← Provoked with Darryl Cooper and Scott Horton![EP:18 [GUEST] : Glenn Greenwald - The Fall of John Bolton (Audio Enhanced) — Provoked with Darryl Cooper and Scott Horton cover](https://media.redcircle.com/images/2025/9/25/13/a30b86ff-0558-4774-9768-752cd9451f3a_006307ceceb9add6ffa3294a8ef4697d.jpg)
Provoked with Darryl Cooper and Scott Horton
EP:18 [GUEST] : Glenn Greenwald - The Fall of John Bolton (Audio Enhanced)
01:10:01
Loading summary
Transcript63 lines
- [00:27]
A
It's Sam. Hey, welcome to the show, guys. Ruby, come to me, baby. Come here. Sorry, the dog's barking right at the start of the show. Hey, I'm Scott, and that's not Daryl Cooper. That is Jay Burton filling in for Daryl Cooper tonight. And I'm sorry, apparently somebody's at my door right as we're starting the show live. And so my dog's going crazy, but I'm just going to try to ignore that and. And introduce Jay. Welcome. Thank you for co hosting for Gerald Cooper. He's out taking care of a little bit of business tonight. Why don't you tell everybody a little bit about your and your great show?
- [01:58]
B
Yeah, of course. Thank you so much for having me on, Scott. My name is Jay Burden, host of the Jay Burden Show. I post interviews a couple times a week. I've had you on. I've had Daryl on a lot of our mutual friends. So if you're interested, I'd appreciate y' all checking that out on whichever podcast app you use.
- [02:15]
A
Yeah, absolutely. And I had a great time on there. And I know that you did an interview with Daryl. I can't remember if I watched that or not. I think I did. But it is. It was a fun show, and I know everybody will like that. Is it. What's the handle? YouTube.com what?
- [02:35]
B
Just Jaybirden. You'll find me Jay Burden.
- [02:38]
A
All right. Easy enough. Great. Okay. So glad to have you here. We have a special guest on the show tonight. In just a few minutes, the great Glenn Greenwald will be joining us, and together, we will all be making fun of John Bolton. I literally have been just sitting in a room alone, laughing my ass off today. Literally lol ing at the fate of John Bolton and. And what fun reading that indictment and everything. He's going away. But before that, we got to talk about a couple of other things. First of all, well, we're going to talk about this with Daryl, but he couldn't be here. Daryl's episode, first episode of the Germans war has come out, and that is at martyrmade.com and martyrmaid. Oh, I forgot they got him a screwy substack address. But anyway, just Google up Martyr Maid and you'll find his substack and his website, and you can sign up on Spotify and whatever. And this is. He's now just beginning to tell the story of World War II from the German's point of view. This is not because he's a Nazi simp and wants you to be one either. He's just A real historian, and he's questioning, you know, what it was that animated the German side of the whole thing. We always hear from the American perspective and the British perspective. We don't even really get to hear from the Soviet perspective. And they were our allies in the thing, or the Chinese perspective. They were our allies in the thing as well. But he's taking a look at the Germans war. And so episode one mostly focused on the First World War, which of course, Hitler served in. And that was part of the whole story of the rise of the Third Reich. And for that matter, the rise of the Communists in the east and the rise of the Third Reich was in great part of reaction to that. So. So, yeah, so it's great. And I know it's going to get him in a lot of hot water because people don't like hearing these things at all. But I really enjoyed part one. I know that everybody will. So did you get a chance to listen to it yet, Jay?
- [04:46]
B
Yeah, I did. It was excellent. I mean, look, it's Daryl Cooper, you know, it's going to be good. And I think for a lot of people who've been on the Internet, who are interested in history, interested in extreme human events, it's easy to get jaded. And Darryl's work, particularly this episode, produced a very visceral emotional reaction in me, which is not common. You're on the Internet, you see horrible things, and whether you like it or not, it sort of deadens your senses. And I know this isn't just me because talking to some of my friends, some of whom are on the Internet, some of whom are not, I heard the same thing over and over again, which is. This is incredibly affecting. It's really a story of Western civilization blowing itself up for largely no reason. Young men sort of thrown into the meat grinder of war. And regardless of your opinions on any individual man involved in it, it's humanizing. And I think it's important to realize that even in World War I and World War II, two of the most dramatic events in the history of our civilization, people on both sides were people for good and ill. And so I'd highly recommend it. I'm not sure. Do you know if it's out on the public feed or do you have to pay to watch it yet?
- [05:56]
A
Oh, that's a good question. I'm not sure. I guess, yeah, the subscribers get it first.
- [06:01]
B
I'll put it this way, it's worth paying for. I don't know how much it costs to pay for Daryl stuff. I think it's five bucks a month or something like that, right? It's worth that. Pay Daryl your money. He's doing good work.
- [06:11]
A
Yeah, Christopher's giving me hand signals backstage there that. Yeah, that's right. It's subscription only for now, and. But, you know, eventually his stuff will come out on YouTube and whatever, but I'm not sure how long, so people definitely should subscribe. Oh, is the audio messed up? Isn't that weird? Yeah, we've been having a weird audio problem. We're reset now, though. Okay. So this guy was explaining how he was explaining World War II to his boy, and it was really easy, see, was the good guys versus the bad guys and all this. And then. But then his son asked, well, what about World War I? And he found that even though he knew the story of the war, it was much more complicated to explain to his son that, well, you just had a bunch of empires competing over influence and power and money and this kind of thing in a way that made it much more complicated and much less black and white. And. And yet you can't tell the story of the Second World War without telling the story of the first and how the first led to the second, as I think Pat Buchanan called it, or whoever it was, called it the. The Great Civil War of the west, that it was one big war. Go ahead.
- [07:13]
B
Well, and it's important to. To mention as well that World War II is the ideological justification for why America gets to have an empire. Right. We saved you from the human embodiment of Satan, Adolf Hitler himself. And because of that, it takes on the moral tone of a myth.
- [07:31]
C
It's not real history. It is a morality.
- [07:35]
B
It's like.
- [07:35]
A
Right, that's doing it again. I'm interrupting you because we're having that audio problem. Go ahead. That should have reset it.
- [07:42]
C
All right, point is, World War II has become mythic, real history anymore. Not to say that it didn't happen, but it is the reason why America gets to be the world empire. We saved everyone from Hitler, and because of that, it has a moral tone to it. And so when we look at Darrell's work going into the actual men involved in rankles our moral sensibilities, because from a certain perspective, he's attacking a religious myth. We've got to understand that these men were. Then they were humans for good and for ill. And especially when we look at how World War II and the narrative of World War II was used to justify both our empire and also what we see in Israel, it's important to understand that Even looking this as human, looking at it in the most realistic way possible, is subversive to the regime as it exists. So when you look at the reaction to what Daryl has done, understand you're not witnessing the reaction to a historical. You're witnessing the reaction to a heritage.
- [08:42]
D
Right.
