The Real Mueller-Gate Scandal
May 14, 2019
Craig Murray blasts the special counsel for naming and condemning people
without ever interviewing them.
By Craig Murray
CraigMurray.org.uk
Special Counsel Robert Mueller is either a fool, or deeply corrupt. I do not
think he is a fool.
I did not comment instantly on the Mueller report as I was so shocked by it,
I have been waiting to see if any other facts come to light in
justification. Nothing has. I limit myself here to that area of which I have
personal knowledge - the leak of Democratic National Committee and John
Podesta emails to WikiLeaks. On the wider question of the corrupt Russian 1
percent having business dealings with the corrupt Western 1 percent, all I
have to say is that if you believe that is limited in the U.S. by party
political boundaries, you are a fool.
On the DNC leak, Mueller started with the prejudice that it was “the
Russians” and he deliberately and systematically excluded from evidence
anything that contradicted that view.
Mueller: Skipped key steps. (White House/Wikimedia Commons)
Mueller, as a matter of determined policy, omitted key steps which any
honest investigator would undertake. He did not commission any forensic
examination of the DNC servers. He did not interview Bill Binney, a retired
technical director at the National Security Agency, the $14 billion a year
U.S. surveillance organization. He did not interview Julian Assange,
publisher of WikiLeaks. His failure to do any of those obvious things
renders his report worthless.
There has never been, by any U.S. law enforcement or security service body,
a forensic examination of the DNC servers, despite the fact that the claim
those servers were hacked is the very heart of the entire investigation.
Instead, the security services simply accepted the “evidence” provided by
the DNC’s own IT security consultants, Crowdstrike, a company which is
politically aligned to the Clintons.
That is precisely the equivalent of the police receiving a phone call
saying:
“Hello? My husband has just been murdered. He had a knife in his back with
the initials of the Russian man who lives next door engraved on it in
Cyrillic script. I have employed a private detective who will send you
photos of the body and the knife. No, you don’t need to see either of
them.”
No Honest Policeman
There is no honest policeman in the world who would agree to that
proposition, and neither would Mueller were he remotely an honest man.
Two facts compound this failure.
The first is the absolutely key word of Bill Binney, an acknowledged world
leader in cyber surveillance who is infinitely more qualified than
Crowdstrike. Binney states that the download rates for the “hack” given by
Crowdstrike are at a speed - 41 megabytes per second - that could not even
nearly be attained remotely at the location: thus the information must have
been downloaded to a local device, eg a memory stick. Binney has further
evidence regarding formatting that supports this.
Mueller’s identification of “DC Leaks” and “Guccifer 2.0” as Russian
security services is something Mueller attempts to carry off by simple
assertion. Mueller shows DNC Leaks to have been the source of other,
unclassified emails sent to WikiLeaks that had been obtained under a Freedom
of Information request and then Mueller simply assumes, with no proof, the
same route was used again for the leaked DNC material. His identification of
the Guccifer 2.0 persona with Russian agents is so flimsy as to be
laughable. Nor is there any evidence of the specific transfer of the leaked
DNC emails from Guccifer 2.0 to WikiLleaks. Binney asserts that had this
happened, the packets would have been instantly identifiable to the NSA.
Bill Binney: Not interviewed. (Miquel Taverna / CCCB via Flickr)
Bill Binney: Not interviewed. (Miquel Taverna / CCCB via Flickr)
Bill Binney is not a “deplorable.” He is a former technical director of
the NSA. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo met him to hear his expertise on
precisely this matter. Binney offered to give evidence to Mueller. Yet did
Mueller call him as a witness? No. Binney’s voice is entirely unheard in
the report.
Mueller’s refusal to call Binney and consider his evidence was not the
action of an honest man.
Vault 7 Release
The second vital piece of evidence we have is from WikiLeaks Vault 7 release
of CIA material, in which the CIA themselves outline their capacity to
“false flag” hacks, leaving behind misdirecting clues including scraps of
foreign script and language. This is precisely what Crowdstrike claim to
have found in the “Russian hacking” operation.
So here we have Mueller omitting the key steps of independent forensic
examination of the DNC servers and hearing Bill Binney’s evidence. Yet this
was not for lack of time. While deliberately omitting to take any steps to
obtain evidence that might disprove the “Russian hacking” story, Mueller
had boundless time and energy to waste in wild goose chases after totally
non-existent links between WikiLeaks and the Trump campaign, including the
fiasco of interviewing Roger Stone and Randy Credico.
