Scott Horton Show - Just the Interviews - 4/4/25 Matt Taibbi on Government Censorship, Russiagate and Why he’s Suing a Congresswoman

Episode Date: April 5, 2025

Matt Taibbi returns to the show to discuss his recent testimony in front of Congress. They start by quickly going over the false claim one Democratic Congresswoman leveled at Taibbi before he testified and why he’s now suing her for $10 million. They then get into the meat of his testimony, which leads them onto a discussion of government censorship, what we know now about Russiagate and more.     Discussed on the show: “A Response to a Member of Congress” (Racket News) “Exclusive: Clinton Plans Long In The Making” (Sleuth News) Racket Library Matt Taibbi is a journalist, author and political commentator. Subscribe to his Substack publication: Racket News and follow him on Twitter @mtaibbi. This episode of the Scott Horton Show is sponsored by: Roberts and Robers Brokerage Incorporated; Tom Woods’ Liberty Classroom; Libertas Bella; ExpandDesigns.com/Scott. Get Scott’s interviews before anyone else! Subscribe to the Substack. Shop Libertarian Institute merch or donate to the show through Patreon, PayPal or Bitcoin: 1DZBZNJrxUhQhEzgDh7k8JXHXRjY Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

All right, y'all, welcome to the Scott Horton Show. I'm the director of the Libertarian Institute, editorial director of anti-war.com, and author of Provote, how Washington started the new Cold War with Russia and the catastrophe in Ukraine. Sign up for the podcast feed at Scotthorton.org or Scott Horton Show.com. I've got more than 6,000 interviews in the archive. for you there going back to 2003. And follow me on all the video sites and X at Scott Horton Show.

All right, you guys, once again, I got on the line the great Matthew Tyibi from racket news, racket dot news. And of course, he wrote a bunch of great books, including Hate, Inc., which I think you'll really like. And he does a podcast with Walter Kern called America

this week. And he's suing a Congress lady. And I think it's hilarious. Welcome back to the show. How are you doing, Matt? I'm doing great, Scott. How are you doing? No, I'm doing good.

Really happy to have you here, man. So why would you sue some lady who's elected to the Congress by somebody? Well, I mean, I don't want to go on too much about it because, you know, it's litigation. But I testified in a hearing earlier this week about the Global Engagement Center and censorship. And at the very beginning of the hearing, the rank has been here. The ranking member of this House subcommittee, who was a Los Angeles Democrat named Sydney Comlaturedove, wanted it entered into the record that the star witness was a serial sexual harasser. And at the time, I was sort of fiddling with something in my bag while she was talking, and I heard that out of the corner of, you know, out of my corner of my ear and I couldn't believe it you know I've never been accused by

anybody of um you know even one act of sexual harassment let alone serially so uh but I also knew that that members of Congress have an immunity it's in the constitution believe it or not I'm sure you know this right the speech and debate clause sure so I didn't I felt like it wasn't going to be productive to say anything. But on the way home, I saw that she had retweeted the exchange and then implied that because I didn't answer, that was a tantamount to sort of endorsing it. And so I filed suit for libel because I can. And we'll see how that goes.

Yeah. And I read the lawsuit. I'm sure your lawyer doesn't want you to say too much about it, as you sort of implied there earlier. But I read the lawsuit and I already know the story anyway, that it's a bunch of crap. It's all something that Mark Ames wrote that was always make-believe. And, you know, your old writing partner from Backwin and Russia and all this stuff, as everyone knows. And not only that, but this has been brought up and, of that. officially debunked and retracted and rescinded and apologized for by numerous publications over the time.

