Expose the Big Lie of Russiagate: NSA and CIA Experts Can Prove
All the ‘Secret Intelligence’ Was False

We present here edited selections from two critically important discussions among William Binney, former Technical Director of the National Security Agency; Larry C. Johnson, CIA analyst who also worked in the State Department’s Bureau of Counterterrorism; and LaRouche PAC’s Barbara Boyd, author of a series of ground-breaking reports on the fraud of Russiagate, beginning with her analysis, “Robert Mueller Is an Amoral Legal Assassin: He Will Do His Job If You Let Him,” first published on September 29, 2017, in EIR.

All three participated in LaRouche PAC’s May 16 Fireside Chat, moderated by Dennis Speed, and in the LaRouche PAC Weekly Webcast on May 17, joined by host Matthew Ogden.

From the Fireside Chat, May 16

Dennis Speed: We’re going to start first with William Binney. Mr. Binney has been involved in something rather important recently, and it involves the case of Roger Stone. I’m going to let him get us started tonight.

William Binney: I just recently submitted an affidavit in the Roger Stone criminal case, and I expect to be testifying in court to introduce the forensic facts that everybody in the government is ignoring. Special Counsel Robert Mueller ignored it; the House and Senate Intelligence Committees and Judiciary Committees have ignored it. They’ve all been shying away from it, and nobody wants to hear the forensics of the data that we actually looked at. What we looked at was the posted WikiLeaks Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails, also the John Podesta emails, but also the Guccifer 2.0 material. In both cases, we could show that they weren’t hacks. We could also show that Guccifer 2.0 was probably just a straightforward fabrication.

No matter how you look at it, the forensics is very clear. In both cases, neither were hacks from Russia. Nobody wants to hear that; they want to ignore it. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein ignored it with his indictments; Mueller with his report ignored it; the House and Senate Intelligence Committees and Judiciary Committees ignored it. Everybody wants to shy away from these simple forensic facts.

Barbara Boyd: You have to let that sink in. Then, think about how much of everything you’ve heard over the last three years has been based on this idea. Remember back in December of 2016 and early 2017, when Sen. John McCain and a few other people got up and said, because the Russians hacked the DNC, Article 5 of NATO should be invoked, and we should take action against Russia. This is very serious business. The center of the coup, the center of the whole thing we’ve been through for the last three years—Bill Binney just told you the science supports none of it.

Binney: Well, in fact, it contradicts it. It basically says it’s false.

Boyd: Right.

Larry Johnson: I’m just struck by how weak the evidence that’s presented in the Mueller report is, with respect to “Russian involvement.” They basically accuse Russia of engaging in a social media campaign, spending $10-15 million. That sounds like a lot of money until you look at what Hillary actually spent; she spent close to $1.2 billion. Donald Trump spent $600 million. So, we’re being asked to believe that the Russians are so effective, so clever, so smart that they can, with just a minimal investment of $10-15 million, turn an entire U.S. election. This occurs at the same time that none of the intelligence chiefs—John Brennan [CIA], James Clapper as Director of National Intelligence, or Mike Rogers at the NSA—takes responsibility as to the truth of what they are saying. This was a complete and utter failure on their part to do their jobs.

Everybody But Hillary Clinton Was Surveilled

Boyd: I’m struck by a couple of things which have popped up over the last two weeks. One of which is Mr. Johnson’s contribution, when he says that British intelligence was monitoring not just the Donald Trump campaign, but just about everybody who was running, other than, apparently, Hillary Clinton. That they were building up surveillance packages and actual dirt on every other candidate in the 2016 election.

I’m also thinking about the thing which has been very destructive in the course of this entire “Russian” myth, which is the war on any form of independent thinking inside the United States or elsewhere by calling anybody who actually has an alternative viewpoint a Russian propaganda agent. This is an unprecedented drive to suppress or censor, censoring Facebook and all these social media platforms; all of which is still going on full-blown, as one of the big casualties of the entire coup.

Think of the effect of the intelligence community of the United States coming out and saying, “The President, according to this guy Christopher Steele, according to British intelligence, has been captured by the Russians.” It really was an overt coup attempt.

But, today, people are digging in the right places. Larry has got a piece out on all of the informants and what the operations were on British soil, and how this stuff worked with this firm called Hakluyt, which is very important and is part of how intelligence is actually done at this point. We’re getting closer; people are probing.

So, all of these things potentially are going to come out if we defeat the first lie and follow through on the implications of it and really press for the broadest possible investigation of this thing. How wide was this, and why did it occur? I think that the major thing was that they did not want any kind of maverick in the Presidency of the United States at this particular point in history.

Johnson: There is, I think, a shift in public opinion. People are recognizing that—after being told repeatedly that Trump was in bed with [Russian President Vladimir] Putin and that he was acting as a puppet of Putin—that that’s a lie. And I think the documents that will be released in coming weeks will further expose that. And those who are responsible for pushing that, I pray that they are literally brought to justice, in handcuffs, standing before a judge, and convicted for their crimes.

