Bill Binney on Russian “Hacking” – Live 246

UPDATE Since posting the link to Bill Binney’s talk, a number of people have been in touch to allege that the hosting organisation, the Schiller Institute, has an objectionable right wing or even racist agenda. I am not aware and have no time now to research. I am however 100% certain that Bill Binney, whom I know, is neither right wing nor in any sense racist, and that he has very important things to say. This does not constitute either an endorsement or a condemnation of the Schiller Institute or anybody else who may be present or speaking.

William Binney, former Technical Director of the National Security Agency (NSA – GCHQ’s much bigger American brother) and the world’s foremost expert in cyber-surveillance, explains why it is impossible that Russia hacked the DNC and Podesta emails for Wikileaks.

From the International Schiller Institute, Washington DC live at 11am in Washington, 4pm in the UK.

Despite the fact that $32 million Mueller Inquiry could find “no concrete evidence” of the hack and Crowdstrike, the source of the original allegation, have admitted there is “no evidence of exfiltration”, the media and establishment persists in the “Russian hacking” narrative. It is stated as accepted fact in the Russophobic report of the Intelligence and Security Committee in the UK.

Yet it is simply untrue, and can be proven to be untrue. See William Binney explain why.

You need to register here

William Binney Makes His Case To The World: There Was No Russian Hack

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

246 thoughts on “Bill Binney on Russian “Hacking” – Live

1 2

    Please stop defending Russia at every single turn, Craig, it undermines the credibility of the 95% of courageous stuff you otherwise post

    • Er

      Russia doesn’t need defending, and its government certainly needs scrutiny.

      However, at present in the UK, other states are not judged to the same standards as Russia, UK obviously included.

      I sometimes wonder who in UK politics/defense actually puts UK interests first?

    • Goose

      The US/UK seem obsessed with Russia, that’s why.

      And he doesn’t defend Russia (leader and system) he merely raises important questions that if we had any half-decent politicians or journos, they’d be fearlessly raising instead.

      On the Skripals, he along with others raised various outstanding questions, that have never been satisfactorily answered.

      And read the fourth OPCW whistleblower’s’ statement and tell everyone there is no dodgy shit happening . Serious professional people driven to despair simply for trying to carry out their work diligently and with honesty and integrity.

    • bs buster

      Truth needs to be defended, whether you like it or not. If you think lies have more credibility, then go on with it.

    • james

      good luck trying to defend the lame excuse of gov’t leadership as exampled by uk, or the usa on the world stage and especially with regard everything pertaining to stereotyping of russia which has been non stop since the ukraine fiasco…. is this what you are trying to do here?? looks like it..

    • pretzelattack

      he’s defending russia against fake charges. what is your problem with that?

      • Goose

        How many of these logical fallacies are politicians, the MSM and some commenting here ,who attack Craig and others, guilty of?

        Strawman – You misrepresented someone’s argument to make it easier to attack.

        False cause – Presuming that a real or perceived relationship between things means that one is the cause of the other.

        appeal to emotion – Manipulating an emotional response in place of a valid or compelling argument.

        The fallacy fallacy – Presuming that because a claim has been poorly argued, or a fallacy has been made, that the claim itself must be wrong.

        Slippery slope – Asserting that if we allow A to happen, then Z will consequently happen too, therefore A should not happen.

        Ad hominem – Attacking your opponent’s character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument.

        Tu quoque – Avoiding having to engage with criticism by turning it back on the accuser – answering criticism with criticism.

        Personal incredulity – Saying that because one finds something difficult to understand that it’s therefore not true.

        Special pleading – Moving the goalposts or making up exceptions when a claim is shown to be false.

        Loaded question – Asking a question that has a presumption built into it so that it can’t be answered without appearing guilty.

        Burden of proof – Saying that the burden of proof lies not with the person making the claim, but with someone else to disprove.

        Ambiguity – Using double meanings or ambiguities of language to mislead or misrepresent the truth.

        composition/division – Assuming that what’s true about one part of something has to be applied to all, or other, parts of it.

        Bandwagon – Appealing to popularity or the fact that many people do[believe] something as an attempted form of validation.

        Appeal to authority – Saying that because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true.( Everyone believed he had them ‘WMD’)

        Genetic -Judging something good or bad on the basis of where it comes from, or from whom it comes.

        Black-or-white – Where two alternative states are presented as the only possibilities, when in fact more possibilities exist.

        Begging the question – A circular argument in which the conclusion is included in the premise.

        • Tatyana

          rejection of arguments because the information
          1. is new (I haven’t heard about it before)
          2. coincided in time with other information (‘what a coincidence’ sarcasm)
          3. does not fit into the usual picture of the world (this simply cannot be)
          4. was unknown or hidden (if it were true, I would have known it long ago)

          • Goose

            Among our politicians, especially Labour centrists and some in the SNP …

            Bandwagon – Appealing to popularity or the fact that many people do[believe] something as an attempted form of validation.


            Appeal to authority – Saying that because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true.

            Are the two most evident around all information relating to Russia. It’s safer going with the flow. And there are absolutely no consequences if collectively they’re completely wrong.

            Lots of people, from the UN’s former chief weapons inspector Hans Blix (he should know about WMD, right) down were questioning the WMD evidence prior to the Iraq war, but the same type of politicians were having none of it, so convinced were they. Today, the same politicians when questioned about that time, merely state, ‘we couldn’t possibly have known back then the intelligence information was false.’ Pure revisionism.

