Exposing the BIG LIE: Bill Binney and Larry Johnson Reveal the Fraud of RUSSIAGATE

May 17, 2019

British Instigated Coup Against Trump Collapsing; The Investigation of the Plot Has Started

Get this video into your Congressional and Senatorial offices. A live LaRouchePAC Broadcast including Bill Binney, Larry Johnson, Barbara Boyd, and Matthew Ogden. Washington, D.C. is now best seen as two opposing and warring camps. On the one side, the President and his allies are waking up to the fact that the coup conducted for the past three years against the Trump Presidency was undertaken on behalf of a very powerful group of people who were brazen and very incompetent in their effort to reverse the result of the 2016 election. They have exposed themselves. This powerful apparatus, misnamed the Deep State by those who don’t know their history, runs the other camp, inhabited by stay behind Republicans who are overtly or covertly Never-Trumpers, or Democrats who now bear no resemblance to the Party of Franklin Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy, but instead represent something akin to a sexual and racial identity obsessed SDS collective from 1968 who have suddenly found themselves deeply in love with both the FBI and the CIA. Many people in both camps have no real idea why this war has taken place or what is actually at stake. Now the issue is: Will the population outside Washington and our failing Coasts, catch up to who the people who led this coup are and why they instigated it, so they can bring the 40% of the population who still believe that the President was elected as the result of the Russians stealing the 2016 election, back from what might appear to be hopeless insanity?

TRANSCRIPT

MATTHEW OGDEN: Good afternoon, it is May 17, 2019. My name is Matthew Ogden and you're joining us for a very special broadcast here on larouchepac.com. Cohosting our show here today is Barbara Boyd, who is the author of countless articles of the coup attempt that's being run against the Presidency of the United States, including this special investigative report, "Robert Mueller Is an Amoral Legal Assassin: He Will Do His Job If You Let Him."

Barbara and I are joined by two very special guests today, both of whom are members of the VIPS, the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity: Mr. Larry Johnson, who is a former CIA analyst and worked in the counterterrorism department of the State Department, and has run a consulting firm for 25 years. Thank you very much for joining us today, Larry.

LARRY JOHNSON: Good to be with you.

ODGEN: And also joining us is, dare I say, the legendary Mr. Bill Binney, the former Technical Director of the National Security Agency, and also a very notorious whistleblower. Thank you for joining us, Bill.

WILLIAM BINNEY: Good to be with you, Matt.

OGDEN: Now, we are on a campaign, here, at LaRouche PAC, where we are calling on the American people, to demand that both of these gentlemen be immediately brought into special hearings in the U.S. Congress, in the Intelligence Committees and in the Judiciary Committees of both the House and Senate, to testify on two parallel, very significant issues. And we're here, today, to present the evidence on these two issues:

1) The entire "Russian hack" narrative is false, today's equivalent of the "Iraqi weapons of mass destruction," the intelligence so-called, that was fabricated by elements within the U.S. intelligence community. Bill Binney is the expert on that, and he will present his proof. And,

2) The foreign intelligence agency which should be being investigated for interfering our democratic electoral process, is British intelligence. Larry Johnson is the expert on that, and he will be presenting his evidence.

So, our objective here, today, is to present this case to as wide an audience as possible, but specifically with the intent that President Trump hear this case, hear the evidence that is presented here today, and act on that evidence. I guarantee you, President Trump is very familiar with both of these gentlemen, and the work of both of these two men. A little over a year ago, in November of 2017, Bill Binney was invited by Mike Pompeo, then Director of Central Intelligence, on orders from President Trump, to visit CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, and to present the evident to Mike Pompeo. Pompeo did that: he met with Bill Binney, but has thus far failed to follow through and act on what Mr. Binney had to say.

And, a little bit over two weeks ago, we saw President Trump post this tweet on his Twitter feed, directly referencing an interview on One America News Network with Larry Johnson. This is what he said on April 24: "Former CIA analyst Larry Johnson accuses United Kingdom Intelligence of helping Obama Administration Spy on the 2016 Trump Presidential Campaign." @OANN WOW! It is now just a question of time before the truth comes out, and when it does, it will be a beauty!" That's President Trump.

