Former UK ambassador: Democrat whistleblowers leaked emails, not Russia

The “Russia intervened in 2016 election to favor Trump” conspiracy theory is the Democrats’ last-ditch effort to subvert the election by convincing the Electoral College to vote for Hillary next Monday. There’s even talk of redoing the presidential election itself.

Thus far, all we’ve heard and read is hearsay — by the Washington Post, by Obama, by this or that senator or congressman — that there is a secret CIA report on Russia’s nefarious role in the election in:

  1. Hacking the emails of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), Hillary Clinton, and her close associate, the very creepy John Podesta.
  2. Giving the hacked emails to unnamed “agents” who then supplied the emails to WikiLeaks to publish.

What the American people have not seen is the actual CIA report.

Stranger still is the fact that although several congressional committees are looking into the suspected Russian interference, U.S. intelligence agencies, including the CIA, refused a request to brief the House intelligence committee last Thursday (Dec. 15) on the cyber-attacks.

The legal dictionary defineshearsay” as “A statement made out of court that is offered in court as evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” The dictionary further explains that:

the Hearsay Rule, as outlined in the Federal Rules of Evidence, prohibits most statements made outside a courtroom from being used as evidence in court. This is because statements made out of court normally are not made under oath, a judge or jury cannot personally observe the demeanor of someone who makes a statement outside the courtroom, and an opposing party cannot cross-examine such a declarant (the person making the statement). Out-of-court statements hinder the ability of the judge or jury to probe testimony for inaccuracies caused by ambiguity, insincerity, faulty perception, or erroneous memory. Thus, statements made out of court are perceived as untrustworthy.”

And yet we are to accept that on the basis of hearsay about some secret CIA report, which no court would consider as evidence, the Electoral College should overturn the results of the 2016 election by voting for Hillary Clinton as president, despite Donald Trump having attained a majority of Electoral votes of 306 vs. Hillary’s 232.

But we do have a first-person testimony that is not hearsay — from former British ambassador Craig Murray, who claims he had received Hillary Clinton campaign emails, not from Russia, but from “disgusted” Democrat whistleblowers.

craig-murray

Alana Goodman reports for the Daily Mail that in an interview with Dailymail.com on Dec. 13, 2016, Craig Murray, who is a close associate of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, said he had flown to Washington, D.C. in September 2016 for a clandestine hand-off with one of the email sources. Murray retrieved the package during a clandestine meeting in a wooded area near American University, in northwest D.C. The individual he met with was not the original person who obtained the information, but an intermediary.

Murray said:

“Neither of [the email leaks] came from the Russians. The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from [Democrat Party] inside leaks, not hacks.”

Murray 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.” Murray declined to say where the sources worked and how they had access to the information, to shield their identities. He said that Podesta’s emails might be “of legitimate interest to the security services” in the U.S. due to his communications with Saudi Arabia lobbyists and foreign officials.

Murray said he was speaking out due to claims from CIA officials that Wikileaks was given the documents by Russian hackers as part of an effort to help Trump win the U.S. presidential election:

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

Murray’s account cannot be independently verified but is in line with previous statements by Wikileaks:

seth-rich

  • In August 2016, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange intimated that DNC staffer Seth Rich was the source of the DNC emails. At about 4:19 a.m. on Sunday, July 10, 2016, 27 year-old Rich was shot and killed in the 2100 block of Flagler Place NW in Washington, DC. His murder remains unsolved to this day.
  • More recently in November in an interview with John Pilger, Assange said, “The Clinton camp has been able to project a neo-McCarthyist hysteria that Russia is responsible for everything. 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.”

Murray is a controversial figure who was removed from his post as a British ambassador amid allegations of misconduct. He was a vocal critic of human rights abuses in Uzbekistan while serving as ambassador between 2002 and 2004, a stance that pitted him against the UK Foreign Office. Murray was cleared of charges of misconduct, but left the diplomatic service in acrimony.

His links to Wikileaks are well known and while his account is likely to be seen as both unprovable and possibly biased, it is also the first intervention by Wikileaks since reports surfaced last week that the CIA believes Russia had hacked the Clinton emails to help hand the election to Donald Trump.

See also:

H/t FOTM’s MomOfIV

~Eowyn

Advertisements

11 responses to “Former UK ambassador: Democrat whistleblowers leaked emails, not Russia

  1. Just like all the other murders surrounding the Clinton Machine, I think we must look intently at the death of the young man who worked for the Clinton Campaign. You have to be pretty hair-brained, or totally out of touch to work for, or have anything to do with here is no doubt–they play for keeps, judging from all the suspicious deaths that surround them, going back decades into the period of time they were in Arkansas. I remember when Julian Assange made the statement that this young man was the source of the email leaks, and now the Clinton’s (and Obungo and his white house) want us to believe that this was the work of the Russians. The only way I will ever believe that the Russians were instrumental in the leaking of the Democrat’s emails is if God comes down and directly tells us that it is so!

    Liked by 3 people

  2. hitliary & Putin are a bigger threat the Trump and Putin will ever be. clinthole would most likely work with Putin toward the one world government through oppression, socialism and fascism and selling out America. Trump will most likely propose business dealings with Putin that will improve lives in the west as well as the east. The LSM is reporting, true or not, that the DNC was hacked, totally ignoring what the emails contained. And hacking is akin to jaywalking compared to the crimes, deceit and skullduggery contained in the emails.

    Liked by 2 people

    • “hacking is akin to jaywalking compared to the crimes, deceit and skullduggery contained in the emails.”

      Excellent point! It is noteworthy that in all the Russia-hack conspiracy talk, no one ever disputes the contents of those emails.

      Liked by 2 people

  3. Pingback: Former UK ambassador: Democrat whistleblowers leaked emails, not Russia — Fellowship of the Minds | kommonsentsjane

  4. Surely the fact that “…nobody ever disputes the contents of those emails” is the smoking gun that convicts the suicidal Clintonistas in defeat. I predict the rats will abandon that sinking ship ASAP after Trump is inaugurated, if he isn’t assassinated first; perhaps his VP choice is a kind of ‘insurance policy’ against that contingency…..

    Liked by 2 people

  5. So, when Clinton was hacked while overseas and confirmed by 5 agencies, nary a word. Now, to fit their agendas, they are screaming from the rooftops that 17 agencies say it is true, even though the FBI and Clapper and a 30 years NSA member said it was an insider, and Wikileaks, who has been accurate for 10 years, say no. Well, I guess we all can see what is behind this. Let the manipulation of proof of evidence begin in 3 2 1.
    They have shown us no proof, only their conjecture, which is shaky at best.
    They can prove no damage done.
    But, if they want to go back to the election and we proofread every forged vote, have at it. Do they really want to open that can of worms.
    There is a big difference between hacking and leaking.
    You can bet, if Putin could have hacked our systems, we wouldn’t have had 8 years of BO.

    Liked by 3 people

  6. The democrats knew very well all they had to do was say “hacking,” and a substantial percentage of their mindless millions would automatically think “hacked the voting machines and stole the election,” and nothing anyone else ever says will convince them otherwise. On the other hand, if Michelle O has “no hope” left, considering whatever it was the word “hope” was code for in the last 8 years, that’s a good thing. “Hope?” “Empowering women?” “Fighting for families?”…what the hell does any of that mean?

    Liked by 3 people

  7. Pingback: Former UK ambassador: Democrat whistleblowers leaked emails, not Russia | wwwpalfitness

  8. Pingback: WikiLeaks: John McCain in 2008 illegally solicited campaign contribution from Russia – pennine_rainbows

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s