Former British ambassador Craig Murray confirms DNC and Podesta leaks were the work of a Washington insider; and says he knows identity and has met with this person. FBI meanwhile casts doubt on CIA claim DNC and Podesta leaks were the work of Russia.

The liberal media have been playing up a report by the Central Intelligence Agency that hackers aligned with the Russian government had allegedly provided Julian Assange with the hacked emails his website WikiLeaks published during the fall, but Craig Murray  former British ambassador to Uzbekistan is going public again to blow the story out of the water.

“The source of these emails and leaks has nothing to do with Russia at all. I discovered what the source was when I attended the Sam Adam’s whistleblower award in Washington.  Craig Murray, the former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, who tells Sputnik (a Russian media outlet) that the source of the leaks are not Russian hackers but a Washington insider.

The source of these emails comes from within official circles in Washington DC. You should look to Washington not to Moscow.”

Craig Murray has moreover told the Guardian that he has actually met with this person.

Anyone wanting to know more of what Craig Murray is saying should read his statement on his blog.  Indeed it should be mandatory reading for anyone interested in the truth of this affair.

On the subject of his personal knowledge and reputation for truthfulness and credibility Craig Murray has this to say

“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.”

The CIA’s Absence of Conviction _Craig Murray

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. source

Russia meddling In US elections