Binney: Well, my objective is to basically bust this out in court, because I’ve been trying in different ways, through publications—you know, former CIA analyst Ray McGovern, Larry and I, and a number of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) members and associate members have been trying to argue this out in the open, so that people will begin to understand what the basic facts really are behind this. And we’ve been stymied and stopped at every turn, by the mainstream media and the government in general. They won’t hear what we have to say!

That’s one of the reasons why I quite readily agreed to put in an affidavit for Roger Stone, because this is in a criminal court. They can’t keep me out of this court. They’ve been doing it in the Third Circuit and in the Ninth, and also the Second, when they were working there, so they’ve been effective at saying, “You don’t have standing”—that was the big argument at first. Then, “you’re not cleared,” and then, all those national security arguments, and so on.

Get the truth out so that everybody knows what is really true.

From the Webcast, May 17

Boyd: The essential thing here is exactly what the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity have focused on. 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 Russian military intelligence hacked the computers of the Democratic National Committee 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. What VIPS has focused on, is proof that this, indeed, did not happen—the 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 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. 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.

Forensics Show There Was No Hack

Binney: 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. Its 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. When that occurs, all the times of “last modified” are changed on all the files. So, when we looked at all the DNC emails from 23rd, 25th, and 26th of May, all of them ended in evens. This was a factor that proved that the 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, that somebody close in downloaded the data to a storage device and then took it physically. So 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. If you look at the data, the filename, the amount of data in the file, and the timestamp at the end, 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 told us that the files could not have been transmitted across the international Web, to Russia from the U.S. And we said that.

We got some pushback, from even some of our own VIPS members, who thought that that could, in fact, happen. So we said, OK, we’ll test this, 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.

‘Show Me the Trace Routes!’

So, 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. The only way that transfer rate can be achieved is 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 clear proof of a transfer via physical means, either a thumb drive or a CD-ROM.

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. The NSA has embedded in hundreds and hundreds of switches all around the United States and around the world, trace route programs. That means that they can trace the routes of all the packets of any message being sent across the internet. This is one of the main reasons why I said that this whole thing, in the very beginning, is obviously a lie; because NSA never came out and said where the packets went to, or where they came from.

They can trace route packets 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. The whole idea 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.

All you need is just one packet from the DNC data, and in the TCP/IP format, it gives you all the addressing, where it’s going from, where it originates from, where it’s ending up. You can see how it gets through the network, 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.

Fake Intelligence ‘Assessment’ or Truth?

Boyd: When the intelligence community announced this, in December 2016 and January 2017, the American public was told that an act of war had occurred, by Russia, against the United States. Sen. 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 CIA Assessment in January 2017, again, with no evidence, and at the same time, you had this spurious, discredited and completely fabricated dossier, by MI6 agent Christopher Steele. Now 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—but one of them was arguing that the Steele dossier should be put verbatim into that Intelligence Assessment.

What that would have done is to tell the American people that, “we in the American intelligence community believe that Donald Trump, the President-elect, who’s about to be inaugurated, is a puppet of Putin.” In my view that’s about as close to a coup d’état as we’ve ever come in the United States.

There’s a lot more to this story than we even know, and it looks like Attorney General William Barr is going to go forward and expose it all. Our part here is to get Binney and his evidence before the American public, and the most effective way to do that is with congressional hearings, and with the Justice Department exploring it in an adversarial 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.

Larry, you’ve been very prominent in sounding the alarm bells—the President tweeted about your interview, concerning the British role in all of this. What would you like to tell the President and our viewers that needs to be explored here?

The Whole Thing Was Staged

Johnson: This entire effort to go after Donald Trump didn’t start initially as a targeting of just Trump. It was in fact targeting all of the political candidates that Hillary Clinton anticipated facing. 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 [then UN Ambassador] 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 is 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 entire process, though, was designed to create a pretext. Because, the relationships that were being described were in fact, created by other intelligence operations.

Take 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, 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.

Educated Adults Believe This Crap?

And then, as the campaign progresses, 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 was used, involving 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 of 2016.

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, he was a fully signed-up, confidential human source for the FBI. And, as was later admitted, he 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 Trumps said, “Ya know what? We oughta do something in Moscow. Let’s get a hold of Felix and ask him to help us.” It was just the opposite.

Finally, you had a character by the name of 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, this totally explodes the lie that the FBI is telling—that they didn’t start looking at this hard, until Alexander Downer shows up two months later. Downer is an Australian diplomat who has ties to MI6 and was a key member in a firm comprised of former MI6 officers, known as Hakluyt. 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 have 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.

This Was a Coup Attempt!

Boyd: 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: 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 on finding out who did what, when; 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.

And so, from my point of view, the start is to go at the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court warrants that they got against somebody in the Trump campaign. 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 who were participating in that process.

This 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! I blame this fundamentally on President 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.

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!

Investigate & Prosecute: Who Did What, When, and Was It Legal?

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 programs—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 individuals 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 FD-302s [FBI summary reports of information gained in interviews] that were produced; and then, as that information comes out, it’s going to expose just how corrupt the FBI and the CIA were.

Boyd: 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 adversarial testing of the Big Lie which has dominated the whole thing, is the key to waking people up.