Russiagate is Dead, but for the Political Establishment, it is Still the New 42

Craig Murray offers a guide to a judge’s conclusion that claims made as the basis of Russiagate are insufficient to even warrant a hearing. 

By Craig Murray

Douglas Adams famously suggested that the answer to life, the universe and everything is 42. In the world of the political elite, the answer is Russiagate. What has caused the electorate to turn on the political elite, to defeat Hillary
Clinton and to rush to Brexit? Why, the evil Russians, of course, are behind it all.

Douglas Adams: “The answer is 42.”  (Michael Hughes, Flickr, CC BY-SA 2.0)

It was the Russians who hacked the Democratic National Commitee and published Hillary’s emails, thus causing her to lose the election because… the Russians, dammit, who cares what was in the emails? It was the Russians. It is the Russians who are behind WikiLeaks, and Julian Assange is a Putin agent (as is that evil Craig Murray). It was the Russians who swayed the 1,300,000,000 dollar presidential election campaign result with 100,000 dollars of Facebook advertising. It was the evil Russians who once did a dodgy trade deal with Aaron Banks then did something improbable with Cambridge Analytica that hypnotized people en masse via Facebook into supporting Brexit.

All of this is known to be true by every Blairite, every Clintonite, by the BBC, by CNN, by the Guardian, The New York Times and The Washington Post. “The Russians did it” is the article of faith for the political elite who cannot understand why the electorate rejected the triangulated “consensus” the elite constructed and sold to us, where the filthy rich get ever richer and the rest of us have falling incomes, low employment rights and scanty welfare benefits. You don’t like that system? You have been hypnotized and misled by evil Russian trolls and hackers.

[Whether Trump and/or Brexit were worthy beneficiaries of the popular desire to express discontent is an entirely different argument and not one I address here].

Except, Not True 

Except virtually none of this is true. Former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s inability to defend in person his deeply flawed report took a certain amount of steam out of the blame Russia campaign. But what should have killed off “Russiagate” forever is the judgement of Judge John G. Koeltl of the Federal District Court of New York.

Judge John G. Koeltl. (NYU Law)

In a lawsuit brought by the Democratic National Committee against Russia and against WikiLeaks, and against inter alia Donald Trump Jr, Jared Kushner, Paul Manafort and Julian Assange, for the first time the claims of collusion between Trump and Russia were subjected to actual scrutiny in a court of law. And Judge Koeltl concluded that, quite simply, the claims made as the basis of Russiagate are insufficient to even warrant a hearing.

The judgement is 81-pages long, but if you want to understand the truth about the entire “Russiagate” spin it is well worth reading it in full. Otherwise let me walk you through it.

This is the crucial point about Koeltl’s judgement. In considering dismissing a case at the outset in response to a motion to dismiss from the defense, the judge is obliged to give the plaintiff every benefit and to take the alleged facts described by the DNC as true. The stage of challenging and testing those facts has not been reached. The question Koeltl is answering is this. Accepting for the moment the DNC’s facts as true, on the face of it, even if everything that the Democratic National Committee alleged happened, did indeed happen, is there the basis for a case? And his answer is a comprehensive no. Even the facts alleged to comprise the Russiagate narrative do not mount up to a plausible case.

The consequence of this procedure is of course that in this judgement Koeltl is accepting the DNC’s “facts.” The judgement is therefore written entirely on the assumption that the Russians did hack the DNC computers as alleged by the plaintiff (the Democratic National Committee), and that meetings and correspondence took place as the DNC alleged and their content was also what the DNC alleged. It is vital to understand in reading the document that Koeltl is not stating that he finds these “facts” to be true. Doubtless had the trial proceeded many of them would have been challenged by the defendants and their evidentiary basis tested in court. It is simply at this stage the only question Koeltl is answering is whether, assuming the facts alleged all to be true, there are grounds for trial.

Judge Koeltl’s subsequent dismissal of the Russiagate nonsense is a problem for the mainstream media and their favorite narrative. They have largely chosen to pretend it never happened, but when obliged to mention it have attempted to misrepresent this as the judge confirming that the Russians hacked the DNC. It very definitely and specifically is not that; the judge was obliged to rule on the procedural motion to dismiss on the basis of assuming the allegation to be true. Legal distinctions, even very plain ones like this, are perhaps difficult for the average cut and paste mainstream media stenographer to understand. But the widespread failure to report the meaning of Koeltl’s judgement fairly is inexcusable.

