July 11, 2016 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
01:15:06
3344 Why Hillary Clinton May Still Face Prosecution | Bill Whittle and Stefan Molyneux
FBI Director James Comey recently revealed that he will not be recommending criminal charges against Hillary Clinton for her use of a private server to house and process her emails while Secretary of State. Only days after meeting with Bill Clinton, United States Attorney General Loretta Lynch also announced that no charges will be pursued against the presumptive Democratic Presidential nominee. Stefan Molyneux is joined by Bill Whittle to discuss why Hillary Clinton’s legal troubles are far from over, a breakdown of the laws which she broke while Secretary of State, the fallout from the dissolution of law and order within the United States, and the importance of speaking truth in the battle to save Western Civilization. Support Bill Whittle at: https://www.billwhittle.comSubscribe to Bill on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/BillWhittleChannelFreedomain Radio is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by signing up for a monthly subscription or making a one time donation at: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donateMore from Stefan and Bill Whittle!1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vY-ueR0OLlQ2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jhU3RZDg703: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNLnehTFanM4: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLYVG4OP_wg5: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AasuUt1d_fEGet more from Stefan Molyneux and Freedomain Radio including books, podcasts and other info at: http://www.freedomainradio.com
Hi everybody, Stefan Molyneux from Freedom Aid Radio, back with our good friend Bill Whittle.
Yes, it's been a while, but he's been cryogenically frozen to make sure that he's available to build the society of the future after the current one crumbles.
This is why he's looking a little frosty.
You can find his work at BillWhittle.com, also YouTube.com slash Bill Whittle channel.
Bill, great to have you back.
How are you doing?
It's great, buddy.
Good to be here.
Anything happen since we spoke last?
Quiet couple of months, huh?
I trimmed my toenails, shaved my beard because Canada has basically turned into mercury.
There's been like no rain.
It's been crazy hot.
My lawn is basically crunchy shades of tiny little bits of grass.
And the British people saved their future, at least gave themselves a chance, and the rule of law has been destroyed in the United States.
But other than that, slow news week.
Well, did I mention the toenails?
Because we obviously want to keep things prioritized.
But yes, okay, so let's dip into this strange thing.
So in the news, right, so for those who are watching this later or who've been cryogenically frozen, James Comey decided not to pursue criminal charges against Hillary Clinton because you can use the magic word intent to wave away every single conceivable thing that might happen to you negatively James Comey decided not to pursue criminal charges against Hillary Clinton because you can use And 56% of Americans disapprove of this recommendation to not charge Clinton.
Only 35% approve.
57% say the incident makes them worried about how Clinton might act as president if she is elected.
Most very worried about it.
Only 39% feel the issue isn't related to how she would perform as president.
I'd actually like to find those 39% and perhaps give them their own island.
Just imagine.
Just think about the fact, though, that those numbers reflect the kind of media headwind that we have and the tailwind that she's got.
If there was any kind of fair news reporting in this country, if it was something other than Fox News, which there's like a cyst around Fox now, Fox breaks a story with video.
You tell it to somebody, oh, well, that's Fox.
Given the press bias, the fact that there's a majority thinking there's something wrong with this is absolutely astonishing to me and one of the few healthy signs here.
Well, that's I think because of people like you and I bursting through this as the tip of the spear to bring reality to a often confused and disoriented mainstream media programmed population.
And the fascinating thing for me was that after they'd been investigating for, I think, about a year or maybe a little bit more, they interviewed Hillary Clinton on a Saturday, a holiday Saturday, you know, just to make sure that nobody would be around.
She had five lawyers with her, which is, you know, what you do when you sit down for a friendly sit down.
My lawyers are all, of course, underneath and out of the frame every time I talk to you.
She had five lawyers with her.
She spoke with them for a couple of hours.
It was not transcribed.
It was not recorded.
she was not under oath.
So that was Saturday.
I don't think a lot of government and employees work Sunday, certainly whenever I call there, you know, just go straight to voicemail.
And then was it Monday or Tuesday that he popped out and said, well, it's all done.
It's like, don't you need a little bit of time to process everything that she said over those three hours?
Comey wasn't present.
There was no recording.
There was no oath.
What the hell?
I I mean, how could this possibly be incorporated into a year-long investigation when you finally sit down with the, I don't know, maybe perpetrator?
One holiday, next day, boom!
We've got all the answers.
That just seems a little rapid to me.
Yeah, and a few days before, you've got the Attorney General.
Meeting with the husband of a woman who's in an open investigation, probably a co-defendant, certainly a co-person of interest regarding all of the Clinton Foundation stuff.
They said, oh no, we just happened to meet on the tarmac and we talked about golfing and grandchildren.
The subject of the FBI probe didn't come up at all.
This is like Michael Jackson telling us that he never had any facial surgery.
He stares right into the camera and says, no, I've never had any facial surgery.
And we believe it.
Why aren't your lips moving then, Mickey?
His are probably stapled back someplace.
The thing is...
This video I'm doing on Hillary, which I hope to get released tomorrow, I was originally just going to talk about the whole thing because there's something very interesting about what Comey did.
But I just realized, look, you know, some people just don't get it.
So I'm just calling this one, Is Hillary Guilty?
And it's a real simple one.
There are three statutes there, and I could talk about those just very briefly if you want.
One of them is, they're all felonies.
One of them basically says that if you do not return all of the records, all of the records, not just the classified ones, all of them, The security issue,
in terms of security violation...
The prosecution would have to prove gross negligence.
That's the term needed.
They don't have to prove intent.
They don't have to prove that she meant to sell secrets out to anybody.
They just have to prove that she behaved in a grossly negligent fashion.
And the second Comey finished his His statement, Giuliani, Rudy Giuliani said, I'm a career prosecutor.
James Comey used to work for me.
He said, if you go to a legal dictionary and look up the definition of gross negligence, the definition is extreme carelessness.
That's the exact term that Comey used to describe how Hillary...
The question over guilt is not up for discussion.
I can solve that issue.
It takes me 60 seconds of screen time.
But the bigger issue is twofold, I think.
Number one, the mega issue is...
You just talked about they interviewed her.
Not under oath.
No recordings were made.
A day later or whatever, 24 hours, 48 hours.
He says, hey, guess what?
There's nothing to find here.
They hold us in such contempt, Stephan.
People have said they must take us for idiots.
And as I say in the video, no, they don't take us for idiots.
They take us for cowards.
They know that we know and they don't care.
They know that we know and they don't care because for the last eight years we've watched this president get away with more and more and more and we get all huffy and puffy and we do our videos and we send strongly worded letters and we put bumper stickers on our car.
But in terms of actually stopping them, we don't do anything.
And they took the smart position.
It's like let's just take all the heat right now five, six months before the election and let's just get it over with so nothing breaks.
They know that we know I think?
Well, when I was actually, I watched it live.
And I guess I've had some integrity lasers trained on the Clintons since I was knee-high to a grasshopper, as the saying goes.
And they are, you know, it's like that bar of soap you try and grab that's well-oiled like a cormorant in an oil spill.
And when he, the first half, I'm like, wow, he's just, he's putting these dominoes up.
He's saying exactly how guilty she is.
And I couldn't believe it because I didn't think it was going to happen and not just because of Hillary and not just because of Comey's history of, I don't know, maybe shielding her a little bit, but because it would cause a constitutional crisis because this would go dominoes all the way up to the White House, all the way out to the entire Democrat establishment but because it would cause a constitutional crisis because this would go dominoes all the way up to the White House, all the way out to the entire Democrat establishment who many, many, many people, Of people at the top levels of government were perfectly aware.
And of course, if you're aware of security violations and you don't report them, you're complicit.
And you can also be charged with a crime.
So where would these ripples stop crashing around the Democrat swimming pool?
The answer is, well, no.
It would be a tsunami.
