Mindblowing Corruption at FBI - NSA Whistleblower Reveals
William Binney at the Jimmy Dore Show, March 2018
(USB-sticks: INTENSO#9/Binney/Mindblowing Corruption At FBI - NSA Whistleblower Reveals.mp4 - The Jimmy Dore Show)
Jimmy Dore: "Nobody talks about that we have a secret court. Does that bother you?"
William Binney: "That court should be disbanded in my view. It doesn't belong to the Article III Courts. The differencxe between an Article III court and this court is:
That means that they are totlally trusting the government that lies to them and anybody else. That's part of the felonies that are going on here, and have been going on since September 11, 2001."
JD: It turns out the FBI has even admitted a bunch of times like back in 2002, correct me if I'm wrong, that they actually did provide false information to the FISA court all the time [WB: "that's right."]. Can you tell me about that?"
WB: "That came out in August, I think, of 2002, when they were talking about that FISA court. It came out that they had basically misrepresented evidence in the court at least 75 times that the court found out. That was at that time. Now since then they've gone through about 30 some thousand requests, and they refused some 5 or 10, that's about it.
There is another program going on here that's not even adressed by the FISA court, and it's done in secret. Also, in the Article III courts, the regular courts, what they've been doing - this is a program that's called "parallel construction". That is they will use the NSA data for common crimes committed inside this country. With all the data on everybody they can do this. They can find drug dealers, everything."
JD: "That's against the Constitution, You can't do that."
WB: "They are doing it in secret, and they never tell you. That's why they know it's a crime, and that's why they are keeping it secret from us. That's the whole point of it. They doing it regularly. The FBI and the Drug Enforcement Administration [DEA], including the IRS. They are all looking at this NSA data to find common crime."
JD: "Are you kidding me: That's blatantly unconstitutional, illegal. My hair should be on fire about this, right? That's sounds crazy to me that they're allowed to do that."
WB: "It even gets worse now: Once they find common crime in the NSA data, they tip off local and state police to go arrest these people. They don't give them the evidence. They say: 'Go arrest them, go here when they come up in the truck or something, parking it. Go arrest them, bring in the drug dogs and find the drugs'. Then, in order to justify the arrest, what they do is what is called the "parallel construction". And this is policy run by the Department of Justice of the United States.
What it is, is: They say 'OK, we know these guys were criminals. We have it in the NSA data. But you can't use that data in a court of law, because it wasn't acquired with a warrant. So, it's not admissible. So we have to go find the same similar kind of data, since we know where it is, this makes it easier, and we seek the police out to do our own little investigation, assemble that evidence, and say 'now we're going substitute this evidence with the NSA data in a court of law when we try them. When we do that we can't put any of this statements of where the original source was from NSA, we can't give the court, the lawyers or anybody in the criminal process the understanding that that was the original basis.
So, that's perjury, every time they did it. And according to Senator Feinstein -she stumbled and bubbled and gave this away- she said "Well, this program's been so valuable we put hundreds of people in jail every year with it. Well, that's thousands of people in jail based on perjury by the Department of Justice of the United States.
And that's been going on since 9/11. They have been using that domestic spying program, the Stellarwind program, in NSA to do it."
JD: "They are supposed to be using this NSA spying, in theory, to catch terrorists. Isn't that what it is ... and why we are willing to give up this certain amount of rights, it's because they are supposed to be spying to get terrorists. But you are saying is that they are using the surveillance state for regular crimes [WB nods] and then they are telling the cops, tipping off the cops, the local cops, about the crime, and then telling them ... do they tell them to scrub where you got this originally from and then construct your own parallel investigation ... or just go ahead and here is the information you have, now go find some of your own evidence. That's what they are doing?"
WB: "They do that for them. They create the parallel construction. They don't give them the raw data from NSA. All they do is tell them what to do, because they know what's goint to happen from the NSA data. "
JD: So, they say "Hey, there's going to be a drug dealer", and when they show up, ..."
WB: "When Reuters reported this -they interviewed one of the federal agents involved in the program- he said "This is such a great program, I just hope we can continue in secret". This is destroying our judicial system."
WB: "They are talking about doing something now because it seems to be used against the politicians in Washington. It's the only reason why they talk about it. On the common people ... we don't matter. We're dealing with the Department of Justice here, and we're not included in that."
