1) Julian Assange confirmed the DNC leaker wasn't a state party.

The DNC emails were leaked by a DNC insider.

2) Craig Murray called the CIA's claims bulls***.

3) "Whistleblowers go to very significant risks."

Julian Assange discussed the murder of DNC insider

Seth Rich when asked about Wikileaks' sources.

4) Cover up by CIA.

5) FBI have never examined DNC's servers.

Incredibly, the FBI have never examined the DNC's servers!

6) Crowdstrike retracted many of their original false claims.

7) Crowdstrike refused to cooperate with the House Intelligence Committee.

The CIA have the capability to plant

false forensic evidence on computers.

8) CIA capabilities for deception.

9) Malware is Ukranian, not Russian.

It has no apparent relationship with Russian intelligence

10) The 17 agencies myth.

11) The FBI declined to accept the CIA's analysis.

12) The 'joint report' fails to back up the Russian hacking claims with evidence.

The CIA have failed to back up their claims with evidence.





13) Guccifer 2.0 files were transferred locally, not over the internet.

Sources:

As reported previously, the 'Russian hacking' narrative pushed by the DNC and their co-conspirators in the CIA, was recently destroyed when a new metadata study revealed the 'Guccifer 2.0' files were copied locally, not hacked . Here are thirteen additional points to consider which expose the CIA's claims as false...The Podesta emails and the DNC emails were released by Wikileaks, so let's begin by looking at what Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has said with regard to the source of the leaks.In an interview with Sean Hannity, Assange said, "Our source is not the Russian government." 1 Assange has repeatedly stated that the leaked emails didn't come from a state party.For the record, Wikileaks have an eleven year record of authenticity. Throughout their existence not a single email or document has ever been proven to be fake.Craig Murray, a close associate and friend of Assange, was more forthright than Julian. He called the CIA claims “bulls***”, and added, “They are absolutely making it up. 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." 2 So Craig Murray has stated in the strongest possible terms that the DNC emails were leaked by a DNC insider.In an interview with Dutch TV 3 shortly after DNC insider Seth Rich was murdered, Julian Assange said:The following day, Wikileaks offered a $20,000 reward for information leading to the conviction of Seth Rich's murderer.Why would Wikileaks offer a $20,000 reward to help catch Seth Rich's killer? And why did Julian Assange mention Seth Rich in direct response to a question about Wikileaks' sources?Despite Craig Murray having met the DNC insider who leaked the DNC emails, the CIA have made zero attempt to interview Murray. Doesn't it seem strange that the CIA, who are supposedly investigating who leaked the emails to Wikileaks, have made no attempt to interview a man who credibly claims to have met the leaker? The CIA's failure to interview Craig Murray can only be explained by two possible explanations:* The CIA are incredibly incompetent beyond words.* The CIA are covering up the truth, and to interview Craig Murray would destroy their lies.Again, if the CIA actually cared about identifying the DNC leaker, why have they made no attempt to interview Craig Murray?Over a year has passed since the DNC claimed their servers were hacked, and yet the FBI have yet to even examine the DNC servers! Instead, the DNC hired 'Crowdstrike', a cybersecurity firm with little credibility 4 , to examine their servers, and the FBI simply accepted what Crowdstrike claimed!Doesn't it seem weird that the FBI would accept the word of a cybersecurity firm with little credibility and who were essentially a PR firm hired by the DNC to do damage limitation, without examining the servers for themselves?Over a year after the DNC's fake Russia claims were first made, why have the FBI still not yet examined the DNC's servers?Crowdstrike's retraction 5 of many of the claims from their original report came after Hillary failed to win the election. Why would Crowdstrike retract their claims once it became apparent that Hillary wouldn't be president? Could the retraction be an act of self-protection once they realized Hillary wouldn't be able to protect them from scrutiny?Unsurprisingly, when Crowdstrike retracted many of their false claims, the corrupt leftist media failed to report on this retraction. Doesn't it seem weird that, despite the corrupt leftist media's obsession with Russia and the leaks, something as significant as Crowdstrike retracting many of their original claims would go unreported by the corrupt leftist media? Are the corrupt leftist media not concerned that this could be seen as a desire on their part to keep their gullible viewers and readers in the dark?Any cybersecurity firm with any credibility, and with confidence in the integrity of their claims, would be happy to cooperate and back up their claims. Yet Crowdstrike have refused to cooperate with the House Intelligence Committee. 