All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 2, 2016 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
45:05
3481 Hillary Clinton's FBI Investigation: What You Need To Know!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi everybody, Stefan Molyneux from Freedom Main Radio.
Hope you're doing well.
Here with Mike, we are in the closing sub-week of the 2016 election.
There shall be no sleep for those of us in the alternative media for the next six days.
Mike, how are you holding out?
I'm not doing too bad at all.
It's kind of interesting how quiet it's been.
I was expecting Monday to be like bombshell after bombshell after bombshell, where the Democrats, the DNC, Hillary Clinton's campaign, and the media just threw everything imaginable that they could at Trump, you know, whatever they've been sitting on, whatever secret tape they had, whatever, you know, accuser from God knows what crime they could drudge up.
And so far, it's been almost eerily quiet, you know, too quiet.
I know what you mean.
I mean, you don't want to leave anything In the ammo belt at this stage in the conflict between Hillary and Donald.
But unless they're reeling and completely uncoordinated, unless they've given up on Hillary, which some people think and there seem to be vague indications of, the only thing that seems to be circulating are faux stories, you know, like gotchas or stuff being recycled from the past as if it's new.
But there's really not a lot that is going on.
And even the mainstream media seems to be Not going back to their old wells to dredge up more dirt to throw.
Well, yeah, there's lots of recycled stuff coming out against Trump from the Hillary camp.
I mean, Alicia Mercado was introducing Hillary at a campaign event the other day.
And if you're dredging up the Miss Universe that has been thoroughly discredited and has made provably false claims...
I think you're really digging the bottom of the barrel.
Apparently Hillary's also putting out some ads with the Kahn family, you know, digging back to that well.
It's like, okay, that didn't work the first time, and you're going to pull it up again in the last week at a time where I got to think if they had anything serious on Trump that they could throw out there that would grab attention, now would be when they'd want to do it, you know, with all the stuff about the FBI investigations.
Oh, not the FBI investigation, the multiple FBI investigations, upwards of five into Clinton and Clinton Associates.
I think you'd want to distract the news cycle with whatever shiny object you could dangle in front of them regarding Trump, and it hasn't materialized yet.
So either they're completely out of ammo or we're going to get hit with some crazy thing over the course of the next few days.
But I'm kind of in the camp that I believe they've got no more ammo left in their clip, and she's going down, Captain.
She's going down.
Yeah, I mean, part of me thinks, Mike, that it could still be that they have something.
But they're waiting until right before the election just to overshadow the sort of last awful couple of days for the Hillary campaign.
They want whatever scandal or stuff they've got.
They want it fresh in the minds of voters right before the election.
Maybe they're holding something back.
Although, again, if I were a strategist on that side of the fence, I'd see real value in pushing the reopening or the continuation or the reactivation, I guess, of the FBI investigation into Hillary and her emails and just about everyone who ever emailed her.
Just pushing that off the front page would be, I think, valuable enough.
But, you know, maybe they've got some massive master strategy that they're going to pull out at the last minute.
But yeah, I don't know.
I wouldn't put a lot of money on that.
Well, for God's sakes, we spent the last four days marinating in FBI investigations and drudging up Hillary Clinton's scandals.
And it's not just alternative media.
I mean, it's broken through to the point where you have people on CNN acting very skeptical towards Hillary Clinton, which, you know, the Clinton News Network, that's pretty surprising.
You've got the New York Times publishing anti-Hillary stories.
The dam seems to have been broken when it comes to the trust in Hillary Clinton.
I think people see the way the wind's blowing in regards to the groundswell of support that was breaking for Trump even before Comey came out and sent the letter that sparked everything and freaked everyone out.
I mean, Trump was gaining in just about all the polls with them still having massive oversampling of Democrats.
So that means he's way, way ahead in many of these polls, because if they give a Democrats plus eight or Democrats plus 10 or 12, you know, the likely voting base is probably going to be, you know, even or Republican plus one.
And all the independents are overwhelmingly going to Trump.
So the idea that Trump was gaining in all these heavily rigged polls that were designed to favor Hillary and give an illusion as the amount of support she had just shows how badly she was doing it.
And it may just be a situation where people in the media are now just fighting for survival.
I mean, it just came out that the New York Times lost or saw a fall of, let me pull up the number here, 95.7% fall in quarterly profits for the New York Times.
Boy, that's a shame.
That's a real, real shame.
It might just be everyone trying to cover their backside and maintain some semblance of credibility with the pollsters.
Now, you know, if Trump wins in a landslide, if something like that were to occur and all their polls say, oh, Hillary's ahead by a few points, it completely destroys their business model and credibility far into the future.