The key finding is this. Even accepting the DNC’s evidence at face value, the judge ruled that it provides no evidence of collusion between Russia, WikiLeaks or any of the named parties to hack the DNC’s computers. It is best expressed here in this dismissal of the charge that a property violation was committed, but in fact the same ruling by the judge that no evidence has been presented of any collusion for an illegal purpose, runs through the dismissal of each and every one of the varied charges put forward by the DNC as grounds for their suit.

Judge Koeltl goes further and asserts that WikiLeaks, as a news organization, had every right to obtain and publish the emails in exercise of a fundamental First Amendment right. The judge also specifically notes that no evidence has been put forward by the DNC that shows any relationship between Russia and WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks, accepting the DNC’s version of events, merely contacted the website that first leaked some of the emails, in order to ask to publish them. 

Judge Koeltl also notes firmly that while various contacts are alleged by the DNC between individuals from Trump’s campaign and individuals allegedly linked to the Russian government, no evidence at all has been put forward to show that the content of any of those meetings had anything to do with either WikiLeaks or the DNC’s emails.

No Evidence

In short, Koeltl dismissed the case entirely because simply no evidence has been produced of the existence of any collusion between WikiLeaks, the Trump campaign and Russia. That does not mean that the evidence has been seen and is judged unconvincing. In a situation where the judge is duty bound to give credence to the plaintiff’s evidence and not judge its probability, there simply was no evidence of collusion to which he could give credence. The entire Russia-WikiLeaks-Trump fabrication is a total nonsense. But I don’t suppose that fact will kill it off.

The major implication for the Assange extradition case of the Koeltl judgement is his robust and unequivocal statement of the obvious truth that WikiLeaks is a news organization and its right to publish documents, specifically including stolen documents, is protected by the First Amendment when those documents touch on the public interest.

These arguments are certainly helpful to Assange in the extradition case. But it must be noted that the extradition request has been drafted to try to get around the law by alleging that WikiLeaks was complicit in the actual theft of documents by Chelsea Manning. Judge Koeltl does not address this question as he was presented with no evidence that WikiLeaks had contact with the “hackers” prior to their obtaining the documents, so the question did not arise before him. In the extradition request, the attempt is to argue that Assange encouraged and abetted Manning in obtaining the material. This is supposed to be a different argument.

Mark Felt a.k.a. alleged “Deep Throat.” (Wikimedia Commons)

In fact, this attempt to undermine the First Amendment has no merit. Cultivation of an insider source is a normal part of journalistic activity, and encouraging an official to leak material in the public interest is an everyday occurrence in such cultivation. In the “Watergate” precedent, for example, the “Deep Throat” source, Mark Felt of the FBI, was cultivated and encouraged over a period by Bob Woodward. In addition to which, Manning’s access to the documents could not be characterized as “theft.” Leaking of official secrets by an insider is a very different thing to a hack from outside.

And in conclusion, I should state emphatically that while Judge Koeltl was obliged to accept for the time being the allegation that the Russians had hacked the DNC as alleged, in fact this never happened. The emails came from a leak not a hack. The Mueller Inquiry’s refusal to take evidence from the actual publisher of the leaks, Julian Assange, in itself discredits his report. Mueller should also have taken crucial evidence from Bill Binney, former Technical Director of the NSA, who has explained in detail why an outside hack was technically impossible based on the forensic evidence provided. 

The other key point that proves Mueller’s Inquiry was never a serious search for truth is that at no stage was any independent forensic independence taken from the DNC’s servers, instead the word of the DNC’s own security consultants was simply accepted as true. Finally no progress has been made – or is intended to be made – on the question of who killed Seth Rich, while the pretend police investigation has “lost” his laptop. 

Though why anybody would believe Robert Mueller about anything is completely beyond me. 

So, there we have it. Russiagate as a theory is as completely exploded as the appalling Guardian front page lie published by Kath Viner and Luke Harding fabricating the “secret meetings” between Paul Manafort and Julian Assange in the Ecuadorean Embassy. But the political class and the mainstream media, both in the service of billionaires, have moved on to a stage where truth is irrelevant, and I do not doubt that Russiagate stories will thus persist. They are so useful for the finances of the armaments and security industries, and in keeping the population in fear and jingoist politicians in power.

