Dave Smith | Thoughts on the Epstein Cover Up w/ Scott Horton | Part Of The Problem 1283

[Music] What's up? What's up everybody? Welcome to a brand new episode of Part of the Problem. We are uh thrilled to have back as always the great Scott Horton. We just did an episode uh a week and a half ago or so and had some technical difficulties. So, we said we'd we'd get another Scott Horton episode in real soon and we're doing that. And there's a lot to talk about, a lot of things I want to ask uh Scott your take on as there's been some developments since last time we spoke.

Real quick before we get into the show, uh last reminder, I'm leaving tomorrow morning to head out to Denver with Robbie the Fire Bernstein. We'll be doing the Comedy Works in Denver. Very excited uh for this weekend. At the last I checked, three of the five shows are sold out, but there's still a few tickets left for the other two. So, if you'd like to come out, please go grab those now. And then we got Cleveland Hilarities. And then my next stop after that will be in Scott Horton's backyard in Austin, Texas at the Comedy Mothership. Friday and Saturday are all sold out, but there are still some tickets left for Sunday. If you'd like to come, go grab those now cuz you know the Comedy Mothership always fills up.

All right, so Scott, thank you for taking some time uh to come back on the show. There are several things I want to ask you about. Um we'll see what we have time to get to. Whenever I have you on the show, I always have something in my mind, but then we get into things and other things pop up. But I got to start by asking you about your uh your recent appearance on on Tucker Carlson's show, which really was just phenomenal. I mean, I know I've told you this privately and I've said it a bunch publicly, but it was I it was one of my favorite podcast episodes I've ever seen for people like me, you know, Hortonians and people who have been, you know, uh, you know, talking about your stuff and how we just think you're the best foreign policy guy in the country. it. Obviously, you've done a lot of high-profile shows and debates um and you've been at this for quite a while, but there really was something cool about you doing the Tucker Carlson show, seeing the guy who had the number one show in cable news is probably the biggest rightwinger show in America and watching, you know, I I last I checked, it was like the thing was up to millions of views on Twitter and hundreds of thousands of views on YouTube. I don't know what other platforms they might be on, but it really did for me it to hear you get to really lay out the entire story of the terror wars and specifically the the kind of foundations of the the conflict with Iran in front of just millions and millions of people. I was like, well, I mean, hey, we're sure not living in 2003 anymore cuz we just never had anything like that. And you know, is that enough to save the world? I don't know. you know, you time will be the judge, but it really was pretty incredible to watch that. So, what's it been like for you? From what I've seen, the the feedback has just been like universally great from everything I've seen. What was the experience like for you and how do you feel about it?

Well, thanks very much for saying that, man. Um, it was, uh, you know, it was very nerve-wracking like leading up to the thing. Um, it's been something I've been anticipating for a very long time and then, okay, you know, finally worked out. But, um, I had my hash oil vape pen thing, so I hit that a bunch of times and kind of mellowed out a little bit at the risk of my losing my short-term memory, which thankfully I didn't have any terrible uh losses of of uh train of thought during the thing. Um, but then, you know, so he was very kind to me. He had me for dinner the night before. So, I think we became really good friends and got along really great the night before and so put me at ease and then he said, "Well, let's just walk through enough already. Let's do the whole book and start in 53, right?" And I'm like, "Oh, yeah. Let's do it." So, um, he basically like, in other words, beforehand was like, "Hey, the floor is yours to do the the 40-year history here, the 70-year history here, however you want to do it, you know, call it." Um, mostly from 79 on is the story, you know. Um, and then so he he just gave me room to to give the same speech I've given a bunch of times. And then I just had to try very hard to not screw up and leave anything important out. And I think I hit all the important points all the way through um that I was trying to I did leave, you know, quite a few things on the table that I wish that I had a chance to talk about. You know, I really should have, you know, I I've always been like this. Like when I was a kid, uh, doodling on the back of my homework um, in school, I always have in mind this big picture and I get way too bogged down in the details of the little part of the thing and I never get in time before the bell rings. So that's me, right? So I maybe could have left out some of those details and got to some broader strokes. I mean, one thing I really did want to talk about that I really just wouldn't I we just switched to Iran's nuclear program, but like I really could have emphasized the steelman argument of like look, Iran's role in the region is not benign. The worst thing you can say about him, it really is true. I mean, I like picking on W. Bush, but it's also just true. The worst thing they did was accept George W. Bush's gift of Baghdad. He said to Tyrron, "Hey, you want Baghdad?" And they were like, "Yeah." And so then they put their agents in there. And I mean, I don't want to overstate it cuz the Supreme Islamic Council and the Dawa Party, they're their own people. They're very close to Thrron, clearly. And we essentially fought that whole war for them. And they helped those Shiite militias brutally wage a civil the sectarian civil war against the Sunnis to cleanse them out of Baghdad and create essentially a new Iraqi Shiaistan in in um eastern Iraq. I mean, that's a real son of a [ __ ] thing to do. You know what I mean? They didn't have to do that. Um, although the Sunnis also made very bad choices during that time period, but it still was W. Bush's fault really. Um, and then, you know, who could like champion their support for Hezbala, the Houthis, or anyone else or Hamas? Um, although I think their support for Hamas has been curtailed in recent years because Hamas sided against them in the Syrian war back 15 years ago, right? Um, but you know, Hezbollah and southern Lebanon sort of is Iran's 51st state there. Although, you know, if you go back, it was Israel's fault because they were attacking the poor Palestinians there. And then also just started ruthlessly persecuting the local Shiite population that really had nothing to do with it. And they formed Hezbala in reaction to that. And in fact, Daryl Cooper is the real expert on how it was because Ariel Chiron was doing all these truck bombings trying to start a civil war between the Shiites and the Palestinians. Um, and and in southern Lebanon, the refugees there, and that this was all part of the leadup to the creation of Hezbala in reaction to uh Israel's not just invasion, but all this nefarious covert activity and stuff going on at the time. So, not that that justifies whatever about Hezbollah, it doesn't, but it is a monster of Israel's own creation in a blowback sense there. Whereas Hamas, they deliberately helped, of course, to create Hamas, as I know we've talked about on your show in the past, and they've helped to sustain Hamas at the Palestinians expense uh this whole time. And when they point their fingers at Qatar, boy, that's four fingers pointed back at them. They're the ones demanding cutter finance amas four of them. Uh the former defense secretary, former Israeli defense secretaries quote was begged that that Netanyahu begged Qar to continue the funding when it was drying up.

Yeah. All right, guys. Let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is the Wellness Company. I don't know if you guys have been keeping up with the latest about the water supply and fluoride, but let's just say the future of oral care isn't fluoride, it's peptides. And the wellness company just launched the first ever peptide paste that regenerates gum tissue, strengthens enamel, and naturally whitens your teeth. It's called Smile, a doctor formulated breakthrough that works with your body's natural repair process. The advanced formula blends targeted peptides with blue spirulina, aloe vera, and powerful remmineralizers to boost blood flow, stimulate collagen, and help rebuild lost gum tissue. All while gently whitening without sensitivity. No fluoride, no peroxide, no artificial dyes, just real clean ingredients that fight bad bacteria and support a healthier mouth from the inside out. If you're ready to upgrade your oral health and experience the future of oral care, check out Smile. Plus, you can get 10% off and free shipping just by going to twwc.alth/pro and using the promo code problem. That's twwc.health health/pro promo code problem for 10% off plus free shipping.

