All right, y'all, welcome to the Scott Horton Show.
I am 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 I've recorded more than 5,000 interviews going back to 2003, all of which are available at scotthorton.org.
You can also sign up for the podcast feed.
The full archive is also available at youtube.com slash scotthorton show.
All right, you guys, introducing the great Peter Van Buren.
He used to work at the State Department, but he's a good person now.
He writes for the American Conservative Magazine and a few other places.
His own website is We Meant Well, and he's got a few books.
We Meant Well is one of them, and then The Ghosts of Tom Joad, and also Hooper's War, a novel of World War II Japan.
Welcome back to the show.
How you doing, Peter?
It's good to be back here, Scott.
You know, you said I used to be, you know, I once was a bad guy or something.
I think I was like a, you know, a chrysalis.
I think I was a, there was a good guy in me, and it just, I just took 24 years of government service to kind of chew through my host's body and let the parasite emerge.
I think it's more like that.
You have been redeemed.
You are now whatever those bugs turn into.
Exactly.
I'm the moth eating through your woolen socks.
Right on.
All right.
Well, listen, I got to tell you, and I'm speaking for a lot of people, we're very happy to have you here.
And I'm happy to still be here.
Yes.
Yeah.
So this piece, I really liked it.
Can we impeach the FBI now?
It's on the American Conservative Magazine, and this is your reaction to the Horowitz report.
Peter Van Buren.
Yeah.
And I'm going to ask the listeners to join me in a bit of a magic trick, if you will, a bit of suspension of disbelief, because if we talk about the Horowitz report as in the context of here's what the FBI did to the Trump campaign, then some huge portion of the audience is out there.
Yeah.
To hell with the Trump campaign.
We've done more to them, and they are of the belief that the ends justifies the means when we talk about Trump.
And that's a very narrow, very bad way to look at these things, particularly when you're talking about the awesome power of the surveillance state and the intelligence community.
So here's what we're going to do.
Everybody who wants to play along here, forget we're talking about Trump.
I'll just say the campaign or the candidate here, because everything that we're talking about that the FBI and the intelligence community of several countries, mostly driven by the United States, did against the Trump campaign could be going on right now against your favorite candidate or certainly will at some point in the future.
And so if you need to substitute the Warren campaign or the Sanders campaign or Beto's grandson's campaign into this to make it work for you, go ahead.
But whatever you do, please try to step back a little bit from the fact that this tried to screw over Trump, which I know so many people want to happen at any cost.
And that cost is quite high.
So here's what we know from the Horowitz report, which is based...
The Horowitz report, of course, is the Department of Justice Inspector General completed his second blockbuster report of this period of time.
He did one on how the FBI mumbled, fumbled, interfered with the Hillary campaign by announcing their investigations being on and off and finding nothing and maybe finding something at the end of that.
He did one of those reports already, which clearly showed that the FBI was a factor in the last election, albeit it appeared to be kind of the way it broke down.
It favored Trump, but that's either here or there.
We're not talking names here.
Stick with the idea that the FBI was a factor in the campaign.
They did stuff publicly that affected one candidate negatively and the other positively.
Michael Horowitz, the inspector general, just issued his second report.
And this time what he was doing was looking into a long series of actions over a period of a year or so by the FBI, looking into the Trump campaign, an investigation that came to be known as Crossfire Hurricane.
And that's the last we're going to mention of Trump.
So here's what the FBI did.
Based on a person who almost didn't even qualify as a low-level staffer mumbling something about another candidate's emails and the Russians to an Australian diplomat with strong ties to his own intelligence services and who, among other things, facilitated the transfer of donations from the Australian government to the Clinton Foundation, mumbled something in a bar in London.
This became the initial kickoff that, quote, the Russians were running this candidate's campaign, that this candidate was a Manchurian candidate, that he was beholden to either by threats or by promises, what the spies call the bullet or the bends.
You know, they come up to you, Scott, and say, we need your cooperation.
In one hand, I've got the key to a Mercedes Benz.
The other hand, I've got a bullet.
Which of these is going to compel your cooperation?
Pick one, because we're happy to use either of them.
Oh, you got it.
Well, you want a free car.
Here you go.
But anyway, that the idea was, is that based on this mumbled comment by a low-level staffer to a third party with suspicious intelligence connections, the FBI kicks off a major campaign of spying.
And we're going to use that word, because if you listen to the actions they undertook and define them with any other word, you're welcome to do that.
