All Episodes
Previous Next
July 26, 2019 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
47:34
The Terrible Truth About Robert Mueller - Diana West and Stefan Molyneux
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi everybody, Stefan Molyneux.
Hope you're doing well here with the, I dare say, inimitable Diana West.
We're going to talk about Mueller and we're going to try and encapsulate this whole sordid, tortury, soap opera story of Russia collusion, which, you know, appears to be like a vampire coming back no matter how many stakes of reason and evidence are driven into its heart.
Just wanted to mention...
That Diana West is the author of two great books, well, more great books, but the two that I particularly like, American Betrayal and The Red Thread.
We'll put links to those below.
We've talked about them before, but Diana, thanks for taking the time today.
Oh, thank you, Stefan. I can't wait.
All right, so you did put on your fuzzy slippers and sit through the whole thing.
Is that right? The Mueller testimony?
I had a tough time following him.
It seemed like a bit of an adult uncle telling you stories of the war, but you weren't quite sure which war it was.
It's been, what, six years since he last testified, and age has not sharpened those faculties as far as I can tell.
No, and that is the story that we have gone forward with.
I mean, most of the news that has dominated the post-Muller hearing has been about feeble, fuzzy Mueller.
Did Mueller read his own report?
What happened to Robert Mueller?
What a disaster for Robert Mueller for the Mueller report, etc.
Frankly, that is not the story.
And I do suspect, I do wonder about a rope-a-dope strategy.
I mean, it is pretty... Amazing when you see how often he's asking about page numbers and kind of running out the clock.
I mean, these are timed question periods.
So there is something perhaps going on there.
On the other hand, he is 73, 74 years old, and things happen to people.
But again, he is not the story.
The story is the special counsel investigation of Donald Trump.
This was the people's one shot at getting questions answered, or at least aired, With the man in charge and whether his faculties are sharp has nothing to do with what the country has been put through for the past two or three years.
Well, and we'll get to that in a sec.
I had these weird flashbacks.
I did a show recently on Streetcar Named Desire.
And I had this weird flashbacks to Robert Mueller as Blanche Dubois.
Because, you know, one of the things with Blanche Dubois, she's very soft.
Oh, Lord, sex, I couldn't possibly eat a peeled grape, right?
And then later she's like, Stanley Kowalski, I will cut you!
I will cut you with a broken bottle!
And it just seemed like this frailty with this guy who has, like, this hellish combine harvester ground through and destroyed everything.
People's lives, you know, racked up massive bills, thrown them in prison for what to me seem pretty questionable things, and certainly there seems to be a lot of selective prosecution.
So this, you know, eh, what, Sonny?
Couldn't quite keep up with your questions there.
It's like, well, this guy has disassembled families and disassembled lives and destroyed savings, you know, and so this, you know, maybe it's an act, maybe it's not, but he looked a whole lot more harmless than he seems to have been in American politics over the last couple of years.
Well, and for the last couple of decades, I mean, Robert Mueller has a very long record.
It's very assorted.
It's very dirty. And you could do a whole show on Robert Mueller.
But again, he was the figurehead, the leader, the personification of this special prosecution of President Trump and the administration and the so-called Trump-Russia story.
And the reason that I sat in my fuzzy slippers and listened To almost the entire two testimonies, one before the Judiciary Committee, one before the Intelligence Committee, was to hear whether anybody would just blow the whole thing out of the water by asking the very important question as to why the DNC server,
which is the crux of the entire scandal, the entire information operation, as I see it, Why that was never investigated by the FBI. So give me this.
I'll, you know, let's give me this question.
If you'd been able to seize the microphone from the pasty hands of the people who weren't asking the tough questions, you know, glare at him, you know, get that swinging Gestapo bulb, maybe a couple of rubber hoses and some ice water.
What is it that you would really like or love to have heard?
Like what got you jumping out of your chair if they'd asked Mueller this?
So simple, so brief, wouldn't take any time at all.
Why didn't the FBI, why didn't the special counsel office ever verify the claim by the DNC that they had been hacked by Russia, that Russia had attacked our election and exposed the corruption of the DNC to the American people?
I mean, this is the original sin, if you will, Of the entire Trump-Russia story, because in that attack, that alleged attack by Russia on the DNC, we get the motivation, namely Trump, rather, Putin hates Hillary, which is a complete big lie, and that Trump colluded with Russia.