Now, I also guarantee you, that President Trump, however directly or indirectly, is also very familiar with the work of our third guest, my cohost here today, Mrs. Barbara Boyd. As I said, Barbara Boyd is the author of the original LaRouche PAC pamphlet, which laid out in detail the attempted coup that was in progress against the Presidency of the United States. She provided the necessary strategic background to understand what the impetus, the intent of that operation, which I'm sure she will go through for us, and she also showed that the same apparatus, and many of the same players, who are involved in the operation against President Trump today, were directly involved in the frame up and prosecution of Lyndon LaRouche.

I'd like to start with Barbara. And we were just discussing shortly before the show, Barbara, you've got a total war going on in Washington, D.C. right now around this. You've got the Trump Presidency waking up and clearing identifying, at least in the beginning, what the elements are and what this attempted coup really was. But then, you have these stay-behind, both Republicans, these overt neo-cons, the "never Trumpers," and also the so-called Democrats. These are not your grandfather's FDR Democrats, or JFK Democrats. Ironically, many of the same generation who were involved in the antiwar movement in '60s and the civil rights movement in the '60s, this kind of activism -- which was targetted by the FBI and the Justice Department -- now, they are in love with the FBI and the CIA.

The question is: At this time, where we have a population, some of whom who are waking up to what this was, but you still have 40% of the U.S. population who believe, in their heart of hears, that President Trump is a Russian agent and he was put in office by a Russian intelligence operation, with the Russians stealing the 2016 election. How can we expose what this is, and bring the American people together, and bring them back from the brink of what could be hopeless insanity?

BARBARA BOYD: To answer your question, Matt, the essential thing here is exactly what the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity have focussed on. They're not partisan, and essentially, what they've done is a scientific analysis of what we will call the biggest lie which has been told about so-called "Russiagate," that is, that the Russian military intelligence hacked the computers of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and John Podesta, and then provided the files to WikiLeaks for a staged publication to actually influence the 2016 election in Donald Trump's favor. If you think back to the period of November, December 2016, January 2017, when clearly a whole battle plan was set into motion, what we're now calling an attempted coup d'état against the President of the United States, the central lie, the central feature of that was exactly this particular notion, which has been repeated in both congressional investigations, and it's been repeated by Robert Mueller in both his report and in his indictment of several GRU [Russian military intelligence] officials for conducting this: What VIPS has focused on, as opposed to anything our intelligence community has offered us, is proof that this, indeed, did not happen: Scientific evidence, forensic evidence, that this, indeed, did not happen. People have been told a massive and Big Lie. Bill Binney has pioneered this, by conducting experiments with a group of people, to demonstrate this, looking at the actual WikiLeaks file, looking at this crazy persona called Guccifer 2.0, proving more or less--and I think a lot more -- that this just did not happen.

He's recently submitted an affidavit in Roger Stone's criminal case, which is pending in the U.S. District Court for Washington, D.C. You can expect some fireworks, which have already started around that: I saw an article in Mother Jones today; Mother Jones being the magazine which touted [former MI6 agent] Christopher Steele and the entire British operation and was working straightforwardly with the FBI throughout this thing, attacking Bill Binney's affidavit. The government itself is going to have to take a stand.

I'd like to start out with Bill, the former Technical Director of the NSA, the guy who wrote all the programs which actually are at issue here, as opposed to what the government's trying to say now, that he's "old hat," -- he actually wrote the programs -- and I'd you to tell us, I'd like you to focus on this, just like you were talking to Donald Trump, and you were telling him, in the form that he could understand and the American public could understand, show us that this didn't happen. How would you show that?

WILLIAM BINNEY: First of all, I would first address the DNC data that was posted by WikiLeaks. And that clearly showed evidence of a property called a FAT format file. That's the file allocation table format, it's a program, software used to read data to a storage device, either a thumb drive or a CD-ROM something like that, and as it does that, it changes the last modified time on each file to the nearest even second. It's just a function of that program. When that occurs, all the times of last modified or changed on all the files. So, when we looked at all the DNC emails from 23rd, 24th, and 25th of May, all of them ended in evens. And that was a little more than 500, but the random chance of that occurring, would be 1 change in the 500th power -- in other words 1 chance in a 1 followed by over 150 zeroes. Meaning, it's obviously -- that was a factor that proved that that program was used to do that, and the program that does it is FAT -- file allocation table format. That says that that data was downloaded to a physical device -- either a thumb drive or CD-ROM, and then transported physically before WikiLeaks could publish it or put it on the web.

