Glenn Greenwald
Politics • Culture • Writing
US Finds Another $44 Billion for Ukraine
System Update #8: Plus, an interview with Lee Fang on his reporting of the Twitter Files
January 20, 2023
post photo preview

Note From Glenn Greenwald: The following is the full show transcript, for subscribers only, of a recent episode of our System Update program, broadcast live on Rumble on Wednesday, January 18, 2023. Going forward, every new transcript will be sent out by email and posted to our Locals page, where you'll find the transcripts for previous shows. 


Watch System Update Episode #24 Here on Rumble.

On the show for which we are posting the transcript below, we reported on and examined Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's live speech to the U.S. Congress to demand more and more and more U.S. money and weapons be sent to him. Zelensky spoke, and demanded more U.S. support, all as Congress was already preparing to approve yet another massive expenditure, this time $44 billion to fuel the War in Ukraine, bringing the total to about $100 billion in just ten months. Why? Are American citizens benefiting from any of this? And does that even matter anymore? 

For our Interview segment, we spoke to one of the nation's premier investigative journalists, Lee Fang, who reported last week's installment of the Twitter Files showing that Twitter is actively partnering with the Pentagon to disseminate propaganda, fake news, and even fake profiles on its platform. We'll spoke to him about the implications of that story, as well as a blockbuster story he reported in late October about how Homeland Security has aggressively expanded its partnership with Big Tech to censor the Internet. 

You can watch the shows live, or after they are posted, on our Rumble page. For those who prefer to read what is essentially an article – since I write out most of the show – enjoy the full transcript below.


Monologue:

Russia invaded its neighbor, Ukraine, almost ten months ago to this day. Since then, the United States government has spent more than $100 billion -- $100 billion -- on that war on the other side of the world, in a country that Washington has long stated contains no vital interest to the United States. 

To put that amount into perspective, the amount the U.S. has spent in 10 months is almost double the entire Russian military budget for the year, which is $65 billion. The amount is more than double the average annual amount that the U.S. spent on its own war in Afghanistan, which we were told -- unlike what's happening in Ukraine -- was a war necessary to protect the security of American citizens. So, in just ten months, we're spending more than twice on the war in Ukraine what we spend each year on our own ostensible self-defense war in Afghanistan. And it's 17 times more than what the U.N. told Elon Musk it needed to spend in order to avert world famine in 2022, a claim that was then used to shame Musk for spending $44 billion to buy Twitter instead of feeding everyone on the brink of famine. 

That amount is also close to one-eighth of the U.S. own military budget just approved by Congress this week. A sprawling oozing package, of record-breaking package waste in the amount of $858 billion, signaling the imminent arrival of the first-ever trillion dollars military budget. One-eighth of our overall military budget for Ukraine. This is all for a stalemate of a war that virtually every military analyst agrees has no end in sight, meaning the ultimate amount spent by the United States on this war will be far, far greater by the time it's over, whenever that might be. 

Now, whatever else you might think about whether the U.S. government should be spending so much of your money on what it calls the “War in Ukraine”, which mostly means pouring money into the coffers of weapons manufacturers like Raytheon and Boeing, the CIA…

…along with some rebuilding efforts in Ukraine -- you might take some comfort, at least in the knowledge that the Ukrainian government is deeply grateful for your sacrifices. 

Except they're not grateful -- at all. If anything, they're more bitter than grateful. Bitter that the U.S. hasn’t given them more of your money. The United States dispatched a U.S. military jet yesterday to pick up Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in Poland to bring him to the United States, where he is scheduled to meet for hours today with President Joe Biden and then deliver a live address to the Congress starting in about 30 minutes. In his speech, reports made clear Zelensky will once again do what he's been doing all year, telling the U.S. government and the American people that while he sort of appreciates the billions upon billions of dollars of funds paid by American taxpayers that we've sent to that country, it is nowhere near enough. And he wants more and more and more and more. 

As AP reports, using the tone of a Hollywood adventure film starring our brave and inspiring Ukrainian leader: “On Tuesday, Zelensky made a daring and dangerous trip to what he called the hottest spot on the 1,300-kilometer (800-mile) front line, the city of Bakhmut in Ukraine's contested Donetsk province. In a video released by his office and from the Bakhmut visit, Zelensky was handed a Ukrainian flag and alluded to delivering it to U.S. leaders”. “The guys handed over our beautiful Ukrainian flag with their signatures for us to pass on”, Zelensky said in the video. “We are not in an easy situation. The enemy is increasing its army. Our people are braver and need more powerful weapons. We will pass it on from the boys to the Congress, to the President of the United States. We are grateful for their support, but it is not enough. It is a hint -- it is not enough. 

Now I have several questions about all of that, but I'd like to begin with this one as I regard it as the most important question when it comes to the always profound debate of whether the United States government will involve itself in a war or, for that matter, it's the most important question when it comes to debates over whether the U.S. government will do anything. In what ways has your life or the lives of your families been improved, secured, or enhanced by the more than $100 billion sent by the U.S. government to fuel this war on the other side of the world? 

Now, to be fair, there are some Americans whose lives have been materially improved by these expenditures. Those are the tiny sliver of Americans who own large amounts of shares of the leading weapons manufacturers. 2022 has been quite a poor year for the stock market in general. Stocks are down across the board. Here you can see the New York Stock Exchange performance for 2022 and it shows a loss overall of 13.3%. Fortunately, though, arms manufacturers have not succumbed to this down. This decline. And that's due almost entirely to the ongoing transfer of huge amounts of your money into the coffers of weapons manufacturers to send weapons to Ukraine and then to deplete our own depleted stocks. Here you see the stock trend of Northrop Grumman for this year, up almost 40%. And now you here have the stock of Lockheed, up over 25%. So, they're doing very well.

The stockholders are Americans who stock large amounts of stock in those countries. But for ordinary Americans, what is the benefit to them from these huge outlays of money for Ukraine? I'm asking that earnestly. I've yet to hear any politician who supports these expenditures even once articulate a reason why these expenditures could possibly improve the lives of American citizens, or why the U.S. role in Ukraine could do that. And that really leaves me wondering, does that question even matter anymore? Is that relevant to decision-makers in Washington? Does this policy that we are going to support and heavily fund have any real prospect of improving the lives of the people who voted for us to come to Washington with just one goal in mind to make their lives and their families’ lives better? I don't mean do they really have that motive? I know they don't. I mean, do they even pretend any longer to have that? 

I pay very close attention to the debate in the U.S. over this war in Ukraine, from the very start. I was even placed on an official list of Russian propagandists by the Ukrainian government, alongside people like Sen. Rand Paul and former Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard for the crime of questioning whether my government should be involved in that war. Apparently, along with believing he has a claim to stick his hands into our national treasury without limits, President Zelensky also clearly believes he has the right to maintain blacklists of American journalists and politicians who commit the crime of openly debating our government's war policies in our country. But the real point is, I have paid very close attention to the debate and from the beginning, those who have been urging, and demanding U.S. support for Ukraine without limits have not even bothered with this pretense that the war was necessary for or even relevant to improving the lives of American citizens. 

Now, maybe you are someone who doesn't think that matters. One could mount a coherent argument why it shouldn't. One might argue, for instance, that all human beings have equal value and therefore the U.S. government should not prioritize the lives of Americans over the lives of Ukrainians or anyone else -- that American politicians should use your money not to help you and your family, but to help anyone in the world who needs it, even if it comes at your expense.

Or perhaps one might say that Americans benefit in some theoretical or remote way from having our government adopt a foreign policy that is designed to promote morality and democracy and human rights in the world, which would then, from that premise, it would follow that it's important that our government spend $100 billion and counting on the war in Ukraine. You may recall that that was a key argument defining the ideology of the Bush-Cheney neocons and also their ideological cousins, the liberal interventionists of the Clinton and Obama administrations, namely that Americans will somehow be better off if we go around the world using our military and CIA to overthrow repressive governments and then spend a decade or two or three or four building a thriving democracy in those countries to replace it. 

Now, that the U.S. government is guided by morality and democracy in its foreign policy would be, or at least should be, an extremely hard sell, given that its closest allies are, and always have been, some of the world's most despotic and tyrannical regimes. Leaving aside the U.S.'s own wars and bombing campaigns in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Somalia, and all the rest, it has always amazed me how many people are willing to believe American political leaders when they stand up and say that their motive in going to war or otherwise involving themselves in the internal wars of other countries is to vanquish tyranny and repression -- even as those same very same leaders, often days before or days after they say that go and visit Cairo or Riyadh and hug and embrace the most savage despots in the world and offer them more money and arms to prop up their regimes, as the U.S. has been doing for decades. 

But some people for some reason do continue to believe in this admittedly feel-good fairy tale about U.S. foreign policy-- that our real motive is to go around the world vanquishing despotism and defending democracy. So perhaps it's coherent, even if it's not remotely truthful, to claim that this is the reason we should involve ourselves in the war in Ukraine: that somehow our lives will be better off theoretically if the government in Kyiv is more democratic and less authoritarian. Again, that's a strange argument to make on the facts, given that President Zelensky, even before Russia invaded his country, has shut down opposition television stations and this year has repeatedly closed even more, banned opposition parties, and last month even banned the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Not exactly the hallmarks of a Democratic leader.

But the idea that Americans have some direct, concrete, vital interest in who governs Ukraine or what the balance of power is between Ukraine and its neighbor in Russia has never held real sway among the mainstream Foreign Policy community in Washington. That's why there was so much indignation and bafflement in Washington when Bill Clinton and George W Bush began making gestures toward admitting Ukraine into NATO-- an alliance that was originally designed, you may recall, to defend Europe from attacks by a country that no longer exists, the Soviet Union. Why in the world would the U.S. pledge go to war in defense of Ukraine? And why would it be willing to risk conflict or even war with the country with the world's largest nuclear stockpile, Russia, over that country? 

I have nothing against Ukraine. Genuinely. That country, like every country on the planet, has a lot of good and nice people in it, and I can genuinely understand and empathize with the desire of many of them, by no means all of them, but many of them to avoid living under the control of Moscow and wanting instead to have their own democratic autonomy, to choose their own leaders in elections. But that's true of almost every country in the world where you could find at least some people who would like the U.S. to involve itself in their internal affairs, either by having the U.S. vowed to treat an attack on that country as if it's an attack on our own country -- who wouldn't want the world's richest and most powerful country to pledge to protect you if you are attacked -- or by having the U.S. attempt to destabilize its leaders? 

There really were many Iraqis -- especially some Kurds and some Shiites -- who did want the U.S. to invade and overthrow Saddam Hussein, whom they hated. One can find -- in countless countries -- a group of people here or there who hate their own government so much that they would love for the United States to risk the lives of our own people and spend our own treasure in overthrowing that government for them and replacing it with something better. But down that path lies, by definition, endless war, and more so, a complete abandonment by the U.S. government of what I thought was its primary responsibility -- improving the lives of American citizens. And down that path, we would instead devote ourselves to changing one country after the next on every continent, on the planet. 

And that is why for decades, polling data has overwhelmingly shown that Americans do not want the U.S. government to play the role of imperial overlord or the world's policeman, but instead to prioritize their interests. And that's why George W Bush found success in 2000 in running on a pledge to restore what he called “humility” to American foreign policy, criticizing the Clinton-Gore administration for excessive use of military force in ways that had nothing to do with the interests of the American people, such as in Yugoslavia.

And after Bush, both Obama and Trump found success with similar messages, even if expressed differently, namely that the U.S. should stop involving itself in the internal affairs of other countries, especially in their wars, absent some direct threat to the American people or the American homeland. 

And when it came to Ukraine specifically, one of the most eloquent and persuasive people who scoffed at the idea that the US should be willing to confront Russia over Ukraine was former President Obama. In 2016, his last year in office, he gave an extensive, wide-ranging interview to the neoconservative Jeffrey Goldberg, who had been rewarded for his service of lying continuously to get the U.S. to invade Iraq by becoming the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic. 

