All Episodes
Previous Next
March 23, 2019 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
34:27
4323 The Truth About the Mueller Investigation
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
So just yesterday Attorney General Bill Barr received Robert Mueller's final report on Russiagate, on the alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, Russian intelligence agencies, Russian actors and so on that helped discredit the DNC and Hillary Clinton and sweep Donald Trump into the White House and tens of millions of dollars have been spent Almost two years, what has he got as he waded in to find all of this collusion?
Well, he netted 199 criminal charges, there were 37 indictments or guilty pleas, and five prison sentences, none of them related to Russia collusion.
It turns out when you wander into the swamp with a fistful of vengeful potential indictments, you can find people doing Bad things.
You can find people doing money laundering.
You can find people, you know, for process crimes like lying to the FBI and so on.
But yeah, he netted some people, but nothing to do with the actual trigger.
Now, what was the trigger?
Let's cast our mind back.
So the trigger was the Steele dossier.
Steele sounds like, what, Remington Steele?
It sounds like a very spiey kind of name.
And dossier makes it sound seriously vetted, which it wasn't, certainly at the time.
So the Steele Dossier was a truly salacious and shocking series of memos alleging many, many terrible things, among which was collusion between President Donald Trump and his campaign and Russia.
And the Steele Dossier, of course, was eventually published by BuzzFeed.
Now, where did the Steele Dossier come from?
Well, it was unvetted paid-for opposition research.
The Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee helped fund the research that resulted in the Steele dossier.
Now the Steele memo, or dossier, began, and I quote, Russian regime has been cultivating, supporting, and assisting Trump, all caps, for at least five years.
Aim, endorsed by Russian President Vladimir Putin, has been to encourage splits in division in Western alliance.
The memo further claims that Trump and, quote, his inner circle have accepted, quote, a regular flow of intelligence from the Kremlin and that Russia had enough negative information on Trump to blackmail him.
Now, in early January 2018, then FBI Director James B. Comey presented a two-page summary of Steele's dossier to President Barack Obama and President-elect Donald Trump.
And, uh, well.
In May, as you recall, Trump fired Comey, and that led to the appointment of Robert S. Mueller III as special counsel investigating potential Trump-Russia connections.
So, right, there's a collusion with Russia, and then there's the potential obstruction of justice, and so on.
Now, the FBI and the Senate Intelligence Committee are both known, or were both known, to be using the dossier as a roadmap in their respective investigations into Russia's interference in the 2016 U.S.
election.
The FBI also used the document to support, at least in part, its application for a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, warrant targeting Carter Page.
So this is how they got into the campaign.
The dossier claimed the, quote, Russian regime had been behind the recent leak of embarrassing email messages emanating from the Democratic National Committee, DNC, to the WikiLeaks platform.
Now, of course, it would be really helpful if they turned over their servers for examination, but they didn't.
And they were relying on, there were a couple of Russian characters in the compilation of something, and there were time zones, and all stuff that you would
hide your tracks if you were actually doing uh... my particular belief uh... is that uh... Seth Rich or somebody inside the DNC copied the information to a local thumb drive and that's testable because the information was copied so rapidly that the idea it went through the internet from america out to where it was at Romania and so on is simply not not feasible not credible it was copied so fast that in my view it had to be a local thumb drive and so yeah that's uh...
Now, the dossier also claimed, quote, the reason for using WikiLeaks was plausible deniability and the operation had been conducted with the full knowledge and support of Trump and senior members of his campaign team.
That's incredibly serious allegations, destabilizing the entirety of the American Republic, delegitimizing potentially the election, incredibly serious Allegations and certainly infinitely less substantiated than the allegations that Hillary had violated security standards with her own private by the toilet email server and other things that she had done like destroying cell phones with a hammer and refaxing classified information to bypass controls.
Very serious stuff.
It should have of course been investigated and it should have been investigated skeptically because Oppo Research.
It's opposition research paid for by Hillary Clinton's campaign.
You know, I guess you have a choice, right?
You have a choice when you're a presidential candidate.
You can either go and talk to potential voters and address their concerns or you can pay for salacious stuff and it ends up being out in the public sphere and just then you can
Weaponize the Department of Justice and the FBI and other places in pursuit of your political goals and political ends, but the endgame I'll get to in the end, but... So there is no evidence corroborating Steele's claim that the hacking operations were carried out, was carried out, quote, with the full knowledge and support of Trump and senior members of his campaign team.
No evidence.
