All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 17, 2024 - Jim Fetzer
59:20
WILLIAM BINNEY - Drain the Swamp and Keep It Clean
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome, everyone, to the afternoon presentations led by me, your host today, Lorian Fenton.
And our first guy up this afternoon is William Binney.
I'm so happy to be introducing him today for False Flags and Conspiracies Conference 2024. And William is a whistleblower, and I hope you guys understand what that means.
That means that he's been persecuted since the day he came out.
And he was in the...
Let me read this to you.
He was a critic of his former employer during the George W. Bush administration and later criticized the NSA's data collection policies during the Barack Obama administration.
That right there alone is the bravest thing I've ever seen anybody do, William.
So thank you for doing what you did.
You are a very brave man.
And I understand that you and your lovely wife, Catherine Horton, are basically being still persecuted to this day.
But that's not what we're here to talk about today.
We're here to talk about what you think the Trump administration should do.
So you take it away and I'll be back later.
Okay.
Well, thank you very much.
And it's a pleasure to be with you here today and have a chance to explain what he really needs to do.
Let me get it set up here.
Okay.
What he really needs to do is do something like we have in the human body, which is have an immune system that can repair anything in the body anywhere and just have that freedom like the white blood cells do to go to remove external pathogens, external threats, and also internal ones like cancer cells and so on, which you could draw an analogy directly to our government.
Which is what it's doing now is all the criminal activity of the agencies of our own government against us.
You can think of those as cancer cells.
And so what we really need to have is some kind of immune system set up to have an investigative group, for example, the task to specifically uncover all the criminal crime that the government agencies are doing or how they're coordinating it.
And working together to make it happen, like they did with Russiagate or with COVID or with any of that activity like that.
So, in essence, it's all government agencies need to be reviewed and examined this way, especially Intel.
Now, I say Intel because intelligence has been collecting the vast bulk of data, communications data for the citizens of the United States and the world for quite some time, so they have a massive amount of data.
The point is, when they do that, they say it's to get terrorism and to stop crime and things like that, but really it's to get control of the population of the world.
What they don't realize is that when they do that, they also have assembled all the evidence of the crimes that they're committing and everybody involved in it.
And that's really important to be able to access and use to get and fix government.
So we need a government immune system, in my view, a good system for self-repair and heal the system itself.
In other words, government, once it finds whistleblowers or things of that, and they come out and come forward, they're pointing out problems in government that need fixing.
And if the agencies that evolve, that exist, If they face those problems and fix them, they would get better.
But instead, what they view it as a smear on their record.
So what they try to do is hide it and keep it out of sight.
So by doing that, that means those problems persist and they metastasize, in the way I think of it.
It gets worse because it spreads and gets worse across the time and the government itself.
And that process needs to be similar to the white blood cells in the human body.
Why is that not working?
Whoops.
I'm not getting this to work.
Oh, wait.
Just a second.
Just a moment.
Take your time.
We can always edit out this part.
We have a technical problem here, that's all.
Yeah, it's okay.
Just a second.
Okay.
This is the backward.
Okay.
So this was the first one.
Okay.
Basically, in the government, across all of U.S. government, there's nothing like an immune system.
Nothing that can go across the agency.
Each of the agencies is kind of insulated from others to a degree.
That is, this is their castle and they try to defend it.
So it's not conducive to cooperation and fixing problems across, or even admitting you have a problem.
They can't even do that.
And it's like an alcoholic.
If you can't admit you have a problem, you never fix it.
And so that's basically what it is.
And the whole setup is really when they're bringing people into their agencies and as they move up through the organization, they go through what I call a cloning process.
That is, as you move up in levels of management, you're cloned into the way you're supposed to operate at that level and how you're supposed to view things and perceive the agency and its activities.
And so what they tend to do is they hide their illegal activity, mostly a lot of it in the intelligence community is done by classification, and others just by hiding it, not answering it in FOIAs or anything else of that nature.
There's many court cases who have found the FBI, for example, hiding evidence, And other people who are basically falsifying evidence, which the FBI did for the final defies Accord, too.
So the other way, the organizations, the clones in the organization, they simply, if they can't hide something totally, they just wait for the elected appointees or elected people to leave.
But they're here for short periods of time, so when they leave, they can revert back to what they were doing.
So they feed selected data to the courts or to Congress so that any oversight is kind of converted in the sense that it doesn't really get to the issues and they don't really get the whole truth of the matter.
They only get the parts that they're told.
And that's the fundamental problem with oversight of the intelligence community and basically any agency in the U.S. government.
The oversight committees only get what they're told from these agencies.
And the government criminality just gets worse, and it doesn't seem to be there's any help on the horizon to stop it.
That's why a new organization of this nature could, in fact, make that go away or fix it, expose it first and then fix it.
And then if it becomes a permanent fixture of the government, it could keep it continuously.
So the solution is easy.
It's not that hard, and it's really reasonably cheap.