Call it a banana if you want, but it is what it is.
Actually, let me stop you for a second.
I'm sorry to do this, because I want to hear every single thing you have to say about what's in this Horowitz report and the FISA warrant and everything.
But and also, I admit to you, I've been caught up with Afghanistan and all other things this week and I have not had a chance to read the entire report, just the beginning of it.
But it seemed to me like partially because of the mandate to the IG here, he even talks about, of course, he's not in the position of reviewing anything any other government agency did or some of these other things.
So I wonder, does he address the question of who was running Halper and Misfud, the people who told Papadopoulos or I guess Halper, they had sicked Halper on, I think, Papadopoulos and Page already.
And it was Misfud who, even in the Mueller report, they continued to pretend was some kind of Russian agent who told this stuff to Papadopoulos in the first place that then was used as the pretext to open the FBI investigation.
But I wonder, does he address that?
Does he dispel certain things or it's just we have to wait?
We have to.
You're never going to find that out is the short answer.
No.
What he says is that a search of the FBI's confidential informants database does not show that these people were working for the FBI.
So this is not a broad look at the origin of Russiagate.
This is a look at the origin of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation only.
And that is much narrower.
That is absolutely correct.
And that's a very important point.
He's the inspector general for the Department of Justice.
And even though, for example, he says everything but uses the word CIA, he does not say that Carter Page was an informant for the CIA.
He says he was an informant for another U.S. government.
I don't know the exact words, another U.S. government agency active in gathering intelligence on the ground over.
He does everything, but he won't say the words.
And that has to do with his mandate to not cross out of his lane and get into investigating what the CIA or the NSA or the Pentagon did.
But importantly, we still have question marks as to who and why and how it came to be that anyone had ever told Papadopoulos that the Russians had anything that then Papadopoulos supposedly said to this Australian.
Right.
That's that's correct.
The story starts with Papadopoulos talking to Alexander Downer, the Australian diplomat.
What happened upstream of that is not known to us.
One day somebody, Papadopoulos, may tell his whole story.
But I don't think that we can count on that.
Halper, for example, was probably run from the Pentagon.
Whether that itself was a cover for another agency, I don't know.
But I mean, his his the funding to the fact to the degree it's traceable comes from the Pentagon.
And so whether he was a D.I.A. agent or officer or whether he was run by the CIA through a cover at the Pentagon, we'll never know those things.
No one wants to really ask those questions.
Durham, the guy that covered up the CIA torture murder scandal for the Department of Justice under Obama, is in charge of getting to the bottom of this.
And it's possible if he really has a mandate from Barr to get to the bottom of it, he could.
Maybe but I think I can't imagine that anybody wants to push this into that further into that.
They they clearly have their their interest here in the in the FBI.
And we'll stick with that for now.
Let's continue.
So, yeah.
So Papadopoulos tells this Australian diplomat, mumble, mumble, mumble.
I heard a rumor, as you pointed out, probably planted by some form of U.S. intelligence operative.
I heard a rumor the Russians have Hillary's emails, that little bit of gossip.
And that's about as good as you can characterize it is as gossip, because parentheses, a guy like Papadopoulos is not going to know that the Russians are pulling off the caper of the century.
OK, you know, in the intelligence world, big things are done by big people and little things are done by little people.
And if the Russians, in fact, had a massive global caper going to press the election of one candidate over another in the United States, Joseph Meafood is not going to know that.
George Papadopoulos is not going to know that.
If Putin was directly pulling the strings on Donald Trump because of some compromising video, Carter Page does not have that information.
Let's be real clear on this.
Anyway, so then the FBI knows this, too.
But anyway, the point is, you need an excuse of some sort to start.
And the excuse was this bit of gossip from Papadopoulos very, very quickly.
And the report does suggest that these happened in sequence, that they rumor first and then the Steele dossier.
But they were very, very close in time space.
Then the Steele dossier shows up in the world.
And this is a piece of opposition research, which means you send someone out, you pay them to find bad things.
If I'm doing opposition research against you, Scott, and we find out that you volunteer at a puppy rescue shelter, it's not going to be in my report.
If we find out you have library fines, yeah, I'll put that in there.
But the point of opposition research is you look for dirt.
And depending on what you're planning to do with it, in other words, if you're just going to use it to smear somebody, then the standards, the quality standards are flexible.
And so the Steele dossier is a bunch of garbage that's assembled.
Some of it's pure fiction.