- [08:43]
C
He has gone into the holy of holies and chucked a spear at, you know, the idol of Odin, you know, that he's chopped down the. The sacred oak. And so it's no wonder that these people are freaking out.
- [08:54]
A
Yeah, yeah. I think that's a great way to put it. I've often said that. And I may have got this from somebody else a long time ago. I don't remember. I think it was just me that said that. Yeah, essentially that George Washington and even Abraham Lincoln are gone. That the real founding fathers of America now are fdr, Truman and Eisenhower. If you want to make it, you know, a bipartisan sort of triumvirate kind of thing, that this is really. The modern American state was founded then and not just the New Deal, but in the fires of the Second World War and the permanent empire that we maintain ever since then. And so, yeah, you're absolutely right that it's. It's become mythical and legendary and. And look, my grandfather was in the Second World War. A lot of people's were. And so it's actually something that we all have in common. That time we did this one big great thing for good against bad. And especially the way I was raised on it was unlike after the First World War with the British and the French were these ruthless SOBs. America rebuilt and befriended the Germans and the Japanese. The. Because that's how you do it, right? You don't go in there and just conquer and take advantage. You build people up, make democracies out of them and now we're all friends and this kind of thing. So it's. It's, you know, really has not just the morality play of destroying evil, but of also inheriting the world and inheriting all of, for that matter, the Europeans world empires in a way that is totally justified. You know, ask the Japanese and the Germans, they love us for what we did for them, which by the way, they had the Soviet Union hanging over their head. So he had a pretty good threat that like. I know you prefer us to them, don't you? But that's part of it, right? Is that whole thing. So yeah, you're right, that. That then goes to the emotional type reaction against what Daryl? Even the minimal things kind of revisionist. Take that he Muttered on Tucker caused such a firestorm because these things are not supposed to be in question at all. You don't go into church on Sunday morning and start questioning the virgin birth. You know, you don't talk about American politics and start questioning whether Truman really had to drop those nukes. Start questioning whether FDR really had to turn a blind eye and let those boys at Pearl harbor be sacrificed the way that he did. And the rest of all those questions that, that rise up when we start looking at the Second World War in that way.
- [11:16]
B
Well, the French are, and this might be the only time you'll ever hear me say this, the French are kind of more sensible about this than we are because they just number their republics. You've got like the third, the fourth, so on. And America's basically done the same thing, right? America is fundamentally different before and after Andrew Jackson, for example. It's still the same country, of course, but it works in a different way. Similarly, after Lincoln, it's almost unrecognizable. And really, we live in the house that FDR built. The structure of our government, this idea of ruling by experts, getting a group of people who went to college, who studied something together to sort of sit in a box together and come up with managerial schemes for how we're going to regulate corn production or foreign policy or any one of these things. That's FDR's system, this giant government, all of these three letter agencies. Again, it's what FDR did. I mean, example, right? Things like, you know, FDR or, sorry, things like Ruby Ridge and Waco. That agency is the direct result of things that FDR did, right? A desire to restrict guns and alcohol. He put together that organization. And so really, he is sort of the founder of this version of our civilization. Because, look, man, if Darryl was saying things about, I don't know, George Washington, like, if he was slandering George Washington, saying, you know, oh, he was this pick your poison. The worst thing you can imagine. I mean, people might think it's a little bit uncouth, they might think it's rude, but no one cares. No one's losing their job for their opinion on Abraham Lincoln, really. But FDR and by extension, the war. The war, right. The sort of fire out of which the empire was built, that's the one that gets you in trouble. And I think it's interesting as well to say, like, there are other historical controversies that really don't matter, like, let's pick a stupid one. Scott, if you say, I don't believe Napoleon Existed, okay, who cares? Like literally, who cares? You're wrong, you're stupid. But there's no moral weight to that. You know, it's completely irrelevant. Similarly, you could look at probably proportionally the most murderous man in history, Genghis Khan. If you say, yeah, I love Genghis Khan, you know, I'm a member of the Golden Horde. I mean, it's stupid, it doesn't mean anything. But people don't care. They think you're an eccentric, you think you're a weirdo for even knowing who that is. Whereas if you say, hey, you know, as Sam Hyde joked, I'm your top guy, Hitler, you know, you identify with that regime, you are put out beyond the pale. And I'm not defending either Hitler or Genghis Khan. But to say this is a discussion that has exited the realm of the historical. It has become a moral, religious to use that framework claim. And look, I haven't tracked the reaction to Darrell's podcast yet. I can sort of guess already that the exact same people that were losing their mind last time will continue to lose their mind. And while we're talking about that kind of moral condemnation, it's very important to remember that these people are not applying the same moral standard to their favorite countries. There's a prominent Middle Eastern democracy you may be aware of that is able to do all the exact same things that 20th century Germans are blamed for. But it's different when they do it because again, they are given a special dispensation because of the war to do things that normal, quote, unquote countries can't do. They are the exception. They get to break the rules. And again, this is another way in which that myth, not to say it didn't happen, but that narrative of World War II is really the bedrock of the society we exist in.
- [15:08]
A
Yep. And which is funny too, because if you want to just go the other way and go, well, no, because what happened was after World War II is America built the United nations with our allies and passed all the Geneva Conventions and outlawed World War II methods of warfare. And so that's, you know, again, the moral claim to the world empire is that this is not a world empire at all. This is just America being the referee in the liberal rules based world order that everybody signed up for and agreed to. Again, we're not the French and the British. We rebuild our friends. We, we might occupy them in the sense that we saw bases in Germany, but we don't have troops on their streets. And you know what I mean? And so Then. But then all of a sudden, every Zionist is a Carl Schmittian when it comes to Israel. And now the United Nations Charter never existed in the Geneva Conventions. Never existed. And what did they do on October 8th? Beginning on October 8th, they invoked Dresden and Hamburg and Tokyo and Hiroshima and Nagasaki and said, we get to do to the Gaza Strip ghetto what you guys got to do to the Third Reich and Tojo's Imperial Japan because of, you know, because of. Of a thousand people killed on one day on an. In an attack that was over by supper time. And a thousand's a lot. And it's horrible. And hell, I've said it before, it included an extended family member of mine was killed by Hamas that day. But then for. They get to then say, well, now we get to do Hamburg to Gaza because of that is. And write themselves that exception. And with America there as the world policeman to write them that license to kill and that exception to the rules is pretty astounding stuff. And wait, I'm sorry, let me reintroduce you here real quick. Jay. It's Jay Burton, everybody. He's the host of the Jay Burden show here on the YouTubes, and he's guest hosting for Daryl Cooper with us. Okay, here I am. Check, check, check. Hey, that's good. Yeah.
- [17:07]
D
All right, I'm gonna bring Glenn in. Glenn, are you ready? I'm ready.
- [17:11]
A
Okay. Yeah, sounds good to me. Okay. Tell me, Greenwall, how hilarious is it that John Bolton is going to the pokey?