          • Tatyana

            There is one more thing noticeable to a Russian, I saw it in films and your journalists and politicians use it. “he did it before. It’s his method”
            In the Skripal story they used a comparison with Litvinenko’s case, and Douma’s attack they compared with previous attacks.
            For me it is obvious that a criminal once disclosed will certainly change his modus operandi. Moreover, a repetition rather indicates fake, an action in disguise.

          • N_

            Ladies and gentlemen, esteemed former diplomats, small businesspeople, weirdos, ambitious intelligence operatives learning the internet influence trade, and, last but not least, humanitarians, gathered here tonight as connoisseurs of different types of fallacies, I bring you…without further ado…the Russian peasant and the bird!

            One snowy evening on his way home, a Russian peasant came across an injured bird. Not wishing to separate him from his family and friends, yet fearful for the bird’s welfare as the air temperature dropped, he wondered what he should do, how he might help. Eventually he thought of a solution: he shaped a freshly deposited cowpat into a cone, scooped up the little fellow, put him in the middle of it, and went on his way.

            At first the bird was terrified, but as he began to warm up surrounded by the fresh excrement, he began to cheer and soon he was singing away happily.

            Then a second peasant came by. “What’s that cheeping?” he thought to himself, noticed the bird, killed him, and took him home for his dinner.

            1. He who drops you in the sh*t isn’t necessarily your enemy.
            2. He who gets you out of the sh*t isn’t necessarily your friend.
            3. When you ARE in the sh*t, don’t make a song and dance out of it.

          • Tatyana

            N_ thank you! With your kind permission ” a young man and a rabbi”

            A young man had a talk to a rabbi.
            – Rabbi, I learned Logics and now I want to learn Talmud.
            – This is the greatest book ever written by people. I will give you a logic test: if you cope, I will study with you. Two people go down the chimney. One gets out with a clean face, the other with a dirty one. Which of them is going to wash?
            – The one with a dirty face!
            – Wrong. Think logically: someone with a dirty face will look at someone with a clean face and decide that his face is also clean. And the one with a clean face will look at the one with a dirty face, decide that he himself is also dirty, and will go to wash.
            – Well, I didn’t think of it. Please, Rabbi, ask me another question.

            – Two people go down the chimney…Who is going to wash himself?
            – But we have already found out – the one with a clean face!
            – Wrong. Both will go to wash. Think logically: someone with a clean face will look at someone with a dirty face and decide that his face is also dirty. And the one with a dirty face will see that the second has gone to wash, will understand that his face is dirty, and will also go to wash.
            – Amazing! Please, do ask me one more time!

            – Two men go down the chimney… Who is going to wash himself?
            – None of them will go to wash !!!
            – Wrong. Now you see that knowledge of the logic of Socrates is not enough to teach the Talmud? Tell me, how can it be that two people go down the same chimney and one of them gets his face dirty, and the other doesn’t ?! This whole question is nonsense.

        • Kempe

          The most common; if B follows A then B must be caused by A. Much beloved by anti-vaxxers and the burden of proof, you cannot disprove it so therefore it must be true, is a favourite of truthers.

          There’s also the reverse of the appeal to authority, if something comes from a certain source, be it the Wail, Bellingcat, HRW or Amnesty, then that alone is sufficient reason to discard it without further consideration.

          • glenn_uk

            K : “There’s also the reverse of the appeal to authority, if something comes from a certain source, be it the Wail, Bellingcat, HRW or Amnesty, then that alone is sufficient reason to discard it without further consideration

            Actually that’s the “poisoning the well” fallacy. If it comes from a source you don’t like, then it is ipso facto untrue. Or if you can find something that undermines the source – even when entirely unconnected to the matter at hand – then that source’s contribution can be dismissed.

          • glenn_uk

            T: “Even a Broken Clock Is Right Twice a Day

            A slow clock is never right 😉

          • squirrel

            ‘Post hoc ergo propter hoc’. It’s a fallacy much used by pro-vaxxers too, the difference is they go utterly crazy when you point it out to them. (e.g. saying vaccination was responsible for huge decline in death rates from diseases , compared to days when people threw their sewage out of the window).

          • Kempe

            ” ‘Post hoc ergo propter hoc’. It’s a fallacy much used by pro-vaxxers too, the difference is they go utterly crazy when you point it out to them. (e.g. saying vaccination was responsible for huge decline in death rates from diseases , compared to days when people threw their sewage out of the window). “

            If you look at cases rather than just deaths you get a different picture. There’s a marked drop in cases after vaccines are introduced. Fewer people were dying yes, that was due to better understanding of the diseases and better treatment but people were still left with major disabilities such as blindness (measles) or paralysis (polio).

            Diseases which should’ve been eliminated such as measles are making a comeback. Is this because of a fall in the vaccination rate or has swathes of the population taken to chucking their sh*t out of the upstairs window again?

          • N_

            @Kempe – Can you set out the argument you are making in your comment stamped 15:21 on 26 July 2020 more clearly please.

            If someone observes that a fall in the prevalence of infectious disease X happened after improvements in public hygiene and somebody else says that it also happened after mass vaccination, and that’s all we know, then there is nothing to distinguish between the two for rationality or for being misled by fallacious reasoning. There really isn’t.

            Factor in Rockefeller, follow the money, and have a Marxist understanding of the dynamics of capitalism and there might be.

          • SA

            There is a statistical device called ‘multivariate analysis’ which can distinguish whether only A or only B is the cause of an occurrence or indeed whether both are. There is also well known resurgence and deaths resulting from measles when vaccination rates fall.

          • SA

            Surely you know how to stick to the subject. Even communist Russia and China believed in mass vaccination. And the fact that a vaccine is effective does not also mean that companies can also exploit this success for their profits.

