents that have not come forward with any substantial proof that could potentially be lying?
We need to hold our government officials accountable and private intelligence agencies because who else will? If that statement resonates with you you can continue our operation by donating to us on patreon and sharing this article together we can bring down the mainstream presstitute media and together We Are Change.
About The Author
I am an Activist a writer a blogger and an investigative journalist writing for (www.wearechange.org)
A Radio host of the Blog-talk Radio Series:
#SmokeScreenDisclosure
My Sources are everywhere..
Enemy of the New World Order.
_________________________
Stillness in the Storm Editor's note: Did you find a spelling error or grammar mistake? Do you think this article needs a correction or update? Or do you just have some feedback? Send us an email at sitsshow@gmail.com. Thank you for reading.