You need to have a group of forensic experts who have their expertise and also expertise in analysis and IT. And these are readily available already in government.
I mean, you just have to find ones who have some integrity and have long-standing experience in each of these agencies.
This will give you the core set of individuals to be able to actually view and examine what's going on in the agency and then find out how to fix it and design the fixes.
And these already exist.
I had, for example, a system already running in NSA that would do this, that would actually monitor what was going on and any illegal activity and things of that nature and be able to see who was doing what, when and where and whether or not I could see whether or not it was something they should or should not be doing.
Also, it would compile funding lines and see how funding was executed and whether or not it was being spent or executed on programs that were failing or whether or not those programs were succeeding and to what extent.
In other words, it was a program that would give you a sense of return on investment for all the programs you had in this case in NSA. But that one was killed by Hayden because it was too cheap, really.
But he had a major design and a major program, multi-billion dollar program, and that's the reason.
It increases his budget, increases his control, and Basically, view of government.
In other words, he would have a bigger share of government and be more important, I guess.
So he opted for that instead of taking the system that we had.
Then when 9-11 happened, he He had to find a program that would help him deal with the massive databases in the world, a database created by the NSA collection in the world, and the only programs he had that would do that were the programs we were developing under my program here.
And so he used those, selectively eliminating certain things, like we had a very clear, legally justifiable, based on probable cause, selection of data up front, so that we eliminated 99.99999% of the data.
We never took that in.
We only took in what was relevant.
And then if there were people in there who weren't known to be terrorists or criminals, we would encrypt all their attributes so you couldn't tell who they were until you could prove that they were involved in the illegal or criminal activity.
And at that point, you could then decrypt them and target them.
Those two things were removed.
First, they removed the selection system, the smart selection, of only relevant information, and just took everything in.
Because we were capable, in 1998, in August of 1998, we had the ability to sessionize fiber optic rates, which meant we could take in the entire world.
All we needed to have was enough power and space.
That was all we needed.
And we could have started the mass collection at that point.
But we were doing smart selection where we only took in relevant data based on probable cause, on an inductive-deductive-abductive logic approach, justifiable to the courts.
And that's the one thing he removed because he needed to get all the data in, everything on everybody.
So that's the way they did that one.
And then when the second thing came up was the protections, the encryption, the privacy protections, so that even NSA analysts couldn't tell who they were looking at.
They would have to say through whether or not that particular person was involved or not.
If they were, then they would get a decrypt and be targeted.
And it would be based on a probable cause basis.
And also at the end of that, we had a system that was monitoring who was doing what in our network and when and where and whether or not that was something they should be allowed to do or not.
And that was removed also.
And that got me to the second program.
That was one program I had posted in 1992 internally in NSA, was to look at all the network logs of the NSA Because the network log, most of your audience probably didn't know, but in the network log,
if you have a computer on a network and you're typing an instruction to go across the line in the computer to a server to retrieve data to look at something or whatever, when you type that in or hit a key and hit return, that line of code goes down the line and gets recorded in the network log.
So that means that every transfer of funds, every action taken by everybody on the government networks, every action they do is recorded in that network law.
Now, you can then reconstruct all of that and show and see case by case, individual by individual, what they were doing as they did it on the line across all of these networks, if you monitored the network logs.
And in that case, that was the program I proposed in 1992.
I called it well-grounded, so you'd have a good basis for it.
I had two groups of people who opposed that in NSA. The first group was the analysts.
You mean to tell me, they said, you mean to tell me you're going to be watching everything I do on the network?
I said, yeah, we'll be doing that.
We can help you get training if you need it or help you, advise you on better things to do or other options to try.
And they said, I don't want you watching me.
Thank you, but no thank you.
But the real kicker came with NSA management when they said, you mean to tell me that Congress could come in here and look at all of the programs we have and all the money we're spending and see which programs are succeeding, which are failing, and where the money's being spent and where it's being moved to and from?
I said, sure, they could do all of that.
Their answer to me at that point was, you are never going to do this program.
And so that project was skilled by NSA management.
So that was the big one.
Now, the original program I had running, and I forgot to mention, cost about $3.2 million from scratch to develop it to functioning in three different sites, 24 hours a day.
The program, they replaced it with, or they tried to replace it with, failed at it.
It costs a little over, almost $4 billion.
And some say it was much more than that after 9-11.
So I don't really know the full number, but I do know it was canceled in 2006, I believe, because it failed.
At any rate, that's the...
And the how to do it is pretty straightforward from us for a technical kind.
You have to examine all the database now and the processes in those databases, used against those databases.
Now, the databases have all the relationships and everything else of everybody in the world and everybody in the United States.
And every relationship is defined in terms of things like social security numbers, driver's license, telephone numbers, phone numbers, addresses, things of that nature.
All those relationships are already existing and databases already are available.
And all the processes going against them would be building relationships through the entire network of everybody in the United States or everybody in any country in the world or everybody in the world, per se, which is what they're doing now.