And this is, for the people who've been following this, who've been sort of consuming the mainstream media reports on this, it's very disorienting at the moment.
Because a sliver of reality has cracked in through the biodome of propaganda.
And something that they had been assured for years was a done deal, it was in Donna Brazile's book, it was all over CNN, it was all over the major networks, it was a done deal, Russia collusion, obstruction of justice, bomb, impeachment, salvation from any kind of Economic reality slash potential to get a job.
And now, you know...
It's really turned out that even though the people who were on this kind of investigation seem to be pretty biased against Trump, they can't find the evidence.
So it's a real moment to wake up.
It's a real moment to shake off the toxic, nausea-inducing, brain-destroying propaganda of the mainstream media and actually start listening to people who for years have said that this was all nonsense, that this was a soft coup, that this was an attempt to overturn a legitimate election of the US population and their political preferences.
You can listen to people who've told you for years, myself included, that this is all nonsense and an incredibly dangerous nonsense.
This is extremist content.
Like I was tweeting about this on Twitter just yesterday.
This whole fantasy of Russia collusion and obstruction of justice and so on is an incredibly toxic extremist view that has shattered families, it has got people thrown in jail, it has bankrupted people, it has destroyed lives.
This is real extremist content, not talking about psychological realities.
So it's really really important.
I'll get to the real endgame in a moment though.
So, collusion.
Collusion.
Wow.
So Hillary's campaign secretly paid a company called Fusion GPS over a million dollars to put together the dossier framing Trump for allegedly colluding with Russia.
The payments went through DC law firm Perkins Coie.
Now, this is not wildly unusual in that if you are a political campaign and you want work products to be protected by attorney-client privilege, then paying a law firm to do it is kind of a known deal.
They paid Fusion GPS, the payments going through this DC law firm Perkins Coie, and then Fusion paid Christopher Steele, this ex-British spy, $168,000 to write the dossier and cover his expenses.
Now, what were those expenses?
Well, since Steele was an ex-spy, he no longer had diplomatic protection, so he could not travel to Russia.
So what did he do?
Instead, he paid Russian sources and used third parties to talk to them.
So his contract reportedly called for expenses to be paid as well as his fee.
So if he's paying informants, that would definitely be an expense.
And this is absolutely appalling.
So you're paying people you've never even met for information that can perhaps sway an election or certainly has the goal of swaying an election.
So Michael Morell, a Hillary supporter and the former acting CIA director confirmed that, and I quote, Mr. Steele paid the Russian intelligence sources who provided the information and never met them directly.
Come on, that's not vetted information.
Shadowy third-party international payments to people you've never met and you can't verify and I mean it's crazy and it was all just like unnamed Russian official and blah blah blah blah blah right so this is not Information?
This doesn't even rise to the level of gossip.
So, Hillary's campaign paid Fusion, Fusion paid Steele, and Steele paid his sources.
So, Hillary's campaign was the ultimate source of funding for Christopher Steele's sources.
That's terrible data gathering.
I mean, if you're paying someone for information, you don't know if they're giving you the information because it's true.
Or if they're giving you what you want to hear because you're paying them, right?
It's considered a terrible practice in intelligence to pay sources.
So as far as Russia collusion goes, well, Steele had fairly close association with Russian informants and were they, if they were real, were they allowed to cooperate with Christopher Steele by the Russian government?
So, if the Russian government is permitting people to be paid to deliver opposition research to Hillary Clinton, I mean, if you want to start talking about Russia collusion, Steele is acting on behalf of the Russian government with the goal of interfering with an election in America.
All they do is project, right?
I mean, this is what the left does.
They accuse you of what they're actually doing.
I mean, look at what's going on with the SPLC these days.
Good heavens.
So I'm going to quote, and I'll put the sources to all this below, from the National Review, because it's very interesting, because the question is regarding obstruction of justice or interference in the pursuit of justice.
So this is the writer's article says, I have argued from the start that Mueller's appointment was illegitimate because Rosenstein did not comply with federal regulations, which among other things do not provide for appointment of a special counsel to conduct a counterintelligence investigation.
This is very, very important, right?
So when you're looking at the Russian government colluding with a presidential candidate in order to sway the election, That's a counterintelligence investigation, which there are, you know, what, 18 different security agencies of which some of whom are focused on counterintelligence investigation.
You know, getting Mueller as a special counsel to conduct a counterintelligence investigation makes no sense.
Well, of course, it makes sense under a certain view of things, but it makes no sense legally in my view.
Remember, I'm no lawyer.