That said to us, that it wasn't a hack from Russia, it was an inside job, or somebody close in that downloaded the data to a storage device and then took it physically. That also fit in with what former U.K. Ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray said; he had said that he had met somebody in the American University campus, who was involved in the transfer of data to WikiLeaks. It also fit with Kim Dotcom came out recently and said that he helped certain people do that, to transfer data to WikiLeaks.

So that kind of said to us that this whole business about saying that the DNC data was a hack by Russia, was just a fabrication.

And then, when it came to Guccifer 2.0, we looked at all that data, and we looked at what was posted by Guccifer 2.0, saying "here's what I hacked from Russia" in the DNC, and we looked at that, and each file that was posted had a timestamp at the end of it -- and the whole segment went over 87 second, and that included about 16 gigabits of data. So, he made two hacks, one from the July 5 and one from Sept. 1; if you look at the data, the filename, the amount of data I the file, and the time stamp at the end, and just did the differencing between the timestamp between files, you could calculate the rate of transfer of data. And that's what we did for all the files: the highest rate we got was 49.1 MB/second. That, to us, would not go across the international web, across the Atlantic, across the Atlantic and to Russia from the U.S. And we said that in articles.

And we got some pushback, from even some of our own members, who thought that that could, in fact, happen. So we said, OK, we'll test is, and we tested it from Albania, Serbia, the Netherlands and the U.K., and found the fastest rate of transfer we got was 12.0 MB/second, which is less than one-fourth the necessary capacity to transfer just the data on that high-rate file.

So, we again said we could clearly show that we couldn't get it across at that rate, and if you think you know, or if anybody thinks they know, where you can do that, let us know, and we'll try it and test it: So far, no one has pointed to any path that we can use to get that data across at that rate; or have we been able to find it! Now, it is true that you can transfer that rate of data, if you're in a local high-speed network. And that's basically what we said we thought it was: A local download off the high-speed network that was connected to those servers. So again, that looked like very clearly proof of a transfer via physical means, either a thumb drive or a CD-ROM. And then, when we looked at the two dates, the July 5 and Sept. 1 data, and looked at the timing of them and looked in how you could merge them, if you only looked at seconds and minutes, why you could take those two files and merge them into one -- that is, where one file ended in the July material, another file would pick up in September, in other words, all the files in the gaps of time gaps in the July 5 data! So the rate, again, of that happening, is exceedingly low. That meant, again, to us anyway, that meant forensically, Guccifer 2.0 was playing with the data, and he's playing with us. So again, it turned out, from our basic forensic evidence, this was a total fabrication, too.

And having, for example, the other factor, that was less important to us, -- those were the two main ones, the timing and the FAT file format -- but then, when you looked at how the DNC data was drawn down in May, it was taken down and dated on the 23rd, skipped the 24th and picked out again at the 25th and 26th. So there were three separate batched taken down. That, to us, would say: Gee, if I were a hacker going in, and I got in, I would taken everything I could, as fast as I could and not go back, because they're liable to catch me.

Again, that was just a little less reliable than simply the FAT format. The FAT format was clearly demonstrable, and provable as evidence of a download to a storage place. So that's the basic evidence we were using, and basically that's the forensic evidence no matter what anybody says. And we've had people are still saying you can get it across there at that rate! And we're saying: OK, where? How? Let us try it. Nobody's come forward to say where we can do it, and we have not found a place to be able to do that.

BOYD: If I were President of the United States right now, and I went to the NSA and I said, show me the proof that Russia did this, what would you be asking the NSA for?

BINNEY: I would ask them for the trace routes of the packets from the DNC to Russia. They've got trace route packets on -- with the Treasure Map program, the objective of which is to monitor and know where every device is in the world, all the time, every minute of the day. And they watch that, also with trace route programs, by the hundreds here in the U.S. and around the world. The whole idea there with the trace route program, is you can follow the packets as they move through the network. And you can keep that as a record, and that's what they're doing. they're trying to use that to reconstruct the core network, for example, is one of the main things they're using that for.

