• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ex-British ambassador: Russia did NOT provide Clinton emails

shanners

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
1,402
Reaction score
405
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
"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

"Ex-Ambassador" "Uzbekistan" "Daily Mail"
 
"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

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.
 
"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

What he is saying is that he was handed the data by someone he does not suspect of anything more than normal criminality.
 
"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.' "

It was just Chutzpah to prop up this disgusting and corrupt woman.

Did her supporters believe that there are no honest people left and that nobody cares?
 
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.
 
"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

What?
 
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

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.
 
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.

And the reverse is true. We saw the same thing with the FBI and Director Comey - on both sides.

**** 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.
 
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.

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.


Wikileaks has stated that the Russians didn't do it.

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:

An open passing comment on an election is not the same as a sustained targeted pattern of illegal hacking, in most moralities.
 
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:

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/12/cias-absence-conviction/
 

:doh

Yes. We have seen the British Former Ambassador to Uzbekistan.

While the British Ambassador to Uzbekistan in 2005 was no doubt read into all of the Top Secret, SI, NOFORN programs that the CIA had in 2016... and while "Former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan from 2005" (who now self identifies as "an activist") is such a towering position that he does have the credibility to do things like point out that we don't really "KNOW" what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11 and that ISIS is armed and trained by the United States, while Assad and Syria are the good guys who are thankfully freeing Aleppo from it's four years of suffering... and while a former diplomatic adjunct of another country who has no idea, frankly, what he's talking about is an excellent source....

...I am unable to get past the fact that the argument he is putting for there A) Is dated (it depends on, among other things, claiming that the FBI and the CIA are in conflict on the issue, when they are not) and B) Uses such atrocious logic.

This man's opening argument begins with "The CIA claims to know the identity of the group that conducted the Hack. But the Obama administration has gone after whistleblowers and tried to extradite people who hack it before, so clearly the claim that Russians hacked the DNC is not true.

This is akin to the people who argued "But the Bush administration has, like, drones, and the NSA spying on libraries. Obviously they know where Osama Bin Laden is, and are in cahoots with them." The fact that the Obama administration has attempted to crack down on whistleblowers in no way means that it is impossible to identify Russian cyber actor network activity.
 
"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.
 
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.
 
: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.

I suppose i don't know how he could distinguish a proxy source from the true source.
 
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
 
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

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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
A good point, but at this moment Donald has angered the CIA by refusing their daily briefings.

Here's my thoughts about that.

If the new POTUS doesn't want a daily briefing from the CIA, he doesn't have to HEAR a daily briefing from the CIA. Has anyone ever questioned that "need"? The world situation does not require POTUS attention every damned day. It is the responsibility of the CIA to decide what warrants the his attention. That's their job. Time they did it is my thought. CYA briefings waste EVERYONE'S time. Their job is the Reader's Digest version and heavy detail as necessary for US involvement.

More than that sounds like masturbation.

Edit... Time we start questioning everything. "The way its always been" isn't necessarily the way it SHOULD be.
 
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?

Hm. I would say that I don't consider those two items to be mutually contradictory. Generally speaking, in any influence operation, you want as many vectors as possible. I find both to be plausible. Given limited evidence in their favor, therefore, I find both to be likely.

"Know" is a strong word. I find it highly likely that the Russians intend to interfere with US political processes for their own ends, and that they would be willing to do so in the context of an election. The broader Russian intent is to reduce American political willingness to oppose Russia dominating the countries in its' Near Abroad and securing warm water ports (like in Syria). The rise of Trump was pretty beneficial towards that desired end-state, and it would have been a pretty stupid IO director who failed to take advantage of it. The Russians are a lot of things - stupid isn't on the list.

Any use of a proxy actor (such as Wikileaks) would come with deniability, whether that was in the form of a cut-out or a non-disclosure agreement that comes with penalties. If you double cross America, we will get very upset with you, perhaps send you a strongly worded letter, or (worst case scenario) make an international sub-culture hero out of you by talking about how angry we are at you (see: Snowden, Assange). If you double-cross Putin, you die. It's not terribly surprising that Assange would insist that Russia didn't provide him the information - that is what he would be saying whether they had or not.
 
Back
Top Bottom