The Real Muellergate Scandal 240

Robert Mueller is either a fool, or deeply corrupt. I do not think he is a fool.

I did not comment instantly on the Mueller Report as I was so shocked by it, I have been waiting to see if any other facts come to light in justification. Nothing has. I limit myself here to that area of which I have personal knowledge – the leak of DNC and Podesta emails to Wikileaks. On the wider question of the corrupt Russian 1% having business dealings with the corrupt Western 1%, all I have to say is that if you believe that is limited in the USA by party political boundaries, you are a fool.

On the DNC leak, Mueller started with the prejudice that it was “the Russians” and he deliberately and systematically excluded from evidence anything that contradicted that view.

Mueller, as a matter of determined policy, omitted key steps which any honest investigator would undertake. He did not commission any forensic examination of the DNC servers. He did not interview Bill Binney. He did not interview Julian Assange. His failure to do any of those obvious things renders his report worthless.

There has never been, by any US law enforcement or security service body, a forensic examination of the DNC servers, despite the fact that the claim those servers were hacked is the very heart of the entire investigation. Instead, the security services simply accepted the “evidence” provided by the DNC’s own IT security consultants, Crowdstrike, a company which is politically aligned to the Clintons.

That is precisely the equivalent of the police receiving a phone call saying:

“Hello? My husband has just been murdered. He had a knife in his back with the initials of the Russian man who lives next door engraved on it in Cyrillic script. I have employed a private detective who will send you photos of the body and the knife. No, you don’t need to see either of them.”

There is no honest policeman in the world who would agree to that proposition, and neither would Mueller were he remotely an honest man.

Two facts compound this failure.

The first is the absolutely key word of Bill Binney, former Technical Director of the NSA, the USA’s $14 billion a year surveillance organisation. Bill Binney is an acknowledged world leader in cyber surveillance, and is infinitely more qualified than Crowdstrike. Bill states that the download rates for the “hack” given by Crowdstrike are at a speed – 41 Megabytes per second – that could not even nearly be attained remotely at the location: thus the information must have been downloaded to a local device, eg a memory stick. Binney has further evidence regarding formatting which supports this.

Mueller’s identification of “DC Leaks” and “Guccifer 2.0” as Russian security services is something Mueller attempts to carry off by simple assertion.Mueller shows DNC Leaks to have been the source of other, unclassified emails sent to Wikileaks that had been obtained under a Freedom of Information request and then Mueller simply assumes, with no proof, the same route was used again for the leaked DNC material. His identification of the Guccifer 2.0 persona with Russian agents is so flimsy as to be laughable. Nor is there any evidence of the specific transfer of the leaked DNC emails from Guccifer 2.0 to Wikileaks. Binney asserts that had this happened, the packets would have been instantly identifiable to the NSA.

Bill Binney is not a “deplorable”. He is the former Technical Director of the NSA. Mike Pompeo met him to hear his expertise on precisely this matter. Binney offered to give evidence to Mueller. Yet did Mueller call him as a witness? No. Binney’s voice is entirely unheard in the report.

Mueller’s refusal to call Binney and consider his evidence was not the action of an honest man.

The second vital piece of evidence we have is from Wikileaks Vault 7 release of CIA material, in which the CIA themselves outline their capacity to “false flag” hacks, leaving behind misdirecting clues including scraps of foreign script and language. This is precisely what Crowdstrike claim to have found in the “Russian hacking” operation.

So here we have Mueller omitting the key steps of independent forensic examination of the DNC servers and hearing Bill Binney’s evidence. Yet this was not for lack of time. While deliberately omitting to take any steps to obtain evidence that might disprove the “Russian hacking” story, Mueller had boundless time and energy to waste in wild goose chases after totally non-existent links between Wikileaks and the Trump campaign, including the fiasco of interviewing Roger Stone and Randy Credico.

It is worth remembering that none of the charges against Americans arising from the Mueller inquiry have anything to do with Russian collusion or Trump-Wikileaks collusion, which simply do not exist. The charges all relate to entirely extraneous matters dug up, under the extraordinary US system of “Justice”, to try to blackmail those charged with unrelated crimes turned up by the investigation, into fabricating evidence of Russian collusion. The official term for this process of blackmail is of course “plea-bargaining.”