That would be a constitutional crisis and question the legitimacy of the entire administration.
But it just was strange because – let me give you a tiny theory.
Tell me what you think.
I don't know much about this guy.
Everyone says he's a straight shooter.
He's this.
I don't know.
He looks like the FBI director out of Central Casting.
But one possibility could exist, which is that he put out enough information to harm her chances of becoming president, which means that Donald Trump can prosecute.
That's one possibility because, of course, if she was charged now and got away with it or was pardoned, then double jeopardy would preclude her from being charged again.
But because she's not charged, the issue can still remain open and November, December might see an entirely different set of standards being applied.
I don't think there's any question that that's the case.
I almost took this video in that direction, but it is basically speculation and it's best just to hit people with actual facts and just show that she is guilty and that they don't care that we know.
But I looked at the Comey thing and I thought, what is going on here?
And I have to tell you, the first thing that I thought of I think we're good to go.
The two extremes are, he comes out and he says, our evidence for finding Secretary Clinton guilty is overwhelming and we strongly recommend in the strongest terms that we press charges.
That's the one extreme.
The other extreme, and this is where it gets interesting, is to say, well, we've looked at the evidence for a year and a half.
We've questioned a bunch of people.
We found some serious irregularities, but we found certainly nothing that would justify a criminal prosecution of the cases.
We don't recommend charges being filed.
Any questions?
And that press conference takes 30 seconds, right?
That statement takes 30 seconds to make.
So why would he...
Spend an hour prosecuting the case and then say that we don't recommend charges.
I think he's speaking in code.
And the first thing I thought of was there was a POW. I had his name and I can't believe I've forgotten it.
But he was early in the war, 65 or so, a Vietnam War naval flyer was captured by the Viet Cong.
And they put him in a propaganda film.
And he said all kinds of things about America being awful and North Vietnam being great.
But he looked like he had something in his eye.
There were people who said there's something odd here.
And what he was doing was he was blinking out the word torture in Morse code.
He had to get the word out that this was going on.
And he was willing to be seen as a traitor and collaborator in order to do it.
And when James Comey stands there and prosecutes the case and puts all of the evidence up there and basically says not only is she guilty of this but she lied to the FBI which is also a crime.
You don't have to be under oath.
Lying to the FBI is a crime.
As you say, he's basically laid out everything.
Everything.
Now, I heard just today that this might have an awful lot to do with it.
Somebody said, when they were having the investigation like the day or two after the hearings, somebody said, well, since you have just frankly said so many cases of her lying directly to the FBI, why didn't you bring charges for her against that?
And he said, no one had requested those charges.
And that was also involved in lying to Congress.
Correct.
He said no one had requested those charges.
And then one of the Republicans said, you'll have the request within 15 minutes.
So, you know, what may be happening, as I like to think this is the case, is Because if it's a simple sellout, you don't hang her out to dry like that.
You just simply say, we didn't find the evidence.
We spent two years looking and gave it as thorough a shakeout as we could.
I like to think that basically what he's doing is he's putting the case into an area where he's on more secure footing, which is the lying to Congress.
He may be basically saying, look, we got a good chance to get her on these other things, but the fact that she lied to Congress, it's on television.
I mean, we have records of her saying, no, there was no emails on the server.
Yes, there were.
Well, there are no secure emails on the server.
Yes, there were.
Well, I didn't use one device.
No, you didn't.
He may be trying to move this to an area where he's on more sound footing, and he has apparently, from that exchange I just mentioned, he doesn't have the legal authority to do this without a request from Congress.
So let's just run through a few of the things that Came out of this investigation and not just Comey's original statement, but his cross-examination from, I guess, mostly the Republicans in Congress.
Trey Gowdy was really on his game there.
Yes, that's right.
So she claimed she was allowed to use a private email server, and according to the State Department, there's no evidence that she had ever asked for permission.
Now, it's odd for Clinton to prefer asking for forgiveness than permission, but there, I guess, it is.
And, of course, the whole point of the Freedom of Information Act is to allow people to get a hold of government communications and government records.
Now, it seems that the law becomes sort of pointless if you can just use your private email for all of your correspondence and then not turn it over.
So that, of course, is not a good precedent to have.
She was warned that her setup posed a significant cybersecurity risk.
She said that there was no classified material on her server and that she never emailed any.
Now, that to me, jaw-droppingly, like, say it with a straight face, because the State Department is dealing with highly classified and sensitive information all the time.
That's sort of the point.
Otherwise, it would be a reporter publishing.
So the fact that she say that is like Bill Gates for the last four years at Microsoft saying, oh, yeah, I did thousands of emails, but nothing about software or profits or business or Microsoft or Windows or anything like that.
It's like, that's your whole job.
She said no classified materials.
More than 2,000 classified emails, 22 top secret emails, some of the nation's most sensitive intelligence.
So that is directly contradicted by what Comey said.
And as you point out, he didn't have to say all of that stuff, could have kept it under wraps, but he put it right out there.
So what is this saying?
First of all, it's saying on the part of the Democrats that, again, I don't think we can emphasize this point strongly enough.
This is so transparent.
It's not a question that they're trying to hide it.
They know that everybody knows and they figure that it's not going to matter.
They figure that by the time we get to the fall, especially with Donald Trump who they think is going to be just a cakewalk, they think that it doesn't matter that we know.
Screw us.
I mean, all they need is 50.01% of the vote and they continue on the way they want to go.
So the main reason they think they can get away with it, Stephan, is because of the tailwind from the press.
The fact that the press, if the press had been covering any of this, she would have been in jail years ago.
And if the press had been doing its job, we would have never heard of Barack Obama.
He would have been...
It would have been disqualified for a number of reasons.
If the President of the United States couldn't pass a confidential lowest level security clearance, because Barack Obama could certainly never get the lowest level security clearance, his entire life has been associated with communist radicals.
He was raised by feral communists out in the wild.
I'm just waiting for the corpse of Richard Nixon to resurrect itself from the grave and stalk and chase down Woodward and Bernstein.
So Clinton says she thought it would be easier to carry just one device from my work and from my personal emails instead of two.
Now, I mean, how many brains do you need to know that you can run more than one email account on a particular...
Second email, I'd better get myself a second computer because there's just no way to do it.
And Komi says on the Tuesday, she used numerous mobile devices to view and send email on her personal domain.
So again, just another lie.
And it's not even a good lie because it doesn't even make any sense if you believe it's true.
This is the point.
When she says, I had to have two devices because I had two email accounts, there's not a person in America who didn't go, you can have multiple email accounts on one device and everybody knows it.
And by the way, Secretary of State, with God knows how many assistants you have, if you only want to carry two devices, let's just say this nonsense was true, why don't you give Huma...
Your personal server, or give Uma the State Department one, and then she can hand you the appropriate device based on who you need to talk.
It's not like you have to do all this on your own.
The whole thing is so transparently, it's so, this is why this is the Rubicon.
Stefan, this is it.
This is Caesar returning with an army inside the Rubicon, inside the boundaries of Rome.
This is the threat.
Are we a republic?
Yes or no?
Do we have laws that apply to everybody?
Yes or no?
It's gonna turn on this issue.
Well, it's a fruit-based fork in the road because the question is, is America a republic or do we have to insert the word banana right in front of republic?
Because that's what it's coming down to.
Clinton declared in a March 2015 press conference, she and her lawyers, quote, went through a thorough process to identify all of my work-related emails and delivered them to the State Department and provided all my emails that could possibly be work-related.
And then, boom, Comey says the FBI also discovered several thousand work-related emails that were not among the 30,000 that were recorded.
And that's all you need.
Again, nothing else.
He basically said she didn't deliver the information that was legally required, that's a felony to have, not to mention the fact that her lawyers went through all of this stuff and had no security clearance at the time, to my knowledge.
This is why I'm beginning to suspect that Comey may in fact be a kind of a POW who's blinking out code.