Because in that same question, in the answer, in the facts, which we still don't have, lies this concoction that Trump That Trump was an asset of Putin, a slander that still stands after these Mueller hearings because no one dispelled it, and that Trump benefited from Putin's help, another slander with no evidence, and that this is the reason Hillary Clinton is not president.
So in other words, the entire story, all the drive, the fuel of this entire investigation goes to that original act, That was unveiled to the American people in the summer of 2016.
And what's fascinating, I actually did it today, I went back to the unveiling of this story, which was, I believe, July 24th, 2016, when Clinton campaign manager Robbie Mook is going to be dragged on the carpet by CNN's Jake Tapper because the DNC convention is going and WikiLeaks is dropping the emails that show the DNC was rigging the primaries For the benefit of Hillary Clinton to the detriment of Bernie Sanders.
So this is where we are in history.
Jake Tapper's question is, what say you about this democratic rigging of the primary process for Hillary Clinton?
And Robbie Mook answers, well, we've got to look into this.
But here he digs it and he slips it out there.
What we're hearing is that Russia attacked the DNC because Putin supports Donald Trump.
So all of a sudden you see the big switch, the deflection, the deception set forth and it was seized upon, rolled with, expanded on by the media, by everybody connected to the whole deep state and becomes really the main conveyance of this Trump-Russia big lie.
And not to have it discussed is incredible in this particular hearing because know that The FBI was not permitted to examine the DNC server allegedly attacked by a foreign adversary.
The DNC called up a DNC contractor in order to file a little claim, which the FBI never even saw that.
They saw a version, we've just learned from poor gagged Roger Stone's lawsuit, we just learned that it was actually a draft and redacted that the FBI saw from CrowdStrike.
So in other words, imagine a bank robbery And the bank president, instead of calling in the local police department, calls in somebody he knows who's going to do an investigation of what happened to the safe.
And then they file that, or a partly redacted version of that, to the local cops and say, this is the culprit.
Well, that's ridiculous.
This is exactly the same sort of case.
We don't know From any independent, authenticating agency, whether it be an independent contractor that people can trust as opposed to CrowdStrike, which has a very checkered career and reputation, or the FBI, or the Department of Homeland Security, or any other entity that does this kind of forensic investigation, We don't know, have any evidence that Russia attacked the election.
Well, and just, I was thinking about that analogy you gave about the bank robbery.
I sort of put one more layer on it, Dan, and say, it's sort of like this.
You've got video cameras in the bank.
Now, of course, if you say there was a bank robbery, if the first thing the cops want to do is see the video cameras, and you say, well, no, you can't see the video.
Okay. Who can?
Oh, a friend of mine. Friend of mine, an employee of mine, is going to look at the video and they'll report on what they see.
It's like, well, can we get the full report at least of what your employee sees when they look at the video?
No. You can't get it.
But you can get a redacted version Wherein they say it's Bob.
Well, I guess Grigor or Vladimir or something like that.
So it's Vladimir so-and-so who stole from the bank Well, the cops would say, that's hearsay.
We have to look at the video.
We have to analyze the video.
We have to check the time. No, you can't do it.
But trust me, an employee of mine says it's Vladimir.
That wouldn't get anywhere.
In fact, I would assume that if the cops heard that, they'd simply open up a fraud investigation into the bank manager who called it in saying, there's no way.
If you want to catch someone, let us see the video.
And if you want to catch who hacked into your servers, let us examine in great detail the server with their experts.
But they couldn't do that, and they couldn't even see the report.
They could only see... And they think, what, 13 times they asked?
Now, first of all, being in such a position where the FBI is just asking you for things, that seems...
I mean, don't they have the right to just give us the server, damn it?
Like, what's the problem here?
Exactly. Well, especially in a situation where it's actually a national security matter.
I mean, this is not a bank robbery.
This is supposedly an attack by a foreign adversary, and there's even another layer there, because if this were an Internet attack by Russia on some distance over the Internet, the NSA has tracked it.
The NSA has all that information, and we know that for a fact from someone else whose name should have come up in these hearings, from the Republican side at least, William Binney, former NSA technical director, the man who actually created a number of the metadata collection systems, Who then became a whistleblower when it became evident there was going to be no effort to make these constitutionally true in terms of narrowing searches and so on.
William Binney, with a team of professionals, has conducted forensics examinations on this metadata and actually demonstrates that it could not have been from over the internet, which of course the NSA would already know and could see that if they had it.
But his data, which should be examined and investigated in open hearing and so on, His data indicates it was an internal leak.
It was some kind of an internal download or removal on some kind of storage device.