I guess. I don't know what I guess. But they keep bringing it up. And so good luck to you. It's completely crazy that they would try that. But it's surely actionable as described in the lawsuit, which everyone can read at racket. News. And so good luck to you, man. And I hope you bankrupt. Although, now that she's a congressman, I'm sure she's filthy, stinking rich. So I don't know if 10 million will even make a dent in her earnings or, you know, potential near-term future earnings here. But we'll see how it goes. Well, I have to see, you know, I mean, the one thing I will say, Scott, is that what's so surprising about this? And, you know, I was treated in a pretty roughly the first time I testified before Congress by Democrats.

you know, they called me a so-called journalist, then I was threatened with jail, you know, I had the IRS come to my house, and, you know, I was a Democrat, I'm a lifelong civil liberties advocate, free speech advocate, if they had, you know, asked me questions about other issues, I might have even agreed with them about a few things, but instead, you know, they can continually treat people like me or Glenn Greenwald or, you know, or you, as enemies when I don't know why that's necessary to you. Well, it proves their purity to people inside their cult, but they find themselves in a shrinking cult. That's the way that goes. And by the way, I want to stipulate here in parentheses because I was probably unclear the way I stated that. So just to be clear, Mark Ames did not accuse you of anything. He wrote a funny story that was a fictional satire. thing that had you saying

something funny in it, the fictional you and that was it. So someone might have misinferred there that I was saying that Ames had said that you had done anything at all when the whole thing was a joke in the first place is the real point. Right, right

exactly. Yeah, yeah. He was recounting a scene from the office that was, let's just say massively exaggerated. It was there was never any workplace harassment there were there were conversations about um you know whether or not uh we were always uh professional in the office in terms of like some of the jokes

that we told uh even to each other uh but that wasn't it was never anything like harassment and i You know, in my personal life, I'm an extremely reserved, quiet person and, you know, raise to be a gentleman towards women. So it's been tough, that whole thing. Yeah. Well, good. Stick it to her, man. She deserves it. And, you know, legally, I'm not saying say mean words to her.

I'm just saying let your lawyer handle it. Exactly. So good for you. And anyway, what were you doing on Capitol Hill again, Mr. Taiyby there? So this was a hearing about the Global Engagement Center. This is the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and they were essentially meeting to decide what to do about this wing of the State Department that does counter messaging and content moderation issues.

They were a big character in the Twitter files. The Washington Examiner also did a bunch of stories about them funding. foreign agencies that do media scoring right so essentially they're it's the united states government kind of deciding who gets to have advertising revenue and who doesn't and um so we were testifying about that because they were supposed to go to be defunded but they didn't they just scattered the employees throughout the building and renamed it and but that's how it goes cool and then are you have a couple of good congressmen on your side trying to do something about this and i guess in the majority party huh or not yes uh and this has been a thing that's been going on for years now

across multiple committees um yeah this global engagement center was signed into law by obama at the end of his presidency it was meant to do counter messaging against isis and al qaeda and ended up being directed almost entirely at Americans in English, you know, tweeting in English. So, you know, that's kind of the point of the exercises. Like, we can't have the State Department doing counter messaging against Americans in America. Like, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense, I don't think. Yeah. Well, and importantly, always to enforce lies, things that weren't true at all, all of their ridiculous narratives about

COVID and Ukraine. And I'm sorry, I'm skipping one. After the terrorists, what was first? Oh, Russiagate, of course. And then COVID and then Ukraine. And then what were the other major themes where it was all about kicking off people for telling the truth and bolstering voices that were steering everybody wrong? Yeah. Brexit was won.

You know, they were a big partner in what they called the election integrity partnership with Stanford University. So there was a lot of content about, you know, Trump in the 2020 election with Biden. You know, I don't know exactly what their role was in the Hunter Biden story, but I would imagine that that came into play there too. So, but they were a big, they were a big player in Twitter files. They were one of the main groups that was, you know, leasing with the company along with the FBI. So, Matt, where does that leave us really with all this censorship regime? I mean, is it, you know, kind of mummified but still waiting there?