JD: "Why isn't there more people screaming about [it]. You would think there would be people on the Left and Right who would be upset about the government intrusion in privacy like this. Because here is the problem, so, why this matters: If people go 'I don't care if the government reads my emails, if they catch a criminal. I'm not a criminal, who cares!' Well, let's say you caught the government committing a crime and they knew it, and now they know that you know it, because they're spying on you [WB nodds]. And then they can now smear you or arrest you or charge you with something before you get to give them ... Is that's what you are saying? That's one possibility, right?"
WB: "That's what they did to us, Jimmy. They made up information. The only difference is, I caught them at it. So I threatened them with malicious prosecution. If I didn't have that evidence against them -and I gave them the evidence so they knew I had a good one on them- so they backed off. It's the only reason they did that. And somebody at the Department of Jusitce felt so bad about what they were doing to us, they sent us a copy of their draft endictment on us. And so they didn't give us even more evidence of their lying and perjury and affidavit going to the court. That's a felony."
JD: "It seems like no-one gets in trouble any more for committing fe..., , you know people like Clapper. Clapper famously lied to Congres on TV and nothing happened. People see what they do, when Petraeus, when he gives up classified information, he gets a job teaching at NYU [New York University], and when someone else does it, like they take a selfie on a nuclear sub, they get thrown in the cling. So we see these two tiers of justice. An now you're saying that secret process and this parallel construction and the secret FISA court is now coming back to bite politicians in the ass. That's what you're saying. So now, you'e saying, people actually talking about it. What are they saying. Who's talking about this and what are they recommending?"
WB: "The Nunes memo shows the connection with Christopher Steele, his connections with the DNC [Democratic National Committe] and the FBI and the Department of Justice and the collusion between them. They fabricated evidence to present to the FISA court. That's another fabrication going forward to the FISA court, to get a warrant to go and spy on just a person in the Trump campaign.
Let me tell you what that does. The intelligence community was allowed to spy on somebody like that, they can go 2 hubs from that person: every friend of that person and every friend of that friend, but it goes even beyond that. Because I opposed originally the 2 hub principle back in January 2014 when President Obama was trying to do something to limit the scope of the spying, and limited it to 2 hubs. But it didn't include the little restriction on that, that I was trying to get to him to say. The restriction is for the 2nd hub: you can't use commercial business or a department of government to go through for that 2nd hub. Because, for example, if in the 1st hub they consider going to Google, for example, then the 2nd hub from Google out is to 1.5 billion people per day. Which means, in a very few days you have everybody on the planet. That means that from that 2 hub principle without excluding businesses or government agencies you can go to basically everybody on the planet. That opens it up to everybody."
JD: "So let me clarify. If they get a warrant to spy on 1 person, that includes or implied in that warrant is that they can also spy on people 2 separations away from them?"
WB: "Yes. Like I call you, that's the 1st hub. You call somebody else, that's the 2nd hub."
JD: "So they get to listen in on all those conversations?"
WB: "That's correct."
JD: What! I didn't know that. So they get a warrant on 1 person in the Trump administration, that's as good as getting a warrant on everybody in the world."
WB: "That's right."
JD: And so, when Trump said that the Obama administration had bugged the Trump Tower - was he wrong or was he kind of right or ..."
WB: "He is absolutely right. I wouldn't use the word "bugged" because they're doing it through the switch network. So it means that all they do is remotely from NSA. The can tie into everything from there remotely by attaching to the switches. So, all they do is say 'Give me everything out of this building, Give me everything on all the Trump people (and they know all those and all the phone numbers). Just give me all of it."
JD: "And so, the Nunes memo about this process of getting this warrant which gave the government, the FBI and everybody ... the ability to spy on the Trump campaign and administration. And the Democrats didn't like them to release it because -they said- it would jeopardize the national security. They released it and it didn't jeopardize any national security. So now ...
WB: "That's right."
JD: "... so now their credibility is impugned over this memo, as far as I'm concerned. Right?"
JD: "They lied about it. So now it comes out. And what that memo reveals is what you're saying that the FBI didn't give the judge all the information it was supposed to, and that's a felony."
WB: "That's a felony to misrepresent evidence in a court of law."
JD: "You're going even one step further and say that the FBI actually misrepresented the evidence to the FISA judge to get this warrant."
