"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." Craig Murray
Political warfare has been described as "propaganda in battledress".
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.”
But only three hours. While the article was not taken down, the home page links to it vanished and it was replaced by a ludicrous one repeating the mad CIA allegations against Russia and now claiming – incredibly – that the CIA believe the FBI is deliberately blocking the information on Russian collusion.
“The CIA’s Absence of Conviction”, Dec 11, 2016
2-- Craig Murray admits that one of the DNC leakers was an Intel Agent watching Podesta
I’ve transcribed the 20+ minute interview Craig Murray did with Scott Horton from December 13, 2016https://scotthorton.org/interviews/121316-craig-murray-dnc-podesta-emails-leaked-by-americans-not-hacked-by-russia/
Scott Horton: This is a very important thing that you’ve written [The CIA's Absence of Conviction] here, the context is, of course,
the CIA’s claim to The Washington Post that the Russians ran an Op to hack the Democrats’ emails, uh, I guess that goes for the
DNC and the Podesta emails, to leak them to Wikileaks in order to help Donald Trump win the election. And to a degree that I think
is actually sort of surprising to me, um, this story really seems to have legs and there are even the Electoral College is now
saying they want a briefing -I don’t think they really would dare try to overturn the results of the election- but they’re at
least trying to use this to “hem in” Trump on his Russia policy as Greg Sargent reported in The Washington Post, and yet, uh,
what you’ve written here and what you’ve told the Guardian was, “HOLD IT RIGHT THERE, THIS ISN’T RIGHT AT ALL!”, but how can
Craig Murray (2:58): Um, well, it’s not really new. I mean, the people who are in the position to know are Wikileaks and the people who
work with Wikileaks, of which I am one. Julian Assange has said plainly that the information does not come from Russia. He’s said
that (unintelligible) I have inside knowledge that the sources of the leaks was not the Russian government. It’s American source.
So, really the CIA, who’ve offered no evidence whatsoever for this anonymously (unintelligible) claim, the CIA is talking complete
and utter nonsense. I just know for certain that what they say is not true.
Scott Horton (3:52): Well now first of all can you explain what exactly is your role with Wikileaks?
Craig Murray (3:57): Oh, well, I’m not, I should say I’m not a member of Wikileaks staff. They have staff and they have directors.
I’m not any of those. I’m a member of Sam Adams Associates, a whistleblower organization which we work very closely with Wikileaks
and I’ve been close to Julian for a number of years and I’m one of the people who was able to visit him in the Equadorian Embassy
and speak with him and discuss strategy and help him move things along so I cooperate with Wikileaks without being a full member of
Scott Horton (4:34): I see. And then, can you tell us how it is that you know who the source is? Is it just that Assange told you or
do you have more direct information yourself?
Craig Murray (4:43): No, I have rather more direct information than that which relates to a visit I paid to Washington in September of
this year, when I, I should be plain that Podesta emails and the DNC emails are of course two separate things. You shouldn’t conclude
that they both have the same source. But, in both cases, we’re talking of a leak, not a hack. In the person who, the person who was
responsible for getting the information out had legal access to that information.
Scott Horton (5:31): And then in the trip to Washington, are you saying that you were the recipient of at least one of these leaks?
Craig Murray (5:37): Uh, no, the material was already, I think, safely with Wikileaks before I, I, before I got there in September.
Um, I, um, had a small role to play, which I hope you’ll understand which I don’t expand on it too much.
Scott Horton (6:03): Sure I do understand. I hope you understand if I keep trying to push a little bit to try to understand what’s
going on here. I read a post by my friend George Washington over there at George Washington’s blog and he put two and two together
and a couple of statements and said, and um I guess comparing your statements with those of the famous NSA whistleblower, William
Binney, that when you say this is a leak, I think George Washington’s blog’s conclusion there was that that meant a leak from the
inside of the American Intelligence Community, although I guess the way I read your statement, it possibly could just be a Democrat,
or a member of the Democratic National Committee, or someone who had access through that route. And again, I’m not exactly sure
whether we’re talking about the Podesta or the DNC leaks or one or both here, as you say, they are at least, presumable separate.
But, can you give us any insight on whether, for example, you can confirm Binney’s claim that this comes from inside American Police
and Intelligence rather than inside the political apparatus like the DNC?
