5/15/20 Dave Smith Interviews Scott About Obamagate

Hey guys, so I don't usually do this, but you know, from time to time I get interviewed on other people's shows and I don't usually post them on here, but this was a particularly good one.
I was on the Dave Smith show last Friday talking about the Mike Flynn case and Russiagate, Obamagate, all that kind of thing.
So you like hearing me interview people, maybe you want to hear somebody interview me.
Here's that.
Fill her up!
You're listening to The Gas Digital Network.
We need to roll back the state.
We spy on all of our own citizens.
Our prisons are flooded with non-violent drug offenders.
If you want to know who America's next enemy is, look at who we're funding right now.
Every single one of these problems are a result of government being way too big.
You're listening to Part of the Problem on The Gas Digital Network.
Here's your host, Dave Smith.
Hey, what's up everybody?
Welcome to a brand new episode of Part of the Problem.
I'm excited for this one because I really wanted to talk to our next guest, who is our most had-on-the-show guest ever.
That was said awkwardly.
But of course, the great Scott Horton, he is the author of Fool's Errand, Time to End the War in Afghanistan.
Also, just put out The Great Ron Paul, which is fantastic.
Guys, if you haven't read both those books, make sure you go grab them and read them.
He's the director of the Libertarian Institute, also the host of The Scott Horton Show, and he is the managing editor at AntiWar.com, which is a whole lot of really, really important stuff that if you're not familiar with, you should go get familiar with.
How are you, Scott?
Good to see you.
I'm doing great, man.
Just living that bleach water life.
Aren't we all?
Aren't we all these days?
It smells like a kitchen in my whole house.
That really is.
When this thing is all said and done, we're all going to be just susceptible to every other virus that exists because we've all just been washing our hands and Lysol-ing everything for God damn.
Okay, we'll get into the topic in a second, but now I get paranoid every time my daughter touches a counter or any of the food that's been wiped off, and I'm like, oh God, no, there's freaking Lysol all over this shit.
Anyway, so I wanted to have you on to talk about some of the recent developments in what is being called in brilliant marketing, hashtag Obamagate.
Say whatever you will about Donald Trump.
That guy has got to be just like the best marketer who's ever existed.
I mean, he's just, that was the perfect title to give it so that people care and it sells to your, you know, Fox News watching uncle or whatever.
Like, it's just the perfect thing to grab you.
And we've talked a lot, both of us have talked a lot together and separately about the whole Russia collusion narrative that turned out to be really just a hoax of the most unbelievable level that more and more came out.
It was obvious from the beginning that there were holes in the corporate press narrative about Donald Trump colluding with Russia to steal the election and unseat Hillary Clinton from the election.
She was guaranteed to win.
And the idea that Trump was a puppet of Vladimir Putin or a Russian asset or whatever, this all, there were so many holes in it all along.
But the more information that's come out over the years, we've just been more and more vindicated about being skeptical about this whole thing.
And now with a lot of the stuff you just recently, a lot more information has come out, particularly regarding the case with Michael Flynn, which was just dropped by the Justice Department last week.
So I want to talk about a whole bunch of this stuff.
But have you been following the latest developments and what are your thoughts?
Yeah.
Well, you're right.
I mean, this is the hugest scandal.
The coronavirus thing kind of makes it feel like it's paled in comparison or something like that.
But yeah, I mean, a friend of mine was just saying the other day about how, well, look at how big the scandal was if it was true.
Right.
What they claimed was really going on here that, you know, our president had been suborned by the leader of Russia in this way and all that.
Well, the fact that it wasn't true at all, but that that's what they claimed is a scandal that's just about as big as the story itself if it had panned out.
I mean, it's really crazy to think about the level of accusation against the president here.
And yeah, so I have been following the recent stuff.
So there's the Michael Flynn, the General Flynn stuff there, the National Security Advisor and his case being dropped.
But there's also then the declassification of some of the House hearings and some of the testimony there.
So there is some really big developments as far as that goes.
But you wanted to start with Flynn then?
Yeah, let's let's start with Flynn.
And I wanted to ask a little bit because because you probably know a lot of stuff about this that I would I would benefit from learning.
But I you know, so so more or less just so people kind of have the timeline straight because this is what's really interesting and putting together what we've we've known for a while and what we know now.
So in January of 2017.
So this is Trump is this is early January.
Trump is not yet sworn in as the president, but he's won the election.
He's won the he's the president elect.
And Obama is the lame duck president on his way out.
So Donald Trump won the election in November.
He had, you know, all of November and December.
He's been out, you know, giving speeches, bragging about winning.
But everyone knows he's about to come in.
And Michael Flynn, who was an advisor to him during the campaign, he's selected him as his first national intelligence, a national security advisor.
And so on January, the first week of January is when a lot of really interesting things happen.
So, number one, this clip that I've played on my show a bunch of times now, there was this moment.
I don't know if you saw this, but it's a really amazing moment.
It's one of my favorite moments in the history of cable news.
So Chuck Schumer's on Rachel Maddow show, and he's given his normal kind of talking points.
And he's like, you know, Donald Trump, you can't you can't lead by tweet.
And blah, blah, blah, blah.
And trying to attack Trump for whatever.
And then Rachel Maddow goes off script and goes, hey, so I don't mean to ambush you.
But as we're recording this or as we're airing this, Donald Trump was just tweeting something about the deep state or the CIA or something like that.
And he said, blah, blah, blah.
These people in the FBI and CIA are something insulting.
And Chuck Schumer just has an honest moment, which is very rare for Chuck Schumer.
And he says he goes, man, I mean, if he's going to go after the the intelligence agencies, you're going to go after the intelligence community.
They have six ways from Sunday to get even with you.
And it was this very weird moment where Chuck Schumer just happens to throw this out.
Now, that week, that week, I think it was the next day.
Peter Strzok, who is this this FBI agent who's texting his lover about how we will stop Donald Trump before he got got elected.
We will find a way to stop him.
Texting Lisa Page.
He to FBI people tell him they want to drop the case against Michael Flynn.
And he says, no, no, no, no, no.
You do not drop this case against Michael Flynn.
The day after that, this is all the first week in January.
There's a meeting in the Oval Office with Obama, Biden, Clapper, Brennan and Comey.
So pretty much the five worst people in the planet.
And they all discuss Flynn.
And then then the next day after that, this is all the first week in January is when Comey goes to Trump Tower and presents him with this steel dossier that he already knew was bullshit.
A couple of weeks later, he sends the FBI agents to go talk to Flynn.
So this all the beginning of this all happened in January before Trump was even in.
I just wanted to kind of make that clear for people listening.
But before we even get into that, sorry for the long intro to this question.
But I want to ask you, because I've speculated a lot about this on my show, why it was that they wanted to go after Flynn.
What was it about him that made him such a threat?
So I wanted to ask you before this stuff, Flynn is working in the Obama administration.
I'm blanking on his the title.
He was the director of the D.A.
The D.A.
That's that's right.
So he's working in the Obama administration from 2012 to 2014, from about the summer of 2012 to 2014, which, as people know, you good people who listen to Scott Horton on this show and who listen to the Scott Horton show.
This was a really, really important time in the Obama administration, the summer of 2012 through the summer of 2014.
All types of crimes against the Constitution, against humanity going on in that period.
And he left on very bad terms with the Obama administration.
So what what happened there?
Who was this guy, Flynn?
Why did he butt heads with Obama?
All right.
So, first of all, he had been the head of intelligence for the Joint Special Operations Command, the top tier special operations forces in Iraq and then in Afghanistan, where he was Stanley McChrystal's right hand man during the surge in 2010, you know, nine and ten before McChrystal got himself and the group fired.
And then he went to D.A. where he famously and people should just hit pause on this right now and go and watch the interview with Mehdi Hassan, that horrible hack at the Intercept, who is a terrible person.
But anyway, he got this great interview out of Mike Flynn, I'm going to say, in 2016, probably, Dave.
Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no.
Sorry.
Sorry.
Would have been 14 somewhere around there where he's challenging him on American support for the jihadists in Syria and how this led to the rise of the Islamic State.
And, you know, Brad Hoff and I guess Judicial Watcher got the document and Brad Hoff had written all about this D.A. report about American support for and allied support for the jihadist side in the Syrian war.
And so Mehdi Hassan confronts him with this.
And instead of saying, well, you know, some analysts might have written that, but I don't know or something.
Instead, he stands by it and says, yeah, that's exactly right.
All right.
And he says in regards to Obama, he says this was apparently a deliberate decision to continue to back these guys.
And so, you know, go back and watch the thing.
And in context, I mean, it's a real powerful, you know, part of the argument from our side was, you know, here's the head of the D.A. admitting and standing behind that report and that report.
If you just type in D.A. report 2012, you'll see it's from August of 2012.
The D.A. warning that this could lead to not just the creation of an Islamist state in eastern Syria, but they could pose a danger to western Iraq, too, which is, of course, exactly what happened just two years later with the rise of the Islamic State and the conquering of western Iraq there.
But so at the same time, though, and that's probably what the problem was.
Oh, and see, also, he was had a decent relationship with the Russians, particularly with Russian military intelligence, because his head of D.I.A., he had all these liaison relationships with them and all that, which in a way goes right to the heart of you're accusing this guy of treason with them when he was the head of the D.I.A.
He's got a relationship with these guys where he's representing the United States of America.
Full stop.
Give me a break.
Like he's, you know, suborned by them at that point, compromised by them at, you know, somewhere around that time.
There's no reason to think that at all.
But it should be noted, too, that the guy is a raving lunatic and especially on the Iran issue.
