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 on the line, I've got Kelly Vlahos.
She is the Executive Editor of the American Conservative Magazine.
Welcome back to the show.
How's it going?
Oh, thank you, Scott.
It's going great.
Thanks.
Good.
I love this article.
Was Sheldon Adelson acting as a bag man for the CIA?
And geez, well, I don't know.
Why would you ask that question in your headline?
Is there a reason to think so?
Well, I was very surprised.
I was reading the New York Times the other day, and I was getting up to speed on what was going on with Julian Assange, and it turns out that he's going to be testifying in a Spanish court against a security company.
He'll be testifying via, you know, camera because he's rotting in a jail in London right now.
But he'll be testifying against a Spanish security company that apparently had installed all sorts of surveillance in the Ecuadorian embassy while Julian was there for years.
Apparently they were spying on Assange, but the twist is that they may have been spying on behalf not only of the Ecuadorian government, but on the behalf of the CIA.
As we know now, Washington is building a case of espionage against Julian Assange.
So it turns out for years they had been listening in on his conversations, conversations in any part of the embassy, including the bathrooms, where I guess he had taken to having his most private conversations with his lawyers because he was so paranoid, and rightly so, that everything he was doing and saying was being watched.
So they found out about this elaborate surveillance scheme, which included a live stream apparently that piped right back to the CIA in Washington.
So he found out about this, his lawyers have helped bring an indictment in a Spanish court because his company is Spanish.
And then it turns out, another twist, that one of the allegations is that this particular, the head of this security company, David Morales, had been delivering these hard disks with all the surveillance back to the United States to the CIA at least twice a month.
Where did he go?
Apparently he went to Las Vegas to Sheldon Adelson's Sands Casino.
So that is where I had come up with this idea that he had allegedly been serving as sort of a bag man for the CIA, a dumping point or a transfer point for this surveillance that got rerouted eventually back to the CIA.
I mean, I'll be careful to say that none of that has been proven yet in terms of the CIA's involvement, certainly not Sheldon Adelson's, but it does have this sort of smarmy taint to it that can only be attributed to the CIA and Sheldon Adelson.
Yeah.
I mean, they seem like a match made in heaven for each other.
I don't know why they wouldn't be working together.
So it's kind of curious, I really should have tried to delve more into the original journalism here.
Is there an explanation as to why he would need to bring them anything?
And certainly all the way to the U.S. rather than his local station in Spain, or as you said, they had at least one live stream.
It wasn't all live streamed.
Are there answers to those questions?
Yeah, apparently it wasn't all live streamed.
So I'm with you.
I searched for, and I could not find a reasonable answer as to why he had to deliver anything back to the CIA.
So I mean, we can look at some of this, obviously, with some skepticism, since we don't know exactly.
But this is a testimony at a trial going on in Spain.
This is a testimony.
So this is part of a case that prosecutors in the Spanish National Court have built against this security company called UC Global.
And the head of UC Global, David Morales, is facing these charges of invasion of privacy, bribery of a government official, and money laundering.
So this is serious business, and this is all within the case, that he was spying or had set up this surveillance system in the embassy in part to feed surveillance back to the CIA, and that he, and this is according to his own staff, had been traveling to Las Vegas at least twice a month with these hard disks.
Now, supposedly he had been delivering them back to the CIA, but the fact is he was going not to Washington, but to Las Vegas, and he had told his staff on different occasions that they would be working for the dark side and not to say anything, and that he had made these connections with former security officials in the U.S., former CIA officials.
So, you know, that is where their contention comes from.
Now, whether it can be proven in court, that's- And they're saying that they would, that he would deliver the stuff to Sheldon Adelson's security company, that they were the connection to the CIA.
And they would deliver, and you know, and there's been some skepticism, I'll be honest with you, after I published the story, you know, our good friend Phil Giraldi had written back to me, and he says, this sounds a little weird, that they would use such an obvious cutout, they call it a cutout, as Sheldon Adelson, when they could have probably just brung, he could have brung the disks anywhere, to some McDonald's where some CIA officials could read them.
So the Adelson connection is very strange, but the fact is that he, that his own staff, you know, were given immunity or witness protection to come forward and tell prosecutors what, you know, what they were told.
And they were told that there were many trips made to Las Vegas, that he had talked about going over to the dark side, to, you know, working in this more elite league of security, the security field, and that not to say anything about these trips where he was delivering these disks.
