Will Mueller Opt For ’Non-existent’ Intelligence?

By Ray McGovern

The phone was fully charged, and yet … Opps! During a radio interview on Sept. 6, Ray’s cellphone went mysteriously dead after ten minutes, precisely at minute 16:44, a second after he questioned whether Robert Mueller deserves the sainthood bestowed on him in Establishment media. The radio studio could find no technical reason to account for why the line dropped abruptly immediately after Ray words that Mueller’s “reputation for honesty does not withstand close scrutiny.”
(Ray’s interview segment runs from minute 6:05 to its premature end at 16:44.)

Interviewer Wilmer Leon adroitly chooses not to “reason why” the abrupt cutoff, and transitions smoothly — well, sort of smoothly — to the next segment.
“Reason Why?” The following might provide a hint.  Before the line dropped, Ray had been speculating that — rather than face the embarrassment of coming up with zero evidence of Trump-Russia collusion — Mueller might accept and promote the kind of “non-existent” evidence touted by miscreants like John Brennan and James Clapper to justify attacking Iraq.
For those of you who do not know, Mueller himself was an important part of all that.  As FBI director at the time, he dutifully parroted that faux-intelligence, and the war-profiteering Establishment gladly drank the Kool Aid.
Mueller had been warned.  Three weeks after Powell lied about operational ties between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, and three weeks before the attack on Iraq, then-FBI Special Agent and Minneapolis Division Counsel Coleen Rowley sent a Memorandum to Mueller, later published in the NY Times.https://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/05/politics/full-text-of-fbi-agents-letter-to-director-mueller.html
Rowley asked directly:

What is the FBI’s evidence with respect to a connection between al-Qaeda and Iraq? Polls show that Americans are completely confused about who was responsible for the suicidal attacks on 9-11 with many blaming Iraq. And it is clear that this impression has been fostered by many in the Administration. … If the FBI does have independent data verifying such a connection, it would seem such information should be shared, at least internally within the FBI.”


Mueller did not reply.  Did he know the evidence was “non-existent?”  Hey, it was about starting a war of aggression and Muller was head of the FBI.  Did he not ask to see the intelligence?
We are talking out-and-out fraud: not only “intelligence” that was “mis-overestimated,” so to speak, but also some that was, well, poof! — created into existence, like the evidence used by Colin Powell at the UN on Feb. 5, 2003 to claim the existence of a “sinister nexus” between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.

Ray is hardly the the only one to label some of the “evidence” used to “justify” war on Iraq as “non-existent.”  In fact, “non-existent” is one of the adjectives the Senate Intelligence Committee chair used on June 5, 2008, when he announced the bipartisan findiings of the committee’s five-year investigation into pre-Iraq-war intelligence:

“In making the case for war, the Administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent.  As a result, the American people were led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than actually existed.”


The Senate’s findings were published ten years ago and got little play in corporate media.  Those with little or no memory of the Senate investigation may wish to click on the link and skim through its main conclusions, as briefly stated in the press release.

Perhaps most important, no one was held accountable for the pre-Iraq-war fraud
So what’s to lose?

After what the UN has twice called Julian Assange’s “arbitrary detention” became solitary confinement with Julian rendered incommunicado on March 28, “Unity4J” was born — described initially as a “Non-Violent Digital Army for Julian.” Since then Online Solidarity Vigils have been held almost monthly.  Here are links to the full interview cuts from the latest vigil.  There were more than 70,000 live viewers.

