For the last week or so, we’ve been hearing about the “Russians hacking” and or “interfering” with our election process, and of course leading the progressive feeding frenzy is the mainstream media along with those hapless Clinton supporters, and disgruntled Democrats, still trying to make sense out of their humiliating defeat…thus it must have been “fake news, the popular vote, WikiLeaks, FBI Director Comey” or perhaps the “RUSSIANS!”

However on Sunday Craig Murray, the former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, acknowledged that he met the person who was responsible for publicly outing  the DNC emails, and it was not Russia.

Murray then went on to say in an interview that; “I know who leaked them, “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”.

The sad truth is that it makes little difference what the actual facts are to both the mainstream media and the rabid political left, in that “identity politics”, and dividing people by race, gender, sexual ordination and income, has always been their hallmark.

Ambassador Murray explained further that he’s a close associate of Julian Assange the founder of WiliLeaks saying: “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.”

He continued; “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.”

This latest trip into fantasy land is simply the loony left attempting to distract once again from their own monumental arrogant miscalculations, in presenting a morally corrupt, incompetent and lackluster candidate with a long history of dubious dealings, as their presidential candidate.

Simply put both the Democratic Party and the progressive establishment can’t bring themselves to simply admit they “blew it!”

Moreover Democrats need to create a new narrative about the Trump Administration, being somehow illegitimate, and the Russian connection, is a perfect issue and fits nicely in their attempt to explain their bruising defeat on November 8th.

Murray points out how the mainstream media will viciously attack anyone who doesn't fall in line with the spin they are selling:

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.

SHARE this and get the word out. Hillary is still trying to steal this election and defy the will of the American people.

Source: Craig Murray

Facebook Comment
JOIN U.S. HERALD Subscribe for FREE today and find out what's REALLY happening in America!

Send this to a friend