July 11, 2017 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
39:25
3739 THE END OF LAW AND ORDER
Shocking revelations suggest that Former FBI Director James Comey's memos contained classified information - and as was testified under oath, many of those memos were given to a friend who leaked their contents to the mainstream media. Did James Comey break the same laws and guidelines which lead to the FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton? Will there be consequences for Comey's mishandling of classified information? Your support is essential to Freedomain Radio, which is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by making a one time donation or signing up for a monthly recurring donation at: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate
Something very serious, something very important is happening in the West at the moment, with enormous repercussions to the relationships between citizen and state, and really the future of the Western experiment of...
Freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of movement in particular.
I'm going to focus a little bit on what has come out about the Comey memo.
So as you probably remember, when James Comey, now ex-FBI director, when he was the FBI director...
He had nine important conversations with Donald Trump and he wrote down seven memos about these interactions with Donald Trump.
Now, he said back in the day that the reason he wrote these memos was that he would then have clear recollections of his interactions with Donald Trump and that the memos, because he wrote them, would not contain any classified information.
Now, sources have told the website The Hill Now, that four of the seven memos written by Comey have classified information, some at the secret level, some at the confidential level.
And this is truly astonishing and quite remarkable.
What a turnaround.
Now, you might be right in thinking, as I did at the time, how on earth are these your property, James Comey?
I do not understand this at all.
So, in the conduct of his official business as...
Director of the FBI, while interacting with President Donald Trump, he wrote down, I assume, using FBI property on FBI time in an FBI office and so on, he wrote down all these notes about these interactions with Donald Trump.
And then he ended up with them after he left.
That seems to me quite astonishing.
Because Comey said, well, I didn't turn over these memos after I was fired because, well, I just viewed them as, you know, personal documents.
But again, according to The Hill, the FBI considers these memos, these memorandum that Comey wrote, to be government records, to which I can only say, of course they are!
Of course they are!
What you do in the conduct of your business is the property of the organization who employs you.
And I don't get to invent something for Google and then just say, well, Google's paying me on Google equipment and then say, oh, well, no, that's just my personal property.
I mean, that's what you're paid for.
It's really, really quite astonishing.
Now, Comey told Congress when he was appearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee, this was just in June, that he had shared...
What he called personal documents with a friend of his, a professor, a law professor at Columbia University.
Now, he said that he shared these memos as a way to pressure the federal government, which of course meant the Trump administration, to appoint a special prosecutor.
Why?
Well, to investigate the alleged ties.
Between the Trump presidential campaign and the Russians, you know, the Russia hacked the election, Russia altered the outcome of the election, everyone was wrong because they didn't take into account the Russia factor when it came to Trump's truly come from behind win over Hillary Clinton.
Because, you see, everyone is so shocked and appalled and astonished that there might be outside interference in a presidential campaign.
You know, like...
Leaking questions to debate moderators like, I don't know, maybe something to do with Loretta Lynch telling James Comey to refer to the criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton as a mere matter.
Because words are magic and fundamentally change reality.
That seems to me like a hell of a lot of interference into the presidential election.
But you see, that narrative does not help the Democrats since so many damn Democrats were involved.
So when the seven memos that Comey wrote regarding these nine conversations he had with President Trump were shown to Congress recently, the FBI said, no, no, no, no, these are all government documents.
That is very, very important.
Now, reportedly, four of the memos had markings on them, clearly indicating that they contained information that was classified, secretive, important information at the secret or confidential level.
So, that is really, again, quite astonishing.
See, Donald Trump asked James Comey to investigate leaks.
James Comey takes notes of his meetings with Trump.
He takes them out of the FBI secure environment when he is fired and becomes just a regular old private citizen and then leaks the contents of one or more of these.
It's hard to tell exactly how many were leaked or passed along to his friend.
The law professor leaks information from what he wrote down while FBI director.
He leaves the FBI and then leaks that information to the media through a law professor.
This move that he did all of this, he says, because he wanted to pressure the government into appointing the special prosecutor, well, apparently it paid off, right?
So a little bit after, a week after Comey was fired, well, Robert Mueller was appointed special counsel to investigate the Trump-Russia collusion stuff.
Former FBI Director Robert Mueller.
Now, this is, I mean, this is astounding.