Highlighted are a few that may be of particular interest — see 13, 14, AND 19, for example.  Also, see note attached to Craig Murray’s, who has become the Robert Parry of the UK — in addition to his other incredible creds, so to speak.
1. Intro: Suzie Dawson interviewing Joe Lauria https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2wo0LvD8EU
2. Joe Lauria interviewing Margaret Kimberley https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kY4BTscaUWg
3. Margaret Kimberley interviewing Nat Parry https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06o3TczlNog
4. Nat Parry interviewing Daniel McAdams https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hme_2jW2Js
** 5. Daniel McAdams interviewing Ray McGovern https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AihXtsbBGJ4
** 6. Ray McGovern interviewing Graham Elwood https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIgZnIEVIx4
7. Graham Elwood interviewing Alastair Thompson https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idWhldJtV4k
8. Alastair Thompson interviewing Catherine Austin Fitts https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Tz-Qi1nwGU
9. Catherine Austin Fitts interviewing Mehdi Taileb https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_Qf0xU7i9Y
10. Mehdi Taileb interviewing Mark Sleboda https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZ8r6CIr014
11. Mark Sleboda interviewing Cathy Vogan https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVh0g14fiu0
12. Cathy Vogan interviewing Lee Stranahan https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmK7RGO-FE0
** 13. Lee Stranahan interviewing Craig Murray https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9yRakHQLJs
For updates, see Craig Murray’s blog — a recent posting addressing the latest drivel from Establishment London, for example, begins with:
“Russia has developed an astonishing new technology enabling its secret agents to occupy precisely the same space at precisely the same time….”
** 14. Suzie Dawson interviewing Bill Binney https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cREvDEVy_ak
15. Suzie Dawson interviewing Niko House https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRUwC7OxNrI
16. Joe Lauria interviewing George Szamuely https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJ0SMph0B-4
17. George Szamuely interviewing Don DeBar https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsqRgBNbPoM
18. Don DeBar interviewing Ann Garrison https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyjVGryc69U
** 19. Joe Lauria interviewing Daniel Ellsberg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOMkGIlns6o

Bill Binney Explains How We Know “Guccifer 2.0” Is a Fraud

He displays forensic data behind the conclusion that the DNC was not hacked by Russia.  Bill refers to reporting that emails between former DNC worker Seth Rich and WikiLeaks were found on Rich’s computer. Expect Bill, a former Technical Director of NSA, to be labeled, again, a “conspiracy theorist.”  There may well be a conspiracy; but it ain’t Bill.
Interview was on July 17 (17 minutes)

We are told Seth Rich’s computer is in good hands — the FBI. Right!  One wag has suggested that Comey gave the computer to Crowdstrike to work on.

Where is Rich’s computer; and why all the secrecy … and why the exceedingly deliberate speed?

Ray was interviewed on 8/30/18 by KPFA’s Dennis Bernstein after Greg Palast and before David Rovics, who ends the hour singing a blistering “tribute” to John McCain.


Ray talks (minutes 23-50) about former CIA Director John Brennan and his Deep State partners in crime, and speculates on what may lie ahead for those — like Brennan and James Comey — who played fast and loose with the law and Constitution because they were sure Mrs. Clinton would win.  It requires no analytical leap to suggest that the liberties they took with the law were part of the “insurance policy” that the FBI’s Peter Strzok referred to in this August 15, 2016 text message to his paramour Lisa Page::

Strzok: “I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office — that there’s no way he gets elected — but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.”

Don’t miss David Rovics’s lyrics; Greg Palast is also typically good on local election shenanigans — as in the state of Georgia. Tongue in cheek, Greg says it must have been the Russians who gave Georgia Republicans the idea of closing so many polling places in predominantly black precincts.

To the editor, Washington Post

Finding himself in agreement with something Washington Post commentator Michael Gerson (!) wrote about an all-male clergy, Ray wrote a letter to the editor, reminiscing about the ill-fated efforts of Catholics in the most “progressive” parish in the Archdiocese of Washington to curb the marginalization of women.
The injustice of sexism is what prompted Ray’s first sustained (every Sunday for four and a half years during the 90s) standing in witness against the sexism on display in the liturgy itself.  “The Standing” did raise consciousness, but also engendered a lot of fear that the Cardinal “would appoint Attila the Hun” as pastor to show who was boss.
Ray’s letter was rejected, but for those with interest, here is what Ray emailed to the Post:
August 28, 2018
To the Editor, Washington Post:

Michael Gerson (“Two Paths for the Catholic Church,” Aug. 28) says an all-male clergy cannot police itself and asks, “Can you imagine a meeting including parish mothers and women leaders in which the protection of a predator priest was proposed?” Excellent point, Michael.

