Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Showing posts with label Craig Murray. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Craig Murray. Show all posts

Sunday, July 30, 2017

The Kremlin Was Not The Source Of The Democratic Hacks


2nd Amb. Comes Forward… EXPLODES CIA Election Claims… Says He Knows Where Info Came From… Not Russia


 Print

The liberal media have been playing up a report by the Central Intelligence Agency that hackers aligned with the Russian government had allegedly provided Julian Assange with the hacked emails his website WikiLeaks published during the fall, but a former British ambassador to Uzbekistan is going public again to blow the story out of the water.
“As [WikiLeaks founder]  Julian Assange has made crystal clear, the leaks did not come from the Russians,” former Ambassador Craig Murray wrote on his blog Monday morning, adding that he had direct access to the original source. “As I have explained countless times, they are not hacks, they are insider leaks — there is a major difference between the two …
“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.”

Moreover, where the hacks originated had no real bearing on what they had revealed, which was that both the Democrat Party and failed Democrat presidential nominee Hillary Clinton were corrupt.
“(I)f Hillary Clinton had not connived with the DNC to fix the primary schedule to disadvantage Bernie … had not received advance notice of live debate questions to use against Bernie … had not accepted massive donations to the Clinton Foundation and family members in return for foreign policy influence … had not failed to distance herself from some very weird and troubling people,” then perhaps she would have won, Murray added.
It felt as if the lightning-speed spread of this unconfirmed Russian hacker conspiracy among liberal media outlets was therefore nothing more than an attempt by liberal Democrats and their media sycophants to deflect blame for Clinton’s epic loss.
Speaking Sunday on CBS News, John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said the conspiracy theory might even be a potential “false flag.”
“It is not at all clear to me, just viewing this from the outside, that this hacking into the DNC and the RNC computers was not a false flag operation,” he said, implying that the Obama administration was working in tandem with the liberal media to mislead the public to distract them from other things.
As for Assange and officials in Russia, both have reportedly denied allegations they they conspired to interfere with the 2016 presidential election.

“The Kremlin has rejected the hacking accusations, while the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has previously said the DNC leaks were not linked to Russia,” The U.K. Guardian reported Sunday.
And Murray, who has been vocal before about the claim of Russian involvement, minced no words about where he placed the blame for the latest spin on the election.
“It is terrible that the prime conduit for this paranoid nonsense is a once great newspaper, the Washington Post, which far from investigating executive power, now is a sounding board for totally evidence free anonymous source briefing of utter bullshit from the executive, he wrote
Please share this story on Facebook and Twitter and let us know what you think about former Ambassadors Craig Murray and John Bolton both dismissing claims that Russian hackers interfered with the presidential election!
What do you think about these Russian-hacker conspiracy theories?

Thursday, December 15, 2016

Second Source Says Leaks Came From Inside DNC Not Russia.

EXCLUSIVE: Ex-British ambassador who is now a WikiLeaks operative claims Russia did NOT provide Clinton emails - they were handed over to him at a D.C. park by an intermediary for 'disgusted' Democratic whistleblowers

  • Craig Murray, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and associate of Julian Assange, told the Dailymail.com  he flew to Washington, D.C. for emails
  • He claims he had a clandestine hand-off in a wooded area near American University with one of the email sources 
  • The leakers' motivation was 'disgust at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the  'tilting of the primary election playing field against Bernie Sanders'
  • Murray says: 'The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks'
  • 'Regardless of whether the Russians hacked into the DNC, the documents Wikileaks published did not come from that,' Murray insists
  • Murray is a controversial figure who was relieved of his post as British ambassador amid allegations of misconduct but is close to Wikileaks
A Wikileaks envoy today claims he personally received Clinton campaign emails in Washington D.C. after they were leaked by 'disgusted' whisteblowers - and not hacked by Russia.
Craig Murray, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and a close associate of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, told Dailymail.com that he flew to Washington, D.C. for a clandestine hand-off with one of the email sources in September.
'Neither of [the leaks] came from the Russians,' said Murray in an interview with Dailymail.com on Tuesday. 'The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks.'
His account contradicts directly the version of how thousands of Democratic emails were published before the election being advanced by U.S. intelligence. 