- [17:23]
D
You know, I try not to take pleasure in other people's misfortune, but I'm really failing in this case in my efforts. And I have to say, my efforts aren't even very sincere. And I say that in part because obviously John Bolton is one of the most sociopathic warmongers ever to serve in a high position of government, at least in the past, say, five or six decades, massive amounts of bloodshed and suffering and instability all around the world, that is on his hands. And there'd be a lot more if he got his way as well. But I say it also because he is probably the person who has most vigorously demanded not just life imprisonment, but even execution for sources of mind, including Edward Snowden's, people like Julian Assange. And he called on Edward Snowden to be hanged from an oak tree, like he had actually envisioned the type of tree he wanted them hanged from. He called for Julian Assange to be imprisoned for 176 years. The same thing about Chelsea Manning, who was the source for WikiLeaks. Publication about US war crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq. People who actually, unlike John Bolton, took classified information and published it to the world not with the intention to write a book or to self aggrandize or profit, but because they wanted their fellow citizens to understand things their government was doing that they had every right to know. In contrast, John Bolton did so much worse than these people whose who we called for to be in prison for life or to be killed. He first of all was dealing with the most sensitive secrets the government has as the national security advisor. Not just top secret or classified, but the most sensitive things. He was sending them so recklessly across AOL and Google unsecured platforms. Whereas I've talked about this before, how Edward Snowden was fanatical about ensuring that we only use the highest level of encryption to handle the material so it couldn't be hacked or acquired by foreign adversaries. John Bolton's just sending it like it was candy across AOL Group chats to his wife and daughter. And the only motive he had in doing this was because he wanted to make sure that he could write a book that would both earn him a lot of money and rehabilitate his reputation. And both of which happened because he used it to bash Trump. And it's the last thing I would say, Scott is unlike again with, you know, Chelsea Manning or Julian Assange or Snowden or any of the other people whom he's been castigating for so long, who never caused this material to be treated irresponsibly or recklessly and therefore foreign adversaries to obtain it, according to the government, at least, because John Bolton was storing this stuff in totally vulnerable Gmail and AOL accounts, the Iranians were able to hack it and obtain some of the most sensitive secrets the United States government has. And if anyone had done what John Bolton is accused of doing, I promise you he would be on every network demanding that they be put in prison or hanged from a tree. And I think we should do to John Bolton what he has always advocated should be done to people who knew what he did.
- [20:26]
A
Yeah, man, yeah, for life in the supermax with Ramsey Yousef and the rest of the terrorists there. Now I saw you made a very good point about this on your show earlier, Glenn, was that this is not a prosecution that comes from pressure from President Trump on the DOJ to go after his enemies, which we all know that that Jim Comey and the rest all deserve it. But that seems like some pretty top down effort. Whereas I think you're saying was it this investigation started under Joe Biden, or it was brought up under Trump 1, but the Biden government expanded the investigation, or how did that go?
- [21:07]
D
Was started under the first Trump administration, but really at the very end. And the Biden administration took it, and according to every report, they thought it was an extremely serious criminal investigation. It made a lot of headway. And it was not just people inside the Justice Department of the Biden Justice Department, but also people inside the intelligence communities who took this very seriously and were extremely concerned for the national security breaches and vulnerabilities that John Bolton created with his behavior. Now, the Biden just department decided not to prosecute, I believe, in large part because John Bolton by then had become a very important political ally, somebody who left the Trump administration, who worked very closely with Donald Trump and was going all over media bashing Trump, calling him reckless. He refused to vote for Trump. He had become a very important political asset. And I really question whether the reason that prosecution didn't go forward was because of political reasons, especially Scott, given, as you know, the people who do these sorts of things in Washington are often punished very harshly. One of the only examples that I can think of are people who are high level, like David Petraeus got caught passing what are called the crown jewels of American national security state above the top secret level to his mistress. But the reason he was giving it to her, Paula Broadwell, was because she was also his biographer and he wanted her to be able to write a book. It was like a hagiography to David Petraeus, but it was incredibly reckless and criminal and he got like a slap on the wrist. But he did have to plead guilty to a misdemeanor. So it's impossible for me, given that they even indicted David Petraeus, that absent political motives, they wouldn't have indicted John Brennan. And then even under the Trump administration, we've seen Trump go on true social and be like, hey, Pam, go prosecute Jim Comey. Go prosecute Letitia James. That's not what happened here. This was all processed through the regular apolitical channels of the National Security Division of the Justice Department by career prosecutors, not the kind that Trump, you know, just put in just to sign the Comey indictment. And it has a lot more credibility than those other indictments as a result. And if you read the indictment, you understand why it was taken very seriously.
- [23:15]
A
Yeah, absolutely. If the indictment is to be believed at all, then it's an open and shut case and he's guilty as hell, as you say, using AOL email accounts, there's not an exception written in the law for that anywhere. We know that. And Woodrow Wilson's Espionage act is incredibly broad. If they can use it against all these whistleblowers, they can sure as hell use it against John Bolton. Jay Burden, guest hosting for Daryl Cooper tonight. Did you have a question for Glenn? Yeah, you want to get in here? Yeah.
- [23:43]
B
Glenn, good to speak with you. The predominant coverage we've seen in mainstream press, I think of npr, among others, has been casting this as a political persecution as Trump going after some guy he doesn't like. If it's possible to sort of recast this in a non political light, is there any weight to that or is this simply a case where John Bolton broke the law and if you or I did what he would, what he is accused of doing, we would similarly be facing serious jail time. So is this a political witch hunt?
- [24:20]
D
Well, there's no doubt Donald Trump hates John Bolton. And the reason he hates him is because John Bolton spends a lot of his time on media outlets hostile Donald Trump, bashing Trump and using his experience as Trump's national security advisor to say he's unqualified as commander in chief. He is this, he's that. And Trump dislikes and wants retribution against people who vocally criticize him, especially in the media. I don't think there's any secret about that. So I have no doubt that Trump harbors hostility toward John Bolton and Trump is a pretty vindictive person and would love to see Bolton pay for that and suffer for that as well, especially since in addition to all the things I already said about Bolton speaking out, Bolton was basically the go to source on CNN when Trump was indicted on allegations of mishandling classified information. John Bolton was all over the media saying this is the kind of thing that's so reckless, this endanger is our men and women in harm's way, et cetera, et cetera, all that rhetoric. So Bolton was saying that all about Trump. And I know Trump loves this idea of kind of like otissa James tried to indict or sue Trump on mortgage fraud, now Trump wants to indict her. So I don't doubt that that's there. But I also have no doubt that absent any kind of political hostility on the part of Trump, if John Bolton were just ordinary national security functionary who got caught treating classified information in this manner for these motives and as a result of his recklessness allowed the Iranians to hack this information, at least as alleged by the indictment, and obtain it, there would be a prosecution at least as aggressive as this one, if not more so. And I also think it's important, as I noted in response to Scott's question, that this was not the kind of prosecution that looks political in the sense of how it originated or how it ended up getting pushed through the system. It was something that went through the normal channels that career prosecutors signed off on. It wasn't like with the case of Comey or Tish James, where prosecutors quit because they didn't think there was a case and Trump had to send some personal attorney to interim appoint and have her sign it. This was a case that went. All of the machinations that these cases typically go through, absent political motive, but then a grand jury indicted on 18 felony counts, and of course, you know, a grand jury is not that difficult to convince, to indict, but this kind of a serious indictment, it just adds some added weight to it. And, you know, if you were to ask me, if this were a close ally of Trump and, you know, someone got caught doing this or a close ally of Trump, would they be prosecuted? I'd be open to the argument that no, Trump would intervene and protect them in improper and political ways. I certainly don't put that past Trump, put that mildly. But in this case, it's just, I'm absolutely convinced that I've seen people prosecuted for much less than this, and there's just no way you can overlook. It's also because of the sensitivity of his position. And the National Security advisor is basically second only the CIA director and after the president in terms of the access that they have to the most sensitive secrets. So the kinds of secrets John Bolton could access, national security advisor, it doesn't get more sensitive than that. And so somebody is just writing memos about the things they're hearing and sending it to their wife and daughter to aggregate and collect for a book. And then because of that, the Iranians get to acquire that. Yes, that is something that, absent any political motive, would undoubtedly be prosecuted and prosecuted very aggressively in Washington.
