craigmurray | 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. 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. 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.
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.
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.
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. Presumably this totally nutty theory,
that Putin is somehow now controlling the FBI, is meant to answer my
obvious objection that, if the CIA know who it is, why haven’t they
arrested somebody. That bit of course would be the job of the FBI, who
those desperate to annul the election now wish us to believe are the
KGB.