All right, let's get back into the show. Um, and so, but yeah, like I it would have been proper for me to steal man argument that like the Shiite crescent of power over there, Ton's alliance system over there, what they call the axis of resistance, is it some virtuous thing? No, it isn't. Is it America's fault really for pushing all these powers together and and instead of just negotiating with everybody in good faith like they could have this whole time? Yes. And a lot of that is at Israel's behest. Um but it doesn't just like go without saying. You know, it's worth also bringing up the Beirut bombing in 1983, which is a major talking point of um the pro-Israel side, which was sort of protobala that did that or, you know, there are others who say it was, you know, a quibble about which Shiite militia did that. I don't know whether they were really acting under orders from Thrron, but it was Tyrron was certainly backing all those groups at that time that did it. And so, but America was selling missiles. Ronald Reagan sold missiles to Iran just a couple years after that, like a year and a half after that or something in Iran Contra. And so like that was horrible as 241 Marines dead and all that, but that was a long time ago. And when you're dealing with nation states, business is business. We got to be able to move forward. We can't just say, "Oh, you you blew up our Marines in 1983, the year Dave Smith was born, and that we get to keep this grudge against you forever after that and never normalize relations under that excuse." That's a fake excuse.

Well, also also just I sorry I just want to like re-emphasize your point there, but it there seems to me to be something I'm not saying this is like completely morally or logically perfect, but if the current president as you're saying Ronald Reagan, if his response to that is to go, you know what, we're going to pull out of the region. This is the the example Ron Paul always liked to to use that he said in his memoir that he said, you know, we just don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. We shouldn't have gotten involved in this. We're going to pull out. and then you can sell weapons to the Iranian regime a couple years later, then by definition, you've let it go. The president of the United States at the time decided this is not worth pursuing a war over. You don't get like a justified war forever free card that you can pull up 40 years later and go. It's just too ridiculous. And especially when it's Ronald Wilson Reagan, right? It wasn't Walter Montdale's [ __ ] on a chain. This is Ronald Reagan decided, hey, it's in America's national interest to move forward. And of course, we were back in Saddam against them at the time. But still, right? I mean, goes to show that we can deal with the as Dick Cheney said in 1998 when he was still the CEO of Halburn, we can deal with these people. Bill Clinton should lift these sanctions and let us do business. You know, by the way, is there is there a more evil on its face impossible to justify policy than backing both sides of a war? Like, is there anything that you could do that is just I I mean, look, I'm not saying like like just justifying a war or backing a war of aggression, I guess, is as evil, but is there anything more indefensible than backing both sides of a war? It's just so appalling. Like, so you're just like you're throw you're just want more people to die. It's just unbelievable.

But yes, but they're the great evil. Yeah. And that and that is the right answer. I mean the way they would put is well weaken the Ayatollah and Saddam but yes killing by killing their men right. Um and and yeah and like a show in Fool's Aaron where the policy even when we talk about well America was backing Iraq and Israel was backing Iran well with American support and acquiescence and sometimes even orders. Okay, we want you to increase support for Iran now because Iraq is getting a little too far ahead and then we bounce back the other way. I mean, that's some real ugly stuff to do. Um, then the other major one, and I bet we probably talked about this on your show before, but it really bears repeating because hardly anyone ever contradicts this because the knowledge is just not widespread enough. You'll hear a lot of times, especially on Fox News, they will say Iran killed 600 Americans in the Iraq War, meaning Iraq War 2, 2003 through 8 or 9 or 11, however you count that there. So, that's not true. First of all, the number is 500. Out of 4,500 Americans who died, 500 died fighting the Iraqi Shiites. And yes, the Muktad al-Sader's army, which was called the Mahi Army, was mildly supported by Iran, but not compared to the other major factions that we were also fighting for. Solder was part of the United Iraqi alliance. That's why 4,000 were killed by the Sunnis because we were fighting to ensconce this Shiite grouping in power. And it was the solderists, the Dawa party and scary were the three major pillars. Um, and he's still a big kingmaker in the country to this day. But when uh David Petraeus turned and attacked him in 2007, they had this big fight in uh down in Najaf and in eastern Baghdad where yes, 500 Americans were killed and the Shiite Iraqis were using what were called EFPs instead of just a IED, an improvised explosive device. These were EFPs, the explosively formed penetrator. They had a copper core and a shaped charge that would cut right through armor and kill our guys. They're much more effective uh roadside bombs, homemade landmines essentially, but well-made. And the propaganda campaign was to just pretend that every single one of those bombs came from Iran and came from the Iranian goods force and they were all given over to Mktad Alsolder to use against our guys. That was never true and it was certainly never proven to be true because it wasn't true. And as I cite in the book, I got like 10 or 12 major sources who all talk about being embedded with American forces in Iraq war in in those Shiite areas and finding these machine shops and garages where these bombs were being made by local Iraqi Shiites. And um and then I also have uh military officers that I know who were, you know, intelligence officers who knew for a fact that this wasn't true at the time and knew what was actually happening instead and you know could speak authoritatively to that and I quote them by name in the book. So and we knew at the time the great Gareth Porter and many other great reporters were on this story. Andrew Coburn was another um uh many people were on this story. It was simply a conspiracy between Vice President Cheney, General David Petraeus and Michael Gordon of the New York Times. The same guy who was the partner with Judith Miller on all the stories about Saddam seeking a bomb parts and the rest. Same guy. He's now at the Wall Street Journal. And they were just lying and they were proven to be lying and the whole story ended up falling apart by the summertime. And so then they go, "Well, Iran killed 600 of our guys in Iraq." But nobody knows anything about that complicated story I just told about America attacking the guy that they were fighting for for a few months and how they were trying to start a war with Iran and then it didn't they held a press conference and they had to admit it was all they don't nobody well not enough of y'all have read enough already and so um so the lie tends to stand and that's something I wish I could have had time to bring up to also debunk for people but and I'm but I'm not Iran's lawyer and I'm not here sitting uh I wasn't there or here to say that, you know, all hell the Ayatollah is great theocracy or anything over there. It's just the reality is just like with David Caresh and just like with Saddam Hussein, they have to say, "Oh, this guy's crazy. Oh, he's so uh his religion controls his thought pattern so deeply that he's totally irrational and cannot be negotiated with, must only be threatened andor dealt with violently." And that's just clearly not true. Has been demonstrated repeatedly not to be true. The Ayatoll I'm sure is a terrible leader if you live in Iran but he's been essentially uh cautious in foreign policy other than when America gave him Baghdad he took it and when Barack that was W. Bush. And when Barack Obama forced Syria to become much more dependent on him for help in uh during his dirty war there, then yeah, they took the opportunity to provide security services to Syria and to make Syria more dependent on their aid and their control of their country and or their influence. I shouldn't say control, but increase their influence in the country and and all that. And they did support Hamas. I think it's completely ridiculous this hoax that Iran launched the attack of October 7th. It's not true. American intelligence told the newspapers they don't believe that that's true and no no reason to believe that. So there was American they said that they were shocked by this is American intelligence said that Iran all of their evidence suggested that Iran was shocked by the October 7th attack. And then people will say like they'll use this like whoa what do you think they were given those weapons to Hamas for?

