04/15/16 – Peter Van Buren – The Scott Horton Show

You hate government?
One of them libertarian types?
Or maybe you just can't stand the president, gun grabbers, or warmongers.
Me too.
That's why I invented libertystickers.com.
Well, Rick owns it now, and I didn't make up all of them, but still.
If you're driving around and want to tell everyone else how wrong their politics are, there's only one place to go.
Libertystickers.com has got your bumper covered.
Left, right, libertarian, empire, police, state, founders, quote, central banking.
Yes, bumper stickers about central banking.
Lots of them.
And, well, everything that matters.
Libertystickers.com.
Everyone else's stickers suck.
All right, y'all.
Scott Horton Show.
I'm him.
Check out scotthorton.org.
Sign up for the podcast feed there.
And follow me on Twitter, at Scott Horton Show.
Introducing Peter Van Buren, former State Department official, and was stationed in Iraq, and wrote the book, We Meant Well.
That's also the name of his blog.
WeMeantWell.com is the address there.
He's also the author of the book, Ghosts of Tom Jode.
And being a former State Department official, and very familiar with the rules and regulations concerning the keeping of secrets in the executive branch, especially foreign policy departments, Peter has been writing lately about the Hillary email scandal.
And I think I can speak for most of us when I say, hey, what about all those Libyans that she butchered and that kind of thing?
Yeah, no, of course, I'm totally with you.
And we cover that all the time.
This seems to pale in comparison, maybe.
But Peter Van Buren, I believe he would have us consider this to be somewhat important.
Is that right, Peter?
Welcome to the show.
Thank you very much, Scott.
It's always a pleasure to be back with you.
You know, I think it is very important.
I don't think that, you know, we need to rank everything that Hillary has done wrong.
First of all, we don't have time to make the whole list.
That's true.
You know, it's very hard to say, geez, was Libya better or worse than Syria?
And was the use of the Clinton Foundation to funnel money better or worse than the double employment of Huma Abedin for both the State Department and the Clintons personally?
I mean, the ranking is not really where we need to spend our energy.
What we need to spend our energy on is understanding who Hillary Clinton is and to take her past record, which is decades long, and apply that against what type of president she might be.
And in that sense, the way that she handled classified information offers a lot of insights into her as a person, her as a leader, and her judgment.
Let me walk you through it, if I can, and please interrupt as you wish.
Because this is not a matter of some of the defenses that Hillary has been evolving over the past year and couple of months.
And I do say evolving because they do keep changing as new information becomes available.
But it's not just a matter of squeezing through loopholes in the law or trying to parse out technicalities.
The very basic idea is that we are a nation of laws.
And no one is supposed to be above that law.
The president, the secretary of state, and on down.
And an individual, in this case Hillary, who considers herself above that law is not the kind of person you'd like to put in the White House, where she would have even more authority, even more power.
We know what happens when presidents consider themselves above the law.
You get Watergate, you get black ops, you get drone killings, and things like that.
The law says that some information that the government produces is classified.
And the law is voluminous and very specific on these types of issues.
We can certainly argue whether some of that law makes sense.
We can argue whether over classification is a part of government.
And it certainly is.
There's no questions about that.
But what you can argue about is that unless and until those rules change, if you are willing to accept a security clearance and work for the government, you are either bound by these rules or you have to accept the consequences, such as whistleblowers do, of putting those rules aside.
What you can't do is break the rules, amend them for your personal convenience, and then say, well, nothing bad is going to come of this because I happen to be more special than you.
All right, now more facts in a second.
But I have to tell you, it sounds like, because we are talking about someone who's running for president here.
This is more than a legal question.
It is a political question of whether we're going to make the country go through this or whatever kind of thing, the way that they would frame it.
And it does sound like what you're saying is, yeah, it's a technicality, but it's one that I swear by and I think that she should still be held to.
But you almost sound like you're conceding that maybe there's nothing important in there.
Maybe that if Manning had leaked what she stored unsecurely, maybe we would be championing the leak at that point or whatever.
You know what I'm saying?
I do.
But I'm not sure I'm ready to agree.
