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



 


240 thoughts on “The Real Muellergate Scandal

1 2 3
  • MJ

    “thus the information must have been downloaded to a local device, eg a memory stick”

    41megabytes per second is very fast indeed, beyond the scope of your average memory stick. Must have been a super duper memory stick.

    • Spencer Eagle

      Very often megabytes are confused with megabits, that said, if the speed was 41 megabytes per second then it would not be a USB stick, more likely a laptop on the servers wired local network. Before anyone starts cutting and pasting manufacturers specs on memory sticks, you have to remember optimal transfer speeds are only achievable with single contiguous files, thousands of files typically found on a server would be very much slower to transfer.

    • Jonathan

      Let’s see. Should I listen to Bill Binney or a random guy on the internet who identifies himself with a two letter handle? I’m so torn! What a dilemma!

      • MJ

        Pass. I suppose you could try copying some files onto a memory stck and seeing what speeds you get. Only joking.

    • Mighty Drunken

      Theoretically USB 2.0 flash drives could reach 60 MB/s but usually the write speed is significantly slower. USB 3.0 is much faster and there are flash drives with much faster write speeds than 41 MB/s. It would be interesting to analyse the timestamps as flash drives tend to start fast and then the write speed falls quickly as the cache fills up.

    • Arbed

      Bill Binney actually tested what transfer speeds could be achieved for transoceanic transfer with colleagues in the UK and various parts of Europe (to include same timezones as Moscow and Romania) and they could only achieve about a quarter of the rate showing in the metadata of stuff the Guccifer2 persona posted. More importantly, though, the metadata revealed tell-tale details which showed conclusively FAT-format artifacts that ONLY appear in downloads to USBs. For the techies, see here: https://theforensicator.wordpress.com/guccifer-2-ngp-van-metadata-analysis/

      For the full take-down of the Mueller report from a digital forensics perspective, this article will blow your socks off. Long, but written in plain English, fully sourced and indisputable. Enjoy!

      The Mueller Report – Expensive Estimations And Elusive Evidence
      http://g-2.space/muellerreport/

    • Tom Welsh

      Computer technology advances very swiftly, so one must beware of making blanket assertions that may no longer be correct.

      “TRANSFER 4GB TO DRIVE IN LESS THAN 15 SECONDS”
      The SanDisk Extreme PRO USB 3.1 Solid State Flash Drive delivers super-fast solid state performance in a USB flash drive. A game-changer in the USB storage category, this flash drive offers read speeds of up to 420MB/s and write speeds of up to 380MB/s1 that let you transfer everything fast. With capacities up to 256GB*, there’s plenty of room to easily manage massive files”.

      https://www.sandisk.co.uk/home/usb-flash/extremepro-usb

      Such flash sticks can be bought for pocket change. USB 2 is limited to 480 Mbits/sec (about 48 Mbytes/sec), but USB 3 – which permits speeds of up to 5Gbits/sec (about 500 Mbytes/sec) – has been available since November 2008.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB#Version_history

      • Phill

        All this talk about “this type of USB is fast enough” , “this one isn’t” etc is irrelevant. The cliam is that it was done over the interent and with a speed of 41 megabytes per second – for that to happen over the internet you would need speeds of 328 megabits per second which many people don’t even have now, let alone back in 2016. Plus all computers/servers involved would have to have the ability to transfer at rate – both the one doing the “hacking” and DNC’s own servers.

        There’s is also the fact that if it was done over the internet, the NSA would have proof. Yet when they came up with their conclusion about the “hack” they only had “moderate confidence” it was a hack (whereas the CIA and FBI expressed the widely reported “high confidence”). Now, if there is any agency out of those 3 who is most qualified to judge if it was a hack or not, it’s the NSA, and yet even they couldn’t say it was a hack. Because it wasn’t.

        • Tom Welsh

          Fair enough, Phill. Logically you are quite right.

          However I wanted to make sure that ALL the facts and figures were correct. This is a crucially important issue, and any slight weakness in any part of the argument allows doubt to creep in.

          It’s like a case being pleaded in court. You want everything to be bullet-proof, or the opposing barrister/advocate is able to infiltrate and spread fear, uncertainty and doubt.

          Therefore I wanted to dismiss any suggestion that a USB stick would not be fast enough to copy the data at the rate specified.

  • Vivian O'Blivion

    Everyone has their favourite “tell” in a complex conspiracy to deceive. In the JFK case my favourite is the Mexico City episode, other holes in the Warren report are available.
    With Mueller, inconsistencies in his narrative regards technical aspects of the Wiki files are compelling. Equally compellingly is the failure of the report to address the blinding obvious attempt by the Deep State to set up an insurance policy against a Trump victory by entrapping George Popadopoulos.

    https://consortiumnews.com/2019/04/04/the-tale-of-a-deep-state-target/

    Popadopoulos is a deplorable in my book, with a history of working for Washington, Right wing, Zionist think tanks. There is some schadenfreude to be derived in the Israelis being involved in setting Popadopoulos up.
    According to the Consortium News review by Daniel Lazare, the Australian “diplomat” (Alexander Downer) who notified Western intelligence agencies of Popadopoulos, is now a director of London headquartered, private spook outfit Hakluyt.

  • Dredd

    Here are some bench test results of USB 3.1 sticks and other units. On small file transfers (the slowest operation) they still achieved around 100 MBps on the Corsair & Kingston sticks.
    https://www.everythingusb.com/speed.html

    USB 3 can theoretically transfer at 5gbps (640MBps) but actually achieve only half of that. So not that super really.

    • craig Post author

      Thanks Dredd. Remember we are talking 2016 technology.

      The conclusion seems to be the claimed Crowdstrike data gives a speed not obtainable by online transfer and very probably not obtainable by direct transfer to memory stick either.

      • Courtenay Barnett

        Craig,
        I am following what is being said about transfer speeds of computers. Fine.
        But, isn’t the fundamental question one of:-
        When the DNC sounded the alarm that the Russians had hacked the DNC’s computer(s) – when did the US authorities ( intelligence service; NSA; all of law enforcement available in the US) ever investigate that allegation – and – if so how so in any credible forensic sense?
        That question continues to exercise my mind – as being the primary first step before going into the actual technical computer issues of transference.
        Maybe the computer issues remain the next way to disprove the Muller assertion of ‘Russiagate’?
        Oh – what a tangled web we weave when we first practice to deceive!

        • Paul Damascene

          Courtenay,
          To your question we might add (since we’re referring to former NSA Technical Director Bill Binney):

          If there was a signals transfer over any network in the US (arguably in the world), would not the NSA’s records be looked to as a major, if not definitive source of forensic evidence?

          • Courtenay Barnett

            Paul,
            Yes – that is my very concern which increasingly serves to convince me that Mueller is an official charlatan. When you ask this:-

            ” If there was a signals transfer over any network in the US (arguably in the world), would not the NSA’s records be looked to as a major, if not definitive source of forensic evidence?”

            There are 4 salient points which spring to mind:-

            1. I now believe that the whole Mueller investigation is a sham.
            Why so?

            2. The Seth Rich story makes one ask yet again:-
            i) Did the US Government have a hand in the assassination of JFK?
            ii) Did the US Government have a hand in the assassination of MLK?
            iii) If the answers to i) and ii) above come back ‘yes’; then why not the same for Seth Rich?
            Watch this:-
            Recently Bill Binney ( NSA Technical expert) implied Seth Rich was the leaker – at 8:37 here https://youtu.be/mwUoE8UecC0?t=515 and also here https://vimeo.com/331034117
            So – what happened to Seth ( like Oswald)? Yes – and the explanations and coincidence
            of the timing of the death serves well to make the surrounding cover-up lose credibility.
            But this sort of action has to be covered/kept hidden.

            3. Since someone as important as Bill Binney was willing to provide details and share his expertise with Mueller – then quite logically – why wouldn’t Mueller most definitely want to have detailed statements from Binney?

            4. Well, the answer comes with the details of who Robert Mueller really is. And, in point of biographical facts – Mueller is acting with absolute consistency. You cannot get the right answers – unless the right questions are asked ( e.g. of Binney – a fully qualified insider specialist). Right? Read on:-

            https://caucus99percent.com/content/what-mueller-wont-find

          • Paul Damascene

            Courtenay,
            I take your points. Setting aside the question of whether I agree, your questions come from important territory: what sort of world does the questioner think s/he lives in?

            If it is a world in which the Deep State could
            1. assassinate JFK.
            2. get away with it.
            3. get away with it so cleanly that among its most galling triumphs is as the pre-eminent example of what, in CIA coinage, constitutes a conspiracy theory.