But again, yeah, I just want to make just a couple points on on what you just said before you continue cuz it I do think it's really important. And obviously, as you said, the point of this isn't to be Iran's lawyer. The point of this is to be the American people's lawyer. And as they're using this as a as a a justification for war to just point out how and it it really is amazing because as you said correctly, I see this repeated a lot. The 600 Americans were Iran killed 600. Nobody ever challenges it. It's it's wrong on every level. It's not just that the claim is wrong on some, right? Like it wasn't 600, it was 500. They weren't Iranian weapons. They were made in Iraq. It's like every level of it's wrong. But even on top of that, even if it were true, it's like it it's it's the only standards that DC and Tel Aviv have are double standards. Cuz like even if this were true, if you're arguing that if Iran were to sell weapons to Shiites in Iraq or give weapons to Shiites in Iraq and they use them against US soldiers, therefore Iran is a legitimate target for military action. Well, then also Russia has the right to start bombing America right now. And also, you know, I mean, I don't know, Israel and and Turkey and the United States of America backed the jihadists against Assad. So, I guess we are now legitimate targets for all of the, you know, head choppers who went and killed a bunch of Shiites at villages all throughout Syria and Iraq. It's just even if it were true, it's not a justification for war. And the whole thing's a lie anyway. But obviously I think at this point it is as close to a universal consensus as any issue ever is that George W. Bush lied us into an aggressive war of choice. If you launch an aggressive war, the responsibility for these young dead Americans is on George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Like no matter who it was who made the bombs. Anyway, just saying I think all of that is is important to

Well, yeah. And and you're totally right. And in specific here is David Petraeus who launched this attack against Mktad Al-Sadolder, right? Not because McTad Al- Solder was the cat's paw of Thrron. That was the alibi. In fact, it was scary and Dawa were the two Shiite groups that were more tied to Iran. They had been the traitors who had fled Iraq and lived in Iran for 20 years and fought on Iran's side in the Iran Iraq war. Solder had stayed and Solder was telling America and Iran to go to hell and leave Iraq to the Iraqis. So the Americans preferred the pro-Iran Shiite parties hoping that ultimately they would need us, our money, and our guns more than they would need their Iranian friends next door because the guy, the Shiite leader who was least favorable toward Iran was also unfavorable toward the United States. And so instead of saying, "Okay, well at least this guy is a nationalist. He wants to compromise with the Sunnis. Let the Iraqis have Iraq and let's get the hell out of here. And at least he wants to kick the Iranians out, too. At least to some degree, he wants to limit their influence. That's good. No. Instead, it was we have to stay. We have to marginalize him. And in in fact, in you know, de facto empower the pro Iranian factions at his expense because we hope that we'll have our way with them more better later, which is not how it worked out. Um, so the whole thing was completely crazy. And by the way, speaking of W. Bush, he did not go for it. This giant conspiracy between Cheney and Petraeus and Michael Gordon to lie us into to lie him into striking Iranian goods force targets inside the country and and uh dragging us into a war. He said, "Forget it." And so did the um commander of Central Command, Admiral William Fallon said, "Over my dead body. Are we going to war with Iran right now? We got 300,000 troops in Iraq who are all dead meat. Order 66 style. If we do this, we're not doing it. And and Bush backed down. And I know this one sounds crazy, Dave, but I got three good sources for it. David Wormser, the author of The Clean Break, Dick Cheneyy's Middle East adviser, was going around blabbing in Washington that what we're going to do is we're going to work with the Israelis. That would be the Ahood Mer government, and we're going to have them start the war against Iran and drag Bush into the thing. He'll have no choice but to get into it because the Iranians will hit back at American targets and then we'll be dragged into the war. Bush will be dragged into the war. They were making that publicly known. That story was broken by a guy named Steven Clemens who is not a fabulous. He's sort of a center left Bill Clinton knight or whatever, but he is not a radical or the kind of guy who makes up garbage. You know what I mean? He had this on very good authority. And then the New York Times also verified it. And then so did a journalist named Barton Gellman in his book The Angler. And he's the guy who got the Snowden leak from the Washington Post uh along with Glenn Greenwald and them. And he's a decent guy. I mean his book Angler on Dick Cheney is pretty good. And that's in there too. He verified that story as well that this was a fullcourt press at the time to try to even do an end run around the president to do whatever they could to drag him into war with Iran then and he resisted it and then it was just a couple months later that the National Intelligence Council put out the NIE saying Iran isn't even trying to make a nuclear weapon. So that never mind their route to the bomb. the war party's route to a war with Iran over their pretended race to a bomb is canled because the CIA says it's all bunk, which is always, you know,

I wanted to ask you about this more because I was I was uh brought this up on on the show the other day and I think did you was it in the Tucker interview that you did get into this a little bit, but the um the like focus group testing where they uh decided that nuclear is the is the way to get the American people behind a war.

I forgot if I said that to Tucker, who I say a lot of things, but um yes, that's right. And that is in the book um in Enough already. It was it was on the eve of Iraq War I. It's in the fall of 1990. So, it's Operation Desert Storm, and they're building up toward uh the war, but the American people are against it. And so, I forgot like what date they debuted the babies in incubators hoax. You know, I should have that tighter on my timeline where in the story that comes in. Um, but they had, you know, the supposed threats to Saudi Arabia and the incubators hoax, but Americans were still like, "I don't know, man. I thought we were cashing our peace dividend and all that." Like, Cold War is not even, the Soviet Union is not even gone yet. Right. Still early 90 or, you know, 90 and to early 91. And yeah, the Berlin Wall came down. The Berlin Wall came down six months ago or whatever, a year ago or something like that. Yeah. Right. Yeah. One year before. And so here we are again on this new mission. Now the USSR in our way so we can go do whatever we want. And but the American people overall were unenthusiastic. And so then they did focus groups and you know polls and they found that when they mention the potential of a nuclear weapons threat from Iraq then the the people turn the dial hard to the right that okay I'm listening now. You say we got to stop this mad man, you know, who you call Hitler from getting atomic weapons, then yeah, we can't have that. Or else, as they claimed at the time, he'll be the new Hitler and conquer the entire Middle East, monopolize control over the entire Middle East resources, uh, you know, oil resources. And then what are we going to do and all this stuff? And so that they just figured out to beat that drum for the weapons of mass destruction. and um and like just to un like to really drive the point home, it's it's really important to understand just like how cynical and dishonest these people are cuz if you read um as as you always talk about and I I talk about quite a bit too on on like big platforms. If you read um the clean break um document or uh coping with crumbling states or really anything out of the project for a new American century or any of this stuff, they're constantly talking about regime change in Iraq. It's over and over and over again. This is their the one that they have their eye on. And they never or at least never certainly not in coping with crumbling states or the clean break and not in the stuff I've read in the project for a new American century. They never mention nuclear threats. Like that's just not even part of it. They're honest about in those days they were like, "We're doing this to break from the peace process so we don't have to give the Palestinians their own state." And it's not till after 9/11 and when they have their opportunity and they go, "Okay, we got to sell this war now." Then all out of nowhere, oh, Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. And I I got to say it does seem like the thing with Iran is exactly the same. Like everybody knows they don't have nuclear weapons. They're not pursuing nuclear weapons. It's just all so it's like you spend your whole time arguing with the thing that isn't even the reason why they want to go to war. It has nothing to do with it. And even as I' I've pointed out a few times, as I know you know, um, but one of the most interesting things about what's being dubbed the 12-day war now is immediately hours after Trump dropped the bunker busters on Iran, Israel started just bombing regime sites that had absolutely nothing to do with their nuclear capacity. They just started bombing, you know, sites that were important to the regime. And so you're like, "Okay, what's really going on here?" Like it doesn't seem like it's like everybody sitting here fighting over what 60% enriched uranium means. Meanwhile, that actually has nothing to do at all with the real story.