Please release my children from the windowless Clinton van.
He may be a sellout.
Maybe he's just that simple.
But it's possible that he's not.
Because what he's done is exactly that.
As I say, there's basically three issues.
Did she return all the records?
Comey says no, she did not.
There were multiple business records that she had not turned in on the server.
Did she attempt to delete or destroy any of these?
Yes, records were electronically deleted.
That's two.
And then three, did she commit gross negligence?
She committed extreme carelessness.
Which is the legal definition of gross negligence.
He tried her on that press conference and just went guilty, guilty, guilty.
Yes, we found evidence of all of these things.
Now, why didn't he bring or recommend that charges be brought?
Clearly, clearly, with that kind of information, with that...
Again, it just needs to be said constantly.
If Comey's bought off and sold, it's a 30-second press conference, didn't find anything.
So the fact that he's doing all of that is basically saying, I think, that look, I was told directly that if I request charges to be brought, then they're not going to be brought.
And we're going to basically say there's not enough evidence here and Hillary will be a martyr and we'll talk about the vast right-wing conspiracy and all the rest of it and so on and so forth.
But I think the bigger issue is, I think Comey probably would have said, well, too bad, you know, it's what she deserves.
But you touched on it before.
Every time the President of the United States sent an email that had any kind of somewhat classified information to his Secretary of State and the email address ended in Clinton.org instead of State.gov, he's violating federal crime.
and all of the people that she, federal law, and all of the people that she emailed also.
If she emailed people in the Pentagon and they replied to that, then they're implicit and guilty.
And by the way, as you said, he's basically, he could have indicted the entire government, people like us saying about time.
But somewhere in here too, somewhere in here too, I think, I've never heard anybody say this yet.
We have to ask the question of which agency is responsible for making sure that top secret information is not leaked through things like home servers and taking private information home.
Who's the responsibility for that?
Well, it's the Federal Bureau of Investigation headed by James Comey.
Of all the people that could be indicted by this scandal, he's the top of the list.
I mean, if the FBI didn't know about this...
Then there's a horrific failure on the part of the FBI's security protocols.
And if they did know about it, then they're as complicit as everybody else.
I often wonder if he was maybe copied once or twice on this stuff and didn't notice it.
Like, he may have been copied.
I would assume that the Secretary of State may have some interactions with the FBI. If he was ever sent stuff and didn't notice that it was not a.gov address and then was not secure or had information or there was people in the CC, right, people who she'd send information to that he might know didn't have security clearance, then, yeah, that may not be a grenade you can throw very far.
It's kind of stuck to your hand at that time, right?
This is obviously an extremely trivial point, but just CCing people can be a security violation.
By putting a name or an email address that somebody didn't have before, just because you CC'd it to 15 people, if you had a group of 15 celebrities and they all emailed you a question, then you CC'd them back and everybody else got all of their...
One reporter got the CC, gets all the addresses.
So, yeah, it reeks.
And I don't think it's over yet.
And I am beginning to think that Comey specifically is moving this into the area where he knows that he's got an airtight case, and that is lying to Congress.
Lying to the FBI and lying to Congress.
That's not what she was charged with.
She was charged with, did you take the records out?
Did you return them?
Did you destroy them?
And was there a security breach?
He probably figured that he didn't have enough evidence to be 100% sure.
He did say during the investigation that if you're going to take a shot at the Queen, you better damn sure kill her, you know.
And so he may have just basically made it so obvious that Congress had to request, well, why didn't you...
Bring charges or recommend charges about the lying before the FBI and Congress.
He said, nobody asked us to.
We didn't have a request for that.
Well, you'll have one in 15 minutes.
And this may be the entire plan.
To be honest with you, I don't think anything else explains the paradox, the logical paradox.
Either he lays out an hour's worth of charges and recommends that they press charges, which is what he did except for the didn't recommend it, right?
No reasonable prosecutor would take the case.
Every single person who listened to him had the exact same thought.
Giuliani said it out loud.
No, there's not a reasonable prosecutor that wouldn't take the case.
There's not a reasonable prosecutor that just doesn't realize that this is a slam dunk based on the fact that he just delivered an hour's worth of evidence.
She's on camera!
It's not like, do you remember or did somebody remember a conversation from two years ago or reconstructing things from cell phone records?
She's on camera!
This is not complicated.
I think this is, you know, it's coming to me just through the course of this discussion that this has to be really the only explanation that makes any sense was that he was told that they would not press the charges, that the Justice Department wouldn't bring them or something, and so basically what he did...
Or it could have been a more nuanced reason for it.
He could have said, we got a 95% chance or a 90% chance of sticking her with the records problem.
But we have a 100% chance of getting her on lying to Congress and getting her on lying to the FBI. So since we were told to investigate these particular security breach laws and the email laws, that's what we did.
And we thought we could get her, but we wanted to make sure.
So here's everything we found.
Turns out we're not going to press charges because we can't quite prove that she did all these things.
But then you're stuck with all of the lies that she told about it.
And once again, Hillary, who started your career with Whitewater, you would have thought that even you would have been smart enough to know that it's never the crime.
It's always the cover up.
Always the cover-up.
You probably could have gotten away with using this private server for all of your corrupt Clinton Foundation businesses, free from Information Act requests because it's not a government server, but the cover-up.
You just couldn't help but lie about it.
Woodward or Bernstein, one of those two, basically said, well after Nixon resigned, they said, either one of us, virtually anybody in the country, could write down on the back of a napkin a statement that Richard Nixon could have made, and that would have been the end of it.
And the statement would have been something to the effect of, I was unaware of the break-in, however, as President of the United States and head of the Republican Party, it's entirely my responsibility, I'm going to get to the bottom of this, The people who are going to be prosecuted and it's over.
It's done.
But no, they have to lie.
And I'm really at the point now where I believe she doesn't even know what a lie is.
She simply is so pathological about it that she just simply says something and therefore it's true for her.
Well, this is the astonishing thing.
It also struck me that given the level of education and insight in the American population, which has been significantly dumbed down over the last couple of generations, he may say, look, we can't even get the American public to understand what all this security stuff means, how much it's compromised, literally billions of dollars of investment, because they don't know who's taken what from her server.
And so they have to assume that everything is compromised and will have to start rebuilding stuff up from scratch.
They have no idea what information might have been taken from her server or gleaned from her emails when she was out there blackberrying on an unapproved device in hostile territory.
Nobody knows who's got information on who in the government, who can be blackmailed, who's been compromised, who's been like – but you have to scrub the entire security apparatus and start again with new people, which of course you can't do because they're all government employees.
So this is so significant but it's hard for people to understand.
Lying to the FBI, everyone's saying, oh, you lied to the cops, you get in trouble.
Maybe he's hoping that people can understand that whereas they can't necessarily understand all of this server stuff.
But to me, this is round three of Dems don't indict Dems and elections can be jicked, right?
I mean, the Lois Lerner IRS scandal where they deliberately targeted the right wing or conservative groups, the Tea Party groups, that has been proven to have had a significant or theorized with good data to have had a significant effect.
The fact that September 11, 2012, on the anniversary of 9-11, the terrible attack on Benghazi, which Hillary Clinton publicly and repeatedly stated was about some obscure internet video, while right after the attack, right after the attack, hours after the attack, she's on the phone with the Egyptian leader, saying, oh, we know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film.
It was a planned attack, not a protest.
Now, how would...
The election have gone if it had been found out that a month or two before the election, there had been a terrorist attack killing U.S. citizens on the anniversary of 9-11.
No, they couldn't say.
They couldn't say the degree to which al-Qaeda was involved, that it was preplanned, that they'd screwed it up, that they'd missed all of the warnings, although they were repeatedly warned.
So covering that up to me is also astonishing.
And then this, number three, could be a way of avoiding the repercussions and just trying to get an election by hook or by crook.