            Then it is a world in which the Deep State:
            1. could do it again (MLK, Robert).
            2. would be likely to do it again.
            3. would be emboldened, by each new scot-free outrage, to take on ever more grandiose and lawless projects (9/11).

            In such a world, yes, the murder of Seth Rich would not be stretch at all. But, even if rejecting all of the previous conclusions, most of us, given a few moments of “unmanaged” reflection on our world, as we see it, could imagine that world spawning the political execution of a young American.

          • Carolyn Zaremba

            Yes, they would and I believe Craid addressed this issue in a prior column.

        • Antonym

          The DNC headquarters is only a few miles distance from the FBI headquarters, both in Washington D.C. Still to even pay a simple site visit after DNC calls the FBI took days: no interest, for reasons best known to them. Afterwards when a Russia- Wikileaks- Trump connection was suggested, they threw a huge work force on it.

      • Michael Droy

        (none of this contradicts Binney’s sensible analysis)
        “41 MegaBytes per second ”
        Would be quite remarkable for a USB stick.
        I suspect you mean 41 Mbs or 41 Megabits as second.
        1 byte – 8 bits. And no I don’t know why volumes are measured in bytes and speed in bits.

        And while USB3.1 might offer a lot more, most normal PCs or servers can’t fully use the potential.
        But 41 Mbs is quite realistic with a memory stick and only with a plug in device.

        • Goose

          Oh , is it 41 Mbps or roughly 5 MB per second ?

          Then yes, that’s quite doable over WAN … I typically get 27 MB/s downloading games, for example.

          • Phil

            Goose – you’re getting your bytes and bits mixed up. If you tried to transfer at the rate mentioned, your internet speed would need to be 328 MBs – substantially more than the 27MBs you quoted. Not only that but where you are downloading from (is: the DNC servers) would need to have that as a minimum speed too.

        • craig Post author

          Why are so many people going on about Megabits? I give a link to Binney’s article which very plainly states megabytes.

          • Goose

            It matters because a byte is eight times larger than a bit i.e., a helluva lot more data.

            Bits is plausible over wan, realistically the 41 MB/s would only be possible over lan or directly connected to the server HW on a local network or directly.

          • craig Post author

            Goose

            Yes of course it matters whether it is megabytes or megabits. But Bill Binney’s article clearly says Megabytes, written in full not as a symbol. You are introducing a complete red herring/

          • Goose

            Well I assure you I’m not trying to cast doubt, just inquisitive on this, that’s all.

            I’m as sceptical about the the whole ‘Russia won Trump the election’ nonsense as anyone. The hawkish, corporate wing of the Democrat party refuse to accept Hillary just wasn’t all that popular with voters. They seem to be making the same mistake again too by pushing Joe Biden over Bernie Sanders , which is likely to again result to another likely defeat in 2020.

      • Arbed

        Have you read this Craig? It’s very, very good. This guy has been working with Bill Binney and Skip Folden and in this article he comprehensively tears Mueller a new one (politely, of course). He is very careful never to overstate his digital forensic findings and he writes in plain English for the non-techies among us.

        The Mueller Report – Expensive Estimations And Elusive Evidence
        http://g-2.space/muellerreport/

      • jmg

        Craig: “Remember we are talking 2016 technology.”

        Data in megabytes per second (MB/s):

        “… up to 200MB/s read and up to 120MB/s write speed … 100MB/s read and write speed … read speed up to 260MB/s and write speed up to 240MB/s … up to 150MB/s read and 60MB/s write speed … 120MB/s read and 25MB/s write speed which is decent for its price … up to 245MB/s read and up to 190MB/s write speed … up to 400MB/s read and up to 270MB/s write speed … up to 380MB/s read and up to 70MB/s write speed … up to 400MB/s read and up to 200MB/s write speed … 90MB/s read and 25MB/s write speed, which is lower compared to other models on our list …”

        25 best USB flash drives to buy (2016)
        https://windowsreport.com/25-best-flash-drives-2016/

      • Tom Welsh

        Craig, very little has changed in respect of flash stick speeds since 2016 – or, for that matter, 2010. It was the introduction of USB 3 at the end of 2008 that made flash sticks effectively as fast as solid state drives (SSDs) and faster than most hard drives (HDDs).

        Not surprising really, as flash sticks are really just small portable SSDs.

    • Goose

      Don’t confuse bits(b) with Bytes(B) . USB 3.0 and 3.1.

      8 bits in a byte .

      Most broadband speeds are advertised in bits eg. 300 Mbps or 300Mb/s divide by 8 to get bytes.

      • Goose

        Mega (M) is denotes a factor of one million… So whether its MB or Mb is quite quite an important point.

  • Courtenay Barnett

    Craig,

    Thanks for sharing and I read it in its entirety..

    Question: A. Are you aware of any official investigation into the DNC computers said to have been
    hacked?
    B. If the official story is to be believed ( ‘Russiagate’) then based upon what evidence?
    I am pretty sure, from my court experience, that computers can be examined and source of origin be ascertained. I suspect that the NSA would have such technology available – well beyond the capabilities of a standard police investigation.

    Just thought I would ask to get an explanation back.

    Cheers.

    Courtenay
    P.S. Last time I checked – a bland assertion does not constitute conclusive ‘evidence’. Normally there is investigation of the crime scene, implicating evidence is carefully examined and a conclusion is directly drawn and/or inferred therefrom. In all that Mueller has said – this simply does not appear to have happened.

    • Paul Damascene

      If this were not the Trump show, I suppose we would be forced to ask why the Trump administration, from Day 1, did not request an NSA analysis to (dis)confirm the scary national-security implications of a Russian hack of the DNC computers, and arguably of HRC’s private servers, as well as those connected to it — her assistant’s, her assistant’s husband, both Podestas, Wasserman-Schultz. Crime of the Century, Digital Pearl Harbour, or Nothing-burger. Seems to me a Comander-in-Chief in charge of a functioning national-security state would be well within his purview to insist on an answer.

  • Adrian Parsons

    “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.”

    I have been waiting for you to cover this topic.

    Until a few weeks ago, I had no reason to question the “official alternative version” of the DNC hack/leak (https://consortiumnews.com/2017/07/24/intel-vets-challenge-russia-hack-evidence/). That changed after I serendipitously discovered, 9 months after the event, that Duncan Campbell (http://www.duncancampbell.org/) had re-examined all the available evidence, consulted Bill Binney and given a different account of events (http://www.duncancampbell.org/content/briton-ran-pro-kremlin-disinformation-campaign-helped-trump-deny-russian-links) with which BB agrees.

    I have not been able to find any refutation of Campbell’s/Binney’s new position since July last year; nor, with the exception of scattered, apparently random, citations on Twitter, is this report being referenced anywhere in the MSM or in ‘alternative’ blogs such as this one.

    • Michael Droy

      Nice try by Campbell – but he has sucked no one in.

      But it would make the failure of Mueller to interview Binney even more remarkable.
      An online media investigator comes up with proof Russia/Trump are guilty!! Where have we seen that before.
      The quote is apparently limited to one part sentence
      ““no evidence to prove where the download/copy was done”.”
      Frankly for a shocker like this, I’d have thought Campbell would have quoted the whole interview. Or at least the beginning of the sentence, or where and when he met Campbell.

      As Ray McGovern pointed out last year – plenty of reporters want to prove the conspiracy – no one else has bothered to interview Binney on the matter. This could possibly be the most secret and uncovered daft rumour about Trump/Russia yet.
      https://raymcgovern.com/2018/08/13/is-vips-working-for-russia/

      “I have not been able to find any refutation of Campbell’s/Binney’s new position since July last year; nor, with the exception of scattered, apparently random, citations on Twitter, is this report being referenced anywhere in the MSM or in ‘alternative’ blogs such as this one.”

      No surprise there, but quite amazing it hasn’t hit the mainstream or left alternative media either. Incredible really. I guess they looked and found rubbish.

    • Arbed

      Hi Adrian, Bill Binney definitely did refute Duncan Campbell article. See this interview a week after Campbell’s article came out. In the interview Binney clearly sticks to his original theory.
      https://www.youtube.com/embed/p3mS-3-W0ig

      Campbell article is actually a hot mess. He wrote it as a smear piece against the UK researcher who’s worked most on the Guccifer2 aspect of the whole sorry saga. You can read a couple of articles correcting it here: https://theforensicator.wordpress.com/2018/08/30/the-campbell-conspiracy/ and here: https://disobedientmedia.com/2018/08/deconstructing-campbells-smear-campaign-yields-a-blueprint-for-propaganda-part-two/

      It’s all so very sad that Duncan Campbell decided to wreck his previously stellar reputation over this. I guess the election of Donald Trump really broke a lot of people’s minds, hence #RussiaGate…

    • Adrian Parsons

      Thank you both for the links and input.

