The DNC "hack" was a leak from within the US and not Russia.

[mikey mikey]

The former intelligence analyst, British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, and chancellor of the University of Dundee, Craig Murray, wrote yesterday:

As Julian Assange has made crystal clear, the leaks did not come from the Russians. As I have explained countless times, they are not hacks, they are insider leaks – there is a major difference between the two.

***

I know who leaked them. I’ve MET the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it’s an insider. It’s a leak, not a hack; the two are different things.

In other words, Murray – a close friend of Julian Assange – says he knows for a fact that there were no hacks at all … instead, an American insider leaked the information to Wikileaks.

Intelligence Officer Who Personally Met the Democratic Email Leaker Confirms Leaker Is with AMERICAN Intelligence Service ... Not Russia

It seems that this story faced censorship.

So far 564 people believe they have shared on Facebook my article conclusively refuting the CIA’s invention of lies about Russia hacking the DNC, using the share button on this site. Another 78 have tried to share it from my Facebook page. Between them those 650 people will have. according to the Facebook average, about 200,000 friends. The total amount of incoming traffic from these 200,000 friends? 22 people. Almost nobody can currently reach this site through Facebook, as the “came from” interface on my statcounter below shows. Nothing from Facebook. Facebook are actively colluding in preventing social media from contradicting the mainstream media lies about Russian involvement in the US election campaign.

Facebook Suppresses Truth - Craig Murray

And now Facebook have backed down

 

[not-bono-ever]

not fucking craig murray, please

 

[mikey mikey]

Craig Murray is a Putinbot?

Oh nos! Well, I guess we should believe the CIA, then. Cos they would never lie. Not for all the WMD in Iraq!

 

[Yossarian]

The fact that 564 people shared his post but those shares resulted in only 22 clicks may be evidence of people being fed up with their friends sharing Craig Murray's posts and the like, not of a conspiracy to silence him.

 

[mikey mikey]

Yeah, that will explain it. Oh wait...

 

[Pickman's model]

Yeah, that will explain it. Oh wait...

you stupid boy

 

[Yossarian]

When I've seen Craig Murray posts shared, it's been by the kind of chronic over-sharers who share dozens of things on Facebook a day, often without reading them themselves, a click rate of 0.001% may not be all that unrealistic.

 

[gosub]

Thought the FBI investigation into different emails was more helpful than the leak anyway

 

[mikey mikey]

you stupid boy

Me or Murray?

I recognise your tone, sir.

 

[squirrelp]

The fact that 564 people shared his post but those shares resulted in only 22 clicks may be evidence of people being fed up with their friends sharing Craig Murray's posts and the like, not of a conspiracy to silence him.

I don't think so. Surely, the more shares, the more clicks.

A sudden drop from 2.3% to 0.001% is evidence of ghost-banning which recently happened to him on twitter as well.

 

[Pickman's model]

Me or Murray?

I recognise your tone, sir.

both

 

[Pickman's model]

I don't think so. Surely, the more shares, the more clicks.

A sudden drop from 2.3% to 0.001% is evidence of ghost-banning which recently happened to him on twitter as well.

jesus mary and joseph

 

[mikey mikey]

both

So your response to Craig Murray's articles is just generally "stuid boy".

I imagine you are a formidable opponent in any debate.

 

[Pickman's model]

So your response to Craig Murray's articles is just generally "stuid boy".

I imagine you are a formidable opponent in any debate.

unlike you i can spell stupid. i can't imagine you'd win a debate with any more formidable opponent than a lobotomised slug.

 

[squirrelp]

jesus mary and joseph

eh?

 

[Pickman's model]

eh?

eh what?

 

[squirrelp]

eh what?

What's a nativity scene got to do with facebook unholy ghost banning?

 

[mikey mikey]

unlike you i can spell stupid. i can't imagine you'd win a debate with any more formidable opponent than a lobotomised slug.

Cannot argue his/her point so resorts to insults and picking up on typos. Next step: trashing the thread with insults and shitposting.

Great job. You wouldn't happen to know a Malcolm Armsteen, would you?

 

[Pickman's model]

What's a nativity scene got to do with facebook unholy ghost banning?

it's not a fucking nativity scene. here, have the first annual mikey mikey stupid post of the year award 2016.

 

[Pickman's model]

Cannot argue his/her point so resorts to insults and picking up on typos. Next step: trashing the thread with insults and shitposting.

Great job. You wouldn't happen to know a Malcolm Armsteen, would you?

let me get this straight.

when you said

So your response to Craig Murray's articles is just generally "stuid boy".

you weren't resorting to insults and picking up on typos. just so i know where we are, like.

 

[squirrelp]

it's not a fucking nativity scene. here, have the first annual mikey mikey stupid post of the year award 2016.

I think you can keep that one for yourself

 

[mikey mikey]

Pickman's model
No, you resorted to insults. You picked up on a typo. And now you are attempting to trash the thread rather than discuss the issue.

 

[Pickman's model]

No, you resorted to insults. You picked up on a typo.

ah diddums, you're embarrassed because your attempt to humiliate me ("stuid boy") so signally failed.

And now you are attempting to trash the thread rather than discuss the issue.

the issue being that you're a credulous 'loon?

can you produce a credible source to substantiate your claim in the op?

 

[mikey mikey]

Exhibit B, M'lord.^

So, if you're not prepared to discuss the issue in the title of the thread, would you mind telling me if you know Malcolm?

 

[Pickman's model]

Exhibit B, M'lord.^

So, if you're not prepared to discuss the issue in the title of the thread, would you mind telling me if you know Malcolm?

so when i ask you to produce a credible source for the claim in the op i am apparently not prepared to discuss the issue in the title of the thread.

fucking pisspoor.

 

[squirrelp]

"ghost banning" is a very real phenomenon. There is nothing 'credulous' about it.

 

[Pickman's model]

"ghost banning" is a very real phenomenon. There is nothing 'credulous' about it.

sadly they haven't ghost banned you yet

 

[mikey mikey]

I believe that Craig Murray is more credible than the CIA for two reasons: Firstly, that the CIA has a track record of lies (e.g. WMD in Iraq); and secondly Mr. Murray has no reason to lie about this issue, while the CIA certainly do.

 

[Pickman's model]

I believe that Craig Murray is more credible than the CIA for two reasons: Firstly, that the CIA has a track record of lies (e.g. WMD in Iraq); and secondly Mr. Murray has no reason to lie about this issue, while the CIA certainly do.

so a no then

 

[mikey mikey]

How odd. I realise the chances of you being Malcolm Armsteen are very low, but he also had a habit of wishing that people that disagreed with him were banned. That and insults, thread trashing and picking up on typos.