They're like drug addicts trying to get their drug.
They don't care who they drive over election.
No question.
And that's exactly right.
I mean when the ambassador is just begging for more security and she actually reduces the security, that looks really bad.
And it looks bad in an election year.
But this is the point.
These things you can – if I were defending Hillary Clinton – and listen, I'm not an unreasonable guy.
I am willing to accept that in the fog of war – While things are going on in real time, the decision to send a rescue squad or whatever, it was clearly the wrong decision, but I'm ready to give somebody the benefit of the doubt because we're looking backwards, and hindsight is 20-20 on an event that happened with the fog of war.
So you could...
Make the case, even though you have to swallow a lot of sugar for it, that she could be excused and the President could be excused for their behavior during the actual attack.
But, as you say, within 15 minutes she knew it was an Al-Qaeda attack.
And for 10 days, the Secretary of State and the President told the American people that it was a film, and that filmmaker went to a dungeon for a year, let's not forget.
21 state troopers show up at his house at 2 o'clock in the morning for some routine minor parole violation.
So this is indisputable and this is in fact the entire way that they do business.
You're right.
They don't care about anything.
They only care about the power and they're doing a calculation now that says that the American people are either going to be – I don't even think they think that we're too stupid.
but they just say, well, what are you going to do about it?
What are you going to do?
Are you going to get out the pitchforks and the torches and the dogs and come drag us out of the White House?
What is it going to take?
We didn't do anything when he implemented Obamacare and just changed the date on a whim.
That's illegal.
We didn't do anything.
He has executive orders on immigration.
This is essentially clearly unconstitutional legal.
We didn't do anything.
Didn't do anything about Benghazi.
And it looks like we're not going to do anything about this.
What are you going to do?
This Comey paradox, and that's the only word for it, is in fact a chance for the setup for the Congress.
And there's one more thing to talk about, and I know this is a subject that will actually warm your heart, and that's this.
You know, people saying she's up 8 points or 12 points over Trump or so on or whatever.
Look, Trump has not yet begun to fight, and whatever you think about him, and you know I have a great many reservations about this guy far, far more than you do.
He will.
He will use this.
He's already using it.
Within 10 minutes or an hour or two of Comey's statement, there were at least three or four videos out there where Hillary Clinton made a declarative statement and instantly cut to the director saying, I at no point left any emails on the server.
She left multiple emails on the server.
Nothing I left on the server was classified.
Multiple classified emails on the server.
I only use one device.
Multiple devices were used.
If somebody like Donald Trump is, this is the thing that I like about him the most, is that it would be, it's going to be an interesting election, finally, to have a guy that actually fights these people on the level that they've been fighting us for the last 10 or 15 years.
And I don't consider that a disgraceful thing, by the way.
My favorite thing about, you know, some people say, well, the Democrats lie and they crawl in the mud, so we're going to stay above it and we're not going to crawl in the mud.
We stay above it and we get killed and we lose the country.
My favorite quick little story about this, It came from World War II. When the Marines took Guadalcanal, there were lots of little islands just off the coast, and there was a little garrison off the coast.
It was in plain sight.
It was just a couple miles off the coast.
And there were 70 Japanese there.
And after weeks, they were starving, and months had gone by, and these people are just starving on the islands.
It's a little tiny, little speck.
So the Marines decide they're going to run out there.
These guys wave the white flag.
The Marines send a little boat over to accept the surrender.
And as they get out of the boat, the Marines look up and there's a machine gun there and they gun all of them down.
And anybody who had a Marine Corps emblem on their arm had their arm hacked off with a samurai sword.
And after that, the Marines said, okay.
Now we know.
Now we know what we're dealing with.
And if we fight this war by the Marquis of Queensbury's rules, we're going to lose.
And they behave dishonorably, and they do not deserve honorable treatment, and therefore we're going to fight them the way that they fight us, which is all the way.
Donald Trump is going to take this thing.
He's going to shiv this woman with us until it never ends.
And even little things, because I'm really big on the messaging – This business of referring to her as Crooked Hillary is brilliant.
Twice I referred to her that way in the video because what they do is they make a position and they hit it again and again and again and again and again.
Because if this thing goes unchallenged, it's already challenged, if she succeeds, then it is in fact the end of the rule of law in the republic.
There are laws for everybody, lots and lots and more every day.
But if you're a highly praised democrat, you can do whatever you want to.
Well, and it occurs on both sides of the aisle.
The respect for law is foundational to having a civilization.
Because once people lose respect for the law, that becomes a game.
It becomes like a game of chess.
And I was thinking about your story about the Japanese.
And I had a roommate when I was in college.
He was a brilliant guy.
He's got like two PhDs now.
But anyway, he was studying...
Biology.
And he and I would talk all the time.
Actually, she had a room.
We were so broke, we actually both lived in the same room.
But he told me, he said, look, there's a great strategy and it's really, really hard to beat.
And the strategy goes something like this.
The first time you meet someone, you treat them the very best that you can.
And after that, you treat them as they treat you.
I just want to get that message out as a whole.
This idea that you're descending to their level.
It's like, no, no, no.
Treat them the very best you can, as the Marines did there.
We'll come and accept your surrender.
After that, you treat them as they treat you.
That is the only way to win in the long run.
It doesn't mean that you're compromising your values.
It means that you're creating a world where your values can flourish because you're not losing all the time, which gets really, really frustrating.
If other people start hitting below the belt, then I think conservatives feel, okay, well, we're starting to feel now.
Let's hit below the belt until we've won, and then we can get better rules.
But it seems to me that once you lose respect for the rule of law, it's just, well, what can you get away with?
Then it becomes a calculation of utility rather than a foundational moral principle, and then you literally will play whack-a-mole.
And the end result of that is either you find a way to regain respect for the law, or you end up with martial law.
And even that won't solve the problem.
That's a giant signal that the law is whatever you can get away with.
So now we're going to try and figure out what we can get away with rather than what is right, and it just seems to me not an accident that the domino of Hillary Clinton getting away with no criminal charges then leads to the domino of the attack upon cops because that very forgiveness thing that seems to have happened, the sort of, well, it's a case we can surely prosecute, he says at the beginning, and then he says, but we're not going to.
Well, that says that even the top of the FBI can be seen to not have respect for the law, so why the hell should anyone else?
Well, at the very least, it means that the head of the FBI can be put into a situation where such political pressure can be brought to him, brought upon him rather, that he can come out with a suitcase of evidence, hold up every single one of the charts and then say we can't do anything about it.
There is a reason why he did not decide to request charges, and I'm convinced the reason is not simply that he was bought off.
There's something bigger at play here because otherwise this entire paradox doesn't make any sense.
And this business about fighting fair, it's tit for tat, right?
I mean, if somebody treats you well, you treat them well.
And if somebody treats you badly, then you treat them badly.
We both have a pretty bright audience, and most of them have heard of The Prisoner's Dilemma.
And The Prisoner's Dilemma is basically a mind game where we decide whether or not altruism is successful.
Do we rat out our colleague or do we not and hope that he doesn't rat us out?
And I'm not going to go into the details of it, but what's fascinating is if you play the prisoner's dilemma one time, then ratting out the other guy is the only play.
It's the only win.
If you don't, you can go to jail for 20 years, and if you do and he doesn't, then you walk.
So it's always a smart play to rat the guy out.
But when you do something called the iterated prisoner's dilemma, where you play again and again and again with the same person, then you develop a reputation.
And the winning strategy there is in fact tit for tat.
Start out fair, start out nice.
If somebody screws you, then screw them back.
And then you keep doing that until they stop screwing you, at which point you don't hold a grudge, and then you start being nice to them again.
That's actually the winning strategy.
This is how societies work.
We trust each other.
If I make an appointment to be here with you, and I'm going to be here, and if I can't, you expect me to let you know that I couldn't do it and why.
