generations of all those people. >> watch this and other programs online at booktv.org. >> c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979 c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies and today we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court and the public policy events in washington dc and around the country. c-span is brought to you your cable or satellite provider. next on tds "after words", jerome corsi argues that there's an effort to work the presidency of donald trump. he is interviewed by sharyl attkisson, investigative journalist and author of the smear. "after words" is an interview program with well relevant guest interviewingauthors

about their latest work . >> host: what would you say is the one paragraph? >> guest: one paragraph would be that the holdovers from the obama administration and the cia and the justice department and fbi have formed a coup d'ctat attempt to make sure donald trump never continues to serve as president. and then the other sentence i had today is this book is about the steps donald trump must take and is in the process of taking in order to preserve the constitution and what i allege is basically treason. >> i heard some of these phrases bandied about in the past couple years and i didn't have to love meeting them until maybe more recently so maybe you can

define in your view the state, the shadow government and the swap. is it the same thing or how would you differentiate? >> guest: these are terms that are used loosely used. they have different meanings but they essentially come down to the same concept and that is that there is in washington a group of entrenched interests that are represented in the bureaucracy and i largelytake the intelligence agencies and the justice department , certainly the irs but also other agencies that are on their own agenda and the agenda is really an internationalist agenda, increasingly the people hired in the bureaucracy have a new world order types. they tend to see the united states as archaic, as outmoded, that we need to redefine the constitution. many of these people in the entrenched bureaucracy come out of the universities and are fairly relatively young,

anywhere from their 30s, 20s or their 50s or 60s at the same time, can you align with democratic party politics that have gone along with the more extreme versions of pot party politics. >> so in my terminology, there is a deep state and others may call them the shadow government because they are affecting their own bureaucratic rituals rather than the wishes of the people and electing donald trump for instance. and donald of course has turnedit the swap which is probably the term most americans immediately understand because washington was at one point a swap . and the creatures coming out of the swap are certainly biting and fighting back for thereafter. >> i worked in dc about 22+ years and i have a different name for it. i developed a name in my head, persistent bureaucracy and by that time it the

administration saying sort of tax policies would change federal agencies and so on. i saw the personnel stay the same sort of mid-level range level. is that part of it? >> and it's a great honor to have you do the interview because i tremendously admire your work and i think your most recent book smear identifies many of the same issues that i am addressing, although line is more in the context of donald trump physically but to your point in terms of the persistence of the bureaucracy and its determination to do what it wants to do, i've often said that one of the great, they shot for a president when they first come into front offices to realize how little power they really have. you get president gives an order, executive order and the bureaucracy shows up and says mister president, i'm

sorry that we can't do that. as here is this law and this regulation and what you've asked us to do is inconsistent with what we are required to do by congress. and now the president got to realize that it's more than just making a decision or writing an executive order . to govern when you have this massive entrenched bureaucracy which is responsible for enforcing policy. and the shop as a president is to find out they're not on your mission. on their on their mission. which maybe verydifferent , directly opposed, diametrically opposed to what you ran on as a principal. and i think donald trump has had to findthis out . even with the republicans, the others who said we are the pros of washington, we will help you get obamacare

replaced. once you relax and go golfing, we will take care of this for you. it didn't happen. and presidents realize what the presidents like president johnson have known coming into the office, how difficult it is to give-and-take passing legislation. and how much bargaining has got to go on to get a piece of the legislation passed. so president trump fired reince priebus and began saying that theme is out and he went to his next scheme, which follows wall street and now team is out. so i think residential is learning lessons. realizing increasingly this the state entrenched cia and the fbi, justice really do intend to remove him from office. when he realizes this, he's beginning to understand that he's in a fight not only for his presidency but for the

constitution and for the republic itself. that's what my book is all about. >> if you remember, was there a precise moment you can identify that made you say to yourself there is a deep state? were you starting to believe there was a shadow government? >> i suppose this goes all the way back to for me, the assassination of jack kennedy. and i was 17 at the time when after. when it happened. and certainly the first moments it happened, as a young man i'd seen jack kennedy and in washington and hishearings on the life . and it was a huge shock when he was assassinated. the way he began to find out how that occurred in this gun fired shots. which seemed to be almost impossible to have happen. and lee harvey oswald got shot that sunday and i began to say i think i'm watching the play here. this is a drama being produced where we're not supposed to know the real

