A Blatant Neo-Con Lie

It is a plain lie that Russia was responsible for the leak of the Democratic National Committee emails to WikiLeaks. It is quite extraordinary that the Obama administration formally adopted the accusation yesterday.

The US motivation is apparently to attempt to discredit in advance the further Hillary material that WikiLeaks plans to release in the coming month. The official statement that the leak was “consistent with the methods and motivation of Russian directed efforts” is carefully written by the NSA and, when you analyse it, extremely weak. What it says is “there is no evidence whatsoever but this is the sort of thing we think the Russians do”. As it happens, I have direct knowledge that there could not have been any evidence as it was not the Russians.

That the Obama administration has made a formal accusation of Russia based on no evidence is, on one level, astonishing. But it is motivated by desperation. WikiLeaks have already announced that they have a huge cache of other material relating to Hillary’s shenanigans. The White House is simply seeking to discredit it in advance by a completely false association with Russian intelligence.

It fascinates me that the media reports the story widely with no reference anywhere to what the DNC leak actually revealed – that the body organising the Democratic election had a consistent and active bias, doing everything possible to tilt the plating field and ensure that Hillary “won” against Bernie Sanders.

The US government cares so little about its relationship with Russia that it is prepared to launch completely false allegations at the Kremlin in order to influence a domestic election. The implications of that are chilling.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
  • teri

    “As it happens, I have direct knowledge that there could not have been any evidence as it was not the Russians.”

    Can you please elaborate on this statement, Mr. Murray?

    • Eric Zuesse

      I second that. Craig Murray is arrogant if he thinks that people should trust him just on his say-so; nobody should be trusted merely on their say-so — and least of all should people be trusted who block their audience from obtaining access to their sources (so as to verify that they are real and trustworthy).

  • shanaza

    Hearing it from a cyber-security expert would be 2nd hand knowledge. Direct knowledge means Mr. Murray, himself, investigated the leak and determined who could or could not be the sources. I did not realize he had that capability.