Or is it still active against us? Or is anybody doing anything about it enough that it's, you know, really set back or even canceled somehow? I think it's still there. And, you know, probably since the last time that we talked, the situation abroad has gotten a lot worse. So, you know, there's this huge global European law called the Digital Services Act, which when I started working on the Twitter files was kind of in a tadpole stage, but the whole idea of it was to create a pan-European censorship law that would apply to every member state in the EU. And that, you know, it also applied.

to every internet platform that does business in the EU so companies like Facebook meta Twitter um you know Instagram all of them have to spend enormous some staying in compliance with the DSA just for starters and that's one of dozens of laws like that now the United States has some of these things still in the pipeline and some of them are still there but not necessarily active but that doesn't mean they can't be started up at a moment's notice, and, you know, if the Trump administration decides it wants to go that way, it can't. Okay, and now that Nina Jankowitz from the Ministry of Truth showed up at this same

hearing as you? Did I read that right? Yeah, she was the other witness. This is the former would-be head of the disinformation governance board. And what she had to say? And how funny was it? Well, you know, she. She talked about how the Twitter files were fiction and conspiracy theory and that the disinformation governance board that was about protecting civil liberties and protecting freedom of speech and not about censoring anybody at all.

And look, she's people make fun of her. I mean, that sounds like disinformation. I would say so. Call me honest, but like, isn't that a lie? What she just said, then? Yes, I think so. The whole idea that there needs to be something called disinformation governance is, I don't know, Scott. Would you say that that's an anathema to the First Amendment, I think?

The whole idea of the Constitution is that the government doesn't have a role in in preventing misinformation. And, of course, the beginning of political wisdom is that everything that the government says is a lie. They are the worst liars out of everybody always. George Carlin says so. Everybody knows that. Right.

And that's why the First Amendment is so valuable because the most damaging lies are always official. All right? You go back to a million years ago to remember the main, to, you know, the missile. Gap, the Gulf of Tonkin's story, WMD's, Russiagate, COVID, right? And COVID was a great example because what happened there was kind of the dystopian future example of what happens when you don't have a vigorous First Amendment. When the government has a monopoly on information and can

impose an incorrect version of reality and also can suppress people who are saying things that are true, you know, it's a recipe for disaster, right? And, you know, we had a situation where people like J. Badacharya were trying to tell us, no, the disease is way more infectious than we think. Lockdowns aren't going to work. The risk factor for people under a certain age is almost nothing if you're healthy. You know, we're pursuing all these terrible policies, but you couldn't hear that. because there was a basically a monopoly on information control. And that's what the first amendment is supposed to design to avoid.

Yeah. Now, so great transition into an anonymous writer that I know that you admire, Undead Foya. Sleuth News is the substack there, slooth.News. And I subscribe to him as well. And he has one here from yesterday, exclusive Clinton plans. long in the making and so this is a new development in the russia gate story and um by the way so then i had read i guess it's just in the margin of this one is one called um new shocking from taibi and it was one of the um twittergate uh files that you had posted about uh russia gate

and a recommendation from someone named Lindsay that we want to kick these 14 accounts off of Twitter because they are Russian-controlled accounts and Undead Foya here the reason he's saying shocking is because he's saying wait three of these guys are friends of mine and I know them and they're Americans and they're Patriots and they're just like independent investigator,

Twitter sleuth type dudes one of them was a Poya mentor of his and he's saying how dare they do this? accuse these Americans of being Russian controlled? Where's the accountability for that? Well, right. And this is, right?

And if I remember correctly, that person, that Lindsay person was actually a global engagement center employee who I think identified himself as a Republican ad cac. But either way, it's a government employee reaching out to Twitter. asking them just willy-nilly to take down some accounts which you know it doesn't get more direct than that I mean that's that's that's clearly censorship or that's clearly an attempt at censorship and and this is the point I was trying to make it to hearing is that you know or agencies like geck their method is to try to justify removing somebody by claiming that they have some kind of tie to a foreign hostile power when they don't, right?

