Sorry, I'm late.
I had to stop by the Wax Museum again and give the finger to FDR.
We know Al-Qaeda, Zawahiri, is supporting the opposition in Syria.
Are we supporting Al-Qaeda in Syria?
It's a proud day for America.
And by God, we've kicked Vietnam syndrome once and for all.
Thank you very, very much.
I say it, I say it again, you've been had.
You've been took.
You've been hoodwinked.
These witnesses are trying to simply deny things that just about everybody else accepts as fact.
He came, he saw, he died.
We ain't killing they army, but we killing them.
We be on CNN like, say our name, bitch, say it, say it three times.
The meeting of the largest armies in the history of the world.
Then there's going to be an invasion.
Alright, you guys on the line.
Again, I've got Daniel Lazar.
And he's again writing for ConsortiumNews.com and again on Russiagate and the Mueller Report.
This one is called Top Ten Questions about the Mueller Report.
Welcome back to the show.
How are you doing?
I'm fine, Scott.
How are you?
I'm very good.
Very happy to have you on the show here.
And very happy to have you focused on this story still.
People are getting bored and turning away and looking at other stuff since it all turned out to not be anything.
But there is something behind where this all began and what it's all really all about.
Bob Perry's dead.
Somebody's got to do it.
And it's you.
And you're doing a great job on this thing.
So thank you for that.
Thank you.
But it's not dead.
The fun is just beginning.
Really.
This story is blowing up.
It's now what do you want to call it?
Spygate or Muellergate or the hell you want to call it.
It is a really big story.
CIA, FBI, Putschgate.
That's not a very good one, is it?
Nobody likes that one.
Well, anyway.
Go ahead.
Tell us.
I mean, essentially the context here is now you've had a couple of weeks to think about it and maybe reread some things.
And you came out swinging as soon as the Mueller report came out with your I don't like your Guccifer timeline there, Mr. Prosecutor's story.
And you've had a couple since then.
But so now you've really had some time to to look around and gain some better context.
So go ahead and explain what you think.
Well, you know, I mean, Mueller, I mean, like, you know, Mueller is the former FBI director who who in 2000 and February 2003 testified that Saddam Hussein had WMDs, weapons of mass destruction that were pointed straight at America.
You know, so he was completely wrong.
Number two was facilitating a war crime.
But number three was kind of a kind of a guy who sort of does what he's told.
You know, the ruling class wants this line out and he therefore puts the line out.
Hey, don't forget, you know, him and Comey both.
These are the guys who, I guess, prosecuted Martha Stewart for the financial catastrophe of 2008.
No bankers went to jail, no powerful people, no one from Goldman, no one from Citigroup, no one from Bear Stearns, no one from no one from AIG went to jail.
Nobody.
And Mueller also played a major role in covering up the Saudi connection, the Saudi role in 9-11.
This is one of the great crimes in American political history.
I mean, 3000 people were killed and and the and the U.S. government, rather than getting to the bottom of of why they were killed and who did it, you know, essentially covered up for the perpetrators.
Yeah.
And so they can do a bait and switch and attack Saddam Hussein.
We all know that.
Anyway, this is a really big deal, though.
I mean, this I mean, let's just just pause for a moment to let the enormity of this sink in.
Right.
I mean, I mean, here's the this is a government, supposedly a democratic government, supposedly beholden to the people.
Three thousand innocent people are dead.
Right.
Right.
And and the and the government and you know, if a crime occurs at your front door, you call the cops.
You expect the cops to do it, to do a competent job investigating it and apprehending the perpetrator, whatever it is.
Right.
So that's sort of what cops do.
But here you have this this massacre.
And the government does the opposite.
Well, you know, I mean, hey, Greg Palast reported in November of one.
He had all these FBI agents came to him and said, look, as soon as the Bush people came into power, they said, back off the Saudis, because all the Saudi money toward the terrorists was all the same characters who were close business associates with Bush and the rest of his Enron crew down in Houston.
And all of these guys, Prince Turki al-Faisal and Prince Bandar, who they call Bandar Bush, was the head of Saudi intelligence at the time that they had at the very least the nicest.
And I actually accept this.
I think this is the correct explanation.
They have been paying millions, tens of millions of dollars in protection money to al-Qaeda to just not attack the kingdom.
And then the Americans, I guess, are big boys and can take care of themselves.
Or I don't know what's the rest of the thinking there.
But Prince Turki himself had been financing.