      What is pissing me off about the whole RussiaGate affair is that there are individuals who are claiming to know the true story about various aspects of it (in this case, the DNC hack/leak) but who won’t just come out and say “This is what fucking happened – no names mentioned, OK.” There is either a psychological problem or they are bullshit artists, and I’m rapidly losing the will to give a shit about it.

  • Norcal

    Craig Murray, thank you for your exceptional help and now your summary in all of this deception. I never comment at this site because your regular commenters are also exceptional. I must say that your final comment regarding Seth Rich is incredibly important, he must remain a top priority. Thanks Again…

  • Jackrabbit

    I’ve been railing (mostly at moonofalabama.org) that “Russiagate” (suspected Russian influence on Trump) was the means for the US Deep State to initiate a new McCarthyism. You see, accusations that “Russia meddled” were not enough. Russiagate allowed media to drive home the hate for Russia day after day for nearly two years.

    Very few care to see or understand this. Almost everyone caught up in the Trump show accept the propaganda narratives focused on Party and Personality.

    Kissinger called for MAGA to counter Russia+China in an August 2014 WSJ Op-Ed saying:

    … the affirmation of America’s exceptional nature must be sustained. History offers no respite to countries that set aside their sense of identity in favor of a seemingly less arduous course.

    Trump was the MAGA candidate. And (strangely) the only populist on the right (in a field of 19!).

    The 2016 Presidential election had plenty of “meddling” but it was primarily by the US Deep State. Sanders was a sheepdog for Hillary. Hillary threw the race to Trump. Trump acted in ways that furthered suspicions of Russian influence. And Trump has brought friends and associates of the Deep State into his Administration:
    – VP Pence was close to McCain;
    – Mueller was Comey’s mentor; and AG Barr is a long-time friend of Mueller’s;
    – Gina Haspel’s nomination to CIA was supported by supposed Trump nemesis Brennon;
    – Bolton is a neocon – neocons were supposedly “Never Trump”;
    – Trump himself was close to the Clintons for years.

    What do you say to the God of Propaganda? (Game of Thrones reference, for those not watching)

    • SA

      Jackrabbit
      Not to forget the other Russophobic skripalgate this time initiated at this side of the Atlantic. These were definitely driven by Russia’s decisive involvement in Syria in September 2015 which turned the tables in favour of the Syrian Government .
      The other very glaring elephant (s) in the room are that the MSM never really explored the scandals of both the leaks of deliberate murder of civilians, the huge surveillance on everyone and the scandalous way that Bernie Sanders was treated and focused instead on perusing the messenger.

  • Casual Observer

    Nice summation of the situation Craig 🙂

    With this Barr guy looking as though he means business, the outlook for the Democrats does not look good. If only half of what is suspected is shown to be so, the Democratic Party will be suffer the sort of damage that will take at least a decade to correct.

    However we should all remember that the twin motors that power the USA are those of Bullshit and Corruption, and so its unlikely that the full story will ever be known, only those parts that further the interests of the GOP.

    So get ready for more millennial attention seeking screams for the camera in 2020. The Democrats have that coming to them simply for running a political machine that had plenty in common with that of the former DDR. That is to say, the DNC stifled the progress of upcoming political talent in order that septuagenarians and the fabulously corrupt could continue to gather in the spoils. Its fitting that their efforts have resulted in a party that now is beyond satire.

    • Bob In Portland

      William Barr worked for the CIA in the seventies at the same time he was getting his JD (legal degree) at George Washington University. Like Mueller, his job has been to not see intelligence fingerprints in various intelligence scandals.

      • Casual Observer

        Whilst I’d not dispute your observation, its difficult to see how the likes of Brennan, Clapper and Comey, can be overlooked in what is undoubtedly heading up the track ? It might not be too far fetched to imagine a purge within the CIA/FBI that leaves conservatives in the ascendency for many years to come. Combine that with the near certainty that RBG will drop off the twig well before 2020, and the future of ‘Progressivism’ looks none to bright for the next several cycles.

        The Democrats, much like the Labour Party here, need to find a raison d’etre that fits the modern world, strangely it may be to go back to the days of JFK, or here, the days of Clem, Ernie, and Aneurin ?

    • Paul Damascene

      I would agree with Casual Observer to the extent that the Democrats, presstitute (h/t PCR) media and Deep State should be feeling the gun turrets swivelling towards them.

      But I’m afraid that the more glaring the prima facie case against them is (and I think it glaring) the less likely I find it that that particular swamp will be drained. Bill Barr, or some other combination of would-be reformers, would be taken on a constellation of forces that has operated with complete impunity, perpetrating a series of high crimes, increasingly in the open, for decades–at least back through Obama, Bush II and Clinton, and arguably through the assassinations of the 60s, and to the years preceding Eisenhower’s exit speech.

  • Goose

    Interesting.

    I’ve not followed this too closely but I remember reading Guccifer 2.0 was a Romanian. So those download speeds – if as reported here- 41MB( 328Mb/s) are locally attached, certainly not remote and overseas in Romania.

    If a usb stick was involved then there will be timestamps on to prove this on both server or lan device and usb stick, plus other relevant information that can be used in court after foresnsic analysis .. could this be the ‘smoking gun’ Assange can present in his defence?

    • Ed Snack

      G2 is not Romanian, Mueller et al claims that he is Russian and a GRU operative specifically. Others including myself think it far more likely that he is a creation of Crowdstrike and is one or several people trying to pretend to be Russian. Hence all the “breadcrumbs” he salted around, Cyrillic alphabet error messages, use of a Russian site (but, note, the English language section of said site) etc.

      The name is chosen as part of the pretense to be Romanian and to cash in on the recognition granted to the original Guccifer.

      If G2 is Russian he’s startlingly incompetent at his tradecraft.

    • AC

      The point in the original research by Forensicator was that the transfer speed most neatly correlated with a USB transfer in the various tests he did. The speeds being too high for a transoceanic transfer of the same file set was more of a passing comment (and instead of the actual conclusion itself, people latched on to that comment and ran with it).

      The point about the speed dovetailed with another finding in the same research, which was the observation of a FAT-like rounding (rounding up to the nearest 2 second) of the files.

      So the speed corroborated the rounding and together they show that a USB storage device was most likely to have been the explanation for those.

  • giyane

    This kind of incompetence smacks to me as desperation. Imagine if the lid was ever lifted on David Cameron’s joint estruction of Libya with Obama. Not to mention his ignition of Syria by snipers fired at the crowds.

    This complete headless chickenry complete with deranged sqwawkery and flying of feathers implicates Obama more than Clinton. Having seen the relentless hounding of Theresa May by male public school twerp who know zilch about trade or economics, I am even able to see some deliberate scapegoating here of Hillary Clinton.

    Russia bunkerbusted the bunkers Clinton’s associate company Lafarge built in Syria for Al Queenida . But this was all on Obama’s watch.
    In the real world the top guy gets protected and the blame gets shunted to the place of least resistance.

    Russia and I imagine China are the absolute moral superiors in this nasty, swampy , neo-con game.

  • Trowbridge H. Ford

    Why would Trump call NSA Director Mike Rogers to help him out if there was any Russia probe two months before Robert Mueller was appointed Special Counsel which took all but the POTUS by surprise? Did Trump want cover if its Special Collection Service which had impunity to kill anyone it wanted dead, like DNC staffer Seth Rich”

  • Goose

    My view on this whole thing is similar to that of Glenn Greenwald.

    The anger directed towards Russia(scapegoating) seems to be directly proportional to amount of outrage you feel over Hillary’s defeat. Russia have stated they didn’t want Hillary to win, it’s no great secret. Hillary stated on many occasions prior to the election, she’d impose a ‘no fly ‘ zone over Syria to help the various Sunni Gulf State backed faction ‘black flag’ rebels the US was supporting. This would have brought the US into immediate direct confrontation with Russia and the Syrian govt over the skies of Syria. So, I have some sympathy for Russia’s logic i n not wanting her as President starting WW3 . She’d have made matters worse … a lot worse.

    I think there probably was some minor Russian interference therefore, but it’s small beer compared to sort of interference the US is involved in all the time. Remember Sir John Kerr, the CIA’s ‘our man Kerr’ the 18th Governor-General … who removed the Australian ultra liberal Prime Minister Gough Whitlam – fired by a lone man using parliamentary procedures that no one had expected. More recently Victoria Nuland deciding who’d make up the post -coup govt in Ukraine. Declaring Juan Guaidó a ‘virtual ‘ President in Venezuela. Pompeo’s direct criticism of Corbyn in the last few days…. these are just a few examples.

    • Jackrabbit

      I doubt that Hillary would’ve done anything different than what Trump has done.