- [27:55]
B
So what do you make of the fact that he has pleaded not guilty? Do you think that that is a genuine, I guess, desire to clear himself of these charges? Like, what's the legal strategy there?
- [28:09]
D
Well, I mean, it's almost. I've never. Almost never heard of a case where somebody shows up in an arraignment and pleads guilty. I mean, arraignment is just the first appearance you make in court after you've been indicted and you turn yourself in. It's, you know, you would only plead guilty if you were to plead guilty as part of a plea bargain with prosecutors, where you get a reduced jail sentence. And obviously that is pleading not guilty is essentially automatic. I have no doubt, given John Brennan's entire life has been devoted to vilifying people who did exactly what he's accused of doing, that there's no way he can at any point plead guilty to this. He's going to have to fight this to the end. And, you know, it makes me sick. You mentioned the people who are suggesting this is a political prosecution. These aren't the same people in media and the Democratic Party. Democratic Party who are now rising in defense of John Bolton, whose primary political strategy for the last 10 years, from 2016 with the Russiagate hoax through to all these different prosecutions in 2024, including a case alleging classified documents, whose primary strategy was to put Donald Trump and his closest political allies and even family members in prison. But now they're the ones turning around and saying, how dare you weaponize and politicize our justice system? And again, I don't think. I think there are valid cases where that concern can be raised. I just don't think John Bolton's prosecution is one of them. But I have no doubt. I think there's a statute of limitations grounds that they might try and fight it on, namely that he's going to say that this material was sent in 2018, which is outside of the statute of limitations. But that's why the indictment tries to put the period of working with this classified information through to 2022. So there's issues of that and issues of intent. But as Scott alluded to, the espionage act of 2017, which was enacted by Woodrow Wilson to justify the imprisonment of war opponents, which is how it was used, and then has been used by every administration, especially Obama administration, to punish whistleblowers and sources of journalists. It's so powerful because of how broad it is. The only thing you have to prove under the Espionage act is that you are somebody who is obligated to safeguard the sanctity of classified information. And instead of doing that, you gave it to somebody unauthorized to receive classified information. So if you prove that Edward Snowden gave me classified information, that's an espionage conviction. If you prove Daniel Alsburg gave the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times, that's an Espionage act conviction. And there's no question that John Bolton's wife and daughter were unauthorized to receive or access classified information. And if he gave it to them, as seems clear that he did, that is a violation of the espionage act of 1917. And that is a serious felony.
- [30:57]
A
So tell me about the case against Jim Comey. How open and shut is that one?
- [31:03]
D
Well, I do think, first of all, I do think there's. I mean, if. If the President, United States goes on the True Social and writes a direct post to the Attorney General saying, hey, you gotta get him indicted, the statute of limitations running out, I'm furious. And then he personally places his personal attorney as the head of the office, and she's the only one who signs the indictment. Despite having no experience prosecuting cases before. It's a pretty strong ground that that case has been politicized by the president against a political opponent there. But let's say it's true that Trump is being vindictive, that he's trying to unleash the Justice Department against his enemies. That's still a different question than whether Comey violated the law. And I do. The claim is that Comey lied to Congress and lied to investigators about a leak investigation where he denied having directed Andrew McCabe to leak information on his behalf. And Andrew McCabe has said previously that Comey did that. There's evidence that Comey participated in this leak. And so the argument is, by lying to investigators, by lying to Congress, he obstructed justice. Lying to investigators is a crime. And again, here, ironically, this is the sort of thing that Jim Comey did when I think one of the worst prosecutions as part of Russiagate was what they did to Michael Flynn, where they eavesdropped Michael Flynn's calls with the Russian ambassador and with other counterparts in the Russian government. So the FBI was eavesdropping on those calls where the NSA was not because they were targeting Flynn, but because they were targeting the Russian officials. So they heard what Michael Flynn was saying in the transition, and then the FBI called up Michael Flynn and said, hey, we'd like to talk to you about your conversation with the Russians. And being a good patriotic American who was ready to become National Security Advisor, he's like, of course I'll talk to the FBI. And the whole point of this was to trap him in a perjury trap, to get him to lie to FBI investigators so that they could then prosecute him. Which is what they. Exactly what they proceeded to do. They charged him with lying to the FBI. And that's basically now the charge that Jim Comey faces there. There are statute of limitations questions. The case where he lied to Congress in 2018, which is outside of the statute of limitations, is much stronger than the one where he lied Again, inside the statute of limitations. So I don't consider this case nearly as strong as Bolton, but there is a case there, especially given Comey's prosecutorial history.
- [33:28]
A
And I'm sorry, I know my mic is terrible for whatever conflict software reasons we have here, but what about John Brennan? Is there anything within the statute of limitations that they can still nail that sop on? Glenn, if you can hear me.
- [33:41]
D
Okay, so I hope so. I mean, it's so hard. Like, Scott, if somebody were to say to you, okay, John Bolton, John Brennan, Jim Comey, which, if you could pick one, would spend a lot of time in prison, who would you pick?
- [33:59]
A
Brennan is the one that deserves to go more than any of them by far.
- [34:04]
D
Which one? Which one?
- [34:05]
A
Brennan. John Brennan is by far the most criminal.
- [34:08]
D
Yeah, I have a hard time not picking Bolton, but maybe that's just because of my own personal animus toward him, toward. Because of his behavior in the cases in which I was personally involved. But, yeah, you're right. John Brennan is a monster and, you know, lean and some of the worst atrocities committed in the last, you know, since the end of the Cold War for sure. I just don't know that the case. Since he hasn't been indicted yet and we haven't seen the evidence laid out against him, I don't know how strong it is. They're definitely hoping to. Trump desperately wants Brennan indicted. Brennan obviously was a leading figure trying to put Trump in prison for Russiagate frauds, hoaxes. I just can't assess the strength of that case because we haven't seen it laid out yet the way we have with Comey and Bolton.