Well, I mean, couldn't happen to a nicer group of people, so I have no particular complaints about that.
So then, I guess, for me, the question, just bouncing around in my brain like an old 80s-style Pong arcade machine, is...
What the hell did James Comey see in those emails?
What did he see in those emails?
Because I think a hatch violation, which is...
It's supposed to be this ancient tradition, which is that the FBI should not release any details about an investigation that might affect the outcome of an election.
It's not an ancient doctrine.
As far as I understand it, it was put in place by the Obama administration about four years ago.
Huh!
That's...
Funny how that happened.
It's kind of interesting timing.
I mean, they knew that they were going to run Hillary after the last election.
So for you, 2012, right?
They knew they were going to run Hillary.
So they immediately get in place a rule which says the FBI can't drop details of an investigation that might influence an outcome of election.
The republic lasted quite a number of centuries before that came into place.
The moment that Hillary starts looming up in the rear view of the Democratic Party aiming for the White House, got to have a rule.
FBI, don't release any.
But my question is...
First of all, they have already affected the outcome of the election by saying that she was not guilty of a crime that they could indict her of.
She may have been guilty of crime, but not one that, as he said, a reasonable prosecutor would pursue.
In other words, a prosecutor who likes to know the whereabouts of his own children.
Just kidding.
Just kidding.
So he already influenced the election by saying there was no credible case against Hillary Clinton, which for a lot of people, of course, particularly her supporters, put the whole email server issue into the rear view.
Now, if that if he had new information, to me, he is not affecting like he's not just popping up like a gopher in springtime to affect the election.
Now, what he's saying is the information that I gave about the election in the past has been superseded by new information information.
It's an update.
And that is, I think, why it's not a particular violation.
If he announced a conclusion or if he started publishing the contents of emails and so on, that would be.
But saying, well, we got 650,000 new emails, it'll take a little while to get through them.
But of course, he's seen them.
He's seen them unredacted.
He's, I assume, got huge security clearances.
So he's seen the entire ball of wax.
He's seen the whole hellscape of whatever's going on.
In those emails and, ooh, wouldn't you just love to know?
I wonder, you know, I wonder if we will know.
I wonder if it'll come out in 50 years or next year.
I don't think it's going to come out next week.
What did he see in there that caused him to reopen the investigation?
They must have had some cursory glance at some things.
You know, you just go into, I think they're all in Outlook files.
Just go in Outlook.
Type in, say, Libya or Benghazi or Hillary or Clinton Foundation or whatever it is.
And you'll get a whole scrolling list right away, and, you know, flicking through those, what did he see, and is he trying to tell us something?
Well, okay, let's start on Obama talking about this, because, you know, Obama, who...
He's campaigned as creating the most transparent administration in political history.
You'd think he'd want the voters to have all the facts and information regarding to possible FBI investigations.
And considering that the Clinton Foundation apparently has been under investigation for months and months and months and getting stonewalled by the Department of Justice when it comes to actually looking further into the case and summoning a grand jury, you'd think people would want to know that.
especially we've had Charles Ortel on the show breaking down a lot of the questionable legalities of the moves made in the Clinton Foundation, which are jaw-dropping for someone that even believes that politics and corruption go hand in hand.
So Obama, originally the White House came out and said, the president's assessment of his integrity, referring to James Comey, and his character has not changed.
The president doesn't believe he's secretly strategizing to benefit one candidate or one political party.
After that comment came out, I heard thump, thump, thump, thump, the thought of Hillary Clinton being thrown immediately under the bus by Barack Obama.
But he came out today and clarified that.
He said today, after probably receiving a stern phone call, I do not think there is a norm for when there are investigations we don't operate on innuendo, and I don't think we operate on incomplete information, and we don't operate on leaks.
We operate based on concrete decisions that are made.
When this was investigated thoroughly the last time, the conclusion by the FBI, the conclusion of the Justice Department, the conclusion of repeated congressional investigations was that she made some mistakes, but there wasn't anything there that was prosecutable.
When she makes a mistake, an honest mistake, it ends up being blown up as if it's some crazy thing.
I wouldn't be supporting her if I didn't have the absolute confidence in her integrity and her interest in making sure that young people have a better future.
So Obama officially came out today and hitched his wagon to the sinking ship of Hillary Clinton, which is in and of itself pretty interesting.
And looking...
Looking at the five cases that are coming down and the entanglements between the FBI, the Clinton Foundation, the Clintons themselves, the Department of Justice, there's a few big conflicts that no one has been made aware of until the last few days.
Let's break it down.
Alright, the FBI's Deputy Director, Andrew McCabe.