So that was a reason that the Bush, when the Bush crew came in at the very beginning of 2001, the FBI was told essentially back off of Whammy, the World Association of Muslim Youth, whatever, so-called charity that was financing al-Qaeda and all that stuff.
They backed off of all of that.
So that's a more Occam's razor explanation for why it's just because rich people know each other.
And some of this stuff can be pretty embarrassing looking, but it amounted to a blind eye in a way.
That was, I think, part of it.
Listen, when George Bush Jr. first mentioned to his father that he was thinking of running for president, always hoping he was intending to run for president, his father said, well, the first guy you got to talk to.
Prince Bandar.
Bandar Bush, Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi ambassador to the US.
And that was the first person.
I mean, it's amazing.
But anyway, so let's get back to Mueller.
So Mueller is part of this immense cover up, this immense war crime in Iraq, this immense cover up of this mass murder on US soil.
And so he's given this assignment.
And his starting point is the intelligence community assessment, the ICA, which came out in January 2017, January 6th, if I recall, which had decided that there was a massive Russian effort to subvert the US electoral process.
So that was the starting point.
He didn't rethink that thesis.
He didn't try to figure out whether it was true.
And so that was the starting point.
And essentially, you know, what he investigated, what he didn't investigate, is as important as what he did investigate.
I mean, he didn't investigate the question of the true extent of Russian hacking or what purpose it was meant to serve.
He didn't investigate Christopher Steele and his famous dossier.
He didn't really investigate, you know, who Joseph Mifsud is, in some ways, the absolute key character in this whole episode.
He kind of passed him off as some kind of Russian-inclined person when the opposite is really the case.
He didn't look very deeply into Hank Greenberg, this mysterious Russian emigre who approached the Trump team in late May 2016 with an offer, yet another offer, to sell dirt on Hillary Clinton.
And he had been an FBI informant for 20 years.
He didn't investigate Felix Sater, didn't even mention that Felix Sater, the man behind the Trump Tower Moscow project, was also an FBI informant.
And that Andrew Weissman, Mueller's top lieutenant, had actually inked the deal in which he would become an informant back in 1998.
He didn't investigate any of these things, any of these really odd, curious, strange things.
So, personally, I think he did a decent job on the collusion question.
He kind of punted on the obstruction question.
And the whole question of interference, I think he completely blew.
And I read the whole thing.
It's really engaging, and I'm not much of a businessman.
But I sure liked it.
I think you really will, too.
No dev, no ops, no IT by Hussain Badakchani.
Check it out at Amazon.com.
All right.
Well, so, go back to that point, then, first, about the interference at all.
You start off with the, yeah, yeah, yeah, tell me about some Facebook ads with Bernie and Espito and all of this.
I mean, people, I'm sure everyone's familiar, TV has talked about the buying of Facebook ads alone as an attack on this country tantamount to September 11th.
Or Pearl Harbor, this kind of thing.
And so it just sort of – they always skip a few and just go with the conclusion and never really explain exactly just what sort of a Russian-backed Facebook ad onslaught were we under or weren't we in 2016, Dan?
OK.
Well, there was this company in St. Petersburg, formerly known as Leningrad, that is called the Internet Research Agency.
And it seems to be a troll farm.
And starting in early 2015, i.e. before the race even began, before Trump was even a blip on the radar screen, began placing ads and vaguely political ads in Facebook.
But they only spent $46,000 prior to Election Day, which, of course, is nothing.
And the ads that they placed were so weird and wacky and off base.
I mean, one was a famous cartoon of a muscle-bound Bernie Sanders and Espito.
Somehow this is going to persuade people to vote for him.
Another was a drawing of Jesus arm-wrestling Satan, who was, of course, pro-Hillary.
I think the caption said, don't let Satan win.
Don't vote for Hillary.
I mean, and so they figure that Facebook calculated that somehow a typical Facebook, 126 million Facebook users may have been exposed to one of these ads over a two and a half year period.
Which, by the way, extends almost a full year beyond the election.
But over that same period— Which that point alone is hilarious, that they're even bringing up anything after the election.
It's the same thing as like you're saying about how goofy the ads are, too.
This doesn't seem like a very concerted effort to hurt Hillary and help Trump.
But then the answer to that is, ah, see, that's how they get you, right?
They're just trying to disrupt our democracy and shake faith in things and this and that.
And so now they're undermining their own point that this was all about Trump.