Now if it turns out that I don't show up, Well, that might be a one-time thing, but if I don't show up twice and you're sitting there ready to go and everything and I'm just not there, you realize that I have a reputation for not being trustworthy and you will modify your decision-making in the future.
People think this is trivial.
It's not.
It's the foundation of everything.
A civilization is a web of trust.
It's a web of trust where everybody is expecting people to do the right thing and the legal thing, and when people realize that you can get away with it, Then the thing flips.
Then it becomes a situation where if you are obeying the law, you're a chump.
And I'll give you a great example here in LA. I mean, this is like the land of the traffic jam.
The fastest way to get cars off a freeway is for them to line up on the exit ramp in traffic.
The way to just get in the right lane and one at a time you get off, it's the fastest way to get cars off of the road.
But more and more people are going right past that line and just prior to the turn, They cut into the line and they cut in front of a bunch of people.
Now, if one person does that, let's say there's 20 people in line.
One person does it, it's annoying.
If three people do it, it's really annoying.
Five people do it, it's enough to drive you to homicide.
I can testify to this on my own personal basis.
But if 10 people or 15 people are cutting in the line, then you're a chump.
By playing by the rules.
You won't get off the freeway.
Hypothetically, everybody cuts the line.
Because everyone keeps coming in.
It's not like there's 15 and then you go.
Everybody keeps coming in and they see everyone ahead of them going in and say, well, which line do I join?
I'm going to join the cut-in line.
Right.
So the danger is this.
The danger is not that people will cheat because people have always cheated.
People always cheat all the time.
That's why we have laws and that's why we have courts and everything like that.
And Hillary Clinton is a clear example of this.
The danger is not that people will cheat and cut in front of you in line.
The danger is that once this becomes so common, then you become penalized for being a law-abiding citizen.
Then you become a chump.
It's not just the...
Then cutting in line is not just the wrong thing to do, it's also the smart thing to do.
And then people start acting completely in their own self-interest and then you've got the third world.
Now, nobody trusts anybody anymore and why should they?
Why should they?
Why should I have to pay taxes to these people?
The government of this country costs – round numbers cost $4 trillion.
My friend Jeremy Boring said a few years ago that was the GNP of China not too long ago, it was $4 trillion.
Basically he said the government of apparently the freest country in the world costs more than the entire gross national output of the second biggest economy in the world.
The government costs more.
So these people are addicts.
As you said, they're hooked on power and they're hooked on money.
They can't get it on their own because they're not smart enough and they don't work hard enough.
And they cannot have this faucet turned off.
So they'll do whatever they have to do.
And they're quite convinced that we're not going to take any physical action against them.
And since they own the judicial system and the press...
Now, with regards to Hillary, there are a number of other issues floating around.
The first, of course, is that the State Department put on hold its investigation of mishandling of classified information while the FBI investigation was going on.
Now, that has somewhat staggered to a halt.
They're reopening their investigation.
There is, of course, the reopened or newly opened lying to the FBI lying to Congress, which Comey said he needed a note for, like going to the bathroom in grade two.
And the third, of course, is that the FBI continues its investigation into potential corruption within the Clinton Foundation.
According to the law, as far as I understand it in my own amateur way, they don't need to show any intent because nobody writes out, well, I'm going to do this and then you're going to get that.
It's never documented, but they look for two or more instances of improbable behavior that have particular benefits to particular people in a repetitive way.
So there are still those three things floating around.
Yeah, the RICO Act.
So there's still three things floating around Hillary.
But again, I'm, you know, I'm concerned the degree to which, you know, a left-leaning president, a left-leaning attorney general are going to bring any charges, no matter what the evidence.
And so again, I think that there's a, you know, if I were in charge of any of this kind of stuff, and thank heavens I'm not, but I would seriously consider stalling to see what would happen.
Because if you can, or as Comey may have done to sort of wound her enough to To prevent her from getting elected, which gets Trump in, and then maybe he can take some recommendations to Trump without feeling like Trump is going to give her some sort of magic pardon, as Ford did with Nixon.
So he may be just stalling, he may be just waiting, but there are these other three things floating around, which of course you have to come to places like this to get information about, because the mainstream media doesn't usually talk about it, because they're just dying for another dem to get in office.
Well, Bill Clinton's final day in office with the number of people he pardoned and just the rank The obviousness of how guilty they were just goes to show you how shameful he was.
I have no doubt whatsoever that if charges are brought against Hillary Clinton that President Obama will pardon her on his way out.
But that'll be after the election, so that's really the critical thing.
You talk about RICO, and for our friends who don't know what that is, it's the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act, and it's the single greatest I don't have to prove that you committed a crime.
What I have to do is prove that this organization routinely commits crime and that you're a member of the organization, and that's enough.
You know, you're a member of the organization.
The organization commits crimes.
That's it.
That's essentially how RICO works.
And I think the thing I'd like to talk about just for a minute is you can make the case, and I'm not being hyperbolic here, that you could RICO the entire administration.
I mean, you could just RICO all of them.
The people who think that this business of Hillary Clinton getting rich off of the Clinton Foundation, this is why she had the private server, just so everybody knows what's obvious.
She didn't have the government server.
She had a private server because government servers are legally available for Freedom of Information Act requests.
The citizens can request to see what's on that computer.
So she had a private server since they're not subject to Freedom of Information Act requests because of all her dealings with the Clinton Foundation, which is corrupt to the bone.
Now, most people think, okay, so Hillary made some money with a couple of corrupt deals and they bought some favoritism and so on, which is obviously true.
But the one thing that nobody seems to really fully talk about is the compromising to state security, to national security in exchange for cash.
I mean, when you've got a guy who wants to sell uranium to Iran, I think it's a Swedish guy, the details are a little fuzzy for me, but the short form is, there's a guy in Sweden who wants to sell uranium to Iran.
Well, guess what?
Uranium is embargoed by the United States, can't sell uranium to Iran.
Well, Bill Clinton goes over to Sweden and he speaks in front of this group and they pay him $800,000 for a 40-minute talk, which goes directly into the Clinton Foundation.
Sorry, just to point out, I mean, the reason why this is so unfair is I only get paid $800,000 bill for a 50-minute talk.
So I have to work 10 minutes extra to get that kind of money, and this really, really shapes my gills.
I generally make about 10 grand per speaking engagement, but I make about 700 grand in tips afterwards.
Well, that's for the dance you put on.
Can I tell everyone it's well worth it?
You go where your strings are.
But this is the thing that is going to determine, genuinely, honestly determine the future of this country.
In a way that Tammany Hall determined the future of the country.
The Democrats invented this idea of having businesses come to us, pay us cash, which we'll put in our pocket, in exchange for this we'll give you legal breaks or we'll give you the contract or we'll put your competitors out of business, whatever we have to do.
This is how they work.
And this is how all of these people work.
And you know, you and I have had a little conversation about this, a few conversations about this.
I think it really just got clearer for me this morning on the way in here.
We've talked about why do people tend to identify as collectivists and why do they tend to identify as individualists because liberal, republican, democrat, you know, conservative, those terms change.
But it's really collectivists versus individualists.
And why are these collectivists doing what they're doing and so baldly, transparently doing it?
The difference between the two of us, putting all that RK stuff aside, is people who are individualists understand they can succeed on their own.
They have confidence that they can provide enough nourishment for themselves and their families.
They have a confidence that they can defend themselves.
They have a confidence that by working harder than they would have to otherwise, they can in fact grow their wealth, grow their prosperity, make good things happen.
And I think that people who never had that feeling automatically become collectivists because everything that the collective wants is to take from people that are doing better than they are.
So you could almost make the case that the dividing line between collectivism and individualism is the 50% line of intelligence.
It's the mean, right?
It's not just intelligence, it's many other things, it's mostly intelligence.
