3775 Deep State War | Mike Cernovich and Stefan Molyneux
The deep state is at war with President Donald Trump and the swamp monsters are having a massive impact on the administrations ability to deliver the promised America First agenda. Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller is making use of a federal grand jury to further expand the Russia collusion witch hunt and U.S. National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster is purging Trump supporters from the National Security Committee while rubber stamping unmasking Susan Rice's future security clearance.Mike Cernovich is a lawyer, filmmaker and the bestselling author of “Gorilla Mindset: How to Control Your Thoughts and Emotions to Live Life on Your Terms” and “MAGA Mindset: How to Make You and America Great Again.” Cernovich is also the producer of the film documentary “Silenced. Our War On Free Speech” and the upcoming film “Hoaxed: The Media's War on Truth.” Follow Mike on Twitter: https://twitter.com/CernovichRead Danger and Play: http://www.dangerandplay.comRead Mike on Medium: https://medium.com/@CernovichFollow Mike on Periscope: https://www.periscope.tv/CernovichFollow Mike on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/DangerAndPlayOrder Gorilla Mindset: http://www.fdrurl.com/gorilla-mindsetOrder MAGA Mindset: http://www.fdrurl.com/MAGAHoaxed Movie: http://www.hoaxedmovie.comYour 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
Hi, everybody. Stefan Molyneux from Free Domain Radio, back with a good friend Mike Cernovich, a lawyer, filmmaker, and the bestselling author of Guerrilla Mindset, How to Control Your Thoughts and Emotions to Live Life on Your Terms, as well as MAGA Mindset, How to Make You and America Great Again.
He's the producer of the film documentary Silenced Our War on Free Speech and the upcoming film Hoaxed the Media's War on Truth.
You can follow Mike on Twitter, twitter.com forward slash Cernovich, like the, I guess, reactor.
And you can follow Mike on medium, medium.com forward slash at Cernovich and periscope.tv forward slash Cernovich.
Mike, first of all, thanks for coming on today.
And secondly, congratulations on such great crowdfunding for Hoax that sold out pretty high and pretty fast and pretty well, if I remember right.
Yeah, and I definitely received a substantial spike from you and the free domain people.
So I'm very, very grateful for that.
Yeah, the crowdfunding is over.
Production on there were just...
It's kind of weird. People are like, you look tired, you look stressed out.
Yeah, both.
That would be it. Now, we're going to talk about Mueller, McMaster, and what's going on.
And it's kind of interesting. I was thinking about this before we talked, Mike, that...
One of the reasons I got out of the entrepreneurial world working with other people, working with investors, working with shareholders and all that kind of stuff, man, there can be a lot of politics.
And one of the things I love about what I do, and I'm sure you feel the same way, is not a lot of politics.
However, however, it really is important to look, I think, under the rug and sort of behind the drapes of what's going on in the Trump administration because these politics are pretty feral and they seem to have Yeah, and the politics in D.C. are worse than office politics.
So in office politics, in theory, at least people have a shared mission to make money.
Now, granted, people create fiefdoms and you have departments that maybe are loss leaders or maybe are inefficient.
There's a lot of confusion.
But generally speaking, There is a language there, and it's a language of dollars, and you can kind of find some kind of overlap, but it's terrible, and it becomes horribly inefficient for you as an entrepreneur to deal with that.
In D.C., there's no shared vision.
There's no shared vision, let's support Trump.
In fact, it's the opposite.
It's how do we get rid of Trump?
How do we sabotage Trump?
How do we increase our own power and get rid of him and get somebody like Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush in?
He's being sabotaged left and right.
That said, you, me, others warned everybody before any of this happened that it was going to happen.
And he didn't take those warnings seriously enough.
He delegated too much and now he's dealing with the aftermath.
Now, before we dive into McMaster, I want to take a break here at the beginning and talk about Mueller.
This, to me, a special counsel, the Mueller, who's trying to use or is going to use his federal grand jury.
Now, people I don't think understand just what a horrendous kind of Star Chamber secret court it is designed to trap people in perjury charges and bankrupt them from here to eternity.
But I wonder if you can help people step through, like, after a year of throwing, I can't even imagine, How many resources, how many people, how much labor has been thrown at this Russia hack the election investigation?
After a year of this, the idea that you need a special counsel, it just strikes me as a complete and total witch hunt designed to keep, you know, sober, intelligent people who want to hang on to their fortunes or at least any kind of income away from the Trump administration.