Mueller has indicted 12 Russians he alleges are the GRU agents responsible for the “hack”. The majority of these turn out to be real people who, ostensibly, have jobs and lives which are nothing to do with the GRU. Mueller was taken aback when, rather than simply being in absentia, a number of them had representation in court to fight the charges. Mueller had to back down and ask for an immediate adjournment as soon as the case opened, while he fought to limit disclosure. His entire energies since on this case have been absorbed in submitting motions to limit disclosure, individual by individual, with the object of ensuring that the accused Russians can be convicted without ever seeing, or being able to reply to, the evidence against them. Which is precisely the same as his attitude to contrary evidence in his Report.

Mueller’s failure to examine the servers or take Binney’s evidence pales into insignificance compared to his attack on Julian Assange. Based on no conclusive evidence, Mueller accuses Assange of receiving the emails from Russia. Most crucially, he did not give Assange any opportunity to answer his accusations. For somebody with Mueller’s background in law enforcement, declaring somebody in effect guilty, without giving them any opportunity to tell their side of the story, is plain evidence of malice.

Inexplicably, for example, the Mueller Report quotes a media report of Assange stating he had “physical proof” the material did not come from Russia, but Mueller simply dismisses this without having made any attempt at all to ask Assange himself.

It is also particularly cowardly as Julian was and is held incommunicado with no opportunity to defend himself. Assange has repeatedly declared the material did not come from the Russian state or from any other state. He was very willing to give evidence to Mueller, which could have been done by video-link, by interview in the Embassy or by written communication. But as with Binney and as with the DNC servers, the entirely corrupt Mueller was unwilling to accept any evidence which might contradict his predetermined narrative.

Mueller’s section headed “The GRU’s Transfer of Stolen Material to Wikileaks” is a ludicrous farrago of internet contacts between Wikileaks and persons not proven to be Russian, transferring material not proven to be the DNC leaks. It too is destroyed by Binney and so pathetic that, having pretended he had proven the case of internet transfer, Mueller then gives the game away by adding “The office cannot rule out that stolen documents were transferred by intermediaries who visited during the summer of 2016”. He names Mr Andrew Muller-Maguhn as a possible courier. Yet again, he did not ask Mr Muller-Maguhn to give evidence. Nor did he ask me, and I might have been able to help him on a few of these points.

To run an “investigation” with a pre-determined idea as to who are the guilty parties, and then to name and condemn those parties in a report, without hearing the testimony of those you are accusing, is a method of proceeding that puts the cowardly and corrupt Mr Mueller beneath contempt.

Mueller gives no evidence whatsoever to back up his simple statement that Seth Rich was not the source of the DNC leak. He accuses Julian Assange of “dissembling” by referring to Seth Rich’s murder. It is an interesting fact that the US security services have shown precisely the same level of interest in examining Seth Rich’s computers that they have shown in examining the DNC servers. It is also interesting that this murder features in a report of historic consequences like that of Mueller, yet has had virtually no serious resource put into finding the killer.

Mueller’s condemnation of Julian Assange for allegedly exploiting the death of Seth Rich, would be infinitely more convincing if the official answer to the question “who murdered Seth Rich?” was not “who cares?”.


Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with the articles, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.

Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.

Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:

Recurring Donations


Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

240 thoughts on “The Real Muellergate Scandal

1 2 3
  • Dawn Garmon

    The justice will be done when Mueller is sent to a high security prison to serve a 50-month term!

      • Courtenay Barnett

        Remember the sentence Assange got for a minor Bail Act infraction in all the circumstance – he ( Assange) was facing.

        So – the ‘stich up job’ that Mueller did – in his so-called investigation – smacks of collusion, cover-up and conspiracy combined – so accordingly he merits a much stiffer penalty. So, I imposed an appropriate sentence.

        • Courtenay Barnett

          Upon an application for clarification from Muller’s Counsel – I said this:-

          ” In my 5 year sentence, should you have read my sentenceing remarks in their entiery I did say:-
          Collusion I sentence you to 5 years; cover-up I sentence you to 5 years; conspiracy I sentence you to 5 years all without parole. Mr. Muller what you did was reprehensible. You fully well knew that you were not conducting a proper inquiry for from the evidence against you – you simply never focused on the most evident and available sources to be investigagted. What you actually did was avoided and deflected by deliberately and calculatedly focusing on areas of inquiry that you full well knew would lead to misleading conclusions. For all the foregoing reasons your sentences shall run consecutively. You have damaged not only Julian Assange and smeared his Wikileaks organisation, but you have disgraced your own country. Take him away.”


    • John2o2o

      If you are referring to Julian, he has been sentenced to 50 weeks not 50 months.

