UK ambassador Craig Murray confirms Julian Assange’s source is NOT Russians, but DC whistleblower
While the mainstream press and the leftists sore at losing to Donald Trump attempt to disqualify the President-elect, the source of the DNC hack, which at the time never seem to change public perception or responses in polls, appears to be a Washington DC insider, much like Edward Snowden, and not a Russian spy attack.
“That’s false. We can say that the Russian government is not the source,” Assange said, a statement now echoed by former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray, who is a close associate of Julian Assange.
Via Craig Murray.org:
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.
Murray 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.”
The Podesta email access came after he clicked on spam, giving access to the hacker, after his cyber security group approved the email.
“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.”
Late on Thursday, Dmitri Alperovitch, co-founder and chief technology officer at CrowdStrike, spoke to the press at the Security Innovation Network Showcase in Washington D.C. CrowdStrike was the company hired by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) to investigate and repair the breaches after their emails were stolen and released over the summer.
Alperovitch acknowledged that he cannot disprove who physically handed the files to Assange. He claimed that he could show that a Russian-affiliated hacking group breached the servers and that the Guccifer 2.0 cover identity, which has been linked to Russia, said before and after WikiLeaks posted the files that he was the one sending them to the site.
“I personally do not know where WikiLeaks got their information. I do know that at least some of the information that leaked had been taken by the Russians out of the DNC network. Maybe someone else gave it to him,” Alperovitch said.
In June, CrowdStrike posted the case for Russian involvement to its company website. Rival companies including Fidelis and FireEye, as well as U.S. intelligence services, came to the same conclusion. At the press conference on Thursday, Alperovitch said the CrowdStrike report withheld additional evidence pointing to Russia that would make the case even more convincing. Not all of that evidence, he said, was technical.
Alperovitch was particularly unmoved by the argument that if Russia wanted to keep a mission covert, neither CrowdStrike nor the government would have been able to detect the county’s actions.
“They’re not that good,” he said.
All Emphasis added by The Dispatch, BBJ.
There is ZERO proof that any of the leaked or hacked information had any effect on the election. There seemed little interest by the media, Democrats or left-wing to even address concerns extracted from the leaks. Even Bernie Sanders, who lost to Clinton, never called for an investigation or resignation of DNC leaders, despite the conspiracy to keep him from winning the nomination.