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 is from

Before commenting please read Robert Parry’s Comment PolicyAllegations unsupported by facts, gross or misleading factual errors and ad hominem attacks, and abusive language toward other commenters or our writers will be removed.

60 comments for “Russiagate is Dead, but for the Political Establishment, it is Still the New 42

  1. Den Lille Abe
    August 14, 2019 at 17:00

    Great article Craig and Thank You!
    I would say that concerning the Democrats, Hillary is lurking in the shadows. Biden is supposed to be front-runner but he is like a used rocket stage; used up…
    If the Democrats cant change course and present a candidate that is not from the swamp, the 2020 election is lost.
    The Democratic Party is a gerontocracy, very wealthy old people, that should have retired years ago, and are so rich, they do not know, what life is for a “normal” American. They are useless.
    Go progressive, get in touch and listen.

  2. DH Fabian
    August 13, 2019 at 16:30

    We’re going to go through this all over again after the 2020 election, as Democrats maintain their resistance against acknowledging how completely they split apart their own voting base (mainly by class).

  3. Zhu
    August 13, 2019 at 10:28


  4. Zhu
    August 13, 2019 at 07:08

    Russiagate was obviously the Dems’ Birtergste, right from the beginning. Both were based solely on wishful thinking and unwillingness to admit to losing an election. I’ll bet there will be *another* absurd conspiracy fiction after the next election, no matter whovwins and loses.

  5. August 13, 2019 at 05:57

    Very good article, thank you

  6. Herb Weber
    August 13, 2019 at 04:46

    Thank you for your continuing efforts to discover facts, disclose the truth, and link to verifiable sources. Russiagate has deserved nothing but scorn and derision from Day 1, as resort to logic showed throughout. I regret not having discovered Consortium News years ago, but am making up for lost time.

  7. nwwoods
    August 13, 2019 at 01:40

    It is news to me that the police claim to have lost the Seth Rich laptop. If this aspect of the saga did not already reek of a coverup, it sure as hell does now.

  8. Hawaiiguy
    August 12, 2019 at 21:56

    Assange attorneys need to wheel in a giant TV and show a dozen American Movies where a news organization works an insider for materials. Maybe they need to see it in movies before they believe it in real life. The constitution exists and it protects news organizations. Either that or arrest CNN and MSNBC hosts everytime they utter the words “anonymous source”. Actually I’d love that, but let’s be fair.

  9. Jeff Harrison
    August 12, 2019 at 20:58

    The US government has retained its current level of power by virtue of its controlling the narrative so that everybody operates with the USs version of events. This is why the “Integrity Initiative”, VOA, RFE (why is RFE still in business? Last I checked, all of Europe was already free), USAID, the whole panoply of American NGOs mostly controlled by the CIA, State Department and/or American billionaires is so important to the US. After all, other countries can’t be allowed to think and act for themselves. That’s also why the US only supports extreme right wing governments/dictatorships. They can be relied on to toe the line and they don’t really pay any attention to the electorate, just like the US.

  10. michael
    August 12, 2019 at 19:53

    So far there is as much evidence presented that Martians interfered in the 2016 Election as RUSSIANS!!!
    Just a much needed excuse to blow on the dying embers of the Cold War and get the nuclear weapons ready.
    I’m still waiting for Robert Mueller to be tried for lying to Congress (when asked who hired him, instead of saying “I have no idea”, he said “Bush!” It is a matter of public record that Reagan hired him, a blatant lie! Is Michael Flynn out of jail yet?)

  11. Anarcissie
    August 12, 2019 at 18:57

    I found the Mintpressnews articles quite interesting, even if the material is only partly verifiable. (Some of it, of course, is well known.) It might be worthwhile to construct a social map beginning with Epstein. Quite a few people would have an Epstein Number of 1 (that is, those who knew or worked with or for him personally) and as they are mostly very big cheeses they presumably have or had massive Rolodexes, some of which may not have been burned yet.

  12. robert e williamson jr
    August 12, 2019 at 15:19

    Mark Stanley; The excrement is in the air already. Go to the Mint Press and enjoy some good ole dirt that just happens to connect many dots.

