All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 5, 2016 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
35:38
3486 Why The Clinton Foundation Will Bring Down Hillary Clinton
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi everybody, Stefan Molyne from Freedom Main Radio.
I hope you're doing well.
So we're back with Charles Ortel.
He's an investor and writer.
He graduated from Horace Mann School, Yale College and Harvard Business School.
Mr.
Ortel has been one of the leading voices in exposing the corruptions of the Clinton Foundation.
And you can check out his work at charlesortel.com.
Charles, great to have you back with us on the eve of what's coming up this week with the election.
Thanks so much, Stefan, for allowing me to come back.
So, new information, of course, we're looking to get out here, and you had talked about a memo that came out recently.
I wonder if you could help inform our listeners of what's going on with that.
Yes, I'm looking at it right here, Stefan.
It's a memo from a lady named Kumiki Gibson, who is Al Gore's counsel, and then was in a senior position working for Eliot Spitzer for a time in New York State.
This is a highly experienced lawyer, great credentials, Who apparently, it seems, was hired either by Bruce Lindsay himself or by the Clinton Foundation or both, and who tenders with exhibits a 19-page memo on the 10th of November, 2008.
Now, that's a very significant date.
That's days after Barack Obama won his historic election, days after Democrats captured the House and the Senate.
And here's a memo that basically, in blunt terms, Explains to the CEO of the Clinton Foundation that it is boldly out of compliance with the law.
And I mean boldly out of compliance.
And it goes on and on and on for 19 pages, talking about the fact that in New York State it's not compliance with the law, in multiple states it's not compliance with the law, that they may have all kinds of internal control failures.
Six days later, on November 16, 2008, There's a version of the so-called Memorandum of Understanding that Valerie Jarrett signed, according to a State Department transmittal in a Freedom of Information Act requested Judicial Watch.
You can all find it up online.
It states the polar opposite.
It says Valerie Jarrett and the Clinton Foundation say, everything's hunky-dory, we're fine, everything's beautiful.
So either Valerie Jarrett and Team Obama were deceived by Team Clinton, or they knew about the true state of the Clinton Foundation six days after this memo, and then went down a path of negotiating to have Hillary serve as Secretary of State,
hiding the true state of the foundation from New York State, hiding it from the senators, deceiving the senators in the confirmation hearing, and going along their merry way Entering into this agreement, this so-called memorandum of understanding that had no legal force in effect,
as we now know, it was unsuccessful in restraining the Clinton Foundation from engaging in likely pay-to-pay, pay-for-play transactions, in solicitation fraud in multiple states, in multiple countries, in operating fraud in multiple states, in multiple countries.
This is just, of all the many things that have come out of WikiLeaks, This is indefensible.
And I'll tell you, I'm going to put on this podcast, people unnoticed, that the executives responsible for covering up this fraud and the trustees responsible for covering up this fraud will be the subject of massive civil action whether or not any state governments or foreign governments get involved here.
This is diabolical, despicable behavior And people need to be made an example of here, from Bruce Lindsey right on down, Cheryl Mills, Maggie Williams, Dennis Chang, Andrew Kessel, the CFO, all these trustees, Chelsea Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton.
This is disgusting behavior.
And it's been going on since 1997.
This is a smoking gun memo.
And I commend the attention of your wide listener group.
Read this memo.
Then go read the Simpson-Thatcher memo, read a Maura Polly memo, and you will see that this has been a fraud since the inception.
How many people around the Clinton Foundation, how many people at Williams& Connolly Law Firm, where Kumiki Gibson once worked, how many people at BKTV Accounting Firm and Price Waterhouse and DLA Piper either intentionally refused to do their work and look into this, or found this and decided For whatever reason, whether it's gaining political favor or business favor or whatever, to become part of the fraud.
This is a trillion-dollar, when you consider all of the legs of it, it is a multi-trillion-dollar ongoing, unprosecuted criminal conspiracy by the former President of the United States and his family and by someone who seriously believes that she, based on her involvement with this fraud, should be President of the United States.
Barack Obama was not able to bring these people to heel.
If Hillary Clinton becomes President of the United States, this thing will never be brought to justice.
Right.
And what would the basis of a civil suit be against these executives, Charles?
Well, there are many different bases.