And he was actually good friends with Michael Ledeen, speaking of raving lunatics, and co-authored a book with him.
And at the time that he was the head of the D.I.A., you know, this is the Washington Post version.
But there's still like some truth in this.
I think that the guys at D.I.A. referred to the Flynn facts, which meant, yeah, this guy likes believe in whatever he feels like a lot of the time.
And the worst example of this, which is just almost unbelievable to me, was that he tried to pin the Benghazi attack in September of 2012 in Libya on Iran when that was Bin Ladenites that did that.
And there ain't a Shia for, you know, 600 miles or a thousand or so, you know, to the east before you find the first Shiite there.
So, you know, there's that's completely ridiculous that Iran would have had anything to do with that.
But apparently Flynn was just convinced of this and was determined like ordered the D.I.A. to prove that it was true repeatedly in this kind of thing.
So, you know, don't confuse me with a Flynn supporter in any way.
This guy is clearly as dangerous to us as he was to the establishment at the time.
But listen, you know, in the in the campaign of 2012, in fact, at the national interest speech that Khalilzad gave the introduction to is the best example of this.
And there were a few on the campaign trail where Donald Trump blamed Obama and Hillary for the rise of the Islamic State.
And sometimes he would just go, oh, Obama founded ISIS.
And people kind of, I don't know what to make of that.
But sometimes he would explain it and he would go, well, you see, what happened was he backed the jihadists in Libya.
And then even worse, he backed the jihadists in Syria.
And then he pulled all the troops out of Iraq so that Western Iraq was wide open for them to come rolling in.
All three of those parts are true, most especially for our purposes.
The first two parts backing al-Qaeda in Iraq, in Libya and al-Qaeda in Iraq and Syria, the veterans of Iraq were too, so that then they could come and start Iraq war three.
But then, of course, Trump ended up dropping the first two parts of that and blamed Obama only for pulling the troops out of Iraq, which is unfortunate.
But anyway, the real point is when he was saying that stuff, Dave, that was Michael Flynn talking, right?
That was General Flynn was telling him, OK, here's the shirts, here's the skins.
We hate Iran, but it was the bin Laden nights that knocked our towers down.
So backing these guys against those guys.
Yeah, we don't want to do that.
And Trump, you know, say what you will about how dumb he is, but he understood that much.
And in fact, the record shows that in June 2017, so, you know, half a year into his presidency, he and Pompeo ordered the CIA to stop backing al-Qaeda in Syria.
The policy that Obama had continued even long after the Islamic State, he is still backing the al-Qaeda guys who are still loyal to Zawahiri instead of Baghdadi and the new caliphate.
And it was it did seem to me and I know there are other factors involved.
There were Russia, there was Assad.
There's a lot of other players involved.
But it did seem like very shortly after that CIA program of arming, you know, sending anybody who's picking up a rifle against Bashar al-Assad gets weapons from us.
It did seem like ISIS started to lose a lot of territory.
And that I mean, I'm not saying that that's the entirety of the reason why ISIS started getting their ass kicked around the region.
But it did seem like it went from being this major problem to basically their at least the geographic areas that they were like holding down went almost completely away.
Yeah, well, I mean, part of that was just that time was up for them.
When Trump was inaugurated, it was what four or five months after the battle for Mosul had really begun.
The final ground assault on Mosul had begun.
And so Raqqa was the last big city that they controlled after that.
So it really was just a matter of time as far as the caliphate was concerned there.
You know, Obama helped to create the caliphate and then had started bombing it in August of 2014.
So it had been two and a half years of war against the Islamic State in Iraq.
But the CIA.
Right.
But the CIA program was still going on to arm the anti-Assad rebels as we were.
What was the joke that you used to make or something about like it would be like if they I forget exactly what you'd say, but you'd be like, oh, if they went into Iraq, they'd have to dodge American bombs.
So they should probably go back into Syria to pick up some American weapons to take back into Iraq with them.
I mean, the Obama foreign policy by the end was just a fucking cartoon.
Yeah, it was completely crazy.
I mean, even, you know, from the beginning of the of the thing, you know, at least by 2012, I remember joking with Jason Ditz from Antiwar.com about how, you know, they'd pulled the last of the troops out the very end of 2011.
They still had some CIA and a couple of special operations forces there.
And they were helping the Iraqis fly drones to target what was left of what was then called the Islamic State of Iraq, a.k.a.
Al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia.
Right.
Zarqawi's group.
And so me and Jason were joking about yet.
You don't want to hit them, though, which which do is you shoot the hellfires right at their heels and chase them west into Syria where they can be the moderate rebels, you know.
And then as you're saying, even after they created the Islamist caliphate in eastern Syria and in western Iraq, America was still working with Turkey and Qatar to funnel arms to Jabhat al-Nusra.
And so you might say that, well, ISIS was cutting heads off and they seem scarier and they had created a state at the time.
Yeah, but Nusra was still blood oath loyal to Ayman al-Zawahiri, the butcher of New York City.
So how is that moderation?
How is that the improvement that?
Oh, no, don't worry.
Jabhat al-Nusra, they're the centrists compared to ISIS, you know.
Yeah.
But they're still loyal to bin Laden's corpse.
So what are we even talking about here?
You know, and then they did it and they got away with it.
And yes, that's part of why they hated Mike Flynn is because Mike Flynn didn't hate Iran so much that he was willing to back al-Qaeda against them.
Right, right.
And this is some and this is something that this is like to me what I've tried to say to a long time and just to like left wing people who I know and to some of the left wing people.
I mean, the left wing people who listen to this show, they're already kind of hip to this stuff.
But, you know, that that my main point has been like, look, you have to ask yourself why the CIA and the NSA and the FBI hated Donald Trump so much.
Why were they so why are the former director of the CIA and all these other different CIA people are going around on the news talking about how terrible he is.
And I try to explain to these left wing people, they go, you can hate Donald Trump all you want to.
But understand, CIA does not hate him for the same reasons you hate him.
The CIA doesn't hate Donald Trump because they think he's racist.
They don't hate him because he he wanted an Axis Hollywood tape.
Yeah, an Axis Hollywood.
Like the CIA doesn't hate Donald Trump because he's got a dirty mouth and he wanted to ban Muslims from the country.
These people will with a smile on their face, starve Muslim children.
They do not care about that stuff at all.
But people have to realize that Donald Trump on the campaign in 2016, he wasn't.
And part of this is because Donald Trump's instincts are like he's got this like art of war thing where he's he's vicious.
That's that's what he does.
Like if he's against you, he goes to slit your throat.
So he says the most aggressive, horrible thing he can say about you, even when he doesn't believe it.
He'll just say it because that's how he battles.
But he didn't just say George W. Bush got us into this war.
That was a disaster.
He said George W.
Bush lied us into this war.
And there's a very big difference there.
And he didn't just say Obama couldn't defeat, you know, ISIS.
He said Obama created ISIS.
And as you pointed out, explained it several times.
Now, the implications of these these accusations, which both are completely true, are really profound.
This isn't just I want to win a campaign.
You're calling war criminals out for being war criminals.
You're calling people out for war crimes and and straight up treason, things that you can get put in jail for life or killed for.
And you're the guy who's now going to be the commander in chief.
This is actually a very scary thing to these criminals in the CIA and in the deep state.
And then you've got this guy, Michael Flynn, who's sitting there behind all of this stuff.
You've got this like decorated general who's who's got a lot of experience and really knows a lot of the dirt that was done, who's backing the guy who's saying, look, we're going to have a totally new foreign policy.
We're going to end all of these wars.
And by implication, saying the last two presidents should probably be in jail for their foreign policy.
And to me, that makes a lot more sense to be like, oh, yeah, I think that's why they hated him.
And that would also make a lot of sense of why they wanted to target Flynn.
Yeah.
And of course, on the biggest issue of all, really, even though it seems kind of in the background at the time, Russia and Trump was saying over and over again, just as you say, everything is to the nth degree.
So it was, yeah, let's get along with Russia, man, who everybody loves Russia.
Russia's great.
And so, you know, they didn't want to if he had said, well, look, Russia is a severe challenge, but we must have a smarter policy that they might have been able to handle that.
Right.
But, oh, come on, let's be their best friends.
And anyone who says otherwise is a complete idiot and all of that.
And remember, too, when they started going after him around the time of the election, I think I'm not sure if this is the exact comment that had Schumer saying six ways to Sunday there or not.
But at one point he compared them to the Nazi Gestapo, the FBI and the CIA for intervening in the election and leaking all of this Russia stuff.
And I'm pretty sure that would have been, you know, just after the election.
So before the six ways from Sunday quote there.
And so and by the way, you know, this is worth bringing up that Henry Kissinger, who you would think is inside that Overton window of allowable opinion and all of that.
It was Kissinger's advice that, you know, Trump probably wanted to hear anyway and already agreed with anyway.
But he went and met with Kissinger and Kissinger said we ought to get along with Russia.
The challenge is China and we ought to be tilting more toward the Russians at this point.
All right.
Let's take a quick second and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is Lightstream.
If you're paying more money in interest than you need to on credit cards, refinance your debt today with a credit card consolidation from Lightstream.
This company allows you to quickly roll balances from multiple credit cards into one single monthly loan payment.
Get a rate as low as 5.95 APR with autopay much lower than the national average credit card rate of over 19 percent APR.
This company has helped a lot of people.
If you have credit card debt and you can refinance into a lower rate, it's a great thing to be able to do.
Plus, there's absolutely no fees with Lightstream.
The application is quick and easy, 100 percent online.
You can even get your money as soon as the day you apply.