I wonder if you can help step people through what this means and what the purpose of it is really.
Right. The Democratic Committee had a $1.2 billion budget for Hillary Clinton.
If you have a $1.2 billion budget, you hire a private issue, you hire a forensic people.
If there's Russia, you're going to find Napa research.
And of course, none of it was ever found.
So then they appoint the Special Counselor Mueller, who's a Democrat donor.
He gets a bunch of Democrat donors on there.
They go look for Russia stuff.
They can't find anything.
So now they convene a grand jury.
So I want to tell you why grand juries are evil.
They are sealed proceedings.
They are a star chamber.
You go in and they ask you questions, and sometimes they try not to even let you have a lawyer inside there with you.
You have to walk outside to your lawyer and say, here's the question, and then you walk back in.
And they'll just wear you off for eight hours, and what most people don't realize is that any lie, a lie, which as you know could be a mistake of fact, not even intent to deceive, No matter how material will set you up for an obstruction charge or for a perjury charge.
And that's what's really going on here.
So Mueller's got nothing.
There's nothing on Russia.
So what he's gonna try to do is ensnare as many mid-level or low-level staffers as he can and essentially frame them for crimes that they never committed.
Well, and then, of course, he starts working his way up the chain, you know, like you get that last bit of toothpaste out of the tube by starting at the bottom and working it way back up to the top.
Because if he can trap people or snare them into perjury or obstruction of justice charges, which are serious stuff, years in prison you can go for that kind of stuff, then, of course, he can say, okay, well, do you perhaps, you know, maybe we can...
Let you off or give you immunity or reduce your sentence if you kick over someone else along the way.
This is kind of how they can work their way up the chain without anything in particular other than at some point when you're being grilled under stress, bright lights, no lawyer present for eight hours, you're going to say something that could be interpreted as obstruction or perjury and so on.
This is not a very, very honorable way to work your way up the chain.
Yeah, and there's nothing to work their way up from.
That's the whole point is I never used to talk to media people or journalists.
And then once this Russia stuff went out of control, I realized that anybody who actually came into my house and watched me work in real time, they all left saying, well, you know, maybe Cernovich is kind of a madman, but they never talk about Russia again.
So I viewed it as my duty to just like, look, Stefan Molyneux is over here with Mike, and they're just on Skype, and they're doing things.
Cernovich is over here with the camera.
Paul Joseph Watson is over.
All these people here who are essentially shaping history are doing it just through the power of the internet, through social media, and they're starting to get it.
I mean, the New York Times even did what I would consider by their standard a very fair piece on you and Paul Joseph Watson and a few others.
It's a new talk radio, which is what YouTube is.
So there is no there there.
There is no flipping some nobody and getting him to snitch on somebody because the truth is that Trump won the election fair and square.
Well, it is funny, you know, this idea that Trump had some sort of magic sauce, which was foreign interference in the election.
I think the magic sauce is he listened to the concerns that the American people had been screaming at the top of their lungs about for the past, say, 30 or 40 years, in particular, of course, about immigration.
And he said, ah, well, if they have been screaming loud and clear about immigration for the past couple of decades, you know what might be a great way to win?
I shouldn't laugh because it's serious stuff.
You know what might be a great way to win an election?
Actually listen to what the American people have been screaming about, as have the British people and the Canadian people and lots of people around the world, around the West, Europe, and so on.
60% are Europeans, so 60% of people, they want no more immigration.
No more immigration! And just that's the magic sauce.
But of course, because their whole goal is to crank up immigration from the third world to secure a lock on the demographics, they don't want to hear that message.
So again, how did he win?
It's got to be some evil conspiracy.
Yeah. I mean, if listening to the voting population is an evil conspiracy, I guess that would qualify.
And he played a smart electoral map and he used Facebook for targeted ads in ways that nobody did.
They micro-targeted people.
They ran a very, very tight game with Cambridge Analytica.
Super smart game.
Let's just put it this way.
If the Clinton campaign had run the campaign that Trump did and won, every post-election mortem would say, oh my god, nobody has ever used micro-targeting and social media advertising the way Clinton's did.
She's a genius. Her people are geniuses.
Give them a big praise.
So yeah, he played a smart electoral map.
The social media people were doing what needed to be done.
