Quote:EXCLUSIVE: Ex-British ambassador who is now a WikiLeaks operative claims Russia did NOT provide Clinton emails - they were handed over to him at a D.C. park by an intermediary for 'disgusted' Democratic whistleblowers
A Wikileaks envoy today claims he personally received Clinton campaign emails in Washington D.C. after they were leaked by 'disgusted' whisteblowers - and not hacked by Russia.
Craig Murray, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and a close associate of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, told Dailymail.com that he flew to Washington, D.C. for a clandestine hand-off with one of the email sources in September.
'Neither of [the leaks] came from the Russians,' said Murray in an interview with Dailymail.com on Tuesday. 'The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks.'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...z4Suuc5u4h
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
I've long said I thought this was an inside job. Time will tell if the story is accurate.
Doesn't matter if it's true or not. The Fakestream Media has already created the story they're going to push.
The lesson of Hillary. When you're a witch, you piss people off.
but..but..but...Obama's CIA said it was the Russians, so it must be true?
The CIA is suspect but internet is legit?
Trump's America
It was a video that outraged Them !
BUT MUH PUTIN!!!
(12-15-2016 10:42 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote: [ -> ]BUT MUH PUTIN!!!
Me thinks you haven't read the morning paper yet.
(12-15-2016 09:28 AM)TechRocks Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:EXCLUSIVE: Ex-British ambassador who is now a WikiLeaks operative claims Russia did NOT provide Clinton emails - they were handed over to him at a D.C. park by an intermediary for 'disgusted' Democratic whistleblowers
A Wikileaks envoy today claims he personally received Clinton campaign emails in Washington D.C. after they were leaked by 'disgusted' whisteblowers - and not hacked by Russia.
Craig Murray, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and a close associate of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, told Dailymail.com that he flew to Washington, D.C. for a clandestine hand-off with one of the email sources in September.
'Neither of [the leaks] came from the Russians,' said Murray in an interview with Dailymail.com on Tuesday. 'The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks.'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...z4Suuc5u4h
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
I've long said I thought this was an inside job. Time will tell if the story is accurate.
That's what Assange implied, that it was a Democrat.
Didn't I see this in an Eddie Murphy movie.
yeah, fit... because 'the internet' is an ex-British Ambassador claiming personal involvement.
Now it may well be a lie... like some of the supposed Islamic hate crimes... but like those, he's giving specifics.
You may not be able to get him to reveal the actual source, but you should at least be able to tell if there is any POSSIBLE legitimacy to his claim whatsoever... like whether or not he flew to DC or perhaps was in the park...
and as the OP says, Time will tell if he's lying.
(12-15-2016 11:12 AM)Fitbud Wrote: [ -> ] (12-15-2016 11:10 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]yeah, fit... because 'the internet' is an ex-British Ambassador claiming personal involvement.
Now it may well be a lie... like some of the supposed Islamic hate crimes... but like those, he's giving specifics.
You may not be able to get him to reveal the actual source, but you should at least be able to tell if there is any POSSIBLE legitimacy to his claim whatsoever... like whether or not he flew to DC or perhaps was in the park...
and as the OP says, Time will tell if he's lying.
Wait a minute. DC in the park? Sounds like a Oliver Stone movie to me.
Agreed. Should be fairly easy to at least determine if it is even remotely possible (since he doesn't live here). Could EASILY still be a lie, but the question is why an Assange ally, non-US citizen and former ambassador would care enough about this to make up such a story. Maybe i'm just missing it, but i have no idea what he stands to gain.
Honest question as it goes to why I tend to give some things at least SOME benefit of the doubt and not others... What would it hurt Wikileaks to admit that the leak came from Russian hackers?
(12-15-2016 09:34 AM)appst89 Wrote: [ -> ]Doesn't matter if it's true or not. The Fakestream Media has already created the story they're going to push.
Yep, and the propaganda is reaching dangerous levels. Shep Smith is basically saying that everything the Dems, NYT, and WaPo is spewing is 100% truth (despite the fact that when you press them for proof, they shy away) and everything DJT and Russia say is 100% false.
There comes a point where their allegations meet real world consequences. Let's say we grant them their *truths* -- that Russia was 100% behind the hacks and Russia 100% tampered with our election. What are they suggesting? WWIII? Are they saying that DJT's election is illegitimate, which would result in Civil War II?
Also, when I say tampered I mean TAMPERED, not affected. It's impossible to quantify the extent to which the leaks affected the results of the election, and the truth is the truth, regardless of who exposed it.
CNN both tampered and affected the election with their being part of the Clinton campaign.
(12-15-2016 03:54 PM)UofMstateU Wrote: [ -> ]CNN both tampered and affected the election with their being part of the Clinton campaign.
How do you figure?