First, first of all, neither of us have seen the highly classified things that Hillary has allowed to travel over unclassified means.
They're secret.
We're not allowed to see them.
So in terms of actually judging what is or isn't in there, we're not able to look at it ourselves.
And if Hillary had, for example, decided to go completely whistleblower and get this material out there the way that Chelsea or Ed Snowden has done, good for her and good for our country.
But as a whistleblower, you stand ready to take the consequences of your actions.
That's part of your decision to become a whistleblower is the courage to take the hits that follow it.
If you don't have the courage, then you tend to kind of go along with the system.
I think what we're focusing on here is not the near impossibility that Hillary Clinton will become a whistleblower, but the reality that she found herself inside of a system that she swore to uphold and decided at some point for her personal convenience, it simply wasn't worth the trouble of upholding.
And as such, thumbed her nose or perhaps that middle finger to the people who try to do the right things with the system, to the people who accepted consequences as whistleblowers, and to the many, many, many lower ranking people whose jobs were harmed, whose careers were harmed by lesser actions than Hillary herself took, including prosecuting people for things that even if the things they did were true, and even if what she did was true, are eons below what she did.
It talks about someone who says a different standard applies to her.
It talks about someone who says, because I'm powerful, I make the rules that apply to me.
And none of that says I want that person in the White House.
Now, let's drill it down a little bit and focus, for example, on over-classification.
Because our leader, the great leader, Barack Obama, over the weekend did an interview where he said, well, there's classification and there's classification, implying that somehow some stuff that is classified, you know, is more classified than others.
I don't know exactly what he meant, because there is nothing in the law that says what he said.
The idea he was implying is that there is over-classification, and that when Hillary confronted this over-classification and treated it differently, eh, it's just no big deal, no blood, no foul.
Maybe.
The idea would be that as Secretary of State, Hillary encountered two forms of classified material.
That generated by the State Department, her own agency, and that generated by other parts of the government, like the CIA or the NSA.
If she felt something that was over-classified, that originated in the State Department, she, in fact, had the authority to unclassify it or lower the classification.
She could do that.
She didn't do it.
She just spewed this stuff out through her server, because that's the most convenient thing for her.
The other problem about declassifying or lowering a classification is that there are procedures.
The Secretary of State can order it, but there's a series of procedures that follow that, which I'm happy to go into, having run through it myself.
But that creates a paper trail, it creates a record, and if you do declassify something in the end, then you have to be willing to release it to the public.
Hillary didn't do any of those things.
If the information originates outside of the State Department, in this case, Hillary does not have the authority to declassify it, but she does have the authority to request a review of the classification from the originating agency, the CIA, the NSA, what have you.
And she didn't do it.
In addition, Barack Obama, as the President, has the authority to request the declassification of anything that's produced by the government, and he never did that with anything that might have been overclassified and used by Clinton.
John Kerry, who's the current Secretary of State, has the authority to declassify or lower the classification of anything that Hillary dealt with that she felt might have been overclassified.
And he hasn't.
So the bottom line here is it's all well and good for Hillary to kind of laugh off some of this and say, oh, if you could see this stuff, you'd laugh, why was it classified?
But in fact, she had the authority, she had the opportunity to declassify it or lower the classification, and she didn't do it.
And that raises real, real questions about the overclassification defense.
I realize we're drilling down here a little bit, but in fact, the details do matter.
And that's why I'm trying to pass on the knowledge I gained having had a security clearance for 24 years.
All right, and yeah, I'm interested in if you want to go over the other defenses too.
I want to hear basically everything that you have to say about this.
But let me ask you and get back to the point about the defense here.
You say there's no difference.
You know, there's classified and then there's classified.
Well, that's true, right?
There's confidential and then there's secret and then there's top secret.
And then I guess there's above top secret, whatever they want to call that.
But what you're saying is the law doesn't differentiate between, oh, you can pretty much leak confidential and secret stuff, just not the top secret.
We know that Bradley Manning or Chelsea Manning is doing 35 years in the brig right now for all confidential and secret level.
That's correct.
Information, right?
