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 scotthortonshow.
Hey, everybody on the line, I got Dave DeCamp, Assistant News Editor at Antiwar.com and writer of millions and millions of articles at news.antiwar.com.
Hey, how's it going?
Good, Scott, thanks for having me on.
Happy to talk to you again.
Here's the thing, man, is Julian Assange is in the news, founder of WikiLeaks, prisoner of the British Empire, locked over there in solitary confinement, and the question is whether he's going to be extradited to the United States to be prosecuted for espionage and sentenced to life in prison in the Supermax in Florence, Colorado, or whether Trump might just pardon him at the last minute.
That's one of the few developments in his story recently, so let's start there.
There's been rumors, but is there any real reason to believe Trump's going to let him go?
Do you know?
I mean, me personally, I'm not holding my breath.
I would be pretty shocked if he did it.
Today is Friday the 18th.
There's a story in Axios that Trump is expected to go through with some pardons today, and Julian Assange was mentioned, but it didn't seem like that was from any source.
It was kind of just conjecture from the reporter.
So who knows?
There was some pastor close to Trump who tweeted, I forget his name, he was friends with Flynn and everything, he tweeted that Trump was pardoning Assange, but that turned out not to be true.
And he even refracted it, right?
That was a couple days ago.
Yeah, yeah.
Yeah, so I mean, me personally, I mean, I hope it would be amazing if he does it, but I'm not holding my breath, like I said.
Yeah, well, he could have called off the prosecution this whole time.
Obama's government was afraid to prosecute him.
They wanted to, but they're like, man, this guy's not a leaker, he's a leaky, and that's kind of different.
We don't know about that.
But Trump's government has gone ahead and gone through with it.
So I don't know why he's supposed to be the, you know, the secret Donald Trump is going to reveal himself at the last minute here and finally do the right thing, but he keeps not doing that.
So I don't know.
I hope that I get to eat crow, and I hope that this amounts to a big, dumb, obsolete interview by the time it's published, because he's a free man walking around, but like you say, I'm not holding my breath either.
And I like to, because it makes me feel funny, but I still am not going to.
All right, well, so then the other thing was that Veritas put out audio, an hour-something long audio of Julian Assange on the line with Clinton's State Department or John Kerry's State Department.
Oh, it was 2011, right?
So it was Hillary Clinton's State Department.
This is, I guess, so if people remember, they put out the Iraq and Afghan war logs in early 2010, and the State Department cables were last, came out in late 2010, I think, what, October, November 2010.
And then this is from, is it early 2011 that he's negotiating with them about something or another here?
Do I have it right?
Yeah, it's towards the end of 2011.
It's in August 2011.
Oh, okay.
And then, so I'm sorry, I am just so stuck writing a history book about the last wars that are still all going on, too.
But I am way behind on the news cycle right now, man, so I need you to fill me in on what's said in there.
So yeah, like you said, this was released by Project Veritas, which is kind of a sign that it might be kind of aimed at Trump.
A lot of people don't think Veritas is credible and kind of dismissed it, I think, because they released it.
But I mean, this is just raw audio.
There's no reason to believe that it's not real.
It's a conversation between Julian Assange and this guy Cliff Johnson.
He was an attorney for the State Department at the time.
And if I have the timeline right here, it's recorded from August 26, 2011.
There's a documentary on Showtime called Risk about WikiLeaks.
We know that Assange tried to call Hillary Clinton.
In that documentary, it shows Assange and a woman that works for him.
And they call the State Department and say, I want to talk to Hillary Clinton.
That's presumably August 25.
And then this is the day after when they call back.
And this is when Assange learned that the rest of the State Department cables that they had, over 250,000 of them, were compromised.
One of his former employees took the files, and the encryption code for those files was published by Guardian journalists David Lay and Luke Harding in a book earlier in the year.
A lot of people know that story.
And people didn't really connect that until a German newspaper published a story about it on August 25.
So this is presumably—Assange kind of makes the connection that the code's in the book.
He knows where the URL is to get the files.
So he goes ahead and calls the State Department because, contrary to the narrative that the prosecutors representing the U.S. government that are trying to extradite him, he is concerned about the safety of people mentioned in the leaks, because the process that they're going through, every single one of these cables, to redact names of sources.
And he calls the State Department.
So this is over an hour of audio.
I pulled some quotes from it from Assange, if people want to read it on news.antiwar.com, of what I thought was important, of him saying that he wants the State Department to warn people that they think that might be in danger, because he was saying that the cables are probably going to be dumped within the next couple days, which they were released online through some outlets, which led to WikiLeaks eventually dumping the whole thing on September 1st of that year, of 2011.
