> Who better than a conspiracy theorist to report on actual conspiracies?
Conspiracy theorists don't typically report on real conspiracies, they report on imagined ones.
So having a conspiracy theorist report on a real conspiracy can actually have the effect of making the real conspiracy less believable (e.g. a stopped clock may be right twice a day, but you'll disbelieve it even then).
He claimed that he received the DNC and Podesta e-mails from a disgruntled DNC source in a park and forwarded them to WikiLeaks on Assange's behalf. He lacks any credibility. Even Assange had to tell people that "Craig Murray is not authorized to talk on behalf of WikiLeaks," afterwards.
Anyone reading this is free to make of Murray what they want but I genuinely think he is a textbook useful idiot. He obviously has a grudge against the west, sometimes he's a useful counterpoint but other times he's literally just spreading FUD in favour of whoever is not the west (i.e. they weren't GRU agents, they were a gay couple, honest!)
Conspiracy theorists are absolutely awful at reporting facts. When talking about things that are actually true, they often still manage to mix in so many untrue and misleading things that the actual truth gets clouded.
The UK's tabloid media are even worse at reporting facts. They're also notorious for hacking phones and spying on people.
Murray may or may not have done something stupid, he may or may not have said things that were inaccurate.
But he's still basically a blogger with a relatively insignificant profile. Not a national figure with a huge reach.
When an ancient law gets dusted off and thrown at someone like him, while much more obvious media transgressions are ignored, it becomes very hard to conclude that this has anything to do with a disinterested thirst for fairness and justice.
