Summary: Former UK ambassador Craig Murray looks at oddities in Mueller’s investigation of RussiaGate. The story gets stranger with every new chapter. Nobody in it has clean hands because that’s American politics.
“The Real Muellergate Scandal“
By Craig Murray at his website, 9 May 2019.
Posted with his generous permission.
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.
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?”.
“The world is changed, I can feel it in the water, I can feel it in the earth, I can smell it in the air.”
— Said by Treebeard, leader of the Ents, in The Two Towers – part II of Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings saga.
Each week the RussiaGate story grows in importance and complexity. The Democrats and their Deep State allies are pushing hard, no matter what the contrary evidence. RussiaGate is like a Richter 9 earthquake in a distant land. We have not yet felt the tremors; the tsunami will arrive afterwards. The landscape might change in ways nobody expects. Perhaps in ways we cannot imagine.
At every step, defenders of the narrative are quick to boldly make up stuff. See how they defended the FBI’s investigation of the DNC hack. The FBI does not know if the information from the server (e.g., imaging) was accurate. The FBI does not need to take home the physical server if their technicians had taken the information from it. Relying for it on a third party of unknown veracity – Crowdstrike – is bizarre.
My favorite “defense” is this fawning article by Jason Koebler at Vice. He quotes Thomas Rid, professor of strategic studies at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies) as if he is a cybersecurity or investigative expert (he’s not).
“There’s nothing suspicious about the DNC’s behavior. There were political reasons and skepticism on the part of the DNC to let the FBI have full visibility into what they do for various reasons during an ongoing election campaign.”
He assumes FBI cares about the victim’s feelings when investigating a major cyber-attack by Russia – and uncritically believes what the victim says. Anyone familiar with the FBI’s history will laugh. Even someone at Leftist-friendly Slate thought that was odd.
“…whether because they were denied access or simply never asked for it, the FBI instead used the analysis of the DNC breach conducted by security firm CrowdStrike as the basis for its investigation. Regardless of who is telling the truth about what really happened, perhaps the most astonishing thing about this probe is that a private firm’s investigation and attribution was deemed sufficient by both the DNC and the FBI.”
Also, those confident attributions of cyber-attacks to designated enemies are somewhat bogus. Attribution of actions by pros is always difficult and seldom certain.
- Identifying the guilty: tying nation states to cyber espionage,
- We Must Stop The Race to Attribution After Each Cyberattack.
- Determining guilt in cyberspace: difficult now, but there’s hope for the future.
About the author
Craig Murray is an author, broadcaster and human rights activist. He joined the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office in 1984. His career culminated as British Ambassador to Uzbekistan 2002 to 2004. It ended when he criticized regime as repressive and using torture (both the American and British governments freaked out). Afterwards he was Rector of the University of Dundee from 2007 to 2010. In 2016 the US government refused to allow him entry to the US.
See his articles at his website. See his bio. See his Wikipedia entry – he has led an extraordinary life.
One of Murray’s book is Sikunder Burnes: Master of the Great Game. From the publisher…
“This is an astonishing true tale of espionage, journeys in disguise, secret messages, double agents, assassinations and sexual intrigue. Alexander Burnes was one of the most accomplished spies Britain ever produced and the main antagonist of the Great Game as Britain strove with Russia for control of Central Asia and the routes to the Raj.”
For More Information
Ideas! For some shopping ideas, see my recommended books and films at Amazon.
Please like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. For more information see all posts about RussiaGate, about propaganda, about ways to reform America’s politics, and especially these …
- A review of Russiagate, its propaganda and hysteria.
- Secrets untold about the DNC hack, the core of RussiaGate.
- Debunking RussiaGate, attempts to stop the new Cold War.
- RussiaGate: fragments of a story large beyond imagining.
- The RussiaGate story implodes. The Left burns with it – by Glen Ford at the Black Agenda Report.
- Peter van Buren shows the path to RussiaGate.
- The best analysis of RussiaGate: its effects & results.
11 thoughts on “Craig Murray reveals the mysteries of Mueller’s investigation”
Shocked, absolutely shocked that the Mueller investigation veered political. The Democrats seem determined to have their public show of indignation over its findings. Let them. Word of advice: Beware of blowback.
What I found most interesting in this post was the link to the discussion of the actual forensics of the intrusion into the DNC server. I get most of my information about the Russia Hoax from Mark Wauck’s Meaning In History blog. Wauck served in the FBI and has done an excellent job covering far this whole thing has strayed from how FBI investigations are supposed to operate. His discussions of the legal and procedural problems are second to none, but I don’t recall him going into much detail about the DNC server and the problems with that narrative. And you can tell that’s important to really understanding the Russia Hoax by the FBI’s complete lack of interest in getting to the bottom of it.
A quote from the article Murray links to:
“It seemed a good guess that the July 5 intrusion was a contrivance to preemptively taint anything WikiLeaks might later publish from the DNC, by “showing” it came from a “Russian hack.” WikiLeaks published the DNC emails on July 22, three days before the Democratic convention.”
Maybe, but I’m inclined to doubt it, or at least to think that this is not the complete explanation. I’ve actually wondered if the Russians really could have gotten into the DNC server as a legitimate intelligence target. Mrs Clinton seems to have strayed pretty far from the approved procedures for handling classified material, which actually had something to do with setting this thing in motion. Classified material was on her private server, and seems to have been on Anthony Weiner’s laptop. (Which also helped to precipitate Russiagate) Under Mrs Clinton, classified material seems to have ended up in all sorts of places, and I’ve wondered just exactly where Russian intelligence operatives may have gone looking for it. This is of course speculative, but it would explain the FBI’s lack of curiosity about that server. . But I do think we should keep an open mind as to attribution and motive.