Where if you are below average in terms of either IQ or ambition or work ethic, then you become a collectivist because you want to take things from the people that are rich, from the filthy rich.
Now, on the other hand, if you are the kind of person who's ready to work hard and has an invention idea or whatever, you just want to work hard and do better than average, then you want to be an individualist because you don't want these people pulling you down.
But this needs to be said because when you get right down to it, The collectivists are not terribly smart people, and if they were good at something, they'd be millionaires on their own.
We'd have to go into government if they were smart and knew what they were doing.
Some of this stuff is so stupid.
It's so stupid.
You wonder, how could they be that stupid?
Well, they could be that stupid because they're that stupid.
That's why they're in government.
They're in government because they're stupid.
And they understand that if I go out and campaign for six months, shake enough hands, get elected to Congress, if I play my cards right, it's the gravy chain for the rest of my life.
For generations.
Generations.
Charity was available to help people, but charity came with a fair sprinkling of salty humiliation on top.
Because if you were reduced to taking charity, you had really messed up in life.
And people wouldn't ban you from the church or ban you from the group, but it'd be like, that guy's got his hands in our pocket, he better smarten up, and there was the capacity to ostracize people who were relentlessly in pursuit of bad decisions.
Because you can't I can't take my good decisions down with you by stealing all my resources.
So when there was voluntary charity, and this, you know, when I was a kid, the welfare state, I was born in 66, the welfare state was sort of just coming in.
And when I was a kid, there was sort of, I lived in a flat or an apartment in London, and there were these rows of cottages around back, like low rent cottages, like out of a door song.
And the people back there, it was kind of well known, they were all on pokey or unemployment or welfare.
And there was like, don't go back there.
You know, back there, there is dusty, bad work ethic in the air.
It will clog your lungs.
It will make your life bad.
And so there was this, you know, they're taking the money, but it's bad.
Within, I don't know, five or ten years, it was like, why would you work?
You know, they got sort of more arrogant because it became involuntary.
You had to fund them, and therefore it became a sucker's game to work.
So, originally, I think, you know, yeah, less intelligent people need more in-your-face, better decision-making tools, right?
And so ostracism and scorn and hostility and contempt and so on, all of these are very, very good ways to help less intelligent people guide themselves because they don't have the echolocation of long-term preference and understanding the long-term consequences of immediate decisions and so on.
So, they need people in their face kind of saying, no, no, no, bad, bad, bad, so that they can make decisions.
And what's happened now is that anyone you shame, except for white males, of course, but anyone you shame, it's unjust and it's unfair.
No fat shaming, no unemployment shaming, no, oh, you're a single mom shaming and so on.
And it's like, okay, we can get rid of all that shame if you want.
But the rules still need to be enforced in some manner.
And if it's not going to be our collective judgments of each other, it's going to be some giant autocratic state, which isn't going to work nearly as well.
And that's the choice we have.
We can either have emotional pluses and minuses, you know, sticks and carrots, praise and scorn or ostracism.
That can be how we can organize ourselves in society.
And if we get rid of all of that, then we have a giant autocratic state, which is not going to work and is going to just make everything worse.
And this, I think, when it comes to the Clintons, this is what baffles me.
If somebody came to me, or maybe they came to you too, and they said, Bill, Steph, we're going to cut you a check for $50,000 a month or $25,000 a month.
And, you know, we're not going to tell you anything you have to say or do, but it's going to come from the taxpayers, and that's going to be how you're going to get your gravy.
I would be like...
Yuck.
As would I. It'd be like somebody saying, I'm going to deliver your girlfriend in a sack.
Would you like to take her?
And she'd chain to you.
I would have too much pride to want to take that kind of money.
And I think it's the pride element.
Maybe pride plus the intelligence thing, but it's the pride element.
Why would you want something that had to be ripped out of somebody else's pocket?
Frog marched over to you at gunpoint and deposited it on your doorstep.
It's humiliating to say, I need to be forced to...
People need to be forced to pay me.
I mean, the BBC in England or this other, I don't know if NPR gets government money.
I think it does.
And here in the CBC, it's the same thing, right?
To sit in front of a microphone knowing that everything was paid for by the blood money of people who had to be forced to consume you, it's like kidnapping a bunch of people and sitting them around your dinner table and thinking that you're really popular.
It's like a bizarre thing.
Where is people's pride when it comes to actually wanting people to be around you voluntarily rather than forced into the dungeon of your own narcissism?
Well, and what you're basically saying here is something that's very, very clear to people like us.
People like us, and this tends to be conservative libertarians, individualists.
That's the words for me now, individualists versus collectivists.
Individualists have a sense of honor and they have a sense of I would not take that money for a very good reason.
And I think the reason is that if somebody – look, somebody offered me a million dollars or ten million dollars because my rate's going up as I get a little more – Famous thanks to the interaction with you and your fans.
Let's say somebody offered me $5 million to make a video about something that I simply just didn't believe in.
In fact, it was contrary to my beliefs.
I wouldn't do it.
Now, there are people out there who simply are amazed and are utterly convinced that I'm lying.
They're absolutely convinced that I'm lying.
And they said, yeah, you can say that now, but if there was a check in front of me for $5 million, you'd say whatever they damn well wanted to.
And I would say no.
And the reason, Stephan, that I would say no is because of honor, integrity, all the rest of it.
But the main reason I would say no is that I can get $5 million without having to lie.
I can make $5 million without having to sell my soul.
I have the ability to honestly achieve this and so I don't need to take it dishonestly.
You're talking about welfare and helping people out and people being on the dole and work ethic disappearing and everything.
I think we had this conversation briefly before, but when people ask, at least conservatives, well, you guys just want people to die in a ditch, I guess.
I guess you just want people just, you know, if you're poor, you just starve to death and you don't have health insurance, just die in a ditch.
That's not what we're saying.
Principle that the Victorians used rigorously and that is the idea of the deserving poor.
If a woman, for example, had a family of seven kids or nine or eleven in Victorian times and she divorced her husband, she wouldn't get any assistance.
But if her husband had been killed in war or was killed in a coal mining accident or something, then her We're good to go.
Who just gets to sit around and play video games?
I'm more than willing to work harder to help people who are in genuine need.
I don't want to be living in a society where people are dying in a ditch, but the number of those people is very small.
It's very small.
So this is why this Clinton thing is so important, believe it or not, folks.
It comes down to this.
If I had to put this whole thing in a nutshell, Stephan, this is what I would say.
I think Dinesh D'Souza is exactly right.
I think that the people who go into politics, especially democratic politics, are not capable of making money on their own or gaining any particular power.
They have to do it through politics, which means do it through coercive force.
I think they want to steal the most valuable thing there is.
Dinesh D'Souza wrote a line I never forgot.
He said, what's the most valuable thing there is in the world?
Turns out it's the private property owned by the American people, $71 trillion.
So the entire purpose, here's how the scam works.
It's a criminal scam and here's how it works.
The Democrats buy 51% of the vote at least by taking money from the people that earn money and giving it to people that don't.
The people that don't get buses to get taken to voting booths and so on.
They have to work two hours every two years.
That's what the deal is.
It's true.
And we'll give you this little bribe.
We'll give you an EPT card so that you don't burn down the cities and so on.
And we'll just give you just enough to get by.
So here's how the scam works.
If the Democrats can continue to give away enough benefits to get 51% of the vote, then they simply suck it out of the productive people.
They suck it out of the people that have succeeded.
And they continue to so-called redistribute this wealth until there's no more wealth to redistribute.
And this is why I've been so fascinated by the Soviet example and gotten so deep into this with the Kulaks.
A Kulak, well, they were exterminated by the Soviets, by Lenin and then by Stalin.
A kulak, the Russian word kulak just means tight fist.
And basically a kulak was a guy who was enough of a decent farmer so that maybe he had a cow or maybe he was capable enough to have hired another peasant or two.
