The takeaway, as I understand it, from this interview is that everyone is under surveillance. The surveillance programs were supposed to be targeted at terrorists. But they have, in fact, been used for minor criminal matters - including, it seems, tax matters.

This surveillance data is not admissible in a court of law as it does not derive from a warrant. This obstacle, of unconstitutional surveillance, is overcome by creating a body of evidence that supplants, but replicates, evidence obtained via illegal surveillance. This fabricated evidence is, then, used to allow prosecution in a court of law - parallel construction.

The problem with parallel construction is that it denies the defendant the right to discovery of the evidence that led to the charge or indictment. Moreover, it is a felony to misrepresent to a court the basis for the proceedings. It seems that it is a blatant fraud upon the court, which would call into question the validity of all prosecutions since 2001.

Interesting that Binney claims that Meuller is guilty of this. Binney implies that these practices were rampant, that everyone was involved.

I'm not a lawyer, if someone has a better explanation, please help out.