There's so much distance between Between that and Russia, but the media, well, the media, they're kind of, I think a lot of the smarter people are starting to understand how powerful social media is, and that is why the ADL is on YouTube and trying to ban people, and they're now trying to create ghettos for certain YouTube people and say, well, we're not banning you, but nobody can actually find your videos, and nobody can comment on them, and nobody can like them, but we're not really banning you.
So they are recognizing the power of And that is, to me, a far greater threat than anything going on right now.
The New York Times thing did come as a bit of a surprise to me, Mike.
Not that we were written about, but it sort of reminded me a little bit of that great interview that occurred between you and Scott Pele on 60 Minutes.
And you characterized this afterwards as tough, maybe even harsh, but kind of fair.
And, you know, they let you get some shots in that I think became pretty legendary, at least across the internet that I was reading on.
I think the New York Times piece, again, it's not insane.
You know, that is a huge step forward for those of us who've been dealing with the media for, you know, for me, I guess, like a decade or so.
Not insane is actually a massive compliment when it comes to this kind of stuff.
I thought the 60 Minutes thing, too, with you, not insane.
You know, like, tough, negative, obviously, skeptical, harsh.
But kind of fair in a way, from where they're coming from.
And I was pleased, surprised, if that makes any sense.
And it's quite a change for those of us who've been dealing with the media for a long time.
Yeah, I mean, it was interesting, too.
Jack Tapper and Brian Stelther actually called out J.K. Rowling for her fake tweet.
Chelsea Clinton called. You never would have, three or four months ago, had people in the media ever calling out fake news against Trump.
So they are feeling the competition now.
They are realizing, well, hey, we're losing viewers and we're losing listeners to these people.
They still kind of view us as...
Which I like, but they still view us as unhinged and uncivilized.
But they're realizing we're losing to them.
Maybe we should actually make a few points that they make now and then in our own games.
The same thing is becoming true with the media stuff is that...
If they write about us in a negative way, it doesn't get as many page views because people don't read it.
But if it's a halfway fair piece, then people read it.
And again, I'm all for, I've said things that I meant satirically, but it looks bad.
And if people say, you said that, I'm like, well, that's not what I meant, but you got me, right?
Stuff like that doesn't, just being hard is when they make stuff up or fabricate things.
And today they're trying to say that One of the cartoons I did with Soros is really like an anti-Semitic thing or something.
Stuff like that. It was a Ben Garrison cartoon, right?
Stuff like that, actually, it does piss me off because that's not even true.
If it were true, I would just say, well, you know, I should have not done that or something like that.
So, yeah, there is in the mainstream media coverage.
It's still very hard coverage, but it is becoming more fair.
And that's fine. I'm cool with that.
And I wonder if as well, it's hard to sort of...
Crawl into the minds of people who make these kinds of decisions.
But I also wonder as well if, you know, Paul regularly sort of tweets out people who want access to him from the mainstream media and he's like, nope, go away, nope, go away, no.
And I know you participate from time to time and I have a standing policy of like, nope.
Hey, we'd really, nope. Would you do that?
Nope. Right?
And I just wonder if there may be a certain aspect of recognizing that if there's this kind of brutalization that occurs in the press, They're never going to get any access.
And if our influence is increasing, at some point they may want access.
So, I don't know. Maybe it's after the creepy stalking, they're sending some flowers.
I don't know if that makes any sense.
Yeah, well, what they're realizing...
Same thing, so I had the BBC reach out to me and he goes, hey, I'm writing a book on kind of the new riot.
Will you talk to me? And I go, sure.
And then his first question was, do you believe that Sandy Hook is a hoax?
And I said... Okay, delete.
And then he keeps trying to get me to talk to him.
I keep deleting his emails.
It's like, you don't want to have a genuine...
I've never even talked about Sandy.
Right? So you don't want to have a genuine conversation with me.
You just want to play your little games.
Good luck with your book that doesn't have anything for me in it.
And see how many people actually care.
So they're learning that, look, if you want to come at us, we argue for a living.
You know, we don't live in this safe space bubble.
So if you want to come at us with a critical commentary...
And hard-hitting questions, that's fine.
But if you want to come after us like this, then we're just not going to talk to you at all.
And then that makes them irrelevant because right now we are currently what's hot in the media.
And if you want to cover what's hot in the media, you do actually need to talk to us and ask us questions and ask us to explain things that are going on.
And if you're just going to lie about us or be disingenuous, then we're not going to talk to you.