Those databases will give you the fundamental view, like in terms of Epstein, what was his total relationship?
What was his total sphere of influence?
Who was involved with him as a group?
How many thousands of people were involved with him?
All of that is already in the databases.
And they could find out what that is if they wanted to find it and then wanted to get it.
They could get it.
It's already there.
The real kicker comes then with the processes.
Now, most of the processes are sort and display type programs that they have.
And what they do is they consolidate relational data that's related that they think is related.
And they push it at an analyst to make a decision.
In other words, they try to package it in such a way that an analyst can see the essence of a lot of data in a very short or small group or amount.
That's what the process has been, and there's any number of programs that are doing that now, and they're not really solving the problem.
That's why President Obama in 2012 issued a big data initiative.
It was to have industry go through and develop processes that would isolate things of interest that analysts should see to make decisions on, just to do that.
And those are the processes I was developing inside NSA at the time in the 1990s.
I had one program I took to full automation from antenna all the way to report with no humans involved at all.
And I was preparing to do that with the internet.
Fortunately, I did not.
And I was going to do it a lot of other days, which fortunately I did not, because it would have made the...
Government and the agencies involved extremely powerful, much more powerful than anybody could even recognize or imagine.
They could even see in advance and predict things that could be very dangerous to anybody's freedoms anywhere.
Unfortunately, I didn't do that.
I only did the building of the relationship part.
The rest of it, the automation of the analysis of the database and the data.
I did not get to do.
But that's what has to happen and it has to happen with the network logs as well as the databases themselves so that you have that relationship kind of activity, what people are doing and their relationship around the world and all the data that they're playing with and be able to merge and see what all that means in terms of the interests and intentions and capabilities of different organizations People, what have you, governments, all of that.
And then in the government agencies, they have all these databases that aren't cross-indexed.
Now, a lot of the things that can happen here can help one agency, can help the other, but sometimes they just don't know they can't.
Or how to do it.
So, but cross-correlating these government databases with this automated analysis can be a tip-off system interagency to be able to alert everybody to things that are relevant that would help them in their processes and their development of their programs.
I'll give you an example.
Customs and Border Protection has import-exports, and they're trying to find smugglers.
We found some smugglers by doing some automated analysis of a system.
Offline at home, where we found companies involved in IED production supplying to the Iranians in Dubai, who in turn supplied the Al-Qaeda and so on in Afghanistan, in Iraq, all the materials to make IEDs and use them against US and Canadian and other NATO forces.
And we found those and found them importing data or importing parts from different sections of the world, like from the US and the UK and so on.
So we then alerted everybody that here's a way of doing that.
And the government, we said we only thought we could produce something of the order of 40,000 targets with our initial run of this program.
And I guess that scared them because they didn't want to do it.
But it produced, it was a way of picking out all the imports and exports going into and out of the country and how they're being used, a way of getting to it.
And a way of focusing on suspicious activity by companies worldwide.
And they didn't want to do it because it would create too much work.
I mean, they weren't capable of handling it.
They only had like four analysts or something like that.
But I said they had all the inspectors, all the ports of input, like all the ship imports coming in from ships, all the airports and stuff.
And people crossing the border in trucks and so on, they had inspectors there.
If we could point them to the right direction and the right containers, they could use those as the resource to do the inspections.
And the rest of it could be automatically directed to them.
But they could not see the benefit of that.
That was kind of discouraging there too.
But it's that cross-correlation between these databases that helps you do that.
In that case, we were doing from the phone network to the email network And the data they put out there, cross-correlating all of that, made it possible to do that, but they basically refused to adopt that process.
And that's the kind of thing that could be, for example, used also in voting.
And Social Security has the who's a citizen and the ages and so on and who's dead and all the deaths are reported there.
So, and all their names, addresses, IDs, and all the attributes that were mapped to them, they had that data.
That data is very useful to get to do a cross-correlation again for all the eligible voters and all the people and citizens of the United States.
So if you had that database set up centrally, you could, in fact, be able to detect any dead person trying to vote before they voted.
You could set it up as an interactive system, live, so that at all the polling locations, when they type somebody's name in, it would go in.
And the data with it would go in and it could be validated in a split second.
And before they vote, you could tell whether or not they were dead or alive, according to the records anyway.
And you could also say whether or not they were a valid citizen.
And you could also say whether or not they voted more than once.
In different polling stations.
So, I mean, maybe in one state and then in another.
You could cross-correlate all of that and really reliably validate voting.
Now, this is rather an intrusive organization that I'm proposing, but...
Our country really needs something like this because our government is really slowly shifting to being a totalitarian fascist state.
And I just can't see us letting this continue this way without having some effective checks and balances.
What they call checks and balances now are a total failure.
The FISA court and the governments and branches of government who are supposed to do oversight of these agencies aren't really doing very well at all.
And you can easily see how mad members of those committees get when they don't get answers.
And the agencies are thumbing their nose at them, saying, what are you going to do about it?
Well, the point is they should go after them criminally.