His wife received $675,000 in political donations from a close friend of the Clintons.
And oddly enough, he was promoted to a role where we had oversight in the Clinton case in February.
You know, the case where they didn't find anything prosecutable?
He was leading oversight, and that was months after his wife lost the race.
So she received a ton of money for a state race from a close ally of the Clintons and...
And if there was going to be some type of collusion or what, that's how it would be done.
There wouldn't be, you know, Hillary Clinton signed check to someone in the FBI. That's not how it works.
But, you know, this connection and these strange connections between Clintons and people that happen to be in positions of power over investigations that are very serious, it could not just end her political career, but put her in prison, you think you'd want that disclosed, you think you'd want that out there, you think you'd want this individual to recuse themselves from any involvement in the case, given that there is even a cursory suggestion that there's a connection there.
But that didn't happen.
Now, it's come out as well with the latest Department of Justice stuff looking into Anthony Weiner's emails.
John Podesta's quote-unquote best friend, this is a headline, at the Department of Justice will be in charge of the department's probe into Huma Abedin emails.
I'll just read this directly.
Assistant Attorney General Peter Kadzik assured Democratic senators Monday that the reopened investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server will be given the utmost attention and finished quickly.
In a week, I'm sure that's going to happen.
Now, he's also a longtime friend and associate of Clinton campaign manager John Podesta, whose emails everyone has been reading over the course of the last several weeks.
So, previously in those leaked emails, Podesta described Katista, I'm butchering his name, I know it, but he described him as a fantastic lawyer who, quote-unquote, kept me out of jail!
Huh!
That's kind of interesting.
And he represented Podesta during the Monica Lewinsky probe, where Podesta at the time had made false statements to a grand jury impaneled by independent counsel Kenneth Starr.
So this is someone who has tight ties to Clinton allies and the Clintons themselves.
And interestingly enough, Peter Kadzik was also the attorney for Mark Riche.
Now, Mark Rich, people might not know that name.
We'll get into that in a second.
His FBI file was, by the way, released by the FBI yesterday.
And Bill Clinton pardoned Mark Rich, who was like one of the top wanted criminals in the world.
And there were some kind of suspicious donations made to the William J. Clinton Foundation around the time of that pardon.
Hmm.
So...
I'll just read another article quote here.
It says, So,
again, he was the attorney for one of the most wanted criminals, according to the FBI at the time, who was then pardoned in a mysterious way by Bill Clinton after some interesting donations made their way to Democratic establishment peoples and the Clinton Foundation.
You know, this might raise some red flags to somebody.
There's more!
Because of course there's more!
God, of course there's more!
And again, this is just what we know.
Can you imagine the stuff that we don't know?
So Kadzik emailed John Podesta on May 19th, 2015, saying, There is a HJC oversight hearing today where the head of our civil division will testify, likely to get questions on State Department emails.
Another filing in the Freedom of Information case...
Wait, sorry, what's HJC? House Judiciary Committee.
Thank you, okay.
So, another filing in the Freedom of Information Act case went in last night, or will go in this AM, that indicates it will be a while, 2006, before the State Department posts the emails.
So, here you have the guy, Department of Justice, he's overseeing the new Huma Abedin-Anthony Weiner email situation, saying, we're going to get it resolved very quickly, you know, because we don't want it to influence the election or anything.
We've got to get it out there, get the information out.
It's going to be done very quickly.
650,000 emails, done very quickly.
Okay, sure.
And he's emailing tips and insight to John Podesta about hearings that are going to occur and what may happen in those hearings.
That seems a little questionable just in and of itself that that's happening, let alone that this guy is now in charge of investigating the Clinton campaign.
Well, people associated with the Clinton campaign, the Clinton Foundation, Hillary Clinton herself, the whole ball of wax.
And Podesta and Kaczek even met for dinner, along with other friends the night after Clinton testified before the House Select Committee on Benghazi.
So this is a weird, political, incestuous-type relationship, and the idea that this guy is in charge of the oversight from the Department of Justice looking into this case is a joke?
Anyone that's unaware it's a joke and can't figure out that it's a joke— It needs to have their head examined.
I mean, even if you like Hillary Clinton, even if you're a Democrat, you have to look at this and just go, that's pretty fishy.
How about we have an independent investigation as opposed to just installing a hack on top of the Department of Justice?
Well, I think, to be fair, Mike, I'm going to make a prediction or two, and I'm going to say that should Donald Trump get into office, I have a feeling there might be a bit of a revolving door at the head of that investigation, and And he might actually appoint someone or have someone appointed through an intermediary who's going to be a little bit more objective because the history of the investigation, even the last year one that ended up this summer, pretty sketchy.