Yeah. As far as what you say about debating for a living, I'd love to have a great public debate.
You all the time are out there saying, let's have a debate.
I'll donate huge sums of money to charity.
Let's make it happen. I would love to have more debates, public debates with challenging opponents.
You want to get in the ring.
You want to flex your mental muscles.
You want some sparks to fly.
Let's let the best person walk out of the debate with his hands over his head.
That would be fantastic. But this kind of, I don't know, pathetic, wormy gotcha crap, it's really boring and it's not something that energizes me in the way that a really great debate would.
It's just kind of gross and draining to be around and silly.
So yeah, I just sort of wanted to point that out.
Yeah, boring is a good word actually because a journalist from a kind of very prestigious outlet was talking to me.
He goes, you know when I read people who dig up tweets from five years ago, I just like roll my eyes.
And I think that's so boring by now, right?
So much has happened. Susan Rice, McMaster's holding town halls about me, you know, criticizing me.
I'm breaking big stories. So it is same thing with you and Paul.
It's like everybody's bored about maybe Paul 10 years ago wrote an article that in hindsight looked a little bit silly and whatever.
And he admits it does. And that's just the nature of it.
So, yeah, even the people who are kind of covering the beat Especially the younger people, the people under 30, they're like, oh God, you want to talk about somebody's four or five tweets?
That's what you want us to write about?
They don't want to write those kind of stories.
They're actually boring for them to write.
Right, right. Now let's turn to McMaster, a bit of a power around the throne, not necessarily behind the throne, a power around the throne.
A lot of people wouldn't be particularly aware of who he is and his influence and what's going on.
So I wonder if you can break that out for people because this is a guy that you need to know if you really care about this current agenda.
Yeah, H.R. McMaster is the National Security Advisor, which is the chief national security officer in terms of what he briefs the president on.
So everybody gives McMaster all the intel and then he has his reports and then he briefs White House officials, including the president on it.
There's nobody more important in terms of the intelligence that Trump is getting.
It's an incredibly important, incredibly powerful thing.
And of course, as you know, intelligence is a human endeavor.
So all intelligence is going to be filtered through bias.
There is objective facts.
For example, Missoula is located here and here's the coordinates and everything.
But in terms of how to interpret things, how to interpret a threat, all of this is subjective.
It's based on your experience.
So is that guy a bad guy?
Is that guy a good guy? Is that side going to double-cross us?
These are all assessments that people make in the realm of subjectivity.
Because you can't...
There's no... Gravity's objectively true, but whether or not some tribal force in the Middle East is going to stab us in the back tomorrow, that's a value...
That's a judgment you're making.
And, sorry to interrupt, but there's...
Not only is it subjective, but there are trillions of dollars that weigh in the balance.
I mean, wars are...
Massive negatives for the society as a whole, but specific individuals, groups, or corporations can profit enormously, so it's subjective and highly charged with trillions of dollars of tax money, and those two combinations is where you've got to be the most careful.
Exactly. I mean, even if you're honest, but your friends are at these defense companies, and you're going to be biased.
That's the whole point. Intelligence, you need actual diversity of thought, diversity of opinion.
So McMaster, Has been doing one after the other, purging everybody who has a pro-Trump, America-first foreign policy vision.
And there were about, I don't know, 10 guys maybe.
So in the NSC, I think there's maybe 600, 650 people.
It's a real big organization, right?
There's maybe not even 1% of people who have a dissenting opinion, and that was too much for McMaster.
That was too much for the globalism and the deep state.
So they've been getting rid of people one-on-one on the flimsiest of pretexts.
One guy, you know, they're pulling your security clearances, which they did a guy named Adam Lovinger, and then I found out later they pulled his clearance because he went to a bar mitzvah in Israel.
And so apparently if you're a Jew and you go to Israel, you must be a spy, but the ADL won't have anything to say about that.
It's almost like he doesn't value diversity.
Right. Exactly.
In the ADL, they're going to be really upset about cartoons, but if a Jew goes to Israel for a bar mitzvah and you lose the security clearance because of that, well, hey, we've got nothing to say because it pushes forward the globalist McMaster agenda.
So they've been getting rid of him.
They got rid of Derek Harvey.
They got rid of Robin Townley.
They got rid of Rich Higgins, Ezra Cohen, just one after the other.
And when you read why these guys got fired, Rich Higgins was fired.
I wish I had this memo, man.
Rosie Gray got that scoop.
