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
https://schillerinstitute.com/blog/2020/07/20/william-binney-makes-his-case-to-the-world-there-was-no-russian-hack/


Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comments will be closed on August 16, 2020.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

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

1 2
  • alexT

    I have a lot of respect for William Binney but I think it is relevant to mention that he left the NSA 19 years ago.

    It was a very, very different organization and world then. He certainly deserves attention but to describe him as the “the world’s foremost expert in cyber-surveillance” is stretching it quite a bit…

    • Stonky

      I have a lot of respect for William Binney but I think it is relevant to mention that he left the NSA 19 years ago… It was a very, very different organization and world then.

      What, is he like Rip van Winkel? Has he been asleep for the last 19 years?

    • Stonky

      …but to describe him as the “the world’s foremost expert in cyber-surveillance” is stretching it quite a bit…

      Then it should be ridiculously easy for one of the many better-informed experts on cyber-surveillance to prove him wrong. I have to assume you’re not one of them or you would have done it.

      • porkpie

        Calm down, Stonky.

        I too bumped on the phrase “the world’s foremost expert in cyber-surveillance” . Perhaps “one of the world’s leading experts” at a push. As Alex points out, 19 years is a hell of a long time in this field.

        • Rhys Jaggar

          It all depends what he has been doing the past 19 years. If he has been working in cyber-security for other employers, then he may well still be right on top of the game. If he has been a journalist for 19 years, then the risks of slipping behind the curve may have increased somewhat.

          I have not done a PCR reaction in 23 years but the technology remains sufficiently similar that I can comment with authority on PCR tests for coronaviruses in 2020. You do not forget what the principles are, you still understand the limitations to the technology and you know how false positives can arise due to sloppy, lackadaisical laboratory practice; due to deliberate contamination of samples to produce false positives etc etc.

    • Piotr Berman

      “The world’s foremost expert” is manifestly a figure of speech, we do not have a rating system for cyber security experts like there are for tennis or gold players. The germane question is if his expertise is adequate and if his arguments are convincing. Even though Binney is retired for 19 years, his understanding of file systems and metadata (some bytes attached to file that allow to find the date of creation in high precision and other aspects of the file) is up to date. Similarly, the speed of memory devices and data transmission changed, but nobody questioned the speeds that Binney assumed. I read an argument against his expertise, but that argument, if true, would raise doubt against ANY attribution concerning when and how the data was transferred. To wit, a sophisticated hacker can overwrite metadata.

      Moreover, as it requires sophistication, then why that entity left behind a trail with Cyrillic letters, the name of the first leader of Soviet secret police etc? And as we are at it, can we have separate actors, one transferring the data and one creating a false trail? If nothing else, the purposes achieved by the transfer and by laying the Cyrillic trail are very different.

      Inspecting the affected hardware could provide some clues, because there are some traces in magnetic memory allowing the find the sequence of operations etc. Applying sophisticated tests to computer disks can reveal what a normal computer user cannot find. The essence of using a computer is that the data is binary, so reading data gives zeroes and ones, but the magnetic medium is only approximately binary. Alas, relevant authorities refrained from collecting such clues.

      Thus at this time we have two competing scenarios. The official scenario hypothesis an actor which is both sophisticated, manipulating metadata than normal computer user cannot alter, and stupid, leaving an incriminating trail. Binney hypotheses an actor that is a normal computer user who does not muck with metadata. If nothing else, it is a parsimonious explanation. Concerning Cyrillic characters etc., we did not see any analysis corroborating that it was not a mere febrile imagination of the person claiming their discovery, or a sophisticated false trail.

    • Fwl

      If I recollect correctly when Bill Binney was invited to speak to a parliamentary select committee on concerns as to the wisdom of adopting a bulk data collection law one of the MPs present asked him a put down question along the lines of Alex T’s.

      I was impressed that they invited him but then it was as if they hadn’t done their research, had not anticipated what he might say and so resorted to this sort of disparaging comment. Or perhaps there were some minority members of the committee still keen on listening.

    • Antonym

      Anyone with half a brain has seen that the NSA did not report any Ethernet traffic between that DNC convention and Russia or some proxy. They surely would have as it is their job to find this kind of vital info in such a pivotal case, and Edward Snowden already told the world of their wide ranging capabilities.

      It is a solid proof that nothing was exported online from Hillary’s coup convention.

    • Stonky

      What’s your point? Binney’s postiion is clear and has been for years. He’s going to explain why he believes what he does. What difference does it make who hosts his speech?

      And how many devoted adherents to the Clinton cause do you expect to be offering him a platform?

      • craig Post author

        I owe you an apology Stephen Henson. I always presumed they were like the Goethe Institute, but in fact they seem a strange and rather objectionable lot!

        • Kempe

          A “political cult with sinister and dangerous connections”. Widely accused of bullying, even brainwashing, its members and of being anti-Semitic.

          I wouldn’t trust them an inch.

          • Peter Moritz

            Remember that Craig frequently comments on the oh so despised RT newschannel. I watch it frequently and its shows like Going Underground and the hilarious Keiser Report..
            Yes, they are biased like any other News organisation, but I have as yet discover any actual false or misleading reporting.

          • Diane Sare

            That’s a stupid phrase. Why not visit Schillerinstitute.com and decide for yourself? The Schiller Institute was founded by Helga Zepp-LaRouche, wife of the late Lyndon LaRouche who was targeted and slandered by the very same “rogue intelligence agencies” that wish to drive us into WWIII today. LaRouche was the architect of the Strategic Defense Initiative of Reagan, and served as the back channel to the Soviet Union for that policy, which they unwisely rejected at the time.

          • karel

            I have read a few of the articles on the website of the Schiller Institut but could not sniff out anything extremist. Where is then?

        • Peter Moritz

          The Schiller Institute is run by the wife of Lyndon LaRouche, a once Trotzkist eventually turned right winger.
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_LaRouche
          The Schiller institute is a great supporter of the Belt and Road idea and espouses a multilateral worldview.
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schiller_Institute
          There are a lot of allegations made, some of which might be true, but in light of the propaganda by the mainstream media against anything that does not follow the official government espoused and desired narrative (do I hear anyone mention MoA, Craig Murray, Alex Salmond, Wiki Leaks, John Helmer, Consortium News etc) I would be careful to trust what either Wikipedia or any other government mouthpiece publishes.

          • Cubby

            As the UK Prime Minister took his leave from Bonnie Scotland today a kindly member of the Scottish public thought they would educate him on the Scots word for goodbye:-

            Gettaephuckyauselessbam. Like Welsh some of the words can be a bit tricky for the average English person but I am sure Mr Johnson has advisers who can help him out.

          • james

            thanks peter…. wikipedia is a worthwhile outlet for getting direct or contradictory viewpoints… it is definitely a propaganda outlet, but still serves a useful purpose from a person trying to get a wider view on it all..

            craig – thanks for sharing.. i missed the interview… anything interesting come out of it? i have yet to read all the comments here..

          • N_

            Wow…Larouchies!

            Interesting that the Schiller Institute is putting out the line that there is a “coup” plot against Trump. That’s the QAnon line too.

            I’d watch that one. What with the unbadged federal military units Trump is sending to several Democrat-run US cities which have large black populations and have been rocked by BLM and Antifa protests, it could suddenly become mainstream.

            I seem to recall that in the 1990s the “Face on Mars” and “Pyramids on Mars” memes were pushed by a retired US army guy who had been of high rank but whose name escapes me. He and Binney should meet up. Perhaps it was the Martians who hacked the Democrats’ server? Perhaps they were bored after breaking into the Watergate hotel a few decades before and letting poor old Richard Nixon take the rap.

            (Yes, this is the amalgam method, but justified in this instance.)