But also it gives you the evidence of -- all you need is just one packet from the DNC data, and it gives you in the tcp ip format, it gives you all the addressing, where it's going from, where originates from, where it's ending up. You can see how to get through the network that way: you can see the timing for the different segments of the network, and so on. So I would ask them, very simply, "OK you're saying the Russians hacked this? Where are the trace route packets, showing the packets going to the Russians?" And then again, where are the trace route programs showing the packets going from the Russians to WikiLeaks?" That's what I'd say.

BOYD: Coming back to the basic point here, again, to emphasize for our audience, when the intelligence community announced this, in December [2016] and January 2017, the American public was told that, effectively by John McCain and others, that an act of war had occurred, by Russia, against the United States. Think about that, and think about what Bill Binney just told you. McCain said that Article 5 of NATO should be invoked, which would have caused us to go to war with Russia, that's what's involved in that.

Then, on top of that, they brought out this assessment in January 2017, again, with no evidence, saying essentially "believe us," ahead of the President's inauguration; at the same time, you had people arguing that this silly, spurious, discredited and completely fabricated dossier, by MI6 agent Christopher Steele -- and there's kind of a firing squad going on between the various culprits in Washington, D.C. right now as to who did this -- it was either FBI Director Comey or CIA Director John Brennan who were arguing that in this intelligence assessment saying that Russia committed an act of war against the United States, what happened was, that somebody was going to put the Steele dossier verbatim into that intelligence report, or arguing for that.

Just think about that, what that would have done, is it would have told the American people, we, in the American intelligence community, believe that Donald Trump is a puppet of Putin, the President-elect who's about to be inaugurated. In my view that's about as close to a coup d'état as we've ever come in the United States. You had people in the streets at that point, you had a massive mobilization; you also had the first inkling of the censorship drive which has accompanied all of this, at the same time. Groups were putting out all sorts of materials, one called PropOrNot, which is primarily Ukrainian, and associated with the British Integrity Initiative, targeting every single website in the United States which was voicing a dissenting view, and saying "all of these websites are Russian propaganda vehicles and should be shut down." And we're seeing that right now, accompanying, still, what's been going on around Russiagate: A deliberate attempt to censor any alternative viewpoint in the United States, on the right or on the left or in between.

This is very, very significant, what Bill is saying. What he's saying is, we almost went to war in the case of Russia; obviously we're talking nuclear war, based on a fabrication. It's also said that in sanctioning Russia, at this point, President Obama inserted some form of device into the infrastructure of the Russian state, leaving it to Donald Trump whether that device would be activated and could cripple their infrastructure. Many people, including Prof. Stephen Cohen, have continued to comment on this, because in effect, that was an act of war against the Russian state, and that puts in a completely different perspective, what Michael Flynn was trying to talk to the Russians about, not reacting to what Obama was actually doing and actually sanctioning them for, back then.

So there's a lot more to this entire story, than we even know, and William Barr looks like, at this point, he's going to go forward and expose it all. Our part here get Binney and get Binney's materials before the American public, and the most effective way to do that with congressional hearings, and with the Justice Department exploring it in an adversary setting, where the people who say "Russia hacked the DNC" have to come forward and give their proof. And we can see it all come out -- it's not going to be "assessments," it's not going to be "we guess," it's not going to be "believe us." It has to be proved, because this almost led us into total, complete world disaster.

Bill, do you have anything else to say, to wrap up your point here?

BINNEY: I just have one other thing, kind of the bottom line, I think, to it was, before President Obama left office, he said the idea the Russians were hacking into the DNC data, the evidence for that was inconclusive. So! That was basically what I was saying from the beginning, from August of 2016, really, that NSA was be out there, definitely saying where this happened, who did it, where the data went, where it came from, how it transitted the network, and everything! They would know all of that. But they didn't say anything, they only had "moderate confidence" in that ICA in January -- the Intelligence Community Assessment on Russiagate in January 2017. That kind of put the whole thing in -- you know, even Obama didn't believe it, so! Because there wasn't any substance to it, that's the point.

OGDEN: What you said Barbara, because I think the parallel to this Iraqi weapons of mass destruction is a very apt parallel. But look at what happened? How many millions of people died because of that willingness of the intelligence community to fabricate the evidence? How close were we to a war, a thermonuclear war, because of this generation's willingness to fabricate this evidence, and not to ask the question? How close were we to coming to that, and are we actually free of that danger, yet?