I mean, a lot of people in the investigation thought it was going what's called sideways, which means there's political interference and people don't want a straight answer.
or the original head of the investigation into the email server, quit and retired because he felt it was going sideways.
They weren't allowed to convene a grand jury, which means they didn't have subpoena power, which means they couldn't force the production of documents and so on.
It was really – and then what happened was – Same thing happened in the Clinton Foundation investigation, which has been ongoing.
They've been hampered on that end, and there's been a bit of a battle between different FBI departments in different states and getting the subpoena power and everything that's needed to be done.
Yeah, there are reports that when Hillary Clinton said to the FBI agents, I can't remember, I can't recall, I'd taken a severe blow to the head, I had a head injury and so on.
Well, they wanted to get her medical records to confirm the severity of the accident.
And they couldn't, so they eventually went kind of rogue.
Some of the agents went rogue, and they went to the NSA and said, well, you guys can get a hold of anything electronic.
Always makes you feel secure when they do that.
But you can get a hold of anything electronic, so why don't you go and get us our healthcare records?
And when Comey heard about this, I think that's one of the things, in my opinion, that propelled him to come out and say, we're not pursuing charges.
But there was some really dicey stuff going on, even in the original investigation.
And Maybe he's facing a revolt in the FBI. Maybe he's got struck with a case of renewed conscience, Comey that is, or maybe there's just stuff in there that's going to come out eventually that is so horrendous, so heinous that he simply had to make the announcement.
Well, there does seem to be this speculation that's coming from a lot of different places, so it gives it a bit more credibility than just random internet chatter, that there is a total internal revolt going on in the FBI currently, where there was well over 100 FBI agents that were about to tender their resignation to Comey if something didn't change.
And when Comey made the announcement that they were going to reopen the case, apparently...
All the FBI agents in the big gathering place cheered, and it seems as if it was a victory for those that care for some semblance of law and order, despite the political consequences within the federal administration here.
I mean, can you, sorry, just interrupt for a sec.
Can you imagine what would happen to the American political system if Hillary Clinton got into power and the emails and the information that's currently being revealed came up with something completely heinous?
Or more than one thing, as I would imagine, completely heinous.
What on earth would happen to the American political system if not only somebody ascends to power while under an FBI investigation, but if the FBI investigation recommends criminal charges against the president of the United States?
I mean, can you imagine what would happen with the Democrats, with the Republicans, with the fights, with the riots of the street?
It would be astonishing.
It would be paralyzing.
It would be convulsive.
I mean, people say a constitutional crisis.
Okay, well, I think America's been in a constitutional crisis since Abraham Lincoln, but it is just an astonishing thing to see how that might play out and how chaotic the situation could be.
And as we know from the last time, Clinton was in power.
When things get kind of chaotic and the news starts to tighten, some pretty dangerous things can happen in terms of military action.
So I'm just telling people as a whole, just picture what it would be like down the road if anything came out.
And I think that my guess is it would.
But if anything came out, that would implicate her in something extremely serious.
What on earth would happen from there?
It might be a bit more than an aspirin factory, which was bombed during the whole Lewinsky situation, which people speculate was to draw attention away from what Bill Clinton was going through at the time.
So, yeah, I mean, you also have to look into the situation that if Hillary Clinton is elected president...
install in many of these institutions that would then be investigating her.
You know, there's lots of speculation that the infamous Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton tarmac meeting was essentially, you can stay on as attorney general, but don't come after us, you know, quid pro quo.
So would Loretta Lynch stay in power?
You know, would all these people that have been Clinton cronies or swimming around this corruption and possibly benefiting from this corruption be maintained or promoted to positions of power so they could quash any type of investigation?
And At that point, I mean, there is no law and order in the United States without question.
It's – do you have enough power to get away with it?
This revolves to some type of banana republic level.
We're already getting close to that, but at least there's been some pushback from the FBI recently on some of these situations.
But, I mean, this – you couldn't have a clearer choice.
Between Donald Trump, who, with the hashtag, end quote, drain the swamp, wants to do many things to limit the power of corporate influences and big money and corruption in and of itself by imposing term limits on politicians.
I mean, he's got a whole ethics platform that I think is like kryptonite to any long-term senator or congressman.
Versus Clintons, who it's going to be business as usual, and business as usual is corruption on steroids when it comes to the Clintons.
Yeah.
Yeah, and also with Trump, you're going to get, I think, a very strenuous and dedicated pursuit of Hillary Clinton.
And I also think, Mike, that it's going to be wherever it leads.
Because I think everyone understands that although Hillary Clinton and her email server and so on might be at the epicenter of the FBI's focus, the question is, how wide is the bomb blast radius going to be if she's found to have done something wrong?