        • Hamish McGlumpha

          Craig,

          Schiller is a front for the Lyndon LaRouche organisation. Formerly a Trotskyite cell, it – very much like the Revolutionary Communist Party here – Furedi’s mob – has transmogrified into a far-right cult. It’s current obsession is with re-electing Trump and supporting China’s New Silk Road.

          Even if Bill Binney is the world’s foremost expert in cyber-surveillance, the question is: “Is he telling the truth”.

          On the Q&A I listened to on your link he actually stated that the ” USA’s only hope (to avoid the alleged coup by the Democrats along with the US Security State) is Trump’s re-election”

          I wouldn’t trust any of them. They are all part of the chaos of the floundering and failing Empire!

          • James Charles

            ” USA’s only hope (to avoid the alleged coup by the Democrats along with the US Security State) is Trump’s re-election”
            ‘They’ would only need a coup if Trump was re-elected?

            “113:16 i see him fighting these militarists all
            113:18 around so
            113:19 i think he’s the only hope the rest of
            113:21 them went along with it the rest of them
            113:22 got us into all these endless wars . . . ”

            It appears that Binney thinks Trump is the only one who will fight ‘these militarists’?

            However, Trump has it ‘sewn up’?
            “In 2016, no fewer than 5,872,857 ballots were cast—and never counted.
            Does it matter? In Detroit, 75,355 ballots were never counted because of 87 broken scanning machines. And Trump supposedly won Michigan by 10,700 votes — really?
            And, no fewer than 1,982,071 legal voters were denied the right to vote. Told to get the hell out of the polling station. Can you guess their color?
            Add it up. That’s at least 7,854,928 legitimate votes and voters tossed out of the count.
            So God Bless America. By the way, these numbers are from the raw data supplied to me by the US Elections Assistance Commission.
            https://www.gregpalast.com/how-trump-stole-2020-2/

        • Blissex

          They are surely strange, as other commenters point out it is a cultural organization of the LaRouche Movement, which are pretty much outside “mainstream thinking” as you are, even if not quite in the same directions. But then what is guilt-by-association? Is being interviewed by RT.com, or al-Jaazera, or iranian TV, proof of being a traitor?

          Many of their arguments are interesting, even if not convincing and the tone is a bit too sensational, and are in general in the socially-conservative, economically-progressive quadrant.
          Consider for example this quote from Wikipedia about one of his “outrageously ridiculous conspiracy theories”:

          LaRouche charges that there was a conspiracy dominated by what are called Straussians (followers of Leo Strauss) within the Bush administration, and that the dominant personality in this conspiracy was Dick Cheney (whose photo appears on the cover of the book.) LaRouche claimed that these conspirators deliberately misled the American public and the US Congress in order to initiate the 2003 invasion of Iraq. He writes that the Straussians created the Office of Special Plans in order to fabricate intelligence and bypass traditional intelligence channels.

          • Peter Moritz

            “LaRouche charges that there was a conspiracy dominated by what are called Straussians (followers of Leo Strauss) within the Bush administration, and that the dominant personality in this conspiracy was Dick Cheney (whose photo appears on the cover of the book.) LaRouche claimed that these conspirators deliberately misled the American public and the US Congress in order to initiate the 2003 invasion of Iraq. He writes that the Straussians created the Office of Special Plans in order to fabricate intelligence and bypass traditional intelligence channels.”

            All lies of course. Nobody ever lied about the WMDs in Iraq, Cheney had almost no influence in foreign politics and Straussians have nothing to do with the Bush one or two admin……

            see here, the proof:

            “Moral clarity—the refusal of relativism—thus means defense of liberal democracy in the face of its vulnerability. The particular version of “defense” is related to one of Strauss’s most characteristic themes: “the central notion of the regime.” According to William Kristol, one of the most frequently identified neoconservative Straussians in Washington, Strauss has “restored” a political science “that places the regime in the forefront of analysis.”
            https://press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/993329.html

            of course, claiming to be a Straussian does not necessarily mean they actually follow Strauss’ ideas, just like many that call themselves or call others out to be Marxists does not necessarily mean they have any deeper knowledge of Marx/Engels analysis and ideas.
            And of course Kristol had nothing to do with the neocon cabal around the Bush 2 era that never could have existed und did not include himself Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Kagan, Abrams. Perle, Libby, Kirkpatrick….so yes, LaRouche was completely a nutter with a tin foil hat spouting such conspiratorial nonsense…

        • Andrew Ingram

          They are a bit iffy but I came across them when rooting around looking for very large scale civil engineering ideas and they had an interesting proposal for diverting some of the Congo’s flow towards the Sahara.

        • RMM

          Look again, please.
          Read the articles, listen to Helga Schiller’s commentaries on current events, and you’ll understand why the MSM gives them bad press – and some of your readers fall for the smears.

      • nevermind

        some influence by linking foreign aid to trade, others do it by fronting cultural exchanges, bursaries etc. beware of poets fronting Government sponsored institutes.

    • Piotr Berman

      IMHO, they are not “supporters of Trump”. This movement, by the original inclination and subsequent experience, deeply distrust anything that can be connected to “deep state”, and RussiaGate can be connected to it, you have FBI, imperialistically inclined Democrats (which is not 100% of them, but those who are initiated in recent years a cult of “trust in the consensus of intelligence institution”, i.e. they raised the lack of trust in that (alleged) consensus to the rank of blasphemy, a.k.a. production of fake news).

      Because RussiaGate is a rather lame product, it is an ideal target for the enemies of “deep state” to harp about. You can see on the website that Schiller Institute is very warm toward Chinese initiatives that Trump and Trumpians detest. This is not a minor difference. Trump himself would have nothing against the “deep state” if he were not on the receiving end of its activity.

      Concerning being right wing and anti-Semitic, that seems a huge stretch. They are a “cult” as evidenced by such nefarious activities like distributing leaflets and organizing seminars with discussions. More seriously, they have rather rigid “explanation of everything” with peculiar elements, the impression of someone lectures about various global and national ills and then concludes what dietary supplements all participants should consume (this impression is a metaphor).

      • N_

        IMHO, they are not ‘supporters of Trump’. This movement, by the original inclination and subsequent experience, deeply distrust anything that can be connected to ‘deep state’ .

        The idea of opposition to the “deep state” or whatever it is called goes together with support for Trump in the work of both QAnon and the Larouchies, both of whom are pushing the idea that there is a coup plot against Trump. It could be that QAnon and the Larouchies are controlled from the same place.

      • Amber Smith

        It would really be interesting debating LaRouche if those that debate had actual knowledge of his extraordinary amount of first person material, ie, original sources and not just a paragraph or two. Read the book he wrote on Christian Economics, figure out why the campaign for C256 became so widely fought culturally. Rumours and suspicions of rumours, is that truth? Is the fight against the police and surveillance state system not important enough to give up some ground in false axiomatic constructs regarding those who seek to cover it up or marganalize it?

    • porkpie

      On YouTube the video has been titled ““Neither Flynn Nor Stone Were Guilty—There Was No Russian Hack” Bill Binney Makes His Case” which tells you where Schiller stands I believe. Flynn and Stone’s guilt had nothing to do with whether there was a hack or not.

  • zoot

    proving it untrue makes zero difference to them unfortunately. it is settled opinion, so he will either just be ignored or damned as a witch, a holocaust denier, a maga clown, etc, etc.

    • Piotr Berman

      Lyndon, who would be 98 years old, has died. Schiller Institute is run by his 71 year old widow who is German and has her own peculiar world view that was apparently well formed before they married. Judging from her biography in Wikipedia, her support of Chinese initiatives etc. seem a logical consequence of her education, travels (like spending some time in China from 1971) etc rather than being a mercenary or a brain washed person.