I'm just sort of quoting, right?
So The article goes on to say, More saliently, for present purposes, I have also contended that the obstruction investigation is illegitimate because the President undeniably has the constitutional authority to remove the FBI Director.
He does not need a reason.
And to exercise prosecutorial discretion by opining on the merits of an investigation, since the Constitution makes prosecutorial discretion a unilaterally executive power.
Right?
So, just for those of you who don't know, like the government has substantial leeway in deciding whether or not to pursue an investigation, i.e., Hillary Clinton, right?
So they can decide or not decide.
And the president has the right to exercise prosecutorial discretion by saying, I think this is a good investigation.
I don't think this is a good investigation.
Flynn is a good guy, was sort of the big quote.
Is that interfering?
Well, no.
I mean, if you go to a prosecutor and say, I think this guy should be prosecuted, and the prosecutor says, I don't think so.
Well, that's the right of the prosecutor.
There's a lot of leeway, rightly or wrongly, just is a lot of leeway.
And so Trump has this right to say, I think this is a good prosecution.
I think this is a bad prosecution.
You should go for it.
You should not go for it.
That's his right as the commander in chief, as the chief executive.
Nothing wrong with it.
The article goes on to say, the investigators wanted Clinton to win the election and feared a Trump presidency, so they tanked a solid criminal case against Clinton, then turned their dedicated attention to framing Trump as a traitor based on such, quote, evidence as the Clinton campaign generated Steele dossier.
I mean, you've seen all the texts and emails.
It's crazy.
It's crazy how biased they were.
The article goes on to say, While Mueller was ostensibly assigned to conduct the Russia counterintelligence investigation, i.e.
the probe of the Kremlin's cyber espionage operation against the 2016 election, his appointment by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein was triggered by the President's firing of FBI Director James Comey on May 9.
2017.
That firing induced Comey to leak to the media his memo about a meeting with Trump four months earlier on February 14th in which Comey says Trump leaned on him to drop any criminal investigation of Michael Flynn, the former national security adviser whom Trump had fired the previous day.
So you understand the sequence.
It wasn't generated because of this counterintelligence investigation into Russia.
It was generated Because the President fired FBI Director James Comey, which, I mean, from what I can see, he had fine reason to do, and which he can do without a reason.
It's his right as the Chief Executive, as the Commander-in-Chief, to fire the Director of the FBI.
He doesn't need a reason.
And then Comey leaked to the media, which is horrible and reprehensible, That he says, Trump, why?
He leaned on me to drop any criminal investigation of Michael Flynn.
Which Trump has as much right to do as the DOJ has to say, or the FBI says to the DOJ, well, we don't think you should prosecute Hillary Clinton.
Is that obstruction of justice?
Well, that's another question, but legally doesn't seem to be.
The National Review goes on to say, to that point in time, Trump had repeatedly been assured by Comey that he was not a suspect in the Russia probe.
Now that's interesting.
That's because if you go back a little bit, you can remember that earlier the Steele dossier said that the role of Russia in getting all of these emails and handing them over to WikiLeaks and all of that, that this was well known by Trump and his senior advisers.
So they're basing a lot of this stuff, if not most of this stuff, on the Steele dossier, which says Trump knows!
So then, when Comey says to Trump, you're not a suspect in the Russia probe, it means that they are discrediting the most serious allegation in the Steele dossier.
In other words, they're saying, well, the Steele dossier is wrong to say that Trump knows about collusion with Russia for emails and WikiLeaks and so on.
And it's kind of a principle in court of law, as far as I understand it, that if you're false in one thing, you're considered to be false in everything.
The moment you start lying, the moment you lie, well, it's a bad thing, right?
I mean, you lie to the FBI and they can write up, they don't record, they just write it up, right?
And you're in serious trouble, you go to jail.
So when they say that the Steele dossier is wrong about its most serious allegation, which is that Trump knew, and they say, well, Trump, you're not a suspect in the Russia probe, they're saying that the Steele dossier is false.
Or at least the most serious allegation is false, in which case why would you believe any of it?
It's just an interesting thing.
Okay, the article goes on to say, thus to the extent that Trump became a subject of a Justice Department investigation when Mueller took over, it was on the theory that the president had potentially obstructed justice by, one, firing Comey on the theory that this impeded the FBI's Russia investigation, and two, weighing in on whether Flynn should be investigated on the theory that Flynn was a Trump political ally and a potential witness against him in the Russia probe.
Okay, I mean, there's so much that's wrong about all of this.