  • Salvador Moreno

    “Robert Mueller is either a fool, or deeply corrupt.”

    Sadly he is both. He led a blinkered investigation where he conveniently tiptoed around evidence that would implicate his former colleagues in the FBI or collapse the Russia interference narrative.The masterminds of the charade as we know now were John Brennan, his handpicked crew of CIA & NSA officials & agents & British intel. The FBI was certainly involved but relied on false information fed to them by Brennan & co. The Russia interference narrative will continue to unravel because none of it holds up to scrutiny.

  • Wikikettle

    Rare meeting and discussion on you tube about CIA and NSA. “Intelligence Assesment with Kevin Shipp whistleblowers roundtable with Bill Binney & John Kiriakou.” Guys on the inside who spoke out and speak about how they were treated and how we live in a post democratic world.

  • Jerry Small

    Agree, 110%. Know Binney. He has been telling us this analysis since 2016-today. Read this morning that Mueller may be in Deep Shit wrt dealing with Christopher Steele and Fusion GPS. As you stated above, Binney briefed Pompeo within the past two weeks ago. And Pompeo to Trump and his inner Circle and cabinet members. I believe ADM Mike Rogers (DIRNSA) briefed Trump on these matters at their first meeting two weeks after the election.

    Trump has known about the Deep State’s hoax and has been playing them all along. What a helluva sting operation. Trump is a freakin genius. As of yesterday, the Storm is kinda over and cleanup operations are underway. God Bless America. In God We Trust. MAG. WWG1WGA. WE’LL WIN, WHATEVER IT TAKES. With God’s grace.

    • Dave

      Yes perhaps a sting, under the guise of getting Trump he was getting the evidence against everyone else, but only perhaps, because he has done a lot of Deep State dirty work, but then again must be open to prosecution himself.

      • Courtenay Barnett

        I already did the job just here:-

        “Upon an application for clarification from Muller’s Counsel – I said this:-
        ” In my 5 year sentence, should you have read my sentenceing remarks in their entiery I did say:-
        Collusion I sentence you to 5 years; cover-up I sentence you to 5 years; conspiracy I sentence you to 5 years all without parole. Mr. Muller what you did was reprehensible. You fully well knew that you were not conducting a proper inquiry for from the evidence against you – you simply never focused on the most evident and available sources to be investigagted. What you actually did was avoided and deflected by deliberately and calculatedly focusing on areas of inquiry that you full well knew would lead to misleading conclusions. For all the foregoing reasons your sentences shall run consecutively. You have damaged not only Julian Assange and smeared his Wikileaks organisation, but you have disgraced your own country. Take him away.”

  • Barbara Boyd

    Craig: This is an excellent piece but you are conflating two cases with respect to the Mueller indictment of Russians. One involves the small and laughable social media campaign and indicts the Internet Research Agency and several individuals. That is the one where the IRA has appeared through counsel and where Mueller is fighting discovery every inch of the way. The second is the GRU case, indicting several alleged GRU officials for the claimed hack of the GRU and Podesta. That is the one where no one has appeared nor will the appear, why would they?

    • Courtenay Barnett


      ” The second is the GRU case, indicting several alleged GRU officials for the claimed hack of the GRU and Podesta. That is the one where no one has appeared nor will the appear, why would they?”

      The answers are simple:-

      1. Can you imagine anyone from the Pentagon being charged by Russia and actually appearing before a Russian court on indictment; If you have answered that one – then for the said reasons in reverse no one shall be appearing in a US court from the intelligence arm of Russia’s armed forces.
      2. Further there is no extradition treaty between the US and Russia.
      3. And overall Mueller was engaged in an overall cover-up job with regards to the DNC alleged Russian hack. So, quite effecectively by properly indicting some of the crooks Trump had been involved with and had surrounded himself with in the White House, Mueller very smartly instills in the public mind that similarly by way of inference that having indicted GRU persons then by not appearing the Russians have something to hide.

      Mueller knew full well at 1 and 2 above and so all he had to do at 3 was an effective hop – skip and jump both way beyond existing laws and reality.

  • Sharp Ears

    The Trumps are not staying in Buckingham Palace when they visit the UK on June 3rd for three days, the reason being that alterations are taking place in the Belgian Suite which is where Obomber stayed. Handy that.

    Donald Trump WON’T be allowed to stay at Buckingham Palace during UK state visit
    No room at the Palace for American president Trump – even though Barack Obama stayed in Belgian Suite

  • John2o2o

    Well, okay. But looking at the bigger picture I’m forced to ask if there is anyone in public life in the United States who is not corrupt? Corruptability seems to me to be a requisite qualification for membership of the Washington elite. Swamp? It’s a bloody sewer!