      • RMM

        People should by now know how biased Wikipedia’s articles can be…
        Helga continues her late husband’s ideas – which she fully shares – on the best way to promote world understanding and cooperation through large-scale international projects – actually something like the Belt and Road initiative, which they had thought could be executed by Russia as a Eurasian (Europe + Asia) endeavour.
        So forget wikipedia. You’ll find the gist of LaRouche’s ideas on this page (inter alia): https://archive.schillerinstitute.com/russia/lar_hzl_121401/lar_1201_artic.html

        “The solutions to the crisis of mankind today, lie in […] a Eurasian-centered infrastructure development projects.”
        “Because of its unique identity as a Eurasian nation, and because … Russia is one of the three national cultures in the world, … [it] has a special mission to fulfill in this process.”

        • N_

          Yes, the Wikipedia article on the Schiller Institute is totally spooked up. Agreed it is best to look at the Institute’s own material to reach a view about them.

          • RMM

            I think the reason is that Wikipedia – or rather, the article’s author – simplistically thinks this Institute is pro-China and pro-Russia, and thus pro-multipolar, and it must therefore be attacked and discredited.

          • Piotr Berman

            One should add that from the German point of view, “Eurasia” is not scary, nations focused on manufacturing, mining and infrastructure need assorted high-end machinery and markets for German products. Anglo-Saxon economies focused on financial services are proportionally (to GDP) smaller market.
            From my recollection, LaRouche had some quirky ideas, and his widow seems to be focused on the most common sense ones. On top of that, LaRouche was “conspiratorial”, and in recent years we are learning about actual conspiracies that are much worse than I have imagined only several years ago. Like domination of party bureaucracies by people with deep connections to the “deep state”, with “progressive parties” of UK and USA being good examples.

  • Goose

    This CrowdStrike page : https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/ explaining the situation(long read) contains pretty damning evidence suggesting Russian state server intrusion, Craig.

    The question then, though, becomes would the Russian state leave a behind such evidence? It all seems a bit too clear cut. And it doesn’t mean they were the actual source of the emails? They could’ve been downloaded to a USB and handed over by someone else. Maybe some staffer sick of the DNC’s establishment efforts to rig a supposedly democratic process in Hillarty’s favour?

    • Peter Moritz

      https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020/05/13/hidden_over_2_years_dem_cyber-firms_sworn_testimony_it_had_no_proof_of_russian_hack_of_dnc_123596.html

      CrowdStrike……………… acknowledged to Congress more than two years ago that it had no concrete evidence that Russian hackers stole emails from the Democratic National Committee’s server.
      Crowd Strike President Shawn Henry’s admission under oath, in a recently declassified December 2017 interview before the House Intelligence Committee, raises new questions about whether Special Counsel Robert Mueller, intelligence officials and Democrats misled the public. The allegation that Russia stole Democratic Party emails from Hillary Clinton, John Podesta and others and then passed them to WikiLeaks helped trigger the FBI’s probe into now debunked claims of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia to steal the 2016 election.

      • Goose

        Yes, the Russians (or someone masquerading as the Russians) was sniffing around the DNC servers, but it’s possible someone else leaked the emails, that scenario is perfectly plausible. CrowdStrike have gone to lengths to distance themselves from attribution of blame relating to the exfiltration of emails(no evidenced) and how they ended up with WikiLeaks, that wasn’t their role.

        Let’s face it, insomuch as the emails were damaging, they were only damaging because they revealed a rigged process. The emails themselves were only grasped at in a post-election straw clutching exercise by Clinton supporters. Hillary supporters wanted someone to blame for her unpopularity and the loss in the election she wasn’t meant to lose. And Russia became the target of that hostility. Is Russia blameless? No , if they were trying to gain access? Did they leak the emails? It’s not clear they did.

        • pretzelattack

          i haven’t seen any evidence that the russians were involved in leaking the emails, and apparently crowdstrike and mueller haven’t, either.

    • RMM

      “Evidence suggesting Russian state server intrusion”?
      One Renaud Girard, writing in Le Figaro and the “Geopragma” blog, suggested – sans rire! – that there is evidence Putin attacked a wind farm in France in 2018! And that France should retaliate by attacking Russian infrastructures to tell the Kremlin that the game is up (la France devrait faire la même chose à l’égard des installations russes, afin que le Kremlin comprenne qu’il n’a pas intérêt à continuer ce petit jeu.) http://geopragma.fr/une-fenetre-dopportunite-avec-la-russie/
      Russophobia is a dangerous mental disease, and apparently the best Western brains are not spared.

  • Crispa

    Well I see the hand of Philip Cross in its Wikipedia entry so Schiller I. so it must be of some political interest!

    • james

      thanks! more confirmation of what a rigged outlet wikipedia is! clearly pc is a front from some intel agency, or group of them…

      • RMM

        Indeed, yes.
        In a Dec 2000 speech in Moscow, LaRouche, commenting on “the insane Brzezinski-Huntington strategy of provoking a clash of civilizations, which has its roots in British Imperial policies of the past two centuries”, said that a visit to India by then-Prime Minister Yevgeni Primakov was “a turning point” (in challenging said ‘insane strategy’):
        “In New Delhi, Primakov gave voice to the Anglo-Americans’ worst nightmare, when he called for a ‘strategic triangle’ of Russia-China-India to form the basis for cooperation in Eurasia.” https://archive.schillerinstitute.com/russia/lar_hzl_121401/lar_1201_artic.html
        Modi’s India is yet to join in, but LaRouche’s vision of a Eurasian cooperative space as an antidote to the clash of civilisations is being worked out before our eyes by the current merger of the China-led BRI and Russia-led EAEU.
        It should be clear why the US-UK propagandists hate him and the Schiller Institute that promotes his ideas.

  • Mike Billington

    Thank you for standing up to the black ops against the Schiller Institute. It is no coincidence that the “Get LaRouche Task Force” in the 1980s which put Lyndon LaRouche and others, including myself, in prison, was headed by Robert Mueller — the same “legal assassin” chosen to run the witch hunt known as Russiagate, and, although he found no evidence of “collusion” between Trump and Russia, he nonetheless joined in the lie that Russia interfered in the election. This has been totally dis-proven by Bill Binney, again today, in this powerful forum.

  • Goose

    Identifying a sophisticated adversary group, and therefore a state, on the basis of the the tools used for any implant, seems a crude way to proceed. FVEYs have been exposed by leaks eg. Belgacom, and as a result probably changed their methods to avoid direct attribution.

    As Snowden said “The Belgacom hack, is the “first documented example to show one EU member state mounting a cyber attack on another…a breathtaking example of the scale of the state-sponsored hacking problem.”

    The solution repurposing an adversary’s tools for use in misattribution along with ORBs(commandeered servers etc), if ordinary punters can imagine this, you can bet the intel agencies are already doing it. It means even clear cut attribution may be in fact wrong. And it’s incredibly dangerous because a war could be started by misattribution.

  • Courtenay Barnett

    First go around when Seth Miller was killed and there were questions raised as to DNC computer hacking, questions started to be raised as to inter alia any actual forensic checks and investigations done on the DNC computers.

    Binney wrote a highly technical analysis indicating that the Russia hack story was, for technical reasons, not accurate. I am not aware of anyone today, of equal technical competence, having addressed Binney’s analysis and thereafter state in equivalent technical terms – why Binney is incorrect.

    Would be happy to read what all and sundry who are truly computer savvy have to say with appropriate and necessary reasoning appended.

    • Goose

      The metadata shows: On the evening of July 5, 2016, 1,976 megabytes of data were downloaded from the DNC’s server. The operation took 87 seconds. That equates to a transfer rate of 22.7 megabytes per second.

