The attempted Clinton-CIA coup against Donald Trump

[Magda Hassan]

Those unnamed CIA sources are supposed to be more reliable than the MSM's unnamed CIA sources? How?

Except they are not un-named.

David you do understand that hacking the emails is one process (done by one party), and then the handing off of them to Wikileaks is another process (probably done by another party). There could very well be evidence for the first event, and not for the second.

The emails were not 'hacked'. No email server had their password protection busted and was then entered by unauthorised persons. Did not happen.
What did happen was that some one with authorised access, either from the DNC or the NSA or other intel agency, downloaded the emails.

Yes, and you're saying that the emails were leaked by a disgruntled insider, yet provide no real evidence to support this.

Yes there is. Craig Murray met the person in DC when he was there recently. From his interview with the UK Daily Mail http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...iders.html

Neither of [the leaks] came from the Russians,' Murray said. The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks.'
He said the leakers were motivated by disgust at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the tilting of the primary election playing field against Bernie Sanders.'
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.

And further clarification from Murray in the comments section at his blog:

Yes I did not tell the Mail I was the guy who carried the emails back though. I think they were already with WikiLeaks before I went to Washington. Interestingly I also did not say it was an intermediary I said I did not know if I knew the person's real identity or they were operating under an alias, or if they were themselves the principal.