William Binney Interviewed by Ed Schultz (11/08/2017)

Supplemental document for: "Theory that Roger Stone's back channel to Wikileaks was Randy Credico", link: https://wakelet.com/wake/2d352ae9-febe-44a1-a7bb-51674a2e4bf5

Bill Binney interviewed by Ed Schultz, broadcast date: Nov 8, 2017, transcript is from the opening to 6:47.

Link to file: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4DVhmr19LI

ED SCHULTZ
Good evening, friends. We start tonight with a major new report, that the president ordered CIA Director Mike Pompeo to meet with a former NSA whistleblower. At the meeting, the two discussed new research showing the DNC computer hacks were actually leaked by someone locally.

SCHULTZ [voiceover on news montage]
Russia's alleged hacking of the DNC servers is accepted as gospel by the mainstream media, and the political establishment in this country. But one former NSA whistleblower with a team of former intelligence officers at his back, is challenging the notion that the Russians were involved in any way whatsoever. Bill Binney is known as the whistleblower who revealed millions of dollars of waste at the NSA in 2001. Now his name is returning to the headlines. Reports confirm the CIA Director Mike Pompeo met with Binney on October 24th, at the request of President Trump. The president and the CIA Director believe there may be substance to Binney and his team's conclusions the Russians were not involved in the DNC hacks. Instead, they claim it was an inside job. Someone with physical access to the DNC servers leaked the files. After the meeting, Pompeo told Binney to expect a call from his offices. The NSA and the FBI now want to talk to Binney about his research.

SCHULTZ [back in the studio]
And joining us now, is former NSA whistleblower and intelligence officer, Bill Binney. Mr. Binney, thanks for being here tonight.

BINNEY
Thanks for having me.

SCHULTZ
You are being vilified in the mainstream media. CNN this morning called you a conspiracy theorist. What's your response to that?

BINNEY
Well, I think that's showing the shallow weaknesses of their arguments. They produce no facts whatsoever and simply throw labels at people to kindof characterize and do character assassination. I mean, they have no facts to back up anything they're saying, it's what I was basically telling Director Pompeo.

SCHULTZ
How did he approach you? How did this come about? The meeting with Pompeo.

BINNEY
Eh- Well- He opened up by saying that the president said he should talk to me if he wanted to get facts about Russiagate. And so that's the way it started, so I told him everything I knew, factually, and basically said that what we had developed in terms of rates of transfer and all of that, testing, even international testing of transferring data, clearly showed that it was a local download. And not an international hack.

SCHULTZ
How did he receive that information?

BINNEY
Well, I think he took it very well. I mean, it didn't- it- of course, I never attribute it to anybody, because we don't know who did the download. Or whether it went anywhere else. I maintain that NSA would know that, though. NSA, if anybody did anything across the net, NSA has so many taps on the fiber network, in the U.S. and around the world, and so many trace route programs embedded by the hundreds around the network, they would know where these packets went.

SCHULTZ
You're not the only one who believes this. And the letter that was _signed_ and sent to the president, was also done by many credible people as well. Interesting how that's being left out of the story. What do you make of that?

BINNEY
Well, it's a way of slanting the whole issue. You ignore facts that don't conveniently fit. That's what the media's been doing. I mean, they must think we're Pavlov's dogs, we're all going to be- through repetition, conditioned to believe everything they say.

SCHULTZ
When Mr. Pompeo came to you, give us a sense of his demeanor. Was it a sense of urgency, did he feel like he was on a fact finding mission, was he serious, what was he- doing what the president told him to do?

BINNEY
I would- I would s- I would think it was a fact finding mission kind of thing. He wanted to find out what the facts were. This is really bad. This means the intelligence agencies, even his own, are not telling him what the facts are. This is not good for our country.

SCHULTZ
Is it outside the operating standard procedure to have the president tell the CIA Director to go to a source and not have some other officer? What does that say? I mean, I spoke to a congressman on the hill today, who said that, that might be the only person the president can trust.

BINNEY
Well, that may be true, but this is what concerns me: it's that the intelligence community is not being honest with the president, the administration, even the Director of Central Intelligence. That's what the implication is. That, to me, bodes very bad. That's like, you can get into slam dunk situations like the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and we go kill a hundred thousand people, for what? For a false statement. For a false issue.

SCHULTZ
So, you believe that the DNC...was not hacked, by...Russia? That it was an inside job. That someone inside the DNC did this. To the Democratic Party. You believe that.

BINNEY
Uh- No, our evidence is it came down locally.

SCHULTZ
Okay.

BINNEY
That's the evidence. I mean, it's not a question of saying who did it locally, we don't know. But there are people who are saying certain things. The FBI knows who did it. Already. And they're not telling the president. And the NSA and FBI together know a lot more than they're telling them.

SCHULTZ
Now, CNN is really riding this. And they're working you over, they called you a "conspiracy theorist". One of their correspondents even referenced your appearances on this network, RT America. And also, the fact they put a graphic up saying you're seventy four years old. Implying that you're over the hill, or you don't know what you're talking about, or don't have all your faculties. I mean, as a viewer that's how I took it. I just want the story. I think America wants the story.

BINNEY
That's all we're after, the facts.

SCHULTZ
Okay. Where is this going to go?

BINNEY
Well, I think it's going to go- I think the entire intelligence community needs to be revamped. There needs a real shake-up there. Because obviously they're not being pro-administration, they don't want the country to really get the truth. They're hiding this, to keep the population ignorant, uninformed, so they can manipulate them any way they want. This is the same thing the mainstream media does.

SCHULTZ
And people that signed onto this letter, do they believe the same thing that you believe?

BINNEY
Yes. Absolutely.

SCHULTZ
Okay. And there's some real credible people-

BINNEY
-there were people that were only technically. These are technical people in the VIPS, the Veteran Intelligence Professionals [for Sanity]. It's the technical set of people.

SCHULTZ
Alright. Where is this gonna go with you? I mean, do you feel intimidated at all, that the mainstream media is depicting you the way they are?

BINNEY
No, it just shows the weakness of their argument. That's all. I mean, they're weak. If they had anything, they should present it. What fact do you have to support the assertions you're making.

SCHULTZ
Mr. Binney, I appreciate your time.

BINNEY
You're welcome.

SCHULTZ
Thank you.