But they're still essentially just begging the question that if a Russian bought a Facebook ad, its purpose must have been to serve the interests of the FSB, to try to control your mind, to do something.
It couldn't have been just a click farm or whatever.
But meanwhile, so 126 million Americans may have seen one of these ads over a two and a half year period, only 40 percent of which extends beyond the election.
But anyway, but over that same period, a typical Facebook user is receiving 20, 220 items per day, 90 percent of which he ignores.
OK, so this is this is truly a drop in the bucket.
And to somehow think that that nonetheless, this this drop is so potent because it's somehow the Russians are so evil, dastardly, and they have mastered these dark arts.
So it's such a satanic way that that one little drop will poison all our brains.
This is this just makes no sense.
And and there is no attempt in the Mueller report to put this in perspective, to try to assess how serious this problem really was.
It merely echoed this the silly alarmist rhetoric of the of that that that January 2017 ICA, the Internet, the intelligence community assessment.
And also let me point out also that the that the IRA also sent out, I think it was a hundred and seventy six thousand tweets in the during the presidential campaign.
Well, at the same time, there were there's like like like more than a billion election related tweets.
Right.
And of the hundred and seventy six thousand tweets that they that they that the IRA sent out, the Mueller report admits that ninety one point six percent were not about the election.
So what were they about, really, but the price of strawberries, whether that's OK.
Well, click because that's the whole thing.
Again, if you're not begging the question, you're not starting with your conclusion first and you're just asking, well, what is it that they're doing?
That looks like they're making money.
And this goes to another point that I'm glad that you picked up on here, which I pointed out in my article that I wrote about it at the Libertarian Institute site was they didn't even try to connect.
They didn't in any way even pretend to demonstrate that the IRA did any of this at the behest of the Russian state at all.
They essentially said, look, there's a picture of the head of the IRA standing next to Putin that one time was published in The New York Times.
And that's all you need to know.
There's a link between these men.
I read it in the newspaper and that'll be good enough for you, Lazar.
I mean, in two and a half years, two years, I mean, all the footnotes to a New York Times article and two years, the only connection that the only evidence for a connection between the IRA and the Kremlin was a New York Times article.
And check out what a lie The New York Times article was, too.
Oh, the guy is known as Putin's cook.
Well, why is that?
Because he's actually like a guy with a butcher knife who goes around murdering people for Putin.
Is that it?
Or like, why is that his nickname?
Oh, it's his nickname because Putin's eaten at the guy's restaurant a couple of times or some innocuous thing, right?
Has nothing to do.
They make it sound like, you know, Jimmy Two Times or whatever, the gangster footnote, you know, gangster nickname.
It's pathetic.
And Joseph Massoud, this is Joseph Massoud.
Let me for your listeners.
He is a an academic from the island of Malta in the Mediterranean.
It's in between Sicily and Libya.
It's a very interesting place with a very colorful history.
And they they speak a strange, a strange language, which is that which is a romance Arabic blend.
The only one only such dialogue to dialogue anyone knows about.
But but but Joseph Massoud was an academic, a world traveler based in in London.
And even though the that the indictment of the of the IRA and the Mueller report, the indictment was like that was summer of a it was last summer kind of hints that he's some kind of Russian asset.
There was, in fact, a wealth of information that he was actually deeply ensconced in the Western intelligence apparatus.
Why don't you run down a list of some of that?
Some of those indications for us, Dan, could you?
Well, I'd be glad to.
First of all, he he's a consultant for a Swiss lawyer, financier named Stefan Rowe, spelled R-O-H.
And Rowe says, Rowe says this man, my employee, is a Western intelligence agent.
OK, so that's one bit of evidence.
Another bit of evidence.
He's photographed with a with a British foreign secretary.
Oh, God, what's his name?
Wait, the one you just said.
Did you mean to say Russian?
Or you meant to say British?
No, British foreign secretary, Boris Johnson.
So, you know, so he's a Russian agent.
He's photographed with Boris Johnson.
That's kind of seems unlikely in itself.
Third, he he taught a course.
There's a there's a educational, a private educational institute in Rome called the Link Campus, which of which Stefan Rowe, Mifsud's employer, is part owner, which is well known as a center for intelligence agency activities.
You can say that CIA personnel have lectured there, attended classes there.
Nothing, nothing nefarious.
It's really quite open.
And while he was there, Mifsud in the past taught a course for Italian military and police personnel at the Link Campus.
And his co-teacher in that course was a woman named Claire Sterling, who is a high level British intelligence officer.