Lightstream believes that people who have good credit deserve a better loan experience and that's exactly what they deliver.
I've been reading testimonials from people who have used Lightstream.
It's really helped a lot of people out.
I recommend looking into it.
Apply today to get a special interest rate discount and save even more.
The only way to get this discount is to go to lightstream.com slash P-O-T-P.
That's L-I-G-H-T-S-T-R-E-A-M dot com slash P-O-T-P.
This is subject to credit approval.
Rate includes .5 autopay discount.
Terms and conditions apply and offers are subject to change without notice.
Visit lightstream.com slash P-O-T-P for more information.
All right, let's get back into the show.
You know, again, I think if Trump had said, well, I just got back from consulting the Oracle and he said, and that kind of thing, you know, maybe people would have taken it in a better spirit.
But instead to them, I'm not saying they're right in any way, but to them, oh, it's the return of the Russian empire.
And Putin is the czar and he might be Stalin and he's an aggressive threat to all of Eastern Europe and all of these things.
And America must, you know, stand strong and defend all of our European friends from Russian revanchism and all this.
And Trump is just like, whatever, all that's a bunch of garbage.
Like he just threw all that out.
And I think Mike Flynn probably saw that, you know, a lot of the same way.
I don't know exactly what his positions were in Russia, but I'm sure he was less worse than a lot of these people.
And it's worth mentioning because all that's bullshit, right?
Like Russia is not a threat to Eastern Europe at all.
It's America that's destabilizing and taking the aggressive posture.
So let me just, let me just say, because I did, this is one of the things I saw that came out of those congressional hearings.
And this came from, um, fuck, what's her name?
Uh, it's Obama's, uh, uh, last, um, national security advisor, uh, Susan Rice, Susan Rice.
So Susan Rice said, and this is what she said, this is what she testified to, which they, you know, just came out, they thought was behind closed doors.
But now we know she said that the big thing, the big red flag Scott about Michael Flynn, when she spoke to him was that Michael Flynn had the nerve to say, Russia's not our enemy.
He says, Russia's no threat to us.
He basically parroted exactly what Kissinger and a lot of these kinds of, you know, the, the new right, the, the kind of Bannonite right wingers, uh, think now he goes, Russia's economy is nothing.
They're no threat to anybody.
They're not an aggressive power because they're, they're reduced to silly little border disputes with, with, you know, Ukraine or whatever, you know, they have their thing in Crimea or whatever, but like he goes, this is nothing that we have to worry about, but we have to worry about China.
We have to be real Hawks on China.
So this was Flynn saying this and Susan Rice said that was the evidence she had that, Oh, there must be something shady going on between him and the Russians.
Because I mean, obviously who would say something like that?
You know, the truth, unless you were working with the Russians.
And let me just say, by the way, I don't, uh, you don't know the truth that all those guys, Bannon, Trump, uh, Flynn too, in this case, all of them, they're all way too hawkish on China for, for my liking.
I know right now during this COVID thing is not the easiest time to sell this, but the idea that China is some big threat, um, to us, I've always felt like was this, this kind of bullshit overhyped thing where the, okay, if you think China is such a big, uh, threat, stop borrowing money from them, uh, the federal government.
And then maybe that's a problem, but stop regulating our jobs out of existence.
But all that aside, no Flynn was of that mindset.
He w he was absolutely of the mindset that we shouldn't be, uh, um, at least ratcheting up tensions with Russia because they pose no threat to us.
Uh, but China's the real threat.
Yep.
And, um, and so then, you know, go back to the context of 2016 here.
I mean, they tried to thwart the election of Trump by leaking all of this stuff, claiming that the Russians had hacked the DNC.
Let's get back to that in a minute.
But that was the narrative.
And the DNC and Podesta emails came out of there.
And then right after the election, the fake news, all the fake news that was all Russian fake news.
Well, it turned out it wasn't true, right?
It was kids in Macedonia.
Mostly it was like a trend going along in this one neighborhood in Macedonia.
Everybody set up a fake website and come up with the wackiest pro Trump stories you can think of.
And Americans will click on that stuff and you'll make Google money, you know, simple as that.
Um, but they were really working on this narrative and it's in the book shattered, just the very official history of the Hillary Clinton campaign there about how they held a meeting the next day or two days later where they said, we're not really conceding this election instead of just, you know, saying, okay, the best man won.
We're going to say that the Russians stole it and we're going to get out there and, and push this thing as hard as we can.
And as crazy as it sounds, and it makes, I know that every time I bring this up, I worry that people are going to think this guy's a nut.
But the thing is, you can read about it in the New York times and I couldn't make this stuff up.
It sounds so stupid to me.
I would come up with something better, but they thought what they would do is get Michael Morrell, the acting director of the CIA to brief the electoral college and tell the electoral college that the Russians stole the election for Trump and therefore they ought to vote instead to give it to Hillary Clinton.
Well, which just goes to show how completely disconnected from reality they were, that they don't even know how the electoral college works at all.
At that point, you're dealing with electors come from the state parties and they had a huge majority over the Democrats.
The Republicans had a huge majority.
It's like all these people were from the country club in Georgetown, right?
They come from the state parties out there in the country.
The idea that they were going to throw the election, they were going to betray Trump for Hillary Clinton and vote.
I mean, it's just nuts.
And then, but they had a backup plan that if they wouldn't go for that, then you should at least make it a tie.
And so you can throw it to the house of representatives and then they will choose either Paul Ryan or Colin Powell to be the president.
And the Hillary Clinton campaign was on the record saying, yes, this is what we want to do.
This is what we're pushing to do.
We're doing everything we can to make this happen, to see this through, which is just completely crazy.
And there's no way in the world they were ever going to get away with that.
And so they didn't.
And then, you know, right around this time is when Flynn has the phone call with Kislyak, the Russian ambassador, right?
And he's on vacation in the Dominican Republic, I think, walking around on the beach, you know, talking on the cell phone or something.
And so there's the real scandalous part of the phone call.
Let's just dispense with this real quick.
The real scandalous part of the phone call, which gets no attention and never will, is that he did a favor, not for the Russians, but for the Israelis, asking the Russians to please vote no, that is veto, the incoming UN Security Council resolution on the occupation of Palestine.
The one that Obama courageously abstained from voting on instead of voting no.
And so, and then the Russians told him yet, right?
So here's, you know, the Russians, you know, spy, sock puppet, Mike Flynn, instead of taking orders from them, he's asking them for a favor and they're telling him no.
Okay.
For as far as that goes.
And then the other thing was Obama had put sanctions on Russia under the excuse that they had meddled in the election.
And so the news was, well, are the Russians going to escalate diplomatically in one way or the other way?
And Flynn told them, look, let's not get caught up in a cycle of escalation here because Obama's on his way out.
And we made it clear we want a new relationship with Russia anyway.
So let's not start off with a bunch of tit for tat over Obama's new sanctions.
Let's just let it die here.
It's perfectly fine.
This is the designated national security advisor of the president elect.
This isn't during the campaign.
This is after the election.
I think probably even after the electoral college, although at that point that's, you know, superfluous anyway, it's a done deal anyway.
Mike Flynn had every right in the world to be on the phone with the Russian ambassador and saying, hey, you know what?
Don't worry.
Don't escalate tensions because we want the incoming administration wants to deescalate them.
Nothing wrong with that whatsoever.
No quid pro quo, no bribery, no secrecy.
It's just a plain old conversation about it was all it was.
And the information that he's giving him saying that, well, the new administration coming in wants a new relationship with Russia.
It's not as if this was a secret.
This is what Donald Trump ran on.
This was public knowledge.
I mean, it's not as if, oh, like there's some shady thing we're going to do that we weren't telling everybody about.
This is just a policy that that, you know, they the the John Brennan's of the world might disagree with.
But, you know, we certainly don't.
But this was his.
Well, I know that's one and went on.
Yeah.
No, that's the important point, right?
This is the American people's foreign policy.
Right.
He wore this thing on his sleeve.
This wasn't he didn't like, now that I'm in here, I'm going to do this stuff.
He ran on this and Hillary wants a worse relationship with Russia.
She botched her reset.
I want to do it right.
And the American people voted for that.
So it wasn't just Trump's policy.
It was the American people's recently, you know, you know, there have been essentially a referendum on that policy in a way as part of Trump's election, as far as that goes.
And you're absolutely right.
So that's, you know, all he's doing is upholding exactly what he's supposed to be doing.
Right.
And then what they got him on, you know, you can tell that they're B.S. and because of the pretension of using the Logan Act, which dates to the George Washington administration, which has never been used against anybody ever.
And I forget.
I think it was in the National Review.
I admit I was reading the National Review and they said, you know, they didn't prosecute Jane Fonda and they didn't prosecute, oh man, I'm spacing on the joke.
The guy, the basketball guy that goes to North Korea.
Oh, Dennis Rodman.
Dennis Rodman.
They'll prosecute Dennis Rodman for, you know, going overseas and making policy or Nancy Pelosi when she went and met with Bashar al-Assad.
Remember that?
And in fact, when Republicans floated the Logan Act, then the Democrats laughed him off for the stage.
You know, what are you talking about?
She has every right in the world to go over there and meet with these people.
And so the fact that they were using that as a pretension, the Logan Act just goes to show that they were essentially making excuses to keep the thing going.
And then they had admitted in there they got no underlying crime at all.
So they admit in there that, well, we don't know for certain what they decided, but they said our two possibilities are get him to confess to a crime under the Logan Act or are we just going to try to get him to lie so that we can get him fired and maybe put him in jail?
And then obviously they decided on the second one.
And we already know we've known for more than a year and whatever from previously released emails.