  13. Drew Hunkins
    August 12, 2019 at 14:49

    “…and I do not doubt that Russiagate stories will thus persist. They are so useful for the finances of the armaments and security industries, and in keeping the population in fear and jingoist politicians in power…”

    They are also extremely useful as a scapegoat for the corporate warmongering DNC to camouflage the genuine reasons they lost to Trump of all people.

  14. phree
    August 12, 2019 at 13:55

    A court ruling that “There is insufficient evidence of Fact A” to present Fact A to a jury is NOT a court ruling that “Fact A is untrue or does not exist.” A fact can exist but the evidence can be hidden, undiscovered, or otherwise unavailable.

    Pretty basic legal principle, really: You cannot argue a fact to the jury unless there is sufficient evidence of that fact.

    This is just an evidentiary ruling, not a determination on whether a fact existed.

    So, whether the evidence exists tying the disinformation campaign to the Kremilin or not, does anyone at CN really believe that the Internet Research Agency is acting without official Russian government approval, tacit or express? If so, please provide argument and evidence in support of that factual position.

    • Clark M Shanahan
      August 12, 2019 at 14:47

      Could you help by telling us just what tangible influence the Internet Research Agency had on the 2016 election.
      Do you believe that the Evil Vlad spends his morning hours micro-managing that entity?
      Did Obama do the same with VOA, for example.

      • phree
        August 13, 2019 at 13:45

        It is obviously very difficult to determine factually what impact or “tangible influence” the IRA efforts had. Of course, given Trump’s relatively small wins in critical states, any impact that reduced Democratic voter turnout or increased GOP turnout MIGHT have made a difference.

        Matt Osborne on his Alabama efforts against Roy Moore explains the theory:

        “A glance at the math is helpful here. If I show content to three million Alabamians, and deter just one out of 100 of them from voting for Moore, that is a swing of 30,000 votes in a race that Jones won by less than 22,000. Even if I only affect one in 1000 votes, that equals Jones’s winning margin in 11 of the counties he won. So a scattershot approach that hits an opponent from many angles can cumulatively swing a close election.”

        And yes Rawstory is a rabidly leftie site, but math is math, and this article is written by Osborne himself, so it comes from the source.

        Also, interesting podcast is referenced in that article:

        “For example, investor Dmitri Melhorn and LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman, who financed Dry Alabama, also supported a Democratic operative named David Goldstein as he tested 2016-style voter persuasion techniques in Alabama and gleaned impressive data showing that they really can swing a close election.”

        Lind is here: Episode 915: How To Meddle In An Election

        As to micromanagement, that’s a facetious question or you don’t understand “tacit”

        As to Obama, so what? Two wrongs make a right?

    • Martin
      August 12, 2019 at 16:10

      since you make the claim the Russian government was acting with Russian government approval, the onus of the Russian government even being aware of the IRA’s modest click-bait farm activity is on you.

      • Martin
        August 12, 2019 at 16:59

        … the claim that the IRA was acting … (of course)

    • hetro
      August 12, 2019 at 16:15

      If a “fact” exists but the evidence is hidden or unavailable it is not a fact. It is an assertion.

      You ask, Does anyone really believe the IRA is acting without official Russian government approval? (Provide argument in support.)

      The burden here is for you, asking this question, to provide evidence of support, not for us to argue for you.

      Again this is assertion; it is supposition. Again, the word “fact” should not be bandied about when we are looking at insinuations.

      Suggesting the evidence of “fact” really does exist somewhere hidden away, but it’s classified, so it must be “fact” is circular reasoning.

      This position appears to rest on blind faith or obedience in the official position as, say, represented by the Mueller report, which has been repeatedly assessed at flawed and limited.

      Ergo, then, the claim to “fact” appears to exist only in the hands of special interests who use assertions to imply.

      Without a convincing case to support the allegations–called “evidence”—this position won’t work (other than perhaps with a court heavily immersed in legalisms that disguise).

      So, then, by all means bring on your case to prove what you suggest here, instead of asking us to prove your case here.

      Further, as usual, we must distinguish between “Russians” and “the Kremlin.”

      That Russian personnel were involved, as for example with the FB ads, and as double agents working for US intelligence, does not automatically mean they were under orders from the Kremlin.