Not the article, but just all of this, right?
So, if you fire the FBI director, they don't just stop everything.
It's like, oh, well, if the FBI director gets sick or dies, gets hit by a bus or whatever, they don't just sit there and say, well, all of our investigations, we're just going to have to stop.
We're going to throw everything out and we're just going to stop.
We're going to reset, blank slate.
I mean, it doesn't happen.
So the idea that By firing Comey, he was interfering with justice.
Well, it doesn't make any sense at all.
The police chief retires.
They don't just let all the criminals go, right?
Stuff continues.
And the other thing, too, is that it would be, you know, given that the president has the foundational right to fire the FBI director without cause.
He just doesn't like the cut of his jib or whatever.
He can use maritime law for all it doesn't matter, right?
You can fire him for whatever.
I don't like your time.
You're fired.
Then what you do if you want to keep your job is you just get some investigation going that may potentially implicate the president and then you just can't be fired.
But that's not what the rights are.
So anyway, weighing in on whether Flynn should be investigated, Trump is perfectly allowed to do that.
Just as Comey is, just as heads of the DOJ are, perfectly allowed to do that.
Prosecutorial discretion.
The article goes on to say, so let's compare.
President Trump clearly has broader executive discretion than the FBI and the Justice Department.
Very, very important, right?
Executive discretion.
To pursue, to not pursue.
Because then, if saying whether or not you should pursue, like if you're not the person actually making the decision to pursue a criminal prosecution, anybody who tells you anything about that is interfering With this obstructing justice, right?
They're interfering with a criminal, a potential criminal prosecution.
But if that's the case, then anyone who advised the person who had the final decision about Hillary, anyone who advised that person to not pursue criminal investigations into Hillary Clinton is guilty of obstruction of justice by that same logic.
Right?
So when Comey said, I don't think that what she did was illegal, which he doesn't have the right.
Like the FBI does the research and it's the DOJ that decides whether to prosecute or not.
So if opining even privately, Comey did it in front of millions of people, opining about the value or the worth of pursuing criminal charges.
If that's obstruction of justice, then Comey is far more guilty of it, in my view, than Donald Trump was.
Because Comey, wildly influenced, I would assume, the DOJ's decision to not pursue Hillary Clinton for her emails or security breaches or all these other things.
I don't know, it's just... I wish in America college freshmen didn't read at the 7th grade level.
I wish critical thinking was taught.
I wish people... Anyway.
Alright, let's continue.
So, I'm just going to read this again because it kind of flows.
National Review says, so let's compare.
President Trump clearly has broader executive discretion than the FBI and the Justice Department.
He is the executive.
Their powers are limited by their subordinate status and the fact that they are created and heavily regulated by statute.
It is incontestable, moreover, that the President had abundant legitimate reasons to fire Comey and to weigh in on whether Flynn merited investigation.
As for Flynn, the article says, let's assume the truth of Comey's post-dismissal claim that Trump pressured him even though just days before being fired and four months after he discussed Flynn with Trump, the former director testified that he had never had the experience of being pressured to drop an investigation for political reasons.
I don't know if your main accuser has just testified that what he's accusing you of never happened.
It seems hard to go on, but of course not about law.
It's about, well, other things which we'll get to.
National Review.
This is regarding Flynn, right?
They say, it was nevertheless perfectly reasonable for the president to request, no one has ever claimed that Trump issued an order, that the Flynn investigation be dropped.
Flynn had just been fired the previous day after a distinguished career of combat service to the United States.
He's been fired.
He's He had been laid low, removed from a coveted high-level position with his professional and financial prospects dimmed.
Flynn, moreover, should never have been investigated as a criminal suspect.
The same Justice Department that would not bring Espionage Act charges against Clinton, despite daunting evidence, zeroed in on him based on the absurd, never-prosecuted Logan Act.
His, Flynn's, contacts with the Russian ambassador were proper and the FBI agents who interviewed him did not believe he lied to them.
It was entirely rational then for Trump to conclude that Flynn had already suffered enough and that additional investigation would have been overkill.
The article says, you can argue that it was unwise for the president to have expressed this opinion, but there was nothing unlawful about it.
The evidence that Trump was corruptly motivated in his actions on Comey and Flynn is scant compared to the evidence that the investigators were corruptly motivated in the Clinton emails probe.
And again, Trump's constitutional discretion to make executive judgments is considerably broader than that of the Justice Department and the FBI.
So, I mean, it's all nonsense as I've said for forever.
And you know, it does get a little boring, I'll be honest with you.