But if you look at the quotes, this is Assange speaking to this lawyer.
He says, what we want the State Department to do is to step up its warning procedures to State Department sources mentioned in the cables.
He said the State Department should ensure that all those individuals that the State Department thinks might be at risk in despotic regimes have been contacted.
So, yeah, it just goes against the narrative that he's reckless.
He didn't care about the safety of the people in the leaks dumped by WikiLeaks.
This is part of the files that Chelsea Manning leaked to WikiLeaks, along with the Iraq and Afghanistan war logs.
This is what they're trying to put him in jail for life for.
This is part of it.
It's not new information.
We know that he called the State Department, and I'm probably going to butcher his name, but a WikiLeaks editor was on RT yesterday, Kristen Hrafnsson, it's a Scandinavian name, and he was saying that this transcript was given to the court during the extradition trial.
So this isn't new, but it's being put out while the rumors of a pardon are around.
So maybe he could do something.
And we did know that.
We did know that he worked with the State Department, or at least tried to work with them on redacting all the names, and that he was redacting all the names.
And we already knew the part about how it was Luke Harding, the terrible Luke Harding from The Guardian, who was the one who leaked the password and put it out, not Julian Assange, that led to the file being hackable by anyone, which then it was all immediately posted on the Pirate Bay and everything, of course.
And of course, this guy Harding is the same guy that Aaron Maté famously barbecued over.
He wrote this whole book about Russiagate, that not one fact in it stood up, as they say over there in England.
And he's also then the guy who, after that, came out with this story that said that Paul Manafort went and met with Assange, you know, Trump's campaign manager in 2016, went and met with Assange there in their big Russia conspiracy, not 1% of which was reality whatsoever other than that, yes, Assange was locked in that same building that day that he's talking about.
None of the rest of it was true.
But yeah, so this is a big deal, and it should, you know, I don't know if this made, do you know, I guess you're living on Twitter a lot worse than me anyway, do you know if this really kind of made the rounds on the right and, you know, in a way that maybe came to Trump's attention that this really undermines the major accusation against this guy, that he was, you know, recklessly putting lives at risk.
Never mind the fact that the DOD admitted that no informants ended up being killed by this anyway, but that they could have, but that he was even on the right side of that and they have to admit it.
Yeah, that is another thing that's important is that during Chelsea Manning's trial in 2013, the Pentagon, the person who led the Pentagon investigation admitted that they didn't have one example of anybody being killed as a result of- Anyway, Gates did too, the Secretary of Defense himself said that, yep, that was not true, all this stuff about blood on their hands, which, oh my God, was that the brainwashed term of the year when this came out, blood on their hands, these two, Manning and Assange.
It turned out, he said, that was significantly overwrought, as in, yeah, not one guy got his guts cut out, not one.
Yeah, so what you asked, if this really made the rounds, I didn't really see it in many places, which was too bad.
Right wingers hated him back then, see, he was a villain, Manning and Assange were villains for exposing the lies of Bush's war, and a lot of people still are not over that sentiment.
Yeah, it didn't get too much play, and like I said, I think a part of that is that it was released by Veritas, maybe not so much in the right wing circles, but like I said, I think that was a calculated move, because they could have released it any way they wanted, but I know Donald Trump Jr. is kind of close, I think, to that James O'Keefe guy.
Yeah, okay, there you go.
I mean, yeah, that can be really important, that if you're just the right few people, and, you know, I don't know.
I don't know what Donald Trump has to lose at this point, but he still won't do the right thing, so, you know, I don't know.
Yeah.
It seems like, you know, Glenn Greenwald went on the Tucker Carlson show, I'm sure you saw this, where he basically dropped character and quit pretending he was talking to Tucker at all, and is basically looking right in the camera, talking to the president, talking about, you know, essentially saying, listen up, Trump, I know you're watching, you know, and talking right to him, and saying, you know who would be really angry if you did this?
Susan Rice, and James Clapper, and Jim Comey, and John Brennan, these same people who, you know, abused all of these same powers, you could get right at them by pardoning Snowden and Assange.
They're the ones who would hate it the most, and you'd be, you know, dancing on their bones, so come on, you know?
If that isn't good enough, that John Brennan is the one who would be the angriest, then I don't know what you gotta do to wave a red cape at Donald Trump to get him to charge on something like this, you know?
It seems like that would be the thing.