story behind the scenes because the patsy had just been killed and lee harvey oswald said he was a patsy. i began to think even at that moment that this is a deep state, that jack kennedy did not control and i knew he had been warned. that the dangers were significant. because jack kennedy, understood when he gave his american university stage for instance, declared his willingness to reach out and work directly with russians. that went against a lot of the generals who he had come to realize during the missile crisis, that it's on tape, you can hear it in the archives, they really were happy to have war. it was a nuclear war. and so the idea that the state is not only determined on policy and possibly

wanting an objective, completely different war with russia, in that period of time. and willing to go to the extent of engaging in assassination if they don't get what they want, fundamentally changed war policy when lyndon johnson came in. it was a recognition that the presidency is constantly fighting with this the state, cia directive bureaucracy that is capable of engaging in criminal, running drugs around the world, air america and iran contra. the list goes on. but i think people are going to find shocking is when they read my book is that really, i able to document a coup d'ctat effort on going.

deeply within the fbi. and the intention was to prevent donald trump from being president. just hold over from the obama administration deeply loyal to hillary clinton also to devise a means of donald trump if he did win to make sure he could quickly be removed from office. and that plan now i think is being increasingly documented and my book i think will shock people if they realize the extent to which that plan has been a serious fbi department of justice coup d'ctat effort backed by the cia. >> what would you say not thismoment in time but over the decades , when in general would you say is the goal of the state? >> increasingly shifted to being internationalist. so the cia and the people in the justice department, they make it, take a look at john brennan for instance.

john brennan had a history with obama his security firm actually did the break-in that sanitized obama's passport records , 2008 during the run-up to that year's election cycle. and he ends up, national security advisor and then he ends up in the cia. i think it's highly possible he converted to islam somewhere along the way with his career at the state department. he obviously demonstrated he speaks arabic and john brennan made it a policy within the cia which was carried out also in the justice department that for instance, there were a great number more muslims brought into the administration and the idea of radical islamic terrorism was ruled out. it was more of an internationalist view. it was a view towards a kind of policy dude you see in the european union. that you would see in the international part of justice like the hague, the united

nations and i think these policy walks in the position of power in the cia and justice as well as in the irs, we saw as well and a determination that conservatives were equivalent to white supremacists and were to be demeaned and not listen to because the future was this new world order in which we would go to a globalism, a nationalism beyond theunited states of america . president obama was fond of thinking beyond america, what's the world beyond america? well, for conservatives who are patriots, and i think again, one of the startling points of my book handling that the state is the recognition that there's this vision that the true patriots

on the conservative side want to preserve the constitution. it isn't a racism. it is an 80 call you. the united states don't hate islam. on march 300 miles in iran in 2005 with the muslims, the iranians who were wanting freedom in their country and almost everybody in that march was muslim . so i argued that it's a complete, as your book points out, a smear on those of us who want to have a conservative position that duly recognized asappropriate . because we are patriots and we are called zero folds and all these other deplorable five hillary clinton area it shows the division and i think this deep state bureaucracy , the coup d'ctat was in the state department, was in the fbi and cia within

this justice system reflects this internationalism. we see it in info wars.com. where i'm working as a washington bureau chief, washington correspondent, constantly we are under attack as cnn. this is not legitimate. and lying about what we do report, lying about lawsuits losses that are fail file or issues that are in the sense i would call the news but info wars we are constantly under this theory.because the hard left does not want debate. they want to delegitimize anyone who disagrees with them. especially with a patriot who wants to reserve the constitution. >> one of the new things i saw overtime over the decades was in the past 10 years or so, this trend towards not pointing to the base, that

was new to me when it first started happening. the forces didn't want to have their say in the piece, they simply didn't want any piece air, they want the public to hear certain things which , that struck me as strange . >> i think this is one of the points where we had a similar experience. info wars, really where i'm proud to be. >> why don't you give us a definition of what is infowars.com? they are widely described as a conspiracy theory website, discredited every time that you read about them. >> and as your book points out, smear, that the disinformation generated by people like david brock and the media matters which constantly leave on any appearance from anyone info wars and descends on the publication.

