If I were to rank them, I would say:
China would be first, because they've been doing it for quite some time. Then I would put Israel up there as a pretty big one. And I wouldn't discount things like the German BND. And of course our friends the Brits are up there. We must not forget them!
In fact, because of their cooperation, the most important ones are NSA and GCHQ. They have the greatest access to the greatest resources.
Nobody has dealt with the fact that i've presented or the group that I work with has said anything about. Nobody. Rosenstein, Mueller, no one! They all ignored the evidence I put out.
Ask your representatives about it, demand they give you answers. It's okay to say I don't know!
To get information and evidence out to people so they're not uninformed. The mainstream media has not been telling the truth. They've been controlling the narrative given to the public.
All kinds of information gathered from fiber optic lines: your emails, financial transactions, web searches, your location — just about everything you can think of that involves electronic communication.
from Daniel: Regrettably I lost everything I transcribed from Bill. You can find his remarks on video. Below is a paraphrase I am wrote after the fact:
Bill emphasized a public challenge of the mass acquisition of data. He has submitted a petition to the Supreme Court that will be addressed on 29 September 2020. It is linked in the OP and here: https://storage.googleapis.com/media.larouchepac.com/Binney%20Affidavit.pdf
He said that this petition challenges the constitutionality of the bulk acquisition. He pointed out that the Patriot Act section 217, for example, is unconstitutional. If we can demonstrate in court that this is unconstitutional, then the laws will be overturned. You cannot have an unconstitutional law.
He referred to the 2008 "retroactive immunity" effected for Verizon, ATT, and other telecoms. Conyers, who was head of the House Judiciary, never got an answer, to Bill's knowledge, never received an answer about why they got that retroactive immunity -- it was for an undefined action in collaboration with the government. That is, it was for helping the government do bulk acquisition of the United States.
Please watch the relevant section of the video to hear him say this directly. I'm sorry I lost the text.
Yes its simple, it's based on the history of the cold war and the continued view of the "Russians are the threat". So when you need to divert attention from you, you can push the attention to a foreign threat such as the Russians!
In my view he knew everything that was going on, was fully informed, and involved in creating the coalition of people who engaged in this operation. I don't know how he *wouldn't *know!
- I don't think Brennan's that smart.
- It's hard to say who's the worst one, since it's a collaborative network. It includes FBI, CIA, NSA, DHS, DEA, DOJ, State, etc. You can't eliminate a single agency to solve the problem. I believe that Brennan put together a plan approved by Obama and implemented by a team of bureaucrats.
- I haven't been following QAnon. I haven't been on social media, although I'm now on Twitter, so I can't answer that question at this point. Flynn was attacked because he was a threat to the deep state; he planned to audit these agencies that have been almost totally unaccountable, with respect to their funding and otherwise. They really wanted to get rid of him.
What was the crime he committed? He's a publisher. What is he going to be pardoned for? He committed no crime.
They certainly have the ability. I think they might not have the desire to do that. they might find it difficult to find people in there who would actually execute it.
The managers, while they direct the workforce to do various things -- they have to have corrupt people in the process to be able to get those people to do something like that and not get caught.
Because you still have a lot of good people in those agencies.
For example, in the DOJ, after they tried to manufacture evidence against us, someone in the DOJ decided that what they were trying to do to us was so bad that they smuggled the draft indictment against us out. WE got it through surreptitious sources, if you will. That meant that we were prepared for the lies that were going to be told against us in court.
That simply said that there are some good people in the DOJ still, in spite of the aggregate being part of the Department of Just Us.
Anything I could say about Seth Rich would be speculation. All we can say from our forensics is that the DNC data was the result of a local copy rather than an internet hack. We have no proof of who did that.
I think Snowden did a public service in revealing crimes committed by this country that violated its founding principles.
Some of the material that was published should have been withheld, but that was the decision of the journalists who published it. For example, specific foreign targets should not have been revealed.
The only one that I've been able to get on that's mainstream is Fox. Otherwise I've been able to get on Jimmy Dore's show and other non-mainstream outlets.