BOYD: Larry, you've been very prominent in actually sounding the alarm bells -- the President tweeted about your interview, concerning the British role in all of this. We've said here, persistently, is that if any foreign entity intervened into the 2016 elections, it was British intelligence, a little bit of NATO, and also many other nations in Europe, it appears, including Ukraine. What do you have on that, and what would you like to tell the President and our viewers needs to be explored here?

JOHNSON: The effort, I first talked about this, back in March of 2017, I appeared on Russia Today TV show, and was commenting on Donald Trump's remarks that he'd been wiretapped by the FBI. At that point, I'd not seen his full remarks, in which he acknowledged that he was using "wiretapping" as broader term to cover lots of different activities, such as not just electronic surveillance, but other types of spying. But I made a comment then, and it went unnoticed for two weeks, nobody paid attention to it. So, if nothing else, that tells you how much our team lacks in influence in the United States, in shaping public opinion, public debate, just by claims to the contrary by the Central Intelligence Agency in that Intelligence Community Assessment that came out in January 2017. It was a joke! It claimed that RT was somehow so influential, yet, for being so influential, I said something that was very provocative, and it elicited not even one comment or remark.

About three weeks after that, Judge Napolitano obtained information from a discussion we had on the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity bulletin board, and he went on television with it, and was immediately suspended! Because doing it on Fox, did attract attention, and it alarmed the British. The British have put pressure on the Murdoch family, and Murdoch sent down word to get Napolitano off, and in the context of that Judge Napolitano called me and asked me to speak to the New York Times reporter Michael Grynbaum on his behalf. Which I foolishly did, thinking that Grynbaum could be trusted to report the story fairly and accurately, both of which assumptions turned out not to be true.

That then led to an immediate firestorm, I was under attack. They were calling me, everything but a child murderer, and the story was dismissed because I was called a "conspiracy theorist." But that went on -- that was two years ago, and now it's resurfaced. And we know a lot more now today, than we did two years ago.

This entire effort to go after Donald Trump didn't start initially as a targeting just Trump: it was in fact targeting all of the political candidates that Hillary Clinton anticipated facing. And what I am told, by someone who's in a position to know, is that this initiative to enlist the British and other foreign intelligence agencies in election campaigns to produce intelligence that could be of benefit to the Clinton campaign, started in the summer of 2015. And initially it was not just against Donald Trump; it included Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, and it included Bernie Sanders. We now know, and there were reports back in 2017, for example, that Samantha Power was accused of having unmasked more than 260 people, affiliated with just the Trump campaign.

Now, to your average viewer, that doesn't mean anything. Well, what does "unmasking" mean? Unmasking means that the names of 260 people appeared in either an intelligence report prepared by the Central Intelligence Agency, or an intelligence report prepared by the National Security Agency. Neither the CIA nor the NSA are permitted to name U.S. citizens by name in these reports, so they have a generic description like "Person A," or "Subject 1," etc.

But when you want to know their identity, you have to go through a process and fill out some paperwork, so there is a paper trail and that process is called "unmasking," where you take the mask, the false name put there, and reveal the true name of the person.

So when you're talking about 260 different names unmasked, you're talking about a lot of intelligence reports! The normal process in which the intelligence community is supposed to work, is that they have collection plans, to say, for example, we're going to monitor the Russians to see if they're interfering in any of our electoral activities, or participating with any campaigns.

So we are now left with -- there are only two possibilities in this: Either the intelligence community accurately identified intelligence that showed that the Russians were doing this -- or, they didn't. And as Bill pointed out, when Barack Obama left office, despite all of this intelligence reports that were coming in, they didn't have conclusive evidence. The entire process, though, was designed to create a pretext. Because, if you can point to something that's classified, a claim that it shows some sort of relationship, without exposing that in many of those reports, the relationships that were being described were in fact, created by other intelligence operations: As an example, in the case of George Papadopoulos, the British used their own intelligence assets, one of whom is Joseph Mifsud, to make an approach to George, to offer to get George information about the Russians and dirt that they had on the Clinton campaign. George Papadopoulos is in London, at the time, when he's getting this information. He communicates that, via an email back to the United States -- well, that communication is intercepted both by the National Security Agency and by British intelligence. It's then produced in a report, that "Subject A" in Britain communicated to "Subject B" on Candidate 1's campaign about having dirt on Hillary Clinton.

