The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Politics => Topic started by: HAPPY2BME on October 23, 2016, 09:08:31 AM
-
By Onan Coca October 21, 2016
Former British Ambassador Craig Murray is an ally and friend of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and he visited Assange in the Ecuadorian Embassy on Wednesday to discuss his ongoing plight. What Murray learned could have a huge impact on the 2016 election, if the American people are allowed to hear it.
One of the main media arguments for people not to give credence to the hacked DNC, Clinton emails is that this is a deliberate attempt by Vladimir Putin and Russia to impact our electoral process. The narrative goes something like this; ‘Russia illegally hacked the DNC and are now trying to steal the election from Clinton. So Republicans shouldn’t use the ill-gotten information, the media shouldn’t report on it, and the American people shouldn’t pay attention to it. In that way, we’ll be standing up to the tinpot dictator Putin.’ The only problem with this is that it means we should all completely ignore the criminality and corruption at the DNC and in the Clinton campaign team! It’s a stupid argument, but it’s become so prevalent that even some conservatives are parroting it.
Here’s the thing… there’s no proof that Russia did any of this. They’ve never admitted to it, and our intelligence community has never proven it. It’s simply a theory that the media and the Clinton team have implied is fact.
Well, Ambassador Murray is here to dispel the rumors and to clear the air. Vladimir Putin and Russia had nothing to do with hacks on the Democrats, nor with the release of the hacked emails.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_Yf2gM7xAg
http://constitution.com/british-politician-says-russia-nothing-dnc-email-leaks/
-
Here’s what Ambassador Murray had to say from his personal website:
I left Julian after midnight. He is fit, well, sharp and in good spirits. WikiLeaks never reveals or comments upon its sources, but as I published before a fortnight ago, I can tell you with 100% certainty that it is not any Russian state actor or proxy that gave the Democratic National Committee and Podesta material to WikiLeaks. The claim is nonsense. Journalists are also publishing that these were obtained by “hacking†with no evidence that this was the method used to obtain them.
The control of the Democratic party machinery deliberately to unfairly ensure Clinton’s victory over Bernie Sanders is a matter of great public interest. The attempt by the establishment from Obama down to divert attention from this by a completely spurious claim against Russia, repeated without investigation by a servile media, is a disgrace.
The over-close relationship between the probable future President and Wall Street is also very important. WikiLeaks has done a great public service by making this plain.
The attempts by the mainstream media to portray WikiLeaks as supporters of Trump and Putin because they publish some of Clinton’s darker secrets is completely illogical and untrue in fact. The idea we must pretend Clinton is a saint is emetic.
But the key point is that WikiLeaks is a publisher. It is a vehicle for publishing leaks, and is much more of a vehicle for whistleblowers than for hackers. It does not originate the material. I have often seen comments such as “Why has WikiLeaks not published material on Israel/Putin/Trump?†The answer is that they have not been given any. They publish good, verifiable material that they are given by whistleblowers. They are not protecting Israel, Putin, or Trump. Nobody has given them viable material.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/10/really-really-upset-foreign-office-security-services/
-
Did you get that?
Russia did not get/give WikiLeaks any of the leaked emails/data.
The media says the info was “hacked,†but WikiLeaks has never said that the information was gathered in that manner. Meaning, it could have been leaked by a whistleblower.
The same people who “stole†the Democrat nomination from Bernie Sanders are now trying to shift attention from their corruption to Russia.
Obama and the media are complicit in both the corruption and the cover up of the corruption.
WikiLeaks doesn’t have a “dog in the fight;†they simply publish the information that is given to them by whistleblowers.
Ladies and gentlemen, please don’t buy the media/establishment spin on the WikiLeaks releases. This isn’t about Russia, or hacking, or anything like that –
This is all about how the Democrat Party is corrupt, anti-democratic, and very likely criminal.
This is all about how the media has been complicit, not only in the crimes of the Democrat Party, but in covering up their crimes as well.
This is all about how liberals will literally do whatever it takes to win. In their minds the ends always justify whatever dastardly means must be employed to ensure victory.
This is all about how the American people continue to have their rights stripped away from them by a bloated and corrupt government.
Don’t let them get away with it.
-
Judge Napolitano mentioned, earlier this week, that it was probably someone (or a cell of someones) in the NSA. Think about it--some of the emails on her server (which the FBI says was indeed hacked) were found by the FBI on a server in Romania. Didn't HilLIARy say that her server had not been hacked? Also, contacts for the American intelligence community just 'disappeared' after that info came out. The NSA does not want to work for someone that got their field assets killed, and they want to do whatever they can to make certain that this does not happen.
-
What are your estimations, do viewers of the debate believe what HRC said about it, or are they generally smarter than that?
-
Judge Napolitano mentioned, earlier this week, that it was probably someone (or a cell of someones) in the NSA. Think about it--some of the emails on her server (which the FBI says was indeed hacked) were found by the FBI on a server in Romania. Didn't HilLIARy say that her server had not been hacked? Also, contacts for the American intelligence community just 'disappeared' after that info came out. The NSA does not want to work for someone that got their field assets killed, and they want to do whatever they can to make certain that this does not happen.
I remember hearing that Russian servers were used. The idea that NSA involved is rather interesting.
-
What are your estimations, do viewers of the debate believe what HRC said about it, or are they generally smarter than that?
========================
The 50 ~ 70 age group knows instantly that Russia is no longer the Soviet Union and Hillary is calling out old Cold War fears that are dead, unless she resurrects them in the form of WWIII.
The 30 ~ 40 age group don't have the historical experience, having not lived through many election cycles, but should be able to have a good enough BS filter to know our #1 enemy is not Russia, but the kind of government that hillary is saying she is against, but everyone knows she is a world-class progressive socialist.
The 18 ~ 30 age group is the hardest to read, having grown up entirely in a politically correct education and social system. Nobody really knows what they think. Not even them.