Others is mumbled through various Russian Boris Nikosov guys who are saying like, oh, you're looking for dirt, eh?
And you pay more for more dirt?
Wow, what a surprise.
I've got some dirt.
And as long as you're willing to write it down and everyone's looking the other way, you assemble a dossier that includes garbage like there's video of Trump doing golden showers and that Trump was being dangled, a land deal in Moscow, and all this other garbage that we all know is not absolutely not true.
And that's that has to be underlined here.
We've done with this Steele dossier.
It's been a long time.
It's been refuted by the Mueller report.
It's been refuted by the Horowitz report.
Can I mention that it was obviously garbage on the very first day to me and I think to you and even to Marcy Wheeler said this doesn't add up.
I mean, look at this stuff is garbage.
Marcy Wheeler owes the world an apology because she was a driver of these conspiracy theories.
She used her intellectual skills and she used her reputation to allow journalists to use her as an intellectual backstop to cast out on the page dossier.
I mean, the Steele dossier, as soon as it came out, though, at least somewhat, she she can still I think she owes the world a bit of a reckoning if she if she wants her reputation back.
Otherwise, I wish her well.
Well, that's why I phrase as even Marcy Wheeler, because, of course, she went completely off the deep end and became a horrible Russia truther.
You know, from then on, I hope that Flexi sealed dealership that she's working at pays off for her.
But that's neither here nor there.
The.
So, you know, one of the things in the DOS, you know, this is here or there, because the point is that not about her, but how anyone could see that.
Oh, yeah, really.
They promised page a 20 percent owner or 19 percent ownership stake in Rosneft, the Russian state owned oil company.
If only he would get some sanctions lifted.
I mean, that is so stupid.
There's no way that any of us should believe that any FBI agent believed in any of this for even a day on the face of it.
It was a joke.
It was a joke on the face.
And that's that, as we talked about, if honest to goodness, the KGB or the FSB had a videotape of Trump doing golden showers, nobody in the world is going to know about that except Putin and Trump, because that's how these things work.
That's why you don't know about those things is because they're valuable when they are known only to the important people.
The other thing and we go back to that bullet in the bends, you know, everybody watches a lot of movies and they're all into the media, of course, had a field day with these pretend Russian words like compromise and blackmail and all this other stuff.
If you've ever been involved or worked on the fringes of the world of intelligence, the old saw you get more with honey than vinegar drives that world.
When you threaten someone, when you blackmail someone, the first thing they want to do is try to weasel out of it somehow, a lot of times by killing themselves.
But they don't want to participate.
If you blackmail them, you get some version of participation, but you get a whole lot better version with honey.
If you give them something, if you make them want to help you and the simple fact that Trump didn't get the land deal in Moscow is one of the most glaring tells that this all was bullshit, because if you want to control someone, you pay them, you give them the things, you make them beholden to you, not because they're afraid of their shadow, but because they want more stuff.
They want more.
They want a better deal.
But anyway, they took this steel dossier right to the FISA court.
They took the steel dossier right to the fight.
First of all, they used it internally to clear up anybody in the FBI who was saying, gee, you know, we can't really investigate a major candidate in the middle of a campaign.
Well, yes, we can, because this steel dossier is enough to make it seem like we're all not going to get in trouble for this.
It was it was, you know, the thinnest of cover, but it was it was cover.
So then they look around and they try to figure out who is their easiest target.
And they they decide Carter Page.
And Carter Page is, again, below low level in terms of the world of Trump.
He's a nobody trying to to weasel his way a little higher up the food chain.
And he's bumped around Russia for a long time.
Everybody knows him.
And in fact, we find out that he's been passing information to the CIA.
Now, we only find that out in the Horowitz report last week.
But the FBI knows this.
Keep this in mind.
And the CIA knows it, obviously.
And the CIA has given him decent ratings.
You know, they they listen to a lot of people and then they quietly rate those people as you know, whether they're reliable or not.
But even the guys who only get one star, you kind of keep your ear open every once in a while.
They stumble onto something.
You don't really want to turn away anybody but the obvious kooks.
And so here's Carter Page, who has a decent reputation, who's reporting to the CIA.
The FBI then decides that he is the connection between the Russians, as if there was a giant thing called the Russians, and the campaign.
And in order to make this work, of course, they point to the Steele dossier, which lists Carter Page in there.
But more importantly, and we find out from the Horowitz report, they hide the fact that Carter Page is working for the CIA.