WB: "Yes, just like all the other parallel constructions since 2001 that they've been running, the FBI and the DEA. That's been felonies all along. That's perjury in a court of law, perjuring and presenting false evidence. Because it denies the defendant the right to discover and challenge any of the evidence used against him. Because it's false evidence, not the evidence that was really the basis for the arrest. It was the NSA data - that was the basis. But they can't introduce it because it's not admissible. So they have to do this parallel construction, and it ends up making them perjure themselves in a court of law. "
JD: "You would think somebody ... how could this happen in America? I know that sounds naive, right?"
WB: "I would agree with you. This is supposed to be my country, not theirs. They are really destroying it. But it's not just our country, though. It goes through the MLAT, Mutual Law Enforcement Treaty Act, through the representatives in all the embassies in the world that they have relationships with around the world.They pass all this data out as alerts to them to go do things, too. But they never give them the raw data. They never give them the evidence because they came from NSA. And this is clearly written down in the instructions for the DEA and out of the DOJ 'You are not to talk about the source of this information in a court of law, you are not to put it down in anything writing or any evdential base - you don't do anything like that. You simply give the evidence to them, let them arrest and do this parallel construction. And that's what you substitute in court.'"
JD: What is it, Bill? Are all the reporters at CNN just dumb, and they don't know about that this is happening? Who's their criminal justice lawyer, the intelligence reporter? Wouldn't he kow about this stuff? Woudn't they be blowing the whistle on this all the time?"
WB: "They know about it, but they don't do anything. They are no longer performing their duty under the First Amendment of the Constitution. That's why the free press is dead. And they are supposed to be investigating what our government is doing and telling the people of the country what their government is really doing. They are not fulfilling that responsibility."
JD: "Wow! I couldn't wait to tell the people about this, that this is happening. This is the point of having this show. So you are saying that the people in the media ..., you don't think that it's just ignorance that's going on, it's just that they know it and they don't want to report it because they don't want to upset their contacts at their government. What's in for them if they are not reporting anything?"
WB: "Well, Jim Risen, Jim Rosen, the Associated Press, they all found out about what happens to them when they start to talk about things they don't want them to talk about. ..."
JD: "They get a wiretap on you and then they ..."
WB: "Yes, and you get threatened with grand juries and things like that, you know."
JD: "And it always seems that they get you for (?) to the FBI. It seems like thus catch-all, right?"
WB: "That's the ultimate thing. If they get you for anything else, so they get you for that. Who can remember everything exactly when somebody asks you a question, how can you remember everything! It's just almost impossible. So you always get caught with a lie, and they call it a lie. And they fake a lie to you and in sworn affidavits and perjure themselves in a court of law, and nothing happens to them. "
JD: "So you think that this Nunes memo actually reveals treason?"
WB: "Yes, against the founding principles of our nation, the Constitution."
JD: "I know, that's what we've been talking about for 15 minutes. Just lay out very briefly how does this Nunes memo reveal treason?"
WB: "It's the fact
I mean, how many more things can we add here!"
JD: "How would it ever get cleaned up? It seem like the whole agencies are in on this, along with the court. And now you're saying the politicians are starting the turn?"
WB: "Yes. Simply because it is targeted at them they are now starting to pay attention. Until they get targeted themselves, they weren't paying attention. I mean, we the simple people of the country, we don't matter. Only those in charge matter, double those in DC!"
JD: " I know you're in contact with Pompeo. Is that an ongoing relationship or is that only a one-time deal?"
WB: "So far it's only there (?) one time."
JD: "Do you think the Trump administration has any ..., it would seem like it would be in their interest to want to get rid of this secret court. But then he would look weak against fighting terrorism ..."
WB: "I wouldn't see that at all. He forced it out in the open where people could understand what was going on. If it wouldn't be a case, you couldn't hide with all the crimes the intelligence community and the police are doing. "
JD: "Is he going to do that?"
WB: "I would hope so. That's why I came out and said all that stuff to the media, because I wanted to confront everybody including the mainstream media in the public where everybody could see it. You can't hide these things. If you hide them they just festure (?). It keeps going on and on, it never stops. So, unless you bring it out in the open and shine light on it, it'll never get cleaned up. There's not chance of it getting cleaned up when you don't do that."