In fact, her job is to vet the security standing of top British officials, government officials, to make sure that they are not foreign agents.
So so so Claire Sterling, whose job is to make sure that there are no spies, co-taught a course at the Link Campus with Joseph Mifsud.
Therefore, I presume that Claire Sterling was willing to vouch that he was not a Russian spy.
That, in fact, he was regarded as a trustworthy co-worker by Western intelligence.
OK, so this this seems quite clear.
And he is the guy who who sought out George Papadopoulos, a young guy who had been appointed as a unpaid foreign policy adviser to Trump in early March 2016, introduced him to an attractive young Russian woman whom he billed as Vladimir Putin's niece.
It's not true.
Putin does not have a niece.
And then and then a month or so later, a month and a half later, met with him at a hotel in London and told him he had just returned from Russia and learned that the Russians had, quote, dirt on Hillary Clinton in the form of, quote, thousands of emails.
A tidbit that about two weeks later, Papadopoulos passed along to another intelligence connected Aussie diplomat, this time from Australia, named Alexander Downer, who then eventually passed that information on to the FBI.
And that was the pretext for Operation Crossfire Hurricane, which is the form the name of the Russiagate investigation.
So the investigation began with a Western intelligence agent.
Now, that doesn't mean necessarily mean the whole thing is this Western intelligence psyop.
But it certainly raises some interesting questions, which Mueller should have explored.
Right.
So talk about the Stephen Halper issue, too.
Well, yeah.
You mentioned Saturday.
And I'm sorry.
And also, if you could real quick to about Saturday, the guy on the Trump Tower deal wasn't part of that story that he was the one who brought this back up to Cohen that remember that old thing that we were thinking about doing in 2013?
Let's try that again now.
Is that right?
Yeah.
Yes.
And he was an FBI informant.
Now, whether whether he's still an active informant, I don't know.
But I would think it's worth exploring.
And he was the one who kept pushing this deal, even though it's clearly going nowhere.
This crazy scheme is going to be a huge hundred story tower.
And and they would give the pen.
They would gift the penthouse to Vladimir Putin.
I mean, anybody who knows American those Russian politics knows this is just bonkers.
And so but but Sater wasn't as it was at one point an FBI informant.
And then talk about I'm sorry.
Go on about helper to a bit here.
He's the more interesting one, I think.
So Stephen Halper was a is a is a now a man in his early 70s.
A professor at at Cambridge who taught a well-known security seminar with Sir Richard Dearlove, the former head of MI6, which is the British CIA.
So this guy is high, high up in the intelligence apparatus.
And there was a scandal that way back in 1980 where Halper, as a young guy who had infiltrated the had apparently infiltrated the the the Jimmy Carter campaign in order to spy for Ronald Reagan, pass information on to Ronald Reagan.
And his his father in law was, I believe, Dewey Claridge, a high legendary CIA figure.
So so at some point the FBI called up Halper and also told him to do something with regard to Papadopoulos.
And so Halper emails Papadopoulos out of the blue, offers him three grand to write a research paper on the oil business, oil drilling in the eastern Mediterranean, which happens to be one of Papadopoulos' specialties.
And Papadopoulos says three grand, a free trip to London.
Great, I'll do it.
So he bangs out the paper, flies to London where he's first met by.
But Halper says, well, first, go have drinks with my my assistant.
And some very attractive woman named whose calls her says her name is Azra Turk, then takes it to drinks.
Apparently she's very heavy on the sexual innuendo, according to Papadopoulos.
And and we now know that she was somehow sent there by the FBI, whether she's an FBI agent, a CIA agent, a Turkish agent on loan.
We don't really know.
But but clearly there was some kind of effort not to gather information, but what seems similar here and in other instances involving Papadopoulos, an attempt at entrapment.
An attempt to get Papadopoulos to say something that would somehow get him in trouble and could somehow be used against the Trump campaign.
Well, I guess you must be following, I think you mentioned in your piece, you must this work by John Solomon in The Hill lately, where he has Obama administration officials going to Ukraine in very early 2016 and saying, give us give us everything you've got on Paul Manafort.
Right.
And as you know, Paul Manafort was troubled, was was was was was beleaguered by a a document which said that he had been the recipient of, if I recall correctly, 12 million dollars in sort of under the table payments.
And he always maintained that document was fraudulent.
But the document was apparently supplied by Ukrainian intelligence.
So this is a this is a classic black op by the Democrats in order to, you know, to to to somehow get Manafort.