- [34:58]
B
So this might be a naive question, Glenn, but it seems to me that leaking was a useful, selective tool. Someone could be prosecuted if they were damaging to the regime, whereas if it was a beneficial breach, that that was something that was allowable. I'm curious, to what degree do you think this will change that incentive? To what degree you think that Washington insiders, as, I guess broadly as we can constitute that will change their behavior, I guess in reaction to this, to this case?
- [35:33]
D
I mean, this is the thing, Scott. This is what has. This is what I think is the crucial point that you just put your finger on. And it's something I've been talking about for a long time, for many years, which is, you know, all that moral indignation that people expressed when Trump was prosecuted for keeping a bunch of classified material at Mar a Lago. Part of why I thought that was so preposterous was because the President for better or worse, does have the unilateral power to just declassify or classify whatever he wants. So Trump could literally just kind of magically wave a hando and say, these documents are hereby declassified. So to, to charge the President, of all people, with mishandling classified information or keeping it or taking it from the White House always struck me as bizarre. Unlike, say, John Bolton, who's bound by the President's determination about what's secret. But also it's what you just said, which is all these journalists who are like, oh my God, I can't believe Trump would violate the sacred oath of classified. These people. Washington runs on leaks of classified documents every single day. These people are trying to get classified information. They are getting classified information. The government leak classified information every day. It's part of their propaganda strategy. Every day you pick up the New York Times, the Washington Post, and you say, you know, sources told us X, Y and Z happened in a classified setting. Those are all, you know, deliberate government promoting propaganda leaks using classified information, weaponizing these leaks. These journalists participate in it, these government officials participate in it. And so to have them all act like, oh, so scandalized because Trump took some documents and kept them in an insecure way with such just sanctimony and such feigned self righteousness. But the other more important point is it's kind of like what I was referring to with David Petraeus earlier. But usually when powerful people get caught leaking classified information, nothing happens to them. I think the most egregious case was Leon Panetta when he was the CIA director under President Obama. As I'm sure you recall, there was that film Zero Dark Thirty that was intended to glorify the CIA's torture program as being instrumental in helping the US government find Osama Bin Laden. And Leon Panetta and other top Obama officials met with the filmmakers of Zero Dark Thirty. And it was at a time when journalists and others were trying to get their hands on the key top secret documents that showed how the US Found Bin Laden, how they were able to get bin Laden, and the government was refusing to disclose it, saying the disclosure of this would severely jeopardize classified information. Leon Panetta, in order to enable these filmmakers again to create a studio film very flattering to the CIA, handed them huge amounts of classified information, top secret information about bin Laden raid, but also CIA interrogation programs and black sites that lawyers have been trying to get forever and journalists have been trying to get forever. He just leaked for the most self aggrandizing reasons, which was he wanted the CIA and himself to look good in this film and nothing was done to him. And of course, there's been so many other instances of top level Obama officials and Bush Cheney officials leaking classified information. Nothing is ever done. I think the David Petraeus case was the gravest. He got a slap on the wrist. There's always been this two tiered punishment system where powerful people who leak are immunized or essentially immunized. And the only people who get punished are the people with benevolent motives, with actually noble motives. You know, the Chelsea Mannings and the Tom Drakes and the Edward Snowdens and the Julian Assanges. And Assange really doesn't even belong in there. He didn't even have an obligation to maintain classified information the way John Bolton did, even though Bolton said He should spend 176 years in prison. But these mid level or lower level leakers who as a matter of conscience discover secret information that the government was doing in secret and think the public should know, those are the people who they want to destroy and be put into prison for decades or for life. They wanted to do that with Daniel Alsberg, even though the documents he leaked showed that the government was lying about the Vietnam War, something the American public had the right to know. The people who get immunized are the high level officials. So this is a very aberrational case because it is a high level official, but it's somebody who has provoked a lot of animosity among the people currently in charge of the Justice Department in the White House. And I do think if John Bolton is punished for this, if the prosecution really makes headway, if he ends up going to jail for even a year, let alone as much as he deserves, that could start to change the calculus, at least in terms of how these cases are handled and punished.
- [40:22]
A
All right, so Glenn, I think you need to go. How's my audio? Can anyone even hear me? I'm a little louder now.
- [40:27]
D
Sounds good to me.
- [40:29]
A
Okay, well. And Glenn, you said you had to go, right?
- [40:33]
D
Yeah, just. Yeah, if you have another question, we can do that. But yeah, I kind of have to around. It's not a super hard out, but maybe we can do another question if you have one.
- [40:42]
A
No, I think we're good.
- [40:43]
D
Unless.
- [40:44]
A
Jay, did you have one more thing for Glenn here?
- [40:46]
B
This might be a softball one, but Glenn, how bad do you feel for John Bolton given his current situation?
- [40:54]
D
Well, one of the things I'm really concerned about actually at just on like a humanitarian level is I don't think his mustache, which is obviously like a source of his self esteem, is permitted under the facial hair regulations of federal penitentiaries. He's probably going to have to shave that off or severely curtail it, which is kind of like cutting the powerful hair of mythological figures and seeing them kind of wilt. I think that might happen if his mustache gets shaved and in a lot of ways, too. Putting John Bolton in prison for mishandling classified information is very much like getting Al Capone on tax evasion charges. John Bolton belongs to hanged at the Hague for endless numbers of war crimes. But if whatever actually might scare John Bolton about going to prison, let alone put John Bolton in prison, is something that I'm going to be really happy about. And like I said, I've been trying really hard to separate my love of watching him suffer with my ability to just assess this and stay consistent with my principles. But I have to admit I'm struggling mightily with that and probably am failing thus far to do that.
- [42:04]
B
Yeah, I think we're in the same boat there, Glenn.
- [42:07]
D
It's a. It's a hard life. It's a hard situation.
- [42:10]
A
Yeah. All right, everybody, it's the great Glenn Greenwald. Check him out over on Rumble for his great show System Update. Really appreciate you joining us here, Glenn.
- [42:21]
D
Always good to see you. Thanks. Good night.
