Daily Mail is a tabloid.
But even that is better than the "usual media outlet" used by Craig Murray (and most of the right-wing blogs "reporting" his words) - Alex Jones Bitch! Two days BEFORE the Daily Mail interview.
You know... the inter-dimensional baby-sacrificing lizard-men guy.
Which is where that Craig Murray story started in that form - where it's a talk about him being center stage, claiming everyone else is wrong.
Back then they still had to cherry pick the actual Guardian article where Murray's stance was mentioned as an "opposing view" to the title and the core of the article.
CIA concludes Russia interfered to help Trump win election, say reports
Isn't it great that now tabloids are giving time directly to Murray, so you can quote a rag without linking to the article where he comes off as profanity slinging loon?
Or better yet! His blog.
Where he rants about the conspiracy to remove that Guardian article (while begging people to buy his book) from the Guardian's front page.
While the article was not taken down, the home page links to it vanished and it was replaced by a ludicrous one repeating the mad CIA allegations against Russia and now claiming â" incredibly â" that the CIA believe the FBI is deliberately blocking the information on Russian collusion.
Apparently, Murray doesn't understand the concept of a dynamic web page.
But he sure as hell leans towards conspiracy theorist way of thinking, doesn't he? Can't find that link... must be a conspiracy to hide it from you.
Just like when you spam people with your conspiracy theories and no one rushes to your blog - it must be Facebook conspiring against you.
Good thing that "calling out Facebook" still works. Or as some might call it - asking his followers to spam his link around.
All 650 of them, which by his math means his blog should get 200k+ hits. But he'll clearly settle for a dozen or so.
And while we're talking about his blog... do notice how his claims change over time.
First he, in his own words, "met the person who leaked them" while talking to the Guardian and quoting himself from the same "hidden" article.
By the time he talks to Daily Mail - it's "leakers" and "sources" and "identities" (Oh my!).
And he's gone from "I've met the person who leaked them" to this:
Murray said he retrieved the package from a source during a clandestine meeting in a wooded area near American University, in northwest D.C.
He said the individual he met with was not the original person who obtained the information, but an intermediary.
Apparently, now he DIDN'T actually meet the person who leaked them. Or was that persons?
It's kinda hard to keep up with all the... how does Murray put it? Ah yes... Utter bullshit.
BUT WAIT! THAT'S NOT ALL!
As a good pal and collaborator of Julian Assange he's coming to Assange's defense once again.
Cause if what CIA claims is true - Assange is nothing but a "useful idiot" to Putin. Which makes Murray into a... what exactly?
Funny thing is... Last time he came to Assange's defense like that he publicly outed one of the women who were accusing Assange of sexual assault.
This time he does no such thing while admonishing "truly execrable" journalists for treating "the US government, for goodness sake" (actual quote) as a credible source.
While HE and Assange ARE credible because "I have a reputation for inconvenient truth telling" (another actual quote).
And yet he doesn't out the source he claims to know.
Cause as we all know - inconvenient truth telling extends just as far as Assange's sexual assault charges.
Not to such petty things as elections in the USA being influenced by Russia.
There are leaks... and then there are leaks. Comrade.