and how dare you. then they bring out the southern poverty law center which of course, the hard left today is engaging in hate. i'm beginning to call it the hate left because it's so intolerant. it wants to eliminate the first amendment, really not interested in freedom of the or religion. the hard left,the hate left is not interested in the second amendment , only don't want people tohave a right to bear arms . this often in the fourth amendment, they be happy with all the social media, that are really serving at the front piece for the death top of the cia and nsa, especially if we leave dennis connery or ann snowden or julian assigned. two has a massive amount of intelligence gathered on the american people completely inappropriately and you cs were fighting internally with stories being repressed and the like area so we info wars ,

>> info wars i think, one of the best definitions, one of the investment bankers looking at info wars called very closely the most disruptive news service opposing this leftist hard left mainstream media consensus which has gotten to the extent of like a product like dissemination. >> a corporate news. only withapproved news . the storyline that the multinational corporations or the large entities for the democrats want to advance whereas for instance, my book killing the deep state is not going to get, i'm not goingto get interviewed by abc or cbs or nbc.

they don't want this story told. it would be suppressed . info wars disruptively in a way where i think jones brilliantly enabled a challenge and threaten this mainstream media consensus. so much so they, smear it, don't even want anybody to cover it. they make law lot lies about law student that our client. they bury alex jones when they have not bothered to listen to what alex jones is deeply saying. this is misrepresentation, this disinformation attack on info wars i think is calculated by media matters and it's an annual fundraising effort to document it with pride having gotten conservatives like lou dobbs fired or different people removed from the networks because they attack the advertisers. >> and they attack not only made things about you. ifyou read my wikileaks description , which i have

given up trying. wikipedia. >> is incorrect. >> when they want something to be said, the agenda enters can keep any truths or facts that arecontrary from being published . >> i feel like infowars is being attacked by wikipedia editors and demand that we call all these negative smear words, starting with conspiracy theorists. it's my book points out that there is a coup d'ctat effort against president trump, the evidence for this is getting to be massive. >> that would be a conspiracy theory. >> accepted to conspiracy back and that's the problem. is that you uncover, the left wants to cover a controlling the language, controlling the dialogue. they want to basically call what they're doing patriotic or a defense.

when really they want to destroy the constitution, they want to rewrite the constitution. they want to be beyond america. that's the, so you to take a look at the hard left in california, it has nothing to do with what the rest of the country wants. and the hard left is not willing to accept that they lost the election. the majority of american people or the majority of the electoral vote totals did not buy hillary clinton's argument. which was essentially a redo of the media matters for george soros, hard left line. >> reads as strongly supported to me as a trump presidency. he has not, many people think conservative on many things. something's yes, something snow. changes his mind from time to time. were you always a supporter of the trump presidency and

how did that come about? >> i've known so many years going back to the 1980s. i have a career in financial services. i was working internationally in financial services and broadly in the united states and for a couple years i lived in a hotel and got to know donald trump quite well. and some of the companies i was working with were doing business with donald trump, buying the gm building. across the street from gossip and new york. that was one example. and i always admired donald trump i always had a great rapport with him and i thought he was misrepresented . that he was regarded, if you knew him, he was really a very generous person who cared deeply about his guests in the hotel. worked with the unions, hired every race on the planet to workfor him . add more women in his organization then hillary clinton ever hired in her campaigns. and wasn't yet demeaned

learned how to live with it. i always said donald trump always looked like he was going to lose before he wins. and he's going got a remarkable capability of winning so i have donald supporter and have watched him and when he began to run for the presidency i was very enthusiastic. again, just like jones, donald trump is going to be disruptive. and he's going to be a disruptive presidency to this leftist agenda because they don't want confrontation. they want the american people to wake up, whereas in the the internet, there's this red killing and it certainly if you follow some of the things like this on which has been posting on the chance which i identified with one of the military intelligence people working closely with trump. that you know, this is a narrative that is, to that

