All right, y'all, welcome to the Scott Horton Show.
I'm the Director of the Libertarian Institute, Editorial Director of Antiwar.com, author of the book Fool's Errand, Time to End the War in Afghanistan, and the brand new Enough Already, Time to End the War on Terrorism, and I've recorded more than 5,500 interviews since 2003, almost all on foreign policy, and all available for you at scotthorton.org.
You can sign up for the podcast feed there, and the full interview archive is also available at youtube.com slash scotthortonshow.
All right, you guys, I love this story because I hate this story, so it's great.
It's Russiagate, still on it.
It's the great Aaron Maté writing at RealClear Investigations as we're learning more and more things.
This one is called Coming Into Focus, Hillary's Secretive Russiagate-Flogging Pair of Super-Lawyers.
Welcome back to the show.
How you doing?
I'm good, Scott.
How are you?
I'm doing great.
You know, I told Taibbi one time, well, I'm mad at you because he said he was going to write a book called Untitledgate about the origins of Russiagate, and it's all so murky exactly where all this came from, and you seem hot on the trail here, and it's just this one kind of, this recent indictment seemed like it was kind of important, but you seem to have grabbed onto it as a string and started unraveling a whole kind of aspect of the story or kind of a whole new take on information that we already knew here.
So go ahead and tell us what you found.
Well, you're right that the origins are still murky.
It's unclear exactly when this whole thing kicked off and what precipitated it.
What we do know for sure is that the Clinton campaign is at the nexus of everything.
So in April 2016, they hire Fusion GPS, and Fusion GPS is mandated to look into Trump's potential ties to Russia, and that leads to the Steele dossier.
And the Steele dossier becomes, you know, the basis for a lot of FBI activity.
They developed this spreadsheet where they basically tried to chase down every single conspiracy theory that Steele floated to them, which of course they could not corroborate because it was all invented.
And they even used the Steele dossier for surveillance applications on Carter Page.
So you have a Clinton campaign playing an unprecedented role in an FBI investigation and one that actually targets the Clinton campaign's political opponent, the Trump campaign.
So that's pretty extraordinary.
But that level of, that odd relationship is compounded by the fact that you also have the Clinton campaign at the heart of the other foundational Russiagate allegation, which is that Russia hacked the DNC and gave the emails to WikiLeaks because the party that first accused Russia of doing that was not the FBI, but it was CrowdStrike.
And what is CrowdStrike?
It's a private firm that was hired by Perkins Coie, who is the Clinton campaign's law firm, the same law firm that hired Fusion GPS to do the Steele dossier.
And the person at Perkins Coie who hired CrowdStrike is none other than Michael Sussman, who was an attorney who last month was indicted by John Durham for lying to the FBI.
And he was indicted for lying to the FBI while trying to give the FBI this, another fake conspiracy theory that Trump and Russia might have been secretly communicating via this, via a Trump organization server and a server used by Russia's Alpha Bank, a major Russian bank.
And as part of that, Sussman gave the FBI some technical data that looks like it was basically fabricated.
That's what we can glean from what's come out so far.
So you have not just, you know, the Steele dossier coming from the Clinton campaign, but also the even more foundational claim that Russia hacked the DNC coming from the Clinton campaign as well, a Clinton campaign contractor.
And as I show in my article at RealClear, just going through the available public documents including testimony that was before Congress and the Mueller report and Senate reports, Michael Sussman, this lawyer, played an instrumental role in managing the information that CrowdStrike gave the FBI, because critically, just as the FBI relied on the Steele dossier for surveillance warrants and for investigative leads, the FBI also relied on CrowdStrike for its investigation of the DNC server breach, because the DNC did not get independent, sorry, the FBI did not get independent access to the DNC server.
They instead relied on CrowdStrike's forensics and CrowdStrike's reports that were given to the FBI were heavily redacted.
And who oversaw that process?
Michael Sussman.
All right.
So now, I imagined when I read this that you have a 2016 calendar with notes all over it to keep this straight in your head.