Yep.
Okay.
And then the other thing is I wanted to ask you about is Judge Napolitano keeps mentioning that there's a young man who took a selfie on a submarine to send to his girlfriend that has an out of focus radar screen in the background, blam to the brig with him.
There's another guy on a base in Afghanistan who said, oh no, and emailed his commanders that there's an infiltrator inside the Afghan police or soldier on our base.
And, but he sent it over Gmail and he was right.
And it was, and it saved lives possibly, but he sent it over Gmail accidentally, blam to the brig because accidentally, or I was trying to save the world or anything like that is not allowed as a defense.
A reason is not allowed as a defense period on espionage charges.
Is that correct?
Yeah.
Let me, let me walk you through that.
Cause you've raised a number of very important points.
The first is just for a people's knowledge stuff above top.
There are, there are basic three levels of classification.
Well, unclassified confidential secret, top secret.
There are a lot of pseudo classifications like sensitive, but unclassified that are not really codified.
And then above top secret, you get into a whole alphabet soup.
Generally, they're called special access programs, SAPs, and they're designated by, by various, what they call handling indicators, such as we've seen them on the Snowden documents, for example, no foreign, which means no foreigners under any circumstances can see this even, you know, close partners like the British.
And that's what you get above top secret.
But back to the idea that classified is classified.
The idea would be that if it's classified, you're not allowed to discuss it or push it out through unclassified channels.
End of story.
The degree of classification can come into play in the sentencing phase of these things or the punishment phase of these things, you know, for, for regular small time stuff.
You know, for example, I accidentally leave out a confidential document on my desk.
It's, it's found by the Marine Security Guard.
It's very old information.
I'll get punished, but I may not be thrown into Leavenworth for 20 years over that.
I may lose a day's pay.
So the idea is you still can't leak it, lose it, send it out there.
But in the punishment phase of things, the system is allowed to sort of take a look at what you have let out.
But that said, these defenses become very, very important.
Well, they seem pretty merciless in their prosecution of the guy that sent the selfie with an out of focus radar screen in the background and that kind of thing, right?
And that...
Mens rea, man.
That comes into that, that this, the radar screen thing is, is up to, for example, the Navy decided, I'm sure they wanted to make an example of this guy and say, stop taking selfies inside submarines.
And so, you know, they wanted to throw him away so that everybody else stopped taking selfies.
Chelsea Manning, of course, pissed them off royally and nobody wanted to see her do get anything but as much punishment as they thought they could get away with.
Because again, they wanted to send this very strong message that soldiers who act on conscience don't get a break.
The thing, going back to Hillary, and she has raised and her buddy there, Barack Obama, have raised a number of pseudo defenses.
For example, Barack Obama specifically said on his interview on Sunday that he doesn't believe Hillary, whatever she did, caused any harm to national security.
Hillary's staff, I don't think she's actually said it herself, but her staff has said, well, there's no evidence that anything she might have sent unclassified ever reached the hands of anybody else.
And those are not valid defenses.
You're not allowed, particularly under the Espionage Act, which is the most draconian of the laws that can be applied here and what put Chelsea Manning in jail, what Edward Snowden will be charged with if he returns to the United States.
You're not allowed to defend yourself by explaining your reasons.
You're not allowed to defend yourself by arguing no harm was done.
And you're not allowed to defend yourself by saying there's no evidence that the bad guys got a hold of it.
This was one of the crucial points in the Manning trial was that she was not allowed to argue those points.
And this is one of the key points that Snowden makes about why he doesn't feel he can get a fair trial in the United States, because he will not be allowed to say any of these things in his defense.
And of course, Hillary Clinton has said, oh, he should come home and face the music and make his whistleblower defense in court like a real man.
And of course, that's not true.
He would not be allowed to do that.
In fact, in an espionage trial like this, the government is allowed to seal as much of the trial as they wish.
And if you recall back with the Manning trial, there were huge fights with the press trying to gain access to the court hearings, trying to be allowed to see more of the documentation and things like that.
And the government simply threw the cone of silence on it when they wanted to do so.