Craig Murray (7:15): Well, I think, again, the key point to remember in answering that question is that the DNC leak and the Podesta
leak are two different things and the answer is they probably aren’t going to be the same in both cases. I also want you to consider
John Podesta was a paid lobbyist for the Saudi government. That’s open and declared, it’s not secret or a leak in a sense. John
Podesta was paid a very substantial sum every month by the Saudi government to lobby for their interests in Washington and if the
American Security services were not watching the communications of the Saudi government’s paid lobbyists, than the American
Intelligence services would not be doing their job. And of course it’s also true that the Saudi’s man, the Saudi’s lobbyist in
Washington, his communications are going to be of interest to a great many other intelligence services as well.
Scott Horton (8:59): I hope I’m not being too annoying here, I’m trying to read between the lines, it sounded like your first answer
was, “well maybe, one is one and the other’s the other, meaning one came from inside Intelligence services and the other maybe came
from a political source and then your allusion, I think, was to, “Geez, the NSA must have been looking at what Podesta was doing since
he was operating as a registered agent of a foreign power.” Is it fair to say that you’re saying that the Podesta leak came from inside
the Intelligence services, NSA or another agency?
Craig Murray (9:35): Well, what I think I said is compatible with that kind of interpretation, yeah. ...
Craig Murray (10:56) Yeah, exactly. In both cases they are leaks by Americans. It’s perfectly possible that Wikileaks themselves
don’t know precisely what is going on, I mean one thing, which I’m sure everybody noticed, was that Julian Assange took a very close
interest in the death of Seth Rich, the Democratic staff member, and Wikileaks offered a 20,000 reward for information leading to
the capture of his killers. So, obviously they’re suspicions there about what’s happening and things are somewhat murky. I’m not
saying, don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that he was the source of the leaks. What I’m saying is, is that it’s probably not an
unfair indication to draw that Wikileaks believes that he may have been killed by someone who thought he was the source of the
Scott Horton (12:09): Whether correctly or incorrectly?
Craig Murray (12:10): Whether correctly or incorrectly.
Scott Horton (12:12): But you’re, are you saying that Assange says that he is not the source, but that maybe someone mistook him
for the source, or he just is not saying either way.
Craig Murray (12:22): No, Assange is not saying (unintelligible) not clarifying that either way. But obviously, the fear that he
may have been killed (unintelligible) had something to do with these leaks by someone who thought he was the source (unintelligible)
Scott Horton (12:40): Well, I think that occurred to a lot of people, but it’s the kind of thing that’s easily dismissed as
conspiricism as well.
Craig Murray (12:49): That’s also true, but people do die of this sort of stuff. You have to remember there were billions of
dollars, literally billions of dollars, behind Hillary Clinton’s election campaign. Those people have lost their money. And you
have also to remember, there’s a big financial interest (unintelligible) armaments industry in a bad American relationship with Russia.
The worse the relationship with Russia is, the larger the contracts the armaments industry can expect, especially in the most
high-tech, high profit side of fighter jets and missiles and that kind of thing. And Trump has actually already indicated he’s
looking to make savings on the defense budget, particularly in things like fighter projects. And so, there are people standing to
lose billions of dollars and anybody who thinks in that situation bad things don’t happen to people is very naive.
And it’s worth saying
that if Hillary Clinton hadn’t connived with the DNC to fix the Primary schedule in order to disadvantage Bernie Sanders, if
she hadn’t accepted the questions in advance of the televised debates against Bernie in order to give her an unfair advantage,
if the Clinton Foundation hadn’t accepted donors from all kinds of dictators in exchange for access to meetings in the State
Department, or foreign policy decisions, or purchase of uranium, or whatever else they wanted in exchange… If all that
hadn’t happened, then we wouldn’t be talking about any of this
You know it’s easy to joke about this, except that we’re at maybe the most dangerous moment in US-Russian relations in my lifetime, and maybe ever. And the reason is that we’re in a new cold war, by whatever name. We have three cold war fronts that are fraught with the possibility of hot war, in the Baltic region where NATO is carrying out an unprecedented military buildup on Russia’s border, in Ukraine where there is a civil and proxy war between Russia and the west, and of course in Syria, where Russian aircraft and American warplanes are flying in the same territory. Anything could happen.”
~ Leading US-Russian relations authority Stephen Cohen