Astonishing stuff.
Because Mueller, being the former FBI Director, was the mentor of Of James Comey.
Mueller has been referred to by James Comey as a friend.
So here we have a special prosecutor being appointed to investigate the Russia stuff where James Comey is going to have to testify and he's James Comey's mentor and buddy.
Of course you should recuse yourself.
It's a clear Conflict of interest.
By God, if Dr.
Phil recuses himself in anything involving a dog, because he's such a dog lover, I think this might be just a little bit more important.
Now, James Comey took these memos after he left the FBI. He said this to Congress, and he turned them over to Special Counselor, the Counsel Mueller.
Now, to be fair...
This is emerging, this is breaking, this is still foggy, a little bit up in the air.
The classified information that was contained in Comey's memos, was it classified at the time?
Or was it classified afterwards, after the fact, was it classified?
Now, A, don't know.
B, in my amateur non-legal opinion, it doesn't matter, for reasons we'll get to in a moment.
So now, the question is...
Will investigators have a look into whether or not James Comey mishandled classified information?
Did he retain it illegally after returning to life as a private citizen?
See, the FBI ideally, and of course the whole point of this whole classified information is you've got this giant wall of servers and firewalls and anti-spam and anti-phishing and anti-malware and encryption and Lord knows you've got layers and layers and layers of protection around this stuff.
You know a little bit more than, say, the walls around Hillary Clinton's bathroom.
And so if you take this information, which reportedly contains classified information, if you take it home with you after you're fired from being the head of the FBI, does that mean that you took it out of the secure environment?
Was it on a secure laptop?
Was it in your briefcase?
Was it written on the back of your hand in crayon?
I don't know.
I don't know.
But when more than half of these memos...
That James Comey wrote as these vignettes, these ain't life funny, personal recollections of his conversations with Trump, when more than half of them have been determined to contain classified information, that seems to me fairly serious.
Did Comey break his own agency's guidelines and rules?
Did he...
Did he take the stuff off-site and keep it in his home?
Which is exactly what the FBI investigated Hillary Clinton for, was having classified information in a non-secure environment in the server in her bathroom.
If he did do this, Then didn't he commit a crime, which was kind of exactly the crime that the FBI investigated Hillary Clinton for?
Now if he did this, is he really competent to oversee or to be head of the FBI while it investigates Hillary Clinton over the same issue that he himself is subject to back in the waiting days of the presidential election in 2016?
A whole host of issues here.
So here's something that the FBI agents all sign.
Whether he signed it or not, I don't know.
know, but he would have known about it for sure.
Quote, unauthorized disclosure, misuse or negligent handling of information contained in the files, electronic or paper of the FBI, or which I may acquire as an employee of the FBI, could impair national security, place human life in jeopardy, result could impair national security, place human life in jeopardy, result in the denial of due process, prevent the FBI from effectively discharging its responsibilities or violate federal law.
Well, This document adds that, quote, all information collected by me in connection with my official duties with the FBI and all official material to which I have access remain the property of the United States of America.
And that an agent will not reveal by any means any information or material from or related to FBI files or any other information acquired by virtue of my official employment to any unauthorized recipient without prior official written authorization by the FBI. So, to use the Latin phrase, James Comey might have done a big no-no.
Something very serious and very important.
So, Comey said, yep, these memos were in my possession when I left the Bureau.
So, what did he do with this information that was in his possession after he left the Bureau?
Well, he got a friend to leak at least one of them through to the media.
It's truly astonishing.
It is truly astonishing.
This kind of stuff is a hammer blow at the base of people's trust in the entire government, the entire legal system, the entire court system, the entire system of justice.
And it gives people a very, very cynical view of the law.
Now, as director, did Comey sign the same agreements?
But this thing that you sign, it's considered official policy of the FBI. Just astonishing stuff.
So, congressional investigators, what are they going to do?
They're going to look.
Did Comey mishandle any classified information?
In his personal memos, were his personal memos FBI property, sensitive government FBI property that he waltzed off with into the sunset when his ass was fired by Trump?
It's a pretty important question that these congressional investigators are going to have to look at.
Where and how and on what material, using what materials were these memos created?
Were they written down on a notepad?
Kind of insecure.
Were they on a computer?
That was insecure.
How were these memos stored?