Yeah. Well, okay. So, and now the irony of the 1980s uh policy where Israel bombed Iraq's nuclear reactor at Ora in 1981, which Ronald Reagan denounced, that actually drove Saddam Hussein's nuclear program underground. And when those focus group pollsters were figuring out this propaganda, they didn't know that they weren't lying. In fact, Saddam was working on nuclear weapons and they only found it, which he was way behind. It's not like he was on the verge of it, but he was enriching uranium I I think to weapons greater. He's trying to figure out how to and had a at least a rudimentary nuclear weapons program that they only found when they occupied the south of Iraq in the aftermath of the first Iraq war. And then um so that there's lessons from that that geez this is what happens when you bomb a safeguarded program sometimes right but then also this became part of Dick Cheney's narrative that well if the CIA says there's not a nuclear program there eh the CIA said that before and they were wrong so we don't have to listen to them when they say that now and our friends say that there is so

Right so so you are extrapolating the lesson that like a sane human being might learn from that but then there's another lesson that a Dick Cheney might learn from that, which is that like, ooh, we just did this focus group testing and now we found this secret nuclear. Oo, look at that. This is the perfect way to sell a war in the future. Yep. And it works. And because even mustard gas, I mean, it sounds bad, but like when they I don't know, you might be too young to remember this, but right after September 11th, um Tom Ridge, the uh leader of the Department of Homeland Security, put out a thing recommending that people cover their houses in plastic and duct tape to protect from a chemical weapons attack because Saddam Hussein might give chemical weapons to al Qaeda or use his remotec controlled UAVs to attack the East Coast. And the thing is about it is a lot of people laughed at that. But guess what? A lot of people kind of went nuts and bought into that. And I actually saved some pictures of especially like Washington DC professional women Democrat types like cleaning out the Home Depot with their arms full of plastic and duct tape to protect from the imminent chemical weapons attack. But anyway, I'm just making fun of them. That is true. But the vast majority of the people are like, "Come on. Saddam's going to attack me in my suburb with mustard gas or whatever. Like probably not, right? And then Conna Rice and Coen Pal and George W. Bush all three with their rehearsed, you know, Carl Rove rehearsed uh from the White House Iraq group little, you know, again, focus group tested slogans. We can't wait for the proof to come in the form of a mushroom cloud. You could lose your whole hometown all at once if we wait around for Saddam to attack us. We got to attack him first. And that was what convinced people to do it. Is you wouldn't lie to me a lie that big, would you? That we're trying to stop Saddam from nuking the United States. Oh no. Oh, okay. I heard we're bringing him a democracy, which means we're putting the Supreme Islamic Council in power or something.

All right, guys. Let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is Brunt. I love Brunt. Brunt workear. You got to check it out. They've cracked the code on work boots. No more choosing between comfort and durability. Brunt Brunt boots are built to handle the gnarliest job sites while feeling like your favorite sneakers from day one. No breakin needed. You're You put the shoe They literally they sent me a pair of boots. I put them on that day. They felt great. And these are these are work boots. You could take this to any job site and you're going to be comfortable and prepared. And here's the deal. For a limited time, part of the problem listeners get $10 off at Brunt with the promo code problem at checkout. Just head to bruntwork.com and use the promo code problem and you're all set. And after you buy, let them know that part of the problem sent you. It helps to keep our show going. So get work gear that works as hard as you do at bruntworkwear.com promo code problem for $10 off.

All right, let's get back into the show. Jeez. Um, all right. Is there anything else in the interview that you were like, "Oh, I should have said this or I wish I had brought this point."

I didn't say the great Ron Paul anything, which is a total demerit. Like, that's just God forgive me. Everyone, forgive me for that. I should have said something something as the great Ron Paul teaches us. Peace be upon him. You'll have to uh we'll have um some type of pet pence uh set up at his uh his 90th birthday party that we'll we'll have you go through or something like that.

Exactly. And then also um I didn't talk about my show. I talked about my new show with Daryl Cooper which called Provoked and which is number eight on the new podcast Apple Ranking List. Oh, by the way, huh? I don't know how I have not uh mentioned this yet, but I'll make sure to post about it today. But I just, you know, I was on vacation last week and then, you know, I've been busy since coming back. So, I just I just listened to uh both of the first two episodes uh yesterday. They were fantastic. And just Yeah, guys. I mean, there's literally my two favorite people in America to listen to are Scott Horton and Daryl Cooper. So, make sure you go check out Provoked. Of course, named after Scott's most recent uh book there, but it's a a great podcast.

That by the way, I would not have dared to name it that, but he said we should. So, okay. Well, you know, it is it's a it's a very good title that is is vague enough that it could apply to most of you and Daryl's work. So, it really is a good and then I guess just for marketing purposes, it's not a bad idea to have the same name for the book and the the podcast. Um, but yeah, well, that's good that you you promoted that one there, but yeah.