Don't you hate John Brennan?
Those are magic words, right?
Like, say if I was the president, and you came to me, and you said, don't you hate John Brennan?
I would say to you, I'm listening.
Yeah, no, that's a good angle.
I mean, that's the thing, you know, you never know.
I mean, I don't know.
I mean, it's his administration that went ahead with these charges, and it'll be his legacy if Julian Assange is extradited and convicted for doing journalism.
Can you imagine if he ends up really going to federal prison over this stuff?
Locked in a Supermax over publishing Manning's leak of secret level truth that we all needed to know so bad?
Yeah, I mean, it would be the greatest, probably, assault on our free speech and freedom of the press, you know, rights that we supposedly have in the history of this country, I think, and Trump would be responsible for it.
So let's hope somebody, I don't know, can articulate that to him.
But I kind of doubt it.
And I mean, I'm sure that he's got some interests that he's, you know, I mean, you look at him on the campaign trail, and then when Assange was arrested, he said, Oh, I never heard of WikiLeaks.
I mean, come on.
No, man, you know, just disgraceful.
He's such a bastard.
Hey, y'all, here's the thing.
Donate $100 to the Scott Horton Show, and you can get a QR code commodity disc as my gift to you.
It's a one ounce silver disc with a QR code on the back.
You take a picture of it with your phone, and it gives you the instant spot price and lets you know what that silver, that ounce of silver is worth on the market in Federal Reserve notes in real time.
It's the future of currency in the past too.
Commodity discs.com or just go to scotthorton.org slash donate.
Hey guys, Scott Horton here for expand designs.com.
Harley Abbott and his crew do an outstanding job designing, building and maintaining my sites, and they'll do great work for you.
You need a new website, go to expand designs.com slash Scott and say 500 bucks.
Hey guys, check out listen and think audio books.
They're listenandthink.com and of course on audible.com and they feature my book fool's Aaron 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 audio books.
And here's how you can get a lifetime subscription to listen and think audio books.
Just donate $100 to the Scott Horton show at scotthorton.org slash donate.
All right.
So the piece is at news.antiwar.com recording proves Assange warned state department.
Ahead of cable dump.
And then so I could segue right into the next fake Russia scare here, but I wanted to wait.
I want to stop it.
This must be by Jason.
Is this by you or Jason here?
Nope.
This is you.
Good.
IAEA chief new agreement needed to revive Iran deal.
Did anybody tell him?
I said, shut up.
What is this about?
Um, yeah.
So this is the head of the, you know, um, international nuclear watchdog that, um, you know, it's supposed to verify if Iran is, um, in compliance with the Iran deal, the JCPOA.
And he, in an interview with Reuters, he was saying that he can't imagine that they can go back because there's all these violations, all this, uh, extra uranium and, and centrifuges and stuff.
And he's saying how he can't, there has to be another deal kind of within a deal to return to it.
Um, which, you know, Iran has made it clear.
They don't want, they're not interested in negotiating another deal, but they're ready to return it to compliance with the JCPOA.
Now, was he, let me ask you something.
Is this just some subterfuge thing?
Cause this guy's in on it with the bad guys and he's trying to make this too difficult.
And, and so that's who's running the IAEA right now, or this is his own stupid little technocratic habitat that he has to protect and is trying to intervene in this way to make it more difficult just so that he can be part of the solution to it.
This kind of crap.
Or do you have a read on that?
Uh, I mean, it's tough to say really.
Um, it's, it's cause I've heard, he said, um, a few weeks ago, the same guy, he made comments about how the deal could be saved.
But, uh, uh, yeah, I mean, I really can't say one way or the other with, um, where the IAEA is at.
And I think they are kind of, um, interested in, uh, I think making things just more difficult for Iran.
That's the way I see it.
See it.
Um, I mean, you look at the reports that they release on the violations, Jason, this is really good at this, um, kind of interpret, interpreting them for what they're actually saying.
Um, so, but the, cause the violations, I mean, so Iran is enriching uranium at 4.5%, which is just slightly higher than the amount agreed to under the deal, which is 3.67%.
So I imagine that that would be pretty easy to reverse.
And then the other thing is they, they're stockpiling about 12 times more, uh, low enriched uranium, which doesn't really mean anything.
And they can easily export that to Russia who makes fuel rods for them.
Put that on a pallet, put it in the back of a plane and fly it away.
Why do we need a new deal for that?
Look, we're back within the deal.
It took 45 minutes.
Yeah, really.