And the memo said that there's an alliance now between radical left-wing cultural Marxists in America and Islamicists.
And McMaster said that's a conspiracy theory.
But Linda Sarsar, who supports terrorists and terrorism...
And who has threatened to cut off the female parts of a woman who had been the victim of female genital mutilation is leading the Women's March, which was a three million person left-wing organization.
So it's all there, right?
Factually, there's completely an alliance between the left and Islamists, but because Rich Higgins wrote that up in a memo, McMaster fired him.
Well, a historical fact. I mean, there are people I've talked to from...
Iraq, who pointed out that the fundamentalists, Islamists, and the left allied themselves completely, because they both have that goal of overthrowing more secular, more separation of church and state, or separation of state and economics kind of societies.
And didn't McMaster also promote this Council on American Islamic Relations guy, this diversity director, who blocked Ayaan Hirsi Ali from speaking?
This is right there. Yeah, you can just prove.
You can just show McMaster is bringing in Muslim Brotherhood members, bringing in diversity coordinators who ban actually people who have a different view on Islam.
He won't say radical Islam.
He didn't want Donald Trump to visit the Western Wall in Israel.
You just point to all these things that he's actually doing.
And now the left in America is now anti-Zionist.
It's all becoming very complicated now.
And it's unfortunate we can't have open conversations because the minute you say one thing, now you're an Islamophobe or an anti-Semite or a racist or a homophobe.
But there's like the ADL is a left wing, supposedly a Jewish organization, but the left is actually going after Jews in Israel and going after Jews in America who are pro-Israel.
So it's all very weird right now, and you can't actually have real conversations about it.
That is the thing, of course, that any kind of rational discussion gets derailed all the time by these ridiculous MOAB ad hominems that are called in that are just supposed to entirely destroy any kind of civilized conversation based on reason, facts, evidence and so on.
That is designed to cause both sides to radicalize.
If you can't have a conversation in the middle, Both sides get more and more extreme, and then, of course, what happens is, you know, it's like that old, the ancient armies in the ancient world, I can't remember if it was like Greece or Rome or Sparta or something, but they were facing across each other.
The generals were trying to work it out, and then one guy at the front of one of the armies saw a snake on his leg, and he raised up his sword to cut the snake down, and then the armies, oh, he's charging, the sword is up, and pow!
It just takes one escalation and one mistake for it to turn to violence.
If the middle can't talk, the extremists who are aggressive tend to take over, which of course is the plan.
Continually shut down rational discussion and wait for the extremists to turn it to violence.
Right, because I actually, if you want to have a Muslim, you know, outreach coordinator on the National Security Council, hey, I'm great, but you've got to have Rich Higgins too.
You know, I want the diversity guy from CARE. I want the guy who, you know, wants to talk about Islamization.
I want the Zionist you.
I want the anti-Zionist.
I want them all in the same room filtering intelligence and then eventually through fighting it out and sharing their facts and their perspectives.
We're going to generally make a better decision.
Not always, but generally speaking, if people from dissenting viewpoints have it.
But there's no more diversity of opinion or diversity of thought if you disagree with the modern left-wing narrative, which is that Islam is a religion of peace.
There's no such thing as radical Islam.
If you believe that there's such a thing as radical Islam...
Then you must hate all Muslims and therefore you're a bigot.
And if you think the left wing and the Muslim Brotherhood are uniting, then you're going to be fired from the NSC. You can't have a job.
So that's where we are as a culture.
And of course, that's where we are with the culture of the NSC. Let's talk about Susan Rice.
I'm trying to wrap my head around this.
I know as a lawyer, this stuff is more netted into your brain as a whole.
But she's under investigation for the supposed or alleged unmasking of US citizens.
And help me understand...
I mean, to me, looking at it from the outside, to me, if you're under a credible investigation for issues to do with security, I think your clearance is kind of supposed to be put on the back burner, to put it mildly.
Help me understand what the hell is going on with Susan Rice and McMaster.
Right. So Susan Rice had the highest level security clearance.
And when you have that security clearance, you do not have something which is called need-to-know.
So here's what need-to-know means.
You have a top secret clearance.
I have a top secret clearance.
You want to read a memo that is in my shop.
And you come over. I'm going to say, well, I mean, why do you need to know this?
This memo is top secret, need-to-know basis only.
And you would say, well... This is why.
But you would have to actually, you couldn't just say, well, I have a top secret clearance.