      Russia disliked Hillary for a lot of reasons. She pulled the “reset button” stunt. She was behind the Libya fiasco and cackled “we came, we saw, we kicked his ass!”. And a lot more.

      With that said, I think Russia understands the ‘illusion of democracy’ better than most Westerners so I don’t think they really had a strong preference.

      • Goose

        You only have to watch how erratically Trump behaves to know no state would ever groom someone like him as their champion.

        • Jackrabbit

          Any faux populist politician is going to look “erratic”.

          Obama also looked “erratic” as he acted against his lofty principles.

          The difference: the propaganda narrative favored Obama. He was the embodiment of inclusiveness and the happy face of the Empire. But recognition of the challenge posed by Russia and China changed that deceptive narrative. The change in emphasis causes a dissonance that makes the new faux populist look “erratic”.

          Then there’s there’s the burden of “Russian influence” suspicions that Trump carries so that the Deep State could initiate a new McCarthyism. That also adds to the “erratic” appearance.

          • Goose

            Obama was very much like Blair… He overpromised and underdelivered, with his stylish presentation and soaring campaign rhetoric at rallies, about bringing ‘hope and change’. But then he governed as a conservative, centrist candidate would. Is it any wonder then, progressives are demoralised and disenchanted with the political system when someone runs as an outsider and then governs as an insider would?

            Populations aren’t stupid, and they sense their two party duopoly may be a heavily controlled sham, albeit one with freedoms enshrined in the constitution. Trump was very much a reaction to this desire to probe , to ‘test’ the democratic system, I believe , to see if a genuine outsider could be elected to the Presidency. Alas , the problem with Trump, is he isn’t the right man to challenge the system. The electorate’s diagnosis was correct, its chosen remedy however wasn’t.

          • SA

            This conversation assumes that elections and democracy make a difference in the US. The POTUS can have so much leeway provided it is contained within a rather short leash. Observing previous US elections as an outsider since the 1960s shows what limited powers to reform presidents have, particularly disappointments were Carter, Clinton and Obama. Hope was raised by what they said but their actions, especially in foreign policy were not markedly different from all the others.

          • Jackrabbit

            You are ignoring the 600 lb gorrilla.

            Obama was rumored to come from a CIA-connected family. Bush Jr. was also from a CIA-connected family. Bill Clinton possible CIA connection is also rumored. Bush Sr., of course was also CIA.

            ‘Illusion of democracy’ (aka ‘managed democracy’) means that Presidential candidates are well vetted servants of the establishment/Deep State. Obama didn’t “over promise and under-deliver” – that’s excusing him – he pretended to be a populist to get elected but was ALWAYS going to serve the establishment/Deep State.

            Obama turned the page on the Bush years and the disgust and fear that Bush’s war-of-choice and rendition-and-torture had generated. Obama ensured that there would be no accountability for CIA as well as bankers. Making the Bush tax cuts permanent in a farce called the “Fiscal Cliff” was just gravy.

            How do you acknowledge that people “sense their two party duopoly may be a heavily controlled sham” yet assert that democracy works!?!?! Trump wasn’t meant to “challenge the system”, he was meant to meet the challenge from Russia and China. As for “the system”/establishment (TPTB), Trump has been very good to them, delivering yet-another tax cut as well as reduced regulations and increased military spending.

            But allow me to address what is behind your comment: the belief that Hillary was the intended winner in 2016. No. If that had been true then she wouldn’t have alienated important voter groups. Hillary snubbed and insulted progressives, took the black vote for granted, offended whites with her “deplorables” comment, and refused to campaign in the three states that she knew would decide the election (each by a close margin). Yet we are told that she wanted to win so badly that she paid Steele to smear Trump and got Obama/Obama Admin to conduct illegal surveillance of Trump. The entire establishment magically lined up for Hillary (despite Republicans hating her for two decades) but Hillary, a seasoned campaigner, couldn’t deliver?!?!? LOL.

            See my earlier comment @ May 9 15:15. Trump was the candidate meant to win. He was the MAGA nationalist that the Deep State wanted. And the ONLY populist on the Republican side (out of 19 candidates!).

          • Goose

            There is no way the agencies, or permanent officialdom in the US wanted someone as chaotic and prone to twitter outbursts as Trump, no way.

            They may have reached some accommodation with him, but only because ‘his’ people have all been squeezed out ; people like Steve Bannon and former security adviser Michael Flynn. He was elected on an anti-interventionist, protectionist, isolationist ‘America First’ platform. But now he’s surrounded by hawks like Bolton and Pompeo and having his son in law and Netanyahu family linked Jared Kushner seemingly develop his whole ME approach, he risks being dragged into a crazy war with Iran.

          • Herbie

            Good piece, Jackrabbit, but I’m not so sure about this:

            “Trump wasn’t meant to “challenge the system”, he was meant to meet the challenge from Russia and China.”

            His connections to the Netanyahu faction would surely undermine that.

            BRI very important to Netanyahu..

          • Jackrabbit

            @Herbie: [Trumps]… connections to the Netanyahu faction … BRI very important to Netanyahu..

            What do you do when you suddenly realize that your the Russian Bear has come out of hiberation and joined forces with the Chinese Dragon that you helped to nurture into a formidable economic power? Well one of the things you certainly want to do is make your powerful frenemies happy so they don’t defect to the other side. In that way, interest in BRI is useful for Netanyahu/Israel, isn’t it?

            The benefits of BRI are many many years away. Israel needs USA to secure greater Israel NOW, while USA needs Israel to be “on side” in the new Cold War. Besides, Israel and USA have largely already agreed on how the NWO would operate. Each wants to make their NWO plans a reality.

          • Herbie

            @Jackrabbit

            “What do you do when you suddenly realize that your the Russian Bear has come out of hibernation and joined forces with the Chinese Dragon that you helped to nurture into a formidable economic power?”

            You invest in them, do deals and so on.

            As is being done.

            It’s only the ill-informed public who think the fake fights are for real.

            “Well one of the things you certainly want to do is make your powerful frenemies happy so they don’t defect to the other side. In that way, interest in BRI is useful for Netanyahu/Israel, isn’t it?”

            What other side?

            They’re all oligarchs on the make. The other side is just a deal that doesn’t go your way.

            “The benefits of BRI are many many years away. Israel needs USA to secure greater Israel NOW,”

            Yeahbut. “Greater Israel” is just Israel’s regional power. It’s been allocated that role in the region. That role is the local fulfillment of BRI. That’s the whole point. Iran shall have its sphere of influence. Turkey too. India, of course. The NWO is being created in the East right before our eyes.

            “while USA needs Israel to be “on side” in the new Cold War.”

            Look, that’s just for public consumption, same as it was last time, to divert public funds away from useful humane projects to inhumane projects.

            Israel is now a power in its own right and its future lies not in Banking and the Western model, but with more productive trading partners to the East.

            There’s no more juice to squeeze from the Banking gig, at this time, until we up the wealth of the East.

            “Besides, Israel and USA have largely already agreed on how the NWO would operate. Each wants to make their NWO plans a reality.”

            Yeah, they’ve all agreed that the West is done as a source of increasing profit, and soon Diocletian shall be along to put them to chaos and disorder.

          • Jackrabbit

            @Herbie

            You are essentially saying: “nothing to see here” based on a false equivalence between elites in Russia, China and the West. It strikes me as a very Israeli point of view.

            But the West – including Israel – is the protagonist here. That is clear in Syria, Venezeula, Palestine and even with the Skripals.

            You invest in them, do deals and so on. As is being done.
            That’s funny given that Russia is under severe sanctions and trade talks with China just broke down. Or are you referring to Israel which can do as it pleases because of it’s political power in Western capitals?

            What other side? …
            Really? You’re going to deny the new Cold War? A new McCarthyism, a new arms race, sanctions upon sanctions, and proxy wars are just our imagination?

            The other side is just a deal that doesn’t go your way.
            Maybe that’s true for Israel which plays all sides.

            Yeahbut. “Greater Israel” is just Israel’s regional power. It’s been allocated that role in the region. That role is the local fulfillment of BRI. That’s the whole point. Iran shall have its sphere of influence. Turkey too. India, of course.
            Really? Nothing to see here? As Israel continues to bomb Syria and tensions with Iran rise?

            The NWO is being created in the East right before our eyes.
            Really? You’re gonna play with the definition of NWO? LOL. More cleverness.

            Israel is now a power in its own right and its future lies not in Banking and the Western model, but with more productive trading partners to the East.
            Really? Then why did they need help with Syria? Why did they lose the war with Hezbollah? Why do they need USA help against Iran?

            But your right that Israel plays on, all sides.