Sorry to interrupt, but that is really sinister when you think about it, because it means that the Russians now have teleportation.
So they can take people, put them inside the server room, have them copy files locally to a thumb drive, and then possess Seth Rich.
Okay, well that's another...
And just so those who don't know, so when you copy stuff, there's date and time modified, right?
And the idea that this goes across the internet to some...
Eastern European country at a very fast rate, like local copying rates is ridiculous.
So they can actually see when the files were modified, and the files were modified at about the same speed you'd get from a thumb drive into a local computer.
Impossible to get those kinds of speeds halfway across the world.
So this is how it has been established, to me, beyond the shadow of a doubt, but again, I'm no expert, that it was a local computer.
That somebody within the DNC, maybe a Bernie Sanders supporter, maybe somebody who saw all of the nasty stuff that was going on to get Hillary into the throne, was like, yeah, I'm going to blow the whistle.
It was a whistleblower.
And the idea then that this is just the Russians, I mean, it goes against...
I mean, it goes against them. Why would Russians get...
The Russians loved Hillary. I mean, as far as I can tell, they paid...
There were Russian banks paying Bill, like, what, half a million dollars for speeches.
She gave access to a quarter of America's uranium supply.
I mean, what problem did the Russians have with Hillary?
She was a known factor they'd worked with before.
Trump was very much an unknown.
Exactly. Well, this is the other half of that same big lie, because basically what the Democrats realized they had to do...
Was to steal Donald Trump's persona as a great American patriot with this absolutely mind-blowing program called America First, a nationalist program which reversed everything that had been going on in America and in most Western countries' politics for at least since World War II. So this was a kinetic connection that he was making with the American people.
They had to stop by stealing his identity, in a sense.
And in order to do that, They began this seeding the ground and sort of setting up a number of ways in which they would be creating this notion of Donald Trump as Russian asset.
And when the DNC download, if you will, happened, this was obviously not according to their plan.
They did not want the American people or certainly Democratic voters to know how they had rigged the primaries for Hillary Clinton.
When that happened, it just became folded right into the larger plan.
But it becomes such a glaring omission on the part of the authorities, on the part of the Republican authorities, the Democratic authorities, the government authorities, not to have examined and verified that claim that Russia was responsible for this.
And what we've seen over the last two years or three years by now is that sort of Russia hacked the DNC, which we heard over and over and over again for some period of time, has morphed and been sort of smoothed out into this statement, systemic and widespread interference by Russia in the election.
In other words, delegitimizing Trump's victory and continuing this big lie that Putin and Trump are somehow in alignment, which of course extends to all of the Trump supporters.
We are now Russian bots because we're in alignment with the Kremlin here.
This could be very dangerous going forward Imagine some kind of a hot war situation where all of a sudden Trump supporters, Republicans in general, are looked on as disloyal.
I'll just put that out there.
This could be very dangerous in terms of the information wars that go on, but what we're really seeing here is this abdication by the Republicans yesterday in exposing this central Gaping hole in the entire narrative because basically the CrowdStrike report,
which was the DNC contractor report on the server that we've discussed, and then later the completely discredited DNC contractor Steele dossier.
Oh yeah, let's get to that.
I just wanted to mention something as well.
I was watching some of the We're good to go.
So when the reporters or whoever came to the DOJ and the FBI and they said, hey, we hear stories that Russia hacked into the DNC servers, then the DOJ and the FBI should have said, well, we can't see the evidence, so we can't comment on that.
You know, we don't know. We're not allowed to examine anything.
It's all allegations. They're refusing to hand over the server.
We can't even get the unredacted report.
So sorry, there's no confirmation of anything.
Regarding that. But that's not what they did.
What they did was they laundered this, in a sense, and presented it as something that was a fait accompli that had been proven and established beyond a reasonable doubt to the American public.
And that, to me, was such a massive disservice to the Republic.
It was a...
A hammer blow to the faith in the republic to take this third party paid for report from a highly conflicted of interest party and then send it to the American public like, yep, that's what happened.
I mean, that is...
I've been informed that I overused the word astonishing in this show, so I'll just give myself one, just one in this conversation.
But that's it. That to me was...
Because, you know, how far...
How far can the lackeys of the Clinton campaign get in establishing malfeasance on the part of Donald Trump?
Not that far, because it's expected.
But getting the laundering of that information through the DOJ and the FBI was, to me, absolutely catastrophic for the Republic.
Well, this is why we talk about something called the deep state.