      No ISP available to Guccifer (the alleged hacker) in mid-2016, was capable of downloading data at that speed. Guccifer operated from Romania.

    • Ian

      You can read a summary at the Intercept:

      https://theintercept.com/2017/11/07/dnc-hack-trump-cia-director-william-binney-nsa/

      It seems some of his colleagues do not think the metadata is necessarily reliable, which is the basis for the download speed claim, since it was supplied by ‘Guccifer’. It also implies that Binney is a Trump supporter who wanted to disprove the Russian hypothesis.
      I have no idea of the truth or otherwise of these claims, other than maybe they aren’t so clear cut as they are said to be. It’s a murky world out there.

      • SA

        This is one of the dilemmas facing us. If you attack Russiagate you are deemed to be pro Trump. But that does not mean that my enemy’s enemy is nescessary my friend.

        • Forthestate

          The whole of public debate is infected with this irritating stupidity. I remember hosts of dullards on Cif, in the days when I read it, telling us that if you objected to the Iraq War you had to be a “Saddam Hussein Supporter’, whatever that meant. If you’re opposed to the EU, you must be a racist. If you don’t believe COVID-19 is a complete hoax from start to finish then you support authoritarianism and the removal of our liberty. I’ve seen that one on here again and again.

          I’m left astonished at the naivety of people who think that Hillary Clinton’s Democratic Party, John Brennan’s CIA, James Comey’s FBI, MI6’s Christopher Steele, Robert Mueller, Adam Schiff and the rest of this stinking crew have been telling the truth in framing Trump as a Russian agent, and that the answer to Trump lies with them. Really?

          The failure to acknowledge that Russiagate was fabricated by Hillary Clinton’s Democrats, with a lot of support, for which the evidence is now overwhelming, and with much more to come from the Durham Investigation, arises from a failure to acknowledge that it is the collapse of centrist, ‘liberal’ politics that put Trump into power in the first place. Were the Democratic Party not ideologically, politically and morally bankrupt (as is Keir Starmer’s Labour, Macron’s En Marche, and every other faux left wing outfit in Europe), it would have spent the last four years attacking Trump’s policies, instead of framing him as a Russian agent whilst continuing to support his decisions as Commander in Chief (despite the fact that he’s working for Putin, presumably).

          As it is, someone needs to point out in what way Trump’s economic and foreign policies might differ from the Democrats. Would they oppose his attempts to install Juan Guaido in Venezuela? They’ve welcomed it. Are they opposed to his baiting of Iran? On the contrary, he hasn’t gone far enough. Do they object to his increasing belligerence towards China? Not that I’ve heard of. Perhaps they object to the massive ‘rescue package’ – several trillions – handed out to the banks and the corporations over the pandemic, many times the amount allocated for public relief, leaving increasing millions destitute? They voted for it.

          ‘Russiagate’ is a Hillary Clinton project. It seems a lot of people need to be informed that it’s possible to object to both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, and to view them as the same problem, but it also seems that alarming numbers of people are incapable of this thought.

          • andyoldlabour

            Forthestate
            “Russiagate’ is a Hillary Clinton project. It seems a lot of people need to be informed that it’s possible to object to both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump”

            Many people fail to acknowledge this, they fail to realise that the US is probably in the most precarious situation ever. Nearly half the US electorate failed to vote in the last election, many of them probably because they hated Clinton and Trump.

      • Piotr Berman

        I mentioned that argument. Basically, metadata can be overwritten, but this is not something you can read in Linux manual or a source like that. Thus the scenario of overwritten metadata postulates sophisticated attacker leaving stupid clues to its identity. That instantly begs the question of the clues were left stupidly, or, given the sophistication, deliberately. Inspection of the hard drives of DNC with tools available to FBI could reveal if system logs were overwritten in violation of system rules, and if so, approximately when. FBI has chosen not to do it. Again, the dilemma if they were stupid or clever.

        Any authoritative assessment of the evidence hinges on cooperation and good will of authorities of the kind that mercilessly hacked Belgian allies and prevented European police investigation. I would suggest that they would not be shy to investigate better if they were confident that the results would be to their liking.

  • N_

    Regardless of who intercepted the emails, it’s certainly true that Wikileaks put some of them out a few HOURS after the release of the “Access Hollywood” (“grab ’em by the p*ssy”) tape led to widespread speculation that Donald Trump might have to withdraw from the 2016 presidential campaign. One doesn’t need to have as much intelligence experience as William Binney to realise that the timing passes the duck test. (“If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, it probably is a duck.”)

    • Giyane

      N_

      All politics is now sweeping the emotional heart strings.
      The Trumps got rich through brothel keeping so what else are women for ? Clinton got kudos for having sex with his secretary, so Trump needed to Trump him.

      Hillary Clinton buggered Gadaffi, so Obama had to anti-terror her with Daesh. Trump can’t beat that, so he fucks Palestine.

      I find it rather hard to believe that anything in US or UK politics, is worth more tha 3 minutes of my time. It appears to be drafted by Hollywood scriptwriters as a trailer for a film called the American Dream.

      If it looks like a duck, all you can say about it with certainty is that it was intended to look like a duck.
      To draw a conclusion about its reality is mad.
      You can only draw the conclusion that what it was intended to look like did achieve its author’s intention.

    • Jack

      I think you are reading too much into it, Wikileaks might have a grudge against Clinton but there was no conspiracy between Wikileaks and Trump if thats what you are saying, if that would be the case Assange would be a free man today but Trump has not helped him one bit.

    • Piotr Berman

      Well, there were some revelations with large frequency for months. If you name a single one, it looks like a very peculiar coincidence, but if you consider all of them (Bonferroni correction if you are an expert), not so much.

  • N_

    Relevant to questions of Russian influence or non-influence on US domestic affairs: there is an important article by Edward Luce in the Financial Times today entitled “Donald Trump’s little green men”. (I can’t find an unhashed link, but it’s not behind a paywall.) From his palace in Washington DC, El Presidente is sending armed federal units wearing camouflage and no insignia, and travelling in unidentified vehicles, to several Democrat-run cities with large black populations, cities which have been or still are being shaken by sizeable protests against racist oppression. At the same time the deranged president is saying he may not accept the result of the coming November election. One has to ask how this looks from the point of view of the USA desks at the foreign ministries of competitor great powers, including Russia.

    “The (Department of Homeland Security’s) Border Patrol units have been involved in most of the shadowy arrests in Portland. Oregon’s biggest city is nowhere near a border.” (emphasis added)

    • N_

      Here is Andrew Gawthorpe writing in the Guardian on the same subject. He gives what I call the Hampstead theatre-goer’s understanding of fascism:

      The essence of fascism, and authoritarianism more generally, is violent spectacle. This is why uniformed security forces and the violence they unleash are venerated in authoritarian regimes. They represent the unity, strength and virility of the nation – not least when they are suppressing dissenters and undesirables who they believe threaten these attributes.

      Well if it’s “not least”, what is it? Second least? Or perhaps most? He means “most” but he is too mealymouthed to say it. This is the superficial liberal’s way of emphasising something. He suggests that fascism’s most “representative” time is when it “suppresses dissenters and undesirables” – clearly NOT GETTING IT. Fascism doesn’t have any public “dissenters”, you moron. It gets rid of them in its early stage. He neither distinguishes between the rise of fascism and fascism, nor between what it does to those it “suppresses” and what it does to the rest of the population. He is actually right about the deliberate whipping up and imposition of violent spectacle, but he doesn’t understand why, and sometimes I just have it up to HERE with middle-class liberals. Their main worry if they were rational wouldn’t be that Thomas Malthus, Herbert Spencer and H G Wells’s big day may soon be visited upon the working class, but that many middle class tossers will probably lose most of their savings, even if they don’t have any net savings but are buy-to-let landlords mortgaged up to their ear’oles.