If they're committing crimes, they should go after them criminally.
Like spying on the Trump campaign.
That was a crime, in my view.
That was a crime that should be prosecuted.
And that kind of activity could be picked up by this kind of program as they start to do it, as they're planning or whatever they're trying to set up to make it happen.
This program and this big group could pick that up as they started or as they're attempting to do it.
And it could also pick up all the corresponding communications related to setting it up between the people involved.
And then build a very strong case based on that for our court prosecution.
But in my mind, I think something like this needs to be responsible to report to all the branches of government.
And the reason I say that is because if you have it only reporting to one branch of government, like the FISA court, it's an Article II court.
It reports only to the government.
It doesn't go to the Branch III courts.
It doesn't go to the courts outside of that FISA court.
And that's because they're handling classification.
I think that court should be disbanded.
But this group would have to be reporting to the court system.
Either the Supreme Court sets up some means of accepting the reporting of this group or how they would like to do it.
And Congress needs to also have it at all the branches of Congress.
In Congress, all the committees and so on would need to have the corresponding reports coming from this group.
And, of course, the president and his cabinet, they all need to have knowledge of what's going on in their organization because sometimes they don't really know.
For example, most of Congress never understood that the NSA existed until 1975 in the Church Committee investigation.
When he was investigating NSA, CIA and FBI, a lot of Congress didn't even know that NSA as an organization existed.
This is the kind of secrecy that is conducive to corruption and conducive to sliding down a totalitarian state system.
That's what we've been doing since at least 2001 and probably even before that.
In the early days of 2006, The former CEO of Quest Corporation, Joe Naccio, was involved in being approached.
He said he was approached on the 27th of February of 2001, about six and a half months before 9-11.
By NSA personnel, asking him to transfer to them all of his data on all of his customers.
That's all U.S. citizens.
Now, that was a direct violation, in my view, of several things.
The Penn Register Law, Electronic Privacy Act, Electronic Security Act, and basically the fourth.
And it would get into the first, fourth, fifth, and sixth amendments of the Constitution.
And he refused unless they would give him a warrant signed by a judge, which was the law.
And instead, what they did was they went and eventually came back at him and got him and prosecuted him for a stock exchange of something like that and put him in jail for five years.
And he came out.
I talked to him.
He said they had framed him because they falsified evidence against him.
I believe that because they falsified evidence against me to try to put me in jail.
But I caught them at him.
He didn't.
This kind of organization absolutely has to exist.
If it doesn't, we're never going to change it, because once the Trump administration goes and the next administration comes in, they may or may not continue this.
So this whole group really has to be made permanent.
If it isn't made permanent, then there's no guarantee that these kinds of processes and insurance and the way of validating and reliably validating what these agencies are doing, it won't be there.
We will never have that unless we have a group of this nature.
So this is really my pitch for the Trump Organization, is they need to have something set up like this, make it permanent, and get it functioning to the point where people in the government, anywhere in any agency, cannot just simply willy-nilly transfer money to anybody they want or spend any amount they want with no accountability whatsoever, because they would be accountable for everything they do.
Every action they take, all the dollars they spend, everything.
If you had a group like this automating the analysis of the databases and the network logs, So that's my pitch here for today on how to fix the government and how the Trump administration really needs to do it.
Otherwise, putting people in at the top is going to do something.
That's a good step to get it all directed in the right direction, but the guarantee it's staying there Afterward, you have to have some, like an immune system, to make sure it continues after they leave.
If you don't do that, you don't have any guarantees on our freedoms for the future.
William, that is amazing.
Now, do you mind sticking around for about 15 or 20 minutes answering questions?
Because I've got five already, just for me alone, and I'm sure the audience has many as well.
So the first thing I'd like to ask you is, have you...
If you were approached by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, I think I'm saying that correctly, which they are proposing to do something very similar to what you're talking about, I think, would you work with them?
Short answer is yes, but I'm telling you, they're not talking about the automation of analysis.
That's the core of this.
If you can't automate the analysis of massive data and just data in general and transactional relationships and relationships of people, attributes and relationships, you're just buried in data.
You can't see it all.
I understand completely.
My next question is, do you think that the dark web is something we can ever get your proposals into to work to control the information going through the dark web, or should we even bother?
Does the dark web go across the net?
Yes.
Then the answer is yes.
Wow.
So you could, if you started an agency that all their job was to do was monitor the dark web and catch the bad guys, you could do it.
Yeah, but that's a fractional job.
That's a minimal job.
Okay.
I was told a long time ago you could never control the dark web.
And I said, well, you know, I don't think so.
I think that's a lie.
Are you talking about control it or monitoring it?
Monitoring it.
Yeah, yeah.
I don't think we can control it, but at least the NSA could be, I'm sure they're monitoring it now, don't you think?
Well, they're capturing it.
How well they're doing, I don't know, you know, because they don't have the automation processes that I was going to do, and I never left them with it because I didn't trust them after they started the 9-11 corruption.