They, in some cases, they even don't even assert that there's a relationship. They just say that their point of view aligns, and that's bad enough. So I don't know, do you think, I think that's nefarious, don't you? I mean, to me, that's like McCarthyism, but digitalized. Oh, yeah, it's totally evil. And, of course, again, in service of suppressing people who are getting to the truth about how Russia Gate was a lie. And so it was in order to enforce this disinformation on the most important thing, again, where the president of the United States of America

had been framed for treason with the Kremlin. I mean, you couldn't make that up. It's the most unbelievable thing. And so here's where I got questions for you, because you're the most important journalist that I cite in my Russia Gate section of my book. And I cite a lot of great journalists, and I omitted a lot because I only got so much time in the world, and I already had 75 pages on the dang thing. By the way, great book, by the way, and I think you're the most important journalist on this topic, but go ahead. Oh, well, well, that's a quotable quote right there. Thank you very much.

I desperately seek your approval on this issue, so I hope you enjoyed all your cameos in there. And especially on Russiagate, because what you report on Russiagate is just crucial. I don't think anyone else had this, where you have, I think, sources and documents saying that we know what we had long suspected and there were other indications already, but I think you really nailed down. You know, and therefore we know that John Brennan kicked this thing off at the end of 2015. And that was the origin clearly of the frame up of Papadopoulos and some of this other stuff where but then I think that means I don't know exactly what that means for who hacked the DNC if if you know or what but it means that even this story here about what we're learning about

the role of the Democrats and the Clinton campaign in in getting started earlier than we knew for sure before a new email about from March of 2016 That would still mean that this really was begun by the CIA and or FBI. I'm not exactly sure when the FBI first is involved, the counterintelligence division or whoever involved. But then the Clinton campaign, they must know about this. I don't know if we know how they know about this. But they've decided that they're going to make hate on the same narrative. We're framing Trump for some kind of relationship with the Russians.

So then when the DNC leak comes out and whatever, it just falls right into place for what they're already saying is that this is all a Russian plot to help Trump because that was how they were going to try to cheat to rig the election against him, right? Yeah. Look, the timeline for this is all, as you've pointed out, and you point out on your book, it's all messed up.

So the official explanation for the official investigation, which is the FBI's crossfire hurricane investigation of Trump and Russia. And that was started on July 31st of 2016. And the official predicate for that was this weird conversation between an Australian diplomat who just walked into the American embassy in London and told a story about a conversation he had with Poppidopoulos. but that was way, way after all this other stuff had already taken place with Russiagate. You mentioned that letter in March. There was also an informant who was at Oxford and Cambridge

and who was asked to essentially spy on Michael Flynn way before any of that stuff. If you look at actually there's a story, there's a profile, of Christopher Steele that was written by the New Yorker, I believe it was Jane Mayer, was the author. She talks about how Brennan and the CIA heard from the Brits and their counterpart GCHQ, which is more like the British NSA. But they said they had a stream of illicit communications with Russia dating back to somewhere in the middle of 2015. Now, we were never told what that was. Brennan later testified that he had alerted the FBI to some of this stuff, but we never found out what that was either, or how that related to the

FBI investigation. So kind of the origin story of how this all got started, it's never been clear. And to me, that was always the most important thing about Russia Gate is, what do you have on him how did you start investigating him forget about what the investigation is like if you've got something i'm all for it but what is it right hmm hang on just one second for me here you guys i'm so proud to announce the publication of the libertarian institute's 14th book it's israel winner of the 2003 iraq oil war undue influence deceptions and the neocon energy agenda by gary vogler former senior oil consultant and deputy senior oil advisor for U.S. forces during Iraq War II.

Remember how I wrote in enough already about how Ahmed Chalabi sold the neoconservatives on a plan to rebuild the old British oil pipeline from Mosul and Kyrkouk Iraq to Haifa Israel, if they would only get the United States to overthrow Saddam Hussein for him, and how they bought it because they are as dumb as they are corrupt? Well, Gary was there, as senior civilian consultant to the DoD and Iraqi oil ministry, He had a unique window and experience witnessing the Pentagon Neocons and their machinations on behalf of Israel before and during that war. And it turns out that even though they did not get their pipeline,

as Vogler demonstrates, the neocons and their Lakudnik bosses figured out an effective plan B anyway. You are going to love Israel, winner of the 2003 Iraq Oil War by Gary Vogler, available everywhere. Check it out, along with our other great books, at Libertarian Institute.org slash books. Hey, y'all, let me tell you about Roberts & Roberts, Brokerage, Inc.