And then the other thing is the centrifuges that they installed at their Natanz facility underground.
Um, you know, this is another thing, IAEA, they released a report, all these centrifuges violate the deal.
But as Jason pointed out, they also said that it doesn't mean any increased enrichment, these centrifuges.
Right.
And they can just leave them off.
Right.
I mean, they already have, I think the deal already said that you'll shut down one third of your Natanz centrifuges.
So you already have a third of 3000 or so.
Um, those are very rough numbers.
I forget.
It's a few years ago, but you have many hundreds, if not more than 1000 centrifuges that are already sitting there off anyway, being unused at the time.
So.
So, yeah.
And it's important.
Why did they move these centrifuges underground?
Um, because over the summer, likely, most likely Israel planted a bomb.
Well, no, I mean, they were already, the centrifuges were already deep underground.
The centrifuge cascade facilities already underground, but it was go ahead because they did bomb it.
Yeah.
Well, they did bomb it.
Yeah.
But from what I understand is that they built, they built more down there after this and they, or they moved some more down there.
Yeah.
Something like, I got mixed signals on that too.
Cause actually the things I was reading the media reports saying now they're moving them underground.
I'm like, okay, well, do you mean they're moving them further underground or I don't know.
And I wasn't sure who to ask the followup to.
Yeah.
Maybe they carved a new basement out of there.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Um, but yeah, the whole thing, I mean, yeah, I mean, the whole thing has been underground since they built it in 05 was when they carved it out of there.
But yeah, cause there was a, what is it?
I mean, you know, it's a typical Israeli attack inside Iran over the summer.
There was an explosion at Natanz.
It caused some serious damage from what I understand.
And, uh, Israel didn't officially take credit for it.
They made some vague statements about it and then it was, you know, Israeli sources in the media said that they did it.
So that's how they, um, but yeah.
So, I mean, you know, you go around, uh, planting bombs and people's nuclear facilities, they're going to secure them a little more.
Right.
And look, I mean, this is the lesson from the Osirak attack of 1981, where Saddam Hussein was, uh, had to deal with the non, it was a member of the nonproliferation treaty, had to deal with the IAEA and a safe, you know, safeguards agreement for his Osirak reactor.
And the Israelis came and bombed it.
And so then he moved his program underground and started making weapons.
Not that he was anywhere really near having a bomb by the time of Iraq war one, but he was starting to work on one and the CIA didn't know about it.
Nobody knew about it.
And then that of course became Cheney's excuse that like, yeah, but even if we don't know about it, it might still be there.
Uh, you know, 12 years later, but anyway, um, and that was a reaction to the Israelis taking out what was a civilian safeguarded program could just left it alone.
This is the kind of thing that'll drive them to, you know, if, um, history is, uh, and, and the country next door is any guide.
This is the kind of thing that could drive them to actually go ahead and make nukes.
Which I guess would be good for Israel if they really did that, if they really broke out and tried to make a nuke, because then America would start a war with Iran and bomb them before they could finish it.
Yeah.
But that would be a huge war.
And I think the Americans have probably instructed the Israelis that they don't want it to be that way, but I don't know.
It depends on who you're asking.
Yeah.
Yeah.
The best news I heard recently is Mike Pompeo is not going to be the secretary of state anymore.
So then we got that going for us.
I'm not so confident about his replacement.
I'll tell you what, but no.
Yeah.
Yeah.
But he is man.
Pompeo was, they say he wants to run for president with what constituency.
Give me a break.
Yeah.
He's not carried.
He wouldn't get anywhere.
I don't think, I hope.
Absolutely not.
And hopefully, you know, Elliot Abrams will be out too.
So.
Yeah.
Well, you know what?
I bet Joe Biden could find use for him.
God help us.
Tell me about all this stuff about Russia stealing all our bodily fluids out of the microchips here and stuff.
Terrified, Dave.
Terrified.
It's just like Kristallnacht.
Well, so apparently there's been a major hack.
This company, software company SolarWinds, whose clients include a lot of U.S. government agencies and a bunch of corporations, their software was hacked.
And the list of U.S. agencies that were, you know, attacked keeps growing.
I think like the latest is the nuclear agency and the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security and Commerce and Treasury.
And so this was identified by this firm, FireEye, their cybersecurity firm.
And they said that it was a nation state, but they haven't identified who.
They said they don't have enough evidence to identify it.
And of course, the anonymous officials told, you know, the media that it was Russia and or that they suspected it was Russia.
And then everybody just started kind of going with that, that it was Russia.