I can only say that I've experienced some indirect communications. I don't even know if they made it through, but now they are doing some of the things that I recommended about 4 or 5 months ago.
Like, for example, reviewing the unmasking at NSA. And they have a separate lawyer dealing with it. What I passed in may have made it. I just don't know for sure.
Well, I tried to do that. I passed it in, and I passed it in through the courts, via lawyers involved in court cases. I've shared it myself publicly, and I'm ready to testify in any situation.
But not everyone wants this truth known. To quote Jack Nicholson from A Few Good Men: "They can't handle the truth!"
Let's put it this way, any missions overseas are peppered with spies and they know who the spies are and so do we. So if something happens between two countries you know who to make an example out of. So we shouldn't be surprised by that!
They know exactly who is who and where!
Anything I could say about Seth Rich would be speculation. All we can say from our forensics is that the DNC data was the result of a local copy rather than an internet hack. We have no proof of who did that.
Anything I could say about Seth Rich would be speculation. All we can say from our forensics is that the DNC data was the result of a local copy rather than an internet hack. We have no proof of who did that.
I think Snowden did a public service by exposing crimes our country has been committing against its founding principles.
Some of the material that was published should probably not have been released, but that was the decision of journalists who didn't want to pass up the chance to publish a juicy story. For example, exposing specific foreign targets that the NSA broke into was, in my view, a mistake.
in answer to TenneseePride and basicevent:
Yes, the NSA certainly does a lot of good work, especially when they're talking about foreign adversaries or potential foreign threats.
But, I think we have to revise the entire process of FISA. Originally they were trying to do the right thing, but I think they got corrupted along the way. And this was done by keeping it secret. That's why they were able to issue warrants that violate the Fourth Amendment like that from Verizon. It has to be out and in the open, otherwise we cannot verify or validate it.
The deep state and the bureaucrats that control them are the biggest threat to our government. Schumer made that clear with his "intelligence agencies have 6 ways to Sunday to get back at you" statement.
The mass mailings of millions of ballots could significantly increase the possibility of fraud. Because you don't have any way of validating the signatures.
Probably not, because it's a really "deep" state, that goes deep into these agencies, run by bureaucrats who are in place but not elected. It's also run by lobbyists and staffers in the Congress. It's a deep, dark issue that has spread widely in the government. It will be difficult. Trump's next four years will not, on its own, be enough.
First of all, you have to break it down into parts: You had the DNC files that were posted by WikiLeaks. You also have Guccifer 2.0 data.
The WikiLeaks files were released in three batches: May 23, May 25, Aug 26. The file times ended in even numbers of seconds: 2,4,6,8,0. That is a property of the FAT file system, typically used in storage devices like storage devices and CD-ROMs. The FAT system rounds off times to an even number of seconds. This artifact was seen in all of the 30,000+ files released by WikiLeaks. That suggests it was downloaded to a thumb drive and then physically transferred to WikiLeaks.
Now, Guccifer 2.0 is something else. This character appeared after Assange announced that he'd be publishing material on Clinton. His material appeared July 5 and Sept 1. He claimed that he had performed two hacks of the DNC. But if you look only at the minutes, seconds, and milliseconds of the data in the July and September releases, they fit together fine. This means that from one collection of data, he made a range change on the dates to make it appear that he had committed a second "hack."
But we also saw in his June 15, 2016 posting material that had Russian fingerprints. Google "Forensicator" and "Adam Carter" to learn more about how those fingerprints were deliberately added, because the WikiLeaks releases of the same files did not contain them.
We know from the Vault 7 release of the Marble Framework, whereby the CIA can perform hacks and make it look like it was the work of another country. Among the countries that could be spoofed included Russia. That program was used once during 2016, and we believe that this Guccifer 2.0 operation was this instance.
If you Google "Mary Fanning" and "the Hammer" you'll be able to learn more about a program for internal spying, set up at the CIA, to spy on Mr. Trump and Candidate Trump. I hope Durham and Barr are investigating this. It's certainly outside the law and the constitution. In fact, I think this program took advantage of NSA tap points.