The first is that a public charity, which this is, and I want to draw an important distinction here, this is not Bill Gates giving his personal money This is an entity which has depended on the United States and individual state and foreign taxpayers to have the valuable franchise and right to solicit donations,
continually as they have done, using the internet, using telephones, using mails, and to take this money in and to spend it, in theory, for its authorized purpose, without having to pay taxes.
On any positive differences and on any accumulated values of any endowments or assets.
So this is a very valuable right that the Clinton Foundation has had since October 23, 1997.
And they have grossly abused that right.
They have caused the federal and state and foreign taxpayers to suffer real damages.
And if the cowardly members of the establishment in both parties are not willing to go after these people and recoup The massive sums that have been taken from our various state, federal, and foreign treasuries, then there are mechanisms out there where people like me and others can sue and attempt to get this money back on behalf of the citizens of the country in certain cases, on behalf of the citizens in certain states.
This is despicable behavior.
And it's not done by rubes.
It's not done by people who could say, well, you know, this was way above my head and I didn't really, you know, know what I was doing.
This is done by people.
One person was the Attorney General of the State of Arkansas, the Governor of the State of Arkansas, the President of the United States.
Another person from the same Yale Law School was a Senator representing the State of New York.
She should know the State of New York laws.
This has boldly been controlled from the State of New York.
Without actually complying with New York state laws.
And then she served as Secretary of State.
Now she wants to be President of the United States.
You cannot behave in this fashion.
People with much smaller exposures and vulnerabilities have been sent away to prison for long periods of time for far less.
This is outrageous behavior.
And shame on the mainstream media for deciding that it was much better to play along with this mess from October of 1997 Shame on the New York Times.
Shame on the Washington Post.
Shame on CNN. Shame on ABC and CBS and NBC. This is outrageous behavior.
Well, and this is the frustrating thing that, of course, for most of Western history, the goal of all moralists, or at least all reasonable moralists, has been to ensnare and capture the elite and place them under the rule of law.
The king, of course, was originally above the rule of law, appointed by God, and could do what he wanted, according to many of the political theories of the day.
And the idea of bringing the rulers under the rule of law was fought for for hundreds of years.
Millions of lives were given in the service of it.
And it feels like...
The rulers are breaking free of that.
And, of course, the peaceful way to rein in the rulers is through the media.
But the media, as you point out, Woodward and Bernstein, well, they were going against the Republican, right?
They were going against Nixon.
And so there is that aspect that the Democrats tend to protect Democrats.
A lot of people in the mainstream media are Democrats.
And also they want access.
You know, the media has become basically...
The government hands out press releases or gives access and gives interviews.
The media ask a bunch of softball questions and then they call it being journalists.
So I think the combination of Democrats protecting Democrats plus the need for access or maybe the feeling that it's too complicated to explain to people but I don't think it is.
Maybe that's what's keeping the media at bay in this area because I'm pretty sure if it was a Republican it would be a pretty juicy story that they would pursue with great energy.
Well, you know what I'm finding on this amazing journey is that actually there's, I think, a realignment going on in America and perhaps in global politics where elements of the right, and I would consider myself to be conservative economically, so on the right economically, but open-minded socially.
So people like me exist, I think, in the former Republican Party and in the former Democratic Party.
And on certain issues, for example, the emergence of a national security state perpetually at war with the world, people on the right and on the left, on the hard left, are finding common cause.
I mean, I find myself amazing.
I've got to give tribute now to somebody who's become a new friend.
There's a fine lady called Eutrice Leed, who has been a longtime anchor with Pacifica, which is the main of the leading progressive radio station complex.
And she's had me on her show for an hour a day, for days on end, talking about this.
We come at life very differently, very different backgrounds, very different views, but here we find common cause because progressives and conservatives, people who are not locked into the establishment, big party system, can look at charity fraud and we can say jointly, charity fraud, whether perpetrated by a right-leaning charity or a left-leaning charity, is disgusting behavior.
You're taking advantage Of people who deserve real help, selfless help, and you're holding yourself out around the world as being this fantastic team as a philanthropist, when in fact what you're doing is you're raping and pillaging in the desperately four parts of the world, in our country, you're using a charity and your supposed service as arguments for why you should hold the most powerful political position on earth.
And the incurious people who are begging for scraps, when I look at some of these Wikipedia emails, And I look at the way in which the Team Clinton boxed in and changed stories and, you know, manages the so-called PolitiFact, which is a garbage organization.