I don't know if it was from the IG reports or what, where Strzok and the other FBI agent that interviewed him, they said there was no sign of deception.
He wasn't lying to us.
He was telling us the truth as best as he could anyway.
And then, you know, this is important context to KT McFarlane, who was his deputy at the time.
She gave an interview, I guess, today or yesterday.
I just read the transcript of an interview she did on a TV show where they tried to set her up the same way as they did Flynn.
And what happened was they came to her house unannounced and just said, hi, you know, yeah, we just kind of want to have a conversation with you about some stuff, you know.
And she said, well, I mean, do I need a lawyer for this?
Am I under investigation?
They said, oh, no, you're not under investigation.
Not at all.
We're only just doing this counterintelligence investigation into Russian intervention.
And we just are, you know, asking you as an innocent bystander what you might have witnessed kind of thing.
Right.
So and I'm sure they were probably trying to get her to trip up and say something that they could pretend was a deliberate falsehood, too.
All right.
Let's take a quick second.
I want to thank our sponsor for today's show, our awesome longtime sponsor.
Of course, I'm talking about Heshy Socks, my favorite socks on the planet.
They have a brand new collection that's been released.
They're beautiful.
They're awesome.
New styles, new colors, but the same amazing feel.
For those of you guys who are new to the podcast and you're wondering, why does Dave love these Heshy Socks so much?
I'll tell you, they're the best socks I've ever owned.
They look great.
They're nice fashion socks, but they're cushioned in the heel, foot and toe.
So they give you support.
Your feet don't hurt no matter what shoes you're wearing.
Most fashion and dress socks are expensive and they're poorly constructed.
They provide zero protection.
Not Heshy Socks.
They also have arch support in the center so your feet don't slosh around in your shoes.
They're made with breathable Pima cotton and they're antimicrobial to kill the stink.
So your feet feel good.
They smell good.
They're also designed to stay up so you don't have to pull at your socks all day.
I've had that problem with a lot of dress socks and it drives me crazy.
Not with Heshy Socks.
Go to HeshySocks.com.
H-E-S-H-I-S-O-C-K-S.com.
If you enter the promo code PROBLEM30, you're going to get 30% off your entire order.
They don't just have fashion socks.
They have basic and ankle socks as well.
They're really beautiful.
They're really comfortable.
I highly recommend you check them out.
HeshySocks.com.
Promo code PROBLEM30 for 30% off.
All right.
Let's get back into the show.
So I spoke to KT McFarlane for about 20 minutes.
It must have been late summer or early fall of 2016.
She was doing an interview on a Fox News show and I was there doing Kennedy.
We were both in the green room together.
KT McFarlane, for people who don't know, she's like a neocon, like a real war hawk.
And I remember asking her.
I think maybe it was in the media that she had met with Trump or something like that during the campaign.
And I remember asking her what she thought of Donald Trump.
And I just assumed she would despise Donald Trump because he was saying, like, they lied us into Iraq and he had been so hard on Jeb Bush and all that stuff.
And so I just assumed she would hate him because all the neocons were never Trumpers at this point.
And I remember her telling me she was like she really, really likes Donald Trump and she thinks he's going to be a great president.
And her justification was this really weird, like, neocon justification for not getting involved in the war in Syria.
She was really against what Obama had done in Syria, but from a neocon perspective.
Because basically she was like, well, look, we got the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, we got to worry about the North Koreans, and we got to finally take on Iran.
So we can't be messing around in other wars because our resources are drawn too thin.
We got to fight the wars that I really want to fight.
So she's one of the bad guys, for sure.
But it was interesting that she was kind of in this network.
And, of course, she had a close relationship with Flynn and ended up working for him when he came on board.
But she was really on board with Trump from the war hawk point of view, which I just wanted to throw out there because it's kind of interesting.
Yeah.
Well, and Trump's always been, you know, an absolutely horrible Zionist and absolutely terrible on Iran.
Yes.
Which is redundant.
Yeah.
Again, a horrible Zionist.
And, you know, all that policy comes straight from Benjamin Netanyahu and Sheldon Adelson.
You know, you might remember he actually in 2017 or 2016 went to AIPAC or not AIPAC itself, but a group and AIPAC meeting, not the big convention, but it was some AIPAC meeting.
And he got there.
I don't need all your donor money and all this stuff.
I go, oh, my God.
He's like made a joke about how good they are at finances or some kind of thing like that.
And people are just cringing.
And then I forget if it was there or not, where he accused he said that that Marco Rubio would just be Sheldon Adelson's perfect little puppet because he's so dependent on Adelson's money and all that stuff.
And so what he was selling there was he's so rich that he can't be bought, not even by the Israel lobby or anybody else.
Then at some point, somebody explained to him that, OK, maybe you can afford your own campaign, but who's going to pay for the Congress?
And then he realized, oh, we got to raise one hundred million dollars to pay for the Congress.
And which is exactly what Sheldon Adelson gives every two years is one hundred million dollars to keep the Republicans running in the House and the Senate.
So, you know, he didn't he never got that independent on that policy.
And then, of course, you know, he was worse than Tillerson and McMaster on Iran.
He got that's part of why he got rid of them was they weren't bad enough on Iran.
He wanted and Mattis, too.
He wanted out of that nuclear deal and they wanted to stay in it.
Anyway, where were we?
Oh, well, OK, let's just getting back to to Flynn and what happened to him.
So one of the things that I thought was really interesting about when the FBI is questioning Flynn is that this isn't like the FBI is entrapping Joe six pack, which they do all the time.
But this is General Michael Flynn.
So it was revealed in the notes that Michael Flynn knew that the NSA had the phone call.
So even as they're questioning him, he's like, you have the phone call because he actually seems like I guess he was a little bit naive in the sense that he didn't seem to realize that they were actually coming for him.
But he thanked them.
Yeah, he thanked them for refreshing his memory.
Oh, yeah.
Yeah.
No, that's right.
We did talk about that.
Right.
So he's sitting there from the perspective of I'm not being interrogated.
I'm not the focus of an investigation.
You're trying to get information out of me.
And he's like, but why are you trying to get the information out of me?
Go talk to NSA.
They have the phone call.
So it's this really weird dynamic where why?
How how can you credibly say he would lie to them when he knows that they already have the phone call in question?
Right.
Now, the other the thing that's been come up more recently and Rand Paul just had a press conference about this today was exactly how General Flynn was unmasked.
Because I guess they're allowed technically to spy on a foreigner.
But if they if they catch an American in that net, they're not it's not supposed to be revealed who the American was.
Now, that always seemed like a ridiculous, you know, phony kind of bullshit policy.
That's never actually going to be how these things play out.
But the other thing that was kind of interesting, which is leads to more of a political question and makes it kind of juicy currently, is that Rand Paul passed out a bunch of these documents that were just to the media that were just declassified by the DOJ, in which he says that I guess several people did this, but that Biden signed on to request the unmasking of General Flynn, which, man, isn't that juicy politically right now to be able to bring Biden into Hashtag Obamagate and this whole kind of mess.
So I don't know if you had any thoughts on that.
Yeah, well, I don't know if they'll be able to make too much hay of of his role in it.
You know, I don't know exactly sure how to elaborate on that angle, but there may be something there for sure.
But, you know, to zoom it out a little bit to oh, I should mention real quick here that, you know, they threatened to charge Mike Flynn's son.
Yes.
Who, you know, if you knew him from Twitter was a pompous windbag.
But I don't even know what the alleged crime was supposed to be.
It was like not registering as a foreign lobbyist.
One of these type of crimes that you can get anyone in Washington, D.C. for probably.
Yeah.
Well, and Flynn and this is another thing about Flynn was that he was really still acting as an agent of the Turks while not being registered.
Not that that was part of the charges against him or anything like that.
But that was probably, you know, at that time, at least the worst thing about him.
But then, yeah, they essentially made him plead guilty by threatening his son.
It was the only reason that he pled guilty to this bogus thing.
And then the reason he was fired, I guess, was for whatever reason.
And again, you know, it should be mentioned again that Mike Flynn is a jackass.
Right.
He's not just, you know, bad on Iran or whatever.
Like he's kind of a goofball in a way, too.
So when he was asked to explain himself to the vice president, he didn't come all the way clean.
Instead, he kind of hemmed and hawed and and made excuses and told the half truth or whatever and had, I think, not just Pence, but another official to go out on TV and say that, no, he never talked about.
I forgot exactly what I think it was sanctions.
I think it's that sanctions never.
Yeah.
Yeah.
They didn't talk about saying they talked about something, but not sanctions.
And then it turned out that they did.
And so just, you know, was a humiliation for him.
And I don't know if that's really true or not, because it was reported in The New York Times, but I believed it.
And that was that Trump wanted to get rid of Flynn anyway, because, you know, it was important to have a general standing behind him to give him credibility during the campaign and all that.
But he is a Froot Loop.
I mean, he wrote a book with Michael Ledeen.
He's kind of a nut.
And one anecdote was that he that Trump was talking to Theresa May, then the prime minister of Great Britain, and that Flynn was standing there and Flynn kept interrupting.
And Trump is like, look, man, I'm me and she's her and you just stand there.
Right.
We're having a conversation here, not we are, you know, kind of thing where and I can I can see one Flynn being uncouth enough to make that kind of error repeatedly.
And I could see Trump being the kind of guy who would really not appreciate that kind of a thing and take it real personal and and, you know, begrudge somebody over behaving like that, that kind of a thing.
And I'm sure there are a lot more examples like that.
So, you know, Trump didn't have to throw him under the bus.
You know, he chose to.