In a lengthy interview on almost every aspect of Obama's foreign policy views, which the Atlantic suitably headlined “The Obama Doctrine”, Goldberg, being a neocon, was clearly angry at Obama's refusal to do more to aggressively confront Russia, both in Syria, where Obama allowed the CIA some latitude to overthrow Russia's ally, Bashar al Assad, but, in the view of bipartisan Washington, constrained the CIA way too much and also in Ukraine, where Obama repeatedly refused bipartisan pressure to send lethal arms to Ukraine on the ground, in Obama's view, that Ukraine was not important enough to United States to risk confrontation with Russia in order to defend it. 

Goldberg summarized Obama's worldview when it came to Ukraine as follows -- this is Goldberg’s describing how Barack Obama thinks: “The fact is that Ukraine, which is a non-NATO country, is going to be vulnerable to military domination by Russia no matter what we do’, Obama said”. He went on: “ Now, if there's somebody in this town – Washington -- that would claim that we would consider going to war with Russia over Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, they should speak up and be very clear about it. The idea that talking tough or engaging in some military action that is tangential to that particular area is somehow going to influence the decision-making of Russia or China is contrary to all the evidence we have seen over the last 50 years”. Goldberg went on: “I asked Obama whether his position on Ukraine was realistic or fatalistic: ‘It's realistic’, Obama said. ‘But this is an example of where we have to be very clear about what our core interests are and what we are willing to go to war for’”. 

It was long the standard view of realists in Washington, D.C., that Ukraine has no vital interest in it to the United States. It is not geo-strategically vital. It has no vital interests such as oil. There's no reason that the U.S. should consider or has ever considered Ukraine a country worth fighting for, worth spending huge amounts of money to defend, worth risking confrontation with Russia, their neighbor, for whom Ukraine is, always will be, and always has been a vital interest. 

And yet, despite that, the spigot of money immediately opened the minute Russia invaded Ukraine in the name of defending Ukraine, which Obama said was not of vital interest, and to this day, it has never stopped flowing and it continues to flow in insane amounts.

So, just yesterday in The New York Times, you see this headline that “Congress Proposes More Than $44 Billion for Ukraine” -- more $44 billion on top of the close to $60 billion the U.S. has already spent this year for that war and now wants to send another $44 billion to Ukraine. And the article reports:

The giant annual spending bill unveiled by Congress on Tuesday contains more than $44 billion in emergency aid for Ukraine, renewing the U.S. commitment to the country's defense as Russia’s invasion grinds towards a second year. […] “The new wave of aid for Ukraine -- billions more than President Biden requested in mid-November -- comes amid growing concerns among the country's backers about the depth of America's support. Some Republicans finally have questioned the massive spending, while some progressives have called for peace talks. […] The aid package consists mostly of military spending, including nearly $20 billion to arm and equip Ukraine's forces and to replenish Defense Department stockpiles from which weapons are being sent to Kyiv. Some of that money would also be used to bolster the defenses of America's NATO allies to protect against further Russian aggression. 

Now, you'll note there that The New York Times said that the amount that Congress wants to allocate to Ukraine, $44 billion, is billions more than what the Biden administration even requested for the second time this year, the first time being in May. The Biden administration requested a gargantuan amount to spend on Ukraine and Congress decided to just arbitrarily pour billions of dollars on top of that and send even more. 

From The New York Times last week, you see the headline, “The White House Requests nearly $40 billion from Congress for Military Aid and Pandemic Aid”. and the article reads: “The White House asked Congress on Tuesday to approve nearly $48 billion to prepare for a possible winter surge in Coronavirus infections and to direct additional support to Ukraine”. […] “The White House proposed sending $37.7 billion -- not $43 billion, but $37.7 billion -- to Ukraine, setting aside $21.7 billion for military equipment and to replace Pentagon weaponry that has been already sent to the country. It would also allocate 14.5 billion for humanitarian aid…” 

So, we keep seeing the same pattern that it seems like the United States government has an open checkbook ready to send limitless amounts of money to this war that has no end in sight. Now, let's review how much the United States has spent so far and how this timeline has gone. 

The first authorization to send billions of dollars to Ukraine was in March of 2022 -- just two weeks or so after Russia crossed over the border and sent large numbers of troops into Ukraine -- there you see from the Associated Press, “The United House OKs 13.6B for Ukraine in Huge Spending Bill”. The AP called $13.6 billion a ‘huge spending bill for Ukraine’. And at the time, there were all kinds of talk about how the U.S. wouldn't do all sorts of things because it didn't want to end up risking escalation that it ended up doing – including, this week, sending the Patriot air defense missiles system over to Ukraine.

But at the time, $13.6 billion was considered, as the AP called it, a huge spending bill. The Biden administration ran through that in less than two months and that's why just less than two months later, on March 10th, this time, the House passes a $40 billion military aid package to address Ukraine. And what happened there was that the Biden administration had requested $33 billion -- almost three times what the AP, just six weeks earlier, called ‘the huge spending’ package -- and Congress decided, “you know what, $33 billion is just not enough. Let's just throw $7 billion on top of it”. And they did. And it passed very quickly. 

There are a couple of notes about what happened when it passed that are really important to remember. Number one, all of the no votes in both the House and the Senate came from Republicans: 57 House Republicans, primarily the right-wing populists, the harder core MAGA supporters -- who believed Donald Trump, when he pledged, in 2016, that Americans shouldn't involve themselves in wars that don't have a direct threat to the American homeland or the American people. Those types voted no, 57, and 11 more Senate Republicans.

So, a total of 68. House Republicans and Senate Republicans voted no on this bill. Obviously, the overwhelming majority of the Republican caucus in the House and the Senate voted for Biden's war policies, but at least a substantial minority of Republicans did not. The total number of Democrats who voted no on this $40 billion war package for Ukraine, $7 billion more than even the Biden White House requested was zero. Zero. 

Every Democrat, including the “Independent” Bernie Sanders and AOC, and every member of the Squad and Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer and the rest of them, every last Democrat and both houses of Congress united unanimously to send $40 billion of your money to Ukraine without a single one of them uttering a peep of opposition. On top of that, Sen. Rand Paul attempted to add an amendment to this $40 billion that would have said ‘we should create oversight provisions on how this money is actually spent’.

By this point, CNN had already reported that the United States government has almost no idea where these very sophisticated weapons were ending up. They send them over to Ukraine, a country notorious for the last decade for being the most corrupt country in Europe, and have no idea where these weapons are ending up. In five or 10 or 15 years, it's likely your children will be asked to go to war against a terrorist group or a country because they have these weapons that somehow got to those countries from Ukraine. They have no idea where these weapons are going and no one has any idea where this money is going. 

I wouldn't say that Raytheon and General Dynamics and Boeing, let alone the CIA, where this money is going, are world renowned for keeping great track of how money is spent. And the Ukrainians, to put it mildly, know better. But even the idea that there should be some safeguards put on where this money is going in, how it's being spent, created indignation from the establishment wings of both parties, united as usual when it comes to these kinds of questions. 

Rand Paul, as I mentioned earlier, got put on the official list aside alongside me and Tulsi Gabbard being a Russian agent or propagandist by the Ukrainian government, in part because he just wanted some safeguards on how your money was going to be spent. Even that was too much dissent from Washington. Mitch McConnell viciously attacked Rand Paul, as did his counterpart in the other party, which we're told can never agree on anything, Chuck Schumer. So that's how that $40 billion got passed in less than six weeks. They burned through that 13.6 billion and then they passed it without any sense of transparency or safeguards or accounting. 

Now, two months later or three months later, in September of 2022, there was a new stopgap spending bill for another $12.3 billion in aid to Ukraine. So that's almost $14 billion to start with, plus another $40, which is $54 billion. Added to this $12 billion, which is now $60 billion. That's just in September. And then we have other $44 billion sent today for a total of $100 billion. 

Now, I don't think it's controversial to note that many Americans here at home are not doing very well. You can pick whatever problem you think is the gravest: lack of wage increases and wage stagnation; the need to work multiple jobs if you have children, especially even if you're a married couple -- the fact that one parent, if they want, can't stay home and take care of their children any longer, what was a foundational attribute in property of American life for decades and that no longer is the case. It's gone.

There aren't enough good jobs, so people have to work two jobs just to sustain their family, to pay other people to raise their kids, and to pay other people to take care of their elderly parents. Huge numbers of people are without health care. Some of those people without health care got Medicaid benefits during the COVID pandemic on the grounds that, ‘look, if we're going to have this pandemic with a very serious disease that can kill a lot of people, then we ought to give people Medicaid’. Those people, however, are about to lose their Medicaid by the millions -- not Ukrainian citizens, but American citizens. 

Here you can see, from AP this week, “Millions to Lose Medicaid Coverage Under Congress's Plan”. The AP reports: “Millions of people who enrolled in Medicaid during the COVID-19 pandemic could start to lose their coverage on April 1 if Congress passes the $1.7 trillion spending package leaders unveiled Tuesday”. It has money for Ukraine, but not for your fellow citizens to have health care. “The legislation will sunset a requirement that the COVID-19 public health emergency that prohibited states from booting people off Medicaid”-- they're now free to:

The Biden administration has been under mounting pressure to declare the public health emergency over with 25 Republican governors asking the president to end it in a letter on Monday, which cited growing concerns about bloated Medicaid enrollment. Millions are expected to be bumped from the program, which grants healthcare coverage to nearly 80 million low-income people throughout the country. The federal government will also wind down extra funds given to states for the added enrollees over the next year under this proposal.

I really just want anyone to explain to me in clear language how it's justifiable that the United States is spending $100 billion on a war on the other side of the world where there are no vital U.S. interests, while people at home are suffering in all sorts of ways -- whether it's this for Medicaid coverage or all the other ways that Americans are suffering -- because the U.S. government claims it has insufficient funds in order to improve their lives. 

It is amazing -- isn't it? -- that no matter what you propose to do for the American people, in Washington people will stand up, lobbyists, the establishment linked to those parties, and say, we can't do that, we can't afford it. And yet, when it comes to fueling wars that have no theoretical relationship to the lives of the American people, no one ever asked that question “How are we going to pay for it?”.  We just borrow and borrow and borrow more from the Chinese become more and more and more into debt. And that's how America's imperial wars are funded. Now, as I noted, you would think this would be an argument that progressive members of Congress and Democrats would be making. And yet they don't. They voted for the $40 billion unanimously. 

But let me show you one person who has made this argument from the very start of the war. This is somebody whom we're all supposed to agree is crazy and insane, and maybe she is if you want to think that. But if you watch this clip, she certainly seems a lot less insane than most other people in Washington who somehow believe it's justifiable to send enormous sums of money to the war in Ukraine while people at home suffer from fentanyl overdoses and the industrialized towns, and lack of health care, and stagnating wages. Listen to what the Republican congresswoman from Georgia, Marjorie Taylor Greene, said during a debate over whether to send that $40 billion to Ukraine. She was talking in May 10th of this year. 

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene: Thank you. I rise an opposition to the Ukrainian supplemental bill: $40 billion, but there's no baby formula for American mothers and babies. An unknown amount of money to the CIA in the Ukraine supplemental bill but there's no formula for American babies and mothers. If this is about claiming that it's about saving lives, let's be real. Then we would care about war-torn countries like Ethiopia. So that's a bunch of hypocrisy because I never hear Ethiopia brought up here. Totally ignoring, completely ignoring our own border crisis, our own baby formula crisis, and brutal inflation skyrocketing gas prices that no one can afford. But $40 billion for Ukraine? Stop funding regime change and money laundering scams and U.S. politicians’ cover-ups of their crimes in countries like Ukraine. The American people do not support paying for constant U.S. involvement in foreign affairs while our own government fails our own country. 