With Snowden, given the extremely high level classifications, I doubt any of his trial would be available to the public.
So the Hillary defenses are not.
She is simply manipulating a gullible public who is unwilling or uninterested in understanding how classification inside the government actually works.
And with an evil hat tip to her, she's been very, very successful at manipulating that gullible public.
And of course, the mainstream media, which is what makes you shows like you're so much more important.
OK, but I think you missed or you skipped what to me sounds like the most convincing argument, which is all this stuff was retroactively classified.
Go digging through my emails and find things that now you wish was classified going to prosecute me for that.
Give me a break.
This is like the fake Benghazi scandal.
Well, I know a little bit about retroactive classification in that it was vaguely applied to me in my own at the end of my career with the federal government.
But more importantly, retroactive classification and of course, Hillary and Obama damn well know this for better or worse is, in fact, something the government is allowed to do.
There was a that that was actually tested as high as the Supreme Court in a case, Robert McLean versus the United States.
McLean was a TSA air marshal who made public unclassified information as a whistleblower.
And it was after that information embarrassed TSA in the public forum.
TSA retroactively classified it and then fired McLean for releasing quote unquote classified information.
And he was a he actually successfully sued TSA for his job.
But in the process of going through the long court process, which ran all the way to the Supreme Court, the courts consistently affirmed the concept and the legality of retroactive classification.
So whatever Hillary thinks she's talking about, she knows better.
Why is it a fact that all of it is retroactively classified only?
Well, no, I don't think that's true at all.
So keep in mind that classification is based on the content of the information itself, the markings, such as a big red.
It's not a big red stamp, but I mean, you know, like in the movies, a big red stamp that says secret on top of the document.
The markings themselves are only there as kind of a convenience.
I mean, a way of alerting you without any subtlety that you're dealing with classified documents.
So you don't throw it into the trash can at the bus stop.
You know, it's you can't miss that.
But the thing is that the content of the document is what controls this.
And Hillary Clinton, both with her decades of government experience and her legal role as the highest classification authority in the Department of State, darn well is in a position to know what is classified and has an obligation to act accordingly.
I think we've offered this example before.
You're walking down the street and you pick up a paper off the ground.
It's quote, unquote, unmarked.
But it has a list of all the CIA covert operatives with their code names and then their real names.
It would not take a very bright person to figure out that's highly classified information.
In Hillary's case, all of the stuff that was sent and received by her had been stripped of any markings within the State Department.
Every document is is required to have a classification marking on it, even if that marking is unclassified.
Again, we're talking with Peter Van Buren, who worked for the State Department for 20 something years there.
OK, sorry.
Sorry.
And so, you know, the idea of doing that is to make sure there's no ambiguity about the document that's in your hand.
Oh, it's unclassified, says so right here.
In Hillary's case, all of the markings, whether they were unclassified or marked top secret or whatever, all of the markings were stripped off.
Nothing that went through her server that has been made public has had any markings on it.
And so, again, the argument that, well, none of the material was marked classified that she's made is, of course, disingenuous.
In addition, like I said, with her decades of experience and her legal role as a senior classification authority at the State Department, she had more than an obligation.
She had a legal responsibility to look into the content of the material itself.
Well, if they had no markings on them at all, that certainly implies that they were tampered with before they were sent on her own server or to her own browser.
We've got a winner here, Scott Horton.
Thank you very much.
You've won the prize today.
Exactly.
Well, you told me that in the last interview.
Well, even so, we can share the prize.
But no, that's the whole point here.
Stuff was manipulated to allow her to send it through her unclassified server to create the illusion that she was not violating national security law.
And there even is one email that has been released that says, hey, just go ahead, quit complaining and strip the markings off of it and send it over the unsecure fax.
That's right.
That's one of the so-called smoking guns, which many people pretend don't exist.
You can't get any more blatant than that.
And you talked before in the last interview, I think specifically you were saying that some of these documents, at least according to the leaks from the FBI to the media anyway, some of these documents being classified by other agencies such as the CIA could only have been basically copied.
They couldn't have been copied and pasted over.