the constitution is going to be preserved donald trump is going to turn the tide. he has weathered the first attack . the molar attempt, the special counselor to impeach donald trump has failed. and i say that because all mueller has is an of over 13 wacky russians who posted some things on the internet even the department of justice did not influence the election and donald trump did not get involved with. that's all they got. or to concoct a prosecution of general flynn for lying which i'm not surehe did . this is the end of this first and it's failed. now what happens is donald trump launches a counterattack when the initial stages of that. i expect maybe a year or two years but before he's done, i'm convinced he will take

seriously the potential charges including treason which i believe could be launched as high as hillary clinton and barack obama. and i don't think president trump will hesitate to do that. x you briefly can you give me your highlights of your educational background, even in the financial services and your job history, what are bullet points? >> my history is complex and i don't think anyone will ever fully put together all the different things i've done. i was born in cleveland and i attended a and hi school and i went to harvard, who paid for me to get my phd. i had written i think three books, applied as an undergraduate. at harvard i got my phd in 1972. i had done a lot of writing at that time, work even on

racial violence and terrorism. i had atop-secret clearance under contract with the state department to work on terrorism . top psychiatrists all over the world. i had a top career in financial services and worked with insurance companies and with mutual fund banks all over the world. very strongly in the united states and when i co-authored with john o'neill unfit for command, the book against john kerry which john o'neill was really the hero of, i co-authoredthe book . that gave me an opportunity to begin another career which i did working some well years with world daily, wn .com as a journalist. and two years ago i really began working with alex jones and now i'm full-time as a

washington correspondent with infowars and i'm very pleased to be so quick you begin your book with a smoking gun. what is the smoking gun? >> guest: this is one of the critical pieces of evidence the inspector general has been releasing from the inspector general, david horowitz at the justice department. when it involves is the two lovers who are in the fbi peter and alisa page. she was very senior and they had some 10,000 emails or messages they exchanged. some of which have been released. they're supposed to be lovers. they wrote so many instant messages i don't know how they had time for a love affair but at any rate, when you read them they are solidly anti-, they hate trump. this is they left, they hate trump. it's a disaster, a catastrophe . >>.

>> host: let me read a couple paragraphs to amplify.i don't know how to pronounce it but what strozk's message makes clear is that page and strozk and the present presence of an fbi official and laid out an insurance policy to make sure to never serve his term as president even from olaf the miracle to be strozk and pages clear favorite. the insurance policy involve russian collusion evidence the fbi had been in humility against trump's campaign . >> this insurance policy turns out i believe to be the steel dossier, the fusion gps dossier. that originates, it was originally done by republicans trying to impose trump in the primaries and when it was clear trump was beating all these challengers, with which everyone thought was going to be impossible, the hillary clinton people picked up this

dossier andstarted funding . and through the campaign also funding it. they laundered their payments through a law firm even defended barack obama's law firm. this is a clearly partisan wall firm that has worked with the democrats so they launder the money. >> host: and none of this is as far as we know, whatyou're describing, illegal. this is legal behavior. >> guest: i'm not an attorney. i question how they were paid by the campaign . now we get into what i think is clearly illegality where fusion gps is used to obtain the findings and court approval to do electronic surveillance the one by the fbi. >> guest: yes. advanced by the fbi and the fisa court does not explain in the memo that when that

fisa court saw from the fbi this fusion gps dossier, advanced as reasons to begin electronic surveillance on carter page. a fairly peripheral member of the trump campaign at this point.i do not believe, and we have not yet seen the actual fisa court arguments of the representation but from those who have seen it, it seems pretty clear that fisa court was not pulled the fbi could not substantially the claims. could not authenticate this dossier and the dossier had an origin in opposition research which would i think be material facts that might have convinced the court not to grant the electronic surveillance. and for the officers of the court, the fbi and whoever

made the arguments at the fisa court not to fully represent inaccurate form of the document is a crime. >> host: i also documented the fbi sources, there's something called woods procedures that were developed under mueller when he was head of the fbi. they guarantee that no fact is presented to the fisa court can be an unverified fact and if one fact is iffy, they go back to the drawing board supposedly. they are not allowed to present anything unverified to the court. >>.>> guest: the whole purposeof the fisa court is to protect american citizens from electronic surveillance . >> ..