      If you want to get a broader understanding of fascism, Andrew, take a look at “clapping for the NHS”.

      • David

        and here is the color revolution that appears to be motivating the reverse revolution tactics, I don’t think the pres is running the color rev or the takedown

        it’s a wonderful spontaneous colorful display of yellow T-shirts, mom’s, apple-pie & democracy, sorry

        https://twitter.com/ByMikeBaker/status/1285431298136276992

        businessinsider.com.au had the compilation of twitter- feeds, which make the ‘spontaneous’ T-shirt events very scary, when you look at an overview

      • Piotr Berman

        “Fascism doesn’t have any public “dissenters”, you moron. It gets rid of them in its early stage.” I would never know! Like “German Nazis persecuted domestic dissenters only for a year or two, as later there were none”. That would be false, “only for the first 13 years” would be true, but that because Third Reich lasted much less than the planned 1000 years. If you look at Guatemala, they organized concentration camps soon after getting to power with American help, and they were still bloodily persecuting opponents 30 years later.

    • Tatyana

      I saw this news, and I want to say that it is scary. I compare with simple examples to make it clearer:

      I have many neighbors. We may be friends, and this is good. We may ignore each other, and this is not good and not bad. We can be at enmity, and this is bad, but if a person every day returns from work at 6 pm, then I can simply avoid him, or get prepared, so this is a predictable situation and does not pose a danger, but only anxiety.

      It’s quite another matter if the neighbor is unpredictable, if shouts and blows are heard in his home, if the head of the family cannot reconcile his household members, and especially dangerous when we know that his apartment has equipment capable of burning down our entire multi-storey building.

    • Jack

      N_

      They use no insignia of course since past months vehicles, property and the police, feds, security sporting the uniforms have been assaulted.

      American streets cannot be allowed to be taken over by violent groups that somehow try to overturn the system.
      And all this talk about defunding the police while the violence and crime is spiking! Stuff like that benefit POTUS to a certain extent but apparenty the extremists do not realize how they are looked upon by the silent majority of americans.

  • Jack

    So instead of debating the issue, quite a lot of people instead attack the source (Schiller) this is so typical and childish, trying discredit any connection a person might have with something else.

  • james

    did anyone listen to the interview or talk he gave?? doesn’t sound like it!

    thanks craig for all your fine work…

    • fwl

      Spot on. Most of the posts here make clear the sad fact that people read the context and the platform and the apparent status or current approval kudos of the messenger more than the message. Perhaps that is understandable. It’s not easy to understand how and why we focus on things and how we reach conclusions about things. When something is within our sub-conscious Overton window we try or we think we try reasoning, but if the thing is sitting outside we probably don’t reason. There is part or half of the brain that scans like a radar, not reasoning but looking for broad pattern recognition, looking for any changes or risks to our familiar patterns – we don’t know that much about how it works. If it scans something of interest in the pattern or a changed pattern it may pass it over to the other part of the brain to focus on, to dig down and use the tool of reason. If it’s just different but is not making sense as part of a bigger pattern or it’s not a threat we screen it out as something not worth focussing on.

      This also reminds me of the fact that when the mainstream media closes down its interest in dissent, the dissent moves onto platforms which may have their own agendas. The use of such platforms send a negative signal. The brain scans for clues in the context. So if someone like Bill Binney has something important to say and what he’s saying is outside the perceived pattern of what’s going on then the platform is very important. Wrong platform and something which is new or unusual is deemed as tainted and ignored.

      If the mainstream keeps excluding dissent then people who are just scanning for non-confirming stuff start believing all sorts of crap. That’s why an intelligent state Overton window operation should encourage a degree of dissent.

      There should always be some part of the establishment which has the confidence to hear all voices – even if its only in the financials or journals: would the WSJ or the Spectator still run a piece on Bill Binney? Hopefully they would have the confidence to do so.

      • james

        thanks fwl… i appreciate your perspective here… indeed the msm would be a lot more legitimate if it ran alternative viewpoints.. at this point it seems so much of the msm is one big self congratulatory group, agreeing with the propaganda they pedal regularly with no question or thought on any real alternative viewpoint… getting bill binney in the wsj or spectator – what a thought! it is beyond the editors pay grade!

        • Fwl

          Yes, and yet he was invited to give evidence to the Parliamentary select committee when they were considering bulk data collection. His views were already well known at that point.

  • porkpie

    A comment under the video from “salthearn”….

    “Please stop saying that Craig Murray claims to have been involved in a hand-off to WikiLeaks. Please, please, please!!!

    While the Daily Mail article claimed that Craig Murray claimed he was involved in a hand-off of files that were then transferred to WikiLeaks, none of Murray’s quoted words in that December 2016 article, and none of the corpus of of Murray’s actual words available elsewhere (e.g. recorded interviews; his blog) have him making this claim. To the contrary, he denies that he was involved in such a hand-off.

    What Murray does claim (or otherwise has strongly suggested) should be much more interesting and relevant: That two different leakers, both Americans, were the sources of the DNC and Podesta e-mail tranches released by WikiLeaks, the former being from a DNC insider and the latter someone from intelligence or law enforcement. He personally met with someone who had been involved in the Podesta leak in late September 2016 – for an auxiliary purpose – after WikiLeaks was in possession of the files but before they were published. He admits his knowledge of the DNC leaker is rather more indirect (presumably Assange told him). He says neither individual had anything to do with Guccifer 2.0.

    My own guess (FWIW) is that when Murray, somewhat cagey about the details, emphasized the auxiliary nature of his meeting with the source (meaning he had not actually received any files), the reporter interpreted this as meaning Murray had received the files, but did so from a third party other than the leaker himself. At least this hypothesis would explain the misinformation in the Daily Mail article as originating from an honest misunderstanding. But the fact is, it is misinformation, no matter how often it has been subsequently repeated. Barbara Boyd should know better by now.

    Please see Craig Murray’s interview with Scott Horton, December 2016 – the best, but not the only source, for setting the record straight.”

    • Barbara Boyd

      As I noted yesterday, this is what I get for relying on the Telegraph. I have corrected the offending article on LaRouche PAC whilst hoping that Mr. Murray will make public his efforts to show Robert Mueller what actually occurred. Won’t happen, of course, unless we get a substantial shift here in terms of truth seeking.
      Barbara Boyd

  • Cubby

    Why are the polls showing a sustained majority for Scottish independence? Even the Britnat go to pollster guru professor Sir John Poultice is saying the foundations of the union have never been less secure. Just why did he get a knighthood anyway. Services to Britnattery?

    Some say Nicola Sturgeon is wooing the people of Scotland in her daily coroavirus briefings.

    Some people say Johnson is such a Scotland hating boorish incompetent that everyone, except those paid to like him, can’t stand the clown. I mean he comes up to Scotland to save the Union and goes to two places with the most union supporting populations already and coincidentally high percentage of English immigrants.

    Me I have been carrying out an in depth study over recent months and have reasonable proof that the real reason is that the number of occasions that the 1966 World Cup win is covered on the English TV has dropped significantly. In addition the number of times Dunkirk, the blitz, the Battle of Britain, El Alamein, D day, VE Day, VJ Day, Enola Gay Day, Churchill getting a new cigar day, have also dropped a bit as well.

    There you are a simple answer to what may seem a tricky question.

  • DoEyeOffend

    As an increasing number of previously classified documents relating to “RussiaGate” are released, independent researchers work on the holes in the “official” narrative, Obama-era officials come out of the woodwork to claim that this or that action is “illegal” or “threatens the Constitution” as their arses start to feel warm and loyal members of the liberal MSM ask rhetorically “Why is Trump so obsessed with Obama?” and/or “What is this Obamagate thingy, anyway?”, now seems an opportune time to give an answer to the latter’s feigned ‘ignorance’.