          • Herbie

            “You are essentially saying: “nothing to see here” based on a false equivalence between elites in Russia, China and the West.”

            Not saying that at all. There’s plenty to see. What exactly do you mean by “false equivalence between elites in Russia, China and the West”. Do you think it’s goodie elites against baddie elites?

            “But the West – including Israel – is the protagonist here. That is clear in Syria, Venezeula, Palestine and even with the Skripals.”

            Yeah sure. There’s plenty of jockeying for position, but how do you conclude that Eastern elites are better than Western elites.

            “You invest in them, do deals and so on. As is being done.
            That’s funny given that Russia is under severe sanctions and trade talks with China just broke down. Or are you referring to Israel which can do as it pleases because of it’s political power in Western capitals?”

            When they start putting Iraqi style sanctions on these countries, let me know, but until then deals are still being done.

            “What other side? …
            Really? You’re going to deny the new Cold War? A new McCarthyism, a new arms race, sanctions upon sanctions, and proxy wars are just our imagination?”

            No, it’s how you interpret these things. We went through all this during the last Cold War, didn’t we.

            And we’ve learnt quite a lot about the game since then.

            “The other side is just a deal that doesn’t go your way.
            Maybe that’s true for Israel which plays all sides.”

            Are you saying that Israel is the only one that plays all sides?

            “Yeahbut. “Greater Israel” is just Israel’s regional power. It’s been allocated that role in the region. That role is the local fulfillment of BRI. That’s the whole point. Iran shall have its sphere of influence. Turkey too. India, of course.
            Really? Nothing to see here? As Israel continues to bomb Syria and tensions with Iran rise?”

            Again, there’s plenty to see, but it’s a question of interpretation. Your interpretation is no different to that pushed by Western and Eastern msm, for example.

            “The NWO is being created in the East right before our eyes.
            Really? You’re gonna play with the definition of NWO? LOL. More cleverness.”

            There’s no definition of NWO, but BRI is certainly a NWO.

            You could argue that it’s one NWO against an alternative NWO, as many thought just a few years ago, but that argument seems less credible with the passage of time.

            “Israel is now a power in its own right and its future lies not in Banking and the Western model, but with more productive trading partners to the East.
            Really? Then why did they need help with Syria? Why did they lose the war with Hezbollah? Why do they need USA help against Iran?”

            I’m obviously talking about economic power here.

            “But your right that Israel plays on, all sides.”

            Why would it only be Israel who plays both sides.

            Are the rest of the world’s elites just stupid or something?

      • Ort

        It’s a tangential point, Jackrabbit, but I’m sure you know that Clinton actually cackled “We came, we saw, he died!”. There are numerous You Tube videos posted of this charming interlude.

        It seems odd that you would paraphrase it facetiously. A reader unaware of the actual quote would probably reasonably assume that Hillary would never publicly say “… we kicked his ass”, and possibly assume that you invented the entire phrase to make a point.

        The actual quote is revealing, harrowing, and grim; it’s a good example of the mask, such as it is, cracking or slipping. The paraphrase is both unnecessary and oddly diverting. Just sayin’.

        • Paul Damascene

          In discussions of Barr’s indications that the predicates of the Mueller investigation, FISA court warrants, etc., will be investigated, I am not sure I’ve ever seen mentioned the possibility of re-investigating the case that Comey overstepped his authority in stating that the FBI would not prosecute: Clinton private email server, disclosures of classified information, pay to play, DNC leaks. The softball interviews, not recorded, not under oath, the waivers from prosecution of Clinton lawyers in exchange for nothing, the destruction of evidence (computer equipment), and later destruction of the 30,000 messages between the “lovers” … the Uranium One deal, approved during Robert Mueller’s term, I believe, as head of the FBI, the unmasking of Americans caught on surveillance intercepts…

          How far back would this have to go to cut out the rot?

          • Dredd

            Er … I think “Veni Vidi Vinci” might be apt when exiting an art gallery, having perused some of Leonardo’s great masterpieces.

            Otherwise, “Veni, Vidi, Vici” is the more customary gloat (well recommended for any Spurs fans returning from Amsterdam).

          • glenn_nl

            Dredd: “Er … I think “Veni Vidi Vinci” might be apt when exiting an art gallery, having perused some of Leonardo’s great masterpieces.

            Now that is funny.

    • Goose

      And btw , the assumption those critical of the US are therefore automatically supportive of Putin or China’s system is a pernicious development in our discourse in the west.

      There is much to criticise on all sides and debate should be more tolerant and open to different opinion, more nuanced. This back and white thinking started with GW Bush’s ‘for or against us’ nonsense : as if there is only one possible opinion in the US/UK and anyone disagreeing is somehow an enemy.

    • Paul Damascene

      Where I would respectfully and reluctantly part company with Glen Greenwald is in conceding that:
      1. spying, meddling, and influence attempts and success happen on all the time
      2. Russia would have reason to be in the game (against Hilary, but they might have had good reason to doubt that a Republican would be better).
      3. The Russian meddling claims are not to be contested.

      One could grant the first two, without conceding the third. There quite possibly was Russian (and British and Saudi and Israeli) activity. But if each of the pieces of evidence before the court of public opinion can be revealed to be bullshit, then I would argue (in the context of fuelling McCarthyism and confrontation among nuclear superpowers) that each of these calls of bullshit is eminently worth making.

      • Courtenay Barnett

        But Paul – when you say:-
        “2. Russia would have reason to be in the game (against Hilary, but they might have had good reason to doubt that a Republican would be better).
        3. The Russian meddling claims are not to be contested.”
        It seems to me that by way of “Russia would have reason to be in the game..” then go on at your point 2 to say “The Russian meddling claims are not to be contested.” – what is the actual game? Is it the meddling to which you refer?
        Not sure from how you have worded your post.
        It seems to me that the ruse really was in respect of the DNC computer and the death of Seth Rich with a flip to ‘Russiagate’ to avoid the truth then do a Lee Harvey Oswald on Seth Rich. Therein, I suspect, resides the truth.
        Explain and/or contradict – if you will.

      • Courtenay Barnett

        But Paul ( include this with my previous inquiry of you for one comprehensive answer to come)– when you say:-
        “2. Russia would have reason to be in the game (against Hilary, but they might have had good reason to doubt that a Republican would be better).
        3. The Russian meddling claims are not to be contested.”
        It seems to me that by way of “Russia would have reason to be in the game..” then go on at your point 2 to say “The Russian meddling claims are not to be contested.” – what is the actual game? Is it the meddling to which you refer?
        Not sure from how you have worded your post.
        It seems to me that the ruse really was in respect of the DNC computer and the death of Seth Rich with a flip to ‘Russiagate’ to avoid the truth then do a Lee Harvey Oswald on Seth Rich. Therein, I suspect, resides the truth.
        Explain and/or contradict – if you will. Why wouldn’t Mueller have gone to the two very good sources he had at all material times available to him – Julian Assange ( outside the establishment); Bill Binney (inside the establishment) – and interviewed and investigated therefrom to the fullest extent?
        The foregoing is nothing but pure logic and legal reasoning applied as applicable to this case and in cases large and small all over the world. The fundamental investigative principles remain the same.
        I am considering this case out of special legal interest. It connects to Assange and his fate ( but that fact seems to have gone unnoticed for reason of the mere assertion that the Russians were meddling in the US election – without providing the underlying evidence for the assertion – nor setting out to investigate two of the best sources available. Again – Assange and Binney. Now Mueller is not a fool but he appears to me to be a strategist specialising in dishonest avoidances.
        The more I examine and consider the established facts then work through how the investigation was done – the quagmire – a true swamp that I come upon is the actual existing ‘US/ Washington swamp’. Many years ago I met the ghostwriter for James Earl Ray’s ( man who confessed to killing Martin Luther King) book, “Tennessee Waltz: The Making of An American Political Prisoner” ( see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupper_Saussy). To be truthful – after publication of the book Ray did disavow parts of it and he did sue Saussy. Point here, after my discussions with Saussy – it became evident to me that in respect of MLK’s assassination – things were not always what they appeared to be at first glance – nor were the official facts congruent with the available evidence. In that way and to that extent – I fully understood what Sassy was saying to me.
        Having glanced and pondered over and over on Mueller’s investigative approach from the most basic and necessary starting point(s) – I regret to conclude that I sniff a deeply compromised Mueller whose mission is not truth seeking – but truth cover-up. And I say so for reasons, in part, stated above.
        Elementary my dear Robert ( Mueller)!