This is why we talk about the hijacking of our security and justice agencies by these People who absolutely are seditious in their activities, because again, what was this all about?
This was about obstructing an election from going forward in the lawful manner.
They were trying to overturn an election, stop the election of Donald Trump, didn't work, overturn the election results, didn't work, subvert the presidency, well, it's an open question.
I mean, this is where we are. We're still here.
And when you talk about the Steele dossier, you talk about the CrowdStrike report being laundered, you are exactly right.
The first laundry was An October paper that came out from the Department of Homeland Security and James Clapper, who was Director of National Intelligence, trying to say this had happened, that we had been attacked by Russia.
We later saw another document known as the Intelligence Community Assessment, January 2017, shared with Donald Trump and then the country, that said the same thing, again, based in Steele dossier and almost certainly CrowdStrike's report.
And this only morphs forward As we get to even the scope memo, so-called, that told Robert Mueller what to do in his investigation.
And then the Mueller report itself, which draws on these same documents.
He based an entire indictment of 12 random Russian military intelligence officers on, essentially, the CrowdStrike report.
I mean, this is absolutely...
I mean, talk about political theater.
I mean, this is fake...
It's not just fake news.
It's fake history.
It's fake politics. It's a construction of a world that we are now expected to live in that's a fantasy world.
And what was so dispiriting to me watching the Republicans yesterday is that they were happy to live in it.
They were happy to accept the role of basically batting singles and sort of striking out at pieces of Mueller's malfeasances in the report in a very Kind of unconnected way, scoring points, scoring debating points, bringing up some very rational, reasonable topics, but never getting to the point of saying this entire investigation was not just that overused word, a witch hunt.
This was an information operation designed to perpetrate a coup against a duly elected president and going forward well into the first years of his administration up to the present moment.
The seriousness of this cannot be overstated.
And to cripple his administration.
Because one of the goals, of course, of randomly dropping these airstrikes of legal complications on his staff is people are like, oh, I got a call from the White House.
Do I really want to join this administration?
When you look at what happened to General Flynn and so on, it's like, hmm, right?
So he's got staffing issues, which is a whole other conversation.
He's a bit of a fan of people who have more experience than integrity.
But nonetheless, to me, it's very much about crippling the administration by keeping people away from taking that risk.
That is so true.
And we've definitely seen that happen.
So when you get to a point where you can't ask about What happened to the DNC server?
That means you also should have asked, why didn't you interview the central core witness to this supposed Russian interference, namely the man who published the DNC emails at WikiLeaks, a man by the name of Julian Assange, who is the key witness in all of this.
We know where he was throughout the entire Mueller investigation.
He was locked up inside the Ecuadorian embassy the entire time.
He'd made numerous public statements, Attesting to it not being a state actor that helped him, not being Russia, he actually also came right up to the edge of directly admitting that he had a source inside the DNC when he started talking about the murder of Seth Rich, 27-year-old DNC official, director of, I think it was voter data, voter expansion data director, I believe was his title, for two years.
He was murdered in Washington at this same period, in July of 2016, unsolved, botched.
No cell phone taken, no wallet taken, no motive, no follow-up, no.
We know he was a Bernie bro, and we know that there were problems inside the DNC with people noticing access by Bernie supporters, etc., who were upset about this rigging of the primary season.
Anyway, there's a lot there that we could go into, but the point being, These questions should have been investigated if only to lay them to rest so that these toxic feelings about our justice system do not build up because they are still out there.
So you've got no server question, no Julian Assange question, no Seth Rich question, no discussion of this issue.
Very serious forensic evidence that anyone can vet for themselves by William Binney and his group.
Those are very formidable national security professionals who have done this.
Also, no examination of John Podesta's personal devices either.
Right. Right.
The Podesta emails being the October event from WikiLeaks that was also damaging to them, deeply damaging.
And yes, no, the FBI could not look at them.
Well, gee whiz, maybe we're lucky.
At least they weren't bashed and destroyed the way Hillary Clinton's staff destroyed her devices.
Or maybe they were. We don't even know.
One thing we did find out from the New York Times was that CrowdStrike, according to the New York Times, actually destroyed every jit and jot of the DNC computer system before the news broke of this supposed Russian hack.
Oh, you mean the supposed server?
I wasn't aware. So they basically bleached and shredded and shot it into space, the whole server that the FBI was trying to get a hold of?
This was reported by the New York Times.
They also ran a report that showed a picture that purported to be the server.
It looked like an old-fashioned record player.