- [42:25]
A
All right. And some of the chat room can hear me, some of them can't, I think. Chris, you want me to refresh one time? Would that help? Or we're just good without. Is it better without Greenwald? Does that fix it? I don't know. All right, I got, I got something else horrible I want to say about John Bolton, which is that it's all his fault that North Korea has nuclear weapons. And nobody ever talks about this because it was the run up to Iraq War two. And so no one was really paying attention except us over@antiwar.com and the thing of it was, this was when W. Bush took office, we had a deal with North Korea called the agreed framework of 1994 that said that we would give them welfare payments, light water reactors and fuel oil if they would stay within the Non Proliferation Treaty and the Safeguards Agreement and leave their Soviet built Yongbyon reactor off and agreed to not, you know, stay in the MPT and agreed to not make nuclear weapons. And they never did give them the welfare. They gave him a little bit of fuel oil and they never delivered the light water reactors, even though Donald Rumsfeld's company got the contract and the money to deliver Light water reactors, which light water reactors produce waste that's so polluted with isotopes that you can't really refine it and make weapons fuel out of it. So it's the perfect solution if you want a country you don't trust to have a nuclear program or they want to have a nuclear program, but you're worried about nuclear weapons, light water reactors, this great solution to that. But Newt Gingrich, who controlled the Republican Party in the House at the time, wouldn't allow Clinton to even live up to his end of the deal. But that was okay. The North Koreans stayed in the deal anyway. But then W. Bush came to town in 2001 and in 2002 he put north Korea in the axis of evil. Then he tore up the Agreed Framework based on the lie that they had a secret uranium enrichment program, even though they did buy some aluminum tubes from Pakistan. They did not have an illicit enrichment program. And even if they did, that would not have been a violation of the deal or of their safeguards agreement. But based on that pretext, they tore up the Agreed Framework, they added new sanctions. They announced what they called the Proliferation Security Initiative, which was their completely illegal claimed right to seize any North Korean boats on the high seas or ships on the high seas in the name of anti proliferation. And they put them in in the Nuclear Posture Review on the short list for a potential nuclear first strike. And only then in December of might have been November, I think it was December of O2. Only then, after what, five, six provocations in a row did Kim Jong Il announce that he was withdrawing from the npt, kicking the inspectors out of the country and was going to now make nuclear bombs. And I really don't know what the hell they were thinking. John Bolton was, was W. Bush's partner crime and all that. And I really don't know if there, I guess I had heard some idea. The plan was, well, we're going to go to Baghdad and then we're going to go to Pyongyang and it'll be fine. But yeah, well they weren't able to go to Tehran or Damascus or Pyongyang. They got bogged down in Iraq. And so what do they do? They force North Korea out of the non Proliferation Treaty with no plan for how to handle it. So now North Korea has at least two or possibly three or four dozen atom bombs and by the way, none of which have been made with uranium, all of which are plutonium bombs. Every test that they they've done has been a plutonium bomb. And so there goes John Bolton's pretext for tearing up the Agreed Framework in the first place. So, you know, I just. I just said that John Bolton was the worst, mostly because of his building of the Caliphate for Obama and Baghdadi back 10 to 15 years ago. But really, John Bolton is responsible for North Korea's nuclear weapons arsenal. So what could be more sinful than that, what could be a worse legacy than that is basically unimaginable. I mean, this. So far, we haven't had a nuclear war with them, but we sure as hell could. So.
- [46:03]
B
Well, it's as awful as it sounds. It kind of brings to mind the old aphorism, worse than a crime. It was a mistake, which is, look, man, politics is a serious game. It's nasty people doing nasty things. And if Bolton had the same body count he did now, but he had been right. He had sunk every shot he had been able to call it. America was riding higher than ever. And you know what, man? I think at least some of us would be able to understand that deal, right? We'd be able to say, well, you know what? He's a bastard, but he's our bastard. The problem is, to say Bolton's got a losing record is probably an understatement. When I was in grade school, he said, you know, Iraq is, what, a year away from a nuclear weapon? That didn't happen. Every one of these predictions, every one of these grand adventures he's led us on has come to naught. I'm sure it's enriched him. I'm sure it's enriched his friends, but as an actual citizen of America, it's not gone quite well for us. And so to me, goes back to really what Glenn said. I'll be honest. I don't care if he actually did this. He should be in jail and then some for anything he's already done. And so, look, as far as I'm concerned, even if this is malicious prosecution, even if it's just because Trump woke up one day and said, you know what? I'm gonna go give Bolton a hard time. I'm gonna be honest. I don't care. Because very clearly, this is not an honorable man. Very clearly, this is a man who is a criminal. And much like you said with Al Capone, okay, fair enough. They got him for tax evasion, but he should have been in jail anyway. And I think myself and many others have that exact feeling for Bolton, because to put it mildly, he's not a good guy. And he's even more so not a capable Administrator, right.
- [47:56]
A
Is he always had gotten in trouble with like hr, you know, his whole career. Long, louder. All right, I don't know what's the problem with this? My audio works well for everything except this show. So somebody else explained that to me. Yeah, they called him a kiss up, kick down kind of guy who always like, you know, mercily harassed women that he worked with and you know, all kinds of things. That was one of the things that prevented him from being confirmed as U. N. Ambassador, had to be named as a recess appointment during W. Bush was because this lady told this story of him like terrorizing her in a hotel. He was trying to get her to sign some document or whatever and was just the way he was going about her was, you know, caused all these problems. So anyway, yeah, he's scum. And you're right, it's just like with the impeachment of, of Bill Clinton. I really don't care what they get him for, just get rid of the SOB for me. You know what I mean? And at this point, yeah, he, you know, there's a problem with old Bolton now. I don't know, I'm sorry about the audio out of. I don't know, you seem to be able to hear me, Jay, so go ahead.
- [49:06]
B
Yeah, you sound, you sound much better now. I think we maybe have got it licked. I think that big picture, right? When we talk about the destruction of norms, and this is something we've been hearing for really the last 10 years since Trump entered politics, it's important to understand that norms do exist, right? It is possible to have limited politics just as it is limited warfare, but that requires good faith. It's reciprocal. Both parties have to agree. And the norms, quote unquote, the Democratic norms that we have been lectured about for a decade at this point, they had already become one sided when Trump basically said, yeah, I'm not doing this anymore. And yeah, sure, that went from one party agreeing to this limit to no parties, which. Okay, fair enough. That means that it's well and truly dead, but it also does, it is more honest. And look, the idea that political persecution started with Letitia James and started with Scott Bolton is absurd. I mean, as Greenwald said, right, the president, whether you like it or not, has the ability to declassify documents. And the fact that a strike team of FBI agents descended on Trump's Mar A Lago estate, you know, rifled through his wife's stuff to find a few, you know, binders full of information. Look, I'm not, I'm not a Trump guy. I'm not a MAGA guy, right? I'm not. I'm not some reflexive defender of President Trump. But that's a major, quote, unquote breach of democratic norms. And once you've done that, there's no going back. Right? It's like when you were a little kid, you can't run up to your brother, sock him in the army, and then run back and say, oh, I'm on base now. When you're playing tag, it's like, oh, no, you have escalated. You have brought this up to a new level. And fundamentally, you've got to be okay with the new level of escalation you have brought things to. And so, look, you can say, is this how the Republic dies? Is this banana republic politics? Yeah, it is. But it's been that for a long time, right? The idea that this was a wise, you know, August series of statesmen, that it was the Republic, exactly as envisioned by Adams and Washington until the year of our Lord 2016, is absurd. And it's so clearly absurd that it is a tactical rhetorical device used to justify the worst people on earth getting away with their crimes. And does that make the Trump administration angels? Far from it. But remember, you don't have to arbitrarily decide, just as we talked about when discussing World War I or World War II, that one side is the side of the angels, that they are fighting on the side of democracy. Look, these are not good people. Sometimes they can act in your interest, in which case supporting them might be beneficial. But don't fall into the moral can't used by these people because they've got blood on their hands. John Bolton basically said, I don't care. You don't know what you're talking about when presented with civilian casualties of the Iraq invasion. So, look, I look at a guy like that who's killed more people than I've met in my entire life. And if he goes to jail, if he goes to, you know, the kind of prison where, you know, guys who look like John Bolton probably don't have a fun time. Sorry, bud. Sorry. Maybe you should have been a. I don't know, a dentist or something.