        • Giyane

          Haec etiam Maecenas respice autem.

          War is done in stages. In Syria , false information has been used are every stage, including now , when we are being told by The US and Russia that irreconcilable differences can only be solved by dividing up the territory.
          This was the objective of all the false information from day 1. In fact Cameron prepared the way by permitting UK aid to be diverted to peace-keeping, I.e. everything in Syria was done in order to achieve a false outcome.

          From my point of view the main significance of this mountain of political bat droppings is that there is no jihad in Syria, just job opportunities for extras on a film set of Western recidivist colonialism.

          But the deeper significance of excessive falsification in US and UK politics is that both are lies, the hacking lie, and the leak lie.
          Mueller’s lie doesn’t make Craig’s truth true.

          It is much more likely imho that the Syrian War moved from the stage of terrifying destruction under the Democrats, to carving up the spoils under Trump. All of that was pre- planned between Moscow, the Jihadists, Turkey , Barzani, Iran.

          In a world of planned narrative, every item is servant to the criminal outcome, and therefore the accusations against Assange are pure fake news, designed to bolster the narrative of an actual war having taken place.

          I believe none of it. I totally disagree with the premise of the question. These countries believe that they have the media power to completely control the narrative.
          It’s called Integrity, or joined up lies.
          Completely opposite and inverse to the concept of truth.

          Craig seems still to believe that truth will set you free. Yes, but not if you remain inside the Lord of the Rings type Hollywoid narrative.
          Earlier , I got blasted out of the water for saying this. But it remains my understanding that everything in current politics is designed to mitigate the fact that foreign wars are now, by virtue of internet and planes , on our doorstep. That is why the PTB think they can only do colonialism by means if integrated disinformation.

          • lysias

            Please forgive me for correcting your Latin. I couldn’t understand the Latin as you quoted it, and so I had to look up how it actually goes. From line 2 of Book IV of Virgil’s Georgics, it goes: “Hanc etiam, Maecenas, respice partem.”

          • Giyane


            Oh dear, memories from my dream haze of long-haired youth in the 70s studying Latin A level.
            I carried a vellum bound minuture copy of the Georgics in my rucksack travels.
            Thanks for the correction.
            Virgil addresses his patron , just take a look at this, bees making homes in walls. Can you imagine what Michael Gove would say if you started a discussion on bee populations?
            ‘ Farmers have to be compensated for having to nurture the countryside.’

    • RMM

      Not defending Russia (from what?) but trying to show the Brits how manipulated they are – by their own leaders.

    • Carolyn Zaremba

      Please stop attacking Russia at every turn. Stop perpetuating lies that have been debunked for a long time.

  • Border Bus

    I was born in Edinburgh and like my Mum and Gran, have lived and worked in Scotland all my life.
    bbc,mark urban,christopher steele,pablo miller, I have never been so depressed.
    Explain clearly to me what YOU are doing to make my life better

      • Goose

        Strange how the same names keep popping up. They seem to be at the apex of everything, it’s like pulling on string. And Urban believing the fact he had been working closely with Sergei Skripal for months(for his book) unworthy of a mention?

  • d-3po

    Thanks for your steadfastnesse, Mr. Murray. Without the likes of you and Mr. Binney — perish the thought! OMG I’m never doing that again.

    A salute to your courage, from the States.

    Winning? (Smile)
    Losing? (Tear)
    What’s to fear?

    • ET

      Indeed, the outrage ought to be at what was exposed within the leaked emails not at who exposed them. I haven’t seen anywhere anyone denying what those emails exposed, that the DNC stitched up Bernie Sanders and interfered in an underhand way in what was supposed to be a transparent democratic process. So, you are right, who the hell cares how the information came out. It is the information that is important. The DNC colluded to interfere ilegally in an electoral process.

      Who benefits from security services acting in a politcised way?

        • Tatyana

          Thank for this, Tom 🙂
          So, when they say “Russia undermines our democratic process” I understand they mean “Russia undermined the ‘process’ of Democrats”. The same with interference in THEIRS elections, and in general in THEIRS democracy.

      • Ken Kenn

        I think the ultimate interference in an election or a State you don’t agree with is to invade the place.

        Under Obama the Democrat – the US invasion count went from 2 to 7.

        Technically another ( Iran ) is on the way.

        Now – Mr Putin may be a ‘bad actor’ but Crimea and defending Eastern Ukraine from fascists is not so Ivan the Terrible in my book.

        It’s about time the ‘ Free ‘ West came down off it’s Low Pony and had a look at itself.

        Tomorrow in the US is the start of renters and mortgagees being evicted from their house as the rent/ mortgages cannot be paid.

        I hear that the total numbers affected may be around 28 million people – you read that right 28 million people.

        That is around a 12th of all US citizens.

        And all to furnish the already rich with more riches as the buy up properties on the cheap.

        I can say this – that something is brewing in the US and like the UK something will have to give.

        The thing is: will it give to the right or the left?

        the Centre will be out of the game in both cases I think

  • pete

    It would be difficult to weigh in on the Russia plot theory without leaning to one side or the other. I sympathise with the notion that a lot of the Russia plot is just unprovable. That it is also convenient to have a bad guy or scapegoat (Putin/Russia) to blame in order to justify actions overseas or massive spending on defence, both a stock in trade rational for the arms industry.
    In a way it doesn’t matter who the leader of Russia is, reasons would always be found to fear a nation with a Nuclear arsenal. Listening to the speakers talk about the evidence for the DNC hack, (but not the Q and A that followed) I was struck by their sincerity and earnestness. Binney is persuasive in saying the hack was an inside job due to the technical improbability of transmitting the data over the internet in the time it took to do the download. Nothing in the comments here makes me think he would be an unreliable witness. His testimony would only be invalidated if it was shown that he was wrong on the technical side. I do not care who Binney voted for, his political beliefs are his own concern.
    The Schiller Institute is another matter, they may be well meaning busy bodies or they may be hell bent on world domination, I have no idea. I did know a bit about them because of the sad case of the death of Jeremiah Duggan, when the details of his death became news some years ago, Wiki gives a summery of the case here:
    So the Schiller Institute’s motives may be suspect, but that does not mean that what they have said in this case is not true.

