More From Ray on Why “They” Hate Julian Assange & Leakers to WikiLeaks

Ray’s 6-minute segment starts at minute 3:10.

Ray provides the backdrop to the harsh prison plight of former CIA techie Joshua Schultz, suspected of leaking to WikiLeaks original documents describing CIA offensive cyber-tools called “Vault 7.”  One in particular, named “Marble,” gives the CIA the ability to hack into computers like the DNC and to “obfuscate” who hacked. This Marble tool was used during 2016. Hmmmmm.

“They” see the leak of the cyber-tools in Vault 7 as particularly dangerous, because it can make clear to those few not-already-brainwashed-by-the-mainstream-media that the “tell-tale” Cyrillic bread crumbs pointing ostensibly to Russia may well have been the work of Vault 7 techies at CIA.  Small wonder folks like Julian Assange and those suspected of leaking to WikiLeaks are given the treatment, so to speak.

For background, see:

Intel Vets Challenge ‘Russia Hack’ Evidence
By Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), July 24, 2017

More Holes in Russia-gate Narrative
By William Binney and Ray McGovern, September 20, 2017

Ray on CIA cyber-tools

Ray discusses CIA “Vault 7”cyber-tools – like “Marble” to hack into computers & “obfuscate” who did it. (Think Cyrillic “inadvertently” left behind by “Russian hackers.”)
Ray’s segment starts at minute 27:00 and runs for 28 minutes (audio seems to work best on Safari or Chrome.)

Former CIA techie Joshua Schultz, suspected of giving the treasure trove of Vault 7 documents to WikiLeaks, has been jailed for almost a year, but the authorities seem to lack hard evidence to pin it on him. It seems that whoever it was that actually did give Vault 7 to WikiLeaks — like the insider who gave WikiLeaks the DNC emails in 2016 — knew that NSA collects all electronic communications, and hence copied the documents onto an external storage device. Those pesky little thumb drives again!

Ray was able to cram in most highlights of the story of Vault 7 — with one exception.  Time ran out before he could include the highly instructive information in the link below (hat tip to John Solomon of The Hill).

Below is interviewer Dr. Wilmer Leon’s lead-in:

A former coder for the Central Intelligence Agency says he’s been thrown into solitary confinement under conditions amounting to “torture,” preventing him from defending himself against charges that he leaked some of the CIA’s most important secrets to WikiLeaks. Joshua Adam Schulte, 30, was charged last June under the Espionage Act for allegedly leaking a trove of 8,000 CIA files that WikiLeaks published last year under the rubric “Vault 7.” But what’s really going on here? We’ve got the story that lies beneath the surface.

In Refusing To Defend Assange, Mainstream Media Exposes Its True Nature

By Caitlin Johnstone, July 28, 2018

As pressure on Ecuador increases to throw Julian Assange out of the Ecuadorian embassy in London, here’s a reminder of how snively the media, who should be Julian’s natural allies, have been — how cowardly, and how unconscionable.

Folks with good intentions and some knowledge of history, do warn “next they’ll come for the New York Times.”  No worries; they already have.

Johnstone’s piece goes back exactly three months, but what she writes makes clear that “they” have long since “come for the NY Times”  — and not only the NYT.  Even so — are there no consciences, no journalist professionalism, no sense of solidarity left?  Are the we-pick-the-news-that’s-fit-to-print people so jaded that they are happy to acquiesce in Julian Assange’s virtual imprisonment, as long as no tries to actually bring him to trial and create unwelcome precedent for other publishers?  Yuk.

Charlie Glass: A Historical Perspective on Saudi Patriarchy

As a companion piece illuminating the precarious lives of Saudis living abroad, who do what they can to bring the “kingdom” out of the Middle Ages, Consortium News today leads with the following:

Seeing Khashoggi’s Fate as a Death Foretold

Charles Glass, October 24, 2018

We do not know very much of the future

Except that from generation to generation

The same things happen again and again.

Men learn little from others’ experience.