I don't know if that's true or not, but can you help me understand in the timeline how this fits with the announcement that WikiLeaks is going to put out something Hillary-related or the setting up of Papadopoulos by the Cambridge Four and this weird group in England and all these other things that are going around, right in, we're talking about the very early months of this giant fake scandal here.
What I know for sure is that in April 2016, first, at some point during that month, that's when Perkins Coie, the Clinton campaign lawyer, hires Fuse and GPS, specifically to look into Trump's ties to Russia.
Okay.
And that's pretty early on.
Right.
It's very early on.
It's very early on.
It's, you know, and then shortly and then at the end of the month, that's when the DNC supposedly learned that it's been hacked.
And the last days of April is when Michael Sussman at Perkins Coie calls CrowdStrike and hires them.
And according to Sussman, within a day, he says, CrowdStrike came to the conclusion that it was Russia.
And you've talked about this before.
I mean, people, experts like Jeffrey Carr have pointed out that there's just no way you can make a conclusion that quickly, that this hack comes from some specific actors.
The only people who could do that would be the NSA.
But the NSA was not involved here, at least at this stage, and it's unclear even to what extent the NSA has weighed in on this question at all.
So very, very quickly, you have a private firm hired by Michael Sussman concluding that it was Russia just days after Michael Sussman's colleague, Mark Elias at Perkins Coie, hired Fusion GPS to look into Trump's ties to Russia.
It's all very, very convenient.
And fast forward to June.
So on June 12th, Julian Assange says publicly for the first time that he has upcoming leaks related to Hillary Clinton, and he's basically teasing the DNC leaks.
Two days later, Michael Sussman gets the DNC and CrowdStrike to go to the Washington Post and tell them that they've been hacked by Russia.
That's when CrowdStrike first comes forward on June 14th and says the DNC was hacked by Russia.
Conveniently, just two days after Julian Assange said that he had Hillary Clinton emails.
And the next day after CrowdStrike comes forward, and again, Michael Sussman is responsible for that story, that's when this interesting character, Guccifer 2.0, comes up and he claims credit for hacking the DNC, and he even releases some files that come from the DNC.
But interestingly, he has metadata in his documents that make it very easy to discover that he's tied to Russia.
He's using a VPN that's in Russia.
He's using metadata that is Russian.
So Guccifer 2.0, while claiming credit for hacking the DNC, makes it very, very, very convenient to look as if, it makes it very, very easy to discover that he is from Russia.
And then it's later on that Mueller says that Guccifer 2.0 is the entity that gave the stolen DNC emails to Julian Assange, which doesn't make any sense because it's true that Assange and Guccifer 2.0 made contact, but they only made contact after Assange had already announced that he had the emails.
So Mueller's timeline does not make sense, you know, as I pointed out before.
And he doesn't attempt to demonstrate it in any other way, does he?
Mueller?
Right.
In the report.
What Mueller does is he points out that at a certain point, Guccifer 2.0 did send Assange something.
He sent WikiLeaks something, because Guccifer was taking credit for giving all the information.
But he just ignores the fact that that was after the fact.
He certainly ignores that.
Now, Guccifer did apparently send WikiLeaks something, but Mueller has no idea what is in that, and it's unclear if WikiLeaks ever published what he got from Guccifer.
Mueller suggests that what Guccifer sent to Assange is the stolen DNC emails.
But according to the timeline, it doesn't make sense because, again, Assange already announced that he had them before he even made contact with Guccifer.
So what I think Guccifer was was a stunt to basically publicly try to take credit for the DNC emails, and then making contact with Assange was a way to establish some kind of paper trail to make it look as if he was sending him something.
Whereas Assange was just basically asking for Guccifer 2.0 for whatever he might have had that Assange didn't already have.
I think that's what Assange's interest was in speaking to Guccifer 2.0.
And Mueller certainly does not state affirmatively that Guccifer gave Assange the emails because he can't prove that.
But it's enough to confuse the issue and leave the implication that, oh, see, this Guccifer guy is all tied up in this Assange stuff, when as you lay it out, it's not conclusive at all.