Give me all your info. So Susan Rice does not have a need-to-know basis.
She has access to everything.
So she doesn't have to actually say, well, here's why I need this information.
Here's why I want it. She has total unfettered access to classified information, even though she and Ben Rhodes are under investigation for unmasking American citizens and American civilians as a way to score political points during the election.
So she's under investigation.
She was supposed to testify under subpoena, and then she wouldn't, and then she's lawyered up.
And McMaster wrote a letter and a great story that Sarah Carter broke today.
He wrote a letter saying, hey, all good.
You got your security clearance.
I'll make sure that you can have whatever you want to have.
And why?
I mean, it's always hard to define people's motives or ideas, but what do you think is going on?
In situations like these, there are always too...
Equally plausible hypotheses.
One is that just a blind spot.
He's the incoming national security advisor.
She was the outgoing national security advisor.
He's naturally biased for her.
He's like, well, you know, she was the NSA and what she did wasn't really that bad.
I could see myself doing the same thing.
So I don't want to. Or professional courtesy.
Very common amongst lawyers and judges, you look the other way when your colleagues are doing something truly bad.
The more nefarious one is that he wanted to continue leaking information.
That happens to be my viewpoint, based on a number of factors.
Including, he had said there's no such thing as an Obama holdover.
Even though Obama political employees put in there by Ben Rhodes, who's under investigation for unmasking, Are now working for him.
So if you're hiring people who work for Ben Rhodes, who is responsible for unmasking, and these were political appointees, very loyal to Obama, how can you expect them to not leak information about Trump?
That's a little bit too clever by half.
So my interpretation of McMaster giving Rice a pass is not that it was a professional courtesy blind spot, but that he actively wants classified information to be leaked.
Wow, that is some powerful stuff.
Thinking of Trump and where he stands, there's six million ways we can look at it, and I certainly want to get your take, Mike.
I think if I would sort of sum it up, and I'm going to do a little bit more on this, work on this in a couple of days, but he's a fundamentally decent and nice guy, and I don't think he understands the magnitude of what he's up against sometimes.
You know, he had this phrase in the campaign, drain the swamp, but it's more like battle the demons.
The swamp is kind of a passive thing.
You know, you get it there with your pumps, you drain it, and so on.
But this sort of lash back of the deep state, this fight back of the deep state, this destabilization, and these dirty tricks.
You know, if you have a group of people who are going to be generally immune from prosecution, and then you have another group of people who are going to be subject to the most harassing kinds of investigations and, as you say, these grand jury summonings and so on, it means that the people who are immune from prosecution, in a sense, generally on the left, it means that the people who are immune from prosecution, in a sense, generally on the left, they're going to
And it's going to kind of repel the people who are going to be subject to every kind of cross-examination ad hominem, hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees, terrific exposure to legal risk and so on.
And I think that the fight is deeper and darker, more sinewy and more sinister than he may have anticipated.
I mean, I don't doubt that a man has a ridiculously steep learning curve, and I think it's becoming clearer now.
But what do you think is going on and where do you think Trump is going to take it from here?
He has a pattern, he's even written about this in his books 30 years ago, that you always just hire the best people and delegate.
In Trump's mind, you go, okay, I'm hiring the former chairman of the Republican National Committee.
I'm hiring H.R. McMaster, decorated war general.
I'm hiring all these people.
I'm just going to let them do their jobs and leave them alone and not micromanage and try to be like big picture.
That's classic. Trump is consistent with his career, his advice, the way he manages people.
But, and this is where I rattle the cages of a lot of the more pro-Trump people, is that Eventually you got to realize, hey man, you're getting sabotaged and it's time to know who to listen to.
If people like Lou Dobbs are asking you why HR McMaster is still working for you, if Hannity is asking what McMaster is still doing, if Laura Ingraham is asking you what McMaster is doing, then you got to actually say, well, hey, maybe there's something to it.
So Trump lives in kind of a media bubble.
He definitely gets a lot of his news from Fox.
But Fox has not been covering this stuff very well because Fox is not a very sophisticated network.
It's very lowest common denominator.
They don't really have experts on national security very often to talk about this stuff.
So Trump is insulated from a lot of what has had happened.
So he's got to take action.
He's got to get rid of McMaster.
He's got to fire McMaster at a minimum.
He's got to do a lot of things too.
But at a minimum, if he doesn't fire McMaster, these leaks are never going to stop.