      • michael
        August 12, 2019 at 19:44

        So far there is as much evidence presented that Martians interfered in the 2016 Election as RUSSIANS!!!
        Just a much needed excuse to blow on the dying embers of the Cold War and get the nuclear weapons ready.
        I’m still waiting for Robert Mueller to be tried for lying to Congress (when asked who hired him, instead of saying “I have no idea”, he said “Bush!” It is a matter of public record that Reagan hired him, a blatant lie! Is Michael Flynn out of jail yet?)

      • Zhu
        August 13, 2019 at 07:30

        I think you need to demonstrate the URA *did* work for the Rusdian government.

    • August 12, 2019 at 18:14

      @ “This is just an evidentiary ruling, not a determination on whether a fact existed.”

      Did you read the OP article? The judge’s ruling was most certainly *not* an evidentiary ruling.

      The Internet Research Agency is a commercial clickbait advertising company. See and To say that it attempted to influence the U.S. 2016 election is preposterous without factual foundation.

      But yes, one may infer that it had the tacit approval of the Russian government, but to do what? — To run a clickbait advertising scheme, not to influence the U.S. election.

      • Skip Scott
        August 15, 2019 at 07:38

        Thank you Paul.

    • NotMyOnus
      August 12, 2019 at 20:40

      You’re the one making the positive claim, sucka! The burden is on you to substantiate it!

    • nwwoods
      August 13, 2019 at 09:15

      Who among us can prove that an invisible superhero did not create the universe in 6 days with a single wave of a magic wand, taking Sunday off for a round of celestial golf and cocktails?

  15. SteveFrench
    August 12, 2019 at 12:16

    This country is F’d…
    It is sad that almost every reporter/ journalist Spins the facts and/or presents Ideology as facts misleading the public. Just to to sway the narrative towards there bias.
    This article is a great example of this…

    • Clark M Shanahan
      August 12, 2019 at 13:59

      “It is sad that almost every reporter/ journalist Spins […]”

      I’ve heard that sort of point said, often, by Republicans..
      “They’re all crooks…”
      “This article is a great example of this…”
      Please state your case, Steve
      A few concrete examples would be helpful.
      thank you!

    • Zhu
      August 13, 2019 at 07:32

      I think you need to demonstrate the URA *did* work for the Rusdian government.

  16. Stan W.
    August 12, 2019 at 11:58

    Excellent article!

  17. robert e williamson jr
    August 12, 2019 at 11:56

    Realist Aug 12, 2019 @ 00:18 Great stuff here!

    Joe [MSNBC] flips more than a fish out of water. Which of course makes him irrelevant !

    Your second paragraph is classic. “Their minds cannot co-exist within both the Deep State Matrix and objective reality at the same time. Blaming all evil in the world on Russia gives them license to act outside conventional morality with impunity.”

    This is the ruse used and used and used again by both parties, their impunity the result and facilitated by the media, the DOJ and the Security State actors, 17 agencies included, all slave to the Deep State.

  18. Tristan
    August 12, 2019 at 11:41

    Good article, the news regarding this development in court in new to me. Thanks for the insightful news.

  19. robert e williamson jr
    August 12, 2019 at 11:31

    I’ll say it again. Why aren’t progressive Dimocraps clamoring to have Hillary water-boarded so the truth can be heard?.

    The dimocraps are in big trouble if they do not get this Russian “thing” out into the open before it’s too close to this next election for POTUS. Sure they are in trouble if they do but it’s hard to make a case against the “the Lair In Chief”when you lie or ignore the lying of others.

    Is it because they fear exposing the nasty underbelly of the “National Security Establishment” . Remember they claim all 17 agencies agree Putin did it!

    So what’s up with this? BTW just where are Billy and Hillary hiding? Where is Karl Rove, Soros and the Kochs?

    What a mess.

  20. hetro
    August 12, 2019 at 11:21

    It is peculiar to me that the judge must at one point, early in this account, talk about “facts” without any qualification such as quotation marks or the word “alleged,” and then at a point further down in this report use “the DNC has alleged that . . .”

    This confusing use of language is perhaps why Craig Murray had to labor to explain the inconsistency. This inconsistency, I think, invites further manipulation and confusion as we continue to see use of the English language decline.