I look at the way they were treated by the Clintons.
The Clintons have no respect for the mainstream press.
They're probably laughing at all these people in the mainstream press.
And this is not the way the mainstream press is supposed to stand up for the public at large.
Supposed, as you say, to try to keep the leaders in check.
To ask the tough questions that the cronies don't want to have asked.
That's what our press is supposed to do.
And our press has been asleep at the switch for a long, long time.
And it's people like you, Stefan, who are gaining traction around the world.
It's an honor to be on your show.
I see how actively you're followed.
And there are people like you who are shaming the mainstream press.
Now that I see this memo...
You know, I had one meeting with somebody at the New York Times who will remain nameless.
I gave them chapter and verse on this.
You know, this is far bigger than Watergate.
This is far bigger than Tammany Hall.
This is a disgusting mess.
And it is, you know, anybody who could pull the lever now for the Clinton machine, having read Namiki Gibson's memo on November 10, 2008, and looking at the state, the true state of the Clinton Foundation, and understanding how many billions of dollars they have, in theory, declared, That they raised after this fraud was known to the top people at the Clinton Foundation.
You know, they should lose their right to vote.
I mean, it's ridiculous that you would count as getting and allowing these people...
I wouldn't let these people run the french fry machine in a McDonald's, which I think actually is pretty tough to run, let alone one burger restaurant, let alone have prosecutorial discretion You know, in the most powerful nation on earth.
This is ridiculous.
And let's talk a little bit about the bombshell, of course, that came out recently, which is James Comey reopening the investigation.
And I know that that's a lot to do with classified information, and there are people who say that's a bit of a red herring compared to what really is going on in terms of corruption, which is the Clinton Foundation, although I'm sure the people whose lives depend upon the retention of Of security information might view it differently.
But one of the things that I suspect, there's no proof as yet, although there have been rumors that in the 650,000 emails that the NYPD and the FBI are coming through at the moment, they found some pretty heinous stuff.
But to reopen an investigation and to announce it shortly before a presidential election regarding one of the candidates is such an unprecedented step and such an escalation.
I have to think that they found something in there that perhaps they're not allowed to talk about or perhaps the Department of Justice is Pushing back very hard on them talking about, but they have found something I believe so heinous that the best they could do was shoot up this flare and say, in sort of code, you know, we're reopening this, we're talking about this publicly.
We can't talk about what's in it, but for anybody with any brains, it's a pretty red flag of what's going on.
And of course, there could really be stuff in there about the Clinton Foundation that might blow this investigation wide and accelerate it enormously.
Well, I think I know, I could suspect or hazard a guess as to what elements of why they may have done this.
So, to take this, unpack that analysis a little bit, the thing that I find fascinating and gratifying to learn is that while, you're absolutely correct, Comey did wind down the public corruption side of the investigation July 5th, 2016, we learned in recent days that the investigation into the Clinton Foundation by the FBI It's been ongoing for months and is very broad in scope.
So I'm very pleased to learn that because I think that that investigation ultimately is the one that is going to bring these people to justice.
Last year when I started thinking about this, I got to meet Peter Schweitzer.
I talked to him about it a little bit, and I tried to explain to him that the public corruption side, the idea that while Secretary of State The Clinton family was basically trading access and ability to influence the federal government and perhaps foreign governments for the benefit of themselves and for donors.
That's diabolical stuff, but it's much tougher to prove that than it is to prove charity fraud.
The laws governing charity fraud, I've been advised by consulted lawyers, are different.
They're purposefully written.
To make it easier to bring a charity to heal.
You're not supposed to engage in any for-profit activities through the operation of a charity or political activity.
So, to win a prosecution, all you have to do is sic the Attorney General of any one of our states, and ideally the IRS, but we know now with the state of the IRS it's going to be tough to do that until after the election,
You open a real investigation, and there is a review, apparently, out of the Dallas office of the IRS that's been ongoing since July, thanks to the great efforts of Marsha Blackburn, the congressperson from Tennessee, who brought this to light.
Once the IRS goes after a charity, and once the FTC, which has declined to go after a charity, in this case, goes after the charity, you don't want to be in that place, because the burden of proof Actually falls on the charity to prove that it is in compliance with laws.
And if, for some reason, this charity has destroyed old records, they're just done.
They're guilty.
