This piece was reprinted by OpEd News with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.
From Down With Tyranny
"I know who leaked them [the DNC emails to WikiLeaks]. I've met the person who leaked, and they are certainly not Russian and it's an insider. It's a leak, not a hack; the two are different things." --Craig Murray, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan
There's a full-court press in the press to tag the Russians in general and Putin in particular with ... some say "interfering with," some say "hacking" ... the recent U.S. presidential election. The push to tag Russia is so aggressive, including accusations from President Obama, that it makes one suspicious.
That question -- are we being propagandized by unproven declarations that "We know that Putin hacked the U.S. election to make Trump president" -- is not proof. Nor in fact does anything offered by any of the government or media personalities making that assertion constitute proof. To paraphrase Sgt. Schultz, "We know nothing."
So my suggestion is this. When you hear about Putin, as you will constantly until the inauguration, keep an open mind until you see evidence. Even when Obama makes the case. No proof, no case.
What Might Be Happening Here?
To give that suggestion credence, I'll offer just these morsels. This is obviously a much larger topic, even for an outlet that's as space-unlimited as this one. The problem is that I know your time is not unlimited, especially during the Season of Merry and Bright. So, morsels for now, but tasty ones.
Morsel One -- Watch the video above. It's clear, brief and accurate. It proves nothing, but presents the reasons for doubt about the "accepted story." I put quotes around the last phrase for a reason: The story really isn't proved, just accepted as if it were proved.
Note again the quote from Craig Murray, former U.K. ambassador to Uzbekistan. He asserts (note, this also isn't proof, but a counter-assertion) that he's met the person who sent the DNC leaks to WikiLeaks, and it's not the Russians.
Morsel Two -- Murray also claims to have evidence about who leaked the Podesta emails. The following comes from a (surprisingly careful) Daily Mail article, somewhere near the middle:
"In Podesta's case, his account appeared to have been compromised through a basic 'phishing' scheme, the New York Times reported on Wednesday.
"U.S. intelligence officials have reportedly told members of Congress during classified briefings that they believe Russians passed the documents on to Wikileaks as part of an influence operation to swing the election in favor of Donald Trump.
"But Murray insisted that the DNC and Podesta emails published by Wikileaks did not come from the Russians, and were given to the whistleblowing group by Americans who had authorized access to the information.
"'Neither of [the leaks] came from the Russians,' Murray said. 'The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks.'
"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.'
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
6
4
4