Criminal or treasonous or something like that.
How wide does that bomb blast go?
And I wonder, I mean, you know, there's only speculation, but one of the possibilities of Bill Clinton meeting with Loretta Lynch on that tarmac is to say, well, you know that Barack Obama is implicated in all of this because he emailed Hillary.
So if the investigation goes forward with Hillary, then it's going to widen to include Barack Obama.
He's going to be called as a witness.
He's going to be called upon to testify.
He's going to be cross-examined and he's going to be under oath.
And the entire, you know, maybe appealing to her, her politically correct promotion of this kind of diversity stuff that, well, the very first black president's rule is going to end in disgrace, and is that what you want?
And, you know, how wide does this go?
There's no possibility, I think, I mean, if Hillary Clinton gets into power, that there's going to be any kind of real investigation.
Because even if people were okay with them going for her, How wide does it go?
If you emailed with her any classified information, then you're guilty of the same thing that she is, because you know, because of the email extension, Clinton email, rather than.gov.
How wide does this go?
And I think the only way we're ever going to find out is through a Trump administration.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
And even the original investigation, too.
Now some stuff came out in the Podesta emails that seems a bit fishy regarding that original investigation and the question of intent.
So John Podesta, on March 2nd, 2015, responded to an email and said, on another matter, and not to sound like Lanny, we'll explain who that is in a second, but we are going to have to dump all those emails, so better do it sooner than later.
Now, the timing of this is pretty significant.
Considering that the New York Times broke the story of Hillary's use of a private email server that day.
That day.
And it was two days before the House Benghazi committee issued the subpoena requiring Clinton to turn over all the emails from her private server related to the Benghazi attack.
So this Lanny guy is a freelance Clinton defender who the Clinton associates no longer particularly liked.
And he's a crisis management specialist.
And he's one of the guys that says, like, you know, whenever there's a scandal, just get the facts out, get the facts out, get the facts out.
So this email that says, you know, dump all those emails, better do it sooner than later.
The people that are skeptical of the Clintons are looking at that and saying, boy, that sounds like intent about getting rid of emails.
And especially considering later that month, Stone tier, you know, people that know about that case, the guy that worked for Plate River Networks ended up using BleachBit to wipe the server clean.
And this was after the subpoena came out.
So dump the emails, and then later that month, while under subpoena, the server gets wiped out with BleachBit so they can't recover the emails.
People that are skeptical of the Clintons are saying, there's your intent right there, from Podesta at least, absolutely.
There's other people saying like, well, you know, that's him saying dump, you know, dump as in get all the facts out, which seems like a bit of a stretch to me.
I don't know the terminology that these folks use, but here's something when it comes to intent.
Sorry, sorry, just make sure I understand.
Because I sort of took it – it could mean both things.
It could mean get rid of the emails.
It could also mean just go dump them in the public sphere, get it all out there, get everyone to look over them, and then move on.
So I'm not sure if he clarified that later or if there's any – yeah, it's one of these ambiguous words.
I guess you could say what happened afterwards would indicate that dump meant get rid of rather than put into the public sphere because of this erasing of the server.
That, because he didn't order it, but that may be more how it was taken or how it was received – But it is a little bit – he didn't say erase, right?
He said dump, and that could mean dump at the public sphere.
It could mean dump them in the river.
I don't know.
Well, we can look at what happened, right?
What happened after it?
I mean, you can't just dump the emails to the public sphere.
It would be turn over everything to the State Department or, in this case, turn everything over to the House Select Committee on Benghazi.
Did that happen?
The answer to that is no.
What did happen?
Well, later that month, the server was wiped by the stone-tiered gentleman, who's also being investigated now by many, many committees.
So just looking at what happened in the email, it certainly seems pretty suspect, and if the question is intent, it's something that is certainly debatable, and I'm sure will be investigated further by the FBI, provided Hillary Clinton doesn't win and appoint a bunch of cronies to lead the charge.
And it is, you know, I just want people to understand, I know this is digging back a little bit, but it is such an unusual situation.
One could almost say unprecedented, which is you're under investigation by the FBI and they want a bunch of documents and you are allowed to select which ones you would delete and which ones you hand over to the FBI. I mean, can you imagine that in any other sphere and for any other person?
That you would give us all your documents related to X. It's like, well, okay, I'm going to keep I'm going to delete some in an unrecoverable, at least I think it's unrecoverable manner.
And then I'm just going to hand over the remainder to you.
I mean, that just makes the whole process was mocked and ridiculed at the very beginning, because that's not at all how it's supposed to work.