    1. In Obama’s second term as President, the true nature of his “enlightened” administration started to become apparent when it was revealed that he had instructed the IRS to go after conservative groups (https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=obama+uses+irs+against+opponents&ia=web) and targeted specific journalists illegally (https://www.ap.org/ap-in-the-news/2013/ap-ceo-gary-pruitt-dojs-seizure-of-phone-records-was-unconstitutional and https://theintercept.com/2018/01/03/all-the-news-unfit-to-print-james-risen-on-his-battles-with-bush-obama-and-the-new-york-times/).

    Primary source for what follows: Rosemary Collyer’s 26th April, 2017, report on FISA Court abuses (https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/icotr/51117/2016_Cert_FISC_Memo_Opin_Order_Apr_2017.pdf).

    2. Between December 2015 and April 2016, tens of thousands of unauthorised search queries of US citizens within the NSA database were made by FBI contractors. This activity was first revealed on March 9th, 2016, by a routine oversight review of FBI system access. After being made aware of the situation, Admiral Mike Rogers, NSA Director, initiated a full compliance review of the system to identify both who was doing the searches and their targets. On April 18th, 2016, following preliminary audit reports, Rogers shut down all FBI contractor access to the NSA database.

    3. The curtailment of this “back door” access to the NSA database meant that the Obama administration had to find a “legal” way back into the system to continue surveillance of political opponents. Between December 2015 and March 2016, it had become obvious that DT would be the Republican candidate. After NSA flags were raised on March 9th, 2016, “human resources” like Joseph Mifsud (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Mifsud) and Stefan Halper (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Halper) were ‘activated’ to set up George Papadopoulos (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Papadopoulos). On March 28th, 2016, DT hired Paul Manafort, a ‘known entity’ who had previously been under investigation by the FBI. This hiring solved the final part of the puzzle of how to ‘legally’ continue surveillance of (now just) the Trump campaign.

    4. On April 19th, 2016, the day after Rogers shut down FBI contractor access to the NSA database, Mary Jacoby (wife of Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson) visited the White House. Immediately thereafter, the DNC and the Clinton campaign contracted Fusion GPS who in turn hired Christopher Steele. The rest is history.

    And the underlying logic of this risky operation? Just as with Nixon vis-à-vis détente with the USSR and ‘opening up’ China, so Trump promised to pursue policies unacceptable to the neo-con/neo-liberal establishment, viz. threaten open borders, withdraw from endless overseas wars and improve relations with Russia.

  • writeon

    What do the words ‘Russia’ and ‘Russians’ mean, exactly, in the current climate? Are we talking about individual Russians, groups, organizations, or the powerful Russian State apparatus?

    • RMM

      Writeon, any blogger, any twit, with a Russian name or a Russian-looking account, or with anything with Cyrillic script – anything at all – is either attributed to Putin in person or described as “Russia-linked”, and therefore diabolical.
      It is a disease, and a highly contagious one at that…
      And it affects the West almost exclusively, while the rest of the world looks in wonder.

      • Tatyana

        Reminds me of anti-Semitism, very much. The same vile theories exploiting worst human instincts and look many agree and support with no proofs asked.

  • johnf

    Judiciary Committee Releases Declassified Documents that Substantially Undercut Steele Dossier, Page FISA Warrants

    “…The first document is a 57-page summary of a three-day interview the FBI conducted with Christopher Steele’s so-called “Primary Sub-source” in January of 2017. [Document 1]

    This document not only demonstrates how unsubstantiated and unreliable the Steele dossier was, it shows that the FBI was on notice of the dossier’s credibility problems and sought two more FISA application renewals after gaining this awareness.

    The document reveals that the primary “source” of Steele’s election reporting was not some well-connected current or former Russian official, but a non-Russian based contract employee of Christopher Steele’s firm. Moreover, it demonstrates that the information that Steele’s primary source provided him was second and third-hand information and rumor at best.

    Critically, the document shows that Steele’s “Primary Sub-source” disagreed with and was surprised by how information he gave Steele was then conveyed by Steele in the Steele dossier. For instance, the “Primary Sub-source”: did not recall or did not know where some of the information attributed to him or his sources came from; was never told about or never mentioned to Steele certain information attributed to him or his sources; he said that Steele re-characterized some of the information to make it more substantiated and less attenuated than it really was; that he would have described his sources differently; and, that Steele implied direct access to information where the access to information was indirect.

    In total, this document demonstrates that information from the Steele dossier, which “played a central and essential role” in the FISA warrants on Carter Page, should never have been presented to the FISA court.”

    https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/rep/releases/judiciary-committee-releases-declassified-documents-that-substantially-undercut-steele-dossier-page-fisa-warrants

  • Ian Kiddle

    There is nothing wrong with the Schiller Institute.Their views are conservative with a very peaceful outlook. They do tend to blame the British for all the woes befalling the USA. I don’t know but given everything that has come out about Christoper Steele maybe they are right.

  • N_

    What is Binney’s agenda then? Spreading the truth to help everyone? The guy supported Trump in 2016. Can’t get dirtier than that. There’s another election on now. He is still countering one of the main accusations made by the Democratic side, namely that the Russian state undermined the Democratic candidate in 2016 by hacking her side’s email server so as to help their man Trump. What a joke. Sounds like a stuck record.

    But wait, he used to work in cybersurveillance almost 20 years ago.

    Never trust anybody who credentialises in their opener.

    • Tatyana

      Their man Trump? Whoever might say that Trump is “their” man is Israel.

      Trump took office in January 2017. In about 40 days we have Scripal “poisoning” and the question of Russian chemical weapons is brought to international discussion. In about 30 days after that the fake chemical attack in Douma happens.
      USA’s desire to get rid of Russian army in Syria coinsides with Israel’s desire to keep the Golan Heights.

      USA’s desire to stop the Nordstream2 coinsides with Israel’s desire to build EastMed pipeline. Pompeo personally controlled the signing of the treaty between Greece, Cyprus and Israel. One may wonder why Pompeo, the US is NOT a party of the treaty. You may also wonder why the EU considered the pipeline will be free of the restrictions, that are usual and obligatory for russian energy supply projects.

      Should I remind you on Jerusalem new home for the US Embassy? Or the “Deal of the Century” for Israel and Palestine?

      Yesterday I mentioned the interview of the World Zionism Organisation presidium member. He said they see Trump their Messiah.

        • RMM

          And Elon Musk as well, Tatyana. He too must be a Putin stooge.
          The Putin Derangement Syndrome is ravaging the West…

          • Tatyana

            Elon Musk is a great dude, he’s got courage in the most wide sense of the term, and he understands humour. There was a witty exchange in twitter on “How do you like it, Elon Musk?”
            Excuse me, but “The Putin Derangement Syndrome is ravaging the West…” reads like a porn video caption 🙂

  • N_

    If Binney’s not right wing, why did he vote for Trump?

    Did he do it with a good heart, because he thought “Killary” was such a “warmonger”?

    • Jack

      Makes perfect sense, Trump said in 2016 before being elected that the US would back down from wars and stop being the policeman of the world, that have been a leftist argument since first world war, so it made perfect sense voting for him on that issue.

        • Jack

          Liberal imperialism is what constitutes the democratic party today, and also a reason why they hate Trump so much.
          You pick Clinton over Trump on foreign policy?

          • joel

            Trump’s foreign policy isn’t a blank slate anymore, I’m afraid. He has proven to be as much of a corporate imperialist as Hillary Clinton, just as committed to overthrowing heterodox leftwing governments wherever they exist. For Clinton’ in Honduras see Trump in Bolivia and Venezuela. He has also droned more innocents over the past four years than even Obama did. Time to invent some other reason to make support for Trump respectable. Why not go with your heart: “He’s the only one standing up to anti-fascists?”