And in fact, it looks like a put on, like someone is coming up with this stuff to try to insinuate themselves into the story when they don't really have anything to do with it.
And I don't know if I've ever discussed this with you.
I think I probably have, but it's been a lot of years of this.
But I interviewed Craig Murray and Craig Murray said not that he received the leak.
The Daily Mail got that wrong.
And he corrected that on the record when I interviewed him.
But he said that he met with the leaker and he knew who of the DNC stuff and he knew who the leaker of the Podesta emails was.
And that in neither case are they Russian.
They're insiders.
And I think the implication was, and he was not, he did not make any direct implication about Seth Rich or that whole angle, but it was somebody with access to the Democratic emails.
And then I think on the Podesta emails, he implied that it was someone at one of the intelligence agencies, someone like an NSA officer who was upset that these secrecy rules apply to them, but not to Hillary.
And they'd cook her goose and show her kind of thing.
And so I'm not saying I know that that's 100% right, but, um, well, I do know I got two witnesses say they saw him leave dinner early that night, uh, that he supposedly went and met with the source in Washington, DC in a park.
And he assured me, and I believed him at the time, cause this whole story is obviously garbage.
Uh, the other side of the story is, I mean, the, the Hillary Clinton side of the story that he went and met with this person in a park in DC and could 100% verified to me, no tie whatsoever to the Russians.
Yeah, he said that.
And, um, look, uh, Craig Murray is someone I really respect.
And in fact, he, he's in prison right now for, um, in a ridiculous case, um, having to do with his blog postings.
He's literally in jail right now.
So he's faced persecution in the UK for a long time.
By the way, I'm sorry, cause I should have said for people not familiar, Craig Murray is a former ambassador to Uzbekistan and blew the whistle on America and Britain turning their blind eye to torture there.
But, um, and, and as a friend and associate of Assange's, but can you elaborate, do you know much about that story about what he's doing in jail now?
Cause I've not been able to keep up with that.
You know, honestly, I don't understand it.
All I know is he was, there was some kind of gag order over a trial that he was involved in and somehow they, I think they ruled that his blog posts violated that.
That's what I think it is.
I, uh, I could be wrong, but regardless, it's, it's ridiculous that it's so obviously political persecution because he's someone who's, you know, been challenging the national security state in the UK for a long time, ever since he blew the whistle on torture and in Uzbekistan and how the UK government was basically covering it up.
So because they were an ally of the government there.
So, um, Craig Murray is a hero and he's, he's being punished for it right now.
And he has said that, I know, I mean, it's, I, I try to go off what I can prove, you know, and what's, what's, um, what's in the public record and what's in the public record is damning enough to the official narrative that Russia did it.
So they have so many evidentiary holes.
The problem is there's so few people in media willing to look at the actual available evidence.
It's instead people just go with what the intelligence officials dictate.
They say something happened.
So then this becomes religious doctrine.
It becomes what the official story is.
And it doesn't matter what, what the Mueller report to the Senate reports actually say.
It's what the narrative says.
But I mean, the reason I've been able to just cover this for so long and stay busy is because there's so much material in reports, in court filings, uh, that undermine the official story.
And as I point out in my new article, uh, CrowdStrike was not as confident privately as it was publicly that Russia hacked these emails because we learned in May, 2020 that Sean Henry, the CEO of CrowdStrike, that he had testified under oath that a CrowdStrike in fact had no evidence that these alleged Russian hackers actually exfiltrated anything from the DNC servers.
He admitted that under oath in December, 2017, which is, you know, relatively early on in Russiagate.
It's after it's been going on for about a year, but we didn't learn about that until May, 2020, because that testimony was kept under wraps by Adam Schiff, who was the head of the House Intel Committee and basically wouldn't release that testimony until more than one year after the Mueller report was released.
So it's, you know, it's, it's things like that.