Well, and I think, given that the media is going to go hysterical about everything he does that advances what he was voted in for and thus goes against the media democratic machine, I'd be a big fan of just do it all at once.
Like, whatever you've got to do, you know, as he says, you know, wait, be patient, and then strike Very, very quickly.
Bring up your list of your top 10 or top 20 things you've got to do and then do it all on a Friday afternoon.
And that way, what are they going to be chasing every single...
It's like watching a dog when 20 Frisbees go in the air.
They don't know which one to go after.
This kind of drip, drip, drip.
I'm going to wait and I'm going to get rid of Comey and then I'm going to do this.
And I think that's just giving them a chance to regroup, re-aim and re-attack.
I think just do it all at once.
Let's get all this hysteria over with and let's get the agenda moving forward.
Exactly. What I would do if I were him, I'd call it the mother of all stories.
At 3 a.m.
on a Monday night, I would pardon Julian Assange, offering political refugee status.
Trump can do that right away.
I'd fire McMaster.
I would fire Mueller.
He fired Rent, so that's good to go.
I would fire Brian Hook and Margaret Petterlein from the State Department.
And then I would just let it all drop.
3 in the morning, and then let the media just panic, 6 a.m.
Eastern Time, like, what just happened?
What do we cover now?
The Julian Assange thing?
The Mueller thing?
The State Department?
McMaster? What do you do? And then, again, you get all done at once.
And then from there, you just got to push your media strategy forward.
And that is where Staramucci had a very effective media strategy in a memo that I reported exclusively before everybody else.
Then you just got to push forward Stay on message all the time, and it's going to transform itself.
The Russia stuff is going to go away because you just ended it.
Good luck. Bring it on.
It's funny because for a president or as a president to be as a candidate, I mean, he really seemed to get the social media stuff well.
I mean, his use of social media or his team's use and his use of social media was I mean, unprecedented, of course, because nobody had ever used it in that way before.
And to some degree, it wasn't even available in the past election cycles.
But it seems to me like every time he talks directly to the American public, every time he bypasses the media, every time he's the one who gives the press conference, every time he's the one who gives the speech, people respond to him enormously.
I'm still trying to figure out, and maybe that's just because I'm out in alternate media future land or whatever, but I still can't...
I figure out why there's the White House press call.
Why is there mainstream media gatekeepers?
Why not just talk directly to the American public or talk to people who've been outside that sort of mainstream media echo chamber of leftist indoctrination?
I can't understand why it's still going through some of these old channels that are just so twisty-turny that it's crazy.
Yeah, his rallies are big.
The more people see him, the more people like him.
The more media spin happens, the less people like him.
So yeah, you're right. But we've been talking about this for six, seven, eight months, and nothing's changing.
Scaramucci was going to change a lot of that and do more of the live streaming, the periscoping, and everything.
But that was too conventional or unconventional for Kelly.
So I don't see in the immediate future, foreseeable future, it's going to be pretty bad for Trump.
Deep State is definitely getting their licks in.
He's going to have to do something fundamentally very wild, which is always possible.
That's why it's never boring. You never know what you're going to wake up to tomorrow.
But in the short term, he's going to get hit.
Yeah, that's true. I think people who support the agenda and so on need to recognize that it's never a straight line up.
Victory, as you know, is always a circuitous route.
It's a Mobius strip. It's a dodge and turn and dive.
A lot of times, it's getting pushed back.
He needs all the support he can get.
He needs all the wisdom that he can get.
And I'm amazed at how much battle this man has in him.
And again, he also has access to information, which you and I, of course, don't.
And I just really want to remind people that it's, you know, the inauguration, the election, just the beginning.
Just the beginning.
It's got a long, long way to go.
And we need to dig in for the long haul.
So thanks, Mike, so much for your time today.
I wanted to remind people.
Now, Hoaxed is funded for now.
Do you think you might open it back up again to give people a chance to support?
Yeah, we actually thought about that.
My directors mentioned it.
You know, I could do just a Kickstarter for 60 days, an open kind of thing.
But my thinking is I gave the guy a budget and I covered the shortfall personally.
And I just say, guys, I want you to do an amazing movie with the budget we have.
And for the next film, for the next film, then we can talk.
But let's just do an amazing film with the budget that we have.
And they seem to agree with that.
That trailer gives me goosebumps.
I've watched it a whole bunch of times, so I will put a link to that below.