Nobody trusts the U.S. dollar anymore. Foreign governments are stocking up on gold instead of $100 bills. One, they know they need to, and two, that means you need to, too. Interest rates are up, but for some reason, not much for savings accounts. Park your money there and watch Uncle Joe Biden just counterfeit its value away. You can see how the Fed is afraid to raise rates. to beat inflation for fear of popping the current bubbles, at least before the election. So more inflation it will continue to be.

Gold is your shield against monetary and price inflation, just like it always has been. Now Tim Fry and the guys over at Roberts and Roberts are recommending gold over silver, since the world's almost 200 governments are putting their own pressure on the price, which should help everyone else who make similar calls on their own. Of course, Roberts and Roberts can help you with platinum, palladium, and silver as well as gold don't let the fed and the war party inflate all your savings away look up roberts and roberts at rrbi dot co that's rrbi dot co yeah i mean i have to wonder if that's just made up after the fact or what but maybe it's wrong for me to presume that when brennan sent i think

the way you reported it what they called it was he sent these informants out to bump into trump campaign people and see for me i'm just like yes see just to set them all up but maybe okay i don't want to presume too much maybe he's investigating them just to make sure because he heard something but we still don't have whatever that original predicate was as you say there if it exists at all seems obviously no predicate then that then that tells you everything yeah yeah and look i mean like if you read the durham report the whole thing is about the FBI pretending not to know that what they're investigating isn't true so they can keep pretending to investigate it longer, you know, and it's all very deliberate. So it's pretty hard to not

just extrapolate that backwards. You know what I mean? That that's the origin of the whole thing too. And of course, because this is all based on all falsehoods, the rest of the way down, say they had some intelligence in the middle of 2015 that we've never seen. The rest of it was all a bunch of crap so what does that tell you you know right it didn't lead anywhere so um you know and even the popadopoulos story you know sorry sorry to go on about this but the you know that didn't go anywhere very it very quickly didn't go anywhere so they that's why they had to readjust as early as august of 2016 like less than a month after they started the investigation and they had to switch to a new target, Carter Page, because the first one was a dead end.

And so that tells you a lot, too. Yeah. And especially when the new predicate, they had a memo from the CIA saying, this is our guy. He's a loyal American patriot who tells us everything whenever he meets any influential Russians in government or business. And so don't worry about him. And they redacted it. And one of their own guys is the only guy who got in trouble in any way. a slap on the wrist, of course, but was actually convicted for deleting that out of the filing

to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. So what does that tell you? You know about this whole thing being a frame-up. And by the way, you can check the date. It was April Glassby Day, July 25th, 2016, which is actually kind of late in the game. The controversy on Twitter had been going on for a couple of weeks by that time, I think. But I interviewed this computer security expert, Jeffrey Carr, who said, just assuredly, goes, listen, nobody can look at a server and tell you who broke into it. It's just too easy to leave false fingerprints behind and no way to, if, you know, you really know what you're doing, there's just no way to prove whether they've been faked or not.

And so no one can tell you with real certainty except for one organization, and that would be the NSA. and they could tell you with total certainty because they can rewind the whole Internet. They can watch every packet in the world go wherever they want. They are, you know, the computer God. So they can tell you 100%

whether it was the Russians who did it or not. And they're not saying that. They're the ones giving medium confidence, meaning whatever you guys say, we're going along with it and not causing a fight here when the FBI and CIA are taking the lead on this stuff. But it was not their claim