And, um, but if you look at, if you go back and read retrospectively, the intelligence reports have been put out from, uh, the FBI in December, 2016, and then the Mueller report in March, 2019, they include these qualifiers about the attribution of Russian hacking.
They talk about Russian hackers likely exfiltrating data, and they say Russian hackers appear to have exfiltrated data.
And those qualifiers read in retrospect likely reflect the fact that CrowdStrike itself, which the FBI relied on, did not have any evidence of any actual exfiltration.
And I pointed out these qualifiers, this qualified language very early on.
I think we did an interview about it, Scott, back in the summer of 2019 after I wrote a very long article in Real Clear called Crowd, called CrowdStrike out, right?
I noted the evidentiary gaps in Mueller's report when it comes to this claims of Russian hacking.
It's always been there.
But again, this stuff just does not get reported elsewhere because journalists are not interested or most journalists are not interested in looking at the actual available facts, right?
All right.
Sorry.
Hang on a second.
Important business here.
I was telling my friend, man, you drink too much.
You know, it's causing all these other problems.
Why don't you smoke weed instead?
It's way better for you.
And now you can get good smoke in the mail.
And it's totally legal.
It's just about everywhere in America.
It turns out there's a cannabinoid isomer called Delta 8, which is perfectly legal and still gives you that nice little old reverse headache kind of feeling you're used to getting from your guy.
Check it out at TheHempSpot.com, but spelled the THC, TheHempSpot.com.
Now double check into the legality in your state, but you should be good.
TheHempSpot.com is shipping everywhere in America.
And during their grand opening through July, use coupon code Horton and get 30% off.
And a 10% commission will be paid to The Scott Horton Show for every order using that coupon code and free shipping on any order over $90.
Get your Delta 8 THC cannabis at TheHempSpot.com.
That's the right THC for thee.
Yeah, I mean, it was amazing.
It was almost like weapons of mass destruction.
No, we're here to spread democracy.
Because when the Mueller report came out, they're like, Russia?
No, no, no.
This investigation was never about Russia.
This investigation was about whether there was obstruction of justice in this investigation.
And then because they didn't want people reading the Russia part of the story.
And I just did like a live blog at Antiwar.com or at the Libertarian Institute, I guess.
Because I read it, I just took screenshots of it.
And I was checking y'all's Twitter too, because y'all were ahead of me.
But I was just going through and going, wow, look at all this we think and we heard and somebody said one time and all this stuff all throughout the thing.
It was just amazing.
But you know, on your point about the media there, and everybody else's kind of unwillingness to go back over this, I mean, just to back up a sec.
Once it came out that, hey, this wasn't really true, then immediately everybody in real journalism, especially those who had gone along with this and believed in it and reported it, should have said, wow, we better turn around and report on what was behind the effort to make us all believe this and tell the American people it was true.
And they should all be doing the exact work that you're doing here.
The closest I can think of in the major media would be Eric Wemple at the Washington Post.
If there's others, let me know.
But he had a series on accountability.
He took Rachel Maddow to task and others.
And I had his email address from, you know, he'd asked me for a comment on something years ago and never used it.
I don't know.
Anyway, so I emailed him and I couched it really carefully.
And I said, listen, man, I'm not going off on some Seth Rich thing here.
I'm not trying to make presumptions.
I'm not, you know, but I'm just saying in a very, very serious way, man, like here here's a great article where Philip Bump even says like has all these qualifiers and expresses skepticism and explains that we really don't know what happened, where these DNC things came from.
And if you read the Mueller report, it's not conclusive at all that, oh, here the Russians gave this stuff to WikiLeaks.
It's just that they don't even claim that.
So listen, I mean, you've taken on every last one of these claims, except the DNC leak.
And do we have any real reason to believe that the Russians had anything to do with it at all other than just intelligence officials say?
And like, don't you think that you should do that?
That should be the final chapter of your comeuppance series here is do we know that even the single most important salient assertion at the beginning of this thing, the hacking of the DNC emails had anything to do with Russia, don't you think?
And he said to me something like, you know what, I will look into that.
And you do make a good point.