Gerson accuses Catholics of “insufficient outrage.” He is in very good company.  Thomas Aquinas condemned timid obeisance in the face of injustice as “unreasoned patience;” what was required, said Aquinas, was “the virtue of anger” (Summa Theologica, Question 158). [Hat tip to the Jesuits who drilled that into me.]

For three decades I was a member of Jesuit-run Holy Trinity parish in Georgetown. During the 90s I was part of its parishioner-initiated Working Groups on Sexism. We worked hard at it but, sadly, “unreasoned patience” prevailed. Jim Naughton, a former Washington Post reporter, told the story in his interesting book “Catholics in Crisis: An American Parish Fights for Its Soul.” — a story sadder still amid the heinous clerical predations revealed in recent weeks.

Ray McGovern
Holy Trinity Church, former parishioner
FULL DISCLOSURE:  On August 25, 1996, the Washington Post Magazine ran a cover story, titled “A House Divided,” about The Standing at Holy Trinity. The text of Jim Naughton’s first chapter was posted on your website (see link below).

Reich Recommends Re-set to ’Nullify’ Trump and all his works and all his pomps! No half-measures. Great idea; now Mueller has to come up with the goods.

By Ray McGovern, August 26, 2018

Robert Reich, who until recently had been a member of the Adult Democrats, has given Robert Mueller his marching orders.  Reich writes in
“The only way I see the end of Trump is if there’s overwhelming evidence he rigged the 2016 election. In which case impeachment isn’t an adequate remedy. His presidency should be annulled. … Suppose, just suppose, Robert Mueller finds overwhelming and indisputable evidence that Trump conspired with Putin to rig the 2016 election, and the rigging determined the election’s outcome.”

Only then could we see an early end to Trump, Reich suggests.  Hope springs eternal.  But Peter Strzok concluded: “There’s no big there there.” Never mind.  We are pinning our hopes on you, Bob.  Please.  It is getting embarrassing. Hurry up and find some “there” for god’s sake.

Mueller has been at it twice as long as Strzok was. And, as head of the FBI for 12 years, Mueller knows where to look. How much more time does Reich think Mueller should be given?

Much at Stake

The stakes are VERY high for many of Mueller’s own best-friends-forever. And a close look at his checkered legal past shows that his NY Times-bestowed reputation as “universally respected” cannot bear even cursory scrutiny.

Will Mueller be tempted to have Brennanites (themselves nervously hoping they can avoid indictment) manufacture the kind of “overwhelming and indisputable evidence” that Reich et al. lust after? This would NOT be without precedent.

Recall that Brennan’s mentor, the disgraced George Tenet, told Colin Powell that the “evidence” given him to justify the war of aggression on Iraq was indisputable. Speaking to the UN Security Council on February 5, 2003, Powell chose similar adjectives: “irrefutable” and “undeniable.” The media loved it to death — literally.

Again, the stakes could hardly be higher for Mueller and his friends. Patrick Lawrence makes a scary point in suggesting that Russiagate may have already reached the point where it is “too big to fail.” See:

Besides, what’s to lose? Who’s afraid of congressional “oversight” committees? … or an anemic media? If you cannot be held accountable even for torture, well….

It may turn out that Mueller will finally come up with evidence that is [please choose between the following adjectives: overwhelming, indisputable, irrefutable, undeniable] and that the Establishment media will be just as unconscionably fawning, deceitful, and ecstatic as they were on the day Powell lied to the UN.  The media seem to have forgotten how to kick the tires.

Of supreme importance here is the fact that basically the same people are running the Establishment media as in February 2003. Did they learn their lesson? They did indeed — but the wrong lesson.

Proof? Poof!

So Mueller could expect virtually unanimous support from the Brennanite-milk-fed-media, should they happen to come upon some yellow-cake-uranium-type forgery — oops, not forgery, I mean “proof” — that Trump is, indeed, in Putin’s pocket.  Then poof! Trump and all his works and all his pomps are “null.”  Folks like Reich will be delighted; Americans will have been deceived once again — as with WMD. And the Deep State will have won another round.

Look for something like this in Coming Attractions for the weeks ahead.