  • Douglas Hinds

    Yes, this thoroughly discredits RussiaGate.

    it’s also destroys the Mueller Report and characterized Mueller himself, fairly.

  • Dredd

    From Jason Goodman: “Intelligence Assessment with Kevin Shipp Whistleblowers Roundtable with Bill Binney & John Kiriakou” (1:27:30)

    Bill Binney: Now remember, Mueller and his team were the group that fabricated evidence against us. I mean, I like to deal in facts: things that I can look at and chew and see, and say “there it is, you can prove it”; it’s demonstrable, over and over again. Anybody can look at it and see it too. So that’s called “scientific rigour”; you know, that’s the whole process of dealing with scientific facts and not opinion – or belief, or desire, or whatever agenda you have – other than something factual. So I looked at it with other people, in terms of the dates of data change and exchange and the rates and so on, plus the different data files that Guccifer 2 put out there. One file dated 5 July and one September, and they simply merged together into one file, without conflict in time. If you only look at minute, second and millisecond. So he did a range change on the date and the hour. On the data, they split apart into 2 parts. And the random probability of that being able to merge like that is like an infinitesimal. I mean it’s even better than genetics – DNA – probability wise.

    Jason Goodman: When you say “he”, you mean Guccifer 2? Is Guccifer 2 a real person, or is it a construct?

    BB: Of course it is. I think he’s in CIA, myself, but I don’t know that.

    John Kiriakou: Is it one person, Bill?

    BB: It could be a couple, but I mean one person downloaded … there was one download, there was one split … there were the range changes occurred by one operation; so it’s still one, one and one.

    JG: So when you say there was a split: a batch of data was downloaded and split into two?

    BB: Yes, and I have a little algorithm; I run that algorithm and I split it into two parts. Whatever I use: word combinations, or whatever I do.

    JG: So what is it – emails – and some them are here and some of them are here?

    BB: And some are files, and stuff like that. It’s listed on the web, by the way, it was put out as Guccifer 2’s data. So if you look at it, here’s what it was: here’s this file, and the name of the file, and the timestamp at the end of the file. Then the next file: name, timestamp; name, timestamp; and so on. So you can take the difference in the time, and the amount of data that was there, and calculate the speed. And you could do that for every file.

    So the highest rate we got was 49 MegaBytes per second. And some of our people thought that that was do-able; we of course said it wasn’t. So they didn’t believe it, so we demonstrated it, or tried to.

    The best we could do from datacenter to datacenter … I mean I had people in Europe that I asked to help me out and they did, they’d do it. They went to Albania, and Belgrade, and also Netherlands, and the UK. And the best we got was between a datacenter in New Jersey and a datacenter in the UK, and that was 12 MegaBytes per second – one fourth of the rate, less than one fourth. But the point also is, that didn’t count on top of that, the housekeeping that had to be added to it as it was sent across the line. That adds up the amount of bytes per second.

    JG: It’s also unlikely that a hacker would be sitting in a datacenter, particularly.

    BB: Well, that’s true, but also I think I’ve got the formula for transfer rates and the amount of data that’s allowed by the ISPs. OK, there’s a little formula that goes with it, and it goes up: if you have a hundred megabytes you get 0.8 MegaBytes per second, if you have a 200 MegaByte line, you get 1.6 MegaBytes per second, for every hundred Megabits, it’s 0.8 MegaBytes, so that’s kind of the formula, and the guy who ran it between datacenters, I think it was a 1.5 GigaByte line – and that formula would work because he got 12 MegaBytes.

    JG: So were you able to surmise who may have done this?

    BB: Well, no we can’t, but we know that it was a download. All the rates fit a USB port with a thumbdrive: you can do that on the thumbdrive, but it won’t go across the web. I actually said to the other members of VIPS who thought it could, that if you guys want to try this, let me know where you want to try it, I’ll help you do it. And no-one’s come forward yet. In fact, no-one in the intelligence community has disputed that rate.

    JG: So do you think it’s Seth Rich, downloading, and … ?

    BB: Well, certain people have said that, haven’t they? Like Sy Hersch – he said there’s an FBI intelligence report to that effect.