And that kind of thing.
And then he never did.
And I tried to follow him a couple of times and nothing happened.
It's like it's like Syria.
It's like these allegations of Syria chemical weapons attacks, right?
You're just not allowed to go there.
Even though you have whistleblowers inside the OPCW, you have documented evidence that the investigation of Douma, this alleged chemical attack in Syria, was manipulated.
You have the original report by the original team, and then you have the doctored report that they tried to rush out in its place, you know, falsely accusing Syria of all these things.
You know, you're not allowed to even acknowledge the existence of those whistleblowers.
I mean, it's never been reported in the Washington Post, never been reported in the New York Times except one time in passing at the bottom of a fawning profile of Bellingcat.
They mentioned like a brief, they obliquely referenced one of the OPCW whistleblowers in passing, but then quickly dismissed it because Bellingcat says there's nothing to see here.
Right.
So it's like that's it.
And there's the same thing.
It's just this this allegation that Russia hacked the DNC.
It's too it's too important to too many powerful people.
It you know, it served the interests of, you know, generating more Cold War tensions with Russia.
It served the interests of distracting the public from the contents of those emails showing corruption in the DNC and the Clinton campaign and changing the subject to who stole them and how it was all it was all Putin and part of Putin's plans to destroy democracy.
So it's just that's a that's a third rail that you're just not allowed to touch, even though all the evidence shows it.
And so what someone like Eric Wemple does, it's a good example.
They take on the low hanging fruit, which is the Steele dossier, which is such a farce.
It's such a joke that like you just it's it's so like you look like an idiot if you don't acknowledge what a complete scan the Steele dossier was, because it's all these ridiculous conspiracy theories paid for by the Clinton campaign.
It doesn't get more ridiculous and corrupt than that.
It's just and of course, there's no evidence for any of its ludicrous claims like, you know, Michael Cohen meeting in Prague with Russian hackers.
I mean, Michael Cohen's turned on Trump and even he says that Christopher Steele is deranged.
And amazingly, ABC News just did a documentary of Christopher Steele treating him as if he's a serious person and not mentally unstable.
But so someone like Eric Wemple, you know, he he's allowed to go and at least criticize that.
But but that's to me is low hanging fruit.
It's very, very low hanging fruit.
Yeah.
And listen, I got a mea culpa in here.
You know, obviously, people notice this.
I did, too.
Believe me that in my debate with Bill Kristol, he made the claim about sarin gas two or three times and I didn't I just didn't get a chance to refute it.
But for the record, in the book enough already, I have a subsection on my Syria chapter called Three Fake Sarin Attacks About Guta, Khanshikoun and Douma, where, of course, I cite you and WikiLeaks and the OPCW whistleblowers on Douma there.
And so for everyone who said, why didn't you say that?
I had too many things in my notes and I just didn't have time.
But Scott, listen, that was a if I can say I want to thank you on behalf of humanity for that debate.
That was you.
You destroyed him.
And it was just so satisfying to watch.
And yes, your performance was flawless.
The only thing that you let slide was the was his was this thing about chemical attacks in Syria.
But you know what?
That was such an amazing.
I just said we didn't intervene in the Iran-Iraq war when we back both sides of that.
That's important.
Oh, I missed that, huh?
Yeah.
There were a couple more, too.
Like, yeah, there were two or three or four things I wish I had had time to.
And I just had too many things in my notes and I couldn't categorize it right in terms of order of importance, you know?
I would I would be shocked if Bill Kristol was not cheering on Saddam in the 1980s when, you know.
Right.
Yeah.
I'm sure I'd be surprised if you couldn't find an example of him doing that.
Well, it was his buddy Ledeen who was arranging the selling of the missiles to the Ayatollah.
So either way.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Well, he's anti-war now, though.
So don't worry about it, bud.
All right.
Now.
So now this law firm, this guy's been indicted now by old Durham and oh, Durham, he's hard to believe in.
And it sounds like, OK, so the the other guy that he got, it was a really big deal what the guy done did.