    • SO.

      The problem with a plot based upon nonsense is that when you point out the fact the evidence presented to support that plot *is* nonsense you have been assigned a side whether you want to or not by default.

  • N_

    As we approach the US presidential election on 3 November there will be some who push the Russian influence story, but I suspect that if the hack of the Democrats’ server was going to be the new Watergate burglary then that would already be clear by now. That said, one expects surprises. If the impeachment route were taken (Trump being accused of having snow on his boots), then a handful of Republican senators could cause him a lot of damage (including regards subpoenaing of witnesses) even if they were unable to deliver the two-thirds Senate majority required for an impeachment conviction. If Trump himself were to be made to stand cross-examination he would be finished. Can you imagine it? “I am directing the witness to answer the question.” Like all bullies he will turn into a massive crybaby when people stand up to him.

    If the 25th Amendment route were taken, then on a reasonable interpretation the same handful of senators could bring about Trump’s removal from office, always assuming a) someone twists Mike Pence’s arm, and b) the Supreme Court justices aren’t in the Trump team’s pocket as they were in George W Bush’s in 2000. (The route would be Congress setting up a special body that would take on the role that would otherwise be played by the cabinet, in which only a simple majority – plus Pence – would be required.)

    Does Trump have problems with the Republicans? I think he does. We’ll have to see how the proposed coronavirus legislation goes in the next two weeks or so. I also suspect that rather than Trump cancelling the Republican national convention it may have been the Republicans who did it. It’s TYPICAL of a “big swinging d*ck” type like Trump, a kind of walking heap of personified ego-bullsh*t, to claim that a change was instructed on HIS orders and resulted from HIS great act of willpower when in reality it was imposed on him from the outside.

    Trump appears to be attacking Big Pharma, a venture in which he is unlikely to be successful, to say the least. The “health” sector in the US is at 17.7% of GDP, making it more than FIVE TIMES LARGER than the military sector (3.4%). Pharmaceutical spending itself is at 2.0%, but while this is only a portion of the “health” sector and hospitals and health provision by no means run ONLY on drugs I don’t think it can be whacked as (much more slowly) the tobacco sector was. Pharmaceuticals are a very high profit sector and the state acts as office boy for the cartel by administering the patent system. Chief office boy doesn’t know chief office boy’s place and it will be SQUELCH, goodbye chief office boy.

    • Sarge

      Joe Biden says he will veto any bill establishing a US equivalent to the NHS, even in the miraculous event it passed Congress. So fingers crossed for him.

      • Jack

        I find it odd that the democrats have no better candidate to put forward than Biden,he is very bland and going 78. If he win he will be 82 years old when his first term is done, meaning most likely he will not run for a second term which in turn could spell trouble for the democrats if it comes to that.

        • Goose

          Be interesting who his running mate is. Glenn Greenwald and others seem to think Kamala Harris, or the aggressively hawkish Susan Rice could turn Bernie supporters right off the ticket.

          Apparently Pompeo is being lined up to run on the Republican side; it’s reported Pompeo was considering a run for the Senate from his adopted home state of Kansas and he nurtures plans for a presidential bid in 2024. An ex CIA chief running for President is nothing new in the US. George H.W Bush was a former Director of Central Intelligence.

          Were I American, I’m not I’m British, I would utterly pissed off with what is basically a sham choice two-party system (much like ours, now centrists run Labour again).

        • Yalt

          Four years are all it will take: once the Democrats have pushed through a Grand Compromise and passed all the legislation a Republican administration could only dream of (slashing of Medicare and, more dramatically, Medicaid, privatization of Social Security, etc.) they won’t need the presidency. Better to go back into faux-opposition and start cranking out the fundraising e-mails pretending to be opposed to everything they were coerced into proposing while in power. In fact the best DNC plan would probably be to nominate someone from the AOC wing of the party in 2024 and hope (or, more precisely, arrange) for a McGovern-level landslide against her.

          • Jack

            I believe AOC is too radical for America, overall she strikes me as incompetent, never understood the buzz around her.
            I thought Sanders would be a good pick even though I was sad to see he and also Tulsi ending up giving their support to Biden.

          • Yalt

            Since the point will be to lose the election as badly as possible in order to discredit the party’s own left wing, “too radical for America” would be a prerequisite. The party apparatus itself would make sure its candidate is painted that way.

          • Jack

            Looking at her tweets she seems mostly focused on specific issues i.e. identity politics, that wont appeal to the common voter in america.

          • pretzelattack

            they don’t have to lose as badly as possible in order to lie about their left wing, they do that whatever happens. for example clinton didn’t lose as badly as possible, she even won the popular vote, but not the all important electoral vote. this has been sufficient for the dnc to blame sanders and russia for the loss for the past 4 years.

