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.”
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.
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,”
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.
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?
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.
Sign up on lukeuncensored.com or to check out our store on thebestpoliticalshirts.com.