You know, so there's some weirdness going on in terms of why he was, why he was visiting Las Vegas.
And you know, other people have sent me stories about other reports about the CIA being inserted in Adelson's casinos, particularly in Macau, in which Chinese officials have accused the CIA of infiltrating casinos in Macau, their casinos in Macau, to report back about Chinese government officials from the mainland who visit these casinos.
So this isn't the first instance of we, of hearing that, you know, the CIA might be working in, at some level in these, in his properties.
Yeah.
So, and Adelson apparently had used this David Morales for his own personal security in the past.
So he's like a known figure.
They know each other.
Well, it sounds like he's already working on the dark side of he's doing all this spying on Assange in the first place.
So it doesn't sound surprising that somebody who would be, yeah, I mean, bad guys know each other.
I'm not sure what the, where the cause and effect is, but it makes sense that they would, you know, have different associations.
Right.
Well, it's just kind of creepy because, you know, it was pointed out that, you know, this guy Morales had worked for the Ecuadoran president, the first, the one who had brought Julian into sanctuary in the first place, Rafael Correa, because he had served as a bodyguard for his daughters at one point.
And so you're right about, you know, this, this incestuous little world.
And so he's brought in because he's a known quantity to the president.
He's brought in to, to basically establish this elaborate surveillance system in, in the embassy.
He, you know, Julian's there for seven years, another president comes in and apparently at that point, all the surveillance went up a notch, you know, under the, under the, under the new president and the Trump administration, which has, you know, has basically promised to bring Julian back to the United States to, to quote unquote justice.
So everything ramps up under the new president who eventually kicks Julian out, revokes the citizenship that the previous president gave him.
And then it turns out, wow, the CIA had been building a case against Julian for years, or at least trying to based on all of this surreptitious, I mean, you know, weird little tidbits, like, you know, they were taking baby diapers, you know, dirty baby diapers from the garbage, trying to, to, to DNA check to see if Julian had some illegitimate child.
I mean, they were watching this guy and God knows what kind of psychological turmoil this man went under, you know, first of all, you can't go outside for seven years and you're stuck in these four walls, you know, these tiny rooms, you know, barely any exercise.
And then you got, you know, that you're being watched incessantly all times of the day in any room that you go.
And apparently he was having conversations with, you know, a little mask over his nose or his mouth, you know, so their lips couldn't be read.
I mean, under those conditions, I don't think, I think I would have snapped.
Now, now he's in solitary confinement.
Worse is it?
Well, I mean, in his latest court appearance, they said that he was just whacked out of his mind.
He couldn't figure out how to say his name and his birthday.
Right.
And he didn't understand the proceedings and could give me a thing.
And then, you know, he was in bad shape and and is apparently, you know, yeah.
In supermax conditions while he's in for one year on a charge of skipping bail.
Right.
Skipping bail because of a case that no longer exists.
Yeah.
Which was just dismissed again.
Again.
Because it only was there to serve a purpose.
It was a lie all along.
The sexual assault accusations in Sweden.
There's been great journalism about that, too.
And so, in fact, I think it was Caitlin Johnstone that pointed out that, well, actually now all this BS in Sweden was getting in the way of extraditing him to America.
And so you see, that's why they it wasn't just that they didn't need the lie anymore.
It was that now the lie was in their way.
And so they went ahead and finally just dropped those charges for good.
But yeah, I remember I originally thought that they had said 52 days because he was getting bail.
I was like, I'll be on 52 days.
That's not too bad.
No, they gave him a year for that.
And then we'll see if he lives or if they can get him extradited to the U.S. where we know now that it was true all along.
What they said was a conspiracy theory, even though it had originally been reported in The Washington Post, was that they had a grand jury and they were looking to indict him for espionage.
And they had the whole theory that this wasn't journalism.
It was a conspiracy to hack and all that.
They've been talking about that for years.
And now we only learned in the last year that that is true.
They have an indictment for him right now on espionage charges and want to give him life in prison here.
So.
So they lied.
No surprise, but they lied for years that there was there was no grand jury and they called him paranoid for saying that he was being watched in his embassy.
And it turns out both were true.
So, I mean, I we had a great story up by our reporter, Barbara Bolin, about whether or not I mean that and you just raised it.