They don't tell the FISA court that.
And they actually edit, which means lying in this case, an email that says Carter Page works for the CIA to make it say he doesn't work for the CIA.
And they go to the FISA court and they say, we want to spy on this guy, Carter Page.
And our justification is the Steele dossier.
They then lie again by pointing to Michael Isikoff's so-called reporting about Trump and Russia, which in fact we now know was based on the Steele dossier.
But the FBI presents it to the FISA court as if it's an independent corroborative source.
And so you've got the Steele dossier as the evidence, and unknown to the court, as corroborating evidence of its own evidence.
It's a loop.
It's called an information loop.
And it's one of those, boy, this is going to get you promoted in the CIA things if you can get it done.
If you can go over and convince the FSB of something, and then serantipously provide the FSB with confirmation using your own material, you know, you've hit the golden ticket right there, buddy.
And that's what Michael Steele did.
At the same time, the FBI hides all of the exculpatory stuff that the FISA court would have instantly realized Carter Page is not a Russian agent.
He's a freaking CIA agent.
He's working for our side.
Why are we going to spy on him?
Hey guys, just real quick.
If you listen to the interviews only feed at the Institute or at scotthorton.org, I just want to make sure you know that I do a Q&A show from time to time at scotthorton.org slash show, the old whole show feed.
And so if you like that kind of thing, check that out there.
Hey guys, here's how to support this show.
You can donate in various amounts at scotthorton.org slash donate.
We've got some great kickbacks for you there.
Stop Amazon.com by way of my link at scotthorton.org.
Leave a good review for the show at iTunes and Stitcher.
Tell a friend.
I don't know.
Oh yeah.
And buy my books, Fool's Errand, Time to End the War in Afghanistan and The Great Ron Paul, the Scott Horton Show Interviews, 2004 through 2019.
And thanks.
Hey guys, check out Listen and Think audiobooks.
They're at listenandthink.com and of course on audible.com.
And they feature my book, Fool's Errand, Time to End the War in Afghanistan, as well as brand new Out Inside Syria by our friend Reese Ehrlich and a lot of other great books, mostly by libertarians there.
Reese might be one exception, but essentially they're all libertarian audiobooks.
And here's how you can get a lifetime subscription to Listen and Think audiobooks.
Just donate $100 to the Scott Horton Show at scotthorton.org slash donate.
Okay, so this gets, let me reiterate a thing here real quick.
So in this report, it's saying that the FBI, they cited Carter Page met with this Russian intelligence officer.
But they say in the report here that he went straight to the CIA just like he's supposed to and said, hey, I talked with a Russian intelligence officer and this is exactly what happened in the conversation and everything.
They were totally cool with that.
And the FBI, knowing this, omitted it from the FISA application, when as you say, this guy adopts puppies, how's he an assassin kind of thing.
They get rid of that information so that that and a lot of other things that I'll let you go down the list.
But the point being here is so then that the conclusion at the beginning of the thing is that there's no political bias here.
That all they need is an articulable reason to open an investigation.
And they had an articulable one.
And despite all of the violations and abuses and the 17 by the IGs count 17 different things that they did wrong in the FISA application, including omit this guy's connection to the CIA.
There's no political bias there.
They've been cleared, Peter, they've been vindicated of doing anything with any nefarious motive whatsoever.
We're talking here just about mistaken violations of processes and guidelines and this and that.
I know because I saw on the TV.
Well, more than that, it says that on page one of Horowitz's report, he concludes there is no political bias.
Now, like we go back to saying, I'm holding this thing in my hand and you want to call it an orange and I want to call it an elephant.
But in fact, it's pretty damn obvious it's a banana.
It's still a banana, no matter what we want to argue.
If you want to go back to this question of bias, as you pointed out, the IGs report found that the FBI made what the report characterizes as mistakes 17 times in obtaining these FISA warrants against Trump campaign people.
Now, to use the word mistake, you'd have to think that at least maybe one of those mistakes would have favored the other side.
But in fact, all 17 mistakes made it easier for the FBI to get its warrants.
And none of the 17 mistakes negatively impacted the FBI.
All the mistakes favored them.
It's kind of like when you do your taxes.
If you made 17 errors that led to you paying less tax, your argument that those were just silly, goofy errors is weak.
You know, if at least a couple of those errors caused you to pay more tax, then the IRS might think you're just bad at math.
