"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.' ...
He said the leakers were motivated by 'disgust at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the tilting of the primary election playing field against Bernie Sanders.' "
WikiLeaks operative claims Russia did NOT provide Hillary Clinton emails | Daily Mail Online
"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.' ...
He said the leakers were motivated by 'disgust at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the tilting of the primary election playing field against Bernie Sanders.' "
WikiLeaks operative claims Russia did NOT provide Hillary Clinton emails | Daily Mail Online
"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.' ...
He said the leakers were motivated by 'disgust at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the tilting of the primary election playing field against Bernie Sanders.' "
WikiLeaks operative claims Russia did NOT provide Hillary Clinton emails | Daily Mail Online
"He said the leakers were motivated by 'disgust at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the tilting of the primary election playing field against Bernie Sanders.' "
CIA an organization you know nothing about, and don't know the people who put out the narrative at all. And you have the balls to act condescending? Face it, no one likes Hillary, and she cheated her way in. And now you lost the election because of that."Ex-Ambassador" "Uzbekistan" "Daily Mail"
CIA an organization you know nothing about, and don't know the people who put out the narrative at all. And you have the balls to act condescending? Face it, no one likes Hillary, and she cheated her way in. And now you lost the election because of that.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
CIA an organization you know nothing about, and don't know the people who put out the narrative at all. And you have the balls to act condescending? Face it, no one likes Hillary, and she cheated her way in. And now you lost the election because of that.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
As far back as only a few months ago here on DP, many good folks on the left were saying that the CIA wasn't to be trusted because of their "Gitmo" practices amongst other things.
Now some of them want to hinge their arguments on the CIA's credibility?
It's like a dog chasing and biting his tail. He knows it hurts and can't figure out why.
**** this election.
1. You are conflating unlike things. Simply because the Russians intended to interfere in our election and/or conduct information operations against us does not mean that somehow the election of Trump is illegitimate, or that Hillary didn't richly deserve to lose. Despite what Hillary apologists like Podesta might argue, the two are distinct.
2. The CIA is, in fact, remarkably open as far as intelligence organizations go - mostly because our laws demand that it be so. Title 50 organizations in the United States are almost uniquely transparent compared to their peers. They don't have to become some shadowy, evil organization just because they told you something you didn't like.
3. It is also the FBI and the DNI.
I don't believe the facts are straight on the "Russian hacking"; but I do know there's a lot of whining going on. There is not full agreement about the intent of the hacking or that the emails were obtained through it. There's also an insider theory.
Wikileaks has stated that the Russians didn't do it.
There is indeed quite a lot of cognitive dissonance on the left. Their desire to leap on the claim that somehow "Russian Hacking = Really Clinton Deserved To Win" doesn't mean that conservatives have to accept that false equivalence. Clinton deserved to lose and Russians tried to meddle in our politics. Similar (though theirs was more covert) to when Obama attempted to interfere with the Israeli election and Brexit Referendum. Simply because he lost doesn't mean he didn't interfere, and simply because he may have been successful in some of the impacts he wanted to affect doesn't mean Putin didn't interfere.
The American people are free to vote any damn way they please for any reason they please, restrained only by the limits of the U.S. Constitution.
And if you can't trust an international criminal organization, who can you trust? :mrgreen:
There is indeed quite a lot of cognitive dissonance on the left. Their desire to leap on the claim that somehow "Russian Hacking = Really Clinton Deserved To Win" doesn't mean that conservatives have to accept that false equivalence. Clinton deserved to lose and Russians tried to meddle in our politics. Similar (though theirs was more covert) to when Obama attempted to interfere with the Israeli election and Brexit Referendum. Simply because he lost doesn't mean he didn't interfere, and simply because he may have been successful in some of the impacts he wanted to affect doesn't mean Putin didn't interfere.
The American people are free to vote any damn way they please for any reason they please, restrained only by the limits of the U.S. Constitution.
And if you can't trust an international criminal organization, who can you trust? :mrgreen:
"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.' ...
He said the leakers were motivated by 'disgust at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the tilting of the primary election playing field against Bernie Sanders.' "
WikiLeaks operative claims Russia did NOT provide Hillary Clinton emails | Daily Mail Online
Sorry, but it's almost impossible for this guy to know this for certain. He may as well try to claim that salt is definitely not one of KFC's secret ingredients.
:shrug: he'd have placement. Not sure about full access. That being said, identifying one source doesn't mean data doesn't have multiple sources.
BLUF: between the IC and an international criminal network inherently hostile to my country, I choose the IC.
While the USSR maintained a HUMINT advantage over us for pretty much the entirety of the Cold War, I'm not positive they'd burn a political source for this when they didn't have to.I suppose i don't know how he could distinguish a proxy source from the true source.
While the USSR maintained a HUMINT advantage over us for pretty much the entirety of the Cold War, I'm not positive they'd burn a political source for this when they didn't have to.
Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk
People don't want to believe anything that goes against a CIA narrative. They don't care about history and they don't care about facts of past behavior, they just want to be obedient in how they view the world.
Whatever meme will do the most Trump Damage is the one that will be pushed.
A good point, but at this moment Donald has angered the CIA by refusing their daily briefings.
Because I generally respect your POV, could you elaborate on how you know that Russia meddled in our election?
Do you consider it a hack, or do you agree with Binney and others that it was a leak?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?