    JG: Actually, what Sy Hersch, on that recorded tape, recorded by Ed Butowski, I asked Sy Hersch about that, and he said …

    BB: I know you did, I know you did, but no, you, no, you (*smiles*) … let’s put it this way. I know that (*looks gravely serious*) and Sy wants to protect his sources, OK? And I believe his sources should be protected. But the point is, there’s supposedly an FBI report. This is not the only person I’m hearing it from, OK. So there’s supposedly an FBI report to that effect. Now if that’s true, the President should say “Give me that report”.

    JG: But how do we trust anything the FBI says? They’re writing reports that fake operations.

    BB: Because if they have that report, it goes against everything they’re doing, and it just negates it all. It says that “OK, anything you guys do now, you have to unequivocally prove, you have to have cast-iron proof.”

    JG: Why would Sy Hersch tell that to Ed Butowski under any circumstances?

    BB: I don’t know. Why do people tell anything to anybody. Why do whistleblowers go to the Washington Post? Why do you do that? Why do people do it?

    Kevin Shipp: I know, I know. You have to sift through so much information, and verify it two, three, four times, the way things are going on, because there’s so much stuff out there.

    BB: That’s true. But very simply put, the Rosenstein indictment of the GRU agents, for being agents, right … hacking, that’s their job, hacking … ours is hacking too. That’s not to say they gave it to Wikileaks, and they use Guccifer 2, which clearly was a fabrication, it wasn’t a hack. So I mean, it can’t go across the web to Europe; I mean, we tried it any number of ways and it couldn’t get there. And so in order to do it in a court of law, they’d have to demonstrate how to make that happen.

    JG: What do you think of this guy John Mark Dougan, who’s in Russia now, who some people of said may be Guccifer, or part of the Guccifer team, and he claims he created DC leaks.

    BB: OK, well, all the timestamps, even if you figure they’re wrong, all the timestamps on the Guccifer 2 data being prepared, show that it’s in the United States.

  • OnlyHalfALooney

    Sweden to reopen “rape” case against Assange.

    Now this will be interesting. Will the UK extradite Assange to the US on flimsy charges (“conspiracy to hack a password”) or to Sweden on only slightly less flimsy charges (having intercourse without a condom without the woman’s prior permission).

    One odd thing: the Swedish prosecutor claims Sweden will issue a European Arrest Warrant when Assange has served his current sentence. But the UK will almost certainly be out of the EU by then (Macron says he will not permit any further delays). So an EAW will probably not apply.

  • Arioch

    What i find interesting about “USB Thumb Drive” theory is that arguments for it are rather weak, vague, inconclusive.

    Frankly, there should be no problem for the discourse mongers to face them head on and dismiss on purely technical merit.

    However they avoid this issue like imps avoid holy water.


    Can it be that all those Intelligence Veterans only published little of arguments and have a lot up their sleeves? And the discourcemongers, knowing what actually happened inside DNC, understand it and refuse taking the bait by dismissing weak arguments made public yet?

    If that is not the reason, then why?

  • Norumbega

    In discussing that area of the Mueller report of which he claims personal knowledge, but remaining reticent about the details of that personal knowledge, Murray drops a couple of additional hints which may be usefully compiled and compared with what he has said elsewhere (a task for another time).

    However, most of his discussion above is based on arguments that have origins other than his personal knowledge. This is an understandable strategy under the circumstances, but where a number of misconceptions are prevalent, some of these have been allowed to creep into his own commentary. Unfortunately, the result is that some distinctions that Murray himself probably wishes would be better appreciated with respect to his own account of the DNC and Podesta leaks have been blurred.

    Reading between some lines, Murray’s basic account is as follows: The DNC and Podesta leaks to WikiLeaks were from two different sources, both Americans, the former being from within the DNC and the latter from within US intelligence (probably NSA). And he has said flatly, “Guccifer [2.0] is not the source for WikiLeaks.” That is to say, Guccifer 2.0 had nothing to do with either of the two sources of the published materials.

    Murray’s knowledge of the identity of the Podesta leaker is based on a face-to-face meeting in Washington, DC, though contrary to the Daily Mail report (“You should never, ever believe anything you read in the Daily Mail,” cautions Murray) – which has Murray himself acting as courier for one of the leaks – there was no hand-off of a “thumb drive”, as the materials were by then (Sept. 25, 2016) already safely with WikiLeaks. The purpose of the secret rendezvous was “administrative” only.

