Craig Murray Interviewed by Scott Horton (12/13/2016)

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

Interview excerpt from "The Scott Horton Show", broadcast date December 13, 2016. Excerpt one from 1:30-8:22. Excerpt two from 8:54-12:08

Show link:
https://www.libertarianinstitute.org/scotthortonshow/121316-craig-murray-dnc-podesta-emails-leaked-americans-not-hacked-russia/

An argument against Murray's claim that John Podesta was under NSA surveillance, by Marcy Wheeler, can be found here:
https://www.emptywheel.net/2016/12/15/craig-murrays-description-of-wikileaks-sources/

Excerpt one:

SCOTT HORTON
Alright'all, introducing Craig Murray, he is the former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and, famously, a whistleblower, on America's extraordinary rendition program, with that torture dictatorship. And now he's got this very important piece at Craig Murray dot org dot uk, it's called "The CIA's Absence of Conviction" [link: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/12/cias-absence-conviction/ ]. Welcome to the show, how you doing Craig?

CRAIG MURRAY
Very well, Scott, thank you.

HORTON
Good, good. I really appreciate you joining us on the show today, and this is a very important thing, that you've written here, the context is, of course, the CIA's claim to the Washington Post [article title: "Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win White House" link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-orders-review-of-russian-hacking-during-presidential-campaign/2016/12/09/31d6b300-be2a-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html ], that the Russians ran an op to hack the Democrats' emails, I guess that goes for the DNC and Podesta emails, to leak them to Wikileaks, in order to help Donald Trump win the election. And, to a degree that I think is sortof surprising, to me, this story seems to really have legs there. Now even the electoral college is saying they want a briefing. I don't think they really would dare to try to overturn the results of the election, but there's at least trying to use this to hem in Trump, on his Russia policy, as Greg Sargent reported in the Washington Post [article title: "What happens if Russia did interfere in our election?" link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/12/09/what-happens-if-russia-did-interfere-in-our-election/?utm_term=.b81bd362d5ac ]. What you've written here, and told the Guardian, is "HOLD IT RIGHT THERE! THIS ISN'T RIGHT AT ALL." But how can you know?

MURRAY
Well, it's not really news. I mean, the people who are in a position to know, Wikileaks and the people who work with Wikileaks, of which I am one, Julian Assange has said very plainly, that the information does not come from Russia, he's said that straight out. And I have firsthand knowledge that the source of the leaks was not Russia, and was not any kind of proxy for the Russian government. It's an American source, so, really, the CIA who offered no evidence whatsoever, of this anonymously leaked claim, that the CIA is talking complete and utter nonsense. And I know for certain that what they say is not true.

HORTON
Okay, well now, can you first explain what exactly is your role with Wikileaks?

MURRAY
Well, I'm not a member of Wikileaks staff. They have staff, they have directors, I'm not any of those. But I'm a member of Sam Adams Associates, another whistleblower organization, that works very closely with Wikileaks. I've been close to Julian for a number of years. I'm one of the people that's able to visit him in the Ecuadorian embassy, and sleep with him, and discuss strategies, and hopefully, move things along. So, I co-operate with Wikileaks without being a formal member of the structure.

HORTON
And then, can you tell us how it is you know who the source is, or is it just that Assange told you, or you have more direct information yourself?

MURRAY
I have rather more direct information than that. Which relates to a visit I paid to Washington, in September of this year, when- I should be plain, the Podesta emails and the DNC emails are two separate things. You shouldn't conclude that both have the same source. In both cases, we're talking of a leak, not a hack. In that the person who knows, the person who was responsible for getting the information out, had legal access to that information.

HORTON
And then...a trip to Washington, you're saying that you were the recipient, of at least one of these leaks?

MURRAY
No, the material was already, I think, safely with Wikileaks, before I got there in September. I had a...small role to play, and I hope you'll understand [chuckles] if I don't expand on it too much.

HORTON
Sure. No, I do understand. I hope you understand if I keep trying to push a little bit to try to understand what's going on here. I read a post by my friend, "George Washington", over there, "George Washington"'s blog [article title: "Intelligence Officer Who Personally Met the Democratic Email Leaker Confirms Leaker Is with AMERICAN Intelligence Service … Not Russia" link: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/12/exclusive-intelligence-officer-met-dnc-email-leaker-confirms-nsa.html ] and he put two and two together in a couple of statements, and said, I guess, comparing your statements with those of the famous NSA whistleblower, William Binney, that when you say this was a leak, I think "George Washington"'s blog's conclusion there, was that meant a leak from the inside of the American intelligence community, although I guess, the way I read your statement, it possibly could just be a Democrat, or a member of the Democratic National Committee, or someone who had access through that route, and again, I'm not exactly sure whether we're talking about the Podesta or the DNC leak, or one or both here. As you say, they are at least presumably separate. But can you give us any insight, on whether, for example, you can confirm Binney's claim that this comes from inside American police and intelligence rather than inside the political apparatus like the DNC?

MURRAY
Again, I think the key point to remember in answering that question is that the DNC leaks and the Podesta leaks are two different things, and the answer is probably not going to be the same in both cases. I also want you to consider that John Podesta was a paid lobbyist for the Saudi government [no, his brother, Tony Podesta was a lobbyist for the Saudi government]. That's open and declared, it's not a secret and a leak, John Podesta was paid a very substantial sum every month by the Saudi government to lobby their interests in Washington. And if the American security services were not watching the communications of the Saudi government's paid lobbyists, then the American intelligence services would not be doing their job. And of course, it's also true, the Saudis' man, the Saudis' lobbyist in Washington, his communications are going to be of interest to a great number of intelligence services as well.

Excerpt two:

HORTON
So, I hope I'm not being too annoying here, I'm trying to read between the lines, it sounded like your first answer was well, maybe, one is one and the other is the other, indicating one came from inside the intelligence services, and the other maybe came from a political source, and then maybe your allusion was geez, maybe, the NSA must have been looking at what Panetta [sic, he's mixing up Leon Panetta and John Podesta] was doing, since he was operating as a registered agent of a foreign power...is it fair to say, you're saying the Podesta leak came from inside the intelligence services, the NSA or another agency?

MURRAY
I think what I said was certainly compatible with that kind of interpretation.

HORTON
Thank you very much. You're very polite. I appreciate that. Alright. And now, is it the case that you can say you know, in terms of the DNC leak as well?

MURRAY
It's the case...I mean, what I can tell you is that I know what Wikileaks [inaudible] I know what Wikileaks [inaudible] on the DNC case. I believe Julian, who I've known for many, many years, and he says it has nothing to do with the Russians. So that's...I have never...I don't have direct, personal access to the source, or anything like that, I wouldn't want to pretend that I did.

HORTON
But in both of these cases, you're saying that this is, these are leaks from Americans too? I saw this as part of what you said to The Guardian [https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/10/cia-concludes-russia-interfered-to-help-trump-win-election-report], was "If these people were acting as Russian agents, they'd be in jail right now!"

MURRAY
Exactly. In both cases, they are leaks by Americans. It's perfectly possible that Wikileaks themselves know exactly what is going on, one thing I'm sure that everybody noticed is that Julian Assange took a very close interest in the death of Seth Rich, the Democratic staff member and Wikileaks offered a twenty thousand reward [sic] for information leading to the capture of his killers. Obviously there's suspicion about what's happening, and things are somewhat murky. I'm not saying, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that he was the source of the leaks. What I'm saying is that it's probably not an unfair indication to draw that Wikileaks believes he may have been killed by someone who believed he was the source of the leaks.