It is worth remembering that none of the charges against Americans arising
from the Mueller inquiry have anything to do with Russian collusion or
Trump-WikiLeaks collusion, which simply do not exist. The charges all relate
to entirely extraneous matters dug up, under the extraordinary U.S. system
of “justice,” to try to blackmail those charged with unrelated crimes
turned up by the investigation, into fabricating evidence of Russian
collusion. The official term for this process of blackmail is of course
“plea-bargaining.”
Mueller has indicted 12 Russians he alleges are the GRU agents responsible
for the “hack.” The majority of these turn out to be real people who,
ostensibly, have jobs and lives which are nothing to do with the GRU.
Mueller was taken aback when, rather than simply being in absentia, a number
of them had representation in court to fight the charges. Mueller had to
back down and ask for an immediate adjournment as soon as the case opened,
while he fought to limit disclosure. His entire energies since on this case
have been absorbed in submitting motions to limit disclosure, individual by
individual, with the object of ensuring that the accused Russians can be
convicted without ever seeing, or being able to reply to, the evidence
against them. Which is precisely the same as his attitude to contrary
evidence in his report.
Julian Assange: Unfairly accused. (Espen Moe)
Mueller’s failure to examine the servers or take Binney’s evidence pales
into insignificance compared to his attack on Julian Assange. Based on no
conclusive evidence, Mueller accuses Assange of receiving the emails from
Russia. Most crucially, he did not give Assange any opportunity to answer
his accusations. For somebody with Mueller’s background in law enforcement,
declaring somebody in effect guilty, without giving them any opportunity to
tell their side of the story, is plain evidence of malice.
Inexplicably, for example, the Mueller report quotes a media report of
Assange stating he had “physical proof” the material did not come from
Russia, but Mueller simply dismisses this without having made any attempt at
all to ask Assange himself.
It is also particularly cowardly as Assange was and is held incommunicado
with no opportunity to defend himself. Assange has repeatedly declared the
material did not come from the Russian state or from any other state. He was
very willing to give evidence to Mueller, which could have been done by
video-link, by interview in the Ecuadorian embassy or by written
communication. But as with Binney and as with the DNC servers, the entirely
corrupt Mueller was unwilling to accept any evidence which might contradict
his predetermined narrative.
‘Courier’ Ignored
Mueller’s section headed “The GRU’s Transfer of Stolen Material to
Wikileaks” is a ludicrous farrago of internet contacts between WikiLeaks
and persons not proven to be Russian, transferring material not proven to be
the DNC leaks. It too is destroyed by Binney and so pathetic that, having
pretended he had proven the case of internet transfer, Mueller then gives
the game away by adding “The office cannot rule out that stolen documents
were transferred by intermediaries who visited during the summer of 2016.”
He names Andrew Muller-Maguhn as a possible courier. Yet again, he did not
ask Muller-Maguhn to give evidence. Nor did he ask me, and I might have been
able to help him on a few of these points.
To run an “investigation” with a pre-determined idea as to who are the
guilty parties, and then to name and condemn those parties in a report,
without hearing the testimony of those you are accusing, is a method of
proceeding that puts the cowardly and corrupt Mueller beneath contempt.
Mueller gives no evidence whatsoever to back up his simple statement that
Seth Rich was not the source of the DNC leak. He accuses Julian Assange of
“dissembling” by referring to Seth Rich’s murder. It is an interesting
fact that the U.S. security services have shown precisely the same level of
interest in examining Seth Rich’s computers that they have shown in
examining the DNC servers. It is also interesting that this murder features
in a report of historic consequences like that of Mueller, yet has had
virtually no serious resource put into finding the killer.
Mueller’s condemnation of Julian Assange for allegedly exploiting the death
of Seth Rich, would be infinitely more convincing if the official answer to
the question “who murdered Seth Rich?” was not “who cares?”
Craig Murray is an author, broadcaster and human rights activist. He was
British ambassador to Uzbekistan from August 2002 to October 2004 and rector
of the University of Dundee from 2007 to 2010. This article first appeared
on his website.
image_pdfimage_print
1509
Tags: Bill Binney Craig Murray DNC GRU agents Julian Assange Robert Mueller
Seth Rich Vault 7 WikiLeaks
Post navigation
← US Federal Police Evicting Activists from Venezuelan Embassy in
Washington