Where were they stored?
In his house?
On a laptop with a thumbprint?
Who knows?
Have any of these memos been shown to private individuals who themselves do not possess security clearance?
Well, I'm pretty much going out on a limb here and saying that the law professor doesn't have security clearance.
Now, Comey said, quote, It is important, and this is relative to the question of was it stamped or marked classified?
You know, they always have this thing in movies where the dog, stamped, classified, it's got a background print on the classified, top secret, ooh, scary stuff.
But the vast majority of things that are classified are not marked classified because you're considered to be intelligent and aware and trained enough to understand what is classified material and what is not classified material.
If there's something about troop movements on Pluto, well, then you don't have to be a brain surgeon.
It doesn't have to be stamped classified for you to understand that there's something kind of classified about all of this secret weapons development.
Who knows, right?
Comey said...
Back in the day, he said, Very
little classified material is marked classified.
You're supposed to know as part of your training, as part of your responsibilities, as part of the documents you sign, as part of general common sense.
You're supposed to know what is classified and what is not classified.
This is going to be important in a moment.
And do you remember the former CIA director, Petraeus?
He pled guilty to mishandling of classified information and misdemeanor.
And The stuff that he had, a lot of it wasn't marked classified.
The government regards, obviously, communications between the president, between national security officials.
It's classified by definition.
It's classified by creation.
It's classified by nature.
So Petraeus had a whole bunch of journals.
Not unsimilar, in some ways, I think, quite similar to these Comey memos.
And there was a bunch of sensitive stuff in Petraeus's journals, but they also contain notes of conversations that Petraeus had with the President of the United States.
This is back when Petraeus was a general who was in command of U.S. overseas forces.
Now, Petraeus's journals were not marked classified, but he knew.
That what he wrote in those journals, conversations with the president and so on, were classified.
Why?
Because he's high-ranking.
The president obviously is high-ranking.
He's had training on the handling of sensitive information.
So when Petraeus was being prosecuted, he never disputed the fact that his private journals containing conversations with the president were classified, even though he didn't write classified on them.
Now, he got in trouble, even though his journals were in his house, in a locked desk, surrounded 24-7 by marine guards.
Petraeus never disputed the fact that the woman he shared these journals with, it was a woman who was writing a biography of his, I think she was a lover of his, he never disputed that this woman had no authorization to look at his journals.
Now, Oddly enough, the woman who was his biographer and, I think, lover, she actually did have a security clearance.
But there's some stuff which is so classified that even if you have clearance to it, you can't look at it unless you're in the loop, unless you have a need to know to look at this stuff.
Now, one of the defenses, for want of a better word, that you'll see in the mainstream media Democrat-loving left-biased media, in my opinion, is...
Well, there's sort of two arguments.
The first is that this friend of Comey's, Professor Daniel Richman, he said, no Comey memos given to me had any classified markings.
You see?
He's a former federal prosecutor in Manhattan, and he's at Columbia Law School at the moment.
This is what he said to ABC News.
See, that's kind of important.
That's kind of a detail...
It's kind of an IQ test, like, do you have any brains?
He said, no Comey memos given to me had any classified markings.
You see?
See how this works?
So, no classified markings does not mean classified, and no classified markings does not mean that you are not responsible for keeping classified information classified.
That's the first defense.
Now, the second defense Is that, well, the information that went out wasn't classified or maybe he only gave this guy one memo and that one memo is not classified and, well, that doesn't matter.
Why?
Because Comey said, I dug up these memos, I handed out at least one of these memos a couple of days after I got fired.
I woke up in the middle of the night and...
I realize, wow, you know, I got these memos.
We could use these memos to contradict stuff that Trump is saying.
And that is odd to me.
I mean, this is FBI information, highly classified, private conversations with the president about highly sensitive issues.
He's got them somewhere, I assume, outside the FBI. He lost his badge, right?
So I assume he's got them outside the FBI. And he's not allowed to release this stuff.
The property of the FBI. Isn't this theft from the government?
I mean, please tell me otherwise if I'm wrong.
Is this not direct theft of information from the government?
And if it's classified, isn't that even more important?
And, of course, he could have just asked for a review.
He could have said, hey, I got this stuff, man.
Why don't you guys have a look at it at the FBI? Give me a review.