Craig Murray (left), former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and a close associate of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange (right), told the Dailymail.com that he flew to Washington, D.C. for a clandestine hand-off with one of the email sources in September
Murray is a controversial figure who was removed from his post as a British ambassador amid allegations of misconduct. He was cleared of those but left the diplomatic service in acrimony. 
His links to Wikileaks are well known and while his account is likely to be seen as both unprovable and possibly biased, it is also the first intervention by Wikileaks since reports surfaced last week that the CIA believed Russia hacked the Clinton emails to help hand the election to Donald Trump.
Murray's claims about the origins of the Clinton campaign emails comes as U.S. intelligence officials are increasingly confident that Russian hackers infiltrated both the Democratic National Committee and the email account of top Clinton aide John Podesta. 
In Podesta's case, his account appeared to have been compromised through a basic 'phishing' scheme, the New York Times reported on Wednesday.
U.S. intelligence officials have reportedly told members of Congress during classified briefings that they believe Russians passed the documents on to Wikileaks as part of an influence operation to swing the election in favor of Donald Trump.
But Murray insisted that the DNC and Podesta emails published by Wikileaks did not come from the Russians, and were given to the whistleblowing group by Americans who had authorized access to the information.
'Neither of [the leaks] came from the Russians,'  Murray said. 'The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks.'
He said the leakers were motivated by 'disgust at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the tilting of the primary election playing field against Bernie Sanders.'
Murray said he retrieved the package from a source during a clandestine meeting in a wooded area near American University, in northwest D.C. He said the individual he met with was not the original person who obtained the information, but an intermediary. 
Murray claims he met with the person who passed the emails over in a Washington, D.C. part near American University
Murray claims he met with the person who passed the emails over in a Washington, D.C. part near American University
His account cannot be independently verified but is in line with previous statements by Wikileaks - which was the organization that published the Podesta and DNC emails.
Wikileaks published the DNC messages in July and the Podesta messages in October. The messages revealed efforts by some DNC officials to undermine the presidential campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders, who was running against Hillary Clinton. 
Others revealed that Clinton aides were concerned about potential conflicts and mismanagement at the Clinton Foundation.
Murray declined to say where the sources worked and how they had access to the information, to shield their identities. 
He suggested that Podesta's emails might be 'of legitimate interest to the security services' in the U.S., due to his communications with Saudi Arabia lobbyists and foreign officials.
Murray said he was speaking out due to claims from intelligence officials that Wikileaks was given the documents by Russian hackers as part of an effort to help Donald Trump win the U.S. presidential election.
'I don't understand why the CIA would say the information came from Russian hackers when they must know that isn't true,' he said. 'Regardless of whether the Russians hacked into the DNC, the documents Wikileaks published did not come from that.'
Murray was a vocal critic of human rights abuses in Uzbekistan while serving as ambassador between 2002 and 2004, a stance that pitted him against the UK Foreign Office. 
He describes himself as a 'close associate' of Julian Assange and has spoken out in support of the Wikileaks founder who has faced rape allegations and is currently confined to the Ecuadorian embassy in London.
Assange has similarly disputed that charges that Wikileaks received the leaked emails from Russian sources.
'The Clinton camp has been able to project a neo-McCarthyist hysteria that Russia is responsible for everything,' Assange told John Pilger during an interview in November. 
'Hillary Clinton has stated multiple times, falsely, that 17 US intelligence agencies had assessed that Russia was the source of our publications. That's false – we can say that the Russian government is not the source.'
Murray suggested that John Podesta's emails might be 'of legitimate interest to the security services' in the U.S., due to his communications with Saudi Arabia lobbyists and foreign officials
Murray suggested that John Podesta's emails might be 'of legitimate interest to the security services' in the U.S., due to his communications with Saudi Arabia lobbyists and foreign officials
The Washington Post reported last Friday that U.S. intelligence agencies had 'identified individuals with connections to the Russian government who provided WikiLeaks with thousands of hacked emails.'
The paper said U.S. senators were presented with information tying Russia to the leaks during a recent briefing by intelligence officials.
'It is the assessment of the intelligence community that Russia's goal here was to favor one candidate over the other, to help Trump get elected,' a senior U.S. official familiar with the briefing told the Post. 'That's the consensus view.'
The paper said U.S. senators were presented with information tying Russia to the leaks during a recent briefing by intelligence officials.
'It is the assessment of the intelligence community that Russia's goal here was to favor one candidate over the other, to help Trump get elected,' a senior U.S. official familiar with the briefing told the Post. 'That's the consensus view.'
The Obama administration has been examining Russia's potential role in trying to influence the presidential election. Officials said Russians hacked the Republican National Committee, but did not release that information in a deliberate effort to damage Clinton and protect Donald Trump.
Several congressional committees are also looking into the suspected Russian interference.
While there is a consensus on Capitol Hill that Russia hacked U.S. political groups and officials, some Republicans say it's not clear whether the motive was to try to swing the election or just to collect intelligence.
'Now whether they intended to interfere to the degree that they were trying to elect a certain candidate, I think that's the subject of investigation,' said Sen. John McCain on CBS Face the Nation. 'But facts are stubborn things, they did hack into this campaign.'
President elect Donald Trump raised doubts about the reports and said this was an 'excuse' by Democrats to explain Clinton's November loss.
'It's just another excuse. I don't believe it,' said Trump on Fox News Sunday.