    Craig’s explanation here is key to understanding this report:

    “The major implication for the Assange extradition case of the Koeltl judgement is his robust and unequivocal statement of the obvious truth that WikiLeaks is a news organization and its right to publish documents, specifically including stolen documents, is protected by the First Amendment when those documents touch on the public interest.”

    As to whether Russia-gate is dead or not of course it’s dead except for the last breathing on the embers from Establishment Brainwashers. We can hope that given the internet and the mass of those who know the truth this canard will not take decades to fade away, as with other fakes we have experienced over the decades.

    Onward CN!

  21. Mark Thomason
    August 12, 2019 at 10:34

    Like the Wolfowitz explanation of the Iraq War, Russiagate is the idea around which varied interests can be organized.

    Cold Warriors like to hate on Russia. It justifies arms spending and their own importance.

    Clintonistas need an excuse to distract from her being a loser.

    The DNC needs an excuse for manipulating the candidate selection in favor of donor interests.

    “Moderates” need a distraction from their ongoing refusal to address the interests of voters.

  22. August 12, 2019 at 09:38

    “Those whom the gods would destroy they first drive mad”.

    • Tristan
      August 12, 2019 at 11:44

      It’s working, and on me as well.

  23. Larry Mofield
    August 12, 2019 at 08:41

    If Russia actually wanted to help someone win I think it would be Hilary because Trump is a plain shooter from the hip and takes nothing off of nobody.
    If anything Sanders should had sued the DNC and Hilary for rigging the DNC
    Go figure why he has kept his mouth shut.

    • Bif Webster
      August 12, 2019 at 11:13

      Putin preferred Obama to his running mates as well. But you won’t ever hear that on the corporate “news” media.

      Others sued on behalf of Bernie. That case died in south Florida, near Wasserman-Schultz’s district… yeah, and the excuse was, “The DNC is a ‘private organization” and do what they like, apparently. However, the “judge” did not find it odd that a private entity can run a public election? And how there’s an obvious conflict of interest involved?

      Bernie kept his mouth shut because he’s inside the Belly of the Beast.

    • Martin
      August 12, 2019 at 11:54

      i think there was something of a lawsuit, but the judge decided that the rigging was an inside thing to which no external laws applied. if you got a non-profit or a company and there’s no internal rules that forbid the rigging of votes, rigging is not illegal. the superdelegates still exist.

    • Seer
      August 12, 2019 at 12:04

      He kept his mouth shut because advancing “My Revolution” was more important. And, because he’s NOT a Democrat: he’s only “allowed” to run as one: he is therefore a little more constrained. Had he lashed out he’d have NOT been allowed to run again as a Democrat- bank on that! Tulsi Gabbard, on the other hand, is a Democrat, in which case she really couldn’t be kicked out: it was she who acted as Bernie’s mouth on this matter.

      Trump is a piece of crap. There’s nothing straight about him at all. He’s a con-man of the highest order. Other than give money to the rich he’s done nothing: and “nothing,” is probably the best that could have been hoped for given that he could have started some wars (he hasn’t found one that he feels safe would not undermine his presidency, otherwise he’d be lighting it up). The reason the guy is so good at firing people is because he’s so crappy about firing them.

      Oh yeah, I have not cast a single vote for anyone I have mentioned here.

      • evelync
        August 12, 2019 at 14:16

        Thanks Seer, you answered better than I was able to (which hasn’t posted yet).
        Sanders Our Revolution initiative got explained by him on Joe Grogan’s recent show/interview
        – almost 8 million people have watched the interview…runs a little over an hour and Grogan asked great questions, more nuanced than the hit jobs of the MSM.

    • evelync
      August 12, 2019 at 13:20

      Interesting question, Larry Mofield!
      Bernie’s not a stupid guy and I believe (as does Cornel West and Noam Chomsky) he’s dedicated to policies that serve working people and sustainability.
      (as I see it – reversing the NeoLiberal agenda in order to restore a level playing field for working people and also to shift to a democratic, non imperial foreign policy.)

      So why didn’t he, let’s call him “David”, not aim his slingshot at the DNC, let’s call it “Goliath”?

      Probably because a single stone in a slingshot was hopeless. He was up against a massive corrupt network of hangers on, IMO, who rabidly shouted down the person who dared to question Clinton’s policies.