But when all the errors fall one way, you're kind of left wondering if that's really just accidents or not.
In addition, those errors are cumulative.
Let's go back to Carter Page.
The FBI renewed the FISA warrant against him three times.
Each time, it happens in time.
In other words, they didn't do all that on one afternoon.
They did it over a period of multiple months, which meant that each time they made that renewal, they had more information, including the information they picked up by surveillance, that this guy was a nobody connected to nothing.
And yet they continued to make those mistakes, and they continued to renew those warrants even though each time they had additional information that they were getting, there was no take out of this.
Now, let's come back to that, because why would they do this?
Why are they doing this?
And the answer goes to something that we, again, only know about because of Edward Snowden, and that is what's now the two hops rule.
It was five hops at one point.
And what this means is that if the FBI or CIA or whoever is surveilling you, they're allowed to follow you, follow that surveillance currently two hops.
In other words, so they're going to surveil you, Scott, and you and I are on the phone, so they're obviously listening in to me.
That's a hop.
But then I start, then I go up and pick up the phone, and I call somebody else.
Well, the FBI, using the warrant that they have against you, let's even pretend it's legitimate, is also now monitoring me, and it's monitoring the person I call.
So all of a sudden, that warrant against you, which maybe was a legit warrant to start with, or maybe was a pile of steaming BS like the Carter Page case, actually opens the door to a whole nest of people you can start monitoring.
And if you believe that the FBI religiously follows that two hop rule, and on the third hop, shuts the machines down, okay, that's fun.
It used to be five hops, which basically included most of the human race, if you do the math, right?
How many people, you know, it's like five degrees of Kevin Bacon kind of thing.
And the other thing would be that if Carter Page says anything to person A who says it to person B, you can probably use the same justification they used on Carter Page to get the warrant on person B, and then you've just blown your network out another couple of hops.
And so in the end of all this, the US government, we know, there may be more, surveilled Carter Page, George Papandopoulos, Jeff Sessions, Steve Bannon, Michael Flynn, the Trump transition team, and dozens and dozens of other people, lower level staffers whose names have kind of been unimportant, and very likely Trump himself.
So the idea would be that if Carter Page called Steve Bannon and said, hey, man, these FBI guys are snooping all around, and Bannon called Trump and said, do you know this guy, Carter Page?
You have legal surveillance on candidate Trump at that point.
Because he's two hops away.
And that's the value of Carter Page.
He's a nobody.
He's a little zit.
But Peter Van Buren, they were really worried that maybe the whole Trump campaign was completely compromised by the Russians, because it said so in the Steele dossier that no one could possibly believe for a moment.
So they were really worried.
Let's give them the benefit of the doubt and say that when this all started, there was, there was, again, benefit of the doubt, a sense that there was something going on here.
And fine, you poke around a little bit.
But at some point, and that point appears to be fairly early on in this investigation, it was obvious that there was not any connections.
That the things that caused them to be suspicious, primarily the Steele dossier, were falling apart.
And this surveillance was not revealing anything.
It just wasn't happening.
If you're going to be controlling someone, you know, and you start looking into their, to do a deep dive into their, their full life, you're going to see something changing hands, money, information, you're going to see people traveling, you're going to see people meeting.
Well, you're still talking about 2016.
But then in January 2017 was when they put out the report, accusing the Russians of doing the hack and almost attached the Steele dossier to it.
And then it was after Trump fired Comey, they appointed a special prosecutor and ran this thing for another two years, Peter, pretending to think that maybe there was something to investigate here.
Hang on, hang on with me here.
So let's, let's, let's take a step back.
So this, this, the FBI opens the report, opens the process with, like we said, we're going to assume the best of loyal intentions.
I don't believe that, but let's just say it.
They start to figure out very quickly.
There's nothing here.
There's nothing being transferred.
There's no money.
There's no information.
There's no people flow.
You can't control someone without touching them in some way or the people they work with.
So somewhere early on in this, it's starting to fall apart.
Rather than backing the investigation off, they crank it up.
Then we have the election and Trump wins.
The next thing that at that point that should happen, of course, is the FBI should say, well, we tried to see if there were any ties here.
There weren't any ties here.
Trump just got elected.
That kind of ends this whole thing.
Thanks guys.
You know, we'll see you next week.
But that's not what they do.
What they do is what you just said.
They hold all of this stuff until January of 2017, just before Trump is going to take office.
And what do they leak?
They don't leak the results, which are the Steele dossier is garbage and we didn't find anything.