But, you know, zoom out to the whole thing where Papadopoulos, which is how this whole thing started, he was set up in the first place.
There was an intelligence officer named Misfoot that went and told Papadopoulos, oh, yeah, you know, I heard the Russians have some emails and this and that kind of thing.
Then Papadopoulos repeats it supposedly to another agent, another asset, this Australian ambassador who passes it on.
And according to the pigs themselves, they immediately discounted the Papadopoulos thing as no big deal at all.
And they didn't use that as their predicate.
Instead, they switched to Carter Page.
And now we know because of previous reporting in just the last couple of months here from I guess it was from the IG reports that came out.
Yeah, the FISA investigation by the inspector general that the FBI, when they went to the FISA court to get.
This is important.
A FISA warrant on an American citizen, a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant, which means they don't need probable cause.
They only need a reasonable suspicion to they don't even have to believe that there's any kind of crime going on.
Just a reasonable suspicion that this guy is an agent of a foreign power or a foreign terrorist group.
That's all they need to listen to whatever he's got.
Well, they blacked out the part of the page and made a copy with another piece of paper over it.
They whited it out.
They didn't black it out.
They whited it out and erased the part of the document that said, well, we talked to our friends at the CIA and they said that he's an asset who works for them.
And the one time that he was ever approached by Russian intelligence, he went straight to his CIA handlers and told them everything about it.
And the CIA guys completely vouched for him, said he's a loyal, patriotic American.
And the FBI whited that out, said, oh, yeah, no, sorry, I must have missed that part and then went and and lied.
You know, that's what they say about the truth and the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
They left out that major part about, yeah, pages CIA.
He ain't FSB.
He's CIA.
And they went in with just but this part can't be overstated enough because this it's not just like, oh, they made a mistake or they intentionally did something wrong.
This gets down to what the whole thing was about, because they knew the CIA had told them that it's there's basically nothing here.
There's no possibility that Carter Page is a Russian asset because he's he's our asset.
And he told us everything about his contact with Russia to try to help us understand what the Russians were doing.
So why would the FBI still why would they still want to go forward that the FBI with getting a FISA warrant to spy on Carter Page if they themselves know that he's not a Russian asset?
What's the benefit of spying on Carter Page who's serving as some, you know, some mid tier advisor to the Trump campaign?
Well, why do you think they would want to spy on Carter Page?
Because they wanted to spy on the Trump campaign.
And so it's just it's there's no other explanation for it.
This is just this one little detail is kind of proof that this was like maybe not proof alone that it was an attempted coup.
But clearly proof that it was in an attempt at spying on the Trump campaign by these unelected law enforcement officials.
These bureaucratic spy deep state people against a guy who's against a political, you know, aspiring politician at the time who represents a different party, which isn't even really the main thing.
But the truth is, he was the Republican candidate and this was under a Democratic administration.
And so that right there, I just can't be overstated enough how important that Carter Page FISA warrant application is to this whole thing.
And by the way, let's talk about how unimportant Carter Page is.
It's not like he was going to be the secretary of state or the deputy national security advisor or something like that.
He was just some hanger on some kind of, you know, a former, you know, had worked at a bank.
But he was no power monger in Washington, D.C., and they pretended to believe.
And this is how you knew for a shot that guarantee the entire dossier.
The Steele dossier is got to be complete lies because the lie about Carter Page is too dumb to even pretend to believe for a minute.
That somehow he was promised by the Russian government that they would give him a 19 percent ownership stake in Rosneft, the Russian government owned oil company, which is worth billions of dollars.
And all Carter Page would have to do would be to seize control of American sanctions policy and have all the sanctions on Russia lifted.
Which, yeah, that ought to be an easy trick.
And then he'll run off with a fifth of the ownership of a Russian state oil company.
I mean, this is the kind of garbage that they were pushing about Page when he, of course, all other things being perfectly equal.
He would have had no influence inside the Trump government whatsoever.
He had showed up for a photo op, you know, kind of pretend foreign policy meeting.
Remember, Trump had said on TV, they asked him, well, where do you get your foreign policy from?
And he said, oh, you know, I watch the shows and they all went, oh, God, at least pretend you read The Wall Street Journal or something.
Right.
You watch the shows.
And so then they did a PR stunt where they had Papadopoulos and Page and a couple others sit around a table and pretend like, oh, see, it's my foreign policy council.
But it was just for one photo.
There was no actual council.
There was no policy that was being made by these people.
None of these people had any influence.
And, you know, as you say, once they are tapping Page's phone, now they get to do one hop, two hop and tap everybody else on the campaign, too.
But also they get to continually build this narrative because, of course, everyone here is guilty until proven innocent.
And so why is FBI counterintelligence investigation investigating you and why are they leaking about it to The New York Times that they have these multiple contacts with Russian intelligence and all these things?
It's all part of building the narrative of Donald Trump's treason here.
And remember, too, and all of these, you know, none of these ever amounted to anything.
But remember how many of them there were, like on the top tier, you had accusations that Jeff Sessions, the senator, had also made secret arrangements with the Russian ambassador, Kislyak.
Now, he had met with Kislyak twice and said that once was at his Senate office in front of his staff who were all retired army officers.
Had nothing to do with the campaign whatsoever and was the kind of thing that happens all the time.
Ambassadors meet senators and had nothing to do with anything.
And the other time is on video.
They shake hands briefly and say, hey, how are you doing at a speech?
Right.
And then they pretended that this amount of this was another major proof of high treason.
And then they said that Trump's lawyer had traveled to Prague and the Czech Republic to meet with Mohammed Atta and Iraqi intelligence to pass a flask of anthrax.
Oh, no, sorry.
Wrong, fake conspiracy there that he'd gone to Prague to meet with the Internet Research Agency to coordinate the clickbait trolls who seized control of American democracy in order to destabilize it by buying a few Facebook ads that nobody saw in a sea of literally trillions of Facebook ads and posts that were going on during election time there.
And hang on, because I took some notes here.
Boy, they're way too messy to read.
But, oh, Paul Manafort, of course, his supposed position, since he had worked for the pro-Russia party in Ukraine, that meant that he was Donald Trump's controller.
And and then you had, you know, all of the different accusations out of the dossier, including the the central accusation in the Steele dossier was that Trump had been an agent of the Russians for five years, that they had been on this long term plot to make him the president of the United States.
And they had him blackmailed with the P tape and, you know, had suborned all of his associates and all these things.
And, you know, they included that when they released the intelligence assessment, they said over and over again, they pretended that it was a national intelligence estimate by the National Intelligence Council.
All 17 intelligence agencies, as Hillary Clinton put it over and over again.
But that was never true.
It was handpicked.
That's the real quote from John Brennan himself, a handpicked group of guys from the FBI and the CIA and the NSA who wrote this intelligence assessment.
And they attach the Steele dossier onto the end of it.
And the vast majority of the thing was a years old document complaining about RT covering fracking and occupy and all of this stuff that just is embarrassing and makes the US look bad.
And they're pretending that, aha, see, RT is embarrassing.
So that goes to establish motive.
But meanwhile, and by the way, go back, Dave and your audience to everybody, go back and look at that January 17th, three days before the inauguration, the January 17th, 2017 intelligence assessment.
And all over the place, it says in there, hey, just because we claim something is true in here doesn't mean we stand by it and should not be taken to mean that we are saying just because we say high confidence should not be interpreted to mean that we're saying that we have evidence that something is true.
And like all of these just completely like they could have left those disclaimers out, but they went ahead and put them in anyway, where they just admitted that, you know, you can't take this at all.
But then at the crux of it all was the claim that this is that the real core of it all was not Mike Flynn.
It was the hack of the DNC and Podesta, the campaign chairman's email accounts.
And now it's funny because even among Russiagate skeptics, they like to focus on a lot of fake accusations.
And of course, you know, there was the Alpha Bank and all of these other things, the hacking of the Vermont grid and all the state political parties.
And don't forget Brexit and Germany and France, all their elections were tampered with.
All of these stories all fell apart, all of them.
But there's this sort of sacred cow even among the Russiagate debunkers that, well, geez, I don't know.
Maybe the Russians really did hack the DNC and give these emails to WikiLeaks.
And yet there's been no reason to believe that this whole time ever.
And from the very first time that when they first came out with this stuff in 2016, I interviewed a guy named Jeffrey Carr, who was a computer security expert, who came on my show and said, essentially, it is impossible for anyone to examine a server and tell you who broke into it.
OK, and it's absolutely possible.
And the reason why is because it's absolutely possible for anyone to break into a server and make it look like somebody else did it.
And there's no way to tell the difference between the two if they do a good job.
You just can't.
Essentially, the answer is there is no forensic examination that's going to be conclusive as to who broke into these servers.
Did you ever see when when Tucker Carlson had Adam Schiff, who is the head of the House Intelligence Committee, who was really one of the just, you know, just like sociopathic level liar about the whole, you know, Russiagate stuff was constantly out there saying throughout the whole Mueller investigation was saying, I've seen the evidence and we know that there's collusion.
And anyway, so Tucker Carlson, at one point, he had him on his show and he goes, he goes, can you look into the camera right now and say that, you know, for a fact or have substantial evidence that Russia hacked into John Podesta's emails?
And he looks at the camera and he goes, we know for a fact that Russia hacked our institutions and tampered in our election.
He's like, no, no, no, no, no, that's not what I asked you.
Can you tell our audience?
And then he just like filibusters and won't say anything about that.
And Tucker had on the other day some some congressmen and he was asking him the same thing.
He goes, what's the evidence?
What evidence do we have that Russia actually hacked into the DNC and John Podesta's emails?