Schumer calls for investigation into Russian election hacking


Loaded: 0%
Progress: 0%
0:00
Previous
Play
Skip
Mute
Current Time0:00
/
Duration Time1:04
Fullscreen
Need Text
ADVERTISING


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4034038/Ex-British-ambassador-WikiLeaks-operative-claims-Russia-did-NOT-provide-Clinton-emails-handed-D-C-park-intermediary-disgusted-Democratic-insiders.html#ixzz4SwBSxqmE
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Tuesday, December 13, 2016

When The Government Cannot Be Trusted To Tell The Truth, Can It Last Long?


2nd Amb. Comes Forward… EXPLODES CIA Election Claims… Says He Knows Where Info Came From… Not Russia

The liberal media have been playing up a report by the Central Intelligence Agency that hackers aligned with the Russian government had allegedly provided Julian Assange with the hacked emails his website WikiLeaks published during the fall, but a former British ambassador to Uzbekistan is going public again to blow the story out of the water.
“As [WikiLeaks founder]  Julian Assange has made crystal clear, the leaks did not come from the Russians,” former Ambassador Craig Murray wrote on his blog Monday morning, adding that he had direct access to the original source. “As I have explained countless times, they are not hacks, they are insider leaks — there is a major difference between the two …
“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.”

Moreover, where the hacks originated had no real bearing on what they had revealed, which was that both the Democrat Party and failed Democrat presidential nominee Hillary Clinton were corrupt.
“(I)f Hillary Clinton had not connived with the DNC to fix the primary schedule to disadvantage Bernie … had not received advance notice of live debate questions to use against Bernie … had not accepted massive donations to the Clinton Foundation and family members in return for foreign policy influence … had not failed to distance herself from some very weird and troubling people,” then perhaps she would have won, Murray added.
It felt as if the lightning-speed spread of this unconfirmed Russian hacker conspiracy among liberal media outlets was therefore nothing more than an attempt by liberal Democrats and their media sycophants to deflect blame for Clinton’s epic loss.