I don't know if it was or not, but it certainly has never been ascertained, but it has been reported that they literally destroyed everything before it went public.
So, I mean, there's so much there that has not been aired, and for the Republicans to let that drop, what it does is it allows to stand this Big lie that Russia interfered on behalf of Donald Trump because they hated Hillary Clinton and essentially installed a president.
This is where we land today.
And indeed, David Korn of The Nation, a very far, or rather Mother Jones, a very far left reporter of longstanding in Washington, he sort of gave us our talking points.
If you're, you know, newfangled daily worker readers, basically you go to Mother Jones and get your talking points from David Korn.
And he basically said after the hearings, This is exactly what we have.
We have Donald Trump traitor and we have this illegitimate election after the Mueller hearings and that is all because the Republicans refused for some reason, I cannot explain it, refused to get to the heart of the concocted information You know, it's the old phrase, locking the barn door after the horses left.
To do it now would be like, well, why did you guys sit on this for so long and put the country through all of this kind of agony?
To do it now would be to have to answer to voters why you didn't do it before.
So I think there is kind of painting yourself into a corner that way.
But the good news is, at least we get to talk about it.
Because if they had, this show would be a bit echoey.
So dodgy doc... Number one is the report that the Russians hacked the DNC server.
Dodgy doc number two, the Steele dossier, which is really an unfortunate name just because it sounds like a spy dossier from a really cool Remington Steele kind of guy.
I think it's supposed to.
Yeah, I mean, so... You know, there's a couple of basic rules.
I'm not a spy, but there's a couple of basic rules of intelligence, which is you've got to verify like crazy, and you don't pay for information, and you need to know the source and how that source got a hold of the information, none of which seems to be the case with the Steele dossier, which is basically like a bad porn movie come to life and trying to take down the Republic.
Oh, absolutely.
And the thing is that There's a rule of thumb that is written about by intelligence professionals in terms of if you get information out of a guarded space like Russia, like a totalitarian state of some kind, and you are getting it surreptitiously, you have reason to believe it may be verifiable.
However, if you are there operating and they know you're there, you can't trust anything because it's disinformation.
They just feed you stuff, yeah. This was a Fed document because it was so...
Clumsily put together and it was so widely known about.
I mean, but essentially it was not, I don't think it was supposed to be good intelligence.
It was supposed to be good theater.
It was supposed to be Remington Steele.
I mean, people, for one thing, have been essentially defining counterintelligence down is not a phrase, but in terms of our understanding of how we can be undermined from within, we've been just nullified in terms of that understanding over the past half century, really. And that includes our intelligence agencies.
I say that not as a practitioner, but as someone who interviews others.
And this is something that people will look at this and think, oh, that's really cool.
That sounds like Remington Steele.
And honestly, it works.
And we've seen this.
And what was happening was this was being salted among the press corps in Washington and making them absolutely salivate and so on and write all these stories about Donald Trump.
The Siberian candidate was a headline Donald Trump is a Russian oligarch, et cetera, et cetera.
This was what it was for.
And I think that's part of the reason they were so upset when it was published, because it blew their cover.
And remember, we didn't know it was a DNC document for a good 10 months.
If that thing comes out in Buzzfeed in January 2017, We don't find out who paid for it until October.
So they were fighting in the court not to have that revealed, but we find out in October that, oh my, it's the same clients behind CrowdStrike.
It's the DNC, it's Perkins Coie, the law firm that also was involved with CrowdStrike, and the Hillary Clinton campaign.
It's the same culprits.
So we're looking at DNC junk.
DNC junk that is the basis for all these other official documents, as you say, laundered Through Department of Homeland Security, Director of National Intelligence, Intelligence Community Assessment.
This is essentially the same three guys, Clapper, Brennan, and Comey, running around trying to generate paper that makes this whole thing stick.
And then you see it amplified in this Mueller report.
This is where we never understand from our GOP friends that this was essentially all A disinformation operation that continues, and they did not stop it because they didn't blow it up.
And I do feel that this is a very simple concept to get across.
If you know that the basis is a fraud, it's easy to tell people, well, that means everything after it is a fraud too.
This didn't happen.
You know, again, we had some good displays and some good debating points and so on, and maybe they meant well, but I tend to feel that there was a messaging Well,
and then all of this bubbles up to the FISA Court.
Yes. And again, fruit of the poison tree, as far as I can see.
I mean, if the original stuff is garbage or unverified, then how on earth can it continue to...
Because then, of course, people say, well, you know, it went through a court process.
We got the DOJ, we got the FBI, we got the courts.