T.S. Eliot, “Murder in the Cathedral”
The killing of Jamal Khashoggi was a death foretold from the time his comments on Saudi Arabia’s crown prince and effective ruler, Mohammed bin Salman, reached the royal court. Princes do not tolerate what they perceive to be insults, especially from commoners. In an absolute monarchy, the difference between criticism and treason does not pertain. Khashoggi, for years a loyal subject of the monarchy, dared to suggest that his country refrain from devastating its smaller neighbor, Yemen, and permit the kingdom’s inhabitants a measure of freedom. That was enough for his liege lord to perceive him as an enemy of his person and of the state. The official Saudi line denies the crown prince’s complicity in Khashoggi’s death, but it would have been understood by members of the Saudi government that if Khashoggi continued, others would follow. The Western powers that have played a decisive role in the Saudi kingdom throughout the past century should not be shocked at what happened to Khashoggi. His death is one of many they have ignored since Abdulaziz Ibn Saud founded the kingdom in the Arabian Peninsula and named it for his family.
Abdulaziz, in common with other Arab chiefs, was ram ad-dar, head of the house. Every Arab household has its head, and the senior male is revered by his offspring. Children grow up under the watchful portraits of grandfathers and fathers on the prominent walls in their houses. “In all traditional Arab houses and shops,” I wrote in “The Tribes Triumphant” (HarperCollins, 2006), “the head’s picture — usually retouched in black and white, of an old man framed under glass on a wall above door height dominated the most important room. President Mubarak, King Abdallah, Saddam Hussein in Iraq, Bashar al-Assad in Syria and King Fahd in Saudi Arabia translated to the public sphere the senior male’s leadership of the family.” To insult the leader is to demean the father, the basis of society’s stability, and jeopardize the realm. This system contradicts both democracy and the doctrine of human equality embedded in early Islam.
If Jamal Khashoggi’s corpse is discovered and Turkish government leaks are correct, the fingers with which he wrote will be found severed or crushed. The message will be clear, just as it was when the bloodied body of Lebanese journalist Salim al-Lowzi was discovered in 1980. Lowzi, who founded and edited political magazines in London, condemned the Syrian army’s occupation of Lebanon in the late 1970s. The flamboyant editor felt safe in London, where I used to see him in his Chelsea house, but he made the mistake of going to Lebanon to attend his mother’s funeral in Tripoli, the north Lebanese city where he was born. Gunmen kidnapped him as he left Beirut airport on Feb. 25, 1980. Police found his body a week later. His writing hand had been immersed in acid, a warning not to write anything against the leader.
Some commentators have questioned Khashoggi’s journalistic credentials, because he served the Saudi princes for much of his career. The respected Lebanese-American political scientist As’ad AbuKhalil wrote, “Khashoggi was a loyal member of the Saudi propaganda apparatus.” For much of his life, it was true that he served the state faithfully. The same might have been said of another martyr, Thomas à Becket. He served England’s King Henry II faithfully, until his spiritual duty as archbishop of Canterbury placed him at odds with temporal power. Khashoggi, when I occasionally met him in the Saudi Embassy in London, was working for the ambassador and former intelligence chief, Prince Turki al-Faisal. It was hardly a post for a believer in democracy, freedom of the press and public accountability. Khashoggi left government employ and resumed in earnest his work as a journalist. That calling put him, as Becket’s fealty to the church did, at odds with his former patrons. And he suffered Becket’s fate.
When in 1170 Becket excommunicated fellow bishops favored by the king, Henry raged, as recorded by contemporary chronicler Edward Grim, “What miserable drones and traitors have I nourished and brought up in my household, who let their lord be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born cleric?” Henry’s knights, who would not be seen as traitors, went to Canterbury Cathedral to stab Becket to death while he prayed. In addition to murder, they defiled the church’s sacred space as in our time the minions who killed Khashoggi violated a diplomatic mission that under international law is protected territory and a place of refuge.
Papal and public outrage forced Henry to do penance for Becket’s murder in the cathedral that his knights had defiled. Twelfth century historian William of Newberg recorded, “On entering the chapter of the monks, he prostrated himself on the ground, and with the utmost humility entreated pardon; and, at his urgent petition, he, though so great a man, was corporally beaten with rods by all the brethren in succession.”
The thread from Khashoggi’s battered body to his crown prince seems as obvious as that between the slain Becket and King Henry despite Saudi Arabia’s attempt to absolve the crown prince of blame. Mohammed bin Salman’s defense appears to be that his knights in the intelligence services under his supervision overreacted to his condemnation of a troublesome journalist and killed him by mistake. It is up to the crown prince’s father, King Salman, to decide whether his son must atone to preserve his position. Will the old man make the crown prince bear his back, as Henry did, to suffer the beatings of journalists?
The English historian Lord Acton, in his famous 1887 letter to Bishop Creighton in which he used the phrase “power corrupts,” wrote, “There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it.” Arab leaders believe themselves above criticism, accountability to those they govern and the moral duty not to commit murder and torture. Some of their people accept that the viability of the state requires acceptance of actions for which lesser beings would be punished. Others disagree, and it is they who risk prison or an end like Khashoggi’s. Acton insisted leaders could not be above the law, telling Bishop Creighton, “You would spare these criminals, for some mysterious reason. I would hang them, higher than Haman, for reasons of quite obvious justice; still more, still higher, for the sake of historical science.”

“Politico” Report Says Russiagaters Should Prepare for “Disappointment”

By Caitlin Johnstone, October 20, 2018

Caitlin Johnstone has an eye-catchingly ribald way of calling to mind that, to her credit, she has been right about Russia-gate (now evolved into Deep State-gate), and that, by all rights, the duped should stoop to make amends.  Johnstone refers to how she nailed it in the fall of 2017, warning ardent Russia-gate believers, and those still suffering from the HWHW virus, that Deus ex Mueller was not going to suddenly swoop down ex machina, as with the protagonists in the Greek tragedies.  Mueller would not be able to rescue those still unable to accept the reality that Mrs. Clinton was quite capable of snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory all by herself.