- [52:36]
A
Yeah, all right, so I turn my gain way up beyond any reason. Now, see, the chat room says that I'm so unprofessional here. It's this software, man, it's console Ev. MUX thing is the only one that gives me this problem, whatever the hell this crap is. But anyway, you can blame me if you want, but hopefully I'm Loud and clear enough here that I can point out that I saw Matt Stoller, who's critical, I think, center left, liberal Democrat, or maybe he's a progressive, but he's like a very serious one. And he was saying, you know, liberals and Democrats have to grapple with the fact that because Barack Obama did not put John Bolton in prison, Donald Trump became the President of the United States, that this is what was supposed to happen with the election of the guy after Bush was accountability for Bush's people and Bolton wasn't. I don't know if he was particularly in on this. He may have been read in on this, but that government tortured people to death, that government lied us into war, and no one was held accountable whatsoever for that. And that was why Barack Obama was elected. And then Barack Obama didn't do anything but bail out banks and also torture people to death and, you know, spread wars and even take Al Qaeda's side deliberately in especially Libya, Syria and in Yemen as well. And so from the liberal Democrat point of view, Donald Trump should be recognized as the result of the absolute failure of the Democrats to do what they were elected to do, which was provide some accountability for the chaos of the W. Bush era. And quite frankly, you know, Donald Trump, if he hadn't have been, and he was really so hemmed in by Russiagate, he was helpless, I guess, but he should have been holding the Obama people and the Bush people accountable back in his first term, and then we probably would never had to deal with Joe Biden. And so just like Greenwald was saying here, it was even Biden's Justice Department, they were afraid to bring the charges, but they developed the case against Bolton to a great degree here. Why? Because he is a criminal, right? This is not a fishing expedition. He's in violation of the law. And same for all of these guys, too. And there were many legal experts at the time who said, look, there are even legal technical arguments for Bush's immunity on these questions, possibly, but not for his lawyers, for Addington and Haynes and all of the guys, John Yu, all the guys that came up with the rationalizations for why the President has the authority to institute this torture regime. They are all liable. They all could be criminally prosecuted. At least could have. I don't know about the statute of limitations now, but they were all in violation of the law for setting up that torture regime. And so even if Bush and Cheney were potentially untouchable, the director of the CIA and the men that worked for him, and especially the people in the Pentagon working for Donald Rumsfeld and torturing people down at Guantanamo Bay, they didn't have the shadow of a pretext, of a legal justification for getting away with that stuff. And so all of this is a very long time coming. And that's why, you know, I'm like you, I'm not a reflexive Trump guy either, but, man, I love watching him indict and persecute his enemies because they're my enemies, too. I hate them, too. That John Brennan and that. And I don't know this Letitia James lady, but the fact that she indicted Trump on criminal charges over this mortgage thing in New York means that absolutely whatever's the worst thing that happens to her is just fine. And that playing that kind of law fair with the front runner for the presidency and all of that, she gets whatever she deserves. So you're just so right about that. These people, you know, they fight their law fair. They don't hold themselves or each other accountable when they really deserve it, then they use the law and twist the law to fight against their enemies. And. And so at some point, there has to be some accountability if you're ever going to get the ship right at all.
- [56:28]
B
So, two things. One, I want to go off on Letitia James because she's a lady I particularly dislike. She went after American Renaissance with just absolutely flagrant lawfare. Just throwing lawsuits at them, completely bankrupted the Brimelow family, saying, just requesting information constantly. Give us access to your entire list of donors. Give us access to everyone who's ever stayed at your, you know, you're gone to one of your conferences. Drove this small, effectively family business into the dirt, completely reduced it to dust. Sorry, VDare, I said American Renaissance. Anyway, anti immigration, but genteel. They didn't use slurs, they didn't go after people. And Letitia James, because that business was organized in New York, completely drove them into the ground. She's not a good person. Similarly, it seems as if she probably has committed mortgage fraud in a very minor sense. We're not talking big sums here, but I really don't feel any sympathy for her because she herself has violated the rules of ethical conduct. She has chosen to turn the law into a political weapon. And so when it comes for her, sorry, it's like Robespierre getting his head chopped off. You're like, well, okay, I think that's generally a bad thing. But, you know, you were the head chopping guy. So there's some irony to it. When we go back to Bolton, I think it's important to frame this or to recognize the way this issue is being framed in the popular press, to recognize how the people who aren't necessarily passionate about, shall we say, revisionist take on foreign policy, how they're reading about it. And this is an interesting headline. I'll read it out exactly Live update. John Bolton indicted Trump to meet with Putin. Right. Immediately we see the reframing of both Trump as going after John Bolton and connecting that to the evil Russian man, mustache man 2. You remember earlier talking about World War II as the frame through which all historical events are parsed. Well, Putin Pootler, as he has been sort of humorously termed, is just the Austrian painter born anew. And so Trump is not only a sort of, you know, appeaser, right, Giving Hitler born anew, exactly what he wants, but at the same time, he himself is acting like a fascist, going after his. His opponent. And again, like I said, I'm not a Trump guy. I'm not saying you have to view Trump as sent by God to renew the American republic, but you have to look at this and say very clearly, this is not how the issue actually looks from an objective standpoint. But all the same, it doesn't matter because just like we learned, the Gulf War never happened, right? As the postmoderns taught us, well, John Bolton never really existed. Because the John Bolton that exists in the media is not the real man. He is a symbol of, quote, unquote, capital D democracy. He has become, you know, much like Comey, a figure on the votive candles that you can buy in progressive coffee shops. He's become a political figurehead. And I'll be honest, man, I. I really cannot wait for this man to go to jail. He deserves it. And look, this has been kind of a rough year for us people with our sort of politics. We've. We've had to eat crow a couple times. Things haven't gone great. But look, if John Bolton goes to jail, that would make up for a lot. You know, that's.