Like, what where's the evidence?
And all these years later, they still basically have not presented anything.
But like you said, the point, even the even the skeptics seem to kind of not want to focus in on this.
But why am I supposed to take these people at their word after all of these other lies that have come out?
I mean, we still haven't seen a shred of evidence to back this up.
And as you said, it may be impossible to even produce a shred of evidence.
Well, that's the whole thing about impossible for everyone in the whole wide world, except the National Security Agency at Fort Meade.
They can do it.
And that was what Jeffrey Carr said.
And that was what William Binney said on my show back, what, three years ago now or more.
When I interviewed him about it was that the NSA, they can rewind the whole Internet.
They can tell you where every packet went.
They can go back and show and prove 100 percent who hacked that thing.
Nobody else can.
Nobody can tell you what happened to that server except the NSA.
Well, so what happened when they put out their intelligence dossier, which is not really a thing, when they put that out in January 2017, when it came to the claim about the Russian GRU hacking the DNC and leaking the stuff to WikiLeaks, the FBI and the CIA gave it high confidence.
The NSA only gave it medium confidence.
In other words, the NSA was not contradicting the FBI, but it was not their conclusion.
It was the FBI's conclusion.
And we know where the FBI got that conclusion.
They got it from CrowdStrike.
And Robert Mueller testified when he debuted the report a year ago that, and I think it says in the report as well, that, yeah, no, they never actually had custody of the server.
The FBI never did their own examination of it at all.
But they got some reports from this group CrowdStrike, which is co-founded by the guy from the Atlantic Council who has a severe anti-Russia bias.
And in fact, they never even, we know now from the Roger Stone trial, they never even gave a final report to the FBI, only redacted preliminary reports.
And the FBI simply took their word for it.
And the thing is, the same guys went and got way out over their skis.
And I think just, what, a few weeks later after originally making these claims, they claimed that the Russians had hacked the Ukrainians, the same group in the GRU, Fancy Bear, they said.
Turns out it's not a group at all.
It's just a method of hacking.
It's some malware tools, essentially.
It's not a group of people.
But they attributed the same group, Fancy Bear, had put malware on Ukrainian army cell phones so that whenever they use their app to target artillery, it would give their position away to the Russians who would then hit them back.
Only the problem with that was they published the report in a place where other experts could look at it.
And so just handing it over to the FBI and all the other experts ridiculed them right off the face of the earth, and they had to retract it immediately.
The same guys making the same claims about what they call a group of Russian military intelligence hackers, Fancy Bear, when that's not at all what Fancy Bear is.
And so now we see from the released declassified House testimony that the president of CrowdStrike admitted under oath, Dave, in December of 2017, so a year into, you know, almost a year into the special counsel investigation, but still, you know, more than a year before it was over, saying that, yeah, no, I don't have any concrete evidence.
That's his words.
No concrete evidence that this data was exfiltrated, as they put it, by the Russians.
And he says that he can prove that the Russians were there.
But then when he explains what's the proof that the Russians were there, well, we noticed some of the tools and techniques that had previously been identified as the Russians.
Yeah, it's turtles all the way down.
That's right.
And so you go to where they got that from.
We already know this from previous journalism, that they're basing that on accusations that it was the Russians who had hacked something in Germany back years ago, and that that was where the attribution to Fancy Bear and the GRU got made.
And so when they said, well, this looks like the same Internet tools being used, the same hacking tools being used, that's all we need to know to know that it's CrowdStrike, to know that it's the Russians.
And then they said that the Russians had left the name of Iron Felix, the first head of the NKVD, and had left all these Cyrillic letters and all of these things in the documents, and that that was how they knew.
And it just so happens that WikiLeaks had a separate leak that they put out, and you might guess what was the motive of the leaker here, Vault 7, that showed that the CIA has a program called MarbleCake.
And what it does is when you hack into somebody's server, you can make it look like somebody else did it, which, you know, we don't know for sure that that's how this played out, but it sure looks like it.
And you have this whole thing with this character of Guccifer 2, who it looks like what happened was, and check out the timeline very carefully in the Mueller report, where Julian Assange says, we got some Hillary Clinton emails and we're going to leak them.
And then after that, DCLeaks and Guccifer 2, that Mueller claims are both the GRU, start communicating with WikiLeaks.
Well, DCLeaks is trying to give him all this stuff where he's actually asking Guccifer 2 very nicely for some things, and Guccifer 2 gives him something just two days or maybe four days before he releases the giant tranche of emails.
And the thing is, is we know that that's not how WikiLeaks operates.
They don't put stuff out after four days.
They go through everything to make sure that they don't get stuck with a fake.
They've never been stuck with a fake yet.
And they want to keep their 100 percent reputation on that.
Right.
Like Lisa Simpson, not missing school kind of deal.
They get to say nobody's ever fooled us yet.
So screw you, you know, kind of thing.
And so it makes perfect sense that he had those emails back when he announced that he had some.
Not he got them later from these guys.
And it's perfectly reasonable to believe that Guccifer 2 is John Brennan or, you know, somebody working for the CIA who's just trying.
They know that this is coming and they're just trying to set it all up to look like it was the Russians when it wasn't anything that that Assange posted on WikiLeaks.
None of that had all this weird Cyrillic writing attached to it and all of that stuff that was only in the Guccifer 2 documents.
And so after all this time, they've been bluffing and bluffing and bluffing.
And now finally, just this week, just yesterday, I guess, the documents come out and show that there's the president of CrowdStrike admitting that they had no proof at all.
So in the intelligence assessment where the FBI and the CIA are saying we know it's true and the NSA is saying, I guess we'll take your word for it.
They're taking CrowdStrike's word for it.
And how does CrowdStrike know?
They don't know.
In fact, I think let me see if I have this queued up right here.
I think I do have it where.
No, I'm sorry, it's the wrong clip, but there's the thing is, one of these congressmen asks the guy Walker is his name from CrowdStrike.
And he says, and so tell us all about this proof that you have that the Russians took the stuff.
And he begins his statement with, well, having consulted counsel here, I should be clear with you that actually we don't have any proof of that kind of thing.
And I just love the way that he introduces that, that it's the lawyer is telling him that for whatever reason, you have to be truthful about this and you have to admit that you can't really prove it.
All this Dave, the core of the whole damn story gone.
Yeah, gone.
So every inch of it, you know, and it's like that it really is.
And I know, you know, it's kind of, I think it's hard and understandably so that just, you know, with all of the crazy shit going on with this COVID virus and the lockdowns and this, this kind of like unprecedented situation in this country and across the world.
That it's almost easy to forget that it was three freaking years of just all of the oxygen out of the room because of Trump, Russia collusion, Russian interference, undermining our democracy, who in Trump's campaign was in on it.
And it's not just like, I mean, it's conclusive.
It's not just like, oh, they got it wrong.
They were lying.
They were all lying.
And that's one of the things that the, um, the testimonies that were just released really demonstrated is that you had these people like Rice was one of them who, who testified and clapper.
And when you compare what they were saying on television to what they were saying in their testimony, it's night and day.
Susan Rice said on television that she thought it was a very legitimate question to ask whether Donald Trump was working for Vladimir Putin.
She goes, you know, I'm really concerned about, they asked him to go.
Is there any chance that Donald Trump, I think it was on CNN.
Is there any chance that Donald Trump is an asset of Vladimir Putin, that he's doing Putin's bidding?
And she goes, well, I mean, if Putin was making all of the decisions, they would have been exactly what Trump's doing.
And so, yeah, it's a very legitimate question.
That's what she says.
And then under oath.
Now we know she says, oh, I have absolutely no evidence, nothing, nothing to support that.
I've never seen anything I would consider.
That's the conspiracy right there.
And, you know, I think you and I've talked about this before.
The fact that Bob Mueller.
But yeah, sorry for letting you think that that was a distinct possibility for the last two years.
You know, like on one hand, the counterfactual kind of was pretty obvious that if Bob Mueller really thought that Donald Trump was guilty of the highest treason in all of human history.
Why isn't he saying anything?
He's going to sit here and let this thing take two years, leave this guy in the command of our naval fleet.
And all this.
But the speculation at the time, at least right.
What MSNBC or CNN would have been saying at the time is that he's got to get this right.
So he doesn't want to come out and say anything because he's putting all of this evidence together.
And when this ultimately ends up in Donald Trump being dragged out in handcuffs, you'll realize why he waited so long and put this all together.
But, of course, this is all disproven.
And the example I know I've brought it up on the show several times before, but one more time, because this really, to me, nails home the point that about a month before Robert Mueller gave his report and then shortly after testified before Congress, BuzzFeed, you know, the world's leading journalists over at BuzzFeed, which really is just a hilarious mix of like blogs about Trump.
About pet food and then like some serious political take.
I don't know what to think of BuzzFeed.
They came out with this story that said that they've been in communication with members of the Mueller team and they told them that they had seen the evidence that Donald Trump ordered Michael Cohen to lie to Congress.
And so they've got Donald Trump for this.
And it was there were two authors.
One of them started doing interviews and saying that he had been shown the evidence that Mueller's admit.
Now, Mueller, this is about a month before the report comes out.
Mueller sent one of his people out who was on it to say this reporting is not accurate.
This reporting out there.
Now, this was obviously to lower expectations, because if this was true, Donald Trump was going down for crimes and they came out and said, no, no, no, this is not true.
This is not it's being reported that there's this big crime here, but that's not actually true.
Now, I'm sorry if you're willing to come out and say there's this crime, this allegation of a crime being reported in the media, but we just want to let you know that this isn't true.