Wow, okay.
I wasn't about to give them that because they could really put the screws to U.S. citizens with that stuff.
Wow, William, I never knew that.
That's fascinating.
Okay, next question.
Did you ever work with Snowden?
No.
Okay, he was after you?
Yeah.
Okay, got it.
Did you work with anybody like him?
Well, he, you know, he, of course, what he did, he did as a result of what happened to us.
Because what we did, you know, we complained to the proper channels according to Feinstein, which was the inspector generals and the intelligence committees.
We went through the proper channels and for that we got attacked by the FBI. They fabricated evidence against us.
They tried to put us in jail using the Espionage Act for three separate times.
And each and every time I found evidence to prove malicious prosecution on their part.
And on the third time, I just said, let's go to court because I'm going to charge you with malicious prosecution.
And they ran away.
Wow.
Amazing.
I wanted to ask Jim Fetzer.
One other thing I wanted to ask.
Oh, sure, sure.
Go ahead.
The programs that Snowden exposed were the design that I left them.
Oh, my God.
Oh, I never knew that.
Oh, my God.
That's like a total brain revelation.
Yeah, but that was, yeah.
And that's why it was so powerful.
Being a mathematician, I saw no mathematical limit to it.
Unbelievable.
Unbelievable.
Man, I'm just blown away.
They were misusing it.
That's why I stopped any sharing with them.
I could not share with these criminals once they started that.
But in my mind, they were treasonous against the founding principles of the nation.
Oh, absolutely.
Absolutely.
There isn't anything they're doing now, William, that isn't.
I'm telling you.
It's mind-boggling.
Every agency and every corner of every agency is compromised.
There's nothing and it's mind-boggling.
But your proposal could fix it.
I know that.
I know that because I've been in the computer industry a long time and I know exactly what it can do.
Oh, yeah, that was my other question.
I was thinking about this while you were talking.
Why aren't the guys in Silicon Valley doing what you're doing and taking care of this problem?
How well do they know analysis?
Well, a few of them do.
Down at Stanford, I know a couple guys that are pretty smart.
You know how Google started?
How?
Okay, here's the story on Google Start.
In August of 1998, my little team in NSA at the Signal Automation Research Center, SARC, we had developed the processing and reconstruction of fiber optic lines at fiber rates.
So we passed a copy of that code to our site in Bad Eibling, Germany, And said, why don't you guys try this, see what you think about this program, and give us some feedback, you know, a little testing, just do some testing and feedback.
Sure.
They put it online, and they loved it so much that they loaded up the entire site with it.
Now, what it did was, it then produced, it got everything, virtually everything, and then it went through their selection process, which was really crappy and still is, and it forwarded almost all of it back to NSA. So about 12 hours after they did that, we got a call to come into NSA to shut off their input because they're about to crash the entire system.
Now, that was August of 1998. In September of 1998, NSA and CIA went to the two guys in Stanford to do the same program.
That is, do a relational-based metadata indexed content management.
Correct.
Distributed storage interrogation system.
And that's exactly what Google is.
And those are the two guys that did Google.
That's how it started.
Wow!
So you basically started Google without knowing it.
Yeah.
There you go.
Well, internally in NSA, then they shut us down because we didn't, you know, they didn't want any competition.
I think I figured it was because they wanted to have very close relationship with Silicon Valley.
Well, of course, because, you know, they were doing all the spying for you, and the government was paying them off for plausible deniability.
Yeah, well, that's probably it.
And that's why they wanted us shut down.
But they never got the automated analysis, because once they started spying on every US citizen, I stopped sharing anything I was about to do with them.
Yeah, very gallant and very patriotic of you, I gotta say.
And I said to everyone, I'm out of here.
Yeah.
It took me two weeks to get out after I found out about it.
Wow, that's amazing.
We got a few questions from the audience, so let's start going there.
Would you talk about the current status of VIPs, Veteran Intelligent Professionals for Sanity?
That's your group, right?
Yeah, it's a group I belong to.
Ray McGovern founded it along with, I can't remember who else, but it's been around since 2003. And we've been picking at the government, telling them that they're being fed a bunch of crap by the intelligence agencies.
And we're basically...
We are sitting here, people who have, you know, 40, 35, 40 years in experience in the intelligence community are amazed at how much the intelligence community has fallen down into the crapper.
You know, they're producing garbage.
Or they're not producing anything.
What I'm worried about, William, is that they are producing, but it's in a deep, dark basement somewhere, and we're not privileged to it.
We just see the surface guys that are incompetent.
Yeah, well, no, trust me, they're incompetent down there too.
Okay, I believe you.
I do believe you.
Okay, so let's go on to another question.
Did you use an AS400 IBM system?
No, we were trying to remember what we used.
Intel 1750s or something like that.
Oh, yeah.
That rings a bell.
Yeah.
We stack them, you know?
Yeah.
I remember those.
I remember those days.
Yep.
And that's what we were doing back then.
That was the cheapest thing on the market we could get.