He will actually survive this incarceration.
And I I mean, I don't think I'm too far fetched to worry that this is is this is being deliberately done so that when they do.
He might not die in prison, but when they actually extradite him, he will be such a mess that he will not be able to defend himself or they just won't or it's the ultimate revenge on this guy.
I don't know.
I'd be curious to see what you think about that.
But I I feel as though that there are there are greater forces here than just some bureaucrats that want to, you know, get back for him supposedly, you know, helping to steal classified information.
I think there's much darker forces at work here.
Yeah.
Well, I think anybody on earth with power hates this guy's guts.
Right.
So they had there's nothing for them to like about him at all.
There's no mitigating circumstances from their point of view whatsoever, whether you're at CIA or DOJ or state or whichever White House or any other thing or any of these other governments or powerful banking institutions or anybody who has a lot to lose.
If the truth was known about the business they do.
And so, yeah, I mean, he will absolutely be lucky to get out alive.
You know, I don't know and I don't know how sick he is, but there were some doctors who said that and they hadn't examined him personally, but just from what they had seen in court and had had described to him about the symptoms of his behavior in court, they said that they thought he was in a real health crisis and that he needed independent medical attention.
And.
You know, there's like a U.N. group or something, who knows?
But I take that very seriously and they sure would be happy if he did die and it sure would be easy to kill him.
Guy's locked in a cell.
There are recent examples about how that works.
But there's a million of them in Sheikh Alibi.
Remember him?
They tortured him into pretending Saddam and taught him how to make chemical weapons and hijack airplanes.
And then Colin Powell used him to lie us into war.
And then they gave him over to Gaddafi, who killed him in his prison cell.
So that's how I do business.
You know, you know, the tragedy of all of this is, is that he has no base other than folks like me and you and principled people who have stood, you know, by this man for all this time.
You know, his base of support among the liberal media has completely washed away because of this supposed connection he has with these, the Russian hacking and with Roger Stone and Trump and the campaign.
And those questions have never been fully answered.
But we know that he has said that, no, I was not the guy that handed over, you know, these documents to the Trump campaign.
But I wonder, you know, I'm curious to see what you think about this.
You know, why is the Trump administration going after him so, you know, harshly?
I understand the institutional need for revenge against Assange because of, you know, the State Department documents that were released to CIA.
You know, Pompeo is the secretary of state and he was the head of the CIA when he launched this attack on Assange, you know, when he first, when Trump first took office.
But like Trump has it in his power to ratchet this up or quell it.
So I'm wondering what the connections are here.
Or is it just is this all coming from the institutional urge to get him?
Hey, I'll check it out.
The Libertarian Institute, that's me and my friends, have published three great books this year.
First is No Quarter, The Ravings of William Norman Grigg.
He was the best one of us.
Now he's gone.
But this great collection is a truly fitting legacy for his fight for freedom.
I know you'll love it.
Then there's Coming to Palestine by the great Sheldon Richman.
It's a collection of 40 important essays he's written over the years about the truth behind the Israel-Palestine conflict.
You'll learn so much and highly value this definitive libertarian take on the dispossession of the Palestinians and the reality of their brutal occupation.
And last but not least is The Great Ron Paul, The Scott Horton Show Interviews, 2004 through 2019.
Interview transcripts of all of my interviews of the good doctor over the years on all the wars, money, taxes, the police state and more.
So how do you like that?
Pretty good, right?
Find them all at Libertarian Institute dot org slash books.
Hey, you guys may know I'm involved in some Libertarian Party politics this year, but you can't hear or read about that at the Libertarian Institute due to 501 C 3 rules and such.
So make sure to sign up for the interviews feed at Scott Horton dot org and keep an eye on my blog at Scott Horton dot org slash stress.
Hey, y'all, Scott here.
If you want a real education in history and economics, you should check out Tom Woods's Liberty Classroom.
Tom and a really great group of professors and experts have put together an entire education of everything they didn't teach you in school, but should have followed through from the link in the margin at Scott Horton dot org for Tom Woods's Liberty Classroom.