Okay, you should have should have mentioned your show, too. Yeah. So, I've been really slacking on my show lately. I got so many projects going on and I haven't even done an interview in like a month, but I just did two. Matt Williams, the Australian uh war analyst and Orin McIntyre, the uh new right uh leader and and great podcaster and author. Uh so, but that's the Scott Horton show. I've done 6,000 of those interviews. I just kind of got way behind because I sort of slowed it all down to write all these books instead. But, um I'm sort of kind of relaunching that show and should be in video form here coming up soon and all that. And that's just at Scott Wharton show if anybody's interested in my interview show. And then um let's see, I said Beirut, I said EFPs. I talked about their role in the region and um Israel as a strategic liability. I should have said that. Oh, here's something that I should have said at the end. This will be my last thing about catching up from the Tucker show. He asked me about like the hope for the future and the sort of domestic scene and what we're all to make of this and that kind of stuff. And I really dropped the opportunity to explain that uh the real opposite of the current American political and economic system is free market capitalism. And what the problem is people associate so many of our economic problems with freedom. That it's the same thing as in my junior high school class. It was freedom that caused the Great Depression. So they needed the New Deal to smooth out the booms in the bus and to fix all the problems that too much excessive uh you know uncontrolled decisionmaking by people out in the world uh had caused which is not true. I mean it's the same thing that they push every time and that's just you know what are you going to do? It's the way people think about it. This is capitalism. Prices are really high. We're at war all the time. Apparently in capitalism prices are really high or we're at war all the time and more billionaires than ever and more there's more billionaires than ever before. So like and more people living outside who actually aren't wos but for some reason can't afford to live inside. I it's a real crisis and and um and everybody's feeling it but sort of like I'm pretty sure it was Hasllett who talked about inflation said not one man in 10,000 understands what's really happening. Right? So you see people blame themselves for e their economic problems when there are major forces at work that they don't understand that are undermining the role of their job, their business, their community, whatever. Um, and there's so much of that and that ends up causing people to move, especially younger people of course, further to the left. And like as bad as Hillary Clinton's economics are, Bernie Sanders's are way worse. Man, you don't want that. And then it it's the same thing on the nationalist right. We need more protection. We need more intervention. We need to the government to stop people from making the economic decisions that we don't want. When the real problem isn't the freedom, it's not the free trade. The problem is the empire destroying say, I don't know, 20 trillion dollars worth of our wealth since the end of the cold war completely unnecessarily. And on top of that, of course, requiring an economic system where we have first of all income taxation, which might I don't know, the communists didn't invent it, but it's in the communist manifesto because it's the greatest way to punish people for earning money and being free. And then right next to that is inflationary money. You need a central bank so the central bank can backs stop endless new money creation, not wealth creation, currency creation, which debases the value of the savings of anyone trying to denominate their savings in in the local currency. Right? And so it makes people it it causes it it becomes the cause of all kinds of demand for the welfare state on all levels from the left and the right and for economic protection. You know, why did everybody reject Hillary Clinton? There's so many great reasons that I would have brought up, but a huge part of it, her and Jeb Bush both, where they were standing on free trade. And Bernie Sanders was promising to to inaugurate protectionism to protect workers. And Donald Trump was promising to inaugurate protectionism mostly to help American business, but he would frame it in terms of the workers. And that was why you had a lot of what they call Reagan Democrats, which is union employees, working guys who are culturally kind of right-wing, but they usually vote with the Democratic party, but then switch sides to vote for Trump because they don't want to go as far as socialist as Sanders and plus he lost the primary anyway. And so they switch to Trump because Trump was promising protection. But but Dave, we don't know how hard all that or how badly all that offshoring from dropping of the trade barriers would have hurt in a free market cuz we didn't have one. We had all the dropping of those trade barriers in a way where our government had deals with these com these countries that they could keep their trade barriers on us as long as they let us have military bases in their countries. Well, that's not free trade. That's a whole other rigged game at the American people's expense and our government's benefit, right? But at the expense of American workers. Um, and we also just had just the pure expense of the wars, all the opportunity costs there, and then plus the inflationary monetary system that is necessary to backs stop it all, which causes such disruption and problems in the economy. So, I don't blame any well for for leftists and liberals like I gotta just shake my head like I whatever I I can understand why I can I can empathize with any person who thinks we need national economic policies to protect us from whatever the hell is happening to us, right? When it's the national government's policies who that have really caused this problem for us in the first place. And I think the empire is at the core of that because look at just the corruption and the profit taking at Lockheed and Rathon Rathon and North Grumman. It's enough to make a college student believe in Marxism, you know. Oh yeah. And and look on top of that just a couple look the having um fiat currency in a central bank and particularly like easy money policies which have been the norm for you know since 2001 or 2002 something like that for now. I mean, when I when I say the norm, even when we are like right now might feel like we're in a high interest rate environment because we were at zero for so long, we're still pretty relatively low interest rates right now. So, we've had ease. And what ends up happening with this is it it creates this huge industry of people becoming multi-millionaires off speculating because when you have low money, you're always speculating. What can you get more interest on because you're losing value in the currency. Also, our tax laws, of course, as every working person knows, our tax laws push you into putting your money on Wall Street. Like, you're going to have to pay full taxes if you don't put some of this in a retirement account. What's a retirement account? It's handing your money to the big banks to go gamble with. And so, these people who are making millions of dollars on Wall Street are really just extracting the money out of the real economy. I mean, they're not producing anything. And yet the money that they have, they take and they go buy real things that were produced by people working. And so they're just extracting the money out. Then on top of that, you have this giant regulatory state um which is an incredible burden for uh for existing businesses and an incredible disincentive for new production to to come along. And on on top of that, I think the dynamic that you're really getting at, which is an interesting one, is that I I think one of the best microcosms of this was this uh this primary that just wrapped up in the New York City mayoral uh race where you have Andrew Cuomo uh you know, just like the the poster child of the failed, humiliated establishment, and then you have this young Mandani guy. And so Manny is sitting there talking about uh the unaffordability of New York City and he's doing all these videos where he's like, "Hey, did you know like these food on the street carts, which New York City is is known for. You know, chicken over rice used to be like seven bucks and now it's 16 bucks or I don't remember the exact price, but it's like something like that." And Andrew Cuomo's sitting there and going, "You haven't even pledged to visit Israel." And like so just right away as backward as the socialist policies are you can see this like tremendous advantage that they give to the leftist who's like hey he's talking about an issue that actually matters to somebody who lives in Brooklyn whereas this

The other guy said what the, the big controversy was that he favored a one-state solution rather than a, like, what? Who? What? Obviously, who would care about that as much as this?

Then the other part that really ties into what you're saying, I don't know if you saw this, but it really is quite funny. Mom Donni does this video about why chicken over rice from the street carts is skyrocketing up in price. And he's interviewing the guys, "Why is it that you're charging more money now than you were there?" And what he comes, what he finds from the guys is that, "Oh, see, they don't own the street carts, or they don't own the permit, the right that the government gives you to set up a food cart on the street." It's not a food truck, exactly. They're like little carts, but you need a permit to be there. And guess what? You're not even paying the government for it. You're paying somebody who the government sold a permit to. And then his conclusion is like, "Capitalism, you know?" But you're like, "Hey, dude, it was right there in your own video that the problem isn't capitalism at all. The problem is this, this commons property that the government is now like turning into a racket and you're getting screwed." But like, even in his own video right there, it's like, "No, clearly the problem here isn't capitalism. Why the hell should the system be that the government gets to sell these permits and then you're basically a slave to the permit holder class?" Which, by the way, is true for the, not so much with Ubers anymore, but it was true in New York City with the taxi medallion system, too, where these guys take out mortgages to buy a medallion and are now a debt slave to some guy who just was connected to someone at Capitol Hill in New York City. It's all, anyway. Uh, yeah. And on top of that, the price of chicken and rice has doubled because they devalued the money by half. That's the deal. Yeah.