jeff sessionses is under electronic surveillance weeing necessarily going back to the fisa court to get permission. so carter page talks to everybody in the campaign, they're our under electronic surveillance, and carter page was involved in 2015, also with the russian kind of sting that the depth of justice conducted and, i continue to question whether he is an undercover dojing a himself. which has not been verified but certainly second -- suspect rated. a wide up in or people in the trump campaign are under electronic surveillance. this white house unmasks the name so it's no longer person a, person b, person c.

>> host: a procedure put in place, sollance of american citizen is is supposed to be rare. then they said we'll mask the names so nobody can use them. >> guest: and then what happens is, it comes to the white house, and valerie jarrett begins unmasking the named, fight the people who are under clot recall electronic surveillance -- >> host: political enemies. >> guest: most cases. this information gets released -- leaked to the press. these are crimes. and these are high crimes if in fact the intent was to deny donald trump either legitimate right to be a candidate or to produce the evidence to impeach him, because this electronic surveillance was approved, i believe, four times by the fisa court and continued through the transition, donald trump's

transition, continued even into the white house. >> host: approved under donald trump. >> guest: under trump. the department of justice, going in and getting approval under donald trump to do this. which i'm sure was not an act that was brought to donald trump's attention when it was done. >> host: i posed that question to the white house and they didn't answer whether he knew. >> guest: right. >> host: you talk about the theory that the larger intelligence community factors into the deep state. i think the best evidence supporting the theory may have come on march 17th when former cia director john brennan issued a very over the top emotional, angry tweet. here's what he said: with the more than turpitude becomes now you'll take the rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dust bin of history. you ill not destroy america. america with triumph over you and then obama's former u.s. ambassador to the u.n., samantha

powers tweets out, saying not a good idea to piss off john brennan which i found astounding that former political officials would be having this threatening, intimidating tone as if they lord over the public rather than serving the pock, which is how i see them. >> guest: these are exceptionally good points. the present memo fallses in category of letters you write and then as soon as you have written them, you rip them up and don't send them. >> host: best advice. >> guest: got it out of your system but you don't want to good public. also it had the tendency to act-a-he was already still in the cia, that he could still influence what the cia was doing. >> host: maybe he does. >> guest: maybe he does. the questions it raises. are the people in the cia listening, wink, wink to what brennan is telling them to do

undermining the presidency. these have billion legitimate questions. at a minimum why john brennan thought he could take a stick and poke his -- poke the nose of the bear is hard to comprehend. >> host: to the unmask can, both brennan and power edged that extremely practice of unmasking names of u.s. citizens, including political enemies, supposedly captured during incidental intelligence, astonishing -- >> guest: these are -- the astonishing thing is that i -- to a absolutely different pudge on the hillary e-mail. i was able to prove during the campaign that not only i'm ha abedin had access to these e-mail and she was sending them to the yahoo.com account and

they probably had classifies information could have been picked up by anybody who she gave or sold her user name and password. now it turns out president obama had a pseudonym e-mail address that was not barack obama that he used to communicate over hillary's private e-mail server while she was secretary of state, and out of the country. so, i guess at justice, when they were looking another how to cast comey's statement, which was rewritten, bill the way, but mccabe and stressic to officials in the fbi, they would have had to have possibly indicted barack obama for violation of these same security requirements and handling -- >> the original statement said that hillary clinton hat e-mailed the president from russia, i think, on this unclassified system and they excised that -- from the

statement. >> guest: president trump -- president obama responding with the pseudonym so using his pseudonym to go over the clinton e-mail server, which i think would be the civic violation. so when -- pick violation so when comey does his statement to the public and not only does he one of the two lovers and andrew mccabe, now been fired, at the recommendation of the inspector general and the public responsibility committee in the department of justice for lying, repeatedly under owing, and leaking information, mccabe fired, when they rewrote comey's statement during the election they not only changed terms like grossly neglect in her use of classified material to extremely careless, which is not a legal definition of the criminal act and changed it was president obama who used the server with the pseudonym e-mail to an