We should also mention that Bradley Manning, Chelsea Manning, is sitting in jail right now on a contempt charge for refusing to participate in this charade, really, where the indictment is a joke or the way they describe they try to conflate Assange if it is, in fact, Assange communicating with Manning, telling him to use if he can to figure out his password for his co-worker and log in as him not to get any higher level of access, even though that wouldn't make any difference anyway, but not even to give him a higher level of access, but just to help disguise who had done it, to help better get away with it, which is absolutely in every way, purely within the bounds of what any investigative journalist would do on that exact same case and would even go farther.
And they're trying to say that, no, that's what makes it a conspiracy to steal this stuff rather than just journalism and a journalist encouraging his source to do better, you know, to get stuff out.
But so then Manning's done her time, got clemency from Obama.
Then comes this grand jury and they're trying to force Manning to testify, even though she already testified at the, you know, at the court martial at the, what do they call the elocution or whatever, in pleading guilty at the court martial and all of this stuff and is telling the court, I have no more to say.
I don't stand by your accusations against this guy at all and I'm not going to say anything more.
And so has been sitting in jail for months now.
I don't know what six, eight months.
Yeah, and I know one of the reasons why she didn't, you know, people wondered, well, why didn't you just go sit at the grand jury and then plead the fifth or just reiterate what you had said?
You know, why put yourself through this agony?
And what she had said was, I'm afraid of being tricked or duped into saying something.
And they come back and say, you lied or that's obstruction.
And then you're going right back to jail.
So I think there's a fear there when you have this, this culture of entrapment in the judicial process.
We see that, we see that playing out all the time at the federal level and some of these scandals that you say one, one wrong word to the FBI and next thing you know, you're getting thrown into jail for lying to the FBI.
And so she was smart.
I mean, that's, you know, maybe in hindsight, not so you might not think it, but she's thinking, she was thinking, I'm not going to go there and put my neck on a block again.
Which again, they'd be happy to go ahead and put it right back in the pen and override Obama's clemency, find an excuse.
So that is a good argument, of course.
And then also there's the whole thing about not being a rat when, when the cases, especially the cases trumped up.
You're talking about someone who was factually, heroically guilty of doing this leak.
And that person's, you know, journalist connection where they're passing this stuff on.
That, you know, Manning has no incentive whatsoever to help the government prosecute, persecute Julian Assange for the heroic work he was doing back then.
Whole thing's crazy.
Well, you know, what bothers me the most about this is that you have Chelsea Manning, transgender, spent her time in prison in solitary.
I mean, you want to talk about punishment.
I mean, yeah, she received clemency, but it was after how many years of being abused in prison?
Now, back in prison, incurring thousands of dollars in daily fees while she's there.
Where is the liberal media in her defense?
Oh, yeah.
No, they love whistleblowers now, haven't you heard?
Whistleblowers are all the rage on CNN and MSN.
Oh, this one particular whistleblower, see?
Yeah, that's different, I guess.
That doesn't make me very confident that if and when Julian Assange is extradited to the United States, that there will be, you know, an upswell of people of support for him and protest against the government and to create an atmosphere in which the media will be forced to pay attention and that would draw attention to the injustices.
I'm afraid that he will come and there'll be your usual, you know, people who are demonstrating, you know, doing the right thing.
But it won't be enough to really draw the glare of scrutiny on the process.
And I really I worry about that.
I mean, just coming into work today, there's a spontaneous protest, you know, for for climate change in the middle of the street.
People with flags are talking about extinction.
And I'm thinking, you know, I love all these people in Washington to have this have the inspiration to spontaneously protest.
And I'm not putting down climate change.
And I feel it's an important issue.
But when it comes to like issues of law and and and freedom and these really life or death situations like the war, the illegal war in Iraq, where are all these traitors?
Where is their spontaneity and their vigor then?
And I'm just afraid that, you know, Chelsea Manning, Julian Assange, they're not they're not fashionable enough victims for this fickle, you know, media culture that we have.
Yeah.
Well, and also by the transitive property of the Russians helped Assange helped Trump become the president.
That retroactively means that Manning is a bad person.
Yeah.
So Manning's leak was during Obama times.
And even though it mostly implicated the Bush regime, it also did implicate Obama's people too.
And so in Hillary, don't yeah, partisanship, Uber, Alice, you know, right.
Don't underestimate the long tentacles of like the Hillary spite.
Right.
Yeah, no doubt about it.
Hey, listen to me.
Right.
And I did this the other week in my article about antiwar dot com a month ago or so.
But I just decided to check again.