Oh, that's interesting.
The government will only buy you cheap, you know, products for you to produce the most amazing stuff in the world.
But we didn't care.
It worked.
Yeah, that's true.
As long as it works, that's important.
Oh, here's a comment from Renee.
She says, Bill Binney should be running DOGE or a similar mission.
Then the effect effort won't be wasted.
It would truly serve our nation.
So thank you for saying that, Renee.
I'm sure William's happy about that.
Okay, question.
Here we go.
RFK Jr. proposed putting all government spending on blockchain for all to see.
Agree with that?
Arg.
Why?
Why?
There's better ways to monitor it.
Oh, what are they?
Well, it's just a straightforward, if you are talking about, I don't talk too much about this, but if you're talking about encryption protection, it can be done in multi-dimensions.
It doesn't have to be done in single dimension.
So blockchain keeps it directed in a straight parallel event, and you could go ahead and it could be like a spider web.
Well, you know, you don't have to do all that crap, that's all.
I mean, there are simpler ways to do it.
Okay.
Okay.
Excellent.
And you can tell that to Elon Musk, okay, when I get you introduced to him.
Yeah, sure.
There we go.
Let's see if there's any other great questions here for you.
And if I don't have any more questions, you guys, I'm going to bring Jim Fetzer in because...
Oh, here's one more question for Monique.
She wants to know, can William give a tip on how to get my five-year...
YouTube account back.
It was terminated in 2021 for forewarning people about the COVID shot.
Maybe this has happened to others.
Half a decade of content is a lot to lose.
I can't even like a video any longer.
It's been four years.
Is she ever gonna see her content again, William?
I believe the people at YouTube for doing that kind of stuff about the COVID thing and everybody involved in that COVID should be permanently prosecuted.
Wow.
Excellent answer.
That's my view of it.
That's my view.
I mean, what they did was a crime.
They wouldn't allow doctors to provide effective medication against COVID. Yeah.
They directed them exactly how to do it.
So basically, they took doctors out of being practicing doctors.
They're not practicing.
They're just following orders.
Absolutely.
I believe those people should be prosecuted for that.
William, that brings me to another question.
Do you think we're ever going to get these prosecutions to happen?
What kind of governance will it take to get that to happen, these prosecutions?
Well, I mean, if Trump is really serious and he puts people in the FBI and the DOJ who are really serious to do this, then this could be done easily within the, as I say, within the databases the government already has.
Wow.
Okay.
Excellent answer.
I love it.
Does Mr. Binney have any views on blockchain?
Okay, we've already gone over that.
So that's, thank you for asking, Renee, but we already answered that question.
Anybody else got a question?
Okay, I don't see any more questions coming in.
Do you see any over there, Katherine?
Catherine's monitoring your chat, isn't she?
I'm here in the background.
Sorry, I'm tech support here.
Hi.
Hi, Catherine.
I'm going to be your host later today, so this will be fun.
I had, because I'm kind of here, the backup tech support.
I think two things I would like to add, because, I mean, I understand very much what Bill would like to do, because we talked about it in depth.
The one thing to understand is that our doge is really only set up for two years.
Until, you know, the 250th anniversary of independence.
And it's also very good that they do it like that because it forces results.
But the important difference is that that is about government waste.
What Bill and also I are proposing is the investigation of crime, with all the forensic bells and whistles that goes with it, that currently The FBI is tasked with investigating all crimes.
We need an agency that is tasked with specifically investigating just government crime, if you know what I mean.
That's the biggest difference.
Exactly.
I totally agree with both of you.
You're on the right track now.
If we can just get somebody to pay attention to the two of you that's in the Trump administration, then maybe we can get some results because I know you're both absolutely brilliant and you could solve a lot of our problems.
So I really appreciate that about both of you.
Jim, do you have any questions for William?
I'm wondering...
Katherine, you don't need to go away.
I'm here.
I'm sorry.
I'm finding out of the picture because I'm just hanging off the chair.
The second thing to understand really is...
The Snowden's whistleblowing allowed Bill to go public before he was only doing internal channels because Snowden's whistleblowing was about the programs that Bill designed, but what all we the people need to understand is that Bill designed those to monitor foreign, hostile militaries, not the American people and also not innocent people around the world.
Exactly.
That is a huge difference because right now I don't think Congress realizes that all of their communications are being recorded, including Trump's, and they are being shared fully openly with several thousand analysts.
In other countries also.
Yeah.
Absolutely.
Yeah.
And to get it going, you know, the original lie, they said you have to give up privacy for security.
That was a lie from the beginning.
And they knew it by our program internally in NSA. All right.
That was already known.
But they perpetrated that lie on everybody so they could collect everything and have power over everybody.
Yeah.
Pretty mind-boggling, isn't it?
It just blows the wheel away.
Okay, Jim!
Jim Fetzer's with us!
He's going to ask you guys questions!
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Bill, it seems to me that there was a giant leap forward in tyranny in America with the passage of the Patriot Act following 9-11.