Now, if that's insane and hateful and bigoted, I'd like a little bit of more insanity, hatred, and bigotry in our politics in Washington, because that is purely rational. And if you are somebody who believes the U.S. should continue to involve itself in this war in Ukraine – which, from the start to me at least, was clear, their real objective was not to save Ukraine but to sacrifice it -- in order to destroy and erode a country which, for some reason, the United States has decided to regard as an enemy, Russia, -- even though it spends 1/13 on its military what we spend on ours and could never directly threaten our country, nor is it trying to. But for some reason, we've decided to insist that they're enemies and we're willing to sacrifice Ukraine in order to weaken it in a war that is depleting both countries but destroying Ukraine. But if you're somebody who does that part you, I think, have the obligation to answer a question, which, as I said, I've never heard answered, the one that Marjorie Taylor Greene and a few others in the Republican Party are asking, which is how is it that the lives of the American people are being improved or enhanced or defended by continuing with that policy? 

So, as I indicated at the start of the show, one of the nation's best and most dogged investigative journalists, Lee Fang, one of the hires I made at The Intercept, of which I'm proudest, used the so-called Twitter Files to publish a true bombshell story uncovering the vast online psychological influence operations run by the Pentagon to shape global attitudes and opinions about foreign countries and U.S. foreign policy, as well as Twitter's in hand-in-hand, cooperation to support these deceitful propaganda operations. 

His report detailed the extent to which the U.S. military has for years been setting up and operating fake news portals, online personalities, and memes to manipulate public opinion. And how Twitter, despite pledging to crack down on state-backed influence operations of other countries, not only allowed these U.S. operations to continue but granted them special privileges. 

On October 31st, Lee, along with a colleague, published an equally vital story on the intense cooperation between the U.S. Security State and Big Tech. Using secret documents he obtained from Homeland Security, he reported the invasive plans of DHS and other agencies to integrate themselves further into Big Tech to further control the flow of information over the Internet. As one of the few American journalists left and American media practicing true adversarial investigative reporting, I'm thrilled to have Lee tonight in our Interview segment.

The Interview: Lee Fang

G.G.:  Hello. So good to see you. First of all, thanks so much for your taking the time for your first appearance on our show and for your new Substack, which you should take a little time and talk about if you want. 

Lee Fang:  Hey, thanks, Glenn, and congratulations on your show. Appreciate you having me. Yeah, I launched a Substack yesterday just to kind of provide additional analysis and documentation to my reporting so readers can stay up to date with what I'm doing. And I want to provide more context and explanation. You know, my normal reporting, I kind of just do by the books, regular journalism, but the Substack kind of provides a different format. I can give a little bit of an extended explanation. I can talk about how I do my work. I can talk a little bit about analysis and you know, the way that I kind of observe politics and society. So, I appreciate you plugging that. 

 

G.G.:  Yeah, I'll probably regret saying this, but I do consider myself, even if you don't, the godfather of your Substack page since I've been badgering you for at least two years to just start. Well, I'm glad you finally relented. So, before we talk about your story of yesterday from the Twitter Files, I want to ask you to revisit the story that you published at the end of October, along with Ken Klippenstein, that reported on Homeland Security's increasing relationship with Big Tech, and specifically, its intention to use that to better sense of the Internet from its perspective. I think people have forgotten that story because of the latest revelations in the Twitter Files. So, remind us of what that story showed and what its key revelations were. 

 

Lee Fang:  That story took a look at the evolution of the Department of Homeland Security, which has really refashioned itself from focusing on a  kind of global jihadism and threats from al-Qaida -- you know, security at airports and that type of thing, to looking more and more at supposed dangers from speech on social media. And this is a focus that kind of began in 2016 after the, you know, the Russian hacking and the Russian Facebook pages and meme pages on Twitter. There was a huge reaction to that, as you know, and you've covered it so much, where Washington said “We want answers. We can't have foreign meddling in our election. That's the greatest threat we face”.

 

So, the Department of Homeland Security, as the kind of War on Terror was winding down, was looking for a new focus for its multibillion-dollar budget, and they started creating new divisions within the agency focused on social media companies. They started creating roundtables, information-sharing meetings, and weekly kind of check-ins. It kind of had a mission creep for their role, where they see themselves as guardians of democracy by putting themselves as the kind of stewards of what we can say online and what's information and what's misinformation. There is a lot of alarming kind of issues presented by this new agenda by the DHS, but the biggest and most obvious one is how is the government going to tell us what is true and what is not on contentious political issues. We talked to a whistleblower who shared an image with us showing that the DHS planners, as it were, folks who were kind of setting the agenda for the next four years, said that they hoped to expand the misinformation/disinformation team to police, supposed misinformation around racial justice, around the origins of COVID-19, around the effectiveness of vaccines, around the war and other… the withdrawal from Afghanistan…

So, you know, these are issues where we have a spirited public debate, where the government really has no appropriate role telling us what's true and what's not -- especially since I don't think anyone knows, you know, the origins of COVID or what is the kind of correct answer around racial justice. I mean, these are inherently subjective, politicized issues and why the government should be weighing in and telling us what's true and what's not true, what's misinformation, what's disinformation. It's clearly not it's not appropriate and is clearly an effort to censor and stifle First Amendment-protected speech. 

 

G.G.:  Yeah. I mean, I think it should be intuitively obvious why we don't want the government to be the final arbiter of truth and falsity. Just, in theory, that should be obvious. But if you want an example that should close the debate forever, for the first year of the COVID pandemic, people were actually banned from those social media platforms for opining that, it was debatable what the origins of COVID actually were. A very consequential question, obviously, how this worldwide pandemic began, and it turned out that even the U.S. government admitted, but a year later, that that is an open question. And yet for a year, it was declared a closed question to the point it couldn't be debated on the Internet because the government said it shouldn't.

But let me ask you about the kind of argument that's made to justify these policies, which is kind of done it out in the open. Homeland Security, which is only created in 2002, this sprawling new bureaucracy has long identified what it claims are the greatest threats to the American homeland. And as you said, typically it's al-Qaida or ISIS or foreign countries. And during the Trump years, they started explicitly saying, look, the greatest threat to the American homeland does not come from outside our borders, but from within. It comes from white right-wing extremism and white supremacist ideology, especially people willing to take out violence in the name of that cause. And so, it's a legitimate function of us to protect the country by focusing our attention inward, because that's where the real threat is. Why isn't that a legitimate way for the U.S. Security State to see its role? 

 

Lee Fang.:  Well, any of these terms, you know, calling anyone a terrorist, whether you're saying that, you know, there's kind of right-wing, white supremacist, you know, nationalism, that type of thing, or ISIS or Islamic Jihad, you know, these are inherently political terms. It's very easy if you're a bureaucrat in Washington or a politician to inflate the fear and the danger of these groups, to use them as a convenient boogeyman for expanding your bureaucratic power. If you just look at the numbers, you know, these are threats that can quickly mobilize public opinion, but, you know, we live already in a violent country. You know, something like 16-17,000-gun homicides a year.

 

The number of actual whether that's foreign terror organizations or domestic, you know, right-wing or left-wing terror groups is minuscule. It really is. So just from my perspective as a kind of utilitarian, the actual threat and danger are constantly overhyped. It's constantly, you know, used as a cudgel for these politicians and policymakers to demand more resources, to demand more of an encroachment on civil liberties, to call for greater surveillance, to call for more restrictions on our daily lives, whether that's at airports or on social media. They're constantly seeking to expand their role. 

 

G.G.: So, let's turn to the story from yesterday that you're about to do with your access to the Twitter Files that obviously has a lot of relevance to the story you reported in late October we just discussed. But before delving into this substance, there's been a lot of attempts to denigrate this reporting by suggesting there's something nefarious about the relationship between Elon Musk and the reporters who have been reporting it, that there are conditions he imposed on what you can and can't say, that he's paid you to say what he wanted. Is any of that true? Were there conditions imposed on the access that you had to this material in terms of what you were allowed to report or couldn't? 

 

Lee Fang:  No. No conditions. I signed nothing. I agreed to nothing. You know, I'm happy to have the opportunity to come in and do some reporting on these files, but, you know, to be perfectly candid, I simply came to the Twitter offices last week and for three days without any editorial input, no one told me what to look for or asked me what I was doing. I came in and I made some requests to a Twitter attorney who would go to another room and then try to kind of fulfill those requests using some research tools on various documents that I asked for. And another Twitter engineer helped fulfill other requests because I also asked about certain tools that they use to manage people's Twitter profiles. That's about it. They did not kind of pressure me or reach out in any way.

 

There's actually no money exchanged and nothing like that. You know, I never met Elon Musk, but, you know, this is an interesting opportunity, so I seized it and hope to do more public interest-focused reporting using these documents. If there's stuff in those documents that helps us understand the world better, understand this company better, understand how public life, whether it's social media or interactions with the government can be kind of elevated or illustrated with journalism. I'm happy to do it. 

 

G.G.: Yeah, you used to be kind of uncontroversial that if you were a journalist and someone offered you the opportunity to get information that helped the world understand powerful actors, and important decisions better, you immediately say yes without regard to who that source is or what their motives are,  but that seems to have changed quite a bit in at least some sectors of journalism. So, you're the third person I've spoken with… Go ahead. You want to say something about that? 

 

Lee Fang:  Well, I should just say, you know, I've reported on dozens and dozens of stories with kind of unusual sources, you know, there are legend Qatari hackers that I have obtained documents from, Algerian hackers, Russian sources, FBI, law enforcement, leakers, you know, people of various motives. And I get that Elon Musk is an unusual, controversial source, but I've done so many stories with other kinds of unusual sources. What matters is, you know, is it a public interest story? Do the documents of the story actually tell something that serves the public interest? And here that's clearly the case. But, you know, of course, people obsess over Elon Musk because he is a kind of a polarizing figure, I get that. But it doesn't reflect the journalism. 

 

G.G.: Yeah. I mean, you know, in Watergate, what we're all taught in childhood is like the pinnacle of journalistic excellence, the main source, they called Deep Throat, turned out to be an FBI official, bitter that he was passed over for the position of FBI director by Nixon. And his leaks were designed to get vengeance on Nixon for that what he took as a personal affront.

 

So, you're the third journalist that I've interviewed who has reported on these files after Matt Taibbi, then Michael Shellenberger, last night, with whom I spoke. There is a lot of kind of complex documents being tossed around, and a lot of important revelations being divulged at once. I think sometimes the public has a hard time processing that when that's the case. So, talk about what you regard as, say, the two or three most significant findings from the first installment of reporting that you did. 

 

Lee Fang.:  Well, this is kind of two simultaneous stories that I reported yesterday. One, you know, as you described at the top of the segment, you know, we're looking at the kind of hypocritical policies of Twitter that, you know -- this is a company that promised, in 2016, that they rapidly identify and thwart and shut down all state-backed influence operations, you know, covert government efforts to manipulate their platform using fake aliases, fake identities to shape public opinion in a foreign country or to place military or intelligence propaganda. They've said -- they testify to Congress -- that they're against it and they're going to shut down all government action.

 

And this story also looks at the U.S. military and their sprawling effort and their interactions with Twitter. Twitter gave essentially a concierge service to CENTCOM, U.S. Central Command, which has really been kind of orchestrating this influence and psychological operations throughout the Middle East, using these Arab language accounts to create what looks like authentic interactions, authentic people and news sources, news portals.

 

I'm talking about the accuracy of the U.S. drone strikes in Yemen, you know, success in wars and military engagement with U.S. enemies like al-Qaida and ISIS; promoting anti-Iran and anti-Russia narratives in the Middle East; promoting the Saudi-led coalition that's fighting a war in Yemen, you know. This kind of relationship between Twitter and the military goes back at least until 2017. That's the earliest I found documents where you have officials from CENTCOM sending an email to Twitter with a list of their Twitter accounts that they control or asking for special privileges for those accounts.

