The CIA's Absence Of Conviction 199
EDUCATE! CIA, UNITED STATES
By Craig Murray, www.craigmurray.org.uk
December 12th, 2016
Powered by Translate
Above Photo: iStock
I have watched incredulous as the CIA's blatant lie has grown and grown as a
media story - blatant because the CIA has made no attempt whatsoever to
substantiate it. There is no Russian involvement in the leaks of emails
showing Clinton's corruption. Yes this rubbish has been the lead today in
the Washington Post in the US and the Guardian here, and was the lead item
on the BBC main news. I suspect it is leading the American broadcasts also.
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."
But only three hours. While the article was not taken down, the home page
links to it vanished and it was replaced by a ludicrous one repeating the
mad CIA allegations against Russia and now claiming - incredibly - that the
CIA believe the FBI is deliberately blocking the information on Russian
collusion. Presumably this totally nutty theory, that Putin is somehow now
controlling the FBI, is meant to answer my obvious objection that, if the
CIA know who it is, why haven't they arrested somebody. That bit of course
would be the job of the FBI, who those desperate to annul the election now
wish us to believe are the KGB.
It is terrible that the prime conduit for this paranoid nonsense is a once
great newspaper, the Washington Post, which far from investigating executive
power, now is a sounding board for totally evidence free anonymous source
briefing of utter bullshit from the executive.
In the UK, one single article sums up the total abnegation of all
journalistic standards. The truly execrable Jonathan Freedland of the
Guardian writes "Few credible sources doubt that Russia was behind the
hacking of internal Democratic party emails, whose release by Julian Assange
was timed to cause maximum pain to Hillary Clinton and pleasure for Trump."
Does he produce any evidence at all for this assertion? No, none whatsoever.
What does a journalist mean by a "credible source"? Well, any journalist
worth their salt in considering the credibility of a source will first
consider access. Do they credibly have access to the information they claim
to have?
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.
Contrast this to the "credible sources" Freedland relies on. What access do
they have to the whistleblower? Zero. They have not the faintest idea who
the whistleblower is. Otherwise they would have arrested them. What
reputation do they have for truthfulness? It's the Clinton gang and the US
government, for goodness sake.
In fact, the sources any serious journalist would view as "credible" give
the opposite answer to the one Freedland wants. But in what passes for
Freedland's mind, "credible" is 100% synonymous with "establishment". When
he says "credible sources" he means "establishment sources". That is the
truth of the "fake news" meme. You are not to read anything unless it is
officially approved by the elite and their disgusting, crawling whores of
stenographers like Freedland.
The worst thing about all this is that it is aimed at promoting further
conflict with Russia. This puts everyone in danger for the sake of more
profits for the arms and security industries - including of course bigger
budgets for the CIA. As thankfully the four year agony of Aleppo comes
swiftly to a close today, the Saudi and US armed and trained ISIS forces
counter by moving to retake Palmyra. This game kills people, on a massive
scale, and goes on and on.
****************************************************************************
******
http://www.popularresistance.org/feed/
http://www.popularresistance.org/feed/http://www.facebook.com/pages/Stop-the
-Machine-Create-a-New-World/128235120588487
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Stop-the-Machine-Create-a-New-World/1282351205
88487https://twitter.com/popresistance https://twitter.com/popresistance
Home About Contact Donate
http://www.popularresistance.org/how-to-use-this-site/
http://www.popularresistance.org/how-to-use-this-site/
CALENDAR
NEWSLETTER
CORE ISSUES
RESISTANCE REPORT
DAILY EMAIL DIGEST
https://org2.salsalabs.com/o/7315/donate_page/now
https://org2.salsalabs.com/o/7315/donate_page/now
The CIA's Absence Of Conviction 199
Educate! CIA, United States
By Craig Murray, www.craigmurray.org.uk
December 12th, 2016
Powered by https://translate.google.com/ Translate ;
'Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not
valid.Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not
valid.Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not
valid.Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not
valid.Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.Error! Hyperlink reference not
valid.Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Above Photo: iStock
I have watched incredulous as the CIA's blatant lie has grown and grown as a
media story - blatant because the CIA has made no attempt whatsoever to
substantiate it. There is no Russian involvement in the leaks of emails
showing Clinton's corruption. Yes this rubbish has been the lead today in
the Washington Post in the US and the Guardian here, and was the lead item
on the BBC main news. I suspect it is leading the American broadcasts also.
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."
But only three hours. While the article was not taken down, the home page
links to it vanished and it was replaced by a ludicrous one repeating the
mad CIA allegations against Russia and now claiming - incredibly - that the
CIA believe the FBI is deliberately blocking the information on Russian
collusion. Presumably this totally nutty theory, that Putin is somehow now
controlling the FBI, is meant to answer my obvious objection that, if the
CIA know who it is, why haven't they arrested somebody. That bit of course
would be the job of the FBI, who those desperate to annul the election now
wish us to believe are the KGB.
It is terrible that the prime conduit for this paranoid nonsense is a once
great newspaper, the Washington Post, which far from investigating executive
power, now is a sounding board for totally evidence free anonymous source
briefing of utter bullshit from the executive.
In the UK, one single article sums up the total abnegation of all
journalistic standards. The truly execrable Jonathan Freedland of the
Guardian writes "Few credible sources doubt that Russia was behind the
hacking of internal Democratic party emails, whose release by Julian Assange
was timed to cause maximum pain to Hillary Clinton and pleasure for Trump."
Does he produce any evidence at all for this assertion? No, none whatsoever.
What does a journalist mean by a "credible source"? Well, any journalist
worth their salt in considering the credibility of a source will first
consider access. Do they credibly have access to the information they claim
to have?
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.
Contrast this to the "credible sources" Freedland relies on. What access do
they have to the whistleblower? Zero. They have not the faintest idea who
the whistleblower is. Otherwise they would have arrested them. What
reputation do they have for truthfulness? It's the Clinton gang and the US
government, for goodness sake.
In fact, the sources any serious journalist would view as "credible" give
the opposite answer to the one Freedland wants. But in what passes for
Freedland's mind, "credible" is 100% synonymous with "establishment". When
he says "credible sources" he means "establishment sources". That is the
truth of the "fake news" meme. You are not to read anything unless it is
officially approved by the elite and their disgusting, crawling whores of
stenographers like Freedland.
The worst thing about all this is that it is aimed at promoting further
conflict with Russia. This puts everyone in danger for the sake of more
profits for the arms and security industries - including of course bigger
budgets for the CIA. As thankfully the four year agony of Aleppo comes
swiftly to a close today, the Saudi and US armed and trained ISIS forces
counter by moving to retake Palmyra. This game kills people, on a massive
scale, and goes on and on.
****************************************************************************
******