But for two years they've been saying the president of the United States is colluding with a hostile foreign power.
And you also know that's not true.
Why would you not come out and say, oh, by the way, guys, this isn't true because you've already established you're willing to do that, that you are willing to say, oh, this reporting is inaccurate.
Yet you would sit back through a whole midterm election where the House flips over to the Democrats and not say anything that the main argument during this midterm election from the cable news pundits and from the big newspapers was all about Trump in a conspiracy with the Russians.
So, to me, that right there just demonstrates that what this was all about.
Yeah.
And they said it to to CNN.
It's right there.
The exact words of the FBI.
Once they realized that they were not going to be able to.
I got sidetracked before this part of the narrative.
After he was sworn in, they tried to invoke the 25th Amendment.
They tried to come up with a way to pretend that the 25th Amendment says that you can just do a coup and overthrow a president if you don't like him, which is, in fact, not what it says.
And then but when they realize that, yeah, that's never going to fly.
Then they said, well, we decided that we would just have to settle on a policy to rein him in.
Yeah.
Now, that's the FBI talking about the president of the United States.
Yes, this was Andrew McCabe said this straight up with no like no stuttering in it.
You can go listen to it.
He's telling you that this was the conversation.
This is at the absolute highest levels of the DOJ.
This was the debate.
It was a range of possibilities from should we invoke the 25th Amendment and and and have a straight up, you know, deep state coup?
Or should we have a softer attempt at a deep state coup with a special prosecutor?
And they ended up going with the softer one.
And of course, this was all for the crime of firing Comey, who was basically involved in all of the stuff we were talking about earlier with with entrapping Flynn.
Yeah.
And, you know, they tried to say, well, maybe we could impeach him just for firing Comey.
I was like, are you kidding me?
The FBI isn't in the Constitution anywhere.
You know, it's barely even legal at all.
You think the president of the United States doesn't have the power to fire the FBI director, you know, because it's Tuesday?
If he feels like it, you're crazy, you know.
But and, you know, but back to the previous point there about Mueller being part of this whole conspiracy in, again, just building the narrative with the investigation itself, that there must be something there or else it wouldn't be going on all this time.
We know from the Mueller report they didn't even try to connect a chain of custody between the Russians and WikiLeaks.
They go, well, perhaps he gave it to WikiLeaks this way.
Perhaps he gave it to WikiLeaks that way.
You know, we don't really know at all.
And they don't mention in there that Assange denied that he got the stuff from the Russians at all and invited the Mueller people to come and interview him.
And he would tell them who gave it to him, you know, possibly anyway.
And you know what?
I never mentioned this for some reason.
I just forget about it.
But I think it's important.
I spoke, I guess I should memorize the date of this.
I guess it would have been the spring of 2017.
I interviewed Craig Murray, who is the former British ambassador to the U.K. and a whistleblower and a friend of Assange's.
And Craig Murray, and if you read about this in the Daily Mail, they got the story wrong there.
They embellished the story there.
But on my show, he says he met with the source of the DNC leak in a park in Washington, D.C.
And not that he received the leak.
That's what the Daily Mail said, was that he personally received the leak.
And that's not what he told me.
But he said it was not a hack.
It was a leak.
And it was an insider at the DNC.
And I should have followed up and said, you know, asked him, was it Seth Rich?
And I guess he would not have answered either way.
You know, I can presume he wouldn't have answered either way, really, at that point.
But and I don't know of any real reason to believe that that's who it was.
But he said it was an angry insider at the DNC.
It was not a hack.
It was a leak.
And he was ready to testify to that.
Come and question me and I'll testify.
I know who leaked this stuff.
And believe me, this person has no connection to Russian intelligence whatsoever.
And people can find that in the archives.
Just search my name and his.
That's that's a whole nother really interesting can of worms that that opens up.
And not again, not that say that there's any reason to think it was Seth Rich.
But there's you know, it just the bond does tend to wander.
Well, you know, there is one reason.
I mean, you know, and I actually know Seymour Hirsch.
I should probably try to interview him on some pretext or another and and ask him about this.
But there's a recording of Seymour Hirsch claiming that he has a source at the FBI and that that source read an entire 302 to him.
And that 302 said that the FBI investigated the Seth Rich murder, that they found that, yes, he was the leaker and that they found all the evidence on his laptop that he had taken possession of these documents and sent them to WikiLeaks.
However, they also said that he wasn't, you know, whacked in a political assassination.
He just got murdered for being out late at night in a bad neighborhood.
And there have been a lot of murders there.
And this was another one that he got robbed and tried to fight.
And sometimes that works out and sometimes it doesn't.
And in this case, it didn't for him.
And that was the FBI 302 version of the story was, yes, he was the leaker, but no, his murder had nothing to do with it.
So, you know, for whatever truth there is in that, I don't think that Seymour Hirsch is a liar, but I'm not entirely sure the context of that phone call.
I think that, you know, later on, he denied it, but not specifically, you know, like he didn't answer.
Yeah, but we heard the audio of you saying this.
So what is the story behind that or something?
Yeah.
So that's at least one indication that there possibly was something there.
But, you know, regardless, I don't think there was ever a reason to believe that the Russians did this.
Oh, and listen, I'm sorry.
My brain, man, I got what Joe Biden's got, Dave, and I can't remember the damn thing.
It just skips around a lot worse than it used to.
But the thing was the point about.
See, I lost it again on that tangent.
Was it about the.
Oh, yeah.
About BuzzFeed and Jason Leopold.
So it was Jason Leopold.
See, it's a tangent off a tangent.
I get lost.
Jason Leopold was the guy who blew that story about Cohen being asked to lie by Trump.
He's an old friend of mine, Jason Leopold.
I like the guy.
I know him personally and he's a nice guy.
But, yeah, he's gotten some stories wrong before.
But what I was going to say about him was this.
In the spring of 2016, during the campaign, he was publishing.
Oh, and this is part of his story.
I'll tell you, he got burned for saying that Karl Rove was going to be indicted over Valerie Plamegate.
And he had a single source who totally screwed him and he ran with it and got terribly embarrassed.
Right.
So he decided for his journalistic comeback, he would do nothing but sue under FOIA and publish documents.
And then that way, no one would ever be able to say he got it wrong anymore because it would be like this.
So what did he do wrong in the Cohen story?
He believed a source instead of having the real FOIA document to prove it.
He broke his own rule and it screwed him up.
But anyway, in the summer of 2016, he was suing the State Department to release all these Hillary Clinton emails.
And you can read them all at WikiLeaks because they posted all of them, whether they'd been leaked to them or not.
And Leopold was getting them under FOIA from the State Department.
And in fact, some of the very best or worst Hillary Clinton emails are about Libya, for example, where Sidney Blumenthal is warning her that the good guy moderate rebels are rounding up blacks and murdering them.
And this is early in the war, too, long before America finished winning the war for those very same murderers and stuff like that.
That didn't come from the DNC leak.
That came from Jason Leopold at BuzzFeed.
Which raises the question then, Dave, doesn't it, of whether whoever hacked or broke into in whatever way and leaked or exfiltrated those DNC emails and delivered them over there to the WikiLeaks, all they were doing was journalism, right?
All they were doing, whether it was Vladimir Putin or Kim Jong Un or whoever it was that did the hack and the leak, they were doing the same thing that BuzzFeed was doing, which is showing the American public Hillary Clinton's emails, which we have every right to see her emails as Secretary of State.
And the whole joke about, hey, you know, hey, Russians, there's still 30,000 missing emails if you want to get busy on that.
Well, that's not what they leaked.
What they leaked was all business.
And the 30,000 missing emails are allegedly personal.
Right.
Only we don't know because they're missing because Hillary Clinton deleted them all.
And by the way, Russians, if you're listening, they're still missing those 30,000 emails.
And we would all like very much to see them.
And so it doesn't really matter, Dave, who the source is on that leak.
It was a heroic leak.
If you really hate Donald Trump and wish that Hillary Clinton had won, well, ask yourself, how come a leak of a giant cache of Hillary Clinton's secret emails didn't just portray her as the greatest public servant in American history?
Why should a leak of her emails reveal anything that she had to hide?
Any kind of corruption, any kind of lying, any Goldman Sachs speeches where she explains that she has to have a public position and a private position or any of the rest of these things?
Yes, a lot of people are going to die in Syria under my plan.
And all of the stuff that was in those emails, the Pied Piper strategy in the case of the Podesta emails that showed how the Democrats had asked their liberal media allies to bump Trump up.
Yeah.
To pump him up and make him look good.
Remember how it was funny, wasn't it?
The moment he got the nomination, they turned on him.
But up until then, boy, they show you an empty Trump podium for an hour while Bernie Sanders is giving a speech to 5000 people or whatever.
The funny thing is, I remember at the time watching Bill Maher saying once on his show, this was early in the primary, and he goes, why are the liberal news networks covering every single Trump speech like he's Churchill in wartime?
Why is it that every single Trump rally is getting played on MSNBC?
And at the time, it was like, oh, that is that is an interesting question.
Like, why are they playing all this time?
Well, we kind of found out what that was, not to mention the other stuff that was revealed, which really, politically speaking, was probably the most damaging.
Certainly the not not the most evil thing that fell, but politically, the most damaging was when figuring out what she did to Bernie Sanders in collusion with the DNC and the corporate press, because that totally gutted her of the energetic left wing, you know, support of the Democratic Party, which she probably would have inherited more of if it didn't turn out that she was, you know, working with CNN to get town hall questions leaked to her that she had the DNC out there trying to.
Just just just trying to slander Bernie Sanders in whatever way she'd taken over the money game.
