Craig Murray on Russia Today (01/07/2017)

Supplemental document for: "Theory that Roger Stone's back channel to Wikileaks was Randy Credico", link: https://wakelet.com/wake/2d352ae9-febe-44a1-a7bb-51674a2e4bf5

Craig Murray on Russia Today. Broadcast date: January 7, 2017.

File link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3DvaVrRweY

Excerpt runs from 6:49 to 11:35.

Segment focused on publication of recent report by U.S. intelligence agencies on Russian hacking of the DNC, and Russian interference in the U.S. election, and the interview begins after an intro on this subject

KEVIN OWEN [HOST]
Craig Murray's got some thoughts about it [intelligence report], he's a former U.K. diplomat and whistleblower. Hey...when you look at this report, there is so much vagaries, so much kindof misinformation, aaaah, dates that are wrong, details that are wrong. You'd think for such a high level report like this, with such serious accusations, that it would be pinpoint accurate. There'd be this smoking gun. It's not there. Why?

CRAIG MURRAY
Well, I think it's hilarious. When I was sent the report last night, I genuinely believed it was The Daily Mash, or some such humorous site, which had done a spoof. Because it seems like such a mockery of what we've had, which is weeks and weeks of assertions without evidence, and this is so totally devoid of evidence, that I thought it must be a joke. When I discovered it was actually serious, I'm really taken aback, and I do urge everybody watching, to get on-line, it's quite easy to find, and read through the thing. Because it is an absolutely astonishing piece of work, presents no evidence whatsoever. Of course, the reason it contains no evidence whatsoever, is there is no evidence, because the assertions it is making are factually untrue. So there couldn't be evidence.

OWEN
Why is it being so ill prepared? Just to re-iterate what you're saying here, you're a well respected diplomat, you're an intelligent man, you're sitting down to read this thing last night, this smoking gun, it wasn't there, the information wasn't there because there is no smoking gun. Yeah? Let's just get to the point, that's how you see it?

MURRAY
I think that's absolutely right. I mean, Wikileaks have been absolutely plain, and I know this didn't come...the- the intelligence which Wikileaks received didn't come from Russian hacking, the- the report makes assertions- it asserts, for example, that President Putin must have ordered the hacking. It doesn't prove that the hacking or the election influencing happened. But it says, if it happened, he must have ordered it. And then the evidence it gives he ordered it, is the fact that after the election, Russia did not question the validity of the election process. And that in some way is supposed to prove Putin ordered the [laugh] process be hacked. It's nonsense. I mean, there's so many...illogical assertions...made, and assertions wildly built upon, upon nothing.

OWEN
Some of these hacks came out from Wikileaks and the assertion from America is that this was leaked with Putin's knowledge, to Wikileaks. Wikileaks, in fact, denies it. Julian Assange has come out and said, "No! This information you're talking about, the DNC etc, wasn't anything to do with Russia," you've got your own thoughts on it, haven't you?

MURRAY
Yeah. I mean, Julian is right. It's not from Russia. There's no doubt about that. But it's not- [inaudible because of OWEN talking over it]

OWEN
Who do you think leaked some of this information to Wikileaks? Because I know you've gone on record to say that you had somebody in mind. Or you thought you knew where it may have come from.

MURRAY
Yes. I know who the source is, and it is not a Russian source. It is an insider source. But it should be said, of course, that there is more than one- [more than one source, presumably]

OWEN
Insider, I'm so sorry to interrupt you, it's such a serious subject, I just wanna get a bit more. An insider to where, what?

MURRAY
I'm sorry if you- Forgive me if I don't go into much more detail, because obviously source protection- [inaudible because of OWEN talking over it]

OWEN
Well, on the Russian side or the American side?

MURRAY
It's- It's- [hears question] Oh, definitely on the American side. Sorry, that's plain. I mean this...this is from a Washington insider. It's not from...Russia. Um...but...this report goes further than, of course, the hacking allegations, it also tries to undermine and invalidate the journalistic work that RT does. And it makes out that it is illegitimate. And wrong...for a media organization to broadcast any information which doesn't go along with the American government's wishes. And one example of that is it states- the report states RT broadcast a program critical of hacking, and that proves that RT is setting out to undermine the American economy. Again, that's an astonishing assertion. There are millions of Americans who are against hacking, the- it's a blatant attack on freedom of the press. And a blatant attack- [inaudible because of OWEN talking over it]

OWEN
I've been here eleven years, as you know, and each and every day it makes my eyes crossed to hear how we're portrayed, what we're trying to do, et cetera et cetera. But hey: it's free speech, and thank you for being on-line as well, Craig Murray. We really appreciate your time, have a good weekend, so thank you.