I mean, people's capacity for shock and horror is always surprising to me that they live for this kind of hysterical drama.
But if you've read your Soviet history, I mean, you've seen one show trial, you've seen them all.
There's nothing new about this.
And it is just, it's appalling how the justice system has been weaponized against Conservatives against Republicans and against any kind of limited state.
And there have been three separate investigations into this Russia conclusion.
Right?
There was a committee in the House, a committee in the Senate.
There was the Mueller investigation.
They've spent years looking at this.
They found nothing.
Nothing.
At what point did they realize there was nothing?
Well, I would assume right at the beginning because it didn't have anything to do.
with trying to find justice regarding Trump.
I will tell you what it's all about.
All right, so this is what's going on with the whole Russia collusion narrative.
So the left have been trying to import people from the third world who are going to reliably vote for bigger and bigger government, more and more socialism, more and more income redistribution, and greater expansions of government powers.
And they've been doing this since 1965 since the Immigration Act to switch immigration from Western countries to non-Western countries so that they can maintain their power.
Because, of course, as people get wealthier, you need the government less and less, right?
As you gain more resources, as you have more opportunities, if you have more savings, you need the government less and less.
So they need to keep importing people who are dependent on the state and who are going to vote for the left.
That's been clear and tens of millions of people have poured into America over that time period.
And if they hadn't, right, given how badly Leftism, socialism, communism was discredited particularly after the great speech by Nikita Khrushchev talking about the cult of personality, the gulags, the crimes, the show trials, the slaughters of Stalin.
Communism got discredited by facts, by reason, by evidence, by Austrian economics, by Misesian critiques of the price system, you name it.
Socialism and communism was incredibly discredited and so What happened?
Well, they needed to keep it alive.
They couldn't admit fault, they couldn't admit being wrong, and so they needed to keep it alive.
And so they couldn't defend it intellectually, so they just started stuffing the ballot with people from overseas who would vote for bigger and bigger government.
So that's the goal.
Now, Trump, before he ran for office, hired someone to spend a year or two listening to talk radio on the right, reading blogs, reading articles and researching what were the big issues.
And the big issue, of course, was immigration.
The big issue is immigration all throughout the Western world, in Europe, in the UK, in Canada.
In America, less immigration is what everybody is begging for.
So that's why Trump won, because, and that's what Ann Coulter correctly predicted way back in the day on the Bill Maher show, Trump was going to win based on immigration.
Now, the immigration thing has fallen away.
Trump now wants more and more legal immigration.
The immigration is the issue.
Whether it's legal or illegal is important, but it's not the main issue that people are most concerned about.
And of course, the general public has never ever been asked about mass immigration from other cultures and so on.
And of course, whenever there is this amnesty that's proposed, as there was in the Gang of Eight and various times in various countries throughout the West, whenever amnesty is proposed for illegal aliens, people do everything in their power to try and stop it.
The immigration is the key.
Now, immigration continues unabated into the West, into America in particular, and so it's really not going to be very long.
and it may even only be one election cycle away, before the left has a hammerlock on power because of immigration.
So what is the purpose of the collusion?
Well, I mean, there's a number of obvious things, right?
So the obvious thing is that they can't accept that they lost.
They can't accept.
Why did they lose?
Well, because, I mean, Hillary's, to me, crimes and lying about Benghazi and the fact that her husband is a sexual predator and you name it.
I mean, this is all unsavory things about it.
The fact that she barely had press conferences, the fact that she didn't campaign, the fact that she called a quarter of Americans racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic, deplorables, you know, doesn't really help you get.
The old votey votes now does it.
So the fact that she lost came as a huge shock and this is why the crackdown on social media is going on at the moment because it doesn't take a brain surgeon to recognize the relationship between social media and elections and I mean that's one of the reasons I think why the midterms went the other way.
Well that's a whole other story but So they were deeply shocked and they needed to find a scapegoat, they needed someone to blame who wasn't themselves.
Now the reason why is that when you lose an election, I don't just mean Hillary, but I mean the party, the Democrats as a whole, when you lose an election You know, it's, if you're even remotely interested in democracy, you have a soul searching.
You say, well, what did we miss?
What did we not, what issues did we not address?
And so on.
But the left, the Democrats, they can't address concerns about immigration because immigration is their path to gaining and maintaining power ad infinitum.
Well, at least until immigration produces the inevitable collapse, right?
Because everyone's in debt and immigrants cost masses amounts of money.
