Leaker of Podesta emails was a US intel official, not Russia, according to former ambassador

The narrative that “Russia hacked the election” now has a powerful counter-narrative to contend with.  Craig Murray, the former U.K. ambassador to Uzbekistan (where he was a critic of the regime’s human rights abuses and was recalled), is claiming (via the U.K. Daily Mail):

… he personally received Clinton campaign emails in Washington D.C. after they were leaked by 'disgusted' whisteblowers - and not hacked by Russia. (snip)

'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. 

We can expect this version to be disputed by those who have a political interest in delegitimizing the Trump presidency:

His links to Wikileaks are well known and while his account is likely to be seen as both unprovable and possibly biased, it is also the first intervention by Wikileaks since reports surfaced last week that the CIA believed Russia hacked the Clinton emails to help hand the election to Donald Trump.

Murray is continuing to speak out:

If you set up the super surveillance state, hoovering up all the internet traffic of pretty well everybody, that is not just going to affect the ordinary people whom the elite despise. There is also going to be an awful lot of traffic intercepted from sleazy members of the elite connected to even the most senior politicians, revealing all their corruption and idiosyncracies. From people like John Podesta, to take an entirely random example. And once the super surveillance state has intercepted and stored all that highly incriminating material, you never know if some decent human being, some genuine patriot, from within the security services is going to feel compelled to turn whistleblower.

Than they might turn for help to, to take another entirely random example, Julian Assange.

Zero Hedge adds:

This confirms what the NSA executive who created the agency’s mass surveillance program for digital information, who served as the senior technical director within the agency, who managed six thousandNSA employees, the 36-year NSA veteran widely regarded as a “legend” within the agency and the NSA’s best-ever analyst and code-breaker, who mapped out the Soviet command-and-control structure before anyone else knew how, and so predicted Soviet invasions before they happened (“in the 1970s, he decrypted the Soviet Union’s command system, which provided the US and its allies with real-time surveillance of all Soviet troop movements and Russian atomic weapons”) – previously said:  the leaker was from U.S. intelligence services. And see this.

And Murray confirmed to Washington's Blog by email that Binney "was on the mark."  

I don’t know with certainty if this account is true.  But it does not rely on anonymous sources, as does the story that Russia is responsible.  And the FBI director, James Comey, is not on board with the Russia story:

In telephone conversations with Donald Trump, FBI Director James Comey assured the president-elect there was no credible evidence that Russia influenced the outcome of the recent U.S. presidential election by hacking the Democratic National Committee and the e-mails of John Podesta, the chairman of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

What’s more, Comey told Trump that James Clapper, the director of National Intelligence, agreed with this FBI assessment.

The only member of the U.S. intelligence community who was ready to assert that the Russians sanctioned the hacking was John Brennan, the director of the CIA, according to sources who were briefed on Comey’s conversations with Trump.

“And Brennan takes his marching orders from President Obama,” the sources quoted Comey as saying.

This makes a lot more sense to me than Russia intervening in an election all the "smart" people knew could not be won by Trump, and seeing that just the right amount of leaking could install him as president.  Recall that it was only "right-wing nuts" who thought Trump could win.

Why would Russia prefer Trump to Clinton, who has shown that she can be bribed to approve a Russian takeover of strategic American uranium resources?  Trump is renowned for surprising people with his moves.  That does make for good puppet material.

Occam's Razor suggests that the email leaks came from a disgusted American.

Update: A former U.S. intelligence officer, writing as John Smith, called this scenario last month:

If the power elite in DC have top level security clearances and access to classified systems, then not only are highly classified matters available to them, but the secure communications means exist to coordinate their activities while shielding them from public scrutiny. Conversely, the intel community itself has a habit of monitoring not only foreign targets of interest, but may legally collect on US citizens who hold security clearances.  At this stage, the fact that Hillary had her own server is irrelevant. Plenty of information was likely
held somewhere in the IC’s classified files.

