This editorial appears in the April 19, 2019 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
The Three Men:
London Is in Coverup Mode
April 11—As far as is known, there are just three men who have conclusive evidence that the Russians did not hack the Democratic National Committee (DNC) in 2016, and are willing to put it forward. Even after the collapse of the “Russia collusion” hoax, when Mueller’s investigation was unable to find any collusion, the still-surviving lie that Russia hacked the DNC and gave the hacked data to WikiLeaks, is still central to London’s intention to pit the United States against Russia.
One of the three is William Binney, the former National Security Agency (NSA) Technical Director, who has marshalled all the known forensic evidence to show that the data was taken from the DNC’s own network rather than through the internet, so it was an insider “leak” or the like, rather than a hack. The then CIA Director, Mike Pompeo, met with Binney at President Trump’s request in 2017, but Pompeo never followed up on that interview, and continued to insist that Russia had hacked the DNC. Binney was never interviewed by investigators subsequently, or asked to testify before Congress.
Binney’s remains the only known investigation based on forensic evidence, in large part because the FBI inexplicably failed to impound the DNC servers after the alleged hack, as President Trump has often pointed out.
The second witness is former British Ambassador, Craig Murray, a friend of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. Murray told the London Guardian on Dec. 10, 2016, that the CIA claim that Russia hacked the DNC emails was “bullshit. . . . I know who leaked them.” He added, “I’ve met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian, and it’s an insider. It’s a leak, not a hack; the two are different things.” Murray still maintains this today, but has never been called to testify to investigators or to Congress.
The third is Assange himself, who told then Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) a year ago, “I have physical proof that the Russians did not give me this.” Rohrabacher wanted to discuss this with President Trump, but was sidelined. And neither Congress nor investigators have interviewed Assange either. Assange went on to tell the Congressman, “I have physical proof that I would be very happy to provide once I can leave the Ecuadorian embassy without being arrested.”
But wait—wasn’t he just dragged out of that embassy by British police and arrested this morning? Couldn’t this have something to do with it?
Indeed it does. After the collapse of Russiagate and the beginning of Attorney General William Barr’s ongoing investigation of that hoax and its origins, London has been in deep coverup mode. Even though the United States has asked that Assange be extradited to face a hokey conspiracy charge in the Eastern District of Virginia, the operation to force him out of asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy has British, not U.S. fingerprints all over it. Still, many U.S. hard-liners are passionate against Assange; at a minimum, London hopes to muddy the waters to keep the truth from coming out. Let’s get it out!