That was the deal was that she had essentially merged the Clinton campaign with the DNC and used it in a way to just outright steal it from him and to, you know, the way that they front loaded the primaries or everything that they did, they did to rig for her.
That's right.
And yeah.
And we had the right to know every last bit of that.
You know, same thing with with Manning's leak back in 2010.
It's like, I mean, first of all, it's all secret level stuff.
It's not like CIA agents are getting rolled up behind the Iron Curtain or any of this stuff.
It's all, as they put it, embarrassing.
Right.
If you take a look at it, even though it's absolutely criminal.
Now, there's tens of thousands of important news stories that came out of the Manning leak and at least thousands and thousands that came out of the Hillary emails, the New York Times and The Washington Post.
They wrote stories based on these emails.
They want to turn around and pretend it's all a Russian plot.
They're perfectly happy to, you know, play their part and get their clicks and sell their papers based on those stories.
And as you said, you know, on that short list of things that were in there, this is all stuff that we had the right to know about.
No, 100 percent.
And of course, Donna Brazile, who was working at CNN at the time, had leaked Hillary Clinton some questions and now is currently working at Fox News.
So which which is kind of interesting and revealing in some ways, because that was and we're coming up against the end of time here.
But this was another point that I thought was really important to make.
Zooming out a little bit about the whole conspiracy and how it played itself out.
And that is that, you know, a lot of times what you'll hear, you know, out of Sean Hannity and people like that and even Tucker Carlson, who I have more respect for, is just, you know, a smarter, more interesting, thoughtful person.
But they'll say a lot of times that what happened here was, you know, the the FBI, NSA, CIA were weaponized against an opposition party.
So in other words, it's the Democrats and Obama who was in.
They became politicized under Obama.
You know, they had never been politicized before.
But then Obama was there and politicized these organizations and they used them against the Republicans.
And I think that that is really misleading and missing the point, because, number one, this wasn't about Obama politicizing these institutions.
These are institutions that are politicized by their very nature and have been from the beginning of their inception from from that's redundant from their inception.
And this really wasn't about Democrats versus Republicans at all.
Nobody seriously thinks if Jeb Bush had gotten the nomination and gone on to win the presidency, that he would have dealt with any of this stuff.
They would have been chummy and friendly as as, you know, Obama's wife is with his brother.
That was just the insurance policy against this guy.
That's right.
And the other the other aspect that that should be mentioned here is that while this entire conspiracy is going on, look, we may have only gotten our hands on some of these testimony transcripts in the last few days.
But the Congress had them and the Republicans were in charge of the House and the Senate for this entire thing.
Well, I mean, up until the very last few months of it, but for the first year and a half of Trump's presidency or the first year and a half of the Mueller investigation, the first two years of Trump's presidency, and they had it for a couple of years before that.
So while this whole thing goes on, it's Republican led Congress and they did nothing at all to slow this down or to investigate the origins of this or to blow the whistle on this.
Nothing.
I mean, they they just sat there, all these Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham types.
It seems to me that I mean, they may play Trump ally on TV, but I think they were perfectly happy to allow this conspiracy to play out and allow Trump to be removed.
I think they all would have been much happier with a Jeb or a Hillary.
And we just saw with the the Senate report that they put out, the entire thing is redacted.
There's no evidence in there whatsoever.
But it says, yes, we Republicans on the on the majority Republican Senate Intelligence Committee agreed that the FBI and the CIA are great and are above reproach and that all their conclusions are justified, etc., without proving any of it.
And, you know, it's all just the exact same crap again.
The FBI swears based on what CrowdStrike told them.
And the NSA is willing to go with that instead of fight about it.
The same garbage that we've already known this whole time, none of which adds up, none of which holds up.
And then, as you say, it's the Republican Party in the Senate that's willing to say, oh, yeah, no, it's all true.
Maybe they weren't trying to hurt Trump.
They were just trying to destabilize our democracy day, which, you know what?
Can you imagine?
Seriously, try your hardest to imagine the Russians sitting around going, you know what I really hate about America?
Democracy.
You know, this is yeah.
I mean, even when it was the Reds, it was capitalism that they hated.
Right.
It was for some reason they hate us.
But now it's democracy.
Yeah.
Those regular elections, they don't like having them there and they can't stand that we have them here either.
You know, no wonder they've done all this.
Well, but one of the tremendous ironies of this entire hoax conspiracy thing is that the that was the you know, the banner they were waving that this is undermining our democracy.
And what could have I mean, could you think of anything that actually would have undermined democracy in America more than accusing the duly elected president for three straight years of not really being elected and more than having this phony investigation and just leave this all in the air and dominate the media through a midterm election?
I mean, the the the the irony of it is just so incredibly thick.
Well, it's been completely self-destructive for them, too.
I mean, who's ever going to believe them again about anything?
I mean, yeah, right.
You're the same guys who said.
And there's a million of them, right?
I mean, and look at the way, you know, I saw I guess was probably Aaron Maté was doing the Jimmy Dore show.
And he said, you know, right now you have Democrats who are trying to criticize Trump for his slow response to the corona virus.
And everybody's response is, yeah, yeah, yeah.
You guys do nothing but blame Trump for everything.
Now, a virus that originated in China is his fault, too, huh?
Blah, blah, blah.
And nobody's willing to even hear legitimate criticisms of, you know, hey, we could have got some PPE masks going around or whatever it is.
People won't hear it.
People won't hear it.
And seriously, as much as I would like to personally prosecute Trump and put him in prison at the very same time, I kind of think he deserves a free second term.
Yeah.
Well, he didn't really get his first term.
And, and, and, you know, he's he's a bad guy, but they made him worse.
And that's that's the worst part about all of this.
They they they boxed him in from doing the one or two good things he had said he wanted to do.
Who knows if he would have gotten them done or whatever.
But, you know, that's the real tragedy.
That's a huge point is he's been a huge Russia hawk this whole time.
And there's just no denying that a huge part of it has been to try to prove what a commie agent he ain't.
You know, look at me.
You can't call me a Russian.
I'm, you know, sending more troops to Poland, more troops to the Baltic States, doing exercises there, sending weapons to Ukraine.
Now, Obama hired a bunch of Hitler loving Nazis to overthrow the government of Ukraine, but then he chickened out and wouldn't arm them.
But Trump has armed them.
But you and then if you just run the counterfactual in your head, I mean, what if at some point in 2017 and 2018, Donald Trump had tried to reach detente with Russia?
I mean, what would the media have said about that?
He would have been crucified for I mean, even just when he had that one freaking meeting with Putin and said a couple of nice things to him.
It's not even like they had a deal or a plan or any big change in relations.
He just said a couple of nice things to him.
And this was what John Brennan called treason.
You know, and he is an expert treason summit.
That was the hashtag treason summit.
And by the way, here's where the rubber really meets the road.
OK, the INF treaty that kept medium range missiles out of Europe since 1987.
The open skies treaty where the Russians and Americans and this is something that Eisenhower first worked on back in the 50s was where we can fly planes over each other's countries to monitor troop movements and and preparedness, hopefully so that both sides can reassure each other constantly that we're not mobilizing for war.
Right.
Right.
It's the purpose of that.
And then now they're going to give up the New START treaty, which was the very last treaty putting restrictions on the number of nukes to be deployed at any given time.
So three major nuclear treaties.
Instead, what should have happened was Trump should have come in and got us back into the anti-ballistic missile treaty that Bush took us out of and should have been working on extending New START.
Should have been saying, you know what, if the INF treaty isn't good enough because of the Russian tensions on the border with China, then let's work on bringing China into the INF treaty, too, and do something productive there.
Which he does talk about that from time to time in this kind of deal.
But you just you can't get any worse than that.
Right.
Like having a military parade in Latvia is extremely provocative.
We're talking literally 10 miles from the Russian border.
OK, that's not OK.
But man, killing Reagan's INF treaty.
This is the end of the world, Dave.
Quite literally.
And all in the name of fucking Russiagate.
Yeah.
And so that's that's the real damage of this whole thing.
Credits to Tulsi Gabbard, by the way.
She was like one of the only people on a national platform who would actually talk about how this was one of the major problems of today that the rising tensions between U.S. and Russia.
And then she, you know, fucking endorsed Joe Biden and flushed her legacy down the toilet.
But anyway, that's a topic for another show.
But I do have to wrap because I got a baby to put to bed in a few minutes.
But it's always it's always so great to talk to you.
And I appreciate you sharing your time with us.
We'll have to do it again real soon.
Of course, everybody, as I said before, if you benefit from these episodes where Scott comes on and I know you must make sure you go.
Scott's got 5000 interviews on The Scott Horton Show that are just incredible.
And I know I hear back from so many people who have like discovered Scott from this show and then get like hooked on his show.
And that always warms my heart, because if you really want to understand what's going on, Scott talks to all the experts and the people who really know the ins and outs of all these situations.
So make sure you go check them out.
You have a Reddit group as well that people can be a part of.
Right.
Yeah.
For you know, I know you and Tom, I'm kind of copying you guys with your Facebook groups there.
So it's Reddit dot com slash R slash Scott Horton Show.
And that's for the regular donors to the show.
Anybody donates five bucks or more per month by way of PayPal or Patreon and you get keys to the Reddit room there.
Hell yeah, man.
And of course, antiwar dot com, the Libertarian Institute dot org.
And was it Scott Horton Show dot Scott Horton dot org.
Scott Horton dot org.
OK, so go check all of Scott stuff out and we'll have to do another one of these soon because they're always so great.
Thank you very much, sir.
Have a good one.
And thank you, everybody, for listening.
See you next time.
Peace.