Well, especially the process that you used, which was a formal process to hand over self or freedom of information requests where you print it out.
That does strip it of all the metadata.
So if you're trying to conceal something, that's the way you'd want to do it while still trying to comply with the law.
You'd strip all the metadata so people can look into it and see if anything was edited or changed or timestamps or anything like that.
So, I mean, just the fact that the private server existed itself was a crime.
And the fact that she didn't disclose everything, which is a violation of all the statutes related to government information and the Freedom of Information Request process, that's a crime.
So, I mean, getting down to intent, you know, that seemed to be mince words that we don't want to prosecute.
And now there's evidence coming out suggesting possible intent, at least from Podesta's side.
So, and then you go into the, what's in the 650,000 emails?
If we're going to use intent and say we don't have, you know, the smoking gun to say that she 100% proved or wanted to destroy this evidence...
Well, what's in the 650,000 emails that there's speculation that it was a massive backup that they didn't even particularly know about?
Now, you mean Uma and Anthony Weiner?
There's a couple stories floating around on that, and again, this is all just rank speculation at this time.
It's what we do best.
Yeah, well, there's...
Of course, there's the people that are saying, you know, this is Anthony Weiner's, like, insurance file.
You know, and there's even people saying, like, it was in a folder marked insurance file.
Life insurance, I think, is what it's called.
Life insurance.
Yeah.
Who knows if that's true?
Who knows?
I mean, the idea that Weiner may want to get back at these people or have insurance given, you know, the political dealings, who knows?
It's certainly a plausible explanation.
There's speculation that this laptop is one of the missing laptops that was discussed in the FBI investigation documents that were released last month.
This is one of the missing laptops that went undiscovered, which would be the plausible reason why Humo would say, well, I didn't know about it.
I didn't know that I had it.
It just went missing.
We talked about this, that one was mailed.
Somewhere, and it was never received, and it just kind of went missing in the mail.
There's lots of devices that went, quote-unquote, missing that may pop up, and have avoided hammer strikes over the course of the last several months.
But yeah, so there's lots of speculation there.
There's also talk that this was just a backup, where there was an automatic syncing that happened and didn't realize it.
And this is all the emails undeleted that Huma made, you know, over the course of a long period of time.
So God knows what would show up in that, given that Huma Abedin was Clinton's right-hand person.
Yeah, because if you sync to a server, and I think if you use IMAP rather than POP, it syncs all the folders automatically every time you boot up the laptop.
I guess if Outlook's running in the background, or if you boot up Outlook, so there was just this syncing function that I think you'd notice it.
But anyway, what do I know?
I guess we'll find out one way or another.
Should she ever emerge from wherever she is right now and talk to the FBI? Well, it's clear that this is very inconvenient.
And this existing, either they didn't know about it, which, again, I expect the Clintons and the people associated with the Clintons to be a better class of criminal.
If you're going as far as to wipe a server under subpoena or someone wipes a server under subpoena, that you wouldn't exactly have a laptop floating around with lots of damaging information.
So maybe it was an insurance file from Huma.
Maybe it was an insurance file from Wiener.
Who knows?
Maybe they didn't know about it.
Maybe they thought they could hide it.
But you think that that would have disappeared after all this stuff went down because there was a period of time where the case was closed.
No one knew this existed.
And if it just vanished, they wouldn't be in the situation they are now, so.
Well, not closed.
They never actually closed the case.
This is why it's...
I mean, the language is sort of annoying, but it has to be precise that it was sort of put on hold or went dormant, but it was never officially closed as far as I understand it.
Yeah, that's, you know, the liberal side of the equation is using that to say, the case wasn't reopened, it was never closed.
It's kind of weird, then, that if the case is not closed, saying that, you know, it's over, you know, she's been cleared of all charges, but the case wasn't closed, like, it's just we get into a semantic wiggle word fest that no one particularly can come out of saying if you want to venture into those grounds.
But the long and short of it is, with every new WikiLeaks drop, with all the stuff from Project Veritas and James O'Keefe, with just the fact that Hillary Clinton and her right-hand person, Huma Abedin, married to a guy who's sexting 15-year-old girls' rape fantasies and may be going to jail for a really long time, this should call into question the character of Hillary Clinton and this whole Clinton administration team.
And, again, just flip the script, folks.
I beg you to imagine, how would the media respond if Donald Trump was associated with, like, one one-hundredth of any of this stuff?
You know, imagine if Donald Trump was going into the election under FBI investigation.
Oh, we wouldn't hear the end of it, and, you know, it would be put on blast.
I mean, they're talking about this story in the mainstream media because there's no way they can avoid it, and it's looking like Trump's going to...