 

And I can see in the Twitter documents that, as soon as they sent that request, that same day, Twitter officials went to the back-end of their tools and provided a special tag to those accounts that were requested by CENTCOM, and they gave a special wireless tag that's basically giving the privileges of a blue check verification without the visible blue check. So, what does the verification do beyond being a status marker, I guess?

 

It was even without the blue checked and the Twitter back end that blocks accounts from being flagged as spam or for abuse or for interacting with accounts that might be, you know, promoting terrorist content that helps them be more likely to trend or be indexed by hashtags and more visible, basically on the Twitter timeline. So, they're providing very close support. And, you know, initially, some of these CENTCOM accounts were publicly identified as affiliated with the military. But for a very long period, they shed that affiliation and that disclosure. And Twitter was well aware. We can see in the emails that they were talking about these kinds of cloak-and-dagger Twitter accounts and not sure what to do with them. 

 

G.G.: So, one of the reasons, I think, that I was so contemptuous of the kind of faux indignation in 2016 over the idea that Russia would interfere in our sacred Iraq, just because obviously the U.S. government has been interfering in the message politics of virtually every country, including Russia -- in ways far more significant than a few fake Facebook ads or Twitter bots or even hacking operations that Russia was accused of doing. The United States actually created an entirely new fake Twitter in order to destabilize the Cuban government by learning young Cubans.

 

And there are all these stories like that of the U.S. government doing similar things on the Internet. I suppose some people might defend this on the grounds that Twitter is an American company, and therefore we want Twitter to stop other governments, especially enemy governments, from being able to disseminate their propaganda over Twitter. But why shouldn't we as Americans want our own government to have the power to use the Internet to promote its own propaganda and destabilizing operations and propaganda operations throughout the world? Why shouldn't Twitter be working with the U.S. government this way? 

 

Lee Fang: Well, you know, I would just make a few comments around that. One is that I think, you know, the U.S. has a much higher moral high ground. You know, if it can conduct itself in a way that's truthful and ethical, if they expect other countries to treat us in a certain way, we should reject that same kind of behavior abroad, not act hypocritically. And the other kind of dynamic here is that this is the Internet. You know, we've seen in the past many scandals with the U.S. military using its psychological operations, teams and resources, to illegally, and unethically, influence American policymakers. You know, Michael Hastings at Rolling Stone has a great story showing that U.S. forces in Afghanistan had used their psychological influence operations to influence American policymakers, and members of Congress, who were going to go visit the U.S. war effort.

You know, we've seen Donald Rumsfeld with his scandal, where he was kind of organizing efforts around us -- retired military generals to appear on CNN and other major networks to help sell the Iraq war, the Afghanistan war, the surge or what have you. So, you know, for these kinds of social media accounts, what's interesting here is that although they were targeted in Syria and Iraq and Yemen, Kuwait, and other places in the Middle East, this is the Internet. You know, I was kind of tracing the influence of these social media and these social media accounts that were set up by CENTCOM and kind of allowed by Twitter.

 

They trickled back to U.S. politics. A lot of U.S. media outlets covering issues in Yemen and Syria would end up citing these accounts without realizing that they were actually, you know, part of a military psyops campaign. So, you know, even if you're targeting a certain Arab or local population in the Middle East, this kind of propaganda trickles back and we end up kind of seeing a U.S. military psyop campaign and potentially misinforming even American voters and the American population. So, you know, this stuff has blowback in many ways. 

 

G.G.: So, last question. We only have a couple of minutes left -- in part because I have to be on Tucker’s show and they're already obnoxiously calling, even though they know we're not off the air until 8:00. But I do need to be done, just if you could, in a couple of minutes. One of the things that struck me as you were talking about all these different propaganda operations that the Pentagon does in these far-flung parts of the world -- including helping the Saudis in their war in Yemen -- it's the same point I was making, we were talking about just now: Presidents Zelensky’s address right now as we speak before congress demanding to get more billions on top of $100 billion, we already sent… What does any of this have to do with the lives of the American people? How does any of what you just talked about in terms of the Pentagon's propaganda and information operations, in terms of Yemen and Syria and all these places, in what way does it even affect, let alone improve, the lives of American citizens? Is that question something that occurred to you as you were reviewing all this? 

 

Lee Fang: Yeah, absolutely. I think this is actually most acute for the war in Yemen or,  at least for the war in Ukraine, we're having some debate, I mean, there isn't a very vocal peace lobby fighting for a diplomatic end or resolution to this conflict. For the war in Yemen has raged since 2015. There are over, I believe, 1.5 million displaced people in Yemen, it is the poorest country in the Arab world. Thousands upon thousands of children were killed in this conflict and we have no debate about this in the U.S. We have no one who, that I know, who's voted for this conflict. You know this is something that's happened in the background that it appears to just be a proxy effort between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Yet the U.S., because of our ironclad alliance with Saudi Arabia and our need for their oil, provide lots and lots of military support and apparently social media support for this military conflict. There's no debate about it in Washington and there's no serious discussion, even though it clearly affects millions of lives. 

 

G.G.: Absolutely. So, Lee, first of all, again, congratulations on your Substack. I hope people go and follow you in our aftershow especially. We'll put the address where people can do that. I do have to run and I really appreciate your taking the time. I'm going to be pursuing you to appear on our show very shortly again in the future. 

 

Lee Fang: Congrats again on your show. Thanks for having me. 

 

G.G.: Thank you. Have a great night. Yeah. 


Well, so that is our show for this evening. As I said, as usual, we go and do our aftershow immediately on Locals. But tonight -- because I will just in a couple of minutes be on Tucker Carlson’s show, soon as I'm done -- we will have a little bit of a delayed start to our aftershow. But I'll be right on Locals to start as soon as I'm done, probably in about 15 to 20 minutes. 

Thank you as always, for watching. I hope you'll join us tonight and tomorrow night and every night here at 7 p.m. Eastern, live, only on Rumble

community logo
Join the Glenn Greenwald Community
To read more articles like this, sign up and join my community today
1
What else you may like…
Videos
Podcasts
Posts
Articles
Answering Your Questions About Tariffs

Many of you have been asking about the impact of Trump's tariffs, and Glenn addressed how we are covering the issue during our mail bag segment yesterday. As always, we are grateful for your thought-provoking questions! Thank you, and keep the questions coming!

00:11:10
In Case You Missed It: Glenn Breaks Down Trump's DOJ Speech on Fox News
00:04:52
In Case You Missed It: Glenn Discusses Mahmoud Khalil on Fox News
00:08:35
Listen to this Article: Reflecting New U.S. Control of TikTok's Censorship, Our Report Criticizing Zelensky Was Deleted

For years, U.S. officials and their media allies accused Russia, China and Iran of tyranny for demanding censorship as a condition for Big Tech access. Now, the U.S. is doing the same to TikTok. Listen below.

Listen to this Article: Reflecting New U.S. Control of TikTok's Censorship, Our Report Criticizing Zelensky Was Deleted

I highly recommend the first 24 minutes with Bruce Fein, a lawyer specializing in constitutional and international law. He was appointed by R. Reagan as assistant deputy AG:
https://pca.st/episode/a64c9e94-cb4a-4f9c-9f12-d5d883f2b261

I think we need a Sunday evening Breaking News segment! The revelations that Tulsi just dropped on the world is HISTORIC!

Double-Down News: Epstein EXPOSED: Trump, Mossad & The Elite’s Dark Secrets [14m,5hrs ago]

post photo preview
Trump Promises More Weapons for Ukraine; Trump Again Accuses Dems of Fabricating Epstein Files
System Update #487

The following is an abridged transcript from System Update’s most recent episode. You can watch the full episode on Rumble or listen to it in podcast form on Apple, Spotify, or any other major podcast provider.  

System Update is an independent show free to all viewers and listeners, but that wouldn’t be possible without our loyal supporters. To keep the show free for everyone, please consider joining our Locals, where we host our members-only aftershow, publish exclusive articles, release these transcripts, and so much more!

AD_4nXfBU4ro-q9aUswaRI8GnHLooW9sJZdmVgqQBLEkN4tyxcvHGVXrgnEeOaekDchxD9mwYVLyJnQdzRcSNRBHfQiyle-ocy7CcqNP-qM2vwDxXYiAQhaeYLOEDbYE3FCsgvhjKynPjowcvqSxG26w9w?key=n1cm1L6bRhlXjVMH0CmEVg

Tonight, President Trump campaigned repeatedly on denouncing Joe Biden's policy of arming Ukraine in its war with Russia and vowing to end the war as soon as he got into office. Like so many of his promises, none of this happened, and now Trump, rather than ending Biden's war policy, is doubling down on it. With the NATO chief in the White House today, the supreme militarist Mark Rutte, Trump announced a new plan to arm Ukraine by sending the weapons through NATO, which he claims will pay for them. We'll see. A report in the Financial Times today also says Trump told Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelenskyy to try to use missiles to strike the key Russian cities of Moscow and St. Petersburg. Imagine if Russia had told a proxy of theirs, “We'll give you weapons, and we want you to strike New York, Los Angeles, and Washington.” This came after Joe Biden and his transition out of the White House for the first time authorized Ukrainian strikes inside Russia. Trump's policies are wrong and dangerous for the exact same reasons Biden's policy was in Ukraine, as we went over many times when he was president, and it's crucial to examine why that is and what Trump is doing. 

Also, when Trump first addressed the anger among his own supporters for having announced that he was closing the Epstein investigation with zero disclosures forthcoming, he did so by waving his hand and instructing everyone that this topic was far too trivial and insignificant to merit any attention, and he thus directed everyone to move on and simply stop talking about it. Some obeyed Trump, of course, but many did not, and he was thus compelled to return several times to address the obvious 180 his administration has done with regard to whether the various issues in this case would be investigated and whether the documents suitable for publication would be disclosed. 

But each time Trump has tried to calm his angry base with additional statements, he has only made things worse. How long can this charade go on? We'll examine the latest. 

AD_4nXfBU4ro-q9aUswaRI8GnHLooW9sJZdmVgqQBLEkN4tyxcvHGVXrgnEeOaekDchxD9mwYVLyJnQdzRcSNRBHfQiyle-ocy7CcqNP-qM2vwDxXYiAQhaeYLOEDbYE3FCsgvhjKynPjowcvqSxG26w9w?key=n1cm1L6bRhlXjVMH0CmEVg

One of the most significant policies of the Biden administration was the decision unanimously supported by every single member of the Democratic Congress, but also a majority of members of the establishment Republicans as well, to arm and fund the war in Ukraine. There were a lot of reasons why people objected to that, especially people on the right-wing populist faction who were supporting Trump. One of them was a cost issue, but another was just how dangerous it was. 

Why was Russia our enemy? Why are we making them our enemy? Why are they claiming that the war in Ukraine, which is about who governs the various provinces in the east of Ukraine, has anything to do with the lives of American citizens? And also, Russia is a nuclear power, which has made clear that they regard this war as existential to their national security. Something that the CIA has long said all the way back to the Bush administration, when Victoria Nuland and Condoleezza Rice wanted to put Ukraine in NATO. The head of the CIA under Obama, Bill Burns, who was in the Bush administration as well, wrote a memo that ended up being leaked by WikiLeaks, which basically said, Ukraine and NATO is a red line for Russia, not just for Putin and his supporters, but for even liberal anti-Putin critics, everyone in the entire political spectrum in Russia regards any NATO influence or presence in this country on the other side of its border – that was twice used to invade Russia in the 20th century, killing tens of millions of Russians in two world wars – obviously a very sensitive part of their border that they consider it existential, whereas the West does not. 

Putin was asking that the U.S. and NATO agree that Ukraine will never be a NATO member and the U.S. under Biden refused. And that was at least part of the reason why Putin then went into Ukraine. There were others. We've been over these many times, but Donald Trump had been steadfast in his opposition to Biden's policy of arming the war in Ukraine and promising repeatedly that as soon as he got into office, he would just tell each of them to cut it out, would threaten each or hold sanctions over their heads or whatever he had to do and the war would end very, very quickly. None of that has happened. Trump has increasingly come to blame Vladimir Putin principally for that, despite the flamboyant conflict he had in the White House with Zelenskyy. 