Make sure that there's no classified stuff in there because I'm just going to hand it to this guy who's going to hand it to the media.
For God's sakes, you're taking notes about private meetings with the President of the United States.
Hand it to a professor who hands it to the media.
And they say, well, it wasn't a leak because it's only a leak if it involves classified information.
And this is not the case at all.
First of all, the fact that the law professor says, well, it had no classified markings is very different from him saying it wasn't classified.
Again, these two are only tangentially related as pieces of information.
So leaks fundamentally involve releasing information that is unauthorized.
Not just classified.
Unauthorized information.
A bunch of leaks throughout history.
What do they involve?
They involve pictures or information or facts or details or data.
Not stuff that's classified, but stuff that's...
Well, the government doesn't want you to know.
It's embarrassing or something like that.
And federal regulations is actually a bit more important even than that.
Federal regulations...
Always refer to, or in general refer to, unauthorized disclosures, not only classified information as being problematic regarding leaking.
So, if Comey said, well, I could just write down this stuff about my private meetings, I could take it home or do whatever I did with it, I could release it, and that, like, completely eviscerates a large number of federal rules and regulations.
That's astonishing.
What kind of precedent is this going to set?
Sure, hey, if you're a federal employee and you just write a bunch of highly sensitive stuff down, some of which is confidential, it's magic.
It passes through a portal where it just becomes your personal property, you know, like a big pen that you brought into work.
You can just take it home with you and then you can lend it to a professor who can then lend it to someone in the media.
Astonishing.
Can you imagine trying to run a government that way?
The CIA, the FBI, the alphabet soup of other private things.
Can you imagine trying to be a lawyer that way?
Can you imagine trying to be a judge that way or a prosecutor?
Well, I wrote it down.
Now it's exempt from all laws.
It's not the government's property because I wrote it down myself.
And it's not subject to any classification of confidentiality or secrecy.
I rewrote it.
Well, I guess they photocopy money and pretend it's money.
I guess they photocopy government property and now pretend that it's personal property.
Amazing.
And this is stuff that he talked to with Trump about the Russian investigation.
So, it's important enough to investigate, but I'm just going to release my notes about stuff that's relevant to this investigation.
But it's okay, because I wrote, Dear Diary, magic.
I mean, when FBI agents are doing investigations, they write these memos, these kinds of notes, these memos down all the time.
Okay, FBI geek.
They're called 302s.
And it's so they can remember interviews they did in the field or facts that they've acquired in the course of the investigation.
And that's FBI property.
That's FBI. Information is not your personal stuff.
I mean, if you try to get this information, these memos, through the Justice Department, and you say, well, our Freedom of Information Act, I want these memos.
So the Justice Department will very often say, nope, sorry, it's privileged.
It's covered by the deliberative process privilege, other privileges, you name it.
If you try to get this stuff through the Freedom of Information Act, you're likely going to be denied.
But if you're a guy who got fired, you can hand it off to a friend, you can hand it to the media, and it's just plain fine.
And, of course, when he says, well, I don't think anything was classified, I don't believe anything was classified, I don't think anything was classified, just run it past the...
FBI, run it past the Justice Department.
Hell, run it past the White House.
I don't know.
Just ask for a review before you take it home.
So, yeah, it seems to me likely he signed a bunch of non-disclosure agreements, and if he didn't, I've got to tell you, I think he probably should, or the FBI directors in general probably should.
But he's also governed under these federal laws, which control the disclosure of unclassified information and of classified information.
Even if there was no classified information in any of these memos, maybe these unnamed sources are completely wrong or trawling or I don't know what.
There is 18 U.S.C. 641.
This makes it a crime to steal, sell, or convey, which means to move, quote, any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof.
Outside of the law, you know, departmental rules, and to me, just sort of basic ethical standards, you really shouldn't use stuff that you wrote down in an official capacity while performing your official capacity to damage people.
A person, as a lawyer say, you used to represent, or your boss, or anything like that.
The FBI website warns employees that, quote, dissemination of FBI information is made strictly in accordance with provisions of the Privacy Act Title V, United States Code Section 552A, FBI policy and procedures regarding discretionary release of information in accordance with the Privacy Act and other applicable federal orders and directives.
Astonishing.
One-search regulation.
I feel like these are stardates at this point.