One more note about Assange. Mueller never sought to interview him, but if he has any information to contribute to the public understanding of these events, there has never been any bar to him disclosing it.
“I’ve actually wondered if the Russians really could have gotten into the DNC server as a legitimate intelligence target.”
What info would the DNC have that would be worth the effort of Russian intel to get it?
“Mrs Clinton seems to have strayed pretty far from the approved procedures for handling classified material”
The two incidents – DNC and SecState Clinton – are quite different.
“Mueller never sought to interview him, but if he has any information to contribute to the public understanding of these events, there has never been any bar to him disclosing it.”
First, why bother? Assange has legitimate reasons to be pissed off at America and the US government. If we don’t ask, I can understand why he wouldn’t help. Second, the answers might have ill affects on people or causes he values. So why should be blurt it out to the public – esp when the DoJ doesn’t care?
TMWL: Maybe, but I’m inclined to doubt it, or at least to think that this is not the complete explanation. I’ve actually wondered if the Russians really could have gotten into the DNC server as a legitimate intelligence target. Mrs Clinton seems to have strayed pretty far from the approved procedures for handling classified material, which actually had something to do with setting this thing in motion. Classified material was on her private server, and seems to have been on Anthony Weiner’s laptop…This is of course speculative, but it would explain the FBI’s lack of curiosity about that server.”
TMWL, one of the points of the article is that without that evidence from the actual physical device, one cannot be reasonably convicted as the chain is evidence is completely broken. It does not explain the lack as much as it confirms the coverup and inadequacies of the whole Mueller investigation. IMO.
“It does not explain the lack as much as it confirms the coverup and inadequacies of the whole Mueller investigation.”
That nails it. The FBI does not know if the information from the server (e.g., imaging) was accurate. The FBI doesn’t need to take the physical server if their techs has taken the information from it. Relying on a third party of unknown veracity – Crowdstrike – is bizarre.
LK: Relying on a third party of unknown veracity – Crowdstrike – is bizarre.
3rd parties can give expert opinions. But it must be on the evidence presented. This is investigation 101 stuff. To confirm that this is that bad, remember how the press made such a big deal of the expertise of the Mueller team, no excuse for 101 mistakes. Combine this with the testimony of Strzok and the IG report where all these professionals were looking over each other’s shoulders so that malice and bias could not occur. Yet, we see multiple 101 mistakes:
Accepting testimony by a lawyer and not the person of interest/suspect
Multiple cases of destruction of evidence after notice of intent given
Testimony with potential persons of interest and possible suspect simultaneously (not doing this is is old as the law under the ancient Jews)
Acceptance of third party opinion without the physical evidence as evidence
Refusing to interview witnesses with pertinent information or knowledge
Accepting any other third party opinion (Steele document) without confirmation.
Refusing to interview suspect, who has volunteered, who has been charged with a crime (this is so bizarre it is beyond bizarre).
Probably left out a couple. But believing that malice and bias were not shown, IMO, is more bizarre than all that I listed above because of the Incompetent Factor. As in, if they were so incompetent in the investigation,with any show of bias and malice, no amount of acceptance of professionalism (IG report excuse of behavior) can be considered acceptable.
“What info would the DNC have that would be worth the effort of Russian intel to get it?”
In the ordinary course of events none. But then, why would State Department emails be on Anthony Weiner’s laptop? Nothing about any of this was ever done according to any kinds of rules, procedures, or precedents that anyone knows about. Thus we have questions with no apparent answers. Who was doing what to whom and why? Claiming that the DNC intrusion might have been a false flag aimed at discrediting Wikileaks and claiming that the Russians might actually have been looking for classified information are both speculative. And honestly, I don’t expect real answers anytime soon.
But I think the reason the FBI never looked at that server is that upper management knew, or suspected what was there and they didn’t want it found.
“why would State Department emails be on Anthony Weiner’s laptop?”
First, they were Hillary Clinton’s emails, not necessarily State Department emails. We don’t know the details. Second, they were on his laptop because his wife was vice chairwoman of Clinton’s Presidential campaign. There is nothing strange about this. Many Federal officials use private emails for this business, although this is improper.
“Nothing about any of this was ever done according to any kinds of rules, procedures, or precedents that anyone knows about.”
First, that is false. While we don’t know the details, none of this is even unusual in US history. Second, even if that were true it does justify must making stuff up and saying it could be true.
” Second, they were on his laptop because his wife was vice chairwoman of Clinton’s Presidential campaign. There is nothing strange about this. Many Federal officials use private emails for this business, although this is improper.”
It was unusual enough for the NYPD to call the FBI after Weiner was busted.
We don’t need to get out the sharpened screwdrivers over this. It’s entirely possible I’m wrong, and it wouldn’t be the first time. But there appears to have something on that server that the DNC and/or the FBI didn’t want found.
I’ll drop the subject.
I said I would not return to this subject, and I won’t push my opinions again, but apparently this issue of the actual forensics of the DNC server will now become an issue in a court of law. Mr Mueller may not wish to discuss the matter in his report, but Roger Stone has no such reticence. You may find it interesting.
“Roger Stone Questions DOJ on Predicate of Russia DNC Hack” at Meaning in History.
Ed note: This appears to rely on information from “Roger Stone Questions DOJ on Predicate of Russia DNC Hack” by “Sundance” at The Last Refuge. which has links to the actual filings.
That’s interesting news! I edited your comment to give a full cite and link to the source of that info. Thanks for posting it!