Mueller would disappoint Russia-gate true believers, Caitlin wrote.  Now, with “Politico” preparing believers in Russia-gate for “disappointment,” Johnstone seems to have nailed it again.  Except …

Caveat: Mueller’s search may well come up empty, but the stakes are so very high, with the most senior Department of Justice, FBI, and CIA officials shown to have played fast and loose with the Constitution and the law (including Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, and perhaps Mueller himself) there is still some chance that a manufactured “there” will eventually appear and help get the miscreants off the stage and off the hook.

“No There There”

It was Consortium News’s Robert Parry who, early on, figured out what was afoot.  He appears to have been the first to write that there may be “no there there.”  Those interested can scan the milestone items below, which sketch how the story played out on Consortium News. Yes, the whole Russia-gate narrative in Establishment media is nothing short of obscene — and quite deserving of the penitential/remedial gesture invited by Johnstone.  For good or ill, you will find the language in Consortium News a tad more subdued. But kudos to Caitlin!

The Politics Behind ‘Russia-gate’
By Robert Parry, March 4, 2017

Exclusive: The hysteria over “Russia-gate” continues to grow – as President Trump’s enemies circle – but at its core there may be no there there while it risks pushing the world toward nuclear annihilation, writes Robert Parry. [Emphasis added]

As shown in “Moon-Strzok No More” [linked below], Bob Parry’s tentative conclusion that “there may be no there” came 11 weeks before FBI counterintelligence guru Peter Strzok told his girlfriend, FBI attorney Lisa Page, there was “no big there there” and 19 weeks before Page reportedly told a joint House committee that when Strzok texted her saying that when Strzok wrote there was “no big there there,” he meant there was no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Intel Vets Challenge ‘Russia Hack’ Evidence
By Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), July 24, 2017
(VIPS’ 50th and perhaps most consequential Memorandum for the President)
More Holes in Russia-gate Narrative
By William Binney and Ray McGovern, September 20, 2017
The Foundering Russia-gate ‘Scandal’
By Robert Parry December 13, 2017 (Bob’s last substantive article)
Exclusive: Taking on water from revealed FBI conflicts of interest, the foundering Russia-gate probe – and its mainstream media promoters – are resorting to insults against people who note the listing ship, writes Robert Parry. The disclosure of fiercely anti-Trump text messages between two romantically involved senior FBI officials who played key roles in the early Russia-gate inquiry has turned the supposed Russian-election-meddling “scandal” into its own scandal, by providing evidence that some government investigators saw it as their duty to block or destroy Donald Trump’s presidency.
Moon-Strzok No More, Lisa Page Spills the Beans

By Ray McGovern, July 7, 2018
“No there there” means no evidence of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign, admits Page.
Stay tuned; it’s not over until “the fat lady sings.”

The Shaky Case That Russia Manipulated Social Media to Tip the 2016 Election

It has been 14 months since Patrick Lawrence, citing VIPS findings based on independent forensic investigation, put the lie to what all NY Times readers already “knew” — namely, that Russia hacked into the DNC.
Now Gareth Porter exposes NYT malpractice on Russia’s “social media threat.”

The word on the street is that Robert Mueller is about to indict 12 known Russian arsonists for the forest fires in the West; and 12 known Russian oceanographers for stirring up hurricanes in the East.  In the current political climate, Mueller has found such an approach actually easier than indicting the proverbial ham sandwich. Since, unlike the ham sandwich, the indicted Russians are not expected to appear, there will be no “discovery” and thus no exposure of the legerdemain.

Morever, Mueller, it is said, has “handpicked” the same “handpicked” intelligence analysts, who wrote the evidence-free January 6, 2017 “Intelligence Community Assessment,” indicting Russia and Putin personally for election meddling.  This time, these crackerjack analysts have reportedly been enlisted to “assess” how to connect the fire and storm disasters to Russian “meddling” in the 2016 election avec Trump campaign collusion.  “Handpicked” once again to come up the desired result, they can be expected to deliver — just as surely as the NYT’s Shane and Mazzetti can be depended up to regurgitate their drivel.
The above “word on the street” is imagined but, sadly, not far off the mark, given the penchant on the part of so many to believe , still, what is in the NY Times.  Gullibility is not limited to Americans, of course.  Here’s an observation from Leo Tolstoy:
The most complicated issue can be explained to the most slow-witted man IF he has not formed any idea of the issue already.  But the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man, if he is firmly persuaded that he already knows, without a shadow of a doubt, what has already been laid before him.
THIS is a key part of the challenge before us.

A Must-Read on Mueller

Lee Smith provides a must-read for those who have been let to believe in Robert Mueller’s sainthood and who continue to pray that he will finally bring home the bacon. See:
VIPS’ resident attorney, former FBI Division Counsel Coleen Rowley, who worked under Mueller, confirms much of what Smith writes.  Rowley notes that Mueller’s overzealousness and/or incompetence in fingering the wrong man — Steven Hatfill — to blame for the Anthrax attacks is just the tip of the iceberg.  “It’s been Peter Principle on steroids for some time,” says Coleen, “and Mueller is the cover-up expert.”