They would have had to have been copied, typed over by one of her underlings, reading the classified system and then typing over what they're reading into the unclassified system in order to send it to her.
Yeah, physically, that's the only way to do this.
There is no physical, electronic, mechanical network link between the class and the unclass systems.
In theory, there's not supposed to be an active copying device like a USB port or anything on a classified machine.
And so basically what you've got is, but the two machines can sit physically next to each other on your desk.
In fact, in most state department offices that have access, that's what you do.
One's colored red and one's colored green, so you know.
And the idea is that that's what these people were doing.
They were retyping information or paraphrasing information from one system to the other because Hillary didn't want to be bothered with the encumbrances of using the classified system.
She wanted the convenience of having her BlackBerry and her iPad and whatever other devices she was using.
And that meant that her staff had to accommodate her by doing all this retyping.
And on the substance of some of this stuff, you say, again, it's not the markings, whether it's marked or not, you know, from the substance of the thing.
Again, according to the leaks of the FBI, which are worth whatever people think they're worth, depending on which issue we're talking about, I guess.
But they say some of them weren't even allowed to see the evidence.
They had to get higher levels of clearance in order to even see the data.
At least one of the leaks, Peter, said that it was satellite photos of a North Korean nuclear facility.
That sounds like top secret material to me.
Or higher, actually.
Is that the kind of thing that the FBI would have had, that these, what, counterintelligence agents would have to get higher levels of clearance to see?
Oh, absolutely.
I mean, it's not hard to imagine that a run-of-the-mill FBI agent does not have the same levels of access that the Secretary of State does.
In particular, things like, you know, you hear the word sources and methods kicked around a lot.
Well, satellite photos are, in fact, a source and a method.
You and I can speculate, you know, from a satellite in the air, what can they see?
How much detail can they see?
How granular are the images?
Can they see through clouds?
Can they see at night?
I mean, you know, these kind of things.
Some of this we know, some of which we kind of guess from watching TV.
But if you can have access to those photos, you know exactly what the United States is capable of doing.
That is extremely protected information.
Because if you know that, then if you're the bad guys and you learn that kind of information, you know exactly how to counter what the United States can do.
You hold that stuff very tightly.
Okay, now, before I get to my last questions, I interrupted you a few times.
I want to make sure that you covered all the bases you wanted to make sure to cover.
I did.
I think the kind of broad message I'd like to send to people is, A, don't be fooled by all this talk about details of legality and loopholes and all that, because it's very distracting.
It takes you off.
Think, focus on the question of judgment.
Focus on the question of, is this a person that you want handling America's most sensitive information?
At the same time, don't be afraid to educate yourself on this and dive into some of the details.
Because in fact, once you scrape the surface and look at what everyone with a classification knows, you realize that the defenses that Hillary has put forth are paper thin at best.
And if you educate yourself, you start to understand what's really going on here.
And if you don't get distracted, then you start to understand why it all matters.
Right.
Okay, now I want to get back to politics and power.
This lady's the front runner for the Democratic Party's nomination to be president of the United States of America right now.
And this goes for, I guess, other than espionage charges, this goes for most government employees.
And they can do whatever they want and break whatever law they feel like.
But Hillary Clinton, above all of them, is, you know, it's true.
It's not just her attitude.
It's a fact that the law can't touch her unless, you know, it was a completely private crime committed off the clock.
She strangled the maid or something like that.
But any crime committed on the job by her, she has total immunity and impunity, de facto and de jure and all kinds of other things.
All your kind of, you know, very realistic and legal arguments notwithstanding there.
And so, but what I wonder is, do you think the FBI is really going after her?
Because I'm getting a lot of mixed signals.
Like they have extradited this Romanian hacker that got into Sid Blumenthal's emails, right?
And they've given immunity to the guy that installed the server.
They, I believe, have been questioning other of her staffers.
Oh, and then this is the big point, is there's the gigantic lie that we haven't even touched this whole time in this interview, which is that half the emails she tried to delete.
But the FBI says they have them.
And she tried to claim 30,000 of them were private.