And, you know, you've got to love people familiar with the matter.
I mean, for God's sake, you can't even just say intelligence official.
Now, what are we talking about?
A House committee staffer or something?
Yeah, I mean, that's what it is.
And then one story I wrote earlier this week in The Washington Post, it's like you just saw it happen in real time.
They had they published a story Monday morning that said officials suspect Russia was behind the hack.
And then they published a story on it later.
And they described that as like a Russian operation, you know, kind of in passing.
So like this, it was about another like agency that was hacked.
And they said, oh, the scale of this Russian operation was much bigger.
And that's kind of how they just becomes in the language.
And of course, you know, Congress and senators, Senator Dick Durbin, he said it was a virtually a declaration of war by Russia, called it a virtual invasion.
Mitt Romney said it was like Russia if Russian bombers were flying in our airspace.
And by the way, that was my crack about Kristallnacht there was that was what an American Democrat, I forgot her name, said about the so called Russiagate hoax that never even really happened, was that that was compared to Kristallnacht.
And then, of course, also to Pearl Harbor and September 11th.
Yeah, it's just like a giant massacre of innocent civilians when somebody we don't know who, but people familiar with the matter tell the Times may have been the Russians based on evidence that they cannot describe in any form whatsoever, other than to say, well, it seems like something they would do.
Yeah, and kind of notably, some declaration of war against us by Russia.
Everyone climb into your bomb shelter, because Dick Durbin says we're at war now because somebody said that maybe the Russians hacked some computers.
Dave, what they do with the computers?
Do they change all our social security numbers or something?
I don't.
That's what I'm trying to figure out is what even happened.
But apparently, it's the biggest hack.
It's the biggest cyber attack ever.
Um, yeah, it's not clear.
They're not really saying if anything was taken or what was exposed.
But it's just it's a really big deal.
And this will start flying in five minutes, everybody.
Yeah, yeah.
And Biden saying he's going to, you know, he's going to retaliate for it, for whoever was responsible by all the headlines.
I saw Trump does nothing as Russia attacks us, of course, because he's such a traitor.
That's what Romney said.
He said it was stunning silence and inaction from the White House.
And but one thing that's kind of interesting is the with the Russia claim, some outlets are not saying it as definitively are kind of being more careful.
Like this.
There's a story in Politico that said the Energy Department was reported that they were hacked, too.
This is by Natasha Bertrand.
And she's like the of Steele dossier fame.
Oh, yeah, she's a notorious hack.
She was the single biggest promoter of the Steele dossier in print.
Right.
Rachel Maddow gets the most for numbers.
But yeah, this was the person who wrote the most fake articles on it.
Yeah.
But so this is her story on this Energy Department hack says the U.S. government has not blamed any particular actors, but cybersecurity expert experts have said the activity bears hallmarks of Russia.
So that's kind of leaving.
It's not saying as definitively, but over at The Washington Post, it's like they just describe it as a as a Russian operation.
And then David Sanger at The New York Times, he did a similar thing to the post.
He said officials said and then he just started saying it's a Russian operation.
But then he kind of backed off a little.
And the latest story, he said it was, you know, people suspect it was Russia, which is kind of interesting.
Yeah.
You know, I I'm not sure this is the exact same thing you're talking about, but I was trolling old Greenwald's Twitter and he had a screenshot.
One was the people familiar with the matter crack, which is just almost a joke for them to rely on that.
But then the other one was of Sanger.
Not I don't think in his eyes backing down, but just describing why he's sure.
And he's saying, well, this is what every all the intelligence people believe it.
And nobody seems to think it was anybody else.
So that was it.
You know?
Yeah.
So that's enough.
Let me see if I can find that in the thread here.
I actually have some kind of Greenwaldian thread here.
This is different.
This is something else.
You know what?
I bet if I picture if I click on his screenshots here, right, they have I'm not logged in, I guess I can't go looking through his pictures.
Oh, here I can.
No, at the login.
Well, anyway, that was the thing.
And it was Sanger saying, well, look, basically, yeah, it has all the hallmarks because geez, you know, it's a sophisticated thing.
So who do you think did it?
And then that's really it.
Well, another interesting thing is that this is Washington Post yesterday.
They said federal investigators found it was previously unknown tactics for penetrating the government's network.
So kind of unknown, what do they call it?
It's like tactics, techniques and procedures.
And that's how if you look at all these Russiagate kind of reports and intelligence reports, one that comes to mind for me is like one that was released that Russia apparently hacked election infrastructure of states.