These are not rich people.
They're just the best farmers in the Soviet Union.
Well, all of the other people, including Lenin, says, no, we're going to take all of your wealth and all of your grain.
And so you take the productive people out of it.
Take them out and shoot them, or you take their stuff.
Then that's all that's left to grow the food are the incompetent people, the people that were never any good in the first place.
This is why this is so important.
If this thing were sustainable...
I wouldn't have such a reaction to it.
I'd be morally outraged, but I wouldn't be terrified for the future in the way that I am.
If the Democrats can continue this iron triangle of the Democratic Party in Washington, the control of the news media in New York, and the control of the pop culture in Hollywood, these three things, if this iron triangle isn't broken Then this scam will continue and every time that cycle goes, it pushes down everything.
It pushes down productivity.
It pushes down wealth.
It pushes down happiness.
It pushes down freedom.
It pushes down all of this stuff.
Because socialism – Well, that's the case-elected thing.
Case-elected thing is you cannot eat your seed crop.
You say, well, you just want us to be hungry over the winter.
I don't want you to be hungry over the winter, but we sure as hell need something to plant in the spring.
And the accumulated savings and capital of America is what is needed for there to be an economy next year.
You can't have an economy next year by consuming everything that you have now.
You need to save.
You need to invest.
You need to upgrade and all of that and the fact that that's all being consumed.
Yeah, you can get by with it for a while.
Yeah, you can go live at your parents' house because you can't afford your own.
Yeah, you can get student loans and hope that Bernie Sanders is going to come along and wave his magic-haired wand and get rid of it all.
But you are consuming your seed capital, and that's what's so unsustainable.
And the really important thing to understand is it's not income redistribution fundamentally.
It is people redistribution.
Because there's a fence, right?
And on one side is the people consuming unjustly through government largesse and on the other side there's people producing.
When you take resources from one side to the other, you're also taking people.
It's like a pitchfork.
You throw the hay over the wall, but you're also throwing people over the wall.
Because as more resources go from the productive to the unproductive, more people say, what the hell is the point of being productive?
I'm going to go sit on my butt, eat Cheetos off my belly button, and play video games.
So you are redistributing people that follow the resources.
Yeah, this is the cutting in line on the freeway thing that we talked about before.
Comes a point when doing the right thing, Is a sucker play.
The fastest way to get people off of freeway is to get them in line and not have anybody cut in line.
But when so many people are cheating that the people who formerly were producing are now saying, well, screw this.
Bernie Sanders actually had the audacity, forget the political audacity, the moral audacity to say, if you make more than $414,000, we're going to take 97% of everything you make.
Let's just say for some reason that that actually happened.
What do you think would happen?
Would you work?
Would you work and keep 3% of what you make?
No.
I would make $413,999 every year.
That's what I would do and I'd fire whoever else needed to be fired or I wouldn't grow the business or wouldn't buy anything new.
If you actually think that I'm going to get up And do the work that I do.
And I do a lot of work and so do you.
And I'm going to keep three cents on the dollar so that you can distribute this.
You've never had a job in your life.
You're going to give it to people who just basically sit around and play video games with it.
And then you're going to say there's not enough money.
This democratic machine is a wealth siphoning pump, and it needs to be destroyed.
And if it turns out that the top Democrats are above the law, which really means – so we talk about the law all the time.
It's not the law.
If it means that the media is so deeply in the tank because if the media were on this case, this would have been over.
Hillary Clinton never could have been the nominee if the press was on this.
And the same thing with Obama.
So the question is, Do they have enough media support and is that system so corrupt now that they can get away with something this obvious, something this flagrant?
We're going to have the Attorney General meet the husband of the woman under investigation on a tarmac and they're going to have the audacity to say, no, no, no, we didn't talk about the prosecution.
We just talked about our grandchildren.
It's How many meetings have you ever had on the tarmac of an airplane, of an airport?
I mean, it's so ludicrous.
I don't even know.
It's like, well, you know, we just had a meeting in a bathroom with all the taps turned on and all of our batteries taken out of our cell phones, you know, because that's how you meet people, right?
Yep.
If you want some catharsis for this and you're ready to handle the language, the best thing I ever felt in terms of some emotional relief for this kind of lying was a bit that a comedian named Cat Williams did.
Now, Cat Williams was probably the most foul-mouthed individual on the face of the earth, but Cat Williams does a bit about Michael Jackson, and he basically says, you're going to sit there and tell me that these three blonde, blue-eyed children are your genetic children?
No.
It's not genetically possible.
No.
He says, I'm a grown man, you know?
When Michael Jackson says, I've never had any plastic surgery, you know?
You just simply have to say no.
I know that works for a lot of people but we all know it's not true and no one is standing up and saying it's not true except for people like us.
But this is the beautiful thing about it, right?
The beautiful thing about social proof is that you can destroy it by just pulling one thread out and the whole thing comes down.
The boy at the end of the parade It doesn't have to go to every single person in the parade and say the emperor's not wearing any clothes, as you see.
All he has to do is say the emperor's not wearing any clothes and the social proof collapses.
The whole peer pressure thing, it's just done.
And this is what they're terrified of.
They're terrified of being called what they are.
If you come out and say you guys are thieves and gangsters and you're buying votes, We're good to go.
Because of the internet, because of Facebook, Twitter, social media, and so on, everyone can participate in what is essential now, which is a strong-willed, full-throated barbaric yawp of indignation at the immorality currently running through the system.
And we do that for the sake of virtue, but we also do that for the sake of survival.
Let me just say one thing about that.
We've done a couple of shows talking about RK, and both of us have been interested in and have done a fair amount of work on our own.
On this idea of the cycle of civilizations.
This was in fact the first philosophical idea I really tackled when I got into this line of work.
Why is it that civilizations struggle for two or three hundred years and then at the moment of absolute supremacy, which is when they should go into orbit, now that there's no more competition, they collapse all the time.
They collapse from the top down.
They collapse because the elites are bored.
They collapse because of all of this corruption.
And the reason I'm bringing all of this up is this.
There is no question whatsoever, none, that the West in general and the United States in particular is at an end stage of civilization.
There's all the signs of there, fewer and fewer people working, more and more corruption.
It's absolutely clear.
The thing I want to mention to people is if it weren't for one mitigating situation, I simply wouldn't have any hope because I do learn the lessons of history.
This happened to every culture in history.
So why would I think that we might be different?
I think the only thing that means that we might be different is we have the internet.
And the internet in this particular application simply means that common people can talk to other common people Without having to go through the filter of these silk-robed sons of bitches that come out of the palace at midnight and open up the gates and let the barbarians in.
You and I can have a conversation with each other.
We have conversations with the people watching this.
We're common people.
We're not part of this elitist thing that's bought into this crime syndicate.
We don't need to be bought by the Democrats in this crime syndicate because we have some integrity and some honor.
We can make a living on our own.
This ability for common people to talk directly to each other may, it's not a guarantee, it's just an opportunity, it's a chance to get out of this perpetual cycle of rise and collapse because they always come from the top down and here we are having conversations among citizens that are spanning the world and being seen by hundreds of thousands of people.
Well, I keep having these giant projects that I sort of rise up off the mat to complete them and then, you know, the big booming fist of current events knocks me back down.
And one of the ones I've been working on for about a month or two now is The Fall of Rome, which I'm trying to synthesize and get as many lessons.
And one of the things that struck me, Bill, is that Rome succeeded in many ways and became the empire because it built the roads.
Thank you.
Thank you.
That's really, really a profound insight because this is the first battle for survival in our nation's history that's not going to be determined by battleships or bayonets.
This is in fact a war of ideas.
It's a war of values and ideas and we are an important part of that fight.
We certainly don't have the same kind of risks as our military but we're part of that fight.
I, like most people, at least most people like us, we talked a moment ago about getting checks from the government and how dishonorable we considered that to be and so on and how it just makes us uncomfortable.