And many of them, for example, with her husband, who admits he's only been on the internet twice in his life, only sent one email, I think it was.
So we know she's lying about that.
And I think we can infer pretty honestly that that's why it's not just convenience, as you've been saying.
It's not that you're trying to deny this.
I don't mean to say it like that, but it's not just her convenience, but it's the fact that she knew that she wanted to be able to obstruct justice later and go back and delete whatever she wanted on a server that was under her control, because she knew that as Secretary of State, she was going to be doing lots and lots of horrible things to lots of helpless, innocent people, and that we might have a problem with it.
And so that's my thing.
Is there an obstruction charge there on the deleting of the 30,000?
And do you think that the FBI is really trying to, you know, get their bosses to get the DOJ to throw together a grand jury and do anything about this?
The obstruction thing certainly is looming out there, depending on what is in those 30,000 emails and how many of them actually are official.
You know, if it's a relatively small number and they're not so significant, I'm sure there's sort of a Hillary-like defense.
Her and Huma emailing back and forth about their hairstyles or what?
30,000?
I don't believe it.
Oh, no, no.
But I mean, I'm sure there's a potential defense of, hey, everybody makes mistakes.
It's not very significant.
You know, hey, asking about whether, you know, we should leave for Cairo at 9 o'clock or 10 o'clock.
You know, I guess it's official, but so what?
You know, potentially there.
But I mean, obviously, if there's some real substantive stuff in there, there's questions of obstruction.
As far as running the server to hide stuff, sure, I mean, that's part of this question of, is this the person you want in the White House?
There's also potentially some actionable stuff in there about violating the FOIA and government transparency laws.
I mean, I'm trying to make sure this stuff was not discoverable or made available to the public.
That's all in there.
You know, the FBI question is obviously the magic one here, Scott, because the FBI knows this stuff.
They don't need to be educated on how classification works.
They know all that.
They know where the laws appear to have been broken, and they have what sounds like most or all of the evidence in their hands.
They've given immunity to her administrator.
They've got the hacker who actually busted into some form of her system.
And the NSA, I'm sure, has taps that suggest that the Russians or the Chinese or the Israelis or the Mongolians, you know, have been reading her material that, you know, there's a chunk of the government who knows exactly what happened.
In the end of the day, of course, this is all about politics, and all that information is eventually going to fall on Barack Obama's desk, and Barack Obama is going to have to figure out what he can do about it.
And I suspect his calculation is more of what is the minimum I think I can get away with here.
He's, you know, it's kind of a tough thing.
I mean, it's easy to say, oh, he'll let her go, because he probably will, at least Hillary.
But, I mean, he's a guy who right now is all worried about his legacy and history and all that other stuff that old guys sometimes worry about.
And to simply kind of say, well, nothing really happened here.
It's over.
Thanks, everybody.
Good work.
Go home.
It's going to be a lot of pressure on him.
In addition, if we assume that the intelligence agencies and the FBI are really as pissed at her as they are, and I know that first from just some casual information I'm hearing, talking to people who, you know, were on the inside or are on the inside, and second, because I know those agencies take this stuff super seriously, you know, the classified stuff.
Again, right or wrong, different argument, but these guys live it.
You know, the possibility that even if Obama says, nothing happened here.
Thanks, everybody.
That some of this information will leak prior to the election.
I think there's a very real possibility.
In addition, it'll be a little bit late, but if we get as far as Hillary being elected, you know darn straight that this stuff, the day after she's sworn in, the Republicans are going to be holding hearings, looking at impeachment.
All this information is going to be piled up on some committee's desk, and we're not done with this.
So one way or the other, I think there's going to be some reckoning.
The question really is, how much and aimed at who?
Now, I don't want to sound, you know, naive and silly or anything like that.
I know the rules aren't necessarily the rules, but it doesn't really go to the president's desk, does it?
It goes to Loretta Lynch's desk, and he doesn't have direct legal command over the Department of Justice.
He has a hell of a lot of influence when he goes on TV and makes his wishes well known, but that's not exactly the same thing.
Absolutely, Scott, you're right.