    • Goose

      N_ with respect , what you’re saying is part of the problem. You’re reading a political motivation into Binney’s questioning .I.e., Doubt the official narrative? You must be a Trump supporter.

      Glenn Greenwald (most definitely not a MAGA type) has lost many liberal supporters over his questioning of the ‘big bad Russia’ narrative. It’s mainly the unthinking centrists who believe anything bad about Russia they’re told. Proving when you stand for nothing, you fall for everything.

    • Ian Kiddle

      Maybe he voted for Trump because it is clear to anyone with half a brain that the Democratic party, Obama, Hillary Clinton and their FBI and intelligence agency cronies, Comey and Brenan are totaly corrupt and up to their necks in misuse of the FISA court, the fairytale that the DNC servers were hacked by Russians, probably Seth Rich’s murder and the instigation of the total proof of nothing waste of time that was the Mueller Report. Not to mention the shafting of the peoples choice candidate for president, Bernie Sanders and the installation of
      Joe Biden as candidate despite his deep involvement in corruption in Ukraine and lately his obvious senility.

  • stuart mctavish

    Thks – came across a bit like a real life Retired Extremely Dangerous.
    The apparent position on NSA stuff being declassified (by which he presumably meant available to military prosecutors & district attorneys) ONLY(?) when a crime became evident (because to do otherwise would be a felony) is nonetheless intriguing.
    Presumably the original thinking was that if data harvested from the unsuspecting citizen or corporation was (formally) looked at only when requested by an authorised third party, the misprision of felony could be excused.
    These days, when the fashion includes incriminating people for reporting uncomfortable truths, locking down entire countries for want of a flu vaccine, and micro managing lifestyle choice (all the way down to the type of head gear that must be worn in public) such thinking could be considered naive, reckless, or even subversive, in so far as (potential) use of the data to police legislation or directives wholly incompatible with the US constitution is concerned.

  • 6033624

    The criticisms of the organisation will do much to quell reporting on and the credibility of Bill Binney’s obvious expertise and knowledge.

    Having only done a cursory examination of what’s publicly available on them, both on their own site and elsewhere, it appears that the criticisms are based not so much on what the organisations stands for but rather what members of the organisation have said. Critics have said that attending meetings will not result in hearing anti-semitic speeches or thoughts but that, over time, the criticisms of the state of Israel and of US lobbies in favour of Israel mean that they are actually ant-semitic. I find this a little troubling, it IS reasonable to criticise a country and also those who lobby for it. Conflation of the actions of Israel and Judaism is itself ant-semitic. This leaves those critics in a perilous position themselves!

    Their history is one of both support for China’s current leader and for Trump. I find that somewhat troubling but this ‘support’ is from speakers, not the organisation, which predates both leaders.

    This has a basis in the LaRouche Movement which had been investigated and infiltrated by the FBI with the FBI lending support to a potential assassination of LaRouche. This movement originated within the LEFT wing of the US university campus, not the right. Some years later the founder was imprisoned for financial impropriety which he denied and stated to be “politically motivated” As they were willing to see him assassinated then I could actually believe this.

    Overall it’s an organisation that has been a thorn in the side of the state for many years but its espoused doctrine is similar to that of the US constitution and not troubling at all. That proves little, however.

    That people want to call it anti-semitic seems a common trope among those groups which are on the left. Left wing groups tend to support the Palestinian bid for full statehood and be critical of Israeli settlers. For many they will use this as a stick to beat a group with.

    We saw in the UK how Corbyn was relentlessly smeared as anti-semitic based on no evidence whatever. Yes, he supported Palestine’s bid for statehood, but this was Labour’s policy even before he became leader. It became policy under Milliband (who himself is Jewish) The entire campaign then ended with the report into how complaints were handled, and it found that those trying to oust him were deliberately mismanaging complaints and feeding this mismanagement to the press. Ironically the first thing Starmer did was have an inquiry into the inquiry (and why it was wrong) The press have now reported THIS as though it was the inquiry and Starmer has swept the decks clear of any who don’t back him 100%. Corbyn had 5 years of leadership where the right wing of Labour were constantly trying to oust him, they tore their party apart doing so and changed policy prior to the election (in fact with Starmer announcing it as policy when this was not the case) to have a second referendum which they knew would be very unpopular. They deliberately lost the election in order to rid themselves of Corbyn. Maybe I’m naive but this shocks me.

    With this kind of political background it’s difficult to know if an organisation is truly ‘far-right’ or anti-semitic. It could be smear campaigns by opponents, the FBI or even from within as we have seen with the Labour Party. Whatever the truth of the matter it is VERY convenient timing for this criticism to come when Binney is making a speech that goes counter to the accepted narrative on Russia. And we should not forget that the ‘Russian Hacking’ was a distraction from the content of Hillary Clinton’s e-mails which confirmed that he had cheated and stolen the Democratic nomination from Bernie Sanders. Little is made of this yet it SHOULD have been a massive scandal. Likewise with the cables released by Wikileaks from her time as US Secretary of State. She had emailed the military leadership in Afghanistan to instruct them to allow the poppy harvest to resume in order to gain support among the farmers (who had not been permitted to cultivate poppies for many years under the Taliban) thus with one email she restarted the Afghan Heroin Trade, lowered world prices of heroin and caused innumerable deaths and suffering throughout the world, including the US. But these ‘scandals’ go unreported.

    Overall I’m wary of people telling me that a source is troubling when the information it provides goes against the accepted narrative (and is demonstrably true) One might think that those ‘concerned citizens’ are in fact just trying to discredit the information..

    • Goose

      The truth and objectivity are increasingly out of reach in the US and UK. Everything is so politicised. The intel agencies are too politicised, any evidence that would exonerate Russia over the emails would almost certainly be suppressed.

      We’ve seen spying authorised at the UN in breach of protocols, we’ve seen multiple whistleblowers come forward from the OPCW saying . The Grayzone carried the full text:https://thegrayzone.com/2020/03/12/opcw-whistleblower-mistreatment-douma-investigators/

      Full text of statement on Douma scandal from new OPCW whistleblower

      As an employee of the OPCW I was horrified and simultaneously unsurprised by recent events in the organisation. The mistreatment of two highly regarded and accomplished professionals can only be described as abhorrent. I fully support their endeavours, in that it is for the greater good and not for personal gain or in the name of any political agenda. They are in fact trying to protect the integrity of the organisation which has been hijacked and brought into shameful disrepute.

      Unfortunately this is not a recent occurrence but a continuation of how the previous Director General and management group were operating. Working in the organisation has been an eye-opener and the cause of deep professional shame when I became aware of how a key element of the organisation was and clearly continues to be mismanaged. I am one of many who were stunned and frightened into silence by the reality how the organisation operates. The threat of personal harm is not an illusion, or else many others would have spoken out by now.

      There is still no mechanism at the organisation to enable the calling out of irregular behaviour to protect the integrity of the organisation. It is quite unbelievable that valid scientific concerns are being brazenly ignored in favour of a predetermined narrative. The lack of transparency in an investigative process with such enormous ramifications is frightful. The allegations of the two gentlemen urgently need to be thoroughly investigated and the functionality of the organisation restored.
      ——————————
      Nothing is seen as off limits or inappropriate anymore, the west has fallen low and the media is complicit in not reporting this malfeasance. What sort of world will be left when institutions are corrupted by the people claiming they’re the world’s ‘good guys’

      • Goose

        On the Grayzone, Aaron Maté is one of the best journalists out there imho. The kind we are so sorely lacking among today’s press.