It's looking like Trump's going to win unless there's an all-out theft of the election, which is something to be concerned about.
courts by black box voting.
And I invite you to go check out a video called fractional voting.
We'll put a link in the description below talking about how for some reason, a lot of these electronic voting machines have the ability to compute fractions, which I'm not sure like half of me can vote for Hillary and half of me can vote for Trump in the voting booth.
So, you know, if you were going to insert some schematic to allocate a percentage to a certain political party, you'd need the fractions.
So it's kind of concerning that they're in there, and they're in most of the voting machines across the country.
That's a bit concerning.
But all the polls show Trump surging.
These are, again, the biased mainstream polls that are oversampling Democrats.
You know, all the people that have been on the fence, you know, undecided.
I don't think there's many people that have been really undecided in this election.
I think that's...
I'm afraid to say I want to vote for Trump because people will be mad at me.
The independents, breaking for Trump.
You know, anyone with a semblance of...
I think we're good to go.
One of the personalities may be a single mom dependent on the state who's going to want to vote for Hillary, and the other personality might be a 22-year-old man who's fit and healthy and is concerned about being drafted to be irradiated on the Russian front.
So the fractions, you know, if you do want to divvy it up, we do have to accommodate multiple personalities, and maybe this is just their way of trying to achieve that noble end.
Well, I wonder if you can vote for the multiple personalities of the Democratic candidate, you know, the cuddly old grandmother versus the person who's agitating for war with Russia.
I'm not sure which one the Clinton people would want to put their bets for, but, you know, maybe that's something for the future they can look into.
So if they are giving up on Hillary, then they're going to want to dissociate from her as quickly as possible if she's sort of a toxic brand for them at this point.
Obama jumped in with both feet today.
Right.
Right.
So that's, you know, there was a lot of stuff going on.
I'm like, you know, Barack Obama unfollowed Hillary Clinton on Twitter and, you know, Michelle Obama unfollowed Hillary on Twitter and all that stuff wound up being nonsense for the most part.
So don't look into, you know, when I saw those headlines, I'm like, really?
We're divulged like grade level politics here.
Like, you know, I unfriended you on Facebook.
I don't support your political campaign anymore.
That seemed even a bit amateur and juvenile for political campaigns, so that wound up being nonsense, but There's certainly people disavowing, for lack of a better word, Clinton in the mainstream media and people that were previously all in that are now being very skeptical.
But Obama's move today makes me think that they're not completely throwing her under the bus.
And given what you've said earlier and what we've described in the show multiple times, if this does go all the way to the top, Obama's best chance of avoiding any type of prosecution is Hillary Clinton getting in office.
So the idea that he'd be...
All in with both feet would not be terribly surprising.
Well, they would want to bring her in for a soft landing, even if they don't think she can win the election anymore, in my opinion, because if they immediately turn on her, then they're basically saying she was the wrong candidate to begin with.
And there, of course, as we've talked about for over a year and a half or longer, there are signs that she might not have been the very best candidate, not top shelf, as they would say in some parts of the world, that she was not the greatest candidate even from the very beginning.
The 90s.
Oh, and the 80s.
And oh, the 70s.
And so on.
And so they're going to want to bring her in for a soft landing because they can't completely turn on her because she was their chosen candidate.
And as we've seen from some of these leaks, they may have pulled a few strings to get her to the top over and above Bernie Sanders.
So they can't turn on her completely.
They want to bring her in for a gentle, soft landing if, you know, there's no proof that there is.
But if they're no longer believing that she can win, bring her in for a soft landing, try and maintain the brand, work for the next four years to try and help Donald Trump not succeed as president and then try in 2020 to bring someone in.
I don't know who that would be.
It doesn't seem like there's anyone waiting in the wings, but to try and find or bring.
I mean, Barack Obama came.
It kind of came out of nowhere in some ways in the mid 2000s.
So I guess that's, you know, bring her in for a soft landing and recognize Trump's going to win work to try and undermine his presidency and then try and find someone and kick them to the top in 2020.
That's one potential about what the plan is, although I think right now it's kind of a minute-by-minute plan because there are still, you know, we talk about things that might still come out about Trump.
Well, there are things coming out from Project Veritas.
One came out Right, and...
Do we want to mention anything about what Project Veritas dropped today before we sign off for the day and have a nap?
A major Clinton donor was talking about black voters that vote Republican, essentially going against their own interests.
It was very demeaning to them.
They don't know what they're doing.
They're voting against their race, that type of stuff, which is not terribly surprising to hear from a Democrat donor or a major Democrat.
He did compare them to Jews helping the Nazi concentration camp guards in the Holocaust.