He's now done a 180 on the question of Ukraine as well. He is now announcing a massive influx of weapons from the United States to Ukraine that he intends to put through NATO, claiming that NATO countries are going to buy it from the U.S. through some unknown mechanism. NATO countries are already saying, “We're not going to wait for these weapons to get here. We're just going to send them to Ukraine, knowing that the U.S. is going to replenish our stockpile.” 

For all the talk about how Trump was splitting with Western Europe and questioning the value of NATO, here is the NATO chief, Mark Rutte, in the White House today. He's one of those EU maniacs who just want war in every way. When Trump went to the NATO summit a couple of weeks ago, Mark Rutte was so grateful that Trump had signaled that he was going to start funding and arming Ukraine again that he actually sat there and flattered Trump in the way that Trump loves them most. He actually called him daddy – you're kind of like a daddy. Sometimes, if the two sides aren't doing what you want, the daddy has to come and impose discipline, calling Trump daddy in front of the cameras. But of course, knowing that, although pretty embarrassing, that's how you can flatter and ingratiate yourself and then start influencing Trump. 

Today, the NATO chief was at the White House next to Trump and that's when Trump announced this new policy. Here it is. 

Video. Donald Trump, Mark Rutte, White House. July 14, 2025.

This claim that NATO agreed to 5% is through accounting smoke and mirrors. All they did was expand the definition of what “defense spending” includes. So it includes, in large part, the amount of money they've been pouring into the war in Russia, that they've been sending to Ukraine, but it also includes things like they can build infrastructure and, as long as they can demonstrate it has some connection to the military, that gets counted as military spending. 

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
post photo preview
Is There Evidence of Epstein's Ties to Israel? Yes: Ample. Brazil's Chief Censor Orders Rumble to Ban US Citizen and Turn Over Data
System Update #486

The following is an abridged transcript from System Update’s most recent episode. You can watch the full episode on Rumble or listen to it in podcast form on Apple, Spotify, or any other major podcast provider.  

System Update is an independent show free to all viewers and listeners, but that wouldn’t be possible without our loyal supporters. To keep the show free for everyone, please consider joining our Locals, where we host our members-only aftershow, publish exclusive articles, release these transcripts, and so much more!

AD_4nXfKjrOkaRA3KGA9SqYKbfppAISLi5iAafzuW6HiklWethe_-i6XYMgqeFDlnIKla8Yh1NFa6c9kxVm3q-aZq6oV1wtIIUDUxn0IK97hE_6caZIKQ_eZLm1MmPx3Fhd6nVv-x8-59LgkGuOjgFYZqA?key=Jppo7ew-27yjOp_lOh-lUw

President Trump last week reacted with anger and dismissiveness when a reporter asked his Attorney General, Pam Bondi, at the White House, whether Jeffrey Epstein had connections with a foreign or domestic intelligence agency: “That's too trivial to even discuss,” Trump decreed. For her part, AG Bondi said she had no idea whether Epstein had any such ties, as if it were the first time she ever heard of that or considered it, and said she'd get back to us with the answer. Do not hold your breath. 

Then, after Tucker Carlson over the weekend said, at Charlie Kirk's Turning Points U.S.A. Conference, that he believes Epstein has ties to Israeli intelligence – something he said everyone in Washington knows – the attacks on Carlson were as intense and unified as anything I've ever seen. Former Israeli Prime Minister, Neftali Bennett, issued a carefully worded but enraged denial toward Carlson, vowing that he "won't take it anymore." 

Is there evidence that the serial pedophile and sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein had ties to the Israeli government and its intelligence agencies, such as the Mossad? In a word: yes. Note that I did not say there was ‘proof’ – that's different – because only the U.S. government can show us the definitive evidence about this question, one way or the other, something that bizarrely they simply refused to do. We'll review all that evidence linking Epstein to the Israelis, not so much to prove that Epstein was an Israeli agent since we can't do that, but to demonstrate that there is very ample ground for asking that question and demanding the Trump administration show us what they have on this topic and all topics related to Jeffrey Epstein. 

Then: Just last week, President Trump imposed 50% tariffs on Brazilian products, in part, he said, because Brazil's Supreme Court and its chief censorship judge, Alexandre de Moraes, have been attacking the free speech rights of American citizens and American companies. Note, Trump said he was attacking the free speech rights of American citizens and American companies. Trump was referring at least in large part, if not exclusively, to Rumble, which was blocked from all of Brazil by Moraes for failure to obey his censorship orders. Now, as if to prove Trump's point, Moraes issued one of the most draconian orders yet, clearly defying Trump and provoking him into further action. We'll cover all that.

AD_4nXfKjrOkaRA3KGA9SqYKbfppAISLi5iAafzuW6HiklWethe_-i6XYMgqeFDlnIKla8Yh1NFa6c9kxVm3q-aZq6oV1wtIIUDUxn0IK97hE_6caZIKQ_eZLm1MmPx3Fhd6nVv-x8-59LgkGuOjgFYZqA?key=Jppo7ew-27yjOp_lOh-lUw

AD_4nXcgvWk-rDn8C4G_nCb535L4wt44ttiYFvschHlkSyFp6qAQSMB2Y6GIkYSK1FyRbVjo8LLXjHD2jT3EyfnidJ2rnO4FXFSAl0-abXhWq_uHToZ1TL7-BaJePftihSKV4F_VIuIq09XwC-rVnOX2uw?key=Jppo7ew-27yjOp_lOh-lUw

There are a lot of issues swirling around the Epstein case, and there have been for quite a long time, but I have always said, going back years – and this year leading up to the expectation that the Trump administration would finally give us the answers that its key officials had long been promising – that the most significant unanswered question, at least one of them, was whether Jeffrey Epstein had ties with or worked with or for an intelligence agency, foreign or domestic. 

The reason that's an important question is an obvious one. Namely, that intelligence agencies want as much dirt on people as they can get. That's why they spy on people. It's why they invent invasive surveillance technologies. The Israelis are masters of this. Most of the most pernicious spying programs, like Pegasus, emanate from Israel. The Israelis are notorious for using intelligence against “their allies,” like the United States, spying in person and spying digitally. 

Jeffrey Epstein was obviously somebody who had access to the most elite circles of the most powerful people who spent a great deal of time with him, consorting with him, staying with him, visiting him, flying with him, going to his island, even after he was convicted of soliciting minors for prostitution and having sex with minors. 

How is that even possible? You know somebody has been convicted or pled guilty to using minors as prostitutes, minors who can't consent, who are basically raped if you have sex with them, which is what Jeffrey Epstein did, and then you say, come to my house, I'm going to fly with you on your plane, I'm going to be your friend, I'm to spend a lot of time with you. Of course, all of that finally came to a head in 2018 when the evidence became overwhelming of all he had gotten away with and all the questions swirling around him, the U.S. government indicted him and then he allegedly committed suicide in prison. 

So, there have been a lot of questions, but, to me, the biggest one has always been if he was working with or for any foreign intelligence in part because his wealth was massive, clearly that of a multibillionaire. No one knows where his wealth came from. He was working as a teacher at a private high school, the Dalton School, even though he had no college degree, and then suddenly appeared out of nowhere as one of the world's richest people and couldn't explain to anybody what was the source of his vast wealth. He had cameras in all of these homes where all of this sex with underage people was taking place. It's exactly the kind of thing that any intelligence agency would die to get their hands on, especially if they have leverage over him; that's the one thing you would want from him, that kind of information. 

When Pam Bondi, Kash Patel, Dan Bongino and the Trump administration announced they were closing this case because they found nothing incriminating, they ran to Axios, of all places, and leaked a memo on Sunday night announcing to the public that they found nothing incriminating. There was no blackmail. He definitely killed himself. No, there was no client list, even though they repeatedly said there was. But one thing they did not say is whether he was working with or for foreign intelligence agencies or domestic intelligence agencies, which is something that people have been asking for a long time. They didn't even address it. That's not one of the things they denied. They didn't even bother to address it, and so a very conscientious reporter, who I believe works for the New York Post, went to the White House during one of President Trump's press briefings, where his cabinet was, including Pam Bondi, and he asked Pam Bondi exactly that question. This is where Trump erupted with anger and said, "Move on, this is not even worth talking about.' And Pam Bondi basically said, "I don't know, never thought of it.". 

Here's just a reminder of what happened.

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
post photo preview
UN Gaza Investigator Francesca Albanese on US Sanctions Against Her; Plus: Glenn Takes Your Questions on Trump's Pressure on Brazil, Sam Harris, Bill Ackman and More
System Update #485

The following is an abridged transcript from System Update’s most recent episode. You can watch the full episode on Rumble or listen to it in podcast form on Apple, Spotify, or any other major podcast provider.  

System Update is an independent show free to all viewers and listeners, but that wouldn’t be possible without our loyal supporters. To keep the show free for everyone, please consider joining our Locals, where we host our members-only aftershow, publish exclusive articles, release these transcripts, and so much more!

AD_4nXdAEXqZaCDbsmhpBzg7FVhbDHdgzO9WlRcq-apFS-bg-apyD1A8c_NiRYgxl9NIttoo93d2Nlg6Wh8NzwiGotAWEHXsOBmYBsnK87-AurzH3Omnnq16O3rF0QWLCSWaRdbBb61dnPrTL-iuZOJ8A5o?key=kaStcv36KCzuqrITeye1Cw

It is very well-documented on this show and elsewhere that critics of Israel are not only smeared and maligned but are often officially punished by the U.S. government and other Western nations. Few people have endured more such attacks than our guest tonight: the Italian specialist in human rights law and the U.N. Rapporteur for Palestine, Francesca Albanese. 

And for doing her job and doing it well, Albanese has now not only been widely branded an anti-Semite, of course, but is also being punished by multiple Western governments as well as Israel in all sorts of ways. Those reprisals against her, again, for the crime of documenting Israeli crimes in Gaza and the West Bank – her job – severely escalated this week when Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced the imposition of American sanctions against her personally, against her finances, her travel and other abilities in her life. His announcement, not coincidentally, came just days after the U.N. publicized her report about the role of American Big Tech companies – including Google, Amazon and Palantir – in working with the IDF and profiting off of the destruction of Gaza. She'll join us tonight to talk about her work and the ongoing attacks against her. 

Then: as you likely know, every Friday night we try to reserve all of our shows or a significant part of our shows for a Q&A session with the members of our Locals. As usual, we have a wide range of questions, and we’ll answer some of them.

AD_4nXdAEXqZaCDbsmhpBzg7FVhbDHdgzO9WlRcq-apFS-bg-apyD1A8c_NiRYgxl9NIttoo93d2Nlg6Wh8NzwiGotAWEHXsOBmYBsnK87-AurzH3Omnnq16O3rF0QWLCSWaRdbBb61dnPrTL-iuZOJ8A5o?key=kaStcv36KCzuqrITeye1Cw

The Interview: Francesca Albanese

Our guest tonight, the U.N. Rapporteur for Palestine, Francesca Albanese, in a lot of ways, is a tribute to the remarkable courage and relentless investigative work and the refusal to back down when documenting Israeli war crimes in Palestine by the Israelis. 

Of course, people always accuse her and the U.N. generally of obsessing on Israel. It's not true. There are U.N. Rapporteurs for human rights abuses in countless other countries. I just named some of them: North Korea, Afghanistan, Syria, Colombia, Burundi, Iran, and many others as well. The idea that the U.N. focuses only on Israel or that it somehow obsesses on Israel is laughable. 

Francesca Albanese’s job, in particular, is to document as a rapporteur, which is a legal position where international human rights lawyers volunteer their time pro bono to work on matters documenting human rights abuses in various areas for the U.N. Her role is to do so documenting the abuses by the Israeli government, paid for and armed by the U.S. and other Western governments and that's the work she's been doing.