Don't we need to go back and undo it?
Restore the independent agencies, which were competing with one another.
And as we all know, competing agencies are far more successful in faring out the truth than when you have a mammoth single voice speaking for them all, as we have with DHS today.
Yes, I think they should cancel all of that stuff because the laws at the time were adequate to do the job that was needed to be done.
They just wouldn't do it.
Yeah.
This is a bit of a different tack, but I thought Matt Gaetz was just a great choice.
He should have stood his ground and fought because I think he really would have done a lot of good for America.
And I just worry whether he was set up as a fall guy because the charges against him were relatively flimsy and they were, I thought, easily defensible against.
I was therefore very disappointed.
Yeah.
We probably couldn't come to his defense and, in fact, put in Pam Bondi.
I mean, Matt's is one of the only not-on-the-Israeli-lobby payroll, whereas Matt Bambandi, on the other hand, is a zealous Zionist, and I'm just very upset with this change.
One comment I have is, I looked into this and I suspect, as I understand, and I don't really like to look into people's private matters, but I think Matt Gaetz has a fairly young relationship of, I think, three years or something like that.
Going through with the hostile attacks when they try to smear you with certain allegations puts such an extraordinary strain on relationships.
That many do not withstand it.
And Matt Gaetz might have just taken basically his love over the job.
But remember, Jim, that just because he isn't the top guy doesn't mean that he can't be an investigator or prosecutor.
And that way he can come in through the back door and be just as destructive to the deep state.
They did the same thing to Julian Assange, you know.
Yes.
Yes, yes, yes.
It's a standard pattern of the intelligence communities to smear people.
Yes, yes, yes.
To the extent to which personnel is policy, I've been terribly troubled by some of these appointments he'd made.
I mean, I love Tulsi, RFK Jr. I thought Gantz would be fantastic.
But then we got Sebastian Gorka, and we got this guy, guess that, for defense, and we got Huckabee to be the ambassador.
I mean, These are inappropriate choices as I see it.
Do you share my concern about some of his appointees?
I really don't have a feeling one way or the other about them.
I just don't know enough about them.
Yeah.
I'm a mathematician, Jim.
I'm a mathematician.
That means numbers, letters, bits and bytes.
I don't go into it.
That's my wife's job.
She does that.
I do the sewage diving.
He's the archetypal beautiful mind who just does the high-level maths, and I do the sewage diving.
So I looked into his general surgeon, and I was terrified because his, or surgeon general rather, Because she was spouting, easily to debunk, scientific nonsense about masks and COVID. It was painful to watch, to the extent that if she came in and would do interviews entry-level at Oxford, my colleague and I would look at each other and just go, next!
But the thing is this, first of all, why the heck do we have a Surgeon General to start with?
What is their, you know, area of influence?
Of course, they can be weaponized, but they can also be completely harmless.
And, you know, some appointments might be just ornamental, you know, baubles being given out.
So we really have to go with it.
The one thing I would like, because Jim and I had this discussion before, he ends up in a tailspin easily, which is completely justifiable because we're all afraid that it's going to go down the drain because this is the only chance we have.
Of saving humanity and saving America.
So I understand it.
But Jim, remember, just sometimes you just have to really look at what Trump does and not exactly what he says because he has to pander to so many super powerful interest groups.
You know the ones I mean?
They are extremely suffocatingly powerful.
He has to appease them, make it good for them, and most importantly, he has to shut down the deep state and forge peace in the world.
That's really, I believe him when he says that he wants the dying to stop.
And he has delivered on that in the past.
So maybe we just have to hold on to and wait to see what he does before we freak out about sometimes what he says, you know?
Yeah, I agree with that, Catherine.
I mean, I've been so enthusiastic about it, but with qualifications, and I'm now worried that those qualifications are turning out to be serious ones.
Bill, I think it said it all when you took your transparency method, which was inexpensive and totally effective to your bosses, and said, we're not having any of that.
Yeah.
We don't want anyone to know what we're doing and where we're sending the money.
I mean, I think that's part of the reason that they're scared shitless over Trump.
They're afraid he's going to bring transparency to government and spoil their gravy tray.
Well, you see, that's what I'm proposing here is the mechanism to do it for the whole government.
Yeah, total transparency at a fraction of the cost.
I mean, it's brilliant.
It's so straightforward.
I love it.
This is wonderful.
One more footnote about Lorraine.
So she mentioned the blockchain and the public accounting.
I remind people, maybe they haven't heard about it, but Catherine Austin Fitz, many people come here with her.
She was the first one, the trailblazer, to introduce full public accounting.
That is the best solution to everything because the taxpayers have a right to know how their money is being spent.
And the best antidote to all this corruption is to have live, fully public databases on the accounting side.
When Catherine Austin Fitz wanted to implement it, she was famously mocked by one of her Wall Street colleagues who said, why the heck would I want to know if my local council spends $2 on a pencil instead of $1.50?