And that's a hell of a brinksmanship, right?
Because that's like, you're relying on people's perception of legitimacy.
By doing stuff that is going to actually undermine that legitimacy.
Now, when people lose any kind of faith in the legitimacy of their justice organizations, it becomes a game of cat and mouse.
It just becomes a, oh, you know, let's just see what we can get away with.
They're bad, you know, we're bad, everyone's bad, and it's a state of nature.
It's no longer a moral enterprise that has ethical legitimacy.
That's true. It's horrifying because you really see over this period of, say, from early 2018, when, if you remember the furor over the memo that Devin Nunes, then chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, over the furor of a release of a four-page staff memo that essentially laid bare the bones of this conspiracy within the government to spy on the Trump team through the FISA court warrants.
If you remember, we forget, there's so much news, but I've reviewed it recently and I want to remember it.
The furor from John McCain to Nancy Pelosi, everyone in between, this was going to be the end of the republic.
This was a destruction of our system.
We must uphold our Justice Department and FBI, etc., etc.
It was intense.
It was more than I've ever heard of anything in Washington.
I've never experienced anything like it.
And then it comes out. And it's essentially verifying that, yes, the government was spying on the domestic opposition, absolutely the end of a democratic republic, so much like the Soviet Union, so much like a police state.
And using the very mechanisms and laws that were set up, designed to protect Americans from X, Y, and Z. But we've kind of gotten used to that in the last 18 months, say, and now we had these hearings yesterday, and I think the FISA court...
Things came up, but in a very diffuse way.
I don't have a takeaway of a FISA court question.
And this really was, at least in terms of the mechanics of the anti-Trump conspiracy, this was the crux.
And it almost had frittered away by this time.
And so again, you saw a lot of sort of singles hit and little bites taken, but not the discussion of what happened to us.
Well, again, there's laundering, right?
DOJ, FBI, they, I think, work relatively hard to obscure the roots in this nonsense steel dossier.
And then, of course, they try to hide them from the American people as a whole.
Right.
And, oh, man, you know, from an amoral calculation standpoint, it's like once you're in, you've got to keep going.
Like once you've started doing this stuff, it's like, man, we cannot have Trump get in.
Like it's one of these really genuinely slippery slopes because if, well, we can see this playing out now.
Trump's in and this stuff is coming out.
This never would have come out under Hillary.
So, you know, in for a penny, in for a pound, as my aunt used to say.
And I think that's kind of how, like, step by step, this is how you end up in this mess.
Absolutely. And that's why you've seen so many mistakes made, so much clumsiness, so much crudeness in terms of them trying to cobble this thing together and keep it going, keep themselves going.
And, you know, they're just...
Racing against a clock, it seems less and less likely there will be any sort of reckoning.
And when you get to a point where you numb your people and you make the people not believe in the law anymore, it is the end of a society.
It's the end of a civilization.
Now, this isn't to say this is the first time this has happened, but it seems like the first time it has been directed at a presidential election in plain sight with so many players inside the government.
And, you know, we've talked about the red thread aspect to it, which, of course, is completely lost.
But it is we are looking at an electoral election cycle in which we are we are watching the anti-communists versus the communists go go at it by 2020.
The Americans versus literally the anti-Americans, people who don't believe in borders, who don't believe in an American people, who don't believe in any kind of sovereignty.
They believe in a one-world type government.
So, I mean, the contrast here could not be starker.
And as we have this whole Russian illegitimacy, Trump-Russia and all that linger and live on after this period, I don't know exactly how it's going to combust, but it is going to be an endlessly explosive season going forward.
And how they ever call it back or say, no, Trump, no, Putin did not love Trump.
You know, I mean, how you even call it back at this point becomes harder and harder because the conventional wisdom kicks in, the court history kicks in, and people like me are, you know, sort of sitting on the sidelines just saying, wait, stop, you missed a really big point.
And it becomes, you know, it becomes really hard to call the train back.
Well, I think as well, One of the great things about the internet is the capacity to easily read the foreign press.
And man, I mean, it's tortuous enough within America, but anybody with half an eyeball who's looking at this mess from the outside is just saying basically, well, there was an illegitimate coup using illegal means and spying and all this banana republic garbage going on in America.
And you have a still very dominant political party, our control Congress, that did all of this stuff and either the American public don't know or don't care.
And the legitimacy of America as that shining city on the hill, right?
America has always tried to be that example, you know, be like us and it'll be great.