JD: "I just can't get over the fact that I've been listening for over a week now, or may be two, about the reporting on the Nunes memo, and the mainstream news, even people pretending, say it's lefty news, which is not as corporate news, MSNBC. They don't tell you the truth, they just like go 'Oh, it's nothing but a big nothing burger'. Isn't that what they have been saying all along? This whole process is a treasoness seditious process, the parallel construction. Nobody talks ... you would think that ... "
WB: "And, I would point out, one of my friends in the VIPS [Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity], Ray McGovern, was listening to a talk given by Mueller about a year or two ago. He went up to him after the talk, asked him a question. "Director Mueller, do you have any problems with parallel construction?" and Mueller said "no, not at all". Mueller even admitted to this using the domestic spying program in an interview with Bart Gellman in 2011 in Time Magazine [Barton Gellman, "Cover Story: Is the FBI Up to the Job 10 Years After 9/11?", Thursday, May. 12, 2011]. It was written up there where he said, he and his FBI have been using Stellarwind since 2001. Well, that tells you that for 10 years he was approving this use of illegally collected domestic content and metadata on US citizens for prosecuting crime, common crime, any crime in the United States.
This is this pure guy Mueller, ok, that everybody is hollering about. Comey was also a part of that. He and Mueller were together at the hospital visit in 2004 when they were talking about this Stellarwind program. That was what is was all about. They all went on and proceeded with this parallel construction, this concept of using the Stellarwind data for common crime as well as anything else. [see also paragraph "The Comey/Mueller Myth" in Russia-gate's Mythical 'Heroes' by Coleen Rowley, June 6, 2017] And they used it [in] the IRS sought against the Tea Party, they used it against the Occupy group, they used it against Eliot Spitzer, against the news people Jim Risen, Jim Rosen, the Associated Press. Giving this kind of power to people, eventually they do use it, and this is the kind of things that they use it against. When they said nobody is being hurt, a hell of a lot of people are being hurt."
"I can also go to Joe Nachio, the former CEO of Quest Communications. In a court of law it was testified he was approached in Febuary of 2001, before 9/11, by NSA and they were asking him to turn over all data on his customers at that time. Well, that's even before 9/11. So, they had a plan on spying on the US citizens even before 9/11. "
"So what happened to Joe Nachio [when he didn't comply]? He told me this - I talked to him: They fabricated evidence about him and put him in jail for 5 years. They did that to us but we caught them at that. So in that case he went to jail for 5 years. Now what did that do? That told every other CEO of every communications company 'if you don't cooperate with us, this is the kind of things that happens to you. So, shape up and participate or else ...'
He was the poster boy for trying to follow the law, and he asked for a warrant signed by a judge to turn over the data, and they wouldn't give it to him. That's because you couldn't. It was a violation of the Constitution to do that. They knew that. That's what they did to him. "
JD: "How come no-one who's got power in this country cares about that."
WB: "Most of them are part of it. "
JD: "Do you think there is a conflict of interest with Jeff Bezos, owning the Washington Post, and then being on a Pentagon board and having to deal with the CIA?"
WB: "Well, I mean, the CIA has made an effort for decades tp infiltrate the media. So, I find it very consistent, ok."
JD: "I feel like I have asked you this three times. You say politicians are going to do something about it. You say Trump. You hope he does something?"
WB: "I think what we need to see now is that Sessions has criminal referrals to a grand jury. Sessinos needs to start issuing criminal referrals here. "
JD: "But people are going to say .. so, they've already planted the seed in everyone's head if Trump does something like that. That's they're ginning up fake outrage over the FBI. That's what I'm seeing in the media, right. Is that what's you're seeing?"
WB: "Well, that's the way they characterize it. In a court of law their wording means nothing. It's hearsay, it's not admissible evidence. We'll be dealing with admissible evidence when we go to a court of law. "
JD: "And you thonk Jeff Sessions is going to .. like who's he going to prosecute ...?"
WB: "Well, yes. As a matter of fact he's guilty. Yes."
JD: "I hear you right, he's guilty, but they're all guilty. It's like the whole ..."
WB: "That's why it's been so hard and so difficult. They've all been a part of the cover-up, too."
JD: "And what .. come on, you are saying that ... Trump is going to come in and clean up the intelligence community ..."
WB: "He needs to do something. He needs to start to something to make an example, otherwise nothing's going to change."
JD: "No, that's what I'm saying. "
WB: "Well, I've already calculated the random probability of the correctness of the outcome. I would say, probably 80 % you are right."
JD: "It's almost like it's right in the open, and no-one cares, right? Everyone knows we live in a surveillance state and people just accept it. "
WB: "Actually, a lot of them feel there's nothing they can do."