They have to prove that they have been validly organized and operated at all times since inception.
And I don't think they can do that.
So, you know, this has been a case that has taken a lot of time to move forward because there hasn't been the political will here To let the Leavers get polled and let the investigators go where they're gonna go, I think, now, now that this memo's come out, now that the masses come out, and now that people are seeing with their own two eyes just how crooked this thing is.
We're gonna learn that a lot of people in the Bush wing of the Republican Party, in the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party, in the Obama wing of the Democratic Party, that a lot of people here have looked at this not as an odious mess that needs to be punished, But it's something that can be emulated as an opportunity to work the system to their personal and political benefits.
And there's going to be a lot of egg on face here, because as we proceed with this, the donors, the private foundations, the Gates Foundation, the Bloomberg Philanthropies, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, there are quite a few different foundations, Fred Eichner's Alphawood Foundation, many of these private foundations have either failed to do the work that is required here, that is legally or strictly required.
They either failed to do the diligence to understand just how much of a fraud this was, or they figured it out and knowingly contributed to a fraud, illegally writing their wire transfers or checks or whatever off as donations to a charity when in fact this was not a legally organized and operated set of charities.
And the penalties that the IRS, the discretion that the IRS has and has used against charities are awesome.
I mean, if the IRS, you know, whoever wins here, but if, let's say, Donald Trump were to win the presidency and he wanted to find a way to close the federal budget deficit by an enormous amount of money, he could cause each of these foundations to be audited or at least to be reviewed And then the normal processes could proceed and one could find a way to take tens of billions of dollars away from some of these private
foundations that have failed to do the work they're supposed to do to help the IRS make sure that the charity sector is operated properly.
Getting back to the point of the kinds of things that may come out of this, there's a reference in this memo To a problem at the Clinton Foundation with its intern program, its unpaid interns who are being, according to the memo, promoted to levels well above their experience and doing international travel that maybe they shouldn't have been doing, then there's a reference, a throwaway reference, to a lawsuit that wouldn't have happened.
And then the person who wrote the memo, Kamiki Gibson, there's a guy at the Daily Caller, Mark Tapscott, who's a fine investigative journalist, points out in a piece recently, She talks about how she defended the Clinton Foundation against a lawsuit relating to its intern program.
I wonder what that's all about.
Hmm.
Now, one of the scenarios, of course, that is being put forward is that Donald Trump gets in, and this seems to be more and more likely, in my opinion.
So Donald Trump gets in, but in the interim period, Obama issues a blanket pardon for Hillary.
And my understanding, I mean, I know neither of us are lawyers, but my amateur understanding is it's not a magic spell that absolves you of all possible legal complications.
The president can only Pardon a federal crime, not a state crime or any kind of foreign crime.
And of course there are lots of other people who would need pardons as well because it is quite a nest of corruption that seems to be sort of festering at the center of all of this.
Do you think that there is this magic get out of jail free card or is there going to be limitations on the kind of absolution that can be provided by Obama on his exit?
Well, I would say that all actions have consequences, and here, you know, ironically, life is imitating life.
In the final days of the Clinton presidency, what got Bill Clinton, you know, let's just say a rebuke across the political spectrum was his most unwise pardon of a diabolical man, Mark Rich, and his business partner at the last minute.
And the record shows Joe Connison He has written a book, which is actually a pretty well-written book, I think, and he's got a different perspective than perhaps, Stephan, you and I have on life, but he's a great writer, and there are a lot of vignettes that are quite interesting, and unfortunately for Mr.
Connaughton, get the Clinton Foundation in tremendous difficulty, because it reads like a confession of charity fraud.
But it explains in that book, in many places, just how difficult it became for the Clinton Foundation to raise money.
Donors don't like, potential donors do not like to get associated with this type of scandal.
So I would have the following message to Barack Obama, who I'm sure does not listen to me.
But before you do anything with regard to a pardon, you might want to have a discussion with your daughters about this and your wife.
About whether you really want, you've announced that you want to raise your own foundation.
You've got a project here, $500 million.
To $700 million you want to spend and raise.
Raise and spend, I should say.
To put up a new, yet another building, set of buildings that have to be heated and cooled and insured and taxes need to be paid on them in Chicago.
You want to erect a new complex and you haven't raised the money yet, at least as far as the most recent filings for your own foundation, the Barack Obama Foundation.