And how much this has wrecked any kind of legitimacy or moral authority.
And, you know, I'm ambivalent about that because, you know, I think you should share ideals, not necessarily 700 military bases around the world.
But any kind of legitimacy of the American experiment of the Republic, of the First and Second Amendments and all of that, anything which people could look at as they used to look at America as the uniquely crafted from the Enlightenment, not an accident of history, but consciously shaped anything which people could look at as they used to look at America as the uniquely crafted from the Enlightenment, not an accident of history,
that the land has now been swept under the usual pile of postmodern Marxist manipulation, the will to power a Nietzschean universe where morals are simply set up to suck the gullible into compliance.
And the whole American experiment of a moral country has taken, I think, hammer blows that I can't see it recovering from in the near future.
That may be. I mean, my focus is more internal, of course.
And, you know, the thing that this has been a long time coming, Stefan, this is not just 2016 to 2019.
What we're looking at is the attrition of the balance of power that was the beauty of the American Republic in terms of the three co-equal branches of government.
And what we've seen is this fourth or fifth branch, the deep state, these bureaucratic, unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats seize these different departments and hold power for generations now under Marxist influence, under this notion of the collective.
I mean, this is A triumph of collectivism.
It is a triumph of the anti-sovereignty, the anti-nationalist movement that we see really coming into power, certainly after World War II in the United States, and without any opposition, really, for so many years.
So you can get back to this notion of the anomaly of Trump and why this all happened now has to do with the You know, triggering of Trump, of these hidden, successful, smoothly rolling along assets that were essentially collectivizing the American government, making it extinguish itself.
And then this man appears who might break all of their toys and ruin everything and get back to a place with borders and sovereignty.
Well, that's the funny thing, right?
And this is something that...
I saw coming a long time before with Trump that Trump was going to reveal the moral cancers within both the Democrats and the mainstream media and academia and, you know, the psychological profession.
And I mean, just about you name it.
But by stand like a bully doesn't look like a bully if you comply.
Right.
If you just kind of bow down.
Right.
I mean, if you pay off the mafia, they don't burn down your store.
Right.
So it looks like a fairly civilized interaction.
And this complicity of the Republicans in masking the ferocity of the Democrats, to me, has been a great crime against America.
And Trump, for reasons maybe to do with Roy Cohn and maybe to do with just his innate positive towards America and his experience in the free market and so on, Just stands up and defies them, and they lose their shite, so to speak. And that has been remarkably instructive.
And I really charge the Republicans with covering that up for many, many years.
Oh, absolutely.
I mean, the spectrum of subversion goes through both parties.
Yes, I completely agree.
I still think Trump is our most anti-communist president ever.
Due to that innate anti-communist streak, free market streak, Perhaps Roy Cohn tutored.
However, his instincts are so distinctly a throwback to a period where someone is a patriot who believes in his country.
And they're very simple precepts that he seems really to be guided by.
And again, that gets back to that whole ugly notion of this need to steal his persona, which didn't work.
And yet we're still stuck with this specter of Trump as Putin's Um, asset because of this period.
So it's, the fight goes on.
It just goes on and it's astonishing how he has actually weathered this period.
I don't think there are many mortals who could go through this intense fire every second from every direction inside the White House, outside the White House, on both sides of the aisle.
For so long and still be standing.
And he actually looks pretty good.
I mean, he and Mueller are about the same age.
Yeah. 173, 174.
You know, again, it's good genes and all the rest of it.
But I mean, this has been a spectacle.
And, you know, you talk about the inability of America to rejuvenate that maybe, you know, I'm not a Pollyanna type.
But I think that, again, Trump has for all of his failures, all of his Accomplishments together, he has given us this chance of fighting back.
And I think he has given a lot of people encouragement to stand up and speak and not be cowed.
So, you know, we'll see how it goes, how it plays out.
But, you know, his team is not helping if they are essentially accepting the notion that Russia affected our election.
That is absolutely ridiculous. We had $100,000 of Russian money in Facebook Versus something like over $9 billion spent in the political campaign of 2016 by all players.
Just for the record, here you are officially denying the teleportation factor.
I just want to get that on the record, because maybe the Facebook ads were typed in by local teleporters, and so I just mentioned that.
Now, going forward...
It seems to me that's kind of like a three-pronged strategy that they're going to have for 2019 on the left, right?
So number one, open the borders.
Just get as many people pouring in as humanly possible.
Number two is use the allies in social media to affect the outcome.
I mean, there's serious scholars saying that Google alone swung millions of votes to Hillary just in 2016.