        • Paul Damascene

          Courtenay,
          My third point was a bit cryptic, I concede.
          My quarrel was not with your way of proceeding but Greenwald’s.
          We could agree with the first two points — that foreign meddling is routine, and that we may find no good reason to assume that the Russians couldn’t be involved (along with any of the other major spy agencies).
          But it does not follow that we should grant the third point, without evidence. Sure the Russians could have been involved, but if all the evidence that they were was bogus, then it would be wrong to fail to dispute the evidence of “malign” Russian activities, leaving that straw man standing.

          I have no idea why Greenwald fails to contest the apparently specious evidence of Russia’s hand behind all this. Some people fall into the trap of seeming to concede something that the audience believes in order to seem reasonable, while contesting something else that they believe. But Greenwald is an experienced litigator. Not a trap he seems likely to fall into unwittingly,

          That Mueller couldn’t pin anything on Trump is far less important than that the premises for a new round of McCarthyism, pro-Clinton hatred of Assange, and a dangerous ratcheting up of tensions with the other nuclear superpower remain largely uncontested.

          • Courtenay Barnett

            Clarified and agreed.

            The threat of wars and the continued beating of the drums of war for the drums ( barrels) of oil is of great concern as you indicated – for the world’s safety and for peace.

    • John2o2o

      “Russia have stated they didn’t want Hillary to win, it’s no great secret.”

      Could you provide me with some evidence for this assertion please? Because I think it’s rubbish.

  • Bob In Portland

    I wrote this almost a year ago and the core of it still stands. Mueller is a Deep State coverup artist, as his history has revealed. He was born into the CIA (his great uncle was Richard Bissell, his wife’s grandfather was second in command at the CIA, and both were fired by JFK after having lied to the president.

    Mueller’s allegiance is not to his country but to his class.

    https://caucus99percent.com/content/what-mueller-wont-find

    • Herbie

      “Mueller’s allegiance is not to his country but to his class.”

      That’s it.

      But it’s an international class now, and cannot be analysed by reference to states and countries.

      To the extent that there’s any clash in the world today it’s between oligarchic interests rather than national interests.

      And even then, ultimately all oligarchic interests coincide in an interest in playing the peeps against the peeps, both within states, and internationally between states.

    • Jackrabbit

      As Bob In Portland makes clear, the long and varied relationships among key Deep State participants are important and deserve much more attention than they have been given.

      McCain, the Clintons, the Bushes, Mueller, Barr, Brennan, Comey, Clapper, Haspel, etc. They are all connected. And ALL of them see Russia-China as a threat to their NWO love child.

  • Rolf Schnider

    Why is it not possible to verify this data transfer of x MB over a distance of x miles with the technology available in 2016 together with recognized experts? I think Bill Binney would also welcome such an approach. With Robert Mueller I am not sure…….! Finally, we are talking about physical processes and not extraterrestrial events. That would finally put an end to all speculations. All further discussions would then be superfluous. Provided that the result is recognized by all sides!
    It is becoming more and more difficult to follow all the pros and cons, especially for people like me with only modest IT knowledge.

    • craig Post author

      I quite agree Rolf. The point is that Mueller refused to discuss or receive Binney’s evidence at all.

      • Goose

        The deep state fury with and fear of Russia(Putin) pre-dates Trump and it was just convenient.

        Anything that can be used to discredit Russia and Putin personally, will be used.

        • bevin

          ‘The deep state fury with and fear of Russia(Putin) pre-dates Trump and it was just convenient.”
          It predates the Russian Revolution, too. It goes back to the C18th.
          Its roots lie in ‘Anglo Saxon’ maritime imperialism and the clear parallels between US expansion westwards and Russian expansion eastwards.

          • Goose

            The thing is, the MSM is largely neutered in the west, virtually no independence and owned by well-connected very rich
            individuals or corporations there’s little genuine fearless investigative reporting, as was once the case.

            So what’s left to keep western spooks awake at night? Things like WikiLeaks, Assange, Snowden and yes Russian intelligence digging into stuff they’re doing who might in turn expose stuff they want kept hidden . The first move after the Skripal incident was to expel as many Russians as possible.

          • Tatyana

            @Goose, I tend to think that expelling Russians was the main aim with the Skripal drama. Probably, the russians got too much information on western government’s affairs, and I’m sure that russian diplomats in the western embassies provide intelligence information, too. Also I think it is common practice in ALL embassies.

          • Goose

            @Tatyana

            It makes no sense really other than that explanation. That is to say : not wanting them here inquiring and/or talking to UK officials (who may leak stuff), because the UK govt must have known expelling them would result in like-for-like expulsions by Russia of our people. Therefore it made no sense as a punishment.

          • Herbie

            “Russian intelligence digging into stuff they’re doing who might in turn expose stuff they want kept hidden”

            When we look at US media treatment of Trump we can see that they’ve only fired damp squibs at him, rather than the heavy artillery they have on him.

            When we look at Russia and what they say about the West, we can see that they’ve only fired damp squibs at them, rather than the heavy artillery they have on them.

            In both cases we’re talking information. They never use it.

            Why.

            Anyway, it’s very clear in the case of China that the state has control of its oligarchs, and that looks to be what’s going on in Russia as well, albeit in a less efficient manner.

            In the Western world it seems the oligarchs have control of the states.

            The great laboratory of History would suggest that means the West is going down, and the East is ascendant.

            This is the plan.

            The only thing left is managing of Western public opinion through this process.

          • Tatyana

            @Goose
            It makes perfect sense if we assume that the new methods of ‘western spying’ don’t need live agents.

            I mean, information is stored in computers and passed by networks, there are technologies to gather information remotely, hacking and that all told by Mr. Snowden. Note that hardware and software widely used in Russia is produced by western companies. USA don’t want Huawei because of potential ‘backdoors’, but Russia built all our systems and networks on imported equipment, we simply had no russian substitutions.

            Thus, there’s no russian hardware or software in the West and diplomatic channel perhaps was the key channel for the russians.

      • Rolf Schnider

        Unfortunately, it’s not that easy……

        “We have also learned since publication, from longtime VIPS member Thomas Drake, that there is a dispute among VIPS members themselves about the July 24 memo. This is not the first time a VIPS report has been internally disputed, but it is the first time one has been released over the substantive objections of several VIPS members”.

        Almost two years have passed since: https://www.thenation.com/article/a-leak-or-a-hack-a-forum-on-the-vips-memo/

        Millions in dollars and hours have been invested (Mueller Report) and we are obviously not smarter yet. If you’re interested in the truth (Leak or Hack?), then you’ll find it without again spending any more time and money. Put together a small team of experts and start from scratch. And don’t forget: invite the MSM!

  • Loony

    Most likely the British are heavily involved in the Russiagate farce.

    The former MI6 agent, Christopher Steele, wrote a bizarre report that was nonetheless relied on by the FBI in order to surveil the Trump campaign team. The Steel report referenced as sources “a senior Russian Foreign Ministry figure” “a former top level Russian Intelligence Officer still active in the Kremlin” “a senior Russian Financial Officer” and “a senior Kremlin official”

    Mueller declined to label the Steel report as Russian disinformation and also declined to prosecute Steele for lying to the FBI. Manifestly one of these conclusions must be the correct conclusion.

    Oh yeah and contained in the final conclusion to the Mueller report is the gem line that after Trump was elected President Putin complained to close associates in the Kremlin that “We (Russia) have no pre-existing contacts with senior officials around the new US President elect”

  • Tatyana

    Mr. Mueller’s report was widely discussed in RU-web (russian speaking internet sites). Now I see another type of news apearing, let me please translate some excerpts:
    “…Russiagate… gradually die. First of all, due to the fact that the investigation of the “conspiracy of Trump and the Kremlin”, conducted by special Prosecutor Mueller, came to a standstill. Instead … comes Ukrainegate.
    …It is not difficult to find politicians and lobbyists among Donald Trump’s opponents in Washington, who took money from Ukrainians, or, coordinated their actions with the Ukrainian authorities in order to influence the results of the 2016 elections…
    … (*former chief of the Obama administration Greg Craig*) is likely to be jailed on charges that sound exactly the same as the accusation, because of which … Paul Manafort was behind bars. ere extracted as part of the investigation of special Prosecutor Mueller against Donald trump. Moreover, the documents, facts and evidence used in the criminal case were obtained as a part of the investigation of special Prosecutor Mueller against Donald Trump. The difference is – Mueller ignored the opportunity to bring charges against an important lobbyist of the Democratic party, and the new “Pro-trump” attorney General William Barr used to the fullest…”
    source in russian is here
    https://ria.ru/20190416/1552690605.html