Right.
It was the Justice Department lawyer who redacted the fact that Carter Page was a loyal asset of the CIA, not some dupe of the Russians, and that the CIA vouched for him and everything.
That was huge.
But it led to a very small punishment and, you know, not too many ways.
They didn't like, you know, threaten him with decades and turn him against his bosses or anything like that.
And in this case, I don't know what you know, if they're trying to use this guy against anybody else or anything like that.
But it sounds like, you know, they got him on line to the FBI trying to conceal something from the FBI, manipulate them into investigating this while not revealing they were working for the Clintons and all that.
So as you have made so much more sense out of that part of the story based on the information in this indictment, I wonder if you're also picking up that this might lead somewhere else and they're going to, you know, continue to prosecute people because they're getting right at the heart of the story here.
It sounds like.
Well, it would certainly not surprise me if it did lead to more, because, you know, this is a relatively simple charge, a false statement.
That Durham's indictment was 27 pages where he, you know, lays out a very detailed narrative of Clinton campaign operatives and allies fabricating data and giving that to the FBI to try to trigger an investigation about this Trump Alphabank server.
And by the way, this raises, this has implications for, you know, what we're talking about, which is crowd striking the DNC.
Because look, if you were to say to someone like Eric Wemple what you said before, I mean, what evidence is there that Russia actually did this, you know, they'll point to the Mueller report and, you know, whatever, we can show the Mueller report doesn't actually show what people think it does.
But they will also point to the fact that there was a Mueller indictment of 12 alleged Russian intelligence officers and accusing them of stealing the Democratic Party emails.
And it's very detailed, right?
So, you know, someone could say, well, so if it's all fake, then what is that based on?
Well, look, what happened here with this, you know, Alphabank story is some fake data was given to the FBI.
It looks like some people out there fabricated traffic between a Trump-affiliated marketing server used to send out spam emails for Trump properties and Russia's Alphabank.
It looks like that was actually fabricated and that data was given to the FBI.
So the FBI didn't, you know, didn't make an indictment here, but it does raise the possibility if data was fabricated here and if claims about Trump-Russia collusion were fabricated by steal, who's to say the data wasn't fabricated to try to connect somehow these alleged Russian operatives to the theft of DNC emails?
It's possible.
There's a preponderance of fakery elsewhere.
So it's possible that there was fakery here.
I'm not saying that there was for sure, but given how much fakery there was elsewhere, I think it's quite plausible here.
And given the ties of Clinton campaign lawyers to scams, to Trump-Russia scams, it's just quite possible that CrowdStrike is a part of that.
And that could mean many things.
It could mean that CrowdStrike was wittingly involved in pushing fabricated material or they were just, they were, you know, brought in to look at something that was fabricated already and that's what they picked up.
But regardless, there's so much fakery going on that you have to be skeptical of everything.
And that skepticism is compounded when you have things like CrowdStrike admitting they have no evidence of exfiltration, which is pretty key if you're going to accuse Russia of stealing the emails.
How can you do so if you have no evidence that they actually stole anything?
And all the other evidentiary holes that we've talked about.
So it's just, you know, I wouldn't be surprised if this leads to more.
Certainly with the Alphabank angle, it looks like Durham is looking at a lot more people.
I mean, there's been grand jury subpoenas of many other people.
And it looks like, I mean, if I were to predict, I think it's quite likely he'll indict some of the people involved in fabricating the web traffic between the Trump organization affiliated server and Alphabank.
Yeah.
All right.
Let's jump in here.
The worst media culprits seem to have all gotten promotions like this.
Natasha Bertrand went from pushing the Steele dossier and in all of these ridiculous lies, she's one of the worst of them.
And she just keeps getting promoted.
And of course, a year ago, she was the one who came out with the big story that was obviously ridiculous hoax in the first place, but an extremely effective one at the time that Hunter Biden's laptop must be Russian disinformation.
And so, in other words, like she should already just had a job washing dishes by then after all this Russiagate stuff didn't come true and already was, you know, finally confirmed to not be true in the spring of 2019.
