I have long suspected that the Wikileaks "leaks" were actually provided to Wikileaks by someone other than the Russians.
I have no doubt that the Russians, the Chinese and a whole host of other hackers have been busy probing every source of information they could enter and stealing every secret they could. It's what every government's spy agency does. They probably got into Hillary's server, and read Podesta's e-mails (and many others).
But the Russians, Chinese and other State actors would prefer to keep the information they obtained for purposes of gaining leverage over American officials. It makes no sense to release blackmail information about the person who all the polls showed to be the winner of the Presidential election.
You hold that information until you can find a way of threatening to expose corruption in order to get a better deal at the bargaining table.
So this makes sense:
A Wikileaks envoy today claims he personally received Clinton campaign emails in Washington D.C. after they were leaked by 'disgusted' whisteblowers - and not hacked by Russia.
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.'
His account contradicts directly the version of how thousands of Democratic emails were published before the election being advanced by U.S. intelligence.
As I said earlier, this does NOT mean that the Russians didn't hack into every possible electronic source they could. It simply means that they were not the ones who provided the information to Wikileaks. "The Russians did it" is simply the DNC, the media (but I repeat myself) and the Hillary campaign trying to delegitimize the Trump election.
'I don't understand why the CIA would say the information came from Russian hackers when they must know that isn't true,' he said. 'Regardless of whether the Russians hacked into the DNC, the documents Wikileaks published did not come from that.'Assange has similarly disputed that charges that Wikileaks received the leaked emails from Russian sources.'The Clinton camp has been able to project a neo-McCarthyist hysteria that Russia is responsible for everything,' Assange told John Pilger during an interview in November.'Hillary Clinton has stated multiple times, falsely, that 17 US intelligence agencies had assessed that Russia was the source of our publications. That's false – we can say that the Russian government is not the source.'
At this point I believe Wikileaks and not the CIA, the press or the DNC.
Brian Cates