Ambassador Craig Murray: “I’ve met the person who leaked them [Podesta emails], not Russian

Just the latest on the Russian "hacking" story

Ambassador Craig Murray: “I’ve met the person who leaked them [Podesta emails], not Russian" – it’s an insider”

Craig Murray, Britain’s former ambassador to Russia and a close friend of Julian Assange, has now confirmed that he knows the identity of the person who leaked the DNC and Podesta leaks to Wikileaks, and that this person is not Russian and has no connection to the Russian government.
On the contrary, he is a Washington insider.

Now this should be interesting. If this is true, then it puts the final nail in the coffin on this whole Russian Propaganda.

Thought's ATS?

Bernie Sanders?

a reply to: SoulSurfer

Yeah, its probably that dead Seth whomever guy that got popped.

a reply to: SoulSurfer

If true it spins the whole "fake news" controversy in a direction that the msm and dnc and establishment gop anti trumpers do not want it to go.

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: SoulSurfer

Yeah, its probably that dead Seth whomever guy that got popped.

could be, but there is a possibility of another source. Name has not been mentioned yet. (Though it would be irresponsible to reveal the name and put the source in reckless danger.) But if it was Seth Rich then the name needs to come out. Because if it does, it will open up a whole other can of worms and possibly re-open the investigation involving his death. (which I am pretty sure was not a robbery since no money was stolen from him.)

He and Seth Rich were roommates in college and shared handkerchiefs...
They lived above a pizza cafe specializing in pasta and extra cheese...


-Chris

There are two different hacks people are combining into one.

The DNC hack was done by the Kremlin months before the election started.

Podesta emails used a russian server, but perpetrator is unknown.

Neither swayed the election.

The only way Russia could have put Trump in power is if they were responsible for the Democrats running HRC.

a reply to: SoulSurfer

Kind of makes the Washington post and their inside sources the true propagandist imo

Good thing he has Diplomatic Immunity.

Normally, it would look silly to post proof and have that proof being an "anonymous source", but when the accusation was made by an "anonymous source", it all kind of make sense in a weird way.

I still stand by the fact that WHO did the hacking is largely irrelevant, the important thing is WHAT what hacked and released.

And to put this back in terms the left can understand, If this was a RNC hack and it showed massive corruption within the party, I'm quite sure the MSM, and the other bought and paid for lefties would be cheering so loud, you couldn't hear the dinner bell for days. (they like to use "what if' scenarios to make themselves look a bit less foolish.)

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: SoulSurfer

If true it spins the whole "fake news" controversy in a direction that the msm and dnc and establishment gop anti trumpers do not want it to go.

WOW, that aspect of this could be the joke of the century. Like Irony, dripping with irony, between two slices of irony.

a reply to: SoulSurfer
I find these two paragraph very telling! Thanks for posting this!

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.

...........................................................................................................................................

Now both Julian Assange and I have stated definitively the leak does not come from Russia. Do we credibly have access? Yes, very obviously. Very, very few people can be said to definitely have access to the source of the leak. The people saying it is not Russia are those who do have access. After access, you consider truthfulness. Do Julian Assange and I have a reputation for truthfulness? Well in 10 years not one of the tens of thousands of documents WikiLeaks has released has had its authenticity successfully challenged. As for me, I have a reputation for inconvenient truth telling.

This is from Craig Murray's Blog

The democrates brought all of them on themselves. And now stand there pointing in every direction but home!

a reply to: SoulSurfer

What is that source, TheDuran? In a World Wide Web of fake news we must vett our sources.

Throw Hillary in jail.

Guilty of:

- manufacturing and spreading fake news to influence the outcome of a democratic vote
- creating false accusations which effect International relations (and threatening military responses towards russia)
- repeatedly lying to the american public

And congrats to the american people who did not vote that person to become President. She would probably already activate troops against the 'evil Russian hackers'

"Hacks" has become a general cover for leaks.

Waiting for a hacking group to come out with a refute to keep it going.

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: SoulSurfer

What is that source, TheDuran? In a World Wide Web of fake news we must vett our sources.

Yep. Just calling something "fake" doesn't cut it. You have to put in the leg work to verify the story. Just as if Infowars posts a story. You can't dismiss it because Alex said it. It might be true. And if we start doing that, CNN is going down in flames.

a reply to: Martin75

You would think that truthful people are trying to take that shovel out of their hands would be pondered by them but no ..they keep doubling down and digging deeper and deeper . And I really have to question the members of this site who are shoveling shoulder to shoulder with them . its 2016 and its nearing its end .time for them to take a break and lick their wounds and try , try to get it correct in 2017 because most of the people watching will loose patience with them at some point .

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: SoulSurfer

What is that source, TheDuran? In a World Wide Web of fake news we must vett our sources.

Yep. Just calling something "fake" doesn't cut it. You have to put in the leg work to verify the story. Just as if Infowars posts a story. You can't dismiss it because Alex said it. It might be true. And if we start doing that, CNN is going down in flames.

Pretty much this^. Plus the source is already obvious with the post above his own. Grab some popcorn cause things are heated up. I wonder what else they will try once this story blows up in their faces.

Either way Introducing the Mainstream Media Challenge by AMTV.

a reply to: SoulSurfer

My guess is that the leaker was Seth Rich, the 27 year old DNC worker who was shot/killed at 4 am outside his house, police stated he was "robbed" but when he was found he had with watch/wallet and phone still on him.... not to mention Julain Assange said RIP to him once he was dead, alluding to him being the leak... Things that make you go hmmmmmmmmmm..

a reply to: SoulSurfer

If this plays out like it looks here, I think a massive push to identify the origins of this story and the media that pushed it should be exposed as the fake news it is. That's the narrative we are supposed to be embracing at the moment, so I say we go all in. It's for the kids.