It's a bit of an escalation.
I'm not sure where you're going to go from there if something more serious gets uncovered.
I mean, I shouldn't laugh because it's a horrendous comparison, but it only goes to show that they don't care about Jews.
I mean, I don't want to say the Democrats as a whole, but this particular aspect of the thinking, it's like, okay, well, if you are pro-Democrat, you're valuable, and you're protected, and you're a victim, and you're entitled, and we'll give you all these wonderful things.
But it's not about race.
Because if they were into race and diversity, they would celebrate black Republicans, both for their race and for the diversity of opinions within the black community.
This attack upon black Republicans, which goes all the way back to the 60s and probably even before.
If you are black and you are Republican, they will target you just as gleefully, just as viciously in many ways as anyone else who's not part of their interest.
In fact, I think there's a special distaste for black Republicans because black Republicans can't have the race card played against them.
And so they have superpowers in the American political landscape.
Well, God, just look what they did to Herman Cain when he was running and doing pretty well and may have been a challenger against Obama.
You couldn't have a black Republican running against a black Democrat.
That would be an issue.
So he had to go.
That's one way of putting it.
As Diamond and Silk have come on the show and talked about leaving the Democratic plantation, it only doesn't work out too well for individuals.
Yeah, Clarence Thomas, who was, of course, a conservative Supreme Court Justice, also was targeted and accusations against him that were fairly sketchy were...
Elevated to mainstream news for like months and months as this went on.
So again, if you just report allegations, allegations can be made against anyone with varying degrees of legitimacy to them.
And if you just report the accusations and then never follow up, and it's just broadcast with, you know, headlines of criminal rape, whatever, you know, it's kind of dicey.
I mean, I think it's fair to report that Hillary Clinton is currently under an FBI investigation.
I think that's fair.
It's an allegation.
There's lots of proof that she did do things which are on the borderline of legality.
Yes.
But, you know, just someone accused someone of something.
Let's talk about it nonstop.
Oh, wait, that only happened a couple weeks ago with God knows how many people came out and said Donald Trump touched me 25 years ago.
And then, oh, wait, those cases fell apart.
Yeah, this is my personal opinion about this stuff, Mike, and I really can't emphasize this strongly enough.
The corollary of the common law justice principle that you are innocent until proven guilty is that all allegations are false until they are proven true.
This is something people...
I mean, it would destroy the mainstream media if people actually accepted this as a basic fact.
You are innocent until proven guilty.
It doesn't mean kind of innocent.
It doesn't mean there's a cloud hanging over.
You are innocent until proven guilty.
And allegations against you are false by definition, following the same logic.
They are false until they are proven true.
And this is something that if we kind of got a hold of this and stopped...
Following all these allegations, it would stop feeding disturbed people's desire for fame by making wild allegations.
It would stop the smear campaign that is going against, and this goes against Democrats and Republicans, at least among the rhinos and the Democrats.
You are innocent until proven guilty, and allegations against you are false until they are proven true.
And to consume media, which suggests otherwise from anywhere in the political spectrum, is to feed the worst aspects of human nature.
Yep.
What's the evidence, folks?
That's the question you should be asking always about any allegations that are thrown out.
And also, if you feed into this system, this is the world you're creating for yourself.
You know, if you don't like Donald Trump, or you don't like someone else, and, you know, they're accused of something, and you put those accusations on blast, regardless of any evidence supporting them, you're creating a world where people just accept allegations as fact, and And what's it going to be like when you are then on the receiving end of allegations?
What's it going to be like for you when you feed into a culture and climate which then turns on you?
Which we've seen this with social justice warriors many, many times.
The people that want to go on diversity witch hunts or social justice witch hunts.
Then all of a sudden they say something, step out of line, and the mob immediately turns on them.
And they're like, hey, wait a minute, this isn't fair.
Well...
Now the shoe's on the other foot.
You see what it's like.
Don't feed into this system where allegations are treated as fact and reported as fact and are used to smear people because that in and of itself is a world in which no one truly wants to live because who knows who's going to be the next victim.
It might be you.
It might be someone you care about.
It might be someone you know.
Anything can happen.
But we know it isn't legitimate and it isn't just.
So don't feed into it by any means.
Amen.
You join the mob at one point.
The mob's going to have you at its sights.
And then who are you going to appeal to?
The mob?
I don't think that's going to work.
This is Stefan Molyneux for Freedom Main Radio.
Thanks so much for watching and listening.
Please help us out at freedomainradio.com slash donate.
We'll put links below.
Enjoy this greatest election in history.
And stay alert, stay aware, stay safe, and have these important conversations with those around you.
▲
Export Selection