        • Bramble

          What spells trouble for the Democrats is that the “centrists” who run the party won’t allow anyone even mildly to the left of the Biden-puppet to run. Biden, by the way, is not only visibly worn out and frail, he is corrupt. But in the right way, which makes him part of the One Party State Establishment, really run by the funding oligarchs. We have the same pattern here, except that this country is so ageist (note the lack of outrage at the virtually invisible virus death-toll: we are told it is mostly the very old who are dying, so nobody cares. They are dead to us already) it wouldn’t get away with running somebody so decrepit. So it’s middle aged Mr Bully Boy Bamboozle versus middle aged Mr Forensic chunk of wood.

          • Goose

            “Biden, by the way, is not only visibly worn out and frail, he is corrupt.

            The TV debates could be decisive. As poor a debater as Trump is, Hillary (a much better debater) couldn’t really dent him as her supporters believed she would. Biden has clearly lost any sharpness he once had, and worse, he’s prone to explosive outbursts of rage when under scrutiny, as we’ve witnessed on the campaign calling a woman a ‘lying, dog-faced pony soldier’ and the incident telling a voter “you’re full of shit” when he was quizzed on Second Amendment rights. Imo, Trump only has to mention Hunter Biden and Burisma Holdings and it could be like lighting the fuse paper. His campaign managers are probably bricking it.

          • Jack


            My thoughts too, Biden also seems to be plagued with quite a few slip of the tongue moments which could spell trouble in the live public debates.

          • pretzelattack

            not totally clear there are going to be live public debates at this point.

      • Yalt

        Public provision of healthcare as in the UK is so unimaginable here in the States that Biden’s never bothered to take a position on the matter (neither has any other politician of national note I can think of, including Sanders). Short of a genuine revolution, clinics, hospitals, and physician groups will continue to be privately owned and run under any conceivable bill; what Biden’s promised to veto is any single-payer or “Medicare For All” bill.

        The basic problem is that what looks like waste from one perspective is “jobs” and “profit” from another. Of course our system is absurdly inefficient and expensive (not to mention ineffective)–that’s precisely what makes it irreplaceable. It’s a bit like weapons procurement that way, I suppose.

    • N_

      I said Trump “appears” to be attacking Big Pharma. Now there’s no doubt: he’s doing it OPENLY.

      Today he retweeted his tweet of yesterday [*] saying

      Big Pharma is taking television ads trying to make the case that I am raising prescription drug prices on seniors. The ad is a lie! What I have done will lead to a 50% REDUCTION in prices, at least, & Big Pharma is not happy about it. No other President would…be able to produce what I have. So when you see those nasty ads from Big Pharma remember, the only reason they are going all out is the massive PRICE REDUCTIONS you are getting – not good for them. Plus, I was only President in 51 years that got a Prescription D reduction!

      He surely cannot possibly take on Big Pharma and win. He’ll have to reverse or crash. Clamming up and making a donation to the Big Pharma Fund in private doesn’t seem like his style.

      This is much bigger than Boris Johnson saying “f*** business”. Johnson didn’t react to the reaction by “doubling down”.

      Maybe someone who has studied Trump’s tweeting pattern can tell us whether retweeting his own tweets is common behaviour for him. Or is he just losing it? Mentally will he be able to cope with watching clips from the Democrats’ convention? We had the “Nobody likes me” thing – jealousy of his subordinates’ “ratings” – recently to. (I loved the way he said the reason nobody likes him must be his personality. Well yes I suppose it must be. What a level of self-knowledge this patient has developed!)

  • JF

    Dear me Craig.

    The Schiller institute et al.

    Binney should have known who the fuck he was talking to. Binney went on Alex Jones’s “Info Wars”
    Seriously???? So Binney went on a show who the audience believe will soon have “The Storm”.

    I took you seriously for a while now “Gies peace”!!

    • Jack

      He could have gone to Alex Jones because the message from Binney woud have been the same.

    • J

      ^Pure identity politics, mate.

      He’s talking directly to a wide audience for whom you have appear to have some contempt. That means he can speak put the truth in front of people you don’t even know exist. And you say that’s a bad thing?

    • Jack


      From the article:

      “Meanwhile, the Espionage Act would create a register of foreign agents of influence operating in the UK as well as clamping down on British citizens aiding the nation’s enemies.”

      Mccarthyism will come back and perhaps hit dissent even harder this time.
      Would a blogpost like this be illegal in lets say 4-5 years? Perhaps even closer in time, because that is where we are heading I am afraid.

    • daydreamer

      Expression of views that could be considered outside the Overton window to become formally illegal, potentially illegal, or arbitrarily illegal. This is a slippery slope we’ve been on for a while, and there’s unlikely to be a happy ending to this story. Authoritarianism and propaganda make a combination that may prove unstoppable.

  • nevermind

    The treason laws are bad as they are already and the meddling with it att this crucial time, when society is screaming for meaningful sustainable change, before the end of the year, will very likely be followed with ever more draconian laws with regards to the rights to demonstrate/free speech.
    The time frame for it almost manifest’s that our hobnail cabinet is prpeparing to run away from Europe, massively stifling all those that have historically traded with the continent for decades/hundreds of years/ since time in memorial.
    Watch that cliff edge approach as this bounderer, now very concerned with his public standing, pushes his reign and claim for his lifetime dictatorship right diwn everyone’s throats.
    As for quoting red tops as exclusive purveyors, this power and control grab wad on the cards since the preferendum was carried out.

  • chris

    schiller institute
    is seen by many people as being both extreme-right and extreme-left
    (although not at the same time)
    generally seen as somewhat conspiracists (but then so what; so do a lot of websites)

    their people do, though, have very good contacts

    • OnlyHalfALooney

      They are neither right nor left. Their “ideology” seems much more similar to things you hear in some AfD party circles. The main thread seems to be a curious romantic German nationalism and embrace of various conspiracy theories (some of them anti-Semitic).