official in government, top official in government. so the sanitizing -- the coup d'etat -- the shocking recognition this, coup d'etat was that not only did i detail in "killing the deep state -- not only involved an attempt to make sure that donald trump lost the election or, if he did happen to win it, he would be impeached, involved protecting hillary clinton. so she would not be indicted for anything that she had done. >> host: if the fbi director at the time, james comey, was against trump, why did he issue that statement right before the election that hillary campaign blames for her loss in some respects, where he opened up the e-mail investigation into her again. how do you explain that. >> guest: something i have had a role in playing in nat one. was reporting on huma abedin's e-mails and we were working to -- figure out if huma abedin was sending e-mail to her yahoo

account and also through to a computer that wasn't on the state department's system. so the suggestion was, how about anthony weiner's communitier. so, the new york police department had several appeals at that period of time, saying why don't you go see -- get anthony weiner's laptop. probably sexting some underage girl. so how do we -- of course, him being this type of sexual criminal, likely he was doing this. once they looked, they, together with certain of the fbi officials in new york, went and seized the computer. okay. so, now the nypd has the computer, and what comey realizes is that the nypd in this time will be happy to release what the found on the computer if comey doesn't

re-initiate the investigation. one way or the other, the more damaging information could have coming come out. i called up the new york police department after comey made the other statement, which reverses the -- opened up again for -- closed down again within hours, i called up the nypd and said where is the compute center they said the department of justice from washington came in here and took everything. took the computer, took all of our notes, told us we were off of the case, took it all back to washington, and then comey made his statement that the re-opening had been reclosed. so i think it was a -- he didn't have choice in that one because what he had to go to tell loretta lynch is either we begin the investigation or you'll read these things in the new york papers. what is actually on weiner's computer. think -- when that material is made public it will validate claims and the argumentses that

explain why the shocking material i have in the book, with the killing of the deep state, i wrote the book to say we have to make sure we kill de -- not just simply preserving donald trump's election. it's making sure we understand that we have rouge justice system and politicized and weaponized a rouge intelligence agency which was "lit -- politicized and had hillary won would have been able to effect all the censoring, info wars would have been done, send censored with no recourse. already you have google attempting to cancel my youtube account which they rescinded within 24 hours. attacking alex jones, you see the difficultieses that facebook is now in, realizing its sharing of information for political

campaigns compromised -- i take it like the sting song. instead of every step you take, it's every click you make. we are watching you. and that data -- eric smitted this one of the chief technology adviser to hillary clinton's cam hain and all the google data is transferred to the clinton campaign to be used in their get out the vote effort. that information is not shared with donald trump. don't know if they got permission from everybody in google to share this information. >> host: probably in some disclaimer we don't read, probably give permission for that. >> guest: some 14 paragraph disclaimer. well, this is why i think this internet bill of rights will be an increasingly important idea, because you can't have these corporate giants, by one legal paragraph somewhere stuck away in a document nobody reads but

everybody has to agree to use google, okay? that can't deprive you of your first amendment rights and that is going be a key issue that is the coming battle, i foresee, being fought out in the ftc, the federal trade commission, where i believe the real regulation of the internet needs to be, and i'm predicting -- "killing the deep state" i make the argument that the internet giants have to being related and haven't fundamental rising incorn operatessed, even if it involves et cetera trust action to break them up. >> host: not to leave james comey too quickly. you write about him in your book. do you think trump would have been better off not firing james comey as the fbi director and befriending the deep state rather than fighting.