Now, I live in New York, and we have this wonderful Brooklyn Bridge here, which I can tell you, just between us, is for sale right now to you.
I'll trade you some swampland for it.
Very special prices.
Look, anybody who thinks, you know, in reality Barack Obama isn't going to be the decision maker on this, I wonder what gravity is like on their home planet.
One way or the other, he's obviously going to be the one who makes this call, because quite literally, this could determine who the next president of the United States is.
I'm almost certain, one way or the other, this is going to dramatically influence this election, right up to the point of really saying whether Hillary's going to get elected or not.
It is a giant, giant decision, and there's no way in hell anybody below Obama is going to take that decision without him.
Yeah.
Well, you know, I think it could be a real riot, as you're saying, once the FBI guys, you know, are told officially that it's definitely not going any further than it's already gone, and they start really spilling their guts to the Washington Times and all that kind of thing.
It's going to be a riot, all right.
I hope, maybe we could even get a Saturday evening massacre out of it, what do you think?
You know, like a lot of mass resignations, even at the DOJ, a couple resignations maybe?
Oh my God, I'd love that.
What I'd really love, however, is for a whole bunch of the investigative documents that come out of this to pop up on Wikileaks one day.
Absolutely.
Boy, and I can think of some more while we're at it, but we better stop right there.
Fair enough.
Thanks very much, Peter.
Great to talk to you again.
Plenty to talk about in the future, Scott.
Happy to be back next time.
Absolutely, appreciate you.
Take care, please.
All right, y'all, that's Peter Van Buren, formerly with the State Department, wrote a book about his time in Iraq called We Met Well.
That's also the name of his blog, wemetwell.com.
He also wrote the book Ghosts of Tom Joad.
And this article is also copied over on the blog at antiwar.com as well.
Does overclassification matter with the Hillary emails?
And hey, y'all, make sure to go to scotthorton.org and sign up for both podcast feeds.
I'll be doing some Just Me stuff on what's called the full show feed, what used to be the full show feed.
But the interviews are all still going at scotthorton.org slash interviews and on that feed.
So make sure you sign up for both of them.
I haven't been doing very much Just Me stuff.
Been hard at work on the book.
You'll be pleased to know, maybe.
But I will be doing some.
So you want to definitely subscribe to those.
Also stop by scotthorton.org slash donate if you want to find out, one, how to advertise on this show.
Always need new advertisers.
If you want to be an advertiser, I'll cut you a real good deal.
And also all the various different ways that you can help support the show and keep it going.
Thanks very much.
See you next time.
Hey, I'll check out the audio book of Lou Rockwell's Fascism vs.
Capitalism, narrated by me, Scott Horton at audible.com.
It's a great collection of his essays and speeches on the important tradition of liberty.
From medieval history to the Ron Paul revolution, Rockwell blasts our status enemies, profiles our greatest libertarian heroes, and prescribes the path forward in the battle against Leviathan.
Fascism vs.
Capitalism by Lou Rockwell for audio book.
Find it at Audible, Amazon, iTunes, or just click in the right margin of my website at scotthorton.org.
Hey, I'm Scott Horton here.
It's always safe to say that one should keep at least some of your savings and precious metals as a hedge against inflation.
And if this economy ever does heat back up and the banks start expanding credit, rising prices could make metals a very profitable bet.
Since 1977, Roberts and Roberts Brokerage, Inc.has been helping people buy and sell gold, silver, platinum, and palladium.
And they do it well.
They're fast, reliable, and trusted for more than 35 years.
And they take Bitcoin.
Call Roberts and Roberts at 1-800-874-9760 or stop by rrbi.co.
Hey y'all, Scott Horton here.
Are you a libertarian and or a peacenik?
Live in North America?
If you want, you can hire me to come and give a speech to your group.
I'm good on the terror war and intervention, civil liberty stuff, blaming Woodrow Wilson for everything bad in the world, Iran, central banking, political realignment, and well, you know, everything.
I can teach markets to liberals and peace to the right.
Just watch me.
Check out scotthorton.org slash speeches for some examples and email me scott at scotthorton.org for more information.
See you there.