      I have had some rather disturbing experiences with the Iranian Mujahadeen-al-Khalq (MEK), which is also a personality cult, and some features of the La Rouche bunch remind me strongly of them.

      Mr Binney probably feels he needs to use any platform he can get. But choosing the Schiller Institute was not a good idea because it will taint his message.

      “their people do, though, have very good contacts”

      So does the “Church of Scientology”, the “Knights of Malta” and many other rather sinister cults and organisations.

      • Jack

        Guilt by association. I dont understand why some people are so anxious about this issue.

        • OnlyHalfALooney

          “Guilt by association”

          Unfortunately that is exactly how many people think and how the PTB and MSM attack “inconvenient” voices.

          • Jack

            Nothing inconvenient with Binney, MSM will use any reason not to air certain views like guilt by association.

      • Gary Littlejohn

        The Shiller Institute was founded by the late Lyndon LaRouche. I do not regard it as right wing, and I know that when he was alive LaRouche was subject to the kind of rigged trial that Julian Assange is now apparently facing. There was also an alleged sex scandal, which I regard as a smear. I do not agree with the somewhat rigid adhrence to a particular economic programme that the Schiller espouses, but some of it makes sense and could be seen as derived from earlier American ideas, both from the 19th century and possible elements from FDR’s New Deal. They do expose scandals in the USA and in that sense it is no suprise that they are willing to host William Binney. As at least one commenter has said, they do have elements of a cult in their uncritical support of their late leader. LaRouche’s wife is German and thst may explain some of the Germanic ideas that have been noticed. Their good contacts do mean that they are sometimes good at exposing US scandals. Some former members are definitely left wing even in UK terms.

      • wonky

        The Knights of Malta are a much, MUCH larger problem than the Larouchies could ever be.

  • Goose

    49% of voters believe Kremlin interfered in Brexit referendum
    Opinium poll for the Observer also reveals 47% of public think Putin’s government affected UK’s 2019 general election

    In place of any real hard evidence of interference, the Guardian Group is resorting to publishing opinion polls as if proof.

    • David

      I think that the Kremlin probably interfered in the Brexit debacle. No one has polled me, but absolutely the two main ‘winners’ of partly destabilising the European political landscape are the two former superpowers. Both have form for “foreign” interventions, when they feel like it, often illegally.

      It is highly nuanced tho’, I don’t think I’ve yet seen an accurate analysis of where European society will be in 5 years time, after it starts spending that new defense money, embedded in the new budget proposals, as the trilogue gets underway. I’m sure that Europe as a whole will benefit from this new research money, and will also benefit from US LNG ships eventually & russkie diversity gas supplies a bit sooner.

      lots of liberal’s called “Cui & Bono” would tend to support the 49% & 47% pollings

      • SA

        The opinion polls in these cases are a self reinforcing feedback loop. Basically it means the propaganda has worked rather well.
        Whether any country interferes with any other adversary’s or even friend’ elections is not surprising, we have so many examples it is not worth quoting them. Is there any evidence that this works? Well in the case of the 2019 elections, almost certainly and we know who the culprits were. Brazil elections? Of course again everybody knows. Ukraine 2014. Nobody can deny it. And so on. But does the MSM and BBC and our politicians spend so much time on those proven cases? If the Russians have meddled with anything they have been wasting their time as they have not had much success.

      • Jack


        “I think that the Kremlin probably interfered in the Brexit debacle.”

        Why is it that probability? Such a claim must be based on some evidence?

      • Goose

        The people pushing this interference narrative claim that Russia 100% wanted Brexit. But more recently they’ve claimed Russia aided Labour (the party promising another referendum) risking jeopardising that very Brexit?

        Put these contradictions to them and the best they come up with is, ‘Ah well, Russia just enjoys sowing chaos, destabilising, because like they’re the anarchists of the world man.’ i.e., utterly preposterous made up nonsense.

        As if any country’s best geostrategic aims are met by worldwide chaos, chaos is exactly that; no one controls it, no one can be sure to gain from it, least of all a huge country like Russia.

        • Jack

          Good point, I have noticed those irrational claims too. Its like regardless of what is happening they will somehow pin it on Russia.
          So they found no collusion between Trump-Russia so now they (see CBS link by David above) moved on claiming the whole thing was a set up by russians not to help Trump but to create…. chaos, and for that claim you do not need any evidence. There was chaos after Trump election = work by the russians duh!

    • Ian

      It’s news because the recently released report, the one Johnson didn’t want you to see, states that the evidence is lacking not because it wasn’t there, but because the government has refused to even look. There is plenty of evidence of the closeness of Vote Leave and their cohorts to Russian oligarchs and the embassy. Look up Surkov and his approach, inside Russia as well as abroad.

      • SA

        Chaff. The real story that is buried here is the cash for tennis that Russian oligarchs donated to the Tories. The dissident Russian oligarchs are mainly anti Putin and their purpose is to support the anti Putin Tories and to make their activities more acceptable not really for the benefit of Russian government geopolitics. Even you seem to pick up the wrong scent here and chase the wrong shadows.

        • Tatyana

          SA is correct.
          Yesterday’s Russian news article wittily describes this situation. The oligarchs leave Russia because they are at odds with Putin’s power, namely, they are wanted for financial fraud. The British government cannot be supportive of russian oligarchs because they are Russians. But also the British government cannot extradite them to Russia, because it’s just exactly what Putin is seeking for.