Well, when she made that system live in the very county that colleague lived, he called her to his credit and said, holy shit, I just realized that our water processing, our water treatment plant was costing $43 million.
For a town that size, there was clearly corruption.
So it should have cost two million and the rest was going heck knows where.
So as soon as you have this public accounting, a lot of the swamp will drain itself because also the most important lever From a systems analysis point of view is to unleash we the people, so the 340 million people on this tiny government system.
If you make it open and you give people avenues to litigate, you unleash packs of hounds.
And they will help Trump drain the deep state.
What Bill is talking about is the automation at a very high level that's in addition to this public accounting.
Public accounting can be done without blockchain.
The arguments are all on his side.
There's no question about if you believe in integrity in government.
Now, if you want to continue to run corrupt acts, you're going to be opposed to it.
Absolutely.
My final question is, do the two of you share my concern about a digital currency?
Because it seems to me the ultimate form of enslavement.
It's a hackable currency, Jim.
But here's what people don't understand.
I know Trump got lobbed in last minute.
I found out that Trump's a great fan of Dave Ramsey, and I would just encourage To listen to Dave Ramsey about cryptocurrencies.
And I would like to add one thing.
I know Trump's sons like it.
It's cool.
It's fancy.
It promises them to make a lot of money.
I will predict that sooner or later his sons will lose their shirts over this.
But it doesn't matter because his sons have a lot of shirts.
But the thing is, if the average American gets into this, it can wipe them out.
Now, the point you have to know is that Cryptocurrencies in a vacuum where they are the first currencies you set up might just work if you have high integrity in the system, but they are set up to fail when you create these cryptocurrencies in the already existing environment of a global banking crime cartel that controls the financial volume because people go in and do a pump and dump scheme on this microcurrency.
They have the volume, they have the weight.
And the other point is what's backing them.
Yeah, exactly.
You know what it is?
It's the old savings and loans scandal in digital.
I worry about the politicalization of our ordinary access to money because if we get on the wrong list, they cut us off.
I think it's the ultimate form of control politically.
Also, the equivalent to cryptocurrencies in this blockchain, there was already a precedent which was the onion routing system.
It was this alternative onion-routed internet.
Now there, there was an already existing cartel that moved in and did exactly the same that I think the banking crime cartel would do.
Back then, it was the NSA. It just took over the majority of the servers and then controlled the onion routing system.
It can do the same thing with blockchain because blockchain has a sort of majority vote to level out errors.
Now, if you control silently, covertly through a vast network of front organizations, these servers, you can set people's balances to zero by community agreement.
You will be wiped out with no recourse.
They used to talk about Brad and Angelina as being the ultimate cobble in my opinion.
It's Bill and Catherine.
I'm so thrilled to have you here today.
One last question for you, William.
You will fix the voting if you get in to help out, right?
If they want to do it.
Okay.
All the states have to agree to that too, you know.
Well, that was part of my question was, how can we get the federal election process, the part that has to do with federal, away from the state and make it centralized?
And let the states worry about their own elections.
We probably could do something of that nature by requiring it to be monitored centrally.
It's a federal election, right?
Correct.
All the others, we could say, you want to do something different than that, you go ahead, but this stuff has to be done centrally.
Correct.
Yeah, see, that's the problem.
Yeah, go ahead, Catherine.
It would have to be legislated, though.
It would have to be passed by the...
Sure.
...and everything, so...
Yeah.
I have a systems analysis way using exactly the sort of...
I call it system judo, where you use the weight of the system itself to topple it.
If you make the exact way of how each vote was counted available for inspection to we the people, you can drain a lot of fraud.
For example, there's absolutely nothing preventing us from So when you vote, you take the original with you home.
It has a serial number and the voting station makes a physical copy of it onto the same safety paper as the original vote and automatically uploads anonymously.
So you bundle 100, 500 votes anonymously to a website and then the website would show The scanned copy and how it was counted, Democrat, Republican, and the serial number.
So if you go home, you could look up your serial number, along with all the others, add up the counts yourself, and then also see, has my vote actually counted as Republican, Democrat, Independent, whatever?
Because we had several cases in our local community where people were not sure how it was counted.
Exactly.
Are you guys familiar with Clint Curtis, the whistleblower from 2002 that was the programmer in Florida that is now, he changed how Germany votes.
They do it all by paper now.
William, I think you and Clint could create a digital paper version of all this and you guys could take over the federal voting process.
Just the two of you.
That's all we need.
We don't need any more money.
We can do Listen, we got a couple out here asking, are there ways they can make their cell phones and computers more confidential?
It seems to be spyware is everywhere.
You got to take for granted.
Nothing is private anymore.
No, because all of the companies building those systems are in bed with the intelligence agencies.
They give them access, and here's the operating system.
Oh, we'll put this little weakness in.
We just got to accept that as the fact of the matter and live accordingly.
Thank you, guys.
You're wonderful, wonderful, wonderful.
Thank you both.
▲
Export Selection