Once again there is no evidence on the table that it was Russia who hacked the DNC, just opinion, just a feeling. There is not even evidence that hacking occurred. It is just as likely that it was a whistleblower that leaked documents. It’s just as likely it was Seth Rich.
Assange went on to say he “felt sorry” for Hillary Clinton.
Today former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray, who is a close associate of Julian Assange, said he has met the DNC leaker and he’s not Russian.
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.
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.”
IT’S A LEAK NOT A HACK!!!
A government is attempting to manipulate and control this election, but it is not the Russians. It is the Obama administration.
Two days before the Presidential debate, the US government officially accused Russia of hacking, and interfering in the U.S. election. However, much like the Bush administration when accusing Iraq of having Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) — which did not exist, the Obama administration has provided zero evidence for these accusations. They are trying to use their authority to convince the American people that Russia has something to do with Wikileaks, and the Trump campaign with no evidence.
The timing of the announcement was made the same day Wikileaks released the first set of e-mails from Hillary Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta. This was not a coincidence, as no urgency was necessary to make said announcement other than to combat the leaks. In other words, the intention of the announcement was as propaganda to counter the Podesta e-mail leaks just before a Presidental debate, and had nothing to do with anything Russia might have done recently. The e-mails being released now are from data breaches that were confirmed in June/July of this year.
What is even more unusual about this, is the FBI claims there is no evidence the Russians or anyone else had access to Hillary Clinton’s private e-mail server. This means the FBI perhaps does not agree with the statement made by the Obama administration. This further suggests the likelihood of an insider being responsible for the leaks, such as murdered DNC Data Specialist Seth Rich (of which Wikileaks has offered a reward for any information leading to a conviction). There is also the possibility that someone within the U.S. intelligence community upset with Hillary Clinton’s illegal mishandling of classified information is responsible for the leaks.
So what do these accusations mean?
Considering tension between Russia and the U.S. has reached a tipping point recently over the handling of Syria, these accusations could result in cyber war, further sanctions, armed conflict, and if escalation occurs nuclear warfare. The Obama administration is risking various forms of war with Russia based on an accusation of which they have provided zero evidence in an attempt to discredit Wikileaks, and distract the American people from the leaks.
The facts as they stand at the time of writing this:
- The U.S. Government has not provided any evidence that Russia has hacked anything.
- The FBI has stated there is no evidence Russia or anyone else hacked Clinton’s private e-mail server.
- There is no evidence the Donald Trump campaign is working with the Russians.
- Wikileaks has a 10-year history, and perfect record of never releasing a single falsified document.
- There is no evidence Wikileaks and Julian Assange work for the Russian Government.
- Several Clinton staffers, including Clinton herself, have admitted to the authenticity of the past leaks.
- The latest leaks are from the same original data breach. They are not a new hack.
- The leaks themselves prove the collusion between the Clinton campaign and the main stream media.
- Recent main stream media reports of falsified documents being edited by the Russians are again just unproven accusations with no evidence.