Authored by: Anonymous onSunday, December 11 2016 @ 12:19 MST

Here is Craig Murray, an associate of Julian Assange, calling it rubbish that the Russians were the source of the Wikileaks. They had both called the Wikileaks revelations that purportedly helped Trump a leak probably from an insider, not a hack: http://www.globalresearch.ca/russias-...on/5561721

Assange and Murray are much very close to the source (Wikileaks) than the supposedly 17 intelligence agencies that Hillary claimed had concluded it was a Russian job. So anyone who is logical would conclude that Assange and Murray should know, unless of course one believes that they are lying. But then, anyone who believes these two are lying would have to say it with a straight face that he/she believes that the intelligence agencies were not lying. Especially since it is now public knowledge how the CIA had been feeding fake news to journalists, wittingly or unwittingly, in the MSM (including big ones like NYT, WaPo, CNN, NBC, etc.) to justify the hegemonic wars of the U.S.

Also, with 17 agencies possessing evidence that it was a Russian job, why are we still awaiting proof that the leaks were carried out by the Russians - the proof should be very easy to furnish, no?

Could the Russians have hacked into the DNC? Of course, but it could just as easily have been the Chinese, Koreans, etc. .... do you genuinely believe that the U.S. is not actively hacking those countries? Recall that the U.S. was caught hacking into Merkel's phone. They all hack into each other, no?

Regardless of whether it was or was not the Russians who had hacked into the Hillary campaign, you ascribe the reason why Russia favored Trump to win as because they favor a weak President (Trump). You seem to have ignored another more obvious reason - Trump had openly said during the election campaign that he wanted to work cooperatively, if possible, with Putin. Hillary, however, seemed gung ho to start WW3 with Putin (over Syria). Given Hillary's well known warmongering track record (Libya, Iraq, Honduras), and the fact that she was supported by well known warmongers from the Rep.side (Wolfowitz, Kagan, Morell, Bush the father, the very ones who lied to the world about Saddam havingWMDs), it was more likely that Putin simply favored a President (Trump or anyone else) who would more likely bring peace with Russia and avoid a deadly nuclear war that neither side could win. And a nuclear war that would have deadly consequences on the world.

Trump was not my preference (neither was Hillary) but what is wrong with Putin wanting peace rather than the neverending wars that both the Dem. and Rep. establishments (the 2 Bushes and Clintons, Obama)supported?

[ Reply to This | # ]