The most recent ones that are out there show that you've raised so far $5 million.
If you were to go so far as to pardon everybody associated with this criminal conspiracy, and I don't know how many people that is.
I think it encompasses all former and current trustees of all of the activities of every single part around the world of the Clinton Foundation.
I think it encompasses many employees.
I think it encompasses many accounting firms and legal firms.
If you were to issue a blanket pardon of federal crimes, Even that would not insulate all these people against state and foreign actions or civil actions.
So that's not a very smart thing to do.
And the one thing that would certainly have happened as a result of doing that is you will never raise the $500 million to $700 million you need to finish your foundation.
So I think that's a very unwise move.
Now, it doesn't mean you won't try it.
I mean, this president has gone, you know, far outside the Constitution, in my view, not as a lawyer, just as somebody who tries to follow these issues.
And I appreciate you bringing up the long contest between the leader and the citizen that actually goes well back before the Magna Carta and the Charter of Liberties in 1100 and, you know, on and on, way, way back.
It's a lifelong, probably a perpetual struggle that will be continuing hundreds and thousands of years after we're gone.
That people who get close to the center of power decide to reach forever more power.
Well, we have a constitution in this country.
And, you know, let's hope we can still keep it here.
Now, one thing that I was kind of curious about, and I couldn't find a good explanation of the details, but I think it just came out in the last day or two, that the Clintons, or one of the Clintons, I assume it was Bill, but received a million dollars from the Qatar government.
And this was not reported to the State Department or to the government.
That was, of course, one of the deals was that to be Secretary of State, Hillary, as far as I understand it, she had to provide information about foreign donations to the foundation and to whoever might be receiving it.
That seems like a pretty significant oversight.
It's not like you, oh, that million dollars.
I'm so sorry, I forgot it.
Maybe I left it under the couch.
I mean, that's such a big amount of money that would there not be some intent to keep things hidden if that's not reported?
Well, yeah, and that's a really serious one.
So, full disclosure, I was one of the signators on various letters that were called the Stop Qatar Now Movement.
So, I am more than modestly familiar with the odious state of Qatar.
That is a monarchy.
It is controlled by one family.
It is proud to be a supporter, or has been proud to be a supporter, of some of the most This viciously anti-Western rhetoric coming out of a supposed Muslim cleric, this is not just any old state.
This would be like taking money from Adolf Hitler, as far as I'm concerned.
And, you know, obviously they didn't want to report it, because what was going on in 2010 and 2011, or for that matter, 2009, 10, and 11, and afterwards, was that the Obama administration, and under Hillary Clinton's direction as the primary architect and implementer of our foreign policy, ally after ally across the Middle East was being brought down.
Longstanding ally in Egypt, a country I started going to first when I was 19 years old in 1975, a longtime ally was unwisely brought down By Clinton and Obama foreign policy, and the Muslim Brotherhood was put into power in Egypt.
And look what happened there.
Look what had to happen in the end.
So, of course, they didn't want this million-dollar gift in focus in their filings.
Now, there is a journalist in the mainstream named Mark Greenblatt, who's with the E.W. Scripps company, and he has written some important stories about About failures the Clinton Foundation has had to report properly under New York law.
In New York here, the laws are tougher than in other states, many other states.
And you've got to fill out not only the form for the IRS, but a special New York form in which you are required to disclose exactly who and why and the amounts of all government donations, foreign and domestic.
And you can't lump it in and just say, I got a million from Qatar.
You have to say the address, the purpose, the amount.
And if you've got three gifts that added up to a million, you've got to list each of those out.
And you've got to reconcile on the state form the government donations to a line on the IRS form, which you're supposed to fill out of your total government donations.
And the Clinton Foundation, to this day, here in 2016, He still has not complied with that requirement, which came in New York, came into full force and effect in 2004.
So none of their filings in New York are lawful.
None.
And the penalties, in theory, are strict.
You know, Shrinerman, our attorney general, several months or weeks ago, to great fanfare, announced that he'd opened an investigation into Donald Trump's charity forms over a $1.5 million issue.
This is not just a million from Qatar.
This is a multi-billion dollar issue.
And he's just saying, ah, it's okay.
We're going to go after Trump, but we're not going to go after Clinton.
So, what I find astounding, I mean, a lot of this stuff, of course, remains in the realm of, to some degree, it's unproven allegations and so on.