    and later
    “… The New York Times and Trump’s chief lawyer (former mayor of New York) Rudy Giuliani are engaged with opening of the ‘Ukrainian sins of the Obama’s administration’…
    … the Trump’s administration is ready to burn (without any apparent regret) the media myth that there was some “revolution of dignity” in Ukraine. And replace it with a much more realistic narrative that Ukraine was robbed by a friendly team of American and Ukrainian politicians tied to the so-called Deep State, which Donald Trump so often complains about…
    … We can assume, that among the Ukrainian politicians or security forces there are enough men willing to … give … appropriate testimony. This version of events looks quite probable in the context of… Rudy Giuliani already met in new York with the Ukrainian prosecutors “in the case of Biden”.”
    source in russian is here
    https://ria.ru/20190507/1553299604.html

    and the links used in the articles are:
    Ex-Obama WH counsel charged with lying in lobbying probe
    https://apnews.com/6b4a32eefd774fc882fbbaee556c05eb
    Charges against Gregory Craig over working with foreign interests follow the high-profile case of Paul Manafort.
    https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/11/gregory-craig-lobbying-foreign-interest-1271840
    Ukrainian to US prosecutors: Why don’t you want our evidence on Democrats?
    https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/437719-ukrainian-to-us-prosecutors-why-dont-you-want-our-evidence-on-democrats
    Biden Faces Conflict of Interest Questions That Are Being Promoted by Trump and Allies
    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/01/us/politics/biden-son-ukraine.html
    Giuliani calls for investigation into Biden over alleged conflict of interest
    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/441797-giuliani-calls-for-investigations-into-biden-over-alleged-conflicts-of
    —-
    both sources are by Ivan Danilov (I mention it here to respeect the copyright law) and also I hope to know your opinions is it “притянуто за уши” or is it the good analysis?

  • Adrian - Editor, J'Accuse News

    In late 2016 CrowdStrike fabricated the attribution which was dutifully reported by the press – and gave cover to then-POTUS Obama’s expulsion of Russian diplomats from the USA. This particular smoke-and-mirrors gambit involved an Ukrainian artillery strike – which never happened. CrowdStrike claimed it did happen and that the same elements were involved as had been in the DNC “hack” – thus providing intell “high confidence” that it was the GRU behind both purported happenings. This scam was thoroughly debunked around that time by American cyber-security expert Jeffrey Carr. Still, the diplomats were expelled and the media-amplified myths remained in force. (Voice of America did later highlight this legerdemain).

    According to the NYT’s recent reportage, in Spring 2018 when the intell forces wanted more Russian diplomats expelled, the CIA’s Gina Haspel presented POTUS Trump with photographs of children sickened, and ducks killed, by “novichok” in Salisbury, UK. Of course, just as there was no Ukrainian artillery strike as represented by CrowdStrike – no children or ducks were poisoned by novichok or any sort of nerve agent in Salisbury. Some 60 diplomats were expelled in this charade. We’re witnessing the same m.o. by the same cast – and they are allowed to get away with it by a press that is, either, lacking in critical faculties and an historical memory, or, too corrupt to honestly and meaningfully report the facts of matters.

  • Crabbit Geezer

    While we’re here some may find this of interest, I certainly did:

    America in denial: Gabor Maté on the psychology of Russiagatehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uR07OtEhKPE

    Physician, mental health expert, and best-selling author Dr. Gabor Maté sits down with The Grayzone’s Aaron Maté (his son) to analyze how Russiagate was able to take hold of U.S. society following Donald Trump’s election.

    • BrianFujisan

      Crabbit Geezer

      I seen that Caitlin Johnston posted about that Video Last night..Saying “This Talk Between Aaron & Gabor Maté Is The Best Political Video I’ve Ever Seen”:

      Just watched it and I can see what she means

      At 12; 50 mins, we are reminded of Mueller’s Lies Regarding Iraq WMD’s in his Speech of February 2003

      GABOR MATÉ: So given the line supported by Mueller led to the deaths of several hundred thousand Iraqi people and thousands of Americans, and has incurred costs that we all are fully aware of in terms of rise in terrorism and embroilment in multiple wars and situations, it takes an act of powerful historical amnesia for people to believe that this man is going to be our savior. That’s the first point. Just incredible historical amnesia number one.

      The Grayzone’s Transcript –

      https://thegrayzone.com/2019/05/07/gabor-mate-russiagate-interview-transcript/

  • Tony Roberts

    Good article, as always !

    Few will question William Binney’s credentials – but I did read of a separate problem with his anaylsis, namely that we assume he was looking at timestamps/metadata in the ORIGINAL data copied taken from DNC servers, rather than those of a SUBSQUENT copy (of the same data) made in a completely different environment. How do we know these were ORIGINAL timestamps ? Did he say so ? Could he even have been sure himself ?

    There’s not much I disagree with in this article, but I feel this technical argument should be downplayed. It doesn’t feel watertight to me.

  • Paul Damascene

    While we’re drawing up a map of unexplored investigative avenues, establishing any connections beyond coincidental among Steel, Pablo Miller, the Skripals and the Salisbury spectacle is eminently worth pursuing.

    I’m not sure how the D notice works in the UK, and would understand if Craig cannot safely pursue this, in the time of Julian Assange’s persecution, but can his contributors outside the UK create some venue for exploring the question, and then linking directly or indirectly back to Craig’s audience?

    • Goose

      ‘ Any D-Notices or DA-notices are only advisory requests, and so are not legally enforceable; hence, news editors can choose not to abide by them. However, they are generally complied with by the media. – wiki

      This is probably why the UK govt wants far tighter control over the internet. I foresee a real struggle coming in the UK between libertarians and the deeply authoritarian , almost fascistic instincts of parts of society. One of the greatest mysteries in the UK, is why Conservative supporters believe theirs is the party of liberty, despite its introduction of the Snooper’s Charter and internet censorship plans and its propensity for centralization of power, secrecy and cover-up.

      The Tories think they can just turn back the clock and control the online world, without anyone so much as complaining.

  • Calgacus

    The Real Muellergate Scandal:

    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.

    What is so important about this is that it is logically provable. It is based on nothing but pure logic and very simple, innocent facts that everybody across the board accepts – but do not all follow the implications of. What Mueller did was what Captain Renault (Claude Rains) did in Capablanca: Rick (Humphrey Bogart) shoots Major Strasser (Conrad Veidt) in front of his eyes. Then he gives an order to round up the usual suspects. If the Mueller “investigation” was an investigation, so was Captain Renault’s. Another more obscure (undeservedly) cinematic reference that is in some ways even closer to Russiagate is Elio Petri’s Investigations of Citizen Above Suspicion.

    Note again, the rock-solid fact that Mueller is a deeply corrupt fraud doesn’t depend on the first-order facts of the matter. Maybe Rick was actually firing a blank. Maybe one of the usual suspects was the second shooter, firing from a grassy knoll in Capablanca, and he actually killed Major Strasser. Maybe the Podesta emails actually were hacked by Boris Badunov & Natasha Nogoodnik, and Murray, Assange, Binney etc are lying and deceived. Maybe examining the servers would show Boris & Natasha’s Russian DNA-filled borscht had been spilled on the servers. None of that changes the fact that Captain Renault and Special Counsel Mueller DID NOT INVESTIGATE.

    These Russiagate arguments can go on forever; that’s what TPTB want. But this argument is decisive in practice. Whenever I make it on the interwebs, the opposition simply can’t think of anything to say. Because there is nothing. At worst they fume and electronically stamp their feet and walk away. Often enough, it actually helps people change their mind a bit.

    • Ken Kenn

      All that has come out of ‘Russiagate’ is that Donald Trumps lies.

      Who knew?

      Mueller ‘ looked into’ 9/11 so he has form.

      It was like like getting Jacob Rees Mogg to ‘ look into ‘ the reason for food banks and poverty in the UK.

      I’m afraid the technical stuff baffles me but the politics are pretty clear.

      Russia bad – Trump bad – Hilary undermined by both the ‘ baddies’ – liberals pretending to be baffled as to why they lost.

      Simple really – the Democrats lost because they put up a bad candidates with a bad set of policies.

      She asked the yanks ‘ Business as usual? ‘

      The Yanks said no thanks.

      Of course Hilary never mentioned the Electoral College and its effects.

      Too busy removing real Democrat voters from the electoral lists I suppose.

      See Greg Palast for details.

    • Goose

      Were Trump remotely competent he could get to the bottom of this himself.

      He tweeted on his official Twitter account – D.J.Trump 19th April 2019 , the following ::

      It is now finally time to turn the tables and bring justice to some very sick and dangerous people who have committed very serious crimes, perhaps even Spying or Treason. This should never happen again!

      He’ll rail on Twitter about ‘NO COLLUSION!’ and how this is all a ‘witch hunt’ and ‘deep state’ this and ‘deep state’that, as if some powerless bystander to his own downfall.

      • Loony

        In many ways Trump is a powerless bystander.