Well, that all of a sudden, that's intelligence, that's proof! So you can go to the FBI and say, "we've got intelligence that shows that there's some smoke here, and we've got to investigate." And yet, they don't admit that the entire thing was staged! But by staging that kind of thing, you can plant information that appears to be true, even though it's a lie. And so that's how this thing started.

And then, as the campaign progress, from the summer of 2015, getting into late winter of 2015/early spring 2016, it became clear that Donald Trump was the frontrunner, and it was at that point that this covert action, because there's no other way to describe it, but it was a covert action that involved both British and American intelligence assets, as well as U.S. law enforcement assets in the FBI, to create the impression to feed the meme that Donald Trump was acting with and at the behest of Vladimir Putin. That whole plot began to be unfolded in earnest in March and April off 2016.

BOYD: You've point to, in your writings, a specific email on WikiLeaks, between John Podesta, the chairman of the Clinton campaign, way back in December of 2015, he's talking to a reporter from The Hill newspaper, and they're talking about the fact that way back in the December of 2015, the most effective tactic against Donald Trump was going to be smear him based on his buddy-buddy relationship with Putin. Can you say anything more about that?

JOHNSON: Well, let's understand that the individual, Brent Budowsky, was the one in the email exchange with John Podesta. Budowsky is not a Hill reporter; Budowsky is a longtime Democratic staff member, and had serviced up on the Hill, so he's very plugged in with Democratic politics for quite a while. And the fact that they're discussing using -- they were going to, I think the exact phrase was "slaughter Donald Trump for his bromance with Putin." And so, it was clear that the Clinton campaign took the decision to start using the Putin angle as a way to attack and discredit Donald Trump.

The other element in this, is when you look at the law firm of Perkins Coie, Perkins Coie was the one that was involved with bringing CrowdStrike into the DNC to "establish," investigate the alleged Russian hacking of the DNC. I think the simple fact that they had brought CrowdStrike in for that, was part of a pretext to blame the Russians. Because they knew that it was not the Russians who actually did this. It was also Perkins Coie that hired Fusion GPS, which then, in turn, hired Christopher Steele.

And what we've also learned is that throughout this process, there were FBI informants, confidential human sources, that were being targeted against the Trump campaign. Christopher Steele, for example, we know without a doubt, that as of February 2016, perhaps even earlier, but we know for certain that in February 2016, he was a fully signed up, confidential human source for the FBI. And he was, as was later admitted, was the one who alerted his FBI handler to this "nefarious activity" by the Russians that he was picking up from his intelligence sources.

We know that Felix Sater, -- it was actually in the news today -- was an FBI confidential human source. He was the one to propose to the Trump campaign that they go do something in Russia, build a Trump Tower in Moscow. He was the one that initiated that. It wasn't Donald Trump Jr,, it wasn't Donald Trump, it wasn't Ivanka Trump -- none of the Trump's said, -- they have not a single shred of evidence of them sitting around saying, "Ya know what? We oughta do something in Moscow. Let's get ahold of Felix and ask him to help us." It was just the opposite.

Finally, you had a character by the Henry Greenberg -- he's actually got 10 different names -- he was signed up 17 years ago, by the FBI as a confidential human source. And he approaches, first, Michael Caputo, who then puts him in touch with Roger Stone, and offers to sell dirt on Hillary Clinton. They declined the offer.

So, when you're seeing that kind of effort by the FBI, that totally explodes the lie that the FBI's telling that they didn't start looking at this hard, until Alexander Downer, an Australian diplomat who has ties to MI6 as well, and was a key member in a firm comprised of former MI6 officers, known as Hakluyt, Alexander Downer, who had a personal relationship with Bill Clinton, had signed a $25 million deal with him on behalf of the Australian government with the Clinton Foundation -- Downer shows up two months after allegedly having this conversation with George Papadopoulos, to suddenly report an alarming thing that he heard two months ago. I mean, it's so ludicrous, the fact that you've educated adults believing this crap, and repeating it, just makes you want to scratch your head and recognize that this has nothing to do with reality. This is all a contrived fantasy.