    Murray also appears to know the identity of the DNC leaker – presumably because Assange has told him. In this context, Murray has offered an alternative interpretation of Julian Assange’s statements regarding Seth Rich. Assange’s concern would be that Rich may have been killed by someone who _thought_ he was the leaker – whether correctly or incorrectly. That’s a nice way of avoiding direct confirmation that Rich was indeed the leaker. But it still assumes some rational basis for so thinking existed (regardless of whether Rich’s actual killer(s) knew this and acted with that motivation). Perhaps Rich had been in contact with WikiLeaks but hadn’t actually been source of the DNC materials. Or perhaps Assange knew that Rich had been falsely been made to look like the leaker. (I would not rate this very probable, but this is separate from Mueller’s charge that Assange himself was dishonestly associating Rich with the DNC leak, in order to deflect attention from the real source.) Or perhaps Seth Rich was indeed the principal person responsible for the DNC leak (This seems most likely).

    See: “December 13, 2016 – Craig Murray: DNC, Podesta emails leaked, not hacked – Episode 4328” Scott Horton YT channel
    “Craig Murray: Russia Played No Role At All In The Email Leaks, interviewed by David Swanson” (December 13, 2016)
    “Free Assange!” Jason Goodman YT channel, June 19, 2017

    So getting to the errors in Murray’s post above, the key one is one that many others have also made. The studies of Binney and others regarding download speeds attainable over the internet relate to one particular set of data that Guccifer 2.0 released in September 2016. The metadata refer to a downloading event that occurred on July 5, 2016, which because of the indicated speeds, could not have been accomplished via remote hack, but must have been a local download. (And Guccifer 2.0 had made public statements on July 4 and 6 seemingly referring to this event – see Adam Carter’s timeline at People then go on from this inference to proclaim “it was a leak, not a hack” – as if this conclusion might apply to the DNC or Podesta materials published by WikiLeaks.

    But as pointed out above, Murray elsewhere denies that either the DNC or Podesta materials came from G-2.

    Adding to the confusion, Murray then writes: “Binney has further evidence regarding formatting which supports this.” This sentence refers to Binney’s recent work with Larry Johnson (and separately by The Forensicator), that actually DOES refer to metadata in the DNC and Podesta materials published by WikiLeaks (distinct from the previous work which relates to G-2). They found that all the DNC metadata showed FAT formatting, whereas the Podesta metadata did not. Note that this finding is consistent with Murray’s claim, described above, that the two sets of material had different origins. FAT formatting suggests that the materials had been copied onto storage media such as a thumb drive, CD-ROM, or a $56 Western Digital hard drive – which is the actual, specific media that Ed Butowski says his source, returning from London after a visit with Julian Assange, indicated Seth Rich actually use).

    Another error in Murray’s article confuses the Mueller indictment of the 12 alleged GRU officers with the indictment of the Internet Research Agency/Concord Catering. Also, in my (non-technical) opinion, the CIA’s obfuscation capabilities may be interesting in themselves but irrelevant to the case at hand. Those are capabilities to carry out hacks, while obfuscating the identity of the state-actor doing the hack. But this is a totally different situation from someone only pretending to be a hacker, which is what I think the G-2 persona was all about. Furthermore, I understand that the steps by which the “Russian breadcrumbs” were actually inserted into some of the documents G-2 released have been explained otherwise, notably by Adam Carter.

  • Michael Wilk

    You write this, Mr. Murray:

    “Special Counsel Robert Mueller is either a fool, or deeply corrupt. I do not think he is a fool.”

    I think you’re half right. He is indeed deeply corrupt, but Mueller is also a fool. If his goal was to prevent Caligula Drumpf from being elected to a second term, the last two years have all but guaranteed an outcome that will be the exact opposite. If anything, the boy has destroyed the credibility of any serious investigation into Drumpf’s actual crimes.

  • RAC

    An interesting article and I don’t disagree with any of your points but you seem to have missed out the most important one.
    At the time when this was fresh in the news you claimed to have traveled to the US and picked up the Seth Rich material from an unnamed person and delivered it here, presumably to Wikileaks.
    Does not that piece of information trump all else. Reduce all else into the category of mere confirmation.
    Why were you not called to make a statement to Mueller or the FBI or anybody.
    Did you offer to make any such statement to any of these bodies.
    I’m writing from memory, please correct me if I have got this muddled.

    • Norumbega

      RAC – You are indeed muddled about what precisely Craig Murray has claimed, as are very many other people. First let’s leave Seth Rich out of the matter (at this point in the discussion). The Daily Mail certainly SAID that Murray had claimed to have acted as a courier for one of the relevant leaks to WikiLeaks, BUT PROVIDES NO DIRECT QUOTATION FROM MURRAY SUBSTANTIATING THIS PART OF THE STORY.