2635.703 on the use of non-public information, which states, quote, An employee shall not engage in a financial transaction using non-public information.
I guess that's insider training.
He goes on to say, nor allow the improper use of non-public information to further his own private interest or that of another, whether through advice or recommendation or by knowing unauthorized disclosure.
Can't use this stuff to get your own back, to get back at your former boss, to destroy his reputation, to undermine his credibility.
That's wrong.
Standard FBI employment agreement.
You are not allowed to disclose unauthorized information.
Remember, it doesn't say only classified, unauthorized information.
Quote, contained in the files, electronic, or paper of the FBI, end quote, that impact the Bureau and the contract that you sign specifically...
I will not reveal by any means any information or material from or related to FBI files or any other information acquired by virtue of my official employment to any unauthorized recipient without prior official written authorization by the FBI. To which I can only ask, I guess in general, What is the point of having these rules, these regulations, these laws?
What on earth is the point of having all of this stuff?
Or is the law, are these regulations, just this weird inverse Mobius strip net?
It's like a fishing net, which catches only the tiniest of fish and all of the big fish somehow magically swim free.
What is the point of all of these regulations if you're not going to enforce them?
I mean, if Comey had said, I'm going to submit this to the FBI, and I'm going to find out if I can release this or not, it seems to me pretty likely the FBI would have said, no, no, no, no.
I'm sorry, you can't release it.
And by the way, why do you have it?
I guess it's that old statement, it's easier to ask forgiveness than permission.
Now, Comey...
is also subject to bar rules.
Not allowed to release information that's bad for the interests of his former employer.
For example, under professional rule 1.6 lawyers need to get authority to release information that 1.
Reveal a confidence or secret of the lawyer's client or 2.
Use a confidence or secret of the lawyer's client to the disadvantage of the client or 3.
Use a confidence or secret of the lawyer's client for the advantage of the lawyer or of a third person.
Now, he says that, Comey says, well, I wanted to release this stuff through my friend to the media in order to get this prosecutor appointed to look into the Russia-Trump stuff.
But, first of all, that movement was already underway.
Like, that process was already underway to get that going.
That seems kind of odd to me.
And secondly, again, like I'm no lawyer, but wouldn't the greater value regarding these memos...
Wouldn't the greater value be to release them to the prosecutor?
So they say, well, this is what Trump said to me in this meeting, and this is what happened in this meeting, and this is what happened in this meeting.
And then you go and question all these people, and you see if the stories match.
Once the people you're investigating know that there are a bunch of memos written about the meetings, it may change, right?
Having this in the hands of the prosecutor without it being published in the mainstream media would seem to be more useful.
I don't know.
I mean, wouldn't defense lawyers love to get a hold of this kind of stuff?
That's the weird thing, right?
Prosecutors see everything.
You only see what they let you see, which gives them a massive advantage and so on.
So, you understand.
I mean, this stuff's all in flux, but it just seems weird to me.
And it's one of these situations where I'm like, God damn.
Is this ever going to stop happening if this stuff turns out to be true?
Is it ever going to stop happening?
Come on, Jeff.
You know what you're doing.
You're a smart guy.
Decent guy.
This stuff has got to stop happening.
I mean, Hillary Clinton's email scandal, Comey's quoting the statute says, intent doesn't matter.
And they say, well, there wasn't any real intent.
Clinton Foundation, hundreds of millions of dollars.
It's not even a legally registered entity.
You've got former Attorney General Loretta Lynch saying, don't refer to it as a criminal investigation or an investigation.
Only refer to it as a matter.
And Comey's saying, okay, okay.
Loretta Lynch meets Bill Clinton on a tarmac.
His wife's under investigation.
She's in charge of what might happen.
Loretta Lynch calls for, quote, blood in the streets, end quote.
After Trump won the election.
Michael Brown's family, remember?
Hands up, don't shoot.
Genesis of Black Lives Matter.
This guy, Michael Brown, assaults a police officer, tries to grab his gun, charges at him, and they just paid millions of dollars, the government, to Michael Brown's family.
Amazing.
People who knew Michael Brown helped provoke a riot, I think, have burned down a chunk of Ferguson.
The family gets paid millions of dollars.
James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, responded under oath to the question, hey, is the National Security Agency, is it collecting, quote, any type of data at all, end quote, on millions of Americans?