And I put Manning into Google News and I'm now on page nine and oh, there it is at the very bottom of page nine is the first reference to Chelsea Manning.
Everything before that are sports news stories from around the country, mostly Eli Manning and Peyton Manning.
But there are other Mannings involved in sports, too, apparently.
But I had to go to nine pages before I got to the first story of Chelsea Manning here.
And that is from May 16th in CNN.
Yeah, well, in the longer that Assange and she and Chelsea Manning is in jail and out of the public spotlight, the less interested the public is in their their plights and their issues, because I mean, even today, you know, you and I have been talking about this for years.
I mean, we were writing and you were you were doing your show on WikiLeaks and all the news that was unfolding.
And I was writing about the persecution of of Assange and the public opinion.
So this is all fresh for us.
This is this is something that's been important to us.
But I feel like, you know, people who are just coming on to this issue, especially younger readers and listeners, you know, who don't remember what the landscape was like back then or how important it was that these leaks happened and the truths that they exposed that the longer these guys are rotting in jail, people it's their people are disconnected from from the reality of what really was a decade ago almost.
So, yeah, it was nine years ago that the big leak came out.
So so if the government and the media are saying this is all about Russia, this is all about WikiLeaks helping Trump and they politicize it in that way, then it's kind of hard for some people to get up the sort of interest and be like, why should I care about this guy?
You know, I'm not I'm not trying to take away the, you know, people's ability to go and do their own research and inform themselves.
I'm just saying that if you're building it, if they build a narrative in which WikiLeaks and Assange and Chelsea Manning are just sort of like Trump operatives, then this could be a disaster for those guys and they actually face a court, you know, because it's going to take people getting getting outraged and showing up at the courthouse and writing op eds and getting on television and drawing all the attention of the justices to to to really help them and give them a fair trial.
And I don't I'm just.
And you know what, too, is forget Julian Assange.
I mean, take your favorite journalist and put them in that same position, because if they can successfully prosecute Assange for publishing a leak, then they can do that to anybody.
Right.
And, you know, of course, when you read The New York Times and The Washington Post, there are leaks of classified information in there virtually every single day.
And I don't know the proportion, but I'd be willing to guess it's about 90 to 95 percent of the time or greater.
It's an official government leak that the agencies or departments or the White House or the Congress, whoever, wanted to put out in order to push their own narrative forward and advance their own thing, in which case it's perfectly fine.
Other times they get a real scoop and go ahead and tell us the truth after, you know, waiting a year or whatever it is.
But something important comes out that, you know, a real whistleblower let them know, like when Thomas Tam at DOJ called Eric Lickblow at The New York Times and said, hey, man, they're illegally wiretapping the people here kind of thing.
There's that.
And that comes out every once in a while.
But so that means that, you know, obviously, if they can do this and set the precedent with Assange, that the former kind of leaks will probably still be tolerated.
But if Eric Lickblow or James Risen, well, James Risen will probably never do good work again.
The Russiagate conspiracy truther idiot.
But if any actual good journalist, you know, ever break some good stories again, even in a place like The New York Times, they could really go to prison for that.
We'd be entering an entire new era of journalism in America where you better just stick to writing about the picnic at the park on Sunday instead of something important that happened.
Or else you're facing jail like some crazy banana republic.
Yeah.
Or better yet, check with the agency before, you know, you go to print, you know, is this OK?
Can we write this?
Can we publish this?
They would love it.
But I do think it'll put an incredible chill on.
And on journalism.
And I think that's already happening already because, I mean, the Obama administration went after journalists more than more than Bush preceding.
And Bush was I mean, we were in we were in serious wartime, you know, and Obama is pulling out of the wars and he's still going after journalists.
He had absolutely no reason other to protect his own reputation, his own government for going after these journalists.
So I think that the landscape has already been chilled and, you know, it's unfortunately unfortunate.
And reporting has become so politicized, too, that the only real like, you know, investigative reporting that somehow honored today with any respect is, you know, the journalism going after Trump and exposing Russia's meddling.
So it's really not a good time for the profession all around.
No, it's not.
It really is nuts.
Hey, by the way, have you read Matt Taibbi's new book, Hate Inc.?
I haven't, but I, you know, I've heard some great things about it and would love to.
Well, you know, he's a real fun and easy read, too.