that and in the Mueller report he doesn't even pretend to demonstrate a chain of custody to WikiLeaks. So there's your beyond a reasonable doubt or your failure to convict standard right there big time. No, that medium confidence thing by the NSA should have been a major tell for anybody who was paying attention to the whole thing. Oh, and I meant to emphasize about that July 25th. That was before they launched Crossfire Hurricane. Right. I had to

bunk that on my show before they had even launched the official FBI investigation anything. Incredible. Well, all credit to Jeffrey Carr to ours. He's the guy. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. I mean, and look,

this is, you know, it's kind of an esoteric subject for people who don't particularly care about Russiagate, but it actually goes along with the kind of larger problem of junk science used to convict people that, you know, that we only recently learned was kind of an epidemic problem

in the criminal justice system. You know, things like, you know, bullet casing analysis, I mean, not even casing analysis, but like which package it came from, you know, thousands of people were convicted on stuff like that. And then it turns out it's not true. this is exactly the same kind of thing it's not a fingerprint determining who hacked the DNC

server it's it's a subjective determination and you know not even a particularly good one from what I understand so yeah and by the way Radley Balco is the one who's really done the best on that the bite marks and the hair matching

and all that stuff even though he's at the Washington Post he's a pretty libertarian guy decent guy. He's been really good on him. Look, he knows his cop stuff very well. Yeah, for sure. Okay, so let's see, the Rushgate thing. I think we beat that horse's death for what I have on my mind about it anyway. I guess, well, I wanted to say or give you the opportunity, I guess, to remark on this. I'm sure you've seen this. That this is the new thing that I referred to that's come out. I'm sorry, I knew it yesterday, but I'm not exactly clear

anymore. Where this comes from, but this is an email from Palmieri, who worked for Hillary Clinton, and they'd call it the Trump Swift Boat Project. So what can you tell us about that?

I didn't know about it. Oh, no? Oh, okay. I'm sorry. So this is, it has to do with the Clinton plan intelligence is what John Durham, the investigator of the investigation called it. It's Jennifer Palmieri, I mean to say, by the way. But so So the Clinton plan intelligence is where John Brennan briefed Obama, and we have his notes from when he briefed Obama, and I think Biden, that the Russians have intelligence, or we have intelligence, that the Russians have intelligence, that Clinton is framing up Trump for a plot with Russia, as though he didn't know nothing about that, which is that whole thing is a little odd.

I think I've heard people rationalize it by saying, well, it was too big of a thing for him to keep from Obama, like he had to tell him. But I guess must have been with a wink and a nudge that like, you know, this is that the Clinton's apparently, the Clinton campaign is glomming on to and elaborating our plot to frame this guy, something. Yeah, no, I mean, I remember that whole thing with the intercepts and Brennan going to Obama about it and his notes about it and everything. And so apparently that intelligence came from the Dutch who had infiltrated the Russian groups. And that's what Undead FOIA is writing about here. Oh, wow. So anyway, I'm sorry. I should have reread this today.

I got Biden brain, man. No, I get. Self-inflicted. Yeah, too bad. Okay. So, you know what? I'm going to let you go. But first, I want to ask you about.

the racket news library because that seems important yeah so I don't know when you first noticed this but years ago I started to notice that newspapers were no longer linking to primary source materials they would mention a court case or a hearing yeah New York Times always been real stingy about that yeah but well they weren't always that's the weird part right they used to give you the opportunity to go look at the source document. Well, they may have gotten worse, but I never thought they were good at it. I mean, you know, I started writing for anti-war.com when I started writing, and the ethic there

was, this is the internet. How dare you make a claim and not link to evidence of it? You don't have the right to make a claim without proving it. What are you doing? How could you? What would even be the point of making a claim if you're not going to demonstrate it? So I just feel that way about every little thing. That's why my book has 7,000 footnotes.