BOYD: What we have, here, by both points which you're making, the most significant one being the completely impartial point, backed by forensic evidence, that the Russian hack never happened, again, coming back to the fundamental myth of Russiagate. You mentioned CrowdStrike, which is the firm which went in and did the so-called forensics on the DNC -- mind you, the FBI never took possession of the crime scene! Something which is highly irregular in the annals of investigation, and they left it to this firm called CrowdStrike, to come up with the analysis! And that analysis is actually what Robert Mueller uses in his report.

In fact, I wanted to get your comment -- I re-read some sections of other people's commentaries on the Mueller report, and one of the things they keep pointing out, is the way Mueller seems to have structured this, and CrowdStrike seems to have structured it, with all of these intermediate servers and everything else in the United States at this point, that it would look like the Russians were seeking to get caught, by the way their operation was allegedly structured! You were a Russian analyst at the NSA for a long time, prior to becoming technical director: Do you think, based on what you know about the technical expertise of the Russians in this area, that they would have structured something in such a way as to get caught?

BINNEY: Absolutely not! They're professional espionage agents. Who would leave a telltale signs of Russian in there, like Cyrillic and Russian names of people, and things like that -- I mean, who would do that? Certainly no respectable Russian spy would. And no U.S. spy would either. The Chinese are also good at keeping their identity away, too, like they'll use multiple avenues to do points of attack on different companies and so on, and they'll come in from multiple, different directions. It's not something that any respectable spy would do, in any country.

BOYD: Now, Dmitri Alperovitch, who's the principal on CrowdStrike, has quite a historical hatred of Russia, and he's tied to something called a digital forensic research lab at the Atlantic Council, which also works for Stratcom and NATO. And all of these people, beginning at the same time, I find it not uncoincidental, beginning at the same time that Larry talks about Hillary Clinton or someone in the Obama Administration, or somebody tasking both the intelligence agencies of the United States and Britain to spy (which is the word to use) on every single Presidential campaign other than Hillary Clinton's, at the same time that this is going on in 2015, there's a major effort going on from NATO and from Stratcom and from these other places to counter what they call "Russian propaganda."

And I don't find it terribly coincidental, if you look at Christopher Steele's career, he, in fact, just prior to being hired by Fusion GPS, had written a study called "Operation Charlemagne," for British intelligence in essence, and for NATO, saying that the Russians had intervened and caused Brexit. So, when we analyzed this initially, and looked at it, we said, this is not just limited to the United States; it's an international operation, and it's pursuant to something you might call the idea that we should have a "new Cold War" or a containment of both Russia and China. At we viewed it, and I still view it as kind of an interesting and forceful analysis to be looked at as we have called here that everything from British intelligence into the United States concerning the Trump campaign and concerning all of these things, should be declassified, as one of the first steps in any investigation.

What were they saying, and why, most importantly, which people need to understand, was this happening? Why was Trump such a big deal? And why was such an effort undertaken, clearly, to ensure that Hillary Clinton, as opposed to anybody else, was the next U.S. President?

Our assertion here, and Lyndon LaRouche's assessment at the time, is that this has very much to do with the emergence of China, and with the emergence of a bloc, with Russia and China, and their building out of a development perspective for the developing sector, which could change the entire financial system for the better, and could dethrone the kind of horrendous control of money supply and everything else the world has suffered from, ever since the death of Franklin Roosevelt, as this thing was actually built up.

I want to close up, and ask you: If you were talking to Donald Trump -- we had a conversation last night, which people may want to listen to; it's a two-hour full blown conversation with Bill and Larry, with various activists and organizers asking questions, and you can get a lot more information there, back and forth; but to sum up here, because we want to keep this to a video which can get mass circulation and you need to make it clear -- which I think we've done -- but also cut the time down a it to get the kind of circulation we need -- what I would ask you to say is, you're looking clearly, as you have reiterated again and again, at an intelligence community which has been corrupted. This is no good for the United States. You said, Bill, that you told then CIA director Mike Pompeo, that both he and the President were being lied to consistently and persistently, by the intelligence community.

What steps have you guys thought about, if you were going to talk to the President right now, to clean this mess up? To make sure, as the President said, that this never happens again in the United States of America?