All right, guys. Let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show, a brand new sponsor who we're thrilled to have on board, and that is Stopbox. If you own a handgun for self-defense, your storage likely fits into one of two frustrating categories. It's either locked away, safe, but out of reach in an emergency, or it's unsecured, leaving it vulnerable to anyone. Stopbox USA saw the problem and designed a groundbreaking solution, the Stopbox Pro. With the Stopbox Pro, you'll never have to choose between security and readiness again. It's ingenious pushbutton locking system gives you fast, reliable access when every second matters, without the hassle of keys or reliance on batteries. It's 100% mechanical, so it works every time. No power needed. I will tell you something, okay? I owned a Stopbox before they came on as a sponsor. This thing is great. It's literally, it's, it really does solve this problem of having your gun that the kids couldn't get access to because you need a very specific way to open it. But you don't have to worry. It's like, once you do it, you get it. And you could get it out in a second if, God forbid, you're ever in an emergency where you need it, which is part of the reason why you have the thing to begin with. With Stopbox USA, you can finally have both security and readiness. The Stopbox Pro's mechanical keyless system allows for fast, secure access without the risk of fumbling for keys when every second counts. It's also battery-free, so you never have to worry about your lock not working. Also, you don't have to worry about tariffs because everything is sourced right here in the USA. All Stopbox products are proudly made in the USA in their own facility. And for a limited time, our listeners are going to get a crazy deal on Stopbox. Get 10% off your entire order when you use the promo code problem. Just go to stopboxusa.com. And don't forget to use that promo code problem for 10% off. stopboxusa.com, promo code problem. Discover a better way to balance security and readiness with Stopbox.

All right, let's get back into the show. Okay, let me, um, so I wanted to ask you because this has been really, and I want to ask you about the actual cover-up itself, but then also kind of like the political ramifications of this. But this really has been, um, the story that's been dominating the last few days here has been the cover-up of the Jeffrey Epstein scandal. You know, I say scandal, sounds like quite a euphemism. The, the systematic rape and torture of children. Um, and then the blackmail operation that followed. Um, but there is something real. I, I from what I've seen like on social media and on political talk shows, like this is just really, even the most hardcore Trump loyalists are just not buying this. I mean, a lot of them are just trying to throw Pam Bondi and Cash Patel under the bus and maybe not pointing the finger at Donald Trump where it obviously belongs. Donald Trump really hurt himself by responding the other day and putting himself right in the front, and the most ridiculous. You, we were talking about on the last show that you're going to ask me this question when there's a storm, you know, like it's just too absurd. But there, it does seem to me that there's something about this Epstein thing that I just think is such a devastating blow for Donald Trump because it's not just, um, it's not just a broken campaign promise. It's breaking Donald Trump's political raison d'être, you know what I mean? Like his, the whole thing was drain the swamp, and in one, you know, moment, he's letting you know, I choose the swamp over you. Like, this is very clear. Like, this is, we're here to protect the real swamp. Um, but so what do you, I don't know. What are Scott Horton's thoughts as you watch this ridiculousness?

Well, look, I mean, it's an atrocity, of course, with a good silver lining to it, right? In that, you know, I sit here and go on and on for 10 minutes about this Epstein hoax and nobody cares, whatever. But this is like with Joe Biden, man. I probably told you on the show two years ago that, see, the thing is with Joe Biden is he's just too old for this. And your next-door neighbor's auntie's cousin knows it, too. Everybody knows it. You don't have to be political at all to know what a too old for this work person looks like, and that's what they look like. It's just too apparent. Well, Epstein and Goods Forces and MKTATA alsoists are all complicated things. This guy's a child rapist who was allowed to be one somehow for 30 or 40 years or something, and then either killed himself or is on vacation in the Swiss Alps right now, like nobody even knows, um, whatever happened to him. Um, was murdered by a hitman silencing him forever, or paying an inmate to do it, or whatever it is. Um, but and everybody knows, you, it's just like Biden's age in front of your eyes. Why then was this man allowed to get away with it? Well, because he belongs to intelligence, according to the federal prosecutor who was told. And by the way, I think I heard you say that he said intelligence told him that. I'm not sure it was clear who it was that he said told him that. I think he just kind of said, "I was told he belongs to intelligence," and I'm not sure. Um, and double-check me. I don't mean to double-check you and make sure, but I'm not sure if anyone said, "Well, who told you that? And what's his phone number? Let's get him in here." You know what I mean? Um, but it was under oath, I believe, to Congress that he said that. Um, and so, um, and then, so, look, if somebody says somebody in America belongs to intelligence, then obviously the first conclusion is the agency, the CIA, um, that he works for them. But then obviously the question is raised here very quickly, considering who this guy is and who all his connections are, that, well, then if that, if intelligence means the agency, then what exactly is the difference between the CIA and the Mossad at this point? Because it sure looks like he was a Mossad guy, and that his job was compromising people for Israel, and, and it's the most obvious thing in the world. In fact, if he took Israel out of the thing, if the guy wasn't friends with Ehud Barak, and he just was a domestic intelligence guy, it seems like they probably would have burned him and at least some of his co-conspirators in the country by now. We all know what the third rail is here. It's, you know, sorry, but Randy Weaver had it right, man. It's the Zionist occupied government that this parasitical thing that controls the United States of America to a terrible degree. And who could deny it? It's like saying, "Uh-uh, Joe Biden is sharp as a tack." I'm just going to say that to you a hundred times and then you'll believe me. No, I'm sorry, man. This is just too obvious on the face of it. This guy was allowed to get away with it because his job was raping American children to compromise American citizens to serve the interests of this enemy foreign country. Yeah.

I mean, it's, uh, you know, when, uh, Dan Buttonino, who's now the deputy, uh, FBI director, when he said, uh, that he had it on good, this is before he was in, of course, but when he said he had it on good authority that Jeffrey Epstein was connected to Middle East intelligence, and you're just like, "Yeah, this does this." Yeah, this does have Jordanian footprints all over it. Right. That's why Ehud Barak, yeah. Ehud Barak was staying at his house and his, you know, he was, uh, his partner in crime was the daughter of a Mossad-connected guy. Sure does have the United Arab Emirates written all over it, or what, you know, it's just too. But the thing is, I think you're right. You know, I've made this point about the Joe Biden thing before, too, where of all the, it's not that the cover-up for Biden's senility or or, uh, cognitive decline was, it's not that it was the worst scandal. Um, I mean, you could argue, but, you know, to know, essentially everybody knows that Donald Trump wasn't really a Russian agent at this point. Maybe maybe there's still some Democrats who believe it, but ba- basically everybody knows that. But in order to know that they actually lied about this, that like that they lied and framed him, you have to read a little bit. And in order to know, you know, how the extent of the cover-up of COVID and how many different lies they told, and like to know that that Andrew Cuomo really did force these nursing homes against their will to take in COVID positive patients and killed all these old people, and to know that Fauci was actually in his private emails, which we have some of, that he was basically saying that they knew the lab leak was a possibility, but then they went out and said, "You're a bigot if you don't," you know, like you got to read a little bit to know that. But the Joe Biden one, you don't have to do nothing. Like you have to have turned on your TV once. And where Epstein may not quite be that obvious, all you really need, like you don't, you don't even need to like listen to Daryl Cooper's three-part series on it. You need to know like three or four of the basic facts. If you know, if you know three or four of the basic facts about Jeffrey Epstein that we know for sure, you're already in an area where you're like, the question isn't whether or not this is a conspiracy. The only question is what exactly was the conspiracy, which, you know, I'll grant there's some, like, there's some aspects to this that we don't know for sure. Uh, but there's no question it's a conspi- like, you just can't, you can't look at the basic things here and not know that, like, you know, this, this whole, uh, uh, like story where that is so wild ends in the cameras going out, and it's just too ridiculous to try to convince people like, "Oh, it turns out we studied it very carefully and it turns out it was nothing at all." You know?

