WikiLeaks Operative Exposes Democrat Insiders as Source for Hacked DNC Docs — NOT RUSSIA


In what could only be described as a smashing development, a WikiLeaks insider now claims the hacked release of documents evincing massive corruption in the Democrat Party and collusion by corporate media presstitutes had nothing at all to do with Russia — but was, instead, the handiwork of disillusioned Democrat insiders.

By:  Claire Bernish

This article first appeared at FreeThoughtProject

Craig Murray, who served as British Ambassador to Uzbekistan from 2002 through 2004 — and is now a known ally and associate of Wikileaks founder, Julian Assange — told the Daily Mail, “Neither of [the leaks]came from the Russians. The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks.”

Murray’s claims — given the current Red Scare atmosphere proffered by a hysterical neoliberal establishment — blow the roof off claims Russia undertook a steadied and insidious campaign to throw the United States’ presidential election in favor of hotly contentious candidate, Donald Trump.

Indeed, the former ambassador says the leaks were the work of a Washington, D.C., insider and had nothing at all to do with Russia, as the Democrats have so vociferously proclaimed.

Murray has even decried the lack of coverage of his allegations — unsurprisingly ignored by corporate media presstitutes proven in the leaks to have colluded with Hillary Clinton’s campaign — in a blog post explaining the utter lack of Russian connection to the hacks. As Murray penned:

“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.”

Indeed, Red Scare finger-pointing at Russian interference — for which no unassailable evidence has yet been provided — has been widely condemned as a scapegoat for blame’s obvious and justifiable target.

Russia has found itself repeatedly the soft subject of blame in hegemonic affairs of the U.S. and its NATO allies — even amid a glaring dearth of evidence. Critics suggest the primary reason for this blame campaign surrounds the U.S.’ goal of regime change in Syria — where Russia militarily backs the government of Bashar al-Assad.

That alliance of two governments the United States has traditionally taken extreme issue with would, undoubtedly, provide ample cause for an otherwise baseless propaganda campaign. Wikileaks has endured scathing criticism for not publishing information about the now president-elect — but as found Julian Assange has repeatedly emphasized, the outlet cannot publish documents not provided by any source.

Establishment Democrats might have cautioned not to believe as valid anything Wikileaks publishes, but the whistleblowing outlet has for years offered a ransom prize to anyone able to prove its published documents forgeries or fakes — and, despite challenges, it remains unclaimed.

Concerning the leaks of DNC and Podesta emails, Murray asserted, “Neither of [the leaks]came from the Russians. The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks.”

According to the Daily Mail, Murray insisted “disgust at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the tilting of the primary election playing field against Bernie Sanders” motivated the insider to leak the revealing documents.

Wikileaks has also claimed similar information — that Russia is not responsible for the leaks in question — but the publishing outlet maintains excruciating integrity and refuses to offer additional information on its sources.

Murray, like Assange and Wikileaks, refused to proffer additional information on his sources, but did say the claims of Russia’s involvement prompted the need to offer factual information on the disclosures.

“I don’t understand why the CIA would say the information came from Russian hackers when they must know that isn’t true,” he told the Daily Mail. “Regardless of whether the Russians hacked into the DNC, the documents Wikileaks published did not come from that.”

Cyber espionage and attacks are indeed standard fare in the playbooks of powerful nation states — as is psychological warfare, propaganda, and information control. As Murray suggests, it would be prudent to examine cui bono in this case — because the benefits in misinformation and deflection for the government of the United States far outweigh the blatant absurdity of Russian hacking claims.

Assange and others of more reasonable deportment have questioned U.S. anti-Russian hysteria on multiple fronts — to little avail.


“The Clinton camp has been able to project a neo-McCarthyist hysteria that Russia is responsible for everything,” Assange told journalist John Pilger in 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.”

Assange — whose Internet connection has been severed by the Ecuadorian Embassy he’s been forced to call home — has tirelessly and vitally harped on the lack of evidence of Russian meddling in both the leaks and the presidential election.

For all intents and purposes, it would seem the political establishment simply refused to acknowledge its moot status in the average American voter’s mind — and despite glaring, neon signs condemning Hillary Clinton as a godawful candidate, refused to heed the onslaught.

While the political establishment — including a select few from the opposite side of the aisle — scramble to posit blame on a Russia convenient to multiple goals, the alternative media, Wikileaks, and rational humans have erected a steel wall of logic against this baseless propaganda in hopes rationale might yet win out.

Whatever your opinions on the incoming president of the once-free world, toying heedlessly with the results of a democratic election is a provocatively dangerous game — just ask Russia.

This article first appeared at FreeThoughtProject