      In so far as we can verify what Murray has claimed (in that we can listen for ourselves to his actual words, or read what he has actually written on his blog, or accept provisionally what he is reported to have said where direct quotations are given in the relevant Daily Mail and Guardian articles), Murray nowhere claims this. In fact he has clearly indicated the contrary:

      (1) The (Podesta) materials were already safely with WikiLeaks at the time of his secret meeting near American University (September 25, 2016). (See Murray’s interview with Scott Horton December 13, 2016.)
      (2) He has described the meeting as “administrative” only. (“Even whistleblowers have administration and bureaucracy.”)
      (3) He has denied there was any thumb drive involved: “there wasn’t a thumb drive.”
      (4) In exactly this connection he has said “you should never, ever believe anything you read in the Daily Mail” (On (2)-(4), see Murray’s interview on the Jason Goodman YT channel, June 19, 2017.)

      (Additionally, one may consult Murray’s interview with David Swanson, December 13, 2016, as well as his interview with Randy Credico around the same time.)

      Now, bringing Seth Rich into the picture, Murray has clearly said that the DNC and Podesta leaks to WikiLeaks had two different sources, both American, and strongly hinted that the former was from within the DNC while the latter was from within US intelligence (see my previous post above, as well as an elaborated version of the same given under the version of Murray’s article on Consortium News, and a further post to Consortium News which I’ve written this morning which awaits moderation (expect it to appear publicly within a couple of days – today is May 19)). Presumably his knowledge of the identity of the DNC leaker comes from the fact that Assange has told him. This is the relevant context with which to read Murray’s and Assange’s various statements regarding Seth Rich.

      • RAC

        Thank you for taking the time clarify those details for me. Things get fuzzy with time and it’s good to get things straight.

        • Norumbega

          Thank you for providing the opportunity for correction of an ubiquitous misconception. The post I wrote over the weekend under the repost of Murray’s article on Consortium News is now up, btw.

  • Richard Tamm

    Craig! I really believe you and that Russiagate is pernicious lies. However, I have a friend who is a total believer that Russia is responsible for everything. I sent her your blog, above “The Real Muellergate Scandal”, and she responded with this article that disputes many of the things you wrote:

    I am hoping that, for me and possibly many others who are confronted with this same article, that you can take it and respond to each of the arguments he raises against the veracity and accuracy of your blog. Thanks!

    • Norumbega

      Richard Tamm – I have read the article, and it make entirely valid points, which I myself have been attempting to clear up for a long time. I argued the same things in my first response to Murray’s post, above. It is unfortunate that Murray has indeed muddied the waters with these errors.

      The basic problem here is that Murray is reticent about sharing additional details from his personal knowledge, and so present’s arguments which come from other sources, about which he is prone to error.

      However, the article in question clearly alludes to the fact that there are an abundance of “legitimate reasons for concluding, as Murray does, that Mueller is either a fool or a villain,” and in particular, that Mueller is derelict in not seeking out the sources who can testify on firsthand knowledge that the DNC and Podesta emails published by WikiLeaks were provided by insiders to the DNC and US intelligence, respectively – not by the Russians.

      Murray has stated very plainly that “Guccifer [2.0] is not the source for WikiLeaks. And the idea that the Russian FSB would, you know, carefully hack these emails and then have this vainglorious weirdo personality boasting about it all over the internet, and using Cyrillic script, is just not at all probable when you think about it. The Russians are a great deal more professional than that.” (interview with Scott Horton, December 13, 2016).

      Michael Thau’s point that Binney et al.’s download speed study related to Guccifer 2.0 is irrelevant to the DNC leak to WikiLeaks is perfectly valid if, as Murray claims, Guccifer 2.0 was not the source which provided the DNC emails to WikiLeaks.

      Thau also points to an abundance of evidence (not considered by Mueller) that the Guccifer 2.0 persona was NOT Russian either.

      The key to all this is that we are looking for _three_ sources, and it is most unhelpful to confuse them:

      (1) the DNC leaker, said or hinted by Murray to be an American DNC insider (hinted by Assange and Murray and claimed by several others to be Seth Rich)
      (2) the Podesta leaker, said or hinted by Murray to be an American with legal access to NSA intelligence
      (3) the Guccifer 2.0 persona, said by Mueller to be the Russian GRU despite radical implausibilities as suggested by Murray in the quote given above and also in the article you cite; probably also, in fact, of American origin, deliberately leaving “Russian breadcrumbs” and falsely claiming to be WikiLeaks’ source.