And the way that they attribute it to Russia is that they say, based on the tactics, techniques and procedures, we say that it's Russia, which is not really it's not proof.
There's no.
And then when there's brand new tactics and procedures, then that's also the Russians, too.
Yeah, yeah.
And that's how CrowdStrike.
Because this is all it's all built on old claims that Russia hacked.
Oh, like they hacked the DNC and gave the emails to WikiLeaks.
But that was never proven.
And the CrowdStrike guy, Sean Henry, I think he's the head of that company, he said at the Senate, or was it House maybe, intelligence hearing in 2017, that was just released this year, that there's no evidence that the emails were actually taken from the server.
And also how he said that they identified that it was Russia was by tactics and techniques.
So like, this is the language that they use to identify these hacks.
Right.
And they had always said that.
Yeah, I mean, this whole Fancy Bear thing, it looks like this must have been Fancy Bear.
And then we think Fancy Bear is the Russians, because one time some guys hacked the Germans and the Germans thought that it might have been the Russians.
And so this whole thing, it's just turtles all the way down.
It's just assertion on top of conspiracy kookery, on top of faith-based assessments of what must be, because I'm out of ideas and this kind of stuff.
Yeah.
Really, it's all vaporware.
That's what they called it in the dot-com bust.
Hey, listen, now that I have my footnote together, I'm going to cite it.
It's Michael Barbaro from the Wall Street Journal, I believe it is.
Hang on.
Pardon me, forgive me.
No, host of the Daily, whatever the hell that is.
He's got a blue check.
He's very important.
And he talked to, it doesn't matter who he is, because he talked to David Sanger.
He asked David Sanger the follow-up.
And he says, David, why are we convinced that this was the Russian hackers?
Do they leave behind any evidence that allows us to say, ah, those are the marks of Russia?
And David Sanger says, well, a few things.
First, the skill level.
This was done, first, in other words, first of all, your honor, just look at them.
Right?
In other words, they don't have anything.
First of all, something that is not meaningful.
OK, go ahead.
You got my attention.
First of all, the skill level.
This was done with a precision and with an understanding of the systems that 97% of the world's best hackers wouldn't have the time or the resources to pull off.
97, OK, a little bit of wiggle room in there, I think.
And then this guy responds, hmm.
And then David Sanger continues.
I thought that was meaningful, the hmm.
And then Sanger continues.
The second thing is they use certain techniques that have been seen before by the Russians.
It had the markings, not just of the Russians, but of a particular intelligence agency within Russia called the SVR.
And then the guy asking the question says, hmm.
And then Sanger says this is the group, a successor to the old KGB from Soviet days that is mostly for espionage purposes.
That said, it's entirely conceivable that a few months from now we could come to a conclusion that the early findings were wrong.
But nobody that I've spoken to in both the government or in the private sector seems to have a whole lot of doubt here.
And that's it.
From the horse himself's mouth, David Sanger, Mr.
Iranian nuclear weapons program, Mr.
Iraqi weapons of mass destruction caches.
There you have it.
Nobody he's spoken to has a whole lot of doubt.
Yeah.
And then I think I found it.
The Daily, it looks like it's the New York Times podcast, came out December 16th.
He seemed important with his blue check and everything.
Yeah.
So if this came out December 16th and the next day, we find out that they used these techniques that the feds have never seen before.
So that kind of.
So what Sanger said about the similar tactics, it's just not true.
Well, you know, what's similar about it is how different it is.
That's how they get you, man.
Yeah, yeah.
You know, come on.
Keep up, Dave.
Maybe that.
Yeah, because I did notice that he, it seemed like he backed off a little bit, Sanger.
Yeah, but that's OK.
Narrative set, just like what Charlie Savage and the rest of the other guys have said.
Just like what Charlie Savage and the rest of these goons, they got their little Russia did it, you know, talking point for the week out there.
And that's what really counts.
Yeah, enough headlines say it was a Russian hack.
So that's what people are going to think that don't pay close attention.
Yeah, man.
All right, well, listen, I better let you go, dude.
We got a good half hour in here and I have to run.
But thank you for helping keep up with everything in the world going on.
That's important with the great Jason Ditz as well at news dot antiwar dot com.
And check out that front page today.
Whoa, man.
Appreciate it.
All right.
Thanks, Scott.
The Scott Horton Show antiwar radio can be heard on KPFK 90.7 FM in L.A.
APS radio dot com antiwar dot com Scott Horton dot org and Libertarian Institute dot org.