>> guest: it wasn't possible. the only mistake trump made was not to fire james comey immediately. james comey was happy to smile at trump and then go about sticking a knife in his back. what comey did is the same thing that andrew mccabe did. they both wrote these secret squirrel memos to themselves documenting meetings they had. well, anybody with any experience in the corporate world knows these self-serve memos written by you to the file have limited probative value. you're probably doing your basic cya, trying to make the version you want of the most -- trying to make the other person look bad. i don think it's any -- don't think it's any accident stat comey's book is going be published right on top of my book "killing the deep state" so he'll get al the interviews from action, "the new york times" will fawn over the book, be

viewed as a marter and victim and portrayed has having a higher honor, why believe is the title of the book. none of them will dire interview know look at "killing the deep state" ask that's why i think that it's pretty remarkable, the become has already become number one in various categories on amazon, and is one of the better selling books, maybe one of the best selling books every written on trump and his presidency. but it's going to be constantly fought by the mainstream media, which does not want you hear what i wrote in "killing the deep state." >> host: in that book you have examples of comey and mueller, special counsel mueller, work together in the past on several projects ', one of them the mark rich pardon, who is the billionaire oil trader and trading with iran during the embassy hostage situation. want to give an overview. >> guest: bill clinton

pardoned -- the one -- >> host: what's the point of including this story in the book. >> guest: that's where the partner ship started. a couple that are really significant. i'm writing but -- about them tonight. one is the role that mueller played when he was head of the fbi with make sure the iranian bribery scandal, which had been reveals by william campbell, who is now a client of victoria townsing, married to joe joe degeneva is working for president trump. the opinion is mueller played a coverup role there because had that bribery scream been known by the committee on foreign investment in the united states, that permission for russia's state-owned energy company to

buy uranium one, get 20% of the u.s. uranium, some of which was slipped out of the united states, contrary to the lies told at the time. that permission would never have been granted. bill clinton wouldn't have got then $500,000 fee for one speech. the clinton foundation wouldn't have gotten $145 million in contributions, et cetera ibelieve the hillary clinton people just said she had nothing to do with the approval. >> guest: she didn't sit of the commitee. didn't participate in the vote. that's absurd. everybody who had a brain knew what was going on. she said i won't sit on this one. but the person she appoint it wad somebody who had a vested interest in pleasing her. now, hsbc -- >> host: the bank. >> guest: yes, the hong kong bank which was laundering money,

billion ourselves dollars for drug criminals, and for international terrorist, chron cruz, banker from long island, came to me with a thousand page i walked out of the bank with, trying blow the whistle. started publishing them. in i banking experience classic evidence ofman laundering. i was in contact with the department of homeland security, the permanent senate investigating committee and ended up with $1.9 billion fine paid by hsbc. comey was on the board of hsbc when this happened. >> host: so not fbi director, sitting on the board of a bank that was accuse. >> guest: pries pre-sizely. and the board had mueller was head of the fbi. loretta lynch was the u.s. attorney who negotiated, nobody

goes to prison. now, on this kind of -- these people working together, which is a long-term relationship, making sure things are covered up, it's impossible that the comptroller of the currency texas i town fountain from the pages job cruz brought to me, out of the long island branches, he trade to talk to all these people. didn't want to hear it in department of homeland security. the comp'll keir see this -- comp troll cheer see this going on and this act of characters war part of the cover up. >> host: you wrote by allowing the bank to avoid criminal charges despite pleady guilty to money laundering violations, for both the mexican drug cartel and middle east radicalship islamic terrorist groups, comby, mueller

lynch, and then attorney general eric holier were playing major roles as deep state operatives and then serving on the hsbc, the bank bordes, was not comey's only chance to cash in on his faith. service to the dope state and various federal bureau of investigation and do jury assignments, you write in 2005 to 2010 before second on the bank board, comey was jan counsel for lockheed martin, major u.s. military contractor, jobs for which comey earned $6 million. >> guest: right. payoff. by the way, wikileaks pointed out that comey, when i believe it was 2009, trip to russia where hillary had mueller -- mueller went on the trip -- had robert mueller, head of the fbi, travel to russia with some uranium samples that supposedly were from a heist, theft in east germany, but the point was, what was mueller

doing on that trip? what was that little uranium visit to russia all about by muler in 2009? for hillary clinton. why did it take wikileaks to release it. it's shocking to see the extent to which soros, hillary clinton, barack obama,, including robert mueller, et cetera, have been work together over the years on various projects. >> host: is there any -- the notion that no single president or administration, democratic, republic or otherwise could do that much to drastically change or hurt the country. >> guest: going back to what john kennedy said. should break up the cia into a thousand pieces and he replaced allen dulles as the head of the cia.