Right.
I mean, fraudulent or not, the point is that the Democrats showed up saying I'm shopping for a bill of goods.
Give me something.
Right.
So that's the point.
And meanwhile, find a find a job for the for the vice president's son, if you don't mind.
Sorry.
Hang on just one second.
Hey, guys, as you know, I have a notorious history with server problems, but those days are over.
It's all solved.
And that's because of the great Harley Abbott at expand designs dot com expand designs dot com.
Your website is too old.
It's out of date.
You need a new one for the 2020s.
Expand designs dot com and go to expand designs dot com slash Scott and you'll save five hundred dollars.
So, Dan, listen, I mean, it sounds pretty obvious what's going on here.
Right.
That once it was clear that Marco Rubio is not going to be able to stop this guy.
And and maybe that Pied Piper strategy soon to be revealed in the Podesta emails isn't is backfiring on us already.
We need to figure out something, a way to take Trump down, to make sure that he cannot win this election by framing up his staff on a conspiracy with the Russians.
I mean, it's funny because I guess, you know, like the FISA thing against Page wasn't till October pretty late, but they were already leaking that Trump was essentially in on it with the Russians.
As soon as the WikiLeaks stuff started in July of 2016.
Rice, they tried it all summer long.
Oh, they were leaking and leaking and leaking to the newspapers and all these things.
And, you know, I don't know.
You're right.
There's still a lot to learn.
But when all of the when you have like six different places or whatever it is, four or five or six different places, I'm sorry, you're doing a better job.
Keep account to me of informants and, you know, pretty obviously informants trying to go to people into saying they love Putin into open mic like they're trapping and trapping the Liberty City seven into saying they love Osama or something like that over and over and over again.
It's pretty clear what's going on.
Yes, it's very clear.
I mean, it seems to be little little doubt as to what was happening.
There was some kind of giant intelligence operation that was meant to bring down Trump.
And even once he was elected and attending, they wanted some indications there was even an attempt to stop him from taking office.
And then once he took office, an attempt to cripple his presidency.
And according to the Mueller report, by March 2017, just two months into his new into the into his presidency, Trump was saying, I can't do anything.
There's so much I want to do.
I can't do a thing because this goddamn Russia business.
And you know what?
It's interesting, too, that Mueller, it almost seems like he kind of bends over backwards to point out that, you know, on almost all of these cases of so-called obstruction, there is another very obvious, equally at least plausible explanation for his behavior, which is not to cover up the fact that he's innocent of a crime he's innocent of.
But in fact, to try to get out from under this thing so he can do his job as elected chief executive of America's government departments.
That's actually a very important point.
But also, I was going to say the irony there is this is the same guy who dragged this out for two full years after he got it and who is just as guilty as any of them in the frame up and the conspiracy.
He could have no Bill Trump a long time ago.
He could have told, you know, once he started indicting all these guys for nothing offenses, he could have issued a preliminary report to the Congress or the public that, look, there's nothing.
I'm not finding anything saying that the Russians compromised Donald Trump at all.
And that's just not right.
So you can get over that part.
He could have done that, you know, so he's one of them all the same, you know, even still.
Yeah.
But, you know, but, you know, it's a very important constitutional question.
I think the question of obstruction of justice raises a constitutional issue, but also equally important is the idea that, you know, that the that a constitutionally a constitutional government has a constitutional duty to to govern.
And and and Trump was prevented from carrying out that that that that function in a clearly an extra constitutional unconstitutional matter.
So, I mean, so so so that is a that constitutional question is equally as important as the one raised by the by by obstruction.
You know, someone should write an entire book about the role of The Washington Post in serving the CIA and the FBI on this question.
I mean, on everything, of course, it is, you know, Operation Mockingbird in effect, of course.
But I mean, how much water are they carrying for these guys?
That's just unbelievable.
But, you know, I want to point out, you know, I mean, the background for this is that U.S. foreign policy was disastrous during Obama's second term.
And I don't use that term disastrous lightly.
I mean, Libya was destroyed.
Syria was destroyed.
Yemen was destroyed.
And the Ukraine was destroyed, created the Islamic State and then launched a war to destroy it again.
Yes.
And not only that, but a huge wave of refugees was then generated by these wars along the southern rim, which then, you know, crashed down on Europe, completely toppling European politics.
So, you know, so we're still we're still wrestling with the aftermath of the aftershocks from the from that event.