      The errors in this article shouldn’t detract from what Murray has said or hinted (including in the above blog post) regarding his own personal knowledge of the DNC and Podesta leaks. See, in particular:
      Murray’s interview with Scott Horton, December 13, 2016
      Murray’s interview with David Swanson, December 13, 2016
      Murray’s interview on the Jason Goodman YT channel, June 19, 2017
      Murray’s two earlier blog posts referring to his personal knowledge of the leaks “The CIA’s absence of conviction” or mentioning Seth Rich (other title not immediately at hand)
      Murray’s tweet in response to one by me on April 16, 2019

      My own attempts to clarify the whole situation include a long post under “VIPS: Mueller’s Forensics-Free Findings,” Consortium News, March 13
      My comment (#49?) under the recent “Vault 7” article on Moon of Alabama
      Several comments (including one pending today, May 19) under Murray’s blog post above, as reprinted on Consortium News
      Sorry to cite from memory. But hope this helps.

  • Stuart Davies

    All excellent points well stated, Craig. But I would say the fact that Trump and Co have not made a massive media stink about these very same issues is extremely telling, and fits right in with the more recent revelations from Russian foreign minister Lavrov about the exculpatory evidence shared between the US and Russian governments during the end of Obama’s term which proves there was no Russian involvement.

    ” “Speaking about the most recent US presidential campaign in particular, we have had in place an information exchange channel about potential unintended risks arising in cyberspace since 2013. From October 2016 (when the US Democratic Administration first raised this issue) until January 2017 (before Donald Trump’s inauguration), this channel was used to handle requests and responses. Not so long ago, when the attacks on Russia in connection with the alleged interference in the elections reached their high point, we proposed publishing this exchange of messages between these two entities, which engage in staving off cyberspace incidents. I reminded Mr Pompeo about this today. The administration, now led by President Trump, refused to do so. I’m not sure who was behind this decision, but the idea to publish this data was blocked by the United States. However, we believe that publishing it would remove many currently circulating fabrications. Of course, we will not unilaterally make these exchanges public, but I would still like to make this fact known.

    …The Russians clearly think that a release of the communications with the Obama administration would exculpate them. That would also exculpate Trump from any further collusion allegations. Why then does the Trump administration reject the release?”

  • Jason

    Thank you for saying so clearly what I know to be true. I voted for Obama. I watched as HRC took actions with emails that would have immediately lost me my job, teaching license and landed me in court, if I’d ever done even a small fraction, with the federally protected files in my charge, a fraction of what HRC laughingly admitted to doing. She didn’t get my vote – neither did Trump. I listened to evil things MSM said about Trump. I threw it away on a write-in, rather than vote against principles. I determined that day to read and listen to ONLY original source materials – and judge only by verified actions. So Ive been studying transcripts while waiting for Mueller. Craig, you are the first person I’ve found to speak to what is obvious to anyone who opens the report with serious intent. Mueller immediately said “Russians”. I kept reading looking for his documentation. Zip! Nada! I looked for what he found when he searched servers… He Didn’t look?!? Took CrowdStrike’s word ?? Kept reading. Mueller knows because of Gucifer. Huh? Gucifer is a trusted source? Kept reading. Assange lied. Since when? Since never. I don’t have to like or agree with AJ but he’s one of the few persons consistently proven to speak the truth! So I’m looking for what AJ lied about, what he actually said. Mueller didn’t speak to him! No one in the world was more easy to locate. I could even give him directions to basement apartment, Ecudorian Embassy, London. And no one in the world was more anxious to have someone listen. Then I read Mueller’s GRU’s Transfer of Stolen Material. My job requires me to move files around a school district everyday. At this point, I literally could only laugh out loud, and cry. Who moved how many files in how many minutes from outside the building, from a run of the mill server in an everyday ordinary campaign office? I don’t care what magical magnet they held outside, the machinery in that building simply could not have complied in that time frame, no matter how someone coaxed or prodded. It was a joke. I’d been waiting for clarity from Mueller , for honest definitive research and determination of results. I got very carefully fabricated pretense. I no longer trusted MSM to yell foul. I started searching alternative sources. And finally today, I found your article. If a teacher who spends all day with children ages 5 to 12 with special needs, can see the huge gaps, where in the world is everyone else? What happened to common sense?

1 2 3

Comments are closed.