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