While the name Craig Murray may not be a household name in the US, his name sends up red flags in the UK.
Craig Murray is the former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, a country near the Caspian Sea between the three larger countries of Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Afghanistan. During his tumultuous term as ambassador, he raised the alarm regarding many Human Rights violations in the Central Asian country, including prisoners being “boiled to death.”
Members of Parliament back home went into a fanatical seizure over his comments and immediately brought him back to the UK to face disciplinary action. After a period of time where he appeared to embrace his earlier comments, he was charged with misconduct and a series of trumped-up lesser charges were added to the mix. Murray was acquitted of all charges, but was relieved of his position.
In 2004, he joined forces with Julian Assange to found WikiLeaks.
Yesterday, Murray announced to the press that, contrary to all the information being bandied about regarding the WikiLeaks Russian source, the DNC hacked information was an inside job.
Independent Journal Review: “‘Neither of [the leaks] came from the Russians,’ Murray said in an interview. ‘The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks.'”
This poses new dilemmas for the Democrats and intelligence officials in the US government who are arguing that the “overwhelming evidence” is that the Russians hacked into our systems and stole the information. It seems awfully suspicious that President Obama would choose to be suddenly and righteously indignant about the sanctity of our elections when, just a few weeks before the elections, he and other government officials (as well as lackey media types) were ridiculing Trump for daring to make the accusation that our electoral system could possibly be rigged or tampered with by nefarious individuals.
According to the Daily Mail: “A Wikileaks envoy [Murray] today claims he personally received Clinton campaign emails in Washington D.C. after they were leaked by ‘disgusted’ whisteblowers – and not hacked by Russia. […] 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.'”
So, the plot thickens. It was very strange and somewhat mysterious to see Bernie Sanders after his primary defeat acquiesce and accept Hillary’s victory, even after it was found that his suspicions about tampering and foul play proved correct. With the WikiLeaks information from Podesta’s emails, every conspiracy theory regarding Sanders being shafted by the DNC was realized. It appears, however, that while Bernie was accepting defeat, some of his staunchest supporters were not.
US intelligence agencies and the DNC both allege that the “evidence” that they’ve compiled proves that the hack was committed by an outside source (meaning that the leak wasn’t an inside job). This is essential for them to put out there because the one thing that cannot be afforded is for the viewing public to think that there is division within the Democrat Party. For them to admit that a disgruntled Bernie Sanders supporter was responsible for the leak would be tantamount to admitting that the DNC is in tatters and on the verge of unraveling before our very eyes.
Murray relates that he met personally with the whistleblower in a park near American University in Washington, DC, but would not identify the source, probably for fear that the source would have an “unfortunate accident.” Sort of like the one Seth Rich had in July of this year at 4:00 in the morning.
Newsweek reported: “At 4:19 a.m., police patrolling nearby responded to the sound of gunfire in Bloomingdale and found Rich lying mortally wounded at a dark intersection a block and a half from a red-brick row house he shared with friends. He had multiple gunshot wounds in his back. About an hour and 40 minutes later, he died at a local hospital. Police have declined to say whether he was able to describe his assailants. The cops suspected Rich was a victim of an attempted robbery, one of many that plague the neighborhood. Strangely, however, they found his wallet, credit cards and cellphone on his body. The band of his wristwatch was torn but not broken.”
Julian Assange had offered a $20,000 reward for information leading to the conviction of the murderer. Strange behavior for a man who has been holed up in an Embassy in Ecuador for the last several years.
Newsweek follows up: “[Assange] hinted darkly that the slain man [Rich] had been a source in his organization’s recent publication of 30,000 internal DNC emails. The fallout from that embarrassment had led to the firing of several top Democratic Party officials.”
Independent Journal Review finishes:
As Politico reported, Assange has denied that Wikileaks had anything to do with Russian hackers in early November. “The Clinton camp has been able to project a neo-McCarthyist hysteria that Russia is responsible for everything,” Assange said. “Hillary Clinton has stated multiple times, falsely, that 17 U.S. 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.”
There’s a lot to be said about this back and forth between Assange, Murray and the United States intelligence agencies and the Democrat Party. For starters, it cannot be refuted that the DNC has brought all of this shameful focus on itself, what with the media colluding with the Clinton campaign, with the DNC favoring one damaged primary candidate over another more popular one, with the candidate’s shaky health issues, with her condescending attitude that she was somehow owed this coronation, with the failed Obamacare debacle, and on and on. As for the Russian hack meme, that has never really gained traction; hence, the frenzied flailing of the Democrat talking heads to push this narrative on every single State-controlled news network. No one with half a brain believes that Donald Trump was elected due to a Russian hack. It has essentially been debunked, disproven and dismissed by the general public.
As for Assange and Murray, it will be noted that the latter was said to have reliability issues, that during his time as an ambassador, he was charged with misconduct. As mentioned earlier, those charges were thrown out and he was given his walking papers. Chances are, he was relieved of duty because the British government didn’t want to spend a single moment attempting to repudiate Murray’s warnings about Uzbekistan’s human rights violations and, instead, chose to silence him by axing him from service. One thing about Murray is clear. The issues with him in the past have nothing to do with truthfulness (a lot more than we can say about Hillary and Obama). The issues with Murray surround his empathy for a people whom he believed to be abused. Sounds like a stand-up guy, doesn’t he (even if he is a Liberal). Murray was telling the truth when he said it was an inside job. And the inside job was most certainly a Bernie supporter.
Source: Independent Journal Review