Former British ambassador Craig Murray, who is a friend of Julian Assange and who has claimed to have direct personal knowledge of the DNC and Podesta emails found their way to Wikileaks, has written another long statement on the Russiagate scandal.
The most interesting comments in this statement in my opinion are the following ones
Not actually examining the obvious evidence has been a key tool in keeping the “Russian hacking” meme going. On 24 May the Guardian reported triumphantly, following the Washington Post, that
“Fox News falsely alleged federal authorities had found thousands of emails between Rich and Wikileaks, when in fact law enforcement officials disputed that Rich’s laptop had even been in possession of, or examined by, the FBI.”
It evidently did not occur to the Guardian as troubling, that those pretending to be investigating the murder of Seth Rich have not looked at his laptop.
There is a very plain pattern here of agencies promoting the notion of a fake “Russian crime”, while failing to take the most basic and obvious initial steps if they were really investigating its existence. I might add to that, there has been no contact with me at all by those supposedly investigating. I could tell them these were leaks not hacks. Wikileaks. The clue is in the name.
As I have discussed recently (see my discussion of claim (2) made in my recent article summing up the claims made in the Russiagate scandal), the US intelligence community says that the Russians did not provide the DNC and Podesta emails to Wikileaks. It guesses the Russians provided the emails to Wikileaks via cutouts.
Craig Murray’s article essentially rejects this claim.
The original, base accusation is that it was the Russians who hacked the DNC and Podesta emails and passed them to Wikileaks. (I can assure you that is untrue).
I have previously expressed my own strong doubts that the cutout theory can be true
Julian Assange, Wikileaks, and ambassador Craig Murray – the latter by his own admission the contact between Wikileaks and the person or persons who actually provided the emails to Wikileaks – deny that the emails were provided to Wikileaks by the Russians. They say the emails were the result of leaks not hacks, and have hinted that the persons who provided them with the emails were disillusioned DNC staffers angered by the DNC’s bias in favour of Hillary Clinton and its ‘dirty tricks’ campaign against Bernie Sanders.
Julian Assange, Wikileaks and Craig Murray – whatever other views one has about them – are experienced people and consistent truth-tellers about their work. They are not naive people, and in Craig Murray’s case he is a former senior diplomat accustomed to working with intelligence agencies and who knows how they work.
There is no evidence that the people Wikileaks and Craig Murray dealt with were cutouts. Comey’s words show that the US does not know their identities (“we assessed – ie. guessed – that they were some kind of cutout”), and the theory these people were cutouts is therefore no more than a guess.
On the face of it it is highly unlikely that Julian Assange, Wikileaks or Craig Murray would have been deceived by cutouts, and since it is no more than a guess that the people who gave them the emails were cutouts, that theory can be discounted.
Whilst Craig Murray does not specifically discuss the cutout theory in his article, the whole content and tone of the article – “I can assure you that is untrue” – rejects it.
However it is his words about Seth Rich which I find especially interesting.
May be I am reading more into these words than Craig Murray intended, but why mention Seth Rich at all in a discussion refuting the theory of Russian involvement propounded in the Russiagate scandal if Seth Rich had no connection to the DNC and Podesta emails? Why draw particular attention to the FBI’s failure to examine Seth Rich’s laptop or to conduct proper investigations both of his murder and of the whole Russiagate affair?
Craig Murray moreover does this in comments which expressly say that Wikileaks obtained the DNC and Podesta emails because of leaks not hacks, he makes it clear that he has personal knowledge of the matter (he has of course been saying that for months), and he ‘wonders’ at the failure of the US and British authorities to question him about the affair.
Frankly, I cannot help but see this article as yet another in the series of hints dropped by Julian Assange and Wikileaks and by persons connected to Wikileaks implying that Seth Rich was one of the persons who leaked the emails.
I do not know whether or not Seth Rich was the person or one of the persons who leaked the DNC and Podesta emails. Perhaps he had no connection at all to the whole affair.
I have previously said that rather than dole out hints about Seth Rich in this way Julian Assange, Wikileaks and now Craig Murray should come out and say openly whether or not the person or one of the persons who provided them with the emails.
To those who say that this would be a breach of confidence I would simply say that by repeatedly dropping hints about Seth Rich Julian Assange, Wikileaks and now Craig Murray have breached his confidence already.
To those who say that the US intelligence community and the Western media would ignore or deny any admission by Julian Assange, Wikileaks and Craig Murray that Seth Rich was the source, I would say that the world is not limited to the US intelligence community and the Western media and those who believe them, and that publication of this information is overwhelmingly in the public interest, if only because it will increase public pressure for a proper investigation of this affair.
Alternatively, if for whatever reason best known to themselves and contrary to my own view Julian Assange, Wikileaks and Craig Murray decide that they cannot make any sort of public comment about Seth Rich confirming or denying his role in the DNC and Podesta emails affair, then I feel they should stop dropping hints about him.
To those who say that these hints are intended to provoke a proper investigation by the US authorities both of Seth Rich’s murder and of the Russiagate scandal – and Craig Murray’s words appear clearly to hint at that intention – I would simply say that either a confidence is respected or it is not, that the hints have already compromised Seth Rich’s confidence if he actually was involved without however achieving the intention of having either his murder or the Russiagate scandal investigated properly, and that this intention is anyway far more likely to be achieved if the true extent of Seth Rich’s involvement in the DNC and Podesta emails affair is made public.