So speaking of Russiagate and Jeffrey Epstein raping children for Israel, what about James Comey? Now, he's apparently under criminal investigation right now. That was the next, uh, the next question I wanted to ask you. So, it just, they, guy was the head of the FBI, not stopping Epstein from raping children that whole time when he was in charge of counterintelligence in this country for years and years and years and years. And so, what about that? How about we take him and Louis Freeh and we just smash their heads together until they start squealing and admitting what they knew and how big of bribes that they took in order to let this continue? Well, I should say because I Mueller too, Robert Mueller was the director of the FBI between those two. So, I, I should say because I really have been, um, you know, about as harsh as you could be on Donald Trump for the last, uh, the last month or so, and I think rightfully so. Um, but then it does get announced, uh, just yesterday, which really did seem to be like, I don't know. I mean, my spidey senses were going off like, "Oh, is this something to like please the base who's, you know, uprising over, uh, uh, Jeffrey Epstein right now?" So like, is the idea that, so they announce essentially that there, the FBI is investigating, there's a criminal investigation of both, uh, James Comey and John Brennan, who certainly are two of the worst people, uh, two of the worst members of the deep state over the last 15 years. Punishment again? I'm sorry. Go ahead. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Well, so look, I mean, I since I've been bashing Donald Trump for everything, I will say, okay, that's great. I mean, these guys both clearly committed like the highest of crimes in in the the Russiagate hoax. Um, and and, you know, if you really want to get mad at John Brennan, go read Enough Already if you haven't already. It's, I mean, he really is one of the absolute worst criminals in DC over the last few years. So, okay, that's great. It does kind of seem like there's a little bit of like, listen, Jeffrey Epstein just went a little bit too high, but maybe we could throw you these two guys who you sure do seem to hate a lot. But I got to say, after everything else going on, I just have, I've just lived through this too many times where there's these investigations that end up being cover-ups, right? Like the Warren investigation, the 9/11 investigation. And I don't even mean the 9/11. I'm not implying like some crazy conspiracy here. I'm just saying that the whole thing was basically designed to be like, we are going, yep. Essentially the establishment has it right, and this, even though there were a couple of good nuggets in the 9/11 investigation, like there were a couple of points where they admit what the motives of the terrorists were, it's real purpose was to recommend the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. That's right. That's right. Yes. Yeah. So, it's like, um, and then of course, um, we we had this, uh, this whole thing with, uh, Bob Barr, where he was going to get to the bottom of what happened, and it just all feels like, you know, it's, it's, you know, we're going to investigate George W. Bush torturing everybody, and it has to say, you know, so in Trump's first term, after the Mueller report fell apart, and he appointed John Durham. I mean, yeah, this is the guy who helped let the CIA get away with torture and murder when Obama had him do a slight review of Bush administration policies before, right? But, but the Durham report was pretty good. It was pretty good. Although there are obviously severe limits on how far he was allowed to go, and he, of course, was never allowed to interview Jim Comey or any of these people. But I, for anyone interested in Russiagate at all, first of all, buy my book, Provoked. I got 75 pages on it. But also read the Durham Report. It's a lot of fun. In other words, it's an absolute outrage, and you'll freak the hell out. It's, it's really something to behold. And there's clearly the basis. I don't know about the statute of limitations and all that, but there's clearly the basis to go after these guys for a criminal conspiracy to frame the guy. And I was going to joke that like, I guess I really do owe an apology to Joe Rogan because when we did go out to dinner that time last time Daryl was in town, really, like the one conversation I had with Rogan was quibbling with him over whether Trump is going to prosecute his enemies or not. And I was like, "Nah, he ain't gonna." And Rogan's like, "I don't know, he seems pretty pissed off." Like, "Hey, all right, dude, you were right." And I'm glad too. And, you know what? I know nothing's really going to happen, but I do enjoy thinking that John Brennan and Jim Comey are at least a little bit fearful today. Um, and and maybe some truth, some more truth will come out, and maybe some things that make them look really bad. You know, like, look, the Durham report didn't lead to anyone any consequences or anyone being held responsible, but it still was kind of valuable, particularly like from my perspective, like as somebody who had, I was so focused on Russiagate on on this show for for years, and there was something like very vindicating about that. And I think it, it, it helps to have something to point to and be like, "No, look, it's all here. Like, we were right about this." And I mean, this, this thing is so damning. You know what I really like? So maybe we'll get something like that. I debunked, I had a computer security expert named Jeffrey Carr on my show and debunked the claims from CrowdStrike that Russia must have done the DNC hack two days before they ever even launched Crossfire Hurricane. Wow. You can find that in the archives. It was April Glasby day, I'm pretty sure, uh, July 25th of 2016, that was already debunked, and they didn't launch, uh, Crossfire Hurricane for another two days after that. I think I have that. Yeah, it's, yeah, it's, um, it it is important because people almost like, uh, there, there were like these two, the two essential building blocks of Russiagate were two claims, like the first claim was that Russia interfered in our election, and then the second claim was that Donald Trump was in a conspiracy with them to do it, that he was, that, you know, they had overthrown our democracy and Trump was in on it in order to install him. And it is a lot of times the people on TV who started being good on this issue three years after it mattered, you know what I mean? Like way after it was all over, they're like, "Oh yeah, they, Donald Trump wasn't really a Russian spy." They concede the first pl- part and then just say, "Oh, Donald Trump just didn't collude with them to overthrow democracy." But it is important to mention that the first part is every bit as much bullshit as the second part. They have nothing. What was it? They have like the, there was a Facebook farm, and one of the people responsible was at a dinner with Vladimir Putin once was like the most substantial evidence I ever saw to back it up. It's all bullshit.