She has also been involved throughout her life in all kinds of other human rights abuses throughout the world that have nothing to do with Israel. She's traveling this week in Bosnia, where she's commemorating the massacres against Bosnian Muslims during the 1990s. She has been involved in refugee crises and migrant abuses, or abuses in Afghanistan. This is just part of her work, but it's the part of her work that, unlike all the other things she's done, which have provoked retaliation, because in the U.S. and the West, it's increasingly viewed as not just amoral but criminal to criticize Israel. 

You need no further proof than the announcement this week by the American Secretary of State, Marco Rubio – the U.S. Secretary of State, not the Secretary of State for Israel – announcing punishments on her, and this is what he said on July 10. He posted on X: 

AD_4nXdAef4G80zAgES_o9C2RwbOfgTJFmUmm9ynywa_jUnsoCs52RTeDiTq_cPcF06fbrFlNua8vS4dtDFC5CvTKF1q4tyqoYN-1xWUDQqu0SWhWEDnfXccxyeY_tJi7h04zF6Qc0OqTVtBQ2uXRAi05S8?key=kaStcv36KCzuqrITeye1Cw

Notice what Secretary Rubio did not accuse her of lying or publishing fabrications, or manipulating evidence, or spreading disinformation. The anger is over the accuracy of her work and it's not a coincidence that, the day before Secretary Rubio announced those sanctions, the Washington Post documented a report that the U.N. issues that was authored and overseen by Francesca Albanese, that was specifically designed to demonstrate how major Big Tech companies, including Google, along with Palantir, Amazon and others, are providing weapons, and by weapons I mean tech weapons, surveillance weapons, military weapons to Israel and to the IDF to profit off of the destruction, the ethnic cleansing in Gaza. In many ways, U.S. Big Tech companies are more powerful than the U.S. government. They're central to the U.S. military-industrial complex. They all have massive contracts with the U.S. intelligence agency. 

But knowing exactly that, she decided that it was important to document the role of industrial forces in what is happening in the IDF. And for that, she got the announcement as – you'll never guess – antisemitic, by the co-founder of Google, Sergey Brin, who is a Russian Jewish immigrant to the United States, a U.S. citizen, co-founded Google, a multibillionaire, one of the world's 10 richest people. 

The Washington Post got hold of internal dialogue from internal chats from Google, where he made it clear to Google employees that they should never even be discussed because the U.N. itself is transparently antisemitic. The headline was: “Google Co-Founder Sergey Brin Calls U.N. ‘Transparently Antisemitic’ After Report on Tech Firms and Gaza.” His argument was that the use of “genocide,” not to talk about what was done to Jews 80 years ago, but to talk about what's being done by Israel today, is inherently antisemitic. 

Genocide is a term you can apply to every country on the planet except Israel, according to the multi-multibillionaire co-founder of Google, Sergey Brin. That shows you, again, there was nothing in the report that he said was false. They're not angry that she published false information designed to malign the reputation of Google. They're angry that you published true information about Google's role in the IDF. 

For all the conservative claims about how much they hate Big Tech, they are completely in bed with Big Tech and the U.S. military-industrial complex and the intelligence community are completely in bed with Big Tech. We've documented that many times before. We did a whole show on the role of Palantir

And for as much retaliation as you will suffer if you criticize Israel, documenting the role of America's largest tech companies and its partnership with the IDF and its profiteering off of the destruction of Gaza, is a red line that apparently Marco Rubio decided merits sanctions. That was the straw that broke the camel's back. 

I'm sure there have been calls for her sanctioning or other punishment – of course, calling her an anti-Semite, the way everyone who criticizes Israel is called an anti-Semite, everybody knows that formula by now – but the American government sanctioning her because of criticism of Israel – and obviously she's documenting as well the vital role the U.S. and Europeans are playing in arming and financing that war. All things again, that's her job to do. Nobody can test the veracity of it. They're now going to block her finances, prevent her from using credit cards and bank accounts, whatever they can do with these sanctions. 

One of the impressive things about Francesca Albanese, many things, is that she doesn't speak from a place of ideology. She doesn't speak from a place of political bias. She's an international human rights lawyer and an academic who is best known for her role as the United Nations Special Rapporteur for the situation on human rights in Palestine, but she was only appointed to that position in 2022. She has done lots of other work throughout her life. She's a scholar at Georgetown University's Institute for the Study of International Migration. She has been in the news recently because of Gaza and the proposals against her, but as I said, she's done human rights advocacy and work concerning migrants, concerning Bosnian Muslims or Afghanistan, concerning a whole variety of other issues as well, and she's never suffered a reprisal before until her work starting in 2022 focused on the attack by the IDF against the people of Gaza, which even Israeli genocide experts who have stood up and defended her say is a genocide. 

So the fact that she's done this work, knowing the attack she was going to get, the fact that's she's unbothered by these attacks, that she continues to be one of the most informed, eloquent and courageous spokespersons objecting to what I do think is the atrocity of our time, which is the Israeli destruction of Gaza, makes her, in my view, extremely admirable and worthy of respect, but also somebody very worth listening to. There are few people who know more about the situation than she. It's our pleasure to welcome her to the show this evening. 


G. Greenwald: Ms. Albanese, thank you so much for taking the time to talk to us. We are very interested in your case. I want to begin with a common criticism that I hear frequently of people like yourself, who focus a lot on the Israeli destruction of Gaza, the ethnic cleansing taking place there, the genocide, which is, “Oh, you seem very obsessed with Israel; you don't really seem to care much about other human rights violations.” 

I know one of the things you're doing now is traveling; we had a little bit of a hard time scheduling. Where are you traveling today and for what purpose? 

Francesca Albanese: I just arrived in Sarajevo from Srebrenica. I've been invited to speak after Slovenia, after London, after Madrid, to speak to the people here about what's going on in the occupied Palestinian territory, particularly in Gaza. I was honored to accept the invitation in this context, where the genocide survivors are hosting a space to talk about all genocides. 

Today I went to Srebrenica to pay tribute to the survivors and the victims. It was very heavy and there is so much that I'm still processing this, but something that really touched me was the nerve of some Western officials who, on the one hand, said, “Oh, we have always been with you and we will be with you forever.” No, no, there was no NATO when the Bosnian people were slaughtered, especially those in Srebrenica. 

The people in Srebrenica were not even forced out of Srebrenica, because there was a safe area under U.N. supervision and the U.N. itself didn't protect the people. So, 30 years later, these people have the nerve to come and deliver messages from afar. The population is still so devastated, [inaudible] and say, well, I will not let you rewrite it. 

G. Greenwald: Yeah, I mean, it's important in and of itself to talk about that massacre in Bosnia, but also to underscore how universalized your human rights focus has been. It's not like you just focus on Israel and Palestine, other than the job that you have. But let me ask you about the specific job that you have, because I think a lot of people don't understand the function generally of U.N. Rapporteurs, but also the specific function that you serve as the U.N. Rapporteur for Palestine, for the occupiers of Palestine. So, can you talk about what it is that your job at the U.N. as an official is intended to be, both generally and specifically, in your case? 

Francesca Albanese: United Nations special rapporteurs are experts of the United Nations, appointed by the Human Rights Council to serve for a term of three or six years, in my case, documenting and supporting given human rights situations. It can be thematic issues like reporting on the state of the right to food, the prevention of torture, freedom of assembly and freedom of expression. There are also a number of mandates that have a country focus, for example, Iran, Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Sri Lanka, and the occupied Palestinian territories. So, my responsibility as per the resolution that created this mandate is to document, report and investigate reported violations of international law committed by Israel in the occupied Palestinian territory. 

Is it an obsession to focus on Israel? Not really, because when the mandate was created, the Palestinian authorities, or whatever people think that the Palestinians have, were not even in existence. And so Israel was and still remains the occupying power ruling through a brutal regime of oppression and apartheid over the Palestinians and this is why this mandate is still in function. I would be the happiest to be the last special Rapporteur in the occupied Palestinian territories and see the end of the forever occupation, apartheid, and justice for the genocide that is still ongoing.  

G. Greenwald: One of the reasons why you're even more in the news this week than you often are is because the U.S. State Department under Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that there were going to be a whole variety of sanctions directed at you for your criticisms essentially of Israel, which is your job at the U.N., and I want to get into a lot of the other reprisals that you face, but I want to just focus on this for the moment because it's new. 

It struck me, and I'm wondering whether it also struck you as important, that the last thing you did as rapporteur before being sanctioned was the publication of this report detailing the role that key U.S. tech companies such as Google and Amazon and others play in providing the IDF with technology, with intelligence, with all kinds of instruments and weapons that they use in their destruction of Gaza. Can you talk a little bit about what this report was and whether you think that it was the proximate cause or the last straw before sanctions were imposed on you? 

Francesca Albanese: Yes, my last report is the outcome of an investigation that started about eight months ago and has led me to collect information through various sources, submissions, investigative journalists, forensic experts, economists, civil society scholars, lawyers; about 1,000 entities that operate in the occupied Palestinian territory as private sector, which includes a broad range of entities, from arms manufacturers, tech companies, construction machinery-related companies, like producing anything from bulldozers, or anything to build the infrastructure from water grids to roads and rails, until banks, pension funds, supply chain companies, and universities. 

I've realized by looking at this puzzle and organizing all the elements, that Israel has maintained what had already been called by many economists and scholars an economy of the occupation. I have realized that each sector and various companies for sectors, advancing the displacement and replacement of the Palestinians. For example, to take control of their land and emptying it of Palestinians, Israel has used weapons, bulldozers and other machines, it has used surveillance technology to segregate the Palestinians and make sure that their life would grow increasingly constrained to the benefit of the expansion of the colonies, in which, meanwhile, there would be the realization of the second pillar of the Israeli economy, the replacement of the Palestinians through the construction on their land of colonies, water grid, electricity grid and rails, roads, and then the installation of companies to produce and sell goods from dates to wines to beauty products from the Dead Sea, etc. Then, there would be a network to sell these products. 

But all of these would not have been possible without the enablers – banks, pension funds, and other providers of financial resources, and universities and other institutions, charities – lending legitimacy to Israel. Israel's economy is inseparable from that of the occupation. 

So, my report says, first and foremost, we need to stop this fiction of there is a good Israel within the Green Line and a bad Israel in the occupied Palestinian territory because when everything is so ingrained, all the more now that there are proceedings against Israel for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, and in the last 20 months, and this is the last point [inaudible] the facts without bothering the legal framework, is that while the Israeli economy was nosediving in many respects in free fall and Israelis were losing jobs and livelihoods, the Israeli stock exchange kept on rising, amassing $220 billion, which means an increase of +170%. How is it possible? It’s because there have been companies that have profited from the escalation of violence and the genocidal violence in Gaza.

For example, the companies in particular, arms manufacturers. Israel has sophisticated, perfected, even changed and made its weapons more lethal, which have been provided through these companies directly or through member states like the United States, Germany, and others. But also Israel wouldn't have been able to do that without the banks that, at the moment of great crisis, increased deficit and fall of the credit rating, like credit trust, in that case, it's been the banks and other financial institutions intervening to supply Israel with all the resources it needed. And meanwhile, all the other companies, which should have disengaged decades ago, have continued to stay engaged and provide tools that have allowed not just Israel to continue the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians in the West Bank, but that have contributed to the extrajudicial killings and other genocidal acts, including the pulverization of Gaza. 

G. Greenwald: Yeah, and I should note that it has often been the case that these kinds of sustained occupations and massacres have often used the nation's industries as a tool for doing so. Obviously, Nazi Germany relied on it to a great extent, but many others as well. 

But I guess one of the things I'm trying to get at is that, in the United States government's mind, these companies, Apple, Google, Amazon, Palantir and others, are kind of the crowning jewel of American power. They're very integrated into the U.S. military, the U.S. intelligence community. They provide a lot of money to a lot of politicians in Washington. And you have been the target of extreme criticism from the Trump administration, even before that, from the Biden administration. And it seems like these sanctions came right as your report was issued implicating these companies in this ethnic cleansing and genocide, and I'm wondering if you think that was what provoked these sanctions. 