          • Tatyana

            As to the person from the report, Lubov Chernukhina, her husband was vice-minister for Finance. He fled to London the next day after the second vice-minister was detained. Chernukhin was in the position for about 2 years only, and I dare say the salary in Russia is not that high as to purchase Midland Bank building and turn it into the most expensive London hotel.

          • Jack

            Thanks Tatyana,that is my view too, generally these oligarchs are not friends of Putin.

          • Tatyana

            Well, if you want my opinion, the background is not in Putin at all.
            Chernukhin is suing Deripaska on their mutual russian textile property, and Deripaska is a the kind of person … well, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz wrote back in 2004 “Russian-Jewish billionaire Oleg Deripaska is exploring investment opportunities in Israel. One of the youngest billionaires in the world flew in his private jet last Thursday to Tel- Aviv on a short visit, accompanied by his friend, Lord Nathaniel Rothschild”
            Putin, ha ha. Follow money.

          • Jack

            In the western media every russian is somehow tied to Putin. Thats how far the hysteria goes.

          • Tatyana

            Well, they can’t mention ties of the russian oligarchs to Israel or Rotchilds, can they? I think no, they can’t, it would be anti-Semitic.
            They also can’t mention the British government willingly takes money from russian oligarchs. That would look like your government is sold and bought easily.
            So, Putin is the only option left.

          • bevin

            Yes SA is correct. In reality the Russian oligarchs are favourites of the City, whereas Putin, with his ideas of collecting taxes from Russian businesses, is seen as a threat to the enormous profits to be made from Russia’s immense natural wealth and solidly constructed infrastructure.
            Putin, try as he might and has done over the years, will always be regarded as an enemy by those western capitalists who remember the good times when Yeltsin did nothing as his country was looted. And his countrymen suffered the poverty that is inevitable when a nation’s accumulated wealth is being liquidated.
            Anyone who believes that the oligarchs are acting for Russia or its government has not been paying attention.

      • frankywiggles

        If the evidence was there they would have mentioned it. Of that you can be absolutely certain. All these fakes are completely fine with blatant interference by figures like Obama and Pompeo. Just one of the many reasons they are fakes.

        • Tatyana

          there is undoubtedly an attempt by the Russian oligarchs to interfere in British politics. The report mentioning the Russian donations to the Tory party should be read as follows:
          A rich Russian, seeking refuge in London and seeking protection from the Russian legal system, tried to buy influence over British politicians. Unfortunately for him, this pathetic Russian ‘nouveau riche’ is in financial conflict with our longtime powerful friends. We cannot give this ‘nouveau riche’ to the Russians, because then we will have to give back the money he stole in Russia. In addition, it would create a high-profile precedent for investigations into our other longtime influential friends and our long-standing pro-Israeli anti-Russian policy, which would undoubtedly be disadvantageous for us.
          That is why we say that that is Putin’s wicked plan to sent this ‘nouveau riche’ to Britain in an attempt to influence our democratic process.

          • Gary Littlejohn

            You are quite right Tatyana. The UK Parliament Intelligence and Security Report is an embarrassment, with the ‘information’ supplied by those who “are not members of the intelligence community” being well-known anti-Russian propagandists, including the discredited Christoper Steele, and Bill Browder, both of whom have lost court cases in Western courts. The UK government official strategy towards Russia is that Russia should cooperate, and not be confrontational or challenging (to paraphrase the Report). Does this not sound like a desire for submission by Russia?

            The Report also shows and astonishing ignorance of Russia which results in systematic under-estimation of Russia , and implicit over-estimation of UK capabilities and competence.

    • Squeeth

      How many Guardian readers think that Londo Mollari is living in Nevada with Elvis, Jim Morrison and Janis Joplin?

  • Border Bus

    “Social Media used to influence voters”
    We were told that it was generally the “old” who voted for Brexit – On that basis the “Russians” must have been targetting Bingo Halls and Lawn Bowls Clubs rather than social media.
    We need a report into how much of our money is being wasted on these nonsensical “reports”

    • Kempe

      A majority of all age groups over 45 voted for Brexit; 46% of over 65s use Facebook.

  • SA

    After momentarily abandomimg its covid denialobsession, OffGuardian has a very interesting analysis of the true significance of the Russia report, even to the careful charade of delaying publications for ten months, to give the impression that ot might damage the tories. The real purpose is supposedly to strengthem the arbiatry powers of spy agencies over any democratic supervision and rational analysis, to stiffle anti-government dissent and to pave the way tp limiting and censoring dissidence in social media. This also of course paves the way to the new treason laws being intrroduced.

  • Eric+Zuesse

    Lyndon LaRouche was always progressive and a staunch supporter of FDR and of his legacy; and only the billionaires in the Democratic Party and their agents smeared him as ‘fascist’ and never with any evidence, because he was always passionately anti-fascist. He was always raging against the U.S.-UK tradition of Cecil Rhodes; he was an impassioned anti-imperialist. Craig Murray really does need to come to know about LaRouche and his movement, and not spread or help to spread mention of his libelers.

  • Jack

    Hysteria goes on

    US police are wearing imaginary CGI armor to appease Putin, suggests acclaimed Russiagate huckster

    These theories are so weird, they are not making sense at all.

  • Scott

    Well worth watching and deconstructing. One observation.. At 24:30, Barbara talks about a “British oligarchy plot” against the USA.


    “We have a good chance to overturn the entire horrible apparatus, meant to subdue a population, in a failed Unites States – which is really what the British oligarchy has planned here.”

    As far as I can tell from other material related to the Schiller Institute, this is thematic. Sometimes the plot is UK versus USA, sometimes it’s UK+Israel versus USA.

    Fascinating that anyone should believe the “UK oligarchy” are so competent.