      For an even more recent example of a delusional grandiose, imperial mind set, let’s take the 200+ people affiliated with the JFK School of Government at Harvard. The ones who accepted the School’s shameful withdrawal of Chelsea Manning’s honorary fellowship because Pompeo and Morrell attacked it with Cold War rhetoric. Manning’s crime? Telling people the truth about horrific wrongdoing she witnessed in Iraq. When I emailed 200 people at the JFK School a shame-on-you letter I heard back from only one who chastised (threatened) me for not understanding “National Security”….say what????) Others chimed in to agree with her. (I shared that email with Robert Parry at the time and he emailed back that he didn’t blame me for being outraged. He was such a wonderful person.)

      So Bernie had the whole MSNBC related propaganda machine at his throat.
      – think Mimi Rocah’s recent “he makes my skin crawl” comment, knowing surely, that her words would be applauded over there.
      and think all the people who have accepted since 2016 that the Russians cost Hillary Clinton the election in denial over the truth – a flawed candidate who seemed to consider her constituency the big banks and the polluters and the war machine.

      I know lifelong conservative Republicans who liked Bernie in 2016 and like him now because they find him truthful but didn’t trust Clinton and some voted for Trump in order to beat her.
      This country is filled with a patronage network of well off established people including Democrats who believe everything’s fine as it is and are willing to shut their eyes to what’s not working – the financial crisis of the working class, the racism underlying the for profit prison system and immigration system, the horrific endless regime change wars and the massive deregulation of banks on Bill Clinton’s watch and much more, including the Climate Crisis.

      It’s taken almost 3 years to discredit what apparently was a faux “excuse” why Hillary Clinton lost. Too many voters in key states didn’t trust her to serve their interests because she clearly was an apparatchik for the MICIMATT.

      Enough of Trump’s voters were willing to gamble on this “unknown” character who piggy backed off what Bernie was saying at the time – too bad he was lying…..

    • rosemerry
      August 12, 2019 at 15:39

      The whole suggestion has ignored any words and actions of Pres. Putin, who is careful to keep to the truth. He often stated that he would accept whoever the US population chose (ie did not even want to lean towards the one claiming to desire better relations, let alone interfere) because the difference between US administrations was small and policies unlikely to change in 2016. Because the US constantly causes “régime change” does not mean that Russia does. The quick decision to “blame Russia” immediately after Trump’s win, activated by Obama expelling diplomats and stealing their US property, set the ball rolling and it has not stopped.

      • Skip Scott
        August 15, 2019 at 07:46

        Putin is smart enough to see the “Big Picture”. He knows that the US President is just a figurehead, and that the real power lies elsewhere. Presidents come and go, US foreign policy remains unchanged. Until Russia is returned to the vassal status it had under Yeltsin, it will be “the root of all evil” to the Empire and its servants.

  24. August 12, 2019 at 08:37

    T he AP and no doubt other media are setting the stage for claiming that if Trump is reelected in 2020, the Russians again were responsible. As HItler learned, repeat a lie often enough and it will assume the appearance of truth. It’s not surprising that the Democrats led by Hillary are behind this maneuver. The Dems have been blaming Russia ever since Truman did so in 1945.

    • Kevin Bradley
      August 13, 2019 at 12:33

      The current Dems have adopted neo-McCarthyism but during the Cold War the Republicans were worse. McCarthy was a Republican and the right-wing of the party was fanatically anti-Communist to a greater degree than most Democrats of the time. They went absolutely nuts over Nixon and Kissinger’s detente policy. Both parties have always detested Russia, only now the Dems are doing so with the intensity previously displayed by the Republican right.

  25. Sally Snyder
    August 12, 2019 at 08:05

    As shown in this article, key Western countries including the United States have put in place a mechanism that is supposed to protect us from election meddling:

    Given the anti-Russia bias that took root and has become pervasive in the West since 2014 and, in particular, since the Hillary Clinton loss in 2016 which is blamed on Russian-sourced disinformation, it is interesting to see that the G7 has been driven to take extreme moves to battle what they see as an “evil Russia”.

  26. jdd
    August 12, 2019 at 07:05

    Devastating. A cogent and insightful analysis of Judge Koeltl’s decision. Thank you Ambassador Murray.

  27. michael
    August 12, 2019 at 06:35

    Is Judaism dead? Islam? Christianity? Russiagate is the same, faith-based, evidence-free, a narrative passed down from high priests and authority. It is blasphemy to question the narrative.