James Clapper looked his questioner under oath directly in the eye and said, no, sir, not willingly, until Snowden ripped the mask off.
What happened?
Sweet nothing.
Where are the consequences in this world?
You and I live with consequences.
Where are the consequences to the Democrats who said the 1965 Immigration Act, oh, it's not going to change American demographics, well, other than the fact that white people will be a minority in the country, you found it relatively soon.
There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
There's a slam dunk!
Case!
The media reported it, didn't investigate, didn't go to the country.
Who's held accountable?
Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed.
The Middle East destabilized.
Illegal immigrants.
One of the things that people are concerned about with illegal immigrants is they have very clearly and willingly shown that they do not respect...
The laws of the country that they're invading, enough to secure legal immigration status.
Don't respect the law.
Don't respect the law.
I wonder where they're learning that it is okay to not respect American law.
I wonder where they might be getting this idea.
California, the federal government is trying to figure out and get data to help them find illegal voting.
California just says, nope!
Don't feel like it.
You got activist judges overriding the president's clear constitutional authority to control immigration.
And we say to people, come to the West.
But we'd really, really like you to integrate, to assimilate, to become like us.
But don't abuse the welfare system and make sure you respect the law like we do.
Assimilate.
Immigrants assimilate.
Assimilate to what?
To the culture?
The culture is completely fragmented.
It's broken.
It's shattered.
People don't have neighborhoods anymore.
Everybody just sits at home all the time, cocooning video games and tablets and TV. What are they going to assimilate to the culture?
So many waves of immigrants have come in from disparate cultures.
What is the culture?
What are you supposed to assimilate to?
Assimilate, we say.
To the law?
Assimilate to the law?
Obey the law?
Christ Almighty, if we could get the government to obey the law, maybe we could start asking immigrants to obey the law.
I know most of them do, but you know what I'm talking about.
Come and assimilate to the law!
What law?
You know what the people are thinking and what they're feeling.
What is the law?
The law The law is a punishment for poverty.
The law is a punishment for a lack of power.
The law is a punishment for not having connections.
And the law is punishment for not being able to inflict retribution.
Don't riot.
We'll give you money.
The law is bribery.
For bullies come to the West and conform to the law.
What law?
Don't you feel it?
I mean, people are so hungry for justice.
They're starving for it.
Because there's a deal, right?
This is the deal.
This is the real social contract.
We say, well, we're going to give up rights, we're going to give up freedoms, we're going to give up control over our own property, we're going to submit to taxation.
In return, though, we better damn well get justice.
You can have the power to compel us.
But in return, we demand you provide justice.
That is the social contract.
It's the only social contract that fundamentally matters.
And what do you think of your government these days?
Do you want to know where you stand with your government?
Picture this.
Tomorrow, you walk out to the mailbox.
You're expecting a refund check or check from the government.
And they send you a check.
Maybe with a couple of extra zeros at the end.
And let's say you know for sure they're never going to ask for that money back.
What are you going to do?
You're going to send it back saying, I'm sorry, I think you made a mistake.
This is far too much money.
You know you will get away with it.
If you keep it, will you keep it or will you send it back?
That tells you what kind of relationship you're in with your government.
I mean, imagine that your beloved brother writes you a check and accidentally puts in an extra zero.
You're going to, like, say, dude, get it right.
What if the government does it?
Are you in a game of whack-a-mole with your government, or do you respect the institution as an agency of justice and fairness?
Or has it infected you with its own lawlessness?
And what happens when that social contract breaks down?
When people submit to the government not out of any respect for its capacity to enforce justice and fairness, but because it simply is bigger and more powerful.
When you submit to the God of the state not out of love of its virtue, but out of fear of its punishment, and if you wish to evade that punishment, if you wish to live consequence-free, What do you do?
Well, you climb the rungs of power, don't you?
Prior to Trump, the people who climbed the rungs of power seem to live not only without consequences for what they do, it may be illegal, but without even fear of consequences.
What happens when that social contract is broken?
When the state is perceived to be a punishment for poverty?
To be a punishment for a lack of capacity for rioting?
When the law is a punishment for a lack of political connections?
A lack of political power?
A lack of media support?
When that becomes people's relationships with the state, what happens next?