        The way he took apart Luke Harding’s collusion claims in that recorded interview(youtube). If it had been a boxing match, Harding’s corner would’ve thrown the towel in to stop the punishment.

    • Goose

      @6033624 Tweet by Glenn Greenwald today (2hrs ago) sums it up nicely:

      Quote :

      And by the way: the ongoing attempt to grasp at desperate bullshit to smear Ilhan Omar as anti-Semitic is the same mentality that drove Blairites to do it to Corbyn.

      They see anti-Semitism & Jews as fun little playthings to exploit for their political wars. That’s anti-Semitism.

  • Tom74

    I don’t think Binney can be sure it is impossible – the Russians might have superior technology, for one thing. However, I have always suspected the alleged hack was a ‘false flag’ American job, with a trail of faked clues ‘leading’ to Russia. And I’m also guessing that people who work at the high levels of secret government like Binney never truly retire? It may well be that Salisbury was the same kind of deception.

    • Goose

      Far too much emphasis has been put on these damn emails. Amazes me hearing Democrats getting upset, when everything in them should’ve rightfully been known to them anyway. They’d should’ve been annoyed with the DNC for rigging as supposedly fair process and keeping secrets.

      As for ‘better technology’, no, it’s simply a bandwidth issue as to whether the network infrastructure allowed data to be sent received that fast. The core TCP/IP internet protocols haven’t changed since way back when the DoD model emerged on the scene, the OSI model(7 layer)and DoD model(4 layer)are interchangeable.

    • Jack

      It could for example be hackers from russia but that doesnt mean the hackers have any connection to the russian state.

    • ET

      “I don’t think Binney can be sure it is impossible – the Russians might have superior technology, for one thing….”

      Doesn’t quite work like that Tom. The infrastructure between the DNC server and the alleged hacker is whatever is already there. This would be the wires connecting the server to a router then router to whatever Internet Service Provider (ISP) they were using, ISP to internet backbone etc etc. Max data transfer speeds can easily be worked out for that infrastructure at that time. Unless the alleged hacker could dig up the streets in USA and replace the wires undetected it wouldn’t matter what technology is used, it would still be subject to the data carrying speeds of the infrastructure in place at that time.

  • Gregor

    More ‘Trump/Russia’ context…

    “‘Narrative of the origins of the Steele Dossier’

    The Court finds that:

    (1) Orbis worked closely with a consultancy in Washington DC Fusion GPS;

    (2) Fusion, acting on the instructions of a Washington DC law firm Perkins Coie, contacted Orbis about a job to produce the Steele Dossier;

    (3) Orbis thereby received instructions to investigate Donald Trump and his alleged links with Russia and Russian officials, specifically President Putin;

    (4) Perkins Coie was acting on the instructions of one or more persons or bodies at the top of the Democratic Party in the US (“the Ultimate Client”);

    (5) Between June and November 2016, Orbis thus produced the 16 memoranda that were eventually published in the Buzzfeed article;

    (6) Orbis disclosed the memoranda to (a) Fusion (“the Fusion Disclosure”); and (b) the FBI and a limited number of politicians and government officials, including David Kramer (“The National Security Disclosures”): [51];

    (7) Orbis is responsible for those disclosures but not for any access to the Dossier that was obtained by the Washington Post and Buzzfeed via Mr Kramer, or any publication by them, which did not represent processing of data by or on behalf of Orbis [55-62]”:

    https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2020-07/Aven%20v%20Orbis.Judgment%20Summary.pdf

    .

  • Goose

    Guardian : UK efforts to penetrate Kremlin would not be shared with ISC.

    This story should be scandalous but it probably won’t generate much fuss. Unelected ‘Whitehall security insiders’ telling parliamentarians and their only designated, vetted intelligence committee members, they aren’t entitled to see sensitive intelligence. Have we secretly returned to Medieval times, all progress lost?

    You can wager the pushy, middle-class careerist gobshites, who call themselves ‘our representatives’ won’t raise a jot of protest either.

    • Goose

      I’d imagine this is to prevent the ISC complaining about the UK’s foreign network intrusion activities; hacking all and sundry, while pointing an accusatory finger at Russia, Iran, China and N.Korea for attempted attacks on our infrastructure? Because the way our MPs point the finger at other countries, you can only believe they’re told we don’t do that stuff?

      • Republicofscotland

        The finger pointing at Russian hacking is all head turning nonsense, since the Skripal event, that doesn’t hold water, the British government has licenced over £200 million pounds worth of dual-use exports to end users in Russia. The items are defined as useable as civil or military application. In 2019 alone British ministers approved 609 export licences to Russia for goods on its controlled list, including cyber defence equipment.

        European sanction forbid such exports to Russia which can be used for military purposes, Johnson has refused to make public a parliamentary report on the matter. On the other hand the British government only granted two controlled licences to Syria in 2019. Trade minister Liz Truss, who oversees the export of controlled goods has been pictured with the wife of Russian oligarch Vladimir Chernukhin who reportedly gave the British Conservative party their biggest ever single donation of £1.7 million pounds.

        Former head of MI6 Richard Dearlove even went as far as to say that his spy agency helped get Putin elected in 2000. MI6 is said to have instructed then British PM Tony Blair to attend an opera in St Petersburg with Putin, and that shortly afterwards Putin was elected as Russian president.

        In 2003 Blair invited Putin to the UK the first Russian premier to visit the UK since 1864, at the time Russia was engaged in the brutal suppression of Chechnyan nationalists forces in Chechnya.

        • Tatyana

          Do you mean brutal suppression of Emirat Kaukas + Jamaat Nokhchiycho’
          Jihad Dagestan + Shura Islam + Jihad Arab Mojahed + Al’-Kaida + Taliban ???
          You really should learn who did what and the most important WHY and what was the goal.

          • Republicofscotland

            Oh I agree Tatyana there were very bad elements via Chechnyan factions in the Caucasus and other regions of countries. I was thinking more along the lines of Stalin ethically cleansing half a million Chechens late on in WWII, and the effect it must have had upon Dzhokhar Dudayev, as he and his family suffered forced deportation to Siberia, and of the first battle of Grozny. I understand that Georgia recognised the independent state of Chechyna, and that Dudayev was killed by Russian bombers whilst talking on his satellite phone.

            A report by the Human Rights Watch denounced indiscriminate bombings and shellings by Russian forces carried out against civilian populations, consistent targeting of civilian populations by ground forces and the destruction of three hospitals, one orphanage and numerous market areas. HRW estimates at least 350,000 people were forced to flee the region due to the conflict.

            International monitors from the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe described the scenes as “unimaginable catastrophe,” while German Chancellor Helmut Kohl described the events as “sheer madness.”

          • Tatyana

            Oh, I didn’t know you may say 2003 having Stalin in mind.
            I thought you may mean NotreDame in 2002, or Essentuki, Stavropol, Krasnodar explosions, but if you’re inclined to mix dates to that extent, so perhaps you mean Beslan tragedy? Did HRW report on “не покупай у Наташи, все равно будет наше” as meticulously as to count all the russian victims?

          • wonky

            HRW cannot be trusted in anything anymore.
            They’ve been in bed with Soros’ OSF and Bellingcat a bit too much, haven’t they.
            Just another NGO of the NWO.

        • Goose

          The ISC really seems powerless, doesn’t it. If not the ISC conducting oversight, then whom? The Guardian article notes the PM is in the inner circle i.e., kept in the loop, as if this fact is comforting. Basically, saying the PM of the day’s conscience is the real test, all the authority needed. Will really need is a written constitution codifying everything and fearless judicial oversight.

    • Bramble

      I thought one of our (endless) criticisms of Russia was its lack of transparency and the unaccountability of its state apparatus. Well, it takes one to know one. Just how ridiculous can this country get?

1 2