Francesca Albanese: Look, first, let me tell for the benefit of your audience, that by no means would I like people to think that this is an exhaustive list. My report contains reference to 48 entities, 60, if we could see, there are also the parents, subsidiaries, franchisees and licensees, but this is not the list, this is just a set of cases which are illustrative of an overall criminal endeavor. All these companies have been put on notice. I gave them time to check the facts that were contested. I have prepared a tailored legal analysis for each company telling them all the violations they were taking part of by the very fact, according to international law, of engaging in a situation which is as unlawful as the one that Israel maintains in the occupied Palestinian territory – that the International Court of Justice has ordered Israel to dismantle, totally and unconditionally, dismantle the settlements, withdraw the troops and stop exploiting Palestinian natural resources, stop practicing racial discrimination and apartheid. This is the decision of the ICJ. 

In the face of this, in the face of criminal proceedings, in the face of proceedings for genocide, companies, entities that have stayed engaged have at least contributed not just to the violation of the self-determination of the Palestinian people and the perpetual occupation that Israel maintains on their land, but also other ancillary violations by being directly linked, contributing to, and even in certain cases, causing the human rights violations. 

Some of these violations, like extracting from the quarries in the West Bank as a German Heidelberg company has done, can amount to pillage. So, I've put everyone on notice from Booking.com, Google, Amazon, Palantir, Elbit. They could have responded. Some of them have: a small number, 18. The others have completely ignored my facts, all of my facts and legal analysis. 

The thing is that, you see, Glenn, my report has not been challenged substantively. It has given rise to a hurricane of aggravated violence against me, which is not new. I'm not new to this constant smear, defamation and reputational damage from the United States, which is unacceptable because I'm just a legal expert serving pro bono the United Nations. The U.S., as a member of the United Nations, should respect my work, should engage with my work, instead of engaging in senseless attacks. But all the more it's clear what is happening here. I've touched a nerve, a nerve that resonates with the Palestinians, that alerts consumers, that may ignite litigation, civil suits, and other criminal proceedings against these companies. 

Besides this, people understand that there is a direct link between the laboratory that Palestine has become at the end of decades of experimentation of all sorts of military, surveillance and other techniques by Israel that then have been marketed handsomely for, again, for decades and sold to all dictatorships first and foremost and many states as we speak. But also, people make a link between the profits that companies like Amazon or Airbnb make, including in the context of a genocide, and the profits that these companies make in our own system in Europe and elsewhere. So, these companies have become rights holders without corresponding obligation; it is the usual operating outside the law for those who detain power, where multinationals today hold more power than states and therefore more power than us. 

I understand why, Glenn, universities have cracked down so harshly on students, because the students have been the ones exposing their complicity with the military industry, their complicities with Israeli apartheid. The university realized, like the Technical University of Munich, that probably losing this partnership will cause its bankruptcy. So it was better to go harsh on the students. And this is what has led probably the United States administration to conclude that I'm a threat to a global economy because I'm provoking an awakening that has not been there before, through the tragedy of the Palestinians. 

G. Greenwald: Yeah, absolutely. First of all, so often the worst attacks on someone come not when they lie, but when they tell the truth, the truth that people want most to hide and I think that's happened repeatedly in our case. And I do think it's worth noting that there are very few people who have been the target of just a more systemic, organized, official smear campaign over the last almost two years now than you have been. I don't mean comments online, I mean very coordinated attacks from multiple governments led by Israel, led by the United States and now you have these sanctions. I don't know if you're under legal constraints in terms of what you can say about them, but can you talk to whatever extent you can about the effects that these sanctions are likely to have on you, your life, your finances, your travel, anything else? 

Francesca Albanese: Glenn, honestly, it's not even about legal restraints, is that, believe it or not, I've had very brief conversations both with my family and my legal advisors, because I've been busy traveling across Slovenia and now Bosnia. I need to pause and look at this. I need to let it sink in, because my reflex as a lawyer is the 1946 Convention on Private Privileges and Immunities prohibits the United States from doing what it's doing and would make total sense for me to start advocating so, a member state, any member state take the United States before the International Court of Justice because enough with this mafia-style, intimidation techniques. This is unsustainable, not just for me, but for the system. We need to protect the multilateral arena. We will miss human rights very much when we don't have them anymore. 

However, I've not done it again, probably because I'm really coming to terms with this, which is huge, but also, I don't want to distract anyone from member states to civil society from our priority, which is to stop the genocide in Gaza. 

I mean, yesterday, yes, I woke up to the news of the sanctions. I mean, I had heard about that and then I read the night before and then I needed to get some time to realize what it was. But then I had my cup of tea, I had my shower, I spoke with my kids and went on with my life. Well, again, dozens and dozens of Palestinians were killed yesterday alone. And this is every day in Gaza. People are being starved. I'm so exhausted to see the bodies of dying kids, starving kids in the arms of their moms. It's something that we cannot tolerate, we cannot, and I don't know what kind of monstrosity has infected all of us.

Right now, Glenn, what member states should be doing, especially those in the Mediterranean area, should send their navies with doctors, nurses, and real humanitarian aid, food, baby formula, medicines, everything that is needed for the Palestinians to overcome the current difficulty. It's a tragedy. And that thing that people call the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation is a death trap. And I do see the criminality in it. It looks like a joint criminal enterprise. And this must stop. So this is my priority. And no, I'm not even thinking of the sanctions and impact that they will have on me. This is the state I am in right now. 

G. Greenwald: I think a lot of people share your horror and almost the inability to express it in words at this point, anymore, not just what's happening there, but the way in which the world is not just standing by, but much of the Western world is funding and arming and enabling it. 

I just have a last question out of respect for your time, I know you have limited time because you're traveling. I do think it's so important that you mention that your background is in human rights law. That's when everything is steeped in. You're not talking out of ideology or politics, let alone antisemitism or anything else that you're accused of. And you used two words to describe Israel and what's happening, which is apartheid and genocide. And you're by far not the only person to use those words. High level Israeli officials have called what the Israeli treatment of Palestinians are as apartheid. Huge numbers of Israeli genocide experts have used genocide as the word. But, as somebody with the legal background and the international law background that you have, how do you understand those two terms briefly, and why do you think they apply to Israel's treatment of the Palestinians – apartheid and genocide? 

Francesca Albanese: Look, Palestine for me has been such a learning environment also to connect the dots and break the walls or the silos that contain the legal knowledge. You know that in our field, you have specialized human rights lawyers or international humanitarian law experts or genocide experts. Well, Palestine allows you in real time to understand it all.

Taking the land and the resources from people, forcibly displace them, this is the essence of settler colonialism. Israel has used as other settler colonial endeavors, think of South Africa, but also think of Algeria, think of other places where colonialism has been accompanied by the transfer of civilians from the metropolis from another place by apartheid. Apartheid is an institutionalized system of racial segregation entailing inhumane acts and we cannot claim that we have had a system in the history of settler colonialism that was not apartheid. South Africa has given us the term apartheid, but apartheid is everywhere. There is a legal dualism that then reflects in policy and practices in a given country, place, state among citizens, distinguishing them and separating them according to racial lines. And Israel does it. It does it inside Israel, because Palestinians have Israeli citizenship, but they have less rights, but it does so, especially in the occupied Palestinian territory. Israeli settlers have been under Israeli civil law and Palestinians are under Israeli military rule, military orders, draconian military orders written by soldiers, enforced by soldiers and reviewed in military courts, including for children. By soldiers. 

Genocide, I've realized throughout history, genocide is the intentional destruction of a group as such in its essence and can take place through acts of killing, but not exclusively. There are genocides that have been committed exclusively through creating the conditions of life calculated to destroy and also the separation of children, but also another act of genocide is the severe bodily and mental harm. And I would like to see who today can keep on claiming, I mean, anyone with a grain of decency, that what happens is not a genocide. 

However, settler colonialism carries inside the dormant gene of genocide in its legal sense, which is a very restrictive sense, because genocide as it has been conceived also includes cultural elements which are not protected under the definition of the crime. And look, eventually from Srebrenica and from Sarajevo, I can tell you it takes time. There will be one day where everyone, as an illustrious Palestinian writer has said, everyone will have been against it. Tonight, it's very heavy to carry this responsibility together with many others, like Amnesty International, the Palestinians, first and foremost, Israeli scholars who have denounced the genocide. It's very hard to carry this responsibility of chroniclers of the genocide, who are also trying to stop it with all their might and here we are, facing sanctions because of this. 

G. Greenwald: Yeah, well, I had the opportunity to tell you privately, personally, I'm going to tell you again that I think the work you're doing is incredibly courageous. It merits immense amounts of respect and admiration. I know you're not doing it for that reason, but the fact that you're facing so many reprisals and attacks, I think, is a testament to the efficacy of your work, and I don't even need to say I hope you keep going because I know that you will. And we will certainly continue to follow anything that's being done to you, but also the work that you're doing and we hope to talk to you again. Thanks so much for taking the time to speak with us today. 

Francesca Albanese: Thank you, Glenn. May I add something? I would not be me if I didn't do that. It's true that these sanctions hit hard, but I would also spend one second to reflect on and to thank all those who have stood against this, have spoken against this, from special procedures inside the U.N., U.N. officials and the European Union and so many others, so many scholars, organizations, this is incredible. And so, it seems that while, yes, there are chosen victims of constant attacks and defamation, there is also a society that through this constant victimization, which is first and foremost of the Palestinians, not myself, but are waking up and I hope that this awakening will soon allow us to stand together and united against the monstrosity of our time. Thank you very much for having me and the respect and admiration is absolutely mutual Glenn. Thank you. 

G. Greenwald: Thank you, really appreciate it. 

AD_4nXdAEXqZaCDbsmhpBzg7FVhbDHdgzO9WlRcq-apFS-bg-apyD1A8c_NiRYgxl9NIttoo93d2Nlg6Wh8NzwiGotAWEHXsOBmYBsnK87-AurzH3Omnnq16O3rF0QWLCSWaRdbBb61dnPrTL-iuZOJ8A5o?key=kaStcv36KCzuqrITeye1Cw

We are always excited to do the Q&A session where we get questions from our Locals members that we do our best to answer in depth and as many as we can on our Friday night Q&A show. As usual, there's a wide range of questions that have been asked, always quite probing, starting with @Estimarpet who asked:

AD_4nXdpnUo-BuWx1arl2nMxEkU8N6R4GniKpfWursaOwFOBY_fdwqyy2-HzCTrcEdz1c8ryRQmD3AbNMuCss0R2WD127vdXPYwXY_I-TGSyay20e18KYJGT9kYUC7uPp8tsj-0dUNlx2T1Y5aBu51PgADU?key=kaStcv36KCzuqrITeye1Cw

We did a whole show on Trump's condemnation of Brazil for its attacks on free speech, which we have repeatedly documented, as well as what he regards as this persecution of the former president, Jair Bolsonaro, who faces multiple criminal charges and had already been declared ineligible to run in 2026 and 2030. There is a criminal charge against him for planning or conspiring to implement a coup to prevent Lula from returning to power after he won the 2022 election. It was a coup plan that was never actually done, but they claim that he participated in conspiring and plotting that and it's before the Supreme Court, a five-judge panel on the Supreme Court. 

Bolsonaro’s conviction is basically inevitable, given who the judges are, including Alexandre de Moraes, who's made it his personal mission in life to destroy the Bolsonaro movement through censorship and imprisonment, as well as Lula's personal attorney, who defended Lula when he was facing corruption charges, who then Lula put on the Supreme Court, and also Lula’s Justice Minister who was very loyal to Lula and Lula also put him on the Supreme Court. So, there are three judges right there who it's almost impossible to imagine that they would ever exonerate Bolsonaro and he's likely to face prison time. As a result of his conviction, Lula himself, of course was in prison for one year and eight months for an 11-year corruption conviction that he received that was nullified to allow him to run in 2022, with the reporting we did about the corruption of the anti-corruption probe as the pretext, but it was really because the Supreme Court wanted him released, knowing that he was the only person who could beat Bolsonaro when he ran for a re-election. And Lula did win that election by a tiny margin. 