JD: "That's how I feel right now. "
WB: "Well, I think there's room. People don't realize the power they have. All they have to do is ... you lnow a squeaky wheel need oil? You have to act like a squeeky wheel. And confront these people in town meetings or wherever you can in public. Make it public so that you can expose them and put them on the spot. And say, "If you guys don't start changing this stuff, we're going to fire you, get somebody else and come after you." That's the way I do it. I'm already involved in 3 separate law suits against the US government for constitutional violations of everybody's privacy, the Fourth Amendment. First, Fourth and Fifth and Sixth Amendments. Yes. I've sworn affidavids for that, too. "
JD: "What's the progress on these law suits?" .
WB: "Government is still dragging them out. That's the whole point. They think they've got more money and more time, so they keep dragging it out. Because, the point is, if the case gets into the Supreme Court, one case did already, I'll talk about it in a minute. If the case does get in the Supreme Court, and the SUpreme Court rules it unconstitutional, everything they've done falls. All that retroactive immunity, that falls. Everything falls, is no longer valid. You can't pass a law that violates the Constitution, and that would be a violation of the Constitution right there.
If the Supreme Court rules that unconstitutional, all retroactive immunity falls. All those laws will fall and all those telecoms, everybody would be liable for their actions abd criminal acts against the constitutional rights of the citizens of this country."
JD: "So tell me about the case that did get to the Supreme Court."
WB: "That was the AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL VS. CLAPPER. Chris Hedges was a member, a plaintiff.in that law suit. What happened in that law suit was this issue of parallel construction came up. The fact that the NSA data was used against people in a court of law, in criminal cases, when that came up, the Solicitor General of the United States lied to the Supreme Court to get it thrown out. He said, anybody in a criminal case where NSA data was used, they will be told that NSA data was used against them, so that they can challenge the discovery of that data in a court of law. In fact, no-one was told. If I was on the Supreme Court I would say "I'm reinstating this case with prejudice against the United States and hold the United States government in contempt of the Supreme Court." I would have done that."
JD: "Are you telling me that John Roberts is aware that that guy lied?"
WB: "Now, he's aware of it. He went along with it."
JD: "And so they just go along? "
WB: "They go along to get along. I assume that NSA has something against him."
JD: "It's like we're living in a land of J. Edgar Hoover, but it's on steroids, to the tenth power of that thing."
WB: "It's on supersteroids."
JD: "So, when people say "the deep state" and other people scoff at them, say they are crazy, that's exactly what they want them to do, right?"
WB: "That's exactly right. It's always "a conspiracy theory".
JD: "Yes, guess what a conspiracy theory was: the Iraq war was a conspiracy, right?"
WB: "And so was Vietnam."
JD: "So was Libya. That was a conspiracy, right?"
WB: "Right, all of it. "
JD: "I appreciate your time. Thanks for explaining everything. This is mindblowing. Now, the Democrats wanted to release their own memo. Trump didn't allow it, he said it was classified information in it. I think that's what he said. So, is this over now? What happens now?"
WB: "I would ask President Trump to reconsider, expose everything. Classification be dammned. Our country is at stake. Our democracy, our republic is at stake. That's the point. No classification of anything is worth losing that. "
JD: "I agree, but the people say that he doesn't want to release the Democratic memo because it has damaging information about him. "
WB: "But that's what people are saying. I wouldn't trust what people will say. Opinions and all that are like body parts. Everybody's got them, but they are about as meaningless as that. "
JD: "Don't you find it funny. I find it's pathetic and sad.that people on the Left because of their hatred for Trump found themselves propping up the FBI. Isn't that hillarious?"
WB: "You see, they're a part of this. They paid for this dossier from Steele. Also, the FBI paid Steel for some of this dossier, too. And they (?) also with the evidence given to Yahoo ...(?) News. (JD: "Yes, Michael Isikoff.") [note by J. Gruber: for details see e.g. this (cache)].The News said Yahoo knew then the dossier, this is the fabrication going forward to the FISA Court, that's what was sent to the FISA Court by the FBI, the DOJ and the DNC. That was all a coordinated effort. Well, that's called subversion, sedition, perjury."
JD: "What are the chances that Jeff Sessions actually does charge somebody over this?"
WB: "In reality it is about 80 - 20 he will not do anything. But I think, he should be fired if he doesn't. I'm a hardliner, I am constitutionalist."
JD: "I agree. that's what's supposed to happen."
WB: "... because we are not included in the Department, it's just us."
Address of this page