    Anything real is backed by evidence and in a broad way by statistics. Like John Brennan says, “As I said, Mr. Gowdy, I don’t do evidence.” THEY just make up narratives from thin air and hand them down to their co-conspirators, the media.

    • Kevin Bradley
      August 13, 2019 at 12:34

      Perfectly stated.

  28. geeyp
    August 12, 2019 at 05:29

    Judge John G. Koeltl; one would hope there are many more of his type out there across this desperate land. Overdue, I thank him now for his seemingly uncommon common sense. In a line from the great film JFK, “People got to know!”

  29. Michaelevan Hammond
    August 12, 2019 at 02:16

    What’s hilarious is that Binney was able to discern that the download was later split in two and then transmitted state side. Think of when you download a movie or a file….. it doesn’t come in 2 parts, you either download the whole thing or it is an error/fail. Binney is able to show that the whole thing is one download at 49mbps impossible speed for transatlantic transmission….he absolute fastest you can achieve over the cable is 29mbps… there are 6-12 NSA monitoring junctions added to the cable to capture such things and not one had any Russians attempting to “hack”(2001 term). It was all just deflection for Hillary and she may we’ll have selfishly killed the Dems party.

    • Martin
      August 12, 2019 at 16:28

      internet speeds have made terrific jumps since 2016 (from my personal experience). i hope somebody is keeping a history.

  30. Realist
    August 12, 2019 at 00:37

    Russiagate is not “dead.” It has more lives than a cat bitten by a vampire. It is permanently undead. The antithesis of a dead parrot.

    Check out some of its latest incarnations:

    How many times does Rachel Maddow have to tell you? Anyone who did not vote for Hillary Clinton and refuses to back her never-ending, constantly metamorphosing coup against Trump has got to be a Putin agent… even Mitch McConnell. Check back tomorrow for the latest Maddowsplaining on this and other bad crazyness.

    • Seer
      August 12, 2019 at 12:07

      I agree. The FACT that the US has been sanctioning Russia for the better part of 100 years pretty much tells it all. It’s about the West’s ruling elite keeping Their game going: but, nothing lasts forever, and this game is about to run out on them (the perpetual growth model, which has given them their power, is ending).

  31. Realist
    August 12, 2019 at 00:18

    Unless he was being sarcastic, MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough tweeted that the Russians were probably behind Jeff Epstein’s “suiciding” in the high security NYC federal lockup!

    Anyone who truly believes that Epstein actually took his own life probably does still have a severe case of Putin Derangement Syndrome, aka Russophrenia, Russiagate-itis, -osis or whatever ya wanna call it. Their minds cannot co-exist within both the Deep State Matrix and objective reality at the same time. Blaming all evil in the world on Russia gives them license to act outside conventional morality with impunity.

    • Mark Stanley
      August 12, 2019 at 11:32

      Yes, they are endeavoring to tip-toe around this one. If Epstein had started squealing, the excrement would really have hit the fan. After his purported suicide, the smokescreen “conspiracy” word popped up immediately in every mainstream mention of Epstein.
      If the populace found out about the deranged sexual practices of too many of the world’s elites it would certainly upset the apple cart–to use an American expression.

      • Seer
        August 12, 2019 at 15:51

        This IS VERY DEEP! First three parts of this most excellent four part series is available, starting with this one (Mint Press also needs supporting).

        After reading this I now understand why Trump won’t release his tax returns.

      • Realist
        August 12, 2019 at 18:12


        Probably, because like Romney, he didn’t pay any.

        Dershowitz’s client Leonna Helmsley explained the principle decades ago: “Only the little people pay taxes.” Probably as truthful a description of the American system as you will ever hear. Sadly, it went down the memory hole because the media will never mention it again. Investigative reporters like David Cay Johnston have to write individually researched books on the subject and hope that the swamp creatures don’t seek retribution against him some dark night.

        The most the public is ever going to get in this world is perhaps a brief glimmer of the truth through the hard work and suffering of individuals like Assange, Manning and a few other brave altruistic souls, but never justice. The system is set up to sacrifice the lives of millions for the benefit of dozens.

      • Gregory Herr
        August 12, 2019 at 18:46

        More from Whitney Webb:

Comments are closed.