What's she doing in the fall of 2020 coming out with some nonsense like that where anybody can read it or see it?
And the answer is no accountability.
Just like with, you know, Iraq and Libya and Syria before.
There's no accountability.
So they just keep rolling on.
Yeah.
And what's their new one now?
It's now it's Havana syndrome.
It's that Russians have directed laser beams at or whatever it is, microwave weapons at U.S. officials across the world and given them these mysterious brain injuries and the same people who push Russiagate, like Natasha Bertrand and Kendall Anion of NBC News, who famously sent his articles to the CIA for approval.
And Julia, Julia Yaffe, same people are now on to Havana syndrome, which is that there are no consequences for being a propagandist.
In fact, there are the only consequences you get promoted.
Boy, that Havana syndrome one, I like that one just because it's so stupid.
You know, like when they're lying like this about killing the Branch Davidians, that makes me really, really angry.
But when it's this kind of level of delusion about their own stupid headaches that I just enjoy knowing that they have headaches at all, I don't know.
Yeah.
Then I just I love it.
And especially because we already know that it was just crickets and hangovers, you know, in Havana.
And we already there's this lady, I'm sure you saw the Cheryl something or other.
I was trying to get her on the show who wrote this thing in Foreign Policy like six months ago saying, listen, I know a thing or two about microwaves and using them for, you know, attempted listening devices and different kinds of things.
I worked at the lab with these guys on these projects back in the day.
And I can tell you that this is nonsense, man.
That's not how microwaves work.
And when she explains all of this.
And there's been plenty of debunkings.
I have like threads and threads of these things on Twitter of all the different debunkings by anybody who knows anything about any real aspect of this.
But then, in fact, I saw a great tweet, I'm plagiarizing now on Twitter the other day.
Hell, you might have retweeted it, I don't know, where the lady said, notice it's all national security reporters who are reporting on this.
But it's not health officials and it's not, you know, I added, it's not technicians, right?
It's not scientists and experts in ray beams of any kind, you know?
It's all Natasha Bertrand and friends going, wow, guess what my sources told me to tell you.
That's a good point.
That's a really, really good point.
But again, it's unbelievable how these people are allowed to still publish.
I mean, it's, you know, Russiagate should have should have ended the careers of a lot of people.
I hate to say that.
I hate to say that people should not be working, you know.
But it's I'm sorry, like it's the level of stenography and embarrassment was just it was off the charts.
But look, look what happens.
It just continues.
It gets even more absurd.
And look, there's lots of honorable work besides journalism.
They should be able to have jobs.
We're not trying to cancel them out of polite society forever.
Just, you know, if you lie us into war or you lie us into impeaching a president or, you know, you lie us into anything on this level, three years of pretending the president was guilty of high treason with the Kremlin for crying out loud, then, yeah, you should have to have a job, you know, out in the real world doing regular work for regular people, not telling stories in the media.
You know, that seems simple.
Yeah, I agree.
I agree.
I agree.
And, you know, I could be mean and say, oh, they should all have to have jobs down at the sewage plant or whatever, but are mopping up to play geranium dust in Iraq or some kind.
But you know what?
They could get office jobs in the air conditioning, but still not be in charge of the media.
You know, there should be some kind of rule.
It's like in stand up comedy.
You're not allowed to steal jokes.
Of course, there's no copyright on it.
But if you go around stealing people's jokes, there will be accountability.
Well, there should be accountability like that in the media, you know, and it should be effective.
Yeah.
Here, here, here, here.
All right.
Well, you're doing a hell of a job.
I'll give you that, man.
This one is at Real Clear Investigations.
The great Aaron Maté coming into focus, Hillary's secretive Russiagate flogging pair of super lawyers.
Thanks, Aaron.
Thanks, Scott.
The Scott Horton Show, anti-war radio can be heard on KPFK 90.7 FM in L.A.
APSradio.com, Antiwar.com, ScottHorton.org, and LibertarianInstitute.org.