BINNEY: He has to look back, unlike Obama, who didn't want to look back, that told me right away, he didn't want to hold anybody accountable for all the crimes they'd committed. So, what President Trump has to do, and what Attorney General Barr especially has to do, and I think he's on that path, is focus in on founding out: who did what, when, and what did they do, and was it illegal? If so, he's got to issue referrals to a grand jury to do indictments. And then we have to indict those people, put them in court, and let them tell us in open court, why they did what they did. And hold them accountable, if they violated the law, they need to go to jail. I mean, that's what they do to whistleblowers all the time, or anybody that opposes their positions, like they were trying to do under the Nixon Administration, using the FBI and the CIA and the NSA to spy on U.S. citizens who opposed Nixon's agenda.

And so, from my point of view, the start is to go at that FISA Court warrants that they got against somebody in the Trump campaign, and then trace that back as to who was involved in it, all the way through to the British, MI6, and so on, to see who actually did what? What part other intelligence agencies, foreign intelligence agencies had in helping that effort. And then trace it back to all the people in the United States government that were participating in that process.

I looked at that, as you had talked about earlier, Barbara, as a coup, it was a coup attempt, at a minimum it was sedition, trying to subvert the entire process of the U.S. government and the agencies of the government; and fundamentally, it was treason against the founding principles of this nation. That's my view of it.

So, he's got to look back, he's got to hold these people accountable; they've got to go to jail -- if they don't go to jail, this can always happen again! Like I blame this fundamentally on Gerry Ford, because he pardoned Nixon. Nixon was about to be tried for the crimes he committed as President, and the crimes they did, in Watergate and so on, the break-ins and so on. So, by pardoning him, that told every succeeding President that they had a "get out of jail free" card; it's the next President and if he wants to do what he wants to do, he's got to pardon you, otherwise, he'll be held accountable for the things he does.

So that would be the procedure. I would say that's the advice I would give him. And Attorney General Barr needs to keep focusing on the law, and go straight forward with factual evidence and put it together, and try these people!

BOYD: Larry, to you, same question.

JOHNSON: The first thing he needs to do is identify all of the intelligence that was collected and disseminated within the U.S. government, within classified channels, most of it was probably top secret, some of it was likely special access program -- and identify who originated that intelligence? Where did it come from? Did it originate with the British? Or did it originate with an NSA collection directive, or did it come from a CIA directive? And then identify the iindividuals that were involved with working on those reports, putting them out, and who their chain of command and supervisors were? He needs to demand that the FBI identify all human assets and informants, that were working on political campaigns, not just against Trump, but again other campaigns. And to ask for the declassification of all what are called the FD 1023 reports, the reports where the FBI meets with the confidential human source and writes up what they talked about and what directions they were given for future action.

The same needs to be done with the Central Intelligence Agency, to identify any individuals or contractors, that are paid or enlisted and producing such information.

Those are some immediate things, and then, along with what Bill said, declassify the FISA warrant, declassify all 302s that were produced; and then, as that information comes out, it's going to expose just how corrupt the FBI and the CIA were. You know, right now, I find it fascinating to listen to -- it's mostly Democrats, there's one or two Republicans, that talk about our "holy sanctified intelligence and law enforcement community, and how dare Donald Trump attack their integrity!" You know, that's like somebody complaining about someone who's attacking Catholic bishops and cardinals, and then you go out to find out they're a bunch of pedophiles! That's sort of the equivalent of what we have here: They trying to hide behind the blanket of claiming sanctity of top secret assets, and they're only doing their job; when in fact, they're corrupt and they lied and they need to be held accountable, as Bill said.

BOYD: OK guys, we're going to leave it for today. You can visit us on the web at any time, www.larouchepac.com to keep track of this campaign. We're in this fight for real, we can save the country at this point, if people really think about it. We have a chance to reverse a whole lot of things which have gone terribly wrong; you know, many people voted for President Trump because they wanted an economic and political revival of the United States, and they wanted him to do what he said he was going to do, which is, drain the swamp. This is the way to do it. We have the opportunity to do it right now: Getting Bill Binney in front of the Congress, getting an adversary testing of the big lie which has dominated the whole thing, is the key to waking people up.

So join us again next week, and this has been larouchepac.com -- and go there!

OGDEN: You can pick up the phone right now, call your congressman, call your senator and say: "I just watched Bill Binney, I just watched Larry Johnson: Bring Bill Binney to the Congress and have a hearing now! and that could happen as soon as this weekend.

Thank you very much. Thank you Barbara, and thanks so much to Bill and to Larry for joining us here today. And hopefully we can have you back here soon.