So the one issue that got Trump elected is the one issue the left can't touch.
So they couldn't sit there and say, wow, we really missed the boat on immigration.
We better start looking about reducing immigration as everyone's desperate for us to do.
They can't do that because they're relying on immigration.
So they had to create some other story as to why they lost and why they lost was Russia collusion.
There's this cover story and then that's all I think perfectly comprehensible, but there's something related to this that's even more foundational.
The left was terrified that Trump would do something to control immigration.
Now, illegal immigration is part of their strategy, but they were terrified that Trump would do something to reduce even legal immigration and do something to control illegal immigration.
And so because they were terrified of that, and time is on their side, all they have to do is maintain the status quo.
And within one or two election cycles, the Republican party is dead.
The Republic is dead.
Right?
So this is really important to understand.
The numbers are shifting so far in favor of the left.
And this is why the left, I mean, if illegal immigrants voted for Republicans, you would, I mean, the left would have already built a wall visible from space, right?
So they know times on their side.
All they need to do is stall any Republican capacity to control immigration or reduce immigration or reverse immigration in terms of illegal immigration, right?
Not necessarily deporting people, but making it so hard to hire them and cutting off benefits and so on to the point where there's people leave of their own accord.
And so because time is on their side, the Russia collusion investigation is a foundational tool to paralyze the Trump administration as more and more people come pouring into America who are going to reliably vote for the left.
Now, I know that there's movements within the black community led by Candace Owens to pry the black vote away from the Democrats and there's something similar going on in the Jewish community and so on.
But nonetheless, I mean, this is the basic facts that all they have to do is bide their time.
And the best way to bide their time is to create this hysterical narrative that paralyzes the Trump administration.
That means that anybody who wants or is thinking of working for the Trump administration is going to face years of lawsuits, potential jail time and bankruptcy and you name it.
Right.
So the goal is to paralyze the Trump administration and allow the immigration to continue Unstopped, unchecked, to the point where the immigrants weigh the scales of the election so far to the left that the right either has to adopt all the left's policies, which is the left constantly is encouraging that, and even people on the right are constantly encouraging the right to just adopt the left's policies.
And it's like, well, then what's the point of not being a leftist?
You just join the Democrat Party, right?
So within the next election cycle or two, there will be no No capacity to win against.
I mean, there'll be little victories here and there.
You know, you get a mayoral, maybe a governorship or whatever.
But as far as nationally goes, there'll be no capacity to push back against the left because the left will have locked in the votes through immigration.
And bribery and so on.
But immigration is the key.
And of course, because they've shifted immigration to the third world, then what happens is anybody who criticizes immigration is just automatically cataloged as a racist.
And that's not the case.
If people are voting for larger and larger government, you want smaller and smaller government, and those people who are voting for larger and larger government are generally being imported from the third world, you dislike that policy because it's going to result in larger and larger government, not because you dislike people from the third world.
But, you know, they can just scream racism and that's the general tactic.
So understanding that the Russia collusion say, oh, well, you know, it's collapsed and things are going to go back to normal.
No, they're not.
They're really not.
I mean, I don't know if anyone is ever going to be able to address this immigration issue.
I know there's the People's Party of Canada up here in Canada.
I don't know what's coming up in the wings.
Biden and Trump certainly doesn't seem to be willing to do it at the moment.
And of course, as I talked about in one of my ThoughtBytes, if immigration is reduced, the price of housing collapses and the entire financial system goes through the ringer, which, you know, to me, better sooner rather than later.
You know, if you're going to take that band-aid off, do it quickly rather than slowly.
But they're just aiming to paralyze.
Things aren't going to go back to normal.
They've achieved their paralysis of the Trump administration.
They scared off people from working for him.
Now that Trump has committed to more and more immigration, that's his goal, then the left is like, yeah, okay.
Fine.
Then you're with us and you're going to hand over the country to the big government people and the socialists and the leftists and so on.
So it's just biting time.
It's just biting time.
If you're getting stronger and your enemy is getting weaker, the longer you defer the battle, the better off you are.
And that is the real truth behind the Mueller investigation.
Thank you so much for watching.
Well, thank you so much for enjoying this latest free domain show on philosophy.
And I'm going to be frank and ask you for your help, your support, your encouragement, and your resources.
Please like, subscribe, and share, and all of that good stuff to get philosophy out into the world.
And also, equally importantly, go to freedomain.com forward slash donate.
To help out the show, to give me the resources that I need to bring more and better philosophy to an increasingly desperate world.
▲
Export Selection