the mistake he made was not to do it that day and if you have a rouge apparatus in the cia, justice, irs, it's no surprise that tea party activists couldn't get their 501(c)(3) and l applications through lois lerner. no surprise that all of the politicalization of the department of justice was aimed, i believe to the detriment of law enforcement, joe arpaio being pardoned, tom perez, a doggedly went after you're arpaio for criminal violations of a court of ordered, imposed, set of rules, the maricopa county sheriff office that that do with antidiscrimination and car stops of hispanics, and president trump pardons arpaio as tom perez, now one of the lawyer history, the leader of

the democratic national committee, this is the hard nature of these politicalized organizations. i can't see n any benefit to weaponnized, o'lit sized -- politicized, partisan, cia, irs, doj, name then all, the fall bet industries, i think this president trump's dealing with frustrations are air parents when he says let's tear down the fbi building and start all over again. >> host: a couple of questions and don't have a lot of time left. to kill the deep state you said donald trump must defeat robert mueller's plan to remover him -- remove him from office. >> guest: mueller is out of gas and is now fishing and putting it to an end, the clearest eest -- i recommend filled the hired been writing and the book, is to get mueller himself under

criminal investigation. let's get an honest grand jury that investigates uranium one and targets and subpoenas robert mueller and gets him to produce documents from the uranium one investigation. when he is the investigative target of a grand jury, legitimately called in the department of justice, i believe mueller resigns. >> host: is there anything trump should have done differently in terms of the -- besides acting more quickly to get rid of comey, perhaps are -- inis he responsible for making things to hard on himself. >> guest: nothing trump can do that the main stream media, the operatives, the media matters motivated group, soros funded behind the scenes to smear -- trump orders russian salad dressing for lunch, it's evident he is conspiring with putin and

there's nothing he can do. no matter what speech he gives or -- the press -- i had press credentials to travel with romney's campaign and the job of the mainstream media press one to cover romney's speech on economics. it was to ask gotcha questions about abortion or anything to get a headline on and flying around, joke with each other, but who did the best gotcha article that made romney look like a jerk. that was their whole game. when you're dealing with the deep state, and it's arm this mainstream media and their job, with all giggling with each other is to make you look bad, donald trump is right in target doing my book is "killing the deep state." has to be put to an end, and the

left may not realize, we'll have this identity toll picks, socialist, european style utopia once we can blow powe -- politicize the entire go and no info wars, everybody has lawsuits, all put in prison or sent to thought reform camps and a wonderful world. well, they never realize a deep state can turn on them, too much we should not have a politicized, weaponnize its, bury contraction if we do it's time to -- bureaucracy. if we do we -- a special system protecting 10,000 bureaucrats from being fired because their senior managers, just close the department. maybe start dealing with the bureaucracy not by firing bureaucrats but by closing agencies. >> host: to those who won't read the book, perhaps, and says your

just conspiracy their theorist, what do you say. >> well, it's -- it's to their detriment. they are not going look at the 20 pages of footnotes. not going to look at the documented evidence, and i think what is happening is that the narrative is changing. as i point out, trump is fighting a propaganda attack here, there's no russian evidence -- mueller says we just have to look harder. the way to defeat the propaganda is to undermine those advancing it. we realize the crimes committed by mccabe, the lying, the lying under owing, the leak offering information which may go up to the obama white house, with leaking information from the electronic surveillance of the fisa court, unmasking names and leaking. these are crimes. the american people understand crimes were committed, and see them, these two lovers, their 10,000 instant

messages, eye-openers and the american people are ready to understand the whole different scene than the mainstream media presented them. >> host: one word, does the deep state win or trump win. >> guest: donald trump wins. >> host: a pleasure. >> guest: thank you.

>> here's a look at some upcoming book fairs and festivals happening around the country.

book tv is on twitter and facebook. and we want to hear from you. tweet us, or post a comment on our facebook page. [inaudible conversations] >> good evening. it's great to see so many your. the stormy weather dampened the turnout but not withstanning the forecast, you guys are really -- must be a very courageous and hearty group. that's nice to see. >> i'm the co-owner of politic