Murray’s post was the second time in two days that a former ambassador had cast doubt on the theory.
Speaking Sunday on CBS News, John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the United States, said the conspiracy theory might even be a potential “false flag.”
“It is not at all clear to me, just viewing this from the outside, that this hacking into the DNC and the RNC computers was not a false flag operation,” he said, implying that the Obama administration was working in tandem with the liberal media to mislead the public to distract them from other things.
As for Assange and officials in Russia, both have reportedly denied allegations they they conspired to interfere with the 2016 presidential election.

“The Kremlin has rejected the hacking accusations, while the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has previously said the DNC leaks were not linked to Russia,” The Guardian reported Sunday.
And Murray, who has been vocal before about the claim of Russian involvement, minced no words about where he placed the blame for the latest spin on the election.
“It is terrible that the prime conduit for this paranoid nonsense is a once great newspaper, the Washington Post, which far from investigating executive power, now is a sounding board for totally evidence free anonymous source briefing of utter bullshit from the executive, he wrote
Please share this story on Facebook and Twitter and let us know what you think about former Ambassadors Craig Murray and John Bolton both dismissing claims that Russian hackers interfered with the presidential election!
What do you think about these Russian-hacker conspiracy theories?

Leaker Might Be American! Inside Job!

Intelligence Officer Who Personally Met the Democratic Email Leaker Confirms Leaker Is with AMERICAN INTELLIGENCE Services




George Washington's picture
The former intelligence analyst, British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, and chancellor of the University of Dundee, Craig Murray, wrote yesterday:
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.

***

I know who leaked them. 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.
In other words, Murray – a close friend of Julian Assange – says he knows for a fact that there were no hacks at all … instead, an American insider leaked the information to Wikileaks.
ADVERTISING
Today, Murray writes:
If you set up the super surveillance state, hoovering up all the internet traffic of pretty well everybody, that is not just going to affect the ordinary people whom the elite despise. There is also going to be an awful lot of traffic intercepted from sleazy members of the elite connected to even the most senior politicians, revealing all their corruption and idiosyncracies. From people like John Podesta, to take an entirely random example. And once the super surveillance state has intercepted and stored all that highly incriminating material, you never know if some decent human being, some genuine patriot, from within the security services is going to feel compelled to turn whistleblower.

Than they might turn for help to, to take another entirely random example, Julian Assange.
This confirms what the NSA executive who created the agency’s mass surveillance program for digital information, who served as the senior technical director within the agency, who managed six thousand NSA employees, the 36-year NSA veteran widely regarded as a “legend” within the agency and the NSA’s best-ever analyst and code-breaker, who mapped out the Soviet command-and-control structure before anyone else knew how, and so predicted Soviet invasions before they happened (“in the 1970s, he decrypted the Soviet Union’s command system, which provided the US and its allies with real-time surveillance of all Soviet troop movements and Russian atomic weapons”) – previously said:  the leaker was from U.S. intelligence services. And see this.
And Murray confirmed to Washington's Blog by email that Binney "was on the mark."  And see this.
In other words, Russia did not hack the Democratic party emails.  Instead, an American intelligence whistleblower leakedthem.
Update: David Swanson interviewed Murray today, and obtained  additional information. Specifically, Murray told Swanson that: (1) there were two American leakers ... one for the emails of the Democratic National Committee and one for the emails of top Clinton aide John Podesta; (2) Murray met one of those leakers; and (3) both leakers are American insiders with the NSA and/or the DNC, with no known connections to Russia.
And see this.
Postscript: As we've pointed out for years, the NSA is collecting all digital communications, including emails, in America.
The NSA then shares this information with numerous other agencies, including the FBI, DEA, etc.
We've noted that the NSA’s big data collection itself . Remember, the Pentagon itself seesthe collection of “big data” as a “national security threat” … but the NSA is the biggest data collector on the planet, and thus provides a tempting mother lode of information for foreign hackers.
And we've documented that the Obama administration has prosecuted more whistleblowers than all other presidents combined.
It sounds like this witches brew of bad policy is what led to the Democratic email leaks from an insider in the intelligence services.
But if anyone wants to try to prove Murray and Binney wrong, it should be easy to check