- [60:04]
A
I'll tell you what. All right, so listen, we're a little over time. I want to spend a little bit of time on Venezuela here, but first I got to make a little bit of money. Moondo's Artisan Coffees. Get it? They hate Starbucks because Starbucks supports the war party. So they're Moon Do's artisan coffees. And look, Scott Horton flavored coffee. They always said if I drink, if I keep drinking coffee, I'm gonna turn into some. Well, it happened. Go to scotthorton.org coffee and it'll forward you right on there. Oh good, there's the QR code. Oops, it was under the chat. But anyway, Scott Horton.org Coffee it is the best selling coffee at Moon dose artisan coffees right now and they are getting a bunch of great response and I am getting a bunch of great response from people who really like it. And so yeah, there you go. Scott Horton blend coffee from Mundo's artisan coffees and, and then I want to change the subject to Venezuela here for a minute before we go. There are a few other things we're going to have to skip, but that's okay. I want to talk about Venezuela, man, I don't like this at all. Jay, I read this in the Wall Street Journal today, okay. And who knows if this is really true, but I don't know. This is what the journal said. The U. S Has moved advanced weaponry into the Caribbean and in the skies north of Venezuela including eight Navy warships, an attack submarine, F35B jet fighters, P8 Poseidon spy planes and MQ9 Reaper drones. The Pentagon has deployed elite special operations forces including the army secretive 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment, the Night Stalkers. A U. S official said the unit flies missions for commandos such as the green berets, Navy seals and delta force and is famous for its involvement in the raid that killed bin Laden. Large troop carrying and attack helicopters are part of the mix with some aircraft conducting training flights fewer than 90 miles from Venezuela. So I had actually read that a little, a little bit too fast earlier in my interview with Daniel Davis earlier today on my other show about saying Green beret, seals and delta force are there. So they're just saying no, but the guys who fly them around are there. Top tier special operations, Air command is, is there. This really sounds like they're preparing to attack. And yet you know the headline today, I'm not sure if you saw but you know Trump got a headline because he used the big F bomb and said that Maduro knows not to f with us and that got the big headline. But if you watch the clip, what's he saying right before there he's saying Maduro is, oh man, I'm going to get the quote wrong. Forgive me, man, it doesn't matter. It's close enough. He's saying he's surrendering everything. He's, he's giving up everything. He's willing to do anything, something like that. Very close to that. And then, and then why? Because he knows not to f with the United States of America, that's what he says. So he's, he's stipulating there that Maduro is, is resisting only in the sense of not stepping down, but in every other way. He is trying desperately to do whatever he can to, to, you know what, please the United States or keep the United States from attacking. We have nothing like a pretext for war here. I mean, they have in all the major papers, they've had all government officials debunking the lie that Maduro's the head of any major drug cartel has any effect on America's, you know, you know, drug supply overall or any kind of thing. They're looking, they're fishing for a pretext here. Remember, Trump tried to overthrow the government of Venezuela the last time he was in power with Juan Guaido and the ridiculous chef Boyardeeku as, as just Raimondo called it so. But, you know, they have 150,000-man army and they have citizen militias that are armed to the teeth, or at least, you know, they've got AK47s, whatever, I don't know, armed to the teeth. But this could be a major conflict. This, if, if Trump just attacks and especially decides he wants to send in ground troops or something. This is not going to be like the invasion of Panama. This is, could be a major war. And, and all we're being told about it is a bunch of crap about drugs and, and no explicit cost of spelly of any kind. But there just looks like they're slouching toward, we might attack by Monday or something. What the hell's going on here, Jay, what do you think?
- [64:30]
B
So, look, I'm not going to pretend to be some advanced geopolitical analyst here. I read the same stories that you do. Now, that said, I've got some sources. I think anyone who's been on the Internet long enough has some sources, and it's important to vet those. But my guys who are in or close to guys who are in are saying there's a decent chance this happens. So I'm not going to say it's 100%, but you don't have to be a genius to look at both the track record and then people currently in a position to soon be there to say, yeah, it feels like something is happening now in a bigger picture sense. We've heard a lot of conversations about a pivot back to the Monroe Doctrine, which is the idea that America is a regional power, that we have regional interests, and maybe contrasting this with stepping back from the national stage. Do I believe that. I'd like to believe that, like, if I could make a choice between being a world empire and, you know, a regional hegemon. Well, I think that the world empire has been rather bad for us. You know, regardless of the moral cost, which has been very high, it hasn't been good for Americans. So comparatively, I would say that's better. But I'll be honest, I'm very cynical. I'm cynical for a number of reasons, which is, again, I've been told to trust the plan any number of times. And look, you know, we're almost a year in at this point, and over and over and over again, we've been let down, disappointed, especially on a foreign policy front. And so I think it's reasonable to expect the worst because we have been let down over again. I mean, is this better than a Middle. Middle Eastern war? I mean, yes, in the same way that losing one leg in a car crash is better than losing both, you know, comparatively. It's sort of damning by faint praise, but I'll be honest, this is not a great sign. I think that if. If this was a serious desire to fight drug trafficking, and even if that's a goal you think can be solved with the military, it's sort of a separate question. We wouldn't be in Venezuela, we'd be in northern Mexico. Right. That's where the cartels are. And that's setting aside if that's a good idea, if that's actionable. You know, we're just tabling that. So to me, this seems of. Well, we want to attack Venezuela. What's a good reason? Drugs, I guess. Are there drug runners in Venezuela? Sure. Could there have been drug runners on that boat also? Yeah, conceivably. It's a reasonable thing that I guess could have happened. Is that a reason we have historically started wars? No, it isn't. I mean, in that case, we'd be like, sending, I don't know, the rangers into, like, the forests of, I don't know, Vermont or something.
- [67:16]
D
Right.
- [67:17]
B
To find pot farms out in the middle of nowhere, Like. Of course not. It's an excuse. And I think the operative question is if, then why? I mean, look, like there are powerful oil interests invested in Venezuela. We know that oil, Big Oil, can throw their weight around in American foreign policy. Let's also acknowledge the fact that Venezuela is sort of cozying up to China. That's something we might not want. And so, look, there's any number of people who want this to happen. And it seems as if much like we've seen in other areas. Any excuse will do, you know, any reason to go after the bad guy. You know, if it's weapons of mass destruction, Islamo fascism, whatever it is, you know, it will. It will be used and again, look like it's very true. You know, it's entirely possible that these boats could have been drug traffickers. We will never know because they got blown up. But also, our military doesn't normally go after groups of 10 guys smuggling drugs. Clearly, it's a theatrical affair at best. We might send the Coast Guard after them. And I don't want to impugn the honor of the Coast Guard, but they don't normally use predator drones. So to me, this seems very much a desire to sort of create an opportunity where the other guy swings first. You know, you've been to a bar before where one guy wants to start a fight, so he sort of puffs up his chest, gets in the other guy's face, he cocks his hand back, the other guy's ready to go, and it's a fight. To me, that's what I think's going on here.
- [68:49]
A
Yeah. As admirals or no, sorry, Secretary of War Stimson said the Japanese must be maneuvered into firing the first shot. So he wrote that in his diary. So the same. Although we're already firing the first shots here, but still looking to get Golf a Tonkin pretext developed, it looks like so. All right, well, look, I think we should call it a night because I'm about to start coughing really bad. I want to thank you for co hosting with us Jay Burton. YouTube.com jayburden everybody. Check out his great show there. Thank you to Glenn Greenwald for dropping by to make fun of John Bolton at Don't Drop the Soap, buddy. And thank you, everybody, for tuning in. We'll see you here next Friday. It.