They leak the investigation.
They leak the accusations, but not the conclusion.
They already had the conclusion in their hand.
If the conclusion in January was Trump was the Manchurian candidate, then Comey should have shot him in the head in the Oval Office and been the hero of the United States.
But instead, they don't leak the results or make those public in January.
They leak the accusations.
They take the Steele dossier, which was not attached to any of this, which had to be leaked because the CIA wouldn't sign off on it.
The CIA called it internet gossip and wouldn't agree with the FBI to release the dossier as part of some investigation.
I'm confused about that part, because wasn't it Brennan himself who wanted to attach it to the January 17th thing?
Brennan himself underlined that word.
I see it was his analysts crossed their arms and refused to go along.
Which is saying, you know, don't bring us into this.
Right.
And now so here's an important thing that's right at the beginning of the IG report, too, is, well, geez, you know, they made a judgment call and there are no guidelines about this, but they just decided to not warn Trump.
Because if they did, they were afraid that the rest of the spies infiltrating his campaign would be alerted and we wouldn't be able to catch them.
And so that was their reason that they didn't warn Trump that they thought Russian spies were infiltrating his campaign for president.
Let me explain that, because it's one of these things, again, that has potential.
It's like, you know, it's like, Scott, I slap you in the face and I say and it's pretty obvious I just whacked you and I say, geez, Scott, that's an accident, man.
I'm so sorry.
You had some mustard on your cheek there, buddy.
I'm just on your cheek.
And it's like, oh, OK, if we're going to we're going to go with the mustard thing.
OK, so here's here's the thing.
Arguably, the ostensible argument is that it's because they would alert the Trump people to the that the U.S. government is on to them.
In reality, they already knew there was nothing there.
They don't alert the Trump campaign because they want to be able to selectively leak this information over the next three years to the media and keep it alive.
God bless you, Marcy, for three years.
And finally, the Mueller report says there's nothing here.
There's no collaboration with Russia.
And then the Horowitz report underlines there's no collaboration with Russia.
And it's still I pick up the newspaper and have to read about Leningrad, Lindsay and Moscow, Mitch.
Look, the intelligence community of the United States ran an operation against a presidential campaign.
Underline that you like it because it was Trump.
But trust me, when they do it again in the next election, you're not going to like it.
The fact that they were clumsy about it, the fact that they didn't seem to accomplish their goals only means they're going to get better the next time.
And if you want your defense to be that it was clumsy and didn't work, that is a fool's defense.
We are no longer a functioning democracy when our intelligence services play an active role in our elections.
It's not the foreigners interfering.
It's us.
Yeah.
And listen, I mean, the fact that they kept this thing going until last spring is all the proofs of a conspiracy that you need.
Mueller could have announced within the first few weeks that, hey, everybody, listen, we're following some trails.
But it's clear now that none of them lead to President Trump, that he's not a Manchurian candidate compromised by this and that.
So we may or may not go after Roger Stone for some technicality.
But this has nothing to do with your president being a traitor, rest assured.
But they didn't do that.
They dragged it out for two more years.
That goes to show you exactly what it was about.
Political bias.
What do they mean by that?
It has to be directly partisan Democratic Party bias or just bias against this freak being the president of the United States, which is clearly what was decided here was this guy cannot be allowed to win.
We have to launch this thing to try to stop him.
And then as they themselves even told CNN, well, even if we can't invoke the 25th Amendment and overthrow him in a coup, at least he needs to be reigned in.
And so that's what we're going to do by pretending to investigate him here is just to drag this thing out, just to cripple him.
That's all.
That's their own words.
That's their explanation, you know, to CNN of what they're up to here.
So I think I'll take that at face value.
There you go.
All right.
Well, listen, I'm sorry I'm late and I have to let you go.
But thank you so much for coming on the show.
And I'm sorry we didn't get to talk about the articles of impeachment being voted today, apparently by the Judiciary Committee.
But maybe we'll catch up next week.
Looking forward to it.
All right, everybody.
That's the great Peter Van Buren.
He's the American Conservative Magazine.
This one is called Can We Impeach the FBI Now?
Got my vote.
All right, y'all.
Thanks.
Find me at libertarianinstitute.org, at scotthorton.org, antiwar.com, and reddit.com slash scotthortonshow.
Oh, yeah.
And read my book, Fool's Errand, Timed and the War in Afghanistan at foolserrand.us.