        This is a man that has been assailed and harassed from the moment he won the Presidency. He has all the forces of the deep state ranged against him and the deep state has the megaphone of the media to amplify and spread the lies. He is completely surrounded by the most venal of enemies.

        Reports are emerging that Trump is seeking to resist Bolton’s attempts to start wars with both Venezuela and Iran. Trump is facing down China and possibly being undermined by the Fed. These are all big ticket issues, and one man can only do so much,

        However Trump has been rolling up a range of child sex networks – who knows who may ultimately be implicated. Trump is also applying relentless pressure on Comey, McCabe et al. If only the media would report anything approximating the truth then the people may have a more informed understanding. But they won’t and so Trump also applies pressure to the media.

        Whatever the ultimate outcome at least Trump has the raw bollocks to get into the swamp and grab as many alligators as possible. The man is a hero – and for his pains is universally reviled and smeared.

        • Paul Damascene

          Far be it from me to cut the Oranging Bystander an undeserved bit of slack, but–to the point Loony makes–he has at first glance surrounded himself with the very Deep State swamp creatures least likely to execute on the impulses that expressed during the election.

          But is perhaps just a bit too much scorn heaped on Donald the feckless, the disingenuous, the nitwit? The two figures most likely to have actually shared his foreign policy views, particularly the dislike of regime-change intervention, were gone very quickly (to be replaced by current filth): Bannon (never really heard a satisfying explanation as to why) and General Flynn.

          If Flynn were served up by the Deep State as an example of how it goes for their opponents, and if DJT himself was so easily moved to fire him, what opponent of the Deep State would put himself / herself forward after that?

          If Bannon had to go, for no publicly stated reason, the Swamp may actually have the goods on Trump (perhaps with nothing to do with Russia). As the Distractor-in-Chief he may retain some value, or at least offer no appreciable threat. As long as he never actually follows through on his threats to declassify, or sic a special prosecutor on the Swamp, he can serve out his term.

          Purest speculation, of course.

          • Goose

            @Paul

            I agree kinda.

            Pompeo may be lots of things, but clearly he isn’t a stupid man and he’s the last person you’d have down as a MAGA Trump supporter. So why is he there? Most likely there to protect the intel community and keep Trump out of the loop most likely.

        • Jackrabbit

          1) The Presidency is too powerful to allow anyone not well-vetted to exercise its powers. Trump is a member of the team, just like every President.

          2) “Reports are emerging” – those “reports” are suspect. They come from Washington Post and are attributed to an anonymous source. They attempt to further the pretense that democracy works!; that Trump is a populist outsider inclined toward peace/nonintervention.

          The fact is, if Trump were a populist outsider inclined toward peace, he wouldn’t have brought people like Bolton, Abrams, and Gina Haspel into his administration.

          Lastly, Caitlin Johnstone has debunked the “reports” quoting from the article itself, which states that (in paragraph 4): The administration’s policy is officially unchanged … and (in paragraph 12):

          “Despite Trump’s grumbling that Bolton had gotten him out on a limb on Venezuela, Bolton’s job is safe, two senior administration officials said, and Trump has told his national security adviser to keep focusing on Venezuela.“

  • Fuddledeedee

    Forensic analysis of the actual DNC email servers would have had limited use UNLESS the machines were taken out of service immediately the phishing attack was detected. It is clear the FBI did not carry out their due process and it appears the servers had still not been analysed 6 months after the event. It is not clear if the servers were still in daily use as far as I can see.
    This would mean that the NSA would have to rely on Internet traffic analysis to try and work out what was going on (they have the tools as we saw in the Snowden files).
    One assumes there is a turf war between the NSA and FBI under the guise of friendly inter-agency rivalry One agency needed a quick result. This would have resulted in one agency making assumptions based on pre-conceived ideas. The other agency having a more thorough evidence based approach before producing a (politically edited) final report.
    It just happens that Crowdstrike Services, this is the part of the company (or should that be bit) that provides incident responses services is or was set up and run by a former FBI “executive”.
    Given the need for the FBI to have a fast result and for them to be seen to be leading the investigation, I think the FBI accepted the findings from Crowdstrike without question. The assumption being that the FBI must have engaged them in the first place investigate the incident, if so then the FBI team probably did not or do not understand the technology under investigation and would be unable identify flaws in the analysis.

    I wonder if anyone has been successful in tidying up some of the redacted material in the Mueller Lite Report with information readily available across this thing called the internet? Not that I would ever suggest or try anything like that myself.

    • Goose

      Many people have talked up the sophistication of the intrusion, The media talks about GRU this and that and hacking . But anyone in the tech community will tell you phishing emails are quite common and corporate staff are normally told to beware of anything asking them to login with a link provided in alert type emails. The Democrats apparently had really poor security practice, that could have been exploited by literally anyone out there. In other words, they were wide open and they didn’t even use two-factor authentication (2FA) based on the report I read. Which, given the potentially hugely sensitive data they held, was absurd.

  • Mark mcd

    Boldly stated and likely to be the lasting view. The question, cui bono? Was it all distraction, smoke and mirrors, while the rest of the world gets further drawn into the military Industrial complex grasp?

  • David Wrightsman

    You characterised Mueller’s personality accurately. Pretty obvious that he chose not to pursue the steps in the investigation you mentioned because he either knew the answers already or he suspected that the answers would expose the fraud he was involved in. Regardless of what his reputation might of been, it is trash now and for all the right reasons. Cant really call an investigation when a majority of his work involved covering up the real criminals, starting with Steele and ending with Obama.

  • Sean Lamb

    If anyone wants to have a bit of a chuckle they should read James Comey’s memos – they are simply littered with covert threats to leakers and whistleblowers.

    https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4442900-Ex-FBI-Director-James-Comey-s-memos.html

    These are the ones I have spotted:

    “I said this was inflammatory stuff that they [the media] would get killed for reporting straight up from the source reports”

    “He then said [in relation to a Bill O’reilly interview] ‘You thought my answer was good, right?’ I said the answer was fine, except the part about the killers, because we aren’t the kind of killers Putin is. When I said this the President paused noticeably” – [NO SHIT]

    “I said I was eager to find leakers and would like to nail one to the door as a message”

    [Again on leakers] ” “I said something about the value of putting a head on a pike as a message”

    No wonder Trump thought he was a nut job. I am assuming Comey wrote these memos as a gas-lighting tactic if Trump ever complained and if we actually had tapes of the conversations that would be even more disturbing.

    Seth Rich?

  • Antonym

    As for Julian Assange: the FBI, CIA and NSA hate him as he revealed too many of their dirty secrets while president Trump might need his testimony in the DNC leak case to stop further Democrat harassment.

    Our host here himself was also part of the Wikileaks leak delivery chain so he is partly in this same boat as Assange.

    The US (self)security services aim at focusing only on possible additional DNC hacks and using them to confuse/ erase DNC leak leads.

  • Ed Snack

    I believe that Binney is in this case mistaken, what he shows is I suggest that at some point the files were copied to a USB drive but we can’t be sure whether this was the first download or a subsequent one. There is other information that points to a USB drive – the use of the FAT file system which is these days only commonly found on USB type devices.

    The Guccifer2 identification though is on the correct track. Although misdirection is rife it does appear that G2 operated from within the USA according to timezone info captured in some compression/decompression work. These are generally obfuscated but can be preserved inside some operations due to specific software settings. Plus the “salting” of the records with language specific metadata is also very suspicious.

    Also suspicious is the identification of GRU/FSB as the hackers from an obsolete IP address that had been captured at least a year before the DNC “hack”; the very late compile dates on the software in question; and the fact that the software itself had been available to third parties for at least 2 years prior to the supposed “hack”.

    There are other anomalous features of the whole affair – the fact that G2 purported to release items from the DNC “hack” and yet the actual released items actually came from John Podesta’s email (version matching shows this); the fact that nothing of any substance or in any way damaging to the Clinton campaign/DNC was accessed in the DNC “hack” (all the meaty bits are from the Podesta “phish”).

    It is speculation but my most likely scenario is that Podesta was phished by a Ukrainian group with potential ties to Russian Intelligence but it isn’t clear if those ties were involved in the targeting or the distribution. The DNC situation was hacked by either the same or a similar group primarily interested in financial information that they could use – which is why it is a few almost non-political figures in the DNC who’s emails were taken along with some personal data. That looks like a “normal” commercial hack for financial reasons. Crowdstrike then manufactured that into a “Russian Hack” narrative for political reasons, and G2 is a Crowdstrike creation. Be good if Crowdstrike’s engineers and managers were questioned under oath about the whole matter.

    Quite who released the info to Wikileaks is not, I think, quite clear. Assange claims it wasn’t a Russian source but who knows if he could be sure.

1 2 3

Comments are closed.