And this is this is and this is very much Hillary Clinton's doing.
You know, so so so and so.
And these were these were missteps, major missteps, missteps that that Putin was was able to really exploit in a really adroit fashion.
And the U.S., rather than rather than pausing and saying, you know, gee, we really screwed up here.
Gee, we should really we should really sort of think about what we're doing.
We should, you know, a bargain, a different strategy.
I mean, clearly we're we're not getting the results we desire.
The administration, the foreign policy establishment doubled down, refused to even consider the question of whether it had made any mistakes and put all the blame on Putin.
And then when starting in the summer of 2015, Trump began campaigning and started hammering away at these at this at Hillary's, you know, colossal missteps in the Middle East and began began calling for a rapprochement with Russia.
The foreign policy establishment was not only shocked, but it was it was ready to go to war.
And so that that establishment, which encompasses the the the corporate press, academia, the think tanks and the intelligence agencies, plus the Democratic Party, you know, pulled up, pulled out all stops and trying to brand Trump as a Russian agent.
The only way they could figure out that he would say these things was that somehow Putin had gotten to him.
He was a Manchurian candidate.
It was it was even stupider than what they had done previously.
Well, and it also just really proves that what are supposed to be the marginal views of leftists and, you know, maybe right wing populists and libertarians, that the way things really work around here is that nothing is on the up and up.
Everything is corrupt.
The U.S. government is a blood soaked world empire.
And the things that they say are lies and the way they portray it on law and order ain't really how it works.
All that is what's vindicated.
And in fact, I think I can hear it in your voice.
And I know it's true for me, too, that even after everything I've known, I've grown up knowing Ronald Reagan was a dope pusher my whole life and all this kind of stuff and and all the wars and all the Waco massacre and everything.
And yet still, I admit I'm a little bit shocked that the CIA and the FBI have the balls to think that they can take on the nominee of a major party for president of the United States of America like this and try to prevent him from winning, try to prevent him from being sworn in.
As you said, there was an aborted plot to try to stop him in the Electoral College.
They reported in The New York Times.
They weren't even embarrassed.
And then to carry on this whole thing like this, it's incredible.
It's just it's really something to behold on the order of the groupthink and the lies and all the craziness surrounding the war in Syria, where we're really supposed to believe that al-Qaeda are the heroes and the dictator, the secular dictator in the three piece suit in the clean shaven chin is the bad guy.
You know, John Kerry's friend from a couple of years ago.
It's absolutely nuts.
Same as, you know, fighting the war for al-Qaeda in Yemen, which you mentioned earlier as well, where there's no accountability for this group of people in power who operate just like the fringes always said they did and who are essentially, I guess, so conflicted in their interests that their policies amount to insanity and treason.
I mean, it is insane.
I quite agree.
I mean, or in the Ukraine, you know, somehow somehow pretending that all those neo-Nazis are leading the charge against Yanukovych in February 2014.
Yes, they were neo-Nazis, but that doesn't matter.
Ignore that because they're they're fighting for freedom.
You know, it just it just it just didn't make it just none of it made any sense at all.
It was they were insane, nonsensical policies.
And by the way, I wouldn't even call it balls.
I mean, I think balls is not the right term.
I think it's just sheer stupidity.
I mean, guys like Brenner and Clapper and Comey, too, and also Mueller.
These are these are not smart people.
I mean, Mueller is this this is this upper class twerp who went to Princeton and then, you know, then enlisted to fight Vietnam like an idiot.
And and, you know, and these and they're just they're just not smart.
They're just not intelligent.
They don't they don't know how to think.
And Brenner is really a famous dullard.
And The New York Times tried to try to portray him as a as a great moral leader, but just goes to show how stupid they are as well.
And I'm not just I don't want to hurl around fifth grade insults.
I mean, when I say stupid, I mean, I think they really are just incompetent.
They're really incapable of seeing how the world the world as it is.
They're incapable of making their way through the world in an intelligent, thoughtful, analytical manner.
Listen, it's great talking to you, Dan, about all of this stuff.
And regardless of our differences of opinion, not not regardless, partially because of our differences in opinion on all these things.
I really like talking with you.
And but especially I appreciate your journalism on the issue of what the current central state is up to.
So thank you again, sir.
We'll talk again soon.
Talk to you soon.
All right.
OK, guys, that's Daniel Lazar.
He is at ConsortiumNews.com and writing really great stuff about Russiagate there.
So definitely keep your eye on that.