And I'm perfectly aware of all of that.
You know, I'm fine with innocent until proven guilty.
However, you know, and I know that this is dangerous territory just in terms of what I just said.
But the number of scandals surrounding the Clintons, the number of investigations surrounding the Clintons are pretty unprecedented.
This sort of power couple that has been weaving in and out the gray edges of the law for close on, well, more than three decades, I guess, by now.
People are going to go on Tuesday and decide who is going to be the next president of the United States.
And this would probably be the last time you and I talk before that day.
And I wanted to give you the platform to just say, give the information that is not coming through from the mainstream media, that people really, really need to hear.
I mean, you've got an audience of maybe half a million people.
And what is it that you want them to know about?
And what considerations do you want them to keep in their mind?
Thank you for giving me this opportunity.
I think that we are now here in November 2016 at a pivotal moment in global history.
We have in this country, in the U.S., a country that has a strong franchise and a deep tradition, but we have tenuous finances.
We have been adding to our debt monstrously.
We have been allowing the political class and the establishment To dispense favors to the elites that may enrich some of them, but certainly have left all Americans, whether right or left-leaning, much poorer and now in a position where we have to pay back these debts.
We have, in addition, gone from being unchallenged as the only superpower on the planet back in 1992 to being tested by some friendly rivals and, you know, aggressively so by Radical Islamic people.
This is not a moment where the American public can go to the polls, pull a lever, and say, all right, now it's up to whoever wins to solve the problems.
This is, I think, a pivotal point where we've got to get engaged.
The founders originally viewed the government they had bequeathed to us as a participatory government, a participatory republic.
The people who filled the different positions in our government were supposed to be citizens of We've got to really dig deep into our souls.
We've got to forget about issues that are annoying but maybe not dispositive and ask some simple questions.
Going forward here, what do we need?
Do we need a leader or a proven set of liars?
Do we need a burglar, as the Clintons appear to be, or a builder?
And can we leave this just to Donald Trump alone?
Or do we need to stay in the movement and the moment and stay engaged and stay in the process of holding the political class and the bureaucrat class to account?
We don't need slogans.
We don't need fancy advertisements.
We need results.
The biggest expenditure that all Americans are spent on our behalf is the cost of government.
When you take it all into account, state, local, federal, it's $6 trillion a year is spent in our names.
And on the backs of our children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren.
To what purpose?
Things have changed radically since 1998.
You know, we don't need the same old approach to life.
Why are political parties relevant?
We don't need to go through the conventions and the primaries and all this kind of stuff.
We need governments that actually take our money and fix things.
We need to think to the extent we're going to meddle around the world.
You know, you could say Donald Trump has no experience in government.
I think that's a plus.
We look at our foreign policy accomplishments, and really, Republicans and Democrats alike, point to one place in the world where America is better off in 2016 than we were in 1992.
Maybe some island in the South Pacific, but I mean, in the important places in the world, we are almost in a shooting war with Russia in many locations.
We're at loggerheads with China in many locations.
Europe is breaking up.
You know, the situation in South America is a disaster.
The situation in the Middle East is a disaster.
Refugees are streaming out of the Middle East into Europe just at a moment in time where Europe has its own challenges.
I mean, how could we say with a straight face that American foreign policy experts and economic experts know anything?
And Lord help us on the flip side, you know, should the Clinton team actually make it across the line, we're told that Bill Clinton is going to revitalize the American economy in the same way that he revitalized Haiti?
Well, or in the same way that he claimed to revitalize the American economy because he happened to be riding on a Fed-fueled tech bubble by accident, you know?
Exactly.
It's very strange but true.
All right, well, I appreciate your time.
Will will link to the memo that you have mentioned about it.
People should go down and read it in the notes to the show.
And remember, please go to CharlesOrtel.com and we'll also put Charles's Twitter handle in the description for the show so that you can follow him.
We've got fascinating stuff to talk about.
Really appreciate the work.
I mean, I know it's a passion for moral clarity and perhaps even repercussions for wrongdoers.
And I appreciate hugely the passion and clarity that you brought to this.
We've got a lot of messages when we have you on the show saying, I didn't understand it.
I understand it now.
So thanks for taking the time and explaining it.
so clearly to people. - Thank you for having me on, Stefan.
Best wishes.
▲
Export Selection