And third...
It's outright, straight, knuckle-dusting violence and civil unrest and sabotage and attacks at the polls.
This has been escalating enormously.
I just look at my own speaking career.
I used to be able to go out and give speeches, no problem, lickety-split, great deal of fun, social gatherings, put it out on Facebook and so on.
And now there's bomb threats, there's physical intimidation, there is deplatforming, there is a huge amount of violence.
Attacking property and threatening people and showing up face to face.
So that I consider to be the next stage.
I mean, is there stuff, do you think that's a reasonable assessment?
What would you add to it going forward that they're going to plan?
Well, I mean, we already saw all of those things in 2016.
We saw the violence. We saw, we've seen a ramping up of Antifa violence of late.
And we are not seeing a federal response.
I mean, this is a place where We haven't talked about Attorney General Barr, but I have also some unusual, you know, thoughts about his role in all of this that go against the grain of most conservatives.
After what we saw in Pacific Northwest where we saw the journalist Andy Goh beaten on video by Antifa, beaten silly with brain bleed and problems as a result.
And we have seen no civil rights case open.
I mean, think back to Eric Holder traveling to Ferguson, Missouri himself and sending squads of lawyers and so on when we had the Michael Brown incident.
The difference is stark.
They have not even mentioned it.
There's no discussion. We had to have Senator Cruz actually ask William Barr to consider declaring Antifa to be a domestic terrorist organization.
I mean, these people are lawless and violent.
So yes, we will see more of that because we're not seeing so far any kind of...
People do not want to see where connections to Antifa lead.
No, they don't. They really don't.
We know, I think, that they lead to some of the mainstream media reporters, as far as I've seen.
Where else they may lead, I think, would be quite terrifying for a lot of people.
Yes, and it needs to be, you know, it needs to be investigated.
I mean, these are things, you know, you expect the authorities to do, people who actually have law enforcement and protection of the land and fealty to the Constitution as part of their professionalism.
You would expect them to be on this, and they are not.
So again, we are going to be on our own.
And this was very difficult in 2016.
I was actually reminded in a documentary called Killing Free Speech, one by Michael Hansen, the Danish documentary maker I watched recently.
And I'd forgotten, I was interviewed in it briefly, and I'd forgotten how violent 2016 was.
And it really was.
It was actually very worthwhile to review it and think, oh my gosh, what's going to happen in 2020?
It will be brutal.
And, you know, goodness knows, goodness knows what we will have.
It's anybody's guess.
I think he will be reelected, but it's not a done deal.
It's certainly not a done deal.
Well, I really appreciate your time today.
I wonder if you could tell our lovely listeners a little bit about your books.
And again, I'll put links about how to get them.
Highly, highly recommended. Engaging.
Entertaining. If you like a good horror story.
No, that's Diana West.
Bride of Stephen King, except it's nonfiction.
So tell us a little bit about your books and we'll get people to them.
Sure. Well, the American betrayal, the secret assault on our nation's character, is really a history of the swamp, I've decided.
It's a history of how the communists essentially infiltrated our government going back about 80 years to FDR's time, particularly.
It wasn't quite the beginning, of course, but a big moment for them was when FDR recognized the Soviet Union and communism was quite chic.
And they entered the government in that period where the government was expanding during the 1930s and the so-called New Deal, which we now are revisiting as the Green New Deal.
Again, another effort to socialize our economy, planned economy and so on.
The Red Thread is a small book that followed American Betrayal that essentially applies a lot of what I learned in terms of researching subversion and Marxism in our domestic world.
In looking for motives in the anti-Trump conspiracy, and I didn't know what I would find, and as you and I have discussed, I found a lot.
I found a lot of the major players, Comey, Brennan, and others, or Nellie Orr, Christopher Steele, had very strong communist backgrounds as young people, and there's no evidence that they ever changed, and we see in their will to power today, and their lawlessness, and their absolute antagonism toward the Constitution, We see continuity.
So the Red Thread essentially continues some of America Betrayal's examination, but it's all about the swamp.
And I actually do believe the swamp in many ways is a Russian swamp.
It's a communist swamp.
A lot of our problems come from not understanding it.
Well, it is a strange thing that communism supplanted to the West, died in Russia to a large degree, and continues to flourish in the West.
It's one of the great tragic stories of modern history.
Well, thanks very much for your time.
It's DianaWest.net, where people can get your writing.
Really, really appreciate your time today, and we'll talk again soon.
▲
Export Selection