But he just makes some really great points about the, you know, the media culture and the different silos of the different echo chambers and media bubbles and the ways that they mostly fail to even interact with each other in any real way.
So like you really have, for example, giant whatever, you know, pluralities or proportions of liberal Democrats in America who still believe that the Russia stuff is a big deal and are frustrated with their representatives for not making it a big deal anymore when it's such a big deal.
Trump's treason with the Russians that because they never were exposed to any of the debunkings because it didn't, you know, penetrate the bubble that they're living in.
And everybody still agrees about the thing that they've been wrong about all this time.
And they don't know that.
No, every single one of your stupid theories bolstering your whole stupid theory have all been completely disproven.
Get over it.
They haven't heard that.
And if they did hear it, it was from some horrible right wing person that they hate and could never, you know, listen to or accept.
And so they are just more reinforced in their religious belief, really, in this Russian meddling.
It's a it's really funny.
It's like the, you know, Obama born in Kenya thing or anyone is as Americans will believe anything as long as it's not true.
I guess it's just now they all believe different, not true things instead of the same, not true things like it used to be.
And that's really what he's talking about is it used to just be rather Jennings and Brokaw lying to us all day.
Now it's a thousand liars.
Yeah.
Well, the thing with Matt and, you know, I really appreciate this is that, you know, he came up from journalism at a time or not at a time, but his own his own journey into journalism was because he wanted to sort of expose truths.
And that's sort of like the reason why I got into journalism, scratched beneath the surface, challenged the, you know, the status quo orthodoxy, you know.
And so he is and I don't know him personally, but I would imagine that he is authentically frustrated and outraged with the perversion of the profession.
And he is able to see because I don't believe that he, you know, he might have written, you know, from a more of a center left establishment, you know, perspective in the past and for or for publications that you would consider part of the liberal mainstream media.
But I think that, you know, he is also a student of skepticism and a corruption of power.
And that's why a lot of us get into journalism, because we want to challenge that.
And he's watching his colleagues go into some weird, you know, apoplectic fits over Trump and to distort their reality in their reporting and drinking Kool-Aid and and walking around like, you know, zombies.
And I'm glad that he's written this book because I just think that he's coming from a place of like he's he's honestly probably a gog at what's happened and what is happening around him.
And I'm glad that, you know, he's getting I'm glad that he has reached a pinnacle of his career where he can publish books and people listen to him because of, you know, a lot of people, a lot of us, you know, you know, we've toiled away sometimes at the margins.
And, you know, I feel like, you know, he he has a big enough platform where he can just basically shout about this and he's got a lot of followers.
And so I'm glad I'm glad he's doing it.
I don't know what kind of reaction he's getting, because whenever you go up against the blob, so to speak, the media hive, you get stung.
But I think he's big enough and tough enough to take it.
Yeah, certainly.
And, you know, I like to the way he writes.
And it is, as you're saying, because of the position that he has achieved for himself, that he's able to speak in the royal we about media people.
And so he's like, in a sense, he's kind of taking a little bit of collective guilt and blame that he doesn't deserve.
But he's doing it for the purpose of really identifying with the people he's criticizing, that, you know, there's such a thing as this us, us journalists and how we do business.
And is this the way, you know, not that there's a real guild, but in a way, you know, it's a so he's kind of acting as the inspector general and saying, you know, here's where we're going wrong and this kind of thing.
But he's also ruthless and and he's also, you know, really brilliant.
And so he came up with all different angles on the same question that I certainly would not have thought of.
You know, I think he makes a lot of really great points in there.
So anyway, I'm sure all of y'all will like it, especially you, Kelly.
Yeah, I'm going to check it out.
Thank you.
Yeah, it's cool, man.
All right.
Well, listen, also, I like reading The American Conservative.
I do every day.
We run something by you guys every single day at antiwar.com, of course.
Yeah, I appreciate that, too.
Yeah, man.
Well, it's only because you publish such great stuff all the time, including this one with Sheldon Adelson acting as a bag man for the CIA by Kelly Vallejos.
Thank you very much again, Kelly.
Thank you, Scott.
All right, y'all.
Thanks.
Find me at Libertarian Institute dot org at Scott Horton dot org, antiwar dot com and Reddit dot com slash Scott Horton Show.
Oh, yeah.
And read my book, Fool's Errand, Timed and the War in Afghanistan at Fool's Errand dot US.
