*edit, March 12, 2017 – I just now read a Consortium News article (See bottom of post), by Robert Parry, dated December 18, 2016 that filled in some blanks. I don’t know how I missed this article, although I have many dozens of links to progressive (more or less) sites and sometimes spend a lot of time lingering in a few specific ones, at the expense of others, for extended periods of time. I also remember that when I was flailing around for information, I came across something that a poster (who no one corrected) in one of the progressive sites (forget which) who claimed that Craig Murray told a reporter that he received the leaked Clinton emails in a wooded spot of the American University. That’s what I ran with. It turns out that Murray had only met the leaker (who was possibly only a representative of the leaker and there could even be involvement of American cut-outs – in the employ of foreign entities – here, but that’s remote) for reasons he will not disclose. Of course, We can imagine. Murray himself notes (a crucial bit of info that I wish he had divulged earlier) that he doesn’t know exactly when the leaked emails were passed to Wikileaks or by who. His role, then, was not crucial, at least in the manner I thought, but important.
An excerpt from the above linked-to article by Craig Murray follows:
I had promised myself and my family that on this holiday I would do nothing but relax. However events have overtaken my good intentions. I find myself in the unusual position of having twice been in a position to know directly that governments were lying in globe-shaking events, firstly Iraqi WMD and now the “Russian hacks”…
Of course Russian hackers exist. They attack this blog pretty well continually – as do hackers from the USA and many other countries. Of course there have been attempted Russian hacks of the DNC. But the report gives no evidence at all of the alleged successful hack that transmitted these particular emails, nor any evidence of the connection between the hackers and the Russian government, let alone Putin.
There could be no evidence because in reality these were leaks, not hacks…
Obama has been a severe disappointment to all progressive thinkers in virtually every possible way. He now goes out of power with absolutely no grace and in a storm of delusion and deceit. His purpose is apparently to weaken Trump politically, but to achieve that at the expense of heightening tensions with Russia to Cold War levels, is shameful.
My online response to the above linked-to article follows:
——– ——- —
Craig knows whereof he speaks. As for myself, I am applying the mentioning of Craig’s contact with the leaker of the offending Clinton and Podesta emails, as a litmus test of genuiness when it comes to self-identified progressive organizations (like The Intercept) when an article talks about the subject of those emails and the fallout. Unless someone can give me a good reason not to, I will do so. Progressives who do not mention Craig’s crucial involvement, even if the line pushed is the correct one about the US government failing to provide evidence for it’s claims of Russia hacking the election, in fact help sell the idea that ‘maybe’ Hillary, Obama, et al, are right.
— ——- ——–
It occurs to me that perhaps I should have followed Craig’s own example and referred to his ‘access to’ the leaker of the offending Clinton and Podesta emails instead of talking about Craig’s ‘contact with’ the leaker. I hope I have not thereby injured the cause of whistleblowing.
See also “The CIA’s Absence Of Conviction” by Craig Murray
An excerpt from the above linked-to article follows:
…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…
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.
“A Spy Coup In America?” by Robert Parry
From the above linked-to article, we get the following:
But WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has publicly denied that Russia was the source of the leaks and one of his associates, former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray, has suggested that the DNC leak came from a “disgruntled” Democrat upset with the DNC’s sandbagging of the Sanders campaign and that the Podesta leak came from the U.S. intelligence community.
Although Assange recently has sought to muzzle Murray’s public comments – out of apparent concern for protecting the identity of sources – Murray offered possibly his most expansive account of the sourcing during a podcast interview with Scott Horton on Dec. 13.
Murray, who became a whistleblower himself when he protested Britain’s tolerance of human rights abuses in Uzbekistan, explained that he consults with Assange and cooperates with WikiLeaks “without being a formal member of the structure.”
But he appears to have undertaken a mission for WikiLeaks to contact one of the sources (or a representative) during a Sept. 25 visit to Washington where he says he met with a person in a wooded area of American University. At the time, Murray was at American University participating in an awards ceremony for former CIA officer John Kiriakou who was being honored by a group of former Western intelligence officials, the Sam Adams Associates, named for the late Vietnam War-era CIA analyst and whistleblower Sam Adams.
Former CIA analyst Ray McGovern, a founder of the Sam Adams group, told me that Murray was “m-c-ing” the event but then slipped away, skipping a reception that followed the award ceremony.
Reading Between LInes
Though Murray has declined to say exactly what the meeting in the woods was about, he may have been passing along messages about ways to protect the source from possible retaliation, maybe even an extraction plan if the source was in some legal or physical danger.
Murray has disputed a report in London’s Daily Mail that he was receiving a batch of the leaked Democratic emails. “The material, I think, was already safely with WikiLeaks before I got there in September,” Murray said in the interview with Scott Horton. “I had a small role to play.”