Well, it was Prigozhin, the same guy that ended up being the mercenary leader who ran that troll farm. That's all it was was a clickbait troll farm making money. And as the government eventually admitted, most of the posts in question were posted after the election. And the super majority of all of them had nothing to do with politics whatsoever. And then the ones that did have anything to do with politics were all a bunch of crap. Like, um, this along the same lines as what the Macedonian kids were doing, and most of the so-called fake news during that time. It was a neighborhood of kids in Macedonia who figured out that boomer Trump voters will click on anything. So they made all these fake sites and said, "Pope endorses Trump," and then they went click, click, click, and then they put up Google ads, right? And then they, so they're just getting a ton of revenue by posting on Facebook and leading people to click on their pages or whatever. Had nothing to do with the Russians. And then even the Russian troll farm thing, it was all just clickbait. And it was all like, "Bernie Sanders arm wrestling the devil," and like, "Jesus telling you to stop masturbating," and like, what? It had nothing to do with anything whatsoever. And and Gareth Porter did a great review in Consortium News about the malpractice of the New York Times where they go, "Well, according to Twitter, these tweets or Facebook, whichever, got this many impressions," and but, you know, "Hey, that's how many voters there are in America or whatever." And Gareth Porter is like, "Oh, come on. That's not the ratio, dude. The ratio is compared to overall numbers of tweets and Facebook posts during that period of time, which is in the tens or hundreds of trillions." Right? And so these posts are absolutely nothing. There's one, there's nothing with a thousand zeros after it east of the decimal point before you get to a one in terms of whatever sway this would have over anyone at all. What would even be seen by anyone or taken into be on the level of if you were to say that it's like, I, I don't know, if you were to say like, "Oh, I had a tweet that had 2 million impressions and therefore I was the difference in this last election." So you're like, "Wait, wait, what?" No, it's just because someone viewed, like, you viewed my tweet does not mean that I flipped your vote. Like, this is, it's just so goofy. Um, and and of course we know, right, just as as being human beings, you don't need a scientific study or anything like this to convince you, but 99% of the people who are clicking on anything have already made up their mind who they're going to vote for. It does, 99% of people were either going to vote against Donald Trump or for Donald Trump, which is really what it always was. Never really about Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden or whatever. Um, but they had already made up their mind. How many, like, how many real people do you know who it's like, "Ah, my Fox News watching conservative dad, like, if he clicked on a post, is there a shot that he's a Hillary Clinton supporter now?" Like, no, that's not how it works. No Russian can just manipulate you that easily, even if they are posting a Facebook ad.

All right, guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is Blackout Coffee. As you guys know, I am a huge coffee consumer and a bit of a coffee snob. So, take it from me when I tell you that Blackout Coffee is just excellent. I drink their cold brew all the time. I love their roasted coffee. It's really just quality coffee that's roasted right here in the USA by people who believe in liberty, personal responsibility, and the Constitution. So, you're you're sending your money to a good US-based company, and you're going to get excellent coffee. Highly recommend it. Go to blackoutcoffee.com/pro and use the promo code problem, and you're going to get 20% off your first order. One more time, that's blackoutcoffee.com/pro. Promo code problem for 20% off. All right, let's get back into the show.

Yeah. And just real quick, all the accusations about the, the hack of the DNC and of the emails and attributed to Russia, the WikiLeaks and all attributed to Russia is completely false. There's no proof of that whatsoever. The case against Jeff Sessions, against Mike Flynn, against Carter Page, against George Papadopoulos, against all of the people who were accused in there. All of that was false. 100% of it was false. And then all like the extraneous claims like, "Oh, the Russians hacked C-SPAN and made it put out RT for half an hour." What? Every one of those silly things. "Oh, they hacked the electric grid in Vermont. They were going to freeze all the poor people of Vermont." Every single one of those little things. It was just the same thing they did to Saddam Hussein. It's the same thing they did to Donald Trump. It's told a thousand lies in a row, and you're supposed to just not be able to keep up. You're supposed to assume that, man, where there's smoke, there must be some fire there, even when, no, it's all just a bunch of steam. It's hot air. There's nothing to it at all. The end of the day, all of the accusations against Saddam Hussein were false. All of the accusations against Donald Trump on Russiagate were just completely false. And as as Ray McGovern said at the time, and Trump just didn't have anyone around him sophisticated enough to tell him this, but Ray McGovern said at the time, what Trump should do is he should severely go in there and absolutely fire the top 25 or even 50 guys at Justice, CIA, and FBI, and potentially even NSA. Fire all of them. Have security march them the hell out the door. And that includes the entire special counsel investigation, any and all of that. While at the same time, and he should do it publicly in a speech, announce it while they're being frog-marched out. But at the same time, he should completely and totally without any reservation declassify any and everything that Justice, FBI, CIA, NSA have on him and his campaign team. All of it about anything regards to Russia, regards to anything else. And have all of it copied and quadruplicate and dropped off at the Post, the Times, the Journal, and National Public Radio. Come on, Mara Liasson. Give me your worst. Bring it on. And and and let them have at it because, and then that way they had to all scream bloody murder that at Saturday Night Massacre, he fired all the people. But then he gives them all of the evidence for them to prosecute the case themselves. Go ahead, Washington Post. Hit with your best shot. The whole thing would have been over because we know the truth. There was nothing there. Carter Page was an American patriot who debriefed the CIA. Anytime he met an important Russian businessman or government official of any kind, he would tell, he would come and debrief them and tell. The only person, the only person who actually got convicted in the whole thing was the FBI lawyer who lied about Carter Page and said that he, that the, you know, or omitted that he lied through a huge omission, which is that he said the CIA confirmed what we said, which is true. The CIA did confirm that they had met with the Russians, but he omitted the part that they came right back and told us because he's one of our guys, um, an asset or not, not an agent, but, you know, an informant. Um,

Listen, dude, we do, uh, we do have to wrap up there, but man, it is, at the end there, it is fun to play those counterfactual games where what if Donald Trump was smart or wise or courageous enough to have the, he could have stopped the Ukraine war. That's the answer, right? If he'd been able to kill Russiagate in its crib in 2017, he would have implemented Minsk 2 by 2018 or 19, and then the war of '22 would have never happened. That's right. Well, he was running on detente with Russia, and this is what ultimately killed that. So anyway, uh, Donald Trump, please, uh, sorry for all the mean stuff I said about you over the last month. Please put, uh, John Brennan and James Comey in jail. Please don't launch aggressive wars on behalf of foreign countries, explode the debt, and cover up child rapist rings going forward. That would be, that's our constructive criticism of the last month. That sounds completely reasonable to me, Dave. Honestly, I, I know I know I'm a political radical, but really, it does, it sounds pretty common sense when I say it. Um, anyway, Scott, dude, thank you so much again, as always, for, it's always so like beneficial for all of us when you come on. Congratulations on all the recent success with Provoked and with the Tucker interview and all of that. And, uh, of course, we'll be talking a lot more real soon. I'll see you at, uh, Ron Paul's birthday out in, uh, out in Texas there. So, I'll be coming to that. Scott's going to be at it as well. August 9th. And I believe there are, uh, there are tickets you can get for it, right? Aren't they? That's right. Ronpaulbq.com. All right. Hope to hope to see some of you guys out there, and of course, see you guys in, uh, in Denver tomorrow night and, uh, this weekend. All right, thank you again, Scott. Thanks everybody for listening. Catch you next time. Peace.

[Music]