The narrative that “Russia hacked the election” now has a powerful counter-narrative to contend with.  Craig Murray, the former U.K. ambassador to Uzbekistan (where he was a critic of the regime’s human rights abuses and was recalled), is claiming (via the U.K. Daily Mail):

… he personally received Clinton campaign emails in Washington D.C. after they were leaked by 'disgusted' whisteblowers - and not hacked by Russia. (snip)

'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. 

We can expect this version to be disputed by those who have a political interest in delegitimizing the Trump presidency:

His links to Wikileaks are well known and while his account is likely to be seen as both unprovable and possibly biased, it is also the first intervention by Wikileaks since reports surfaced last week that the CIA believed Russia hacked the Clinton emails to help hand the election to Donald Trump.

Murray is continuing to speak out:

If you set up the super surveillance state, hoovering up all the internet traffic of pretty well everybody, that is not just going to affect the ordinary people whom the elite despise. There is also going to be an awful lot of traffic intercepted from sleazy members of the elite connected to even the most senior politicians, revealing all their corruption and idiosyncracies. From people like John Podesta, to take an entirely random example. And once the super surveillance state has intercepted and stored all that highly incriminating material, you never know if some decent human being, some genuine patriot, from within the security services is going to feel compelled to turn whistleblower.

Than they might turn for help to, to take another entirely random example, Julian Assange.

Zero Hedge adds:

This confirms what the NSA executive who created the agency’s mass surveillance program for digital information, who served as the senior technical director within the agency, who managed six thousandNSA employees, the 36-year NSA veteran widely regarded as a “legend” within the agency and the NSA’s best-ever analyst and code-breaker, who mapped out the Soviet command-and-control structure before anyone else knew how, and so predicted Soviet invasions before they happened (“in the 1970s, he decrypted the Soviet Union’s command system, which provided the US and its allies with real-time surveillance of all Soviet troop movements and Russian atomic weapons”) – previously said:  the leaker was from U.S. intelligence services. And see this.

And Murray confirmed to Washington's Blog by email that Binney "was on the mark."  

I don’t know with certainty if this account is true.  But it does not rely on anonymous sources, as does the story that Russia is responsible.  And the FBI director, James Comey, is not on board with the Russia story:

In telephone conversations with Donald Trump, FBI Director James Comey assured the president-elect there was no credible evidence that Russia influenced the outcome of the recent U.S. presidential election by hacking the Democratic National Committee and the e-mails of John Podesta, the chairman of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

What’s more, Comey told Trump that James Clapper, the director of National Intelligence, agreed with this FBI assessment.

The only member of the U.S. intelligence community who was ready to assert that the Russians sanctioned the hacking was John Brennan, the director of the CIA, according to sources who were briefed on Comey’s conversations with Trump.

“And Brennan takes his marching orders from President Obama,” the sources quoted Comey as saying.

This makes a lot more sense to me than Russia intervening in an election all the "smart" people knew could not be won by Trump, and seeing that just the right amount of leaking could install him as president.  Recall that it was only "right-wing nuts" who thought Trump could win.

Why would Russia prefer Trump to Clinton, who has shown that she can be bribed to approve a Russian takeover of strategic American uranium resources?  Trump is renowned for surprising people with his moves.  That does make for good puppet material.

Occam's Razor suggests that the email leaks came from a disgusted American.

Update: A former U.S. intelligence officer, writing as John Smith, called this scenario last month:

If the power elite in DC have top level security clearances and access to classified systems, then not only are highly classified matters available to them, but the secure communications means exist to coordinate their activities while shielding them from public scrutiny. Conversely, the intel community itself has a habit of monitoring not only foreign targets of interest, but may legally collect on US citizens who hold security clearances.  At this stage, the fact that Hillary had her own server is irrelevant. Plenty of information was likely
held somewhere in the IC’s classified files.

RECENT VIDEOS