People like us are raised this way.
This is our core set of values.
I have a membership-based organization.
And I know you count on your subscribers as well.
And I was always reluctant to get out there and ask for money and ask for membership because it seemed to me like going out with your hat in your hand is somehow...
E-begging, as the lovely phrase goes.
Yeah, or blegging or...
It seemed unseemly.
It seemed undignified and dishonorable in a way.
Even though we're selling a product that actually I think has real value, it just seemed unseemly to me.
But I have to tell you, when Comey just said, we don't recommend that charges be pressed because no reasonable prosecutor would take the case, I remember a lever being thrown in my head.
This only happened six, seven times.
It's kind of fundamental.
Change in a core attitude of mine.
And that change was simply this.
The future of the country and Western civilization is on the stake now.
This is it.
And this is a war of ideas.
And we have an obligation, I have an obligation, not to my kids or to future generations.
I owe the people that died to give us this freedom and all of the giants that gave us all of this technology I have an obligation to keep that alive.
And so my attitude towards fundraising and my attitude towards asking for memberships has changed completely.
I'm not running off to Cabo with this.
I'm not Leonardo DiCaprio.
We need the resources because the more members we have and the more money we have, the more product we can do and the further we can push out the product.
I've talked to four people about this Hillary thing who are Not even Democrats, just people who weren't particularly political.
This is three, four weeks ago.
And they said, well, Hillary, this, this.
And I said, well, she's probably going to be in prison.
And they said, no, no, she's been cleared of all this stuff.
This is before the whole Comey thing.
But people actually believe this.
And the ability to get them some information will, in fact, swing elections.
and swinging elections will be the difference between whether we live in a world of freedom and prosperity or whether we're just a bunch of great proles with television cameras behind our TV sets and a boot on our neck for all time.
It's really just that simple.
So yes, if you can become a member at BillWhittle.com, we would really need your help and we certainly will spend the resources wisely.
And for those of you who, it's probably, I don't know, hundreds of thousands of views of Probably 15, 20 of them are my folks.
Then the same goes for Stefan.
Stefan and I disagree about some things.
We need to have a show about what we disagree about.
Because the beautiful thing about art...
Fair styles, obviously, number one.
That's pretty much solved it.
So I retract the offer.
But seriously...
This is what civilization is.
It's the ability to disagree on some things without that person being evil, without resorting to violence or coercion.
And Stephan needs the support as much as we do because he's pumping out these videos that are illuminating everything.
We don't have to agree on everything.
I'm glad we don't agree on everything.
So if you're able to support him or support what he's doing, for God's sakes, do it, because it's things like this that are actually the weapons in the war.
I actually wanted to do – and I may still – I want to do a fundraising graphic that looks like one of the World War II war bond drives, you know?
Because that's really what it is.
If this were about bayonets, I'd be spending money on bayonets and battleships, but it's not as about ideas.
Yeah.
When it comes to support and asking for support, I do it because I have a responsibility given the path that I've chosen and given the knowledge that I have and my capacity to eloquently put it out into the world.
I think if you have capacity, you have responsibility.
If you're a doctor and someone's choking to death, you know how to do a Heimlich maneuver, you can say, well, I'm sorry, but my clam powder is just too special.
I can't be bothered.
I can't be bothered.
Maybe you don't get thrown in jail, but you're pretty much a douchebag.
So if you have capacity, you have responsibility.
So ask for it because I want to be able to save the world in the future and I need resources to do it.
That's just a basic fact.
And look, if everyone is out there, your money is going to vanish anyway because they're going to print it into oblivion.
They're going to borrow it into oblivion.
It's going to be Zimbabwe ass-white paper crap anyway.
So why don't you give it to people who can help you defend the value of everything you have left because it's going to vanish anyway.
Give it to people who can help defend it.
Yes, exactly.
First of all, we're presumably capitalists, and we understand that the market works the way the market works, and we understand that when Bernie Sanders says college is going to be free or healthcare is going to be free, it doesn't mean it's going to be free.
Professors are not going to come to work without pay, and they're not going to charge the university nothing for electricity.
It just means somebody else is going to pay for it.
The work that we do costs money, and it has to come from someplace, and you would think that a capitalist would understand that this is a product with some value.
No free riders.
Well, certainly compared to what they paid to the RNC and to all these other various campaigns.
So, yeah, I mean, this is actually it, and this is the actual moment, and we actually do make a difference.
Because the elections here are not 80-20, right?
Right?
And it's not 60-40 and it's not even 55-45.
Elections are determined by one or two percentage points of the vote here.
And that is with them with all of their megaphones.
That's with them having all of the media, all the movie stars, all of the late night comedy, all of this stuff.
The fact that we're still here in the fight is amazing, and we don't have to throw a 99-yard bomb as the last second ticks out of the fourth quarter.
We just need to move the ball four yards.
Three or four yards is all we need to do.
Just get it over the 50-yard line.
We just have to move the ball a little.
They're doing everything right.
We're doing everything wrong.
And somebody has to teach these idiots on our side how to make this argument.
somebody has to tell these people that ostensibly represent our values how to make the case to represent our values and uh it's not going to come from the from the rnc and it's not going to come from politicians and it's not going to come from think tanks it's going to come from people like you and me who for whatever reason probably just dumb luck i guess managed to managed to build up some readership because of our ability to to to craft a message and to and to make people if not change their minds and at least think about things well and as long as we're on ecom 101 and donations
and support.
And this is why this conversation exists.
If we didn't have the resources, I'd just be a guy shouting in the woods again.
But the reality, because people will often say to me, why don't you take more advertising and so on?
It's like, because that changes the relationship.
When I take advertising, if I ever were to take advertising, which I won't, I'm in the business of delivering you to the advertisers.
That's the relationship.
I'm delivering you to the advertisers.
And that's fundamentally changing the relationship.
What I want to be in is in the business of delivering the truth to you.
And I guide myself partly by donations.
I know when I do a really great show and people are like, wow, I've really got to donate for this.
That's a market signal.
That's how I know of the infinite number of topics I could talk about.
That's how I know.
I look at the view count.
I look at the shares.
I look at the donations.
And I say, this hits people where they live.
This is the important stuff to focus on.
So, yeah, you need to donate to help guide us because we're like, We're good to go.
It's through donations and support.
So just for those who are listening, freedomainradio.com slash donate to help out as far as that goes and billwhittle.com.
Of course, I will give you the final word, Mr.
Bill.
It's just on the same front because it is so important.
I've had a couple of videos that have done like a million or two million views and internet revenues are so small.
It's like $6 per thousand views or something like that.
But when you get into those kind of numbers, that could be a five-figure check or something like that.
And I've never put any advertisement in front of it because I figure that every ad I put in front of a video deters people.
Some people come on and they see the banner or they see that five-second click-through, they don't watch the message.
The bottom line here is that all of this messaging is being provided by a microscopically thin percentage of our total viewer base.
You know, we have a certain number of members, but compared to what our reach is, it's well less than 1%.
And if you're one of those people, the thing really most important is to understand that supporting either one of us is allowing this message to get out to millions of people free.
If we were to charge them for the message, our viewership would be less than a percent, I'm sure, of what we have.
The fact that some people have the generosity and the vision...
To allow us to do what we do are the people that really do realize, look, we can give a little bit of money to these guys or we don't and they'll take all of it.
Yeah, and of course, they only have to hand the ammo.
We're actually out on the front lines, and sometimes it seems like handing the ammo is a bit of a better gig.
Other times, I love it.
All right, well, thanks a lot.
Please go to BillWhittle.com.
That's Whittle, like the grandpa with the ultra-high suspenders on the porch, W-H-I-T-T-L-E. Always a great pleasure to chat with you, my friend.
I'm sure we can do it again soon, and thanks for your time today.