5 Why would Crowdstrike refuse to cooperate unless they have something to hide?Wikileaks revealed that the CIA have the capability to plant false malware fingerprints on computers. 6 Whether or not that happened with the DNC servers, the fact remains that the CIA have this capability, which calls into question their credibility.And regardless, the malware fingerprints actually destroy the CIA's claims because...Independent analysis of the malware has shown that it was actually Ukrainian in origin, not Russian.A detailed analysis of the malware by cybersecurity experts Wordfence concludes:This analysis of the malware therefore destroys the CIA's claims.Why were the CIA unable to spot this? And why have they failed to address the fact that their claims were false, and that the malware is actually Ukranian, not Russian? Again, is this incompetence, or a deliberate cover up?The corrupt leftist media have pushed the false narrative that 17 US agencies agreed with the CIA's claims of Russian hacking being behind the DNC leaks. However, the '17 agencies' claim has no basis in reality.Reuters reported that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) which oversees the 17 agency-strong U.S. intelligence community "has not endorsed the CIA's assessment because of a lack of conclusive evidence." 8 Reuters also reported that, "The Federal Bureau of Investigation, whose evidentiary standards require it to make cases that can stand up in court, declined to accept the CIA's analysis." 8 This suggests the FBI knew the CIA's claims wouldn't stand up in court.The FBI/DHS joint release on the allegations that Russia were behind the leaks "repeated the allegations as unquestioned fact, while at the same time offering no evidence." As Antiwar.com reported 9 , "The 'joint report' is mostly an advisory letter on how to avoid certain types of cyber attacks, but includes a few page narrative of what happened, again attributing everything to Russia but not backing up those assertions."In summary, the FBI and CIA have made diplomatically damaging claims which could potentially have negative consequences for international relations, yet they have repeatedly refused to back up their claims with evidence. The reason they have refused to back up their claims with conclusive evidence is because their is none. All they have is the claims by Crowdstrike, which were subsequently largely retracted, and the malware from the joint report, which has been proven to be Ukranian in origin, not Russian.And finally, as reported previously 10 , a new metadata study has revealed the Guccifer 2.0 files were transferred locally, not over the internet, destroying any possibility of hacking by an overseas party.The metadata study states, "The 23 MB/s transfer rate supports the conclusion that the files were initially copied locally and not over the internet."This destroys the fake narrative that the Guccifer 2.0 files were obtained by a Russian or Romanian hacker.So to summarize:* Julian Assange has confirmed the Wikileaks' source was not a state party.* Craig Murray has met the DNC leaker and confirmed it was a 'DNC insider'.* Shortly after the murder of DNC insider Seth Rich, Assange said, "Whistleblowers go to very significant risks."* The CIA have failed to interview Craig Murray, suggesting incompetence or a cover up.* The FBI have never examined the DNC's servers.* Crowdstrike have since retracted many of their original claims.* Crowdstrike have refused to cooperate with the House Intelligence Committee.* The CIA have the capability to plant fake malware fingerprints.* The malware from the joint report is Ukranian anyway, not Russian.* The ODNI "has not endorsed the CIA's assessment because of a lack of conclusive evidence."* The FBI decided the CIA's claims wouldn't stand up in court.* The 'joint report' fails to back up its claims with evidence.* The DNC files were copied locally, not hacked.To put it simply, anyone who still believes the 'Russian hacking' narrative is an absolute moron, and is assisting the Deep State in their treasonous efforts to subvert democracy.Update: Award winning investigative journalist Seymour Hersh has revealed that Seth Rich leaked the DNC emails to Wikileaks:- - - - - - - - - -