    This should not deflect from Binney however, who acquits himself well.

    • bevin

      Larouche, a former Trotskyist who built a personal cult, had reached the conclusion that the Monarchy (British) the Rockefeller family and various other interests dominated the international drug trade etc.
      Larouche may very well have been the victim of conspiracies against him but he was also a very unsavoury authoritarian of more interest to mental health students than socialists.
      Binney’s report on the ‘hacking’ of the DNC etc is clearly correct. Now even the director of Crowdstrike- the only authority behind the ‘hacking’ charges- has told Congress that his firm, contracted by the DNC, could find no evidence of any hack.

      • Scott

        Indeed Bevin. Binney’s segment is excellent.

        The whole broadcast is a mixed bag though. We have some confusion from the panel when open questions are invited, and Kim-Dot-Com dials in to monologue about his treatment by the US / NZ judiciary. Then we have one of the panelists speculating about the origins of Covid-19.

      • Thomas S.

        Much of what you say about Mr LaRouche is true, but as regards his accusations towards the British monarchy and influential banking families – the history of their involvement in the opium trade is quite clear. The question is whether they continue to be involved in the narcotics trade. I am not prepared to say that they are directly involved and the LaRouchies use a lot of crude, hyperbolic language. However, I can say:

        • US troops guard poppy fields in Afghanistan and heroin production increased 10x after the Taliban was driven out of power
        • Mexican drug cartels launder their money through major Wall St. banks
        • There is known involvement of US intelligence in trafficking drugs (SE Asia and Central America), including flying them directly into the US and distributing them
        • NATO made a permanent fiefdom out of Kosovo, which is basically a hub for the European narcotics trade

        Is this also of no interest to socialists?

        The LaRouchies are a creepy organisation and, like most conspiracy groups with weird histories (maybe often infiltrated?`), it goes off on absurd tangents. But I would still say they probably talk about real problems more often than your average “progressive” publication or organisation.

  • Border Bus

    If you bumped into mark urban, christoher steele or pablo miller, would you recognise who they were?
    These are the people who according to the bbc, are the good guys making our lives happier, better.
    Helping us and concerned for our wellbeing

  • Thomas S.

    The Schiller Institute is a LaRouchite organisation.

    The LaRouchites are a strange political cult in many respects, but accusations of racism or being on the far-right are deliberate slander which emanate from the bowels of the Anti-Defamation League and its partner the “Southern Poverty Law Center”, which are the American mirror equivalent of the forces which claimed Corbyn and friends were anti-Semites. LaRouche has his roots in the Old Left and the main point of his organisation is to advocate for a publicly-owned financial system that issues non-interest credit.

    In any case, you are right to focus on the message, not the messenger (or, in this case, the mere medium).

  • Howard Giske

    Yes, it was a wonderful program last week. Bill Binney, ex-National Security Agency computer whiz is doing it again, this time also presenting Roger Stone, who just had his unjust sentence commuted by President Trump. What is the connection? Roger Stone wanted to use Bill Binney’s testimony in his trial that there never was a Russia hack of the Dem Natl Cte., but was forbidden to use this information by the Judge in the case. Stop the surveillance state…. #rogerstone #billbinney #nsa restore the Presidency. Aug 2nd, Saturday 1 pm, Roger Stone and Bill Binney and co…. Russiagate is a total fraud….. at stop the war drive #freeassange #larouchepac

  • James Charles

    ‘So, when they say “Russia undermines our democratic process” ‘

    What ‘democratic process’?

    “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens
    Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page
    Each of four theoretical traditions in the study of American politics—which can be characterized as theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy, Economic-Elite Domination, and two types of interest-group pluralism, Majoritarian Pluralism and Biased Pluralism—offers different predictions about which sets of actors have how much influence over public policy: average citizens; economic elites; and organized interest groups, mass-based or business-oriented. A great deal of empirical research speaks to the policy influence of one or another set of actors, but until recently it has not been possible to test these contrasting theoretical predictions against each other within a single statistical model. We report on an effort to do so, using a unique data set that includes measures of the key variables for 1,779 policy issues. Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism. “

  • amanfromMars

    Oops, the following hyperlinked tale is awkward and revealing and more than just embarrassing if it cannot be plausibly denied and debunked/be easily quickly proven beyond any reasonable doubt demonstrably fake ……..

    It definitely makes one wonder about the quality of certain state intelligence services should they be willing to let such operations as be false unfold themselves, and be servered by mainstream media and myriad senior public servants, on their watch. Such would be a quite lamentable lack of intelligence displayed …… and there’s no denying that fact, is there?

  • David Harrell

    I am a black American who has (loosely) observed the doings of Lyndon Larouche and his operations, including the Schiller Institute, since I was literally a preteen in the 80s. (There was a big Larouche candidate scare in my State, Illinois, in 1986 IIRC — the regular Democrat machine had to purge Larouche associates from among its ranks.) I can say that I have never seen any racist or objectionable materials or proposals from them. Their views are an unusual (by today’s standards) mix of cultural traditionalism and economic populism, not what most people mean by “far right.” I can say with finality that their enemies, such as the Anti-Defamation League and Southern Poverty Law Center, are hate groups that serve as Praetorian guards to the oligarchy / cryptocracy and will smear any one who dares investigate or oppose its agenda with the “R” and “A-S”- words.
    That said — even if it were somehow confirmed that the Schiller org has at some point in some way been guilty of wrongthink, what does that have to do with Bill Binney and the validity of his analysis? Adults should not think in fallacies.
    Thank you for your valuable work. I will be happy to share your blog.

1 2

Comments are closed.