Yeah, but the thing is you wrote a book. Once you buy a book, you have it, right? The problem with the Internet now is that, you know, there's been this phenomenon of link rot, right? You go to Wikipedia, you look for the sources, and a lot of them are just error messages now. Because, you know, when you're linking to things, it's usually to a little. a page, the actual thing is not uploaded, you know, on the site. Even when you go to the Wayback machine, which is images of things, well, it's copyrighted. So if somebody who has a copyrighted thing goes to the Wayback machine and says, I want you to take that down, they have to do it. So

there's been this epidemic of sort of disappearing history. And what we're doing, now is when a new story comes out we will do like a timeline where we just upload all the key videos or documents or whatever they are and we're not linking to them they're actually there on the page they'll be there forever and you can take them if you want and we're trying to inspire other people to do the same thing because my worry is that in the and I don't know if you heard this but amazon is also switching to a model where where when you buy a book you're not buying it forever you're just buying temporary access to it they can retrieve it change it at any time um yeah

on your kindle yeah exactly you know i swear to god this is true man in like 1983 when i was in third grade i remember getting an argument with a teacher because we read a story in class where it was the future and all the books were little computer tablets and I don't know if I've been watching the outer limits or what was going on with me at that time but I remember saying her aha see

they could then they could change it and they could make the history whatever they want and you wouldn't have a permanent record of what had happened anymore and I remember her looking at me like what is with you but I guess I've been like this since I was a little kid but I still remember that happening like that discussion that was my first impression

if the teacher is teaching off an tablet, they could change the history. Exactly. Look, it's Fahrenheit 451, right? Yeah. And I hadn't read Orwell yet. I mean, I was a precocious

kid, but I wasn't that far ahead. So I don't know where I, what I was, it may have been I was watching the outer limits or something like that, you know? I don't know. Yeah, but you were ahead of your time. Definitely. I've been stuck like this for a while now.

Because I do think, I think this is the next big thing after censorship is going to be disappearing history. Yeah. Hey, listen, I think this is so important and not to talk about myself more, but working on this book, that was the hardest thing. I mean, there were times where I spent days on one footnote. I have to find this. I have to prove it. Some guy came to me, came to me last week on the Twitter and was like, hey, man, you have this article from the London Times about the war in Serbia. S-AS train these terrorists and stuff, but where's the original? And I was like, man, I don't know anymore. I'm sorry. I mean, a lot of times, you know, some of these books that I read like about the Balkan Wars, like, bless those authors for including the text of the URLs in their books. And I had to take the URLs out of my book just for space, but I have a file online

where I kept the URLs there for you. But a lot of these times, like I would have to Google just parts of URLs and then find a message board that linked to a thing that had a archive at free republic that linked to another thing and then there's a you know it's really um adventures in especially the stuff from the 90s on the Balkan war stuff and then you know the further back you go the harder it is but then yeah a lot of times you know the way back machine even you know you would think it'd be easy to find on there it's on there somewhere but you got to really like work hard to get it to pull up the right thing and whatever. I don't know.

And it's not their fault. They're doing the best they can, but you know. It is. It's a horrible phenomenon. Like, you know, the saying used to be the internet is forever and whatever. No, it ain't. Linkrod is horrible. So that's a great project that you're doing there. The stuff about you is forever.

The stuff about the government is not forever. Yeah, exactly. Yeah, yeah, your embarrassment's when that time you got drunk and did the thing, you know? But yeah, no, I'm trying to do this at the Institute and at my own website as well. I try to reprint ancient lost articles and hope nobody makes me take them down, you know?

Awesome. Awesome. Let's make it a thing. Okay, well, that's great. And that's at Rackett News. And it's Rackett Library is the link right at the top. And that's a great new project. And check out the great podcast. I love watching you and Walter and your great show. Tell them about my book. I'd like to hear what he thinks of it. Yeah, maybe we should, we'll do a little read-through sometime. That'd be fun. That would be cool, man. All right, well, listen, thank you so much for your time, as always, Matt.

Good to talk to you. All right. Thanks a lot. Appreciate it. See you, ma'am. Thanks for listening to Scott Horton Show, which can be heard on APS Radio News at Scott Horton.org, Scott Horton Show.com, and the Libertarian Institute at libertarian institute.org.