Trump first issued a statement condemning Brazil for its persecution of Bolsonaro, for its attacks on free speech, and Lula, was hosting the BRICS Summit in Rio de Janeiro, which seems to be what really caught Trump's attention on Brazil: he hates BRICS. He regards it as what it is, which is an anti-American competitor. I don't mean anti-American in a malicious sense. I just mean they're there to form an alternative alliance to American hegemony. He said it's anti-American, that it needs to be attacked and any country associated with it will be subject to sanctions. 

Lula then basically came out and said, “This is beneath the dignity of any world leader to threaten countries on social media; it really doesn't deserve a reply.” But he basically waved the flag of sovereignty, saying, “Trump needs to realize the world has changed. We don't want an emperor. We don't have emperors anymore.” And then in response, Trump the next day announced 50% tariff on Brazil, higher than on any country thus far, which he justified based on both an appeal to individual rights and Bolsonaro's political rights, but also a claim that Brazil has been practicing unfair trade practices, even though the U.S. has a multibillion-dollar surplus with Brazil. The U.S. doesn't have a trade deficit with Brazil, but a multibillion-dollar surplus, but Trump has to invoke that rationale as well to justify the tariffs.

Lula immediately, and I think predictably, seized on this announcement in order to wave the banner of sovereignty, to say the only people who should decide Brazil's internal affairs are Brazilians. “We're a sovereign country. We're not going to be threatened or dictated to by some other country.” 

There's some lingering resentment about the role the United States has played in Brazil as the massive superpower in the region. Brazil is the second-largest country in the hemisphere. Brazil has always been very important. In 1964, the CIA perceived that the elected government of Brazil was leaning a little bit too far to the left and this was the Cold War, when any left-wing policies were viewed as aligning with Moscow and communists. The Kennedy administration warned the elected Brazilian president that things like rent control or land distribution were unacceptable to Washington. When he continued, based on sovereignty arguments, to pursue those policies on which he ran, during the Johnson administration, the CIA worked with right-wing generals in Brazil to engineer a military coup that overthrew the elected government and imposed a military dictatorship that governed Brazil with an iron fist for the next 21 years. So, anything about U.S. interference in Brazil still resonates with huge numbers of people.

The U.S. is a crucial commercial trading partner with Brazil. The U.S. does sell a lot to Brazil, but Brazil sells a huge amount to the U.S., second only to China in the amount of their exports. They have commodities like coffee, they have equipment for aviation, they have a lot of oil, and other things that the U.S. can't produce and has been buying it in very large amounts, and obviously, 50% tariffs are going to make it much more difficult to sell in the U.S. market. You can just buy those same products from some other country that's not subject to 50% tariffs. 

There's a lot of concern inside Brazil that this is going to impose economic suffering on Brazilians, which it likely will. And there is a big part of the media that hates Bolsonaro. Lula and the government want to blame this on Bolsonaro and they have a reasonable foundation to blame Bolsonaro for this, which is that Bolsonaro's allies, including Jair Bolsonaro's son, Eduardo Bolsonaro, who's a member of Congress, an elected member of Congress, a few months ago announced a leave of absence from the Brazilian Congress and he's in the United States, where he's been working with members of Congress and the executive branch. What they really wanted were sanctions imposed on the notorious member of the Supreme Court, Alexandre de Moraes, who has been overseeing the censorship scheme. The argument is they're censoring not just Brazilian companies but American companies. Rumble is not allowed in Brazil because of its refusal to accept censorship orders. X was banned from Brazil for more than a month. When X didn't have assets in Brazil to pay the fines, Moraes just ordered that money be seized from Starlink’s accounts to pay for X fines on the grounds that they're both associated with Elon Musk, even though they're different corporations. So, there have been a lot of abuses. 

Moraes is also now overseeing the trial. He's overseeing investigation and then the trial of Bolsonaro and many Bolsonaro officials and associates as well. He wants to imprison them. So the Bolsonaro family was hoping to get personal sanctions imposed on Moraes and others on the Supreme Court and in the government, and all these sanctions were approved by all the relevant agencies, including the State Department, by Marco Rubio. Instead, Trump, at the last minute, decided he wanted to have a more flamboyant gesture, something he thought was even more punishing than sanctions, which was a 50% tariff on Brazil. 

Sanctions are targeted against very specific officials and can really make their life difficult – I mean, as we discussed with Francesca Albanese, the sanctions on her can affect their use of credit cards, their bank accounts and their ability to transfer assets. It's all based on the dollars, the reserve currency. It's one of the reasons why BRICS and a lot of other countries are working hard to overthrow the dollar as the reserve currency, because of the massive power it gives the United States to do things like sanctioning people they dislike, who defy it, countries they dislike and defy it. But that would have hurt only the officials. No one would have really cared. They would have still waived the sovereignty banner, but since most people aren't affected by it, it wouldn't have had much political weight. 

The group was not really asking for tariffs. That's what Trump decided to do. And Bolsonaro and associates can't really object or criticize Trump since that was Trump's intervention nominally on behalf of Bolsonaro. I really think Trump was more motivated by a desire to punish Brazil for BRICS, but he did it under the banner of defending Bolsonaro's political rights and persecution, defending free speech in Brazil that has been largely directed at Bolsonaro. 

So, there was no way for Bolsonaro's movement to object to what Trump did. They couldn't denounce Trump. He's one of their most important allies. But it's not really what they wanted, precisely because there's now a good argument to make that, because of Bolsonaro's activism, asking Trump to punish Brazil on his behalf, whatever economic suffering accrues in Brazil now will be the fault of Bolsonaro and his movement. And you have the massive media organizations like Globo and other massive organizations. They've always been dominant in Brazil. They were allies of the dictatorship for a long time, wherever power is. They've become less powerful because of the internet, which is why there's so much focus on Brazil censoring the internet. Globo itself is a big supporter of that. But still, they wield a lot of influence and they've been just nonstop bombarding the airwaves about Trump's attack on Brazil, his invasion of their sovereignty, how Brazilians have to unify under the Brazilian flag in the name of Brazilian sovereignty. 

It's a human instinct to defend one’s tribe. It's the same if a country gets attacked by an external force, no matter how much they hate the government, people are going to unify in the name of their tribe, in the name of their country. We saw that in Iran, where a lot of people who had been vehement opponents of the Iranian government suddenly lined up behind it against Israel because Israel was bombarding their country. We saw it after 9/11 when 50% of the country hated George W. Bush, thought he stole the 2000 election and after 9/11, his approval rating skyrocketed to 90%. When a country is attacked by an external power, nothing unifies the people behind the government more and Lula has become quite unpopular, his government is quite unpopular. He's now in his third term, not consecutive, but third term, running for a fourth term. He'll be 80 next year when he runs for reelection. So, asking the people to make him president until he's 84 years old. He's definitely a very vulnerable incumbent. And they believe, and I think most politicians would believe, that this can be employed against not just Trump, but his allies, the Bolsonaro movement, who they're going to claim engineered this in order to convince people that they should unite behind Lula, who's defending Brazilian sovereignty, the right of Brazil to determine its own affairs. 

What the Brazilian government seems to be banging on, and its allies in the media, of which there are many, is that well, no, in this case, it won't be Lula who will be blamed for the economic suffering that results from these terrorists, but they'll be able to successfully blame it on Bolsonaro and his movement for having induced it, asked Trump for it, etc. I’m not convinced of that at all. I mean, I get that that's the overwhelming media narrative now, and might be for the next couple of weeks, but economic deprivation over the next, say, 14 months until the 2026 election, 15 months, is going to be much more diffuse than that. It's not going to have this proximity to the story. And there's already a pretty widespread unpopularity toward Lula for a whole bunch of reasons, including economic suffering. And I guess it remains to be seen what political effects this will have. 

I do think there are a lot of other things worth asking here about why the United States and Trump. Why is it their place to dictate to other countries what kind of human rights or freedom of expression protections they're supposed to have? Can't help but notice that Trump loves a lot of countries far more dictatorial than the Brazilian government, no matter how authoritarian you think Brazil has become, and I think it has become quite authoritarian. It's kind of difficult to watch Trump herald the governments of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, United Emirates, Jordan, Egypt, and then suddenly be like, “Oh, we're punishing Brazil because we're so offended by their lawfare and their attacks on free speech.” When you're in bed with and love some of the most brutal dictatorships on the planet, which has been U.S. foreign policy forever, there’s a lot of stuff like that, to say nothing of Trump's own free speech attacks on people who criticize Israel and the like. 

But as far as the political question is concerned, I'm sure there's going to be a rallying around the flag effect. There is already, I think you can see that, at least at the elite level, kind of among the middle class. But that's a lot different than saying that 15 months from now people are massively out of jobs or paying higher prices, suffering inflation, that they're still going to remember to somehow blame Bolsonaro for that, who hasn't been in power for four years, might even be in prison by then, as opposed to blaming Lula's government. I think they're being a little too clever. 

I certainly know very smart people here in Brazil who believe it's going to help the Lula government, not just now, but for the long term. I guess we'll see. With these kinds of things, the political effects of things, I think it's always very difficult to predict with precision. You have to understand how people think, what information they're consuming. I think we've seen in a lot of democracies, certainly including the U.S., that elite opinion no longer dictates the opinion of the masses. And I think similar dynamics are at play in Brazil. 

AD_4nXdAEXqZaCDbsmhpBzg7FVhbDHdgzO9WlRcq-apFS-bg-apyD1A8c_NiRYgxl9NIttoo93d2Nlg6Wh8NzwiGotAWEHXsOBmYBsnK87-AurzH3Omnnq16O3rF0QWLCSWaRdbBb61dnPrTL-iuZOJ8A5o?key=kaStcv36KCzuqrITeye1Cw

All right., next question is @ButchieOD: 

AD_4nXckPPB5xK2G2d4ZibV_Nc7O0IuB659njEsDVyWCjkQr1ZM6cOpr0_DrPdji9DypyxlZ7iDNVkza5wYZeAZgbN4gQuIJlQc4X5uaKSWAPqBXxivuY3RtLRm3aIcUQU14p7SfDwSCGC_mgM2g5TWH92w?key=kaStcv36KCzuqrITeye1Cw

I know there are people who think this is not a very important story. Maybe I think it's a more important story because as I think most of you know, I follow tennis very closely. I always have. I play a lot of tennis. It's sort of a sport that I value, that I respect. But I also think even if that's not the case, we don't care about tennis, which is fine, a lot of people don't, it's still an interesting story about how the billionaire mind works and how billionaire power is exerted. 

So, the gist of the story is this: Bill Ackman is a multibillionaire, vulture, finance person who does things like talks down American stocks and then short sells them. He's made billions of dollars not by producing anything of value just by manipulating numbers like Wall Street does oftentimes harming the country. This is where his wealth comes from. He's not Jeff Bezos, who at least produced Amazon and for all the criticism of him, he actually produced something that people use. That's not Bill Ackman. 

Bill Ackman is not only a multibillionaire, but he’s also become particularly more prominent in the last couple of years because he's a fanatical supporter of Israel. He led the campaign to make lists of students at colleges, I'm talking about undergraduates, 18 to 22-year-olds who signed petitions or letters condemning Israel for its war on Gaza. He organized a blacklist of major finance firms and venture capital firms and Wall Street banks and major law firms to agree that they would refuse to hire anyone who is on these lists, trying to make them jobless, basically, for the crime of criticizing a foreign country for which he has great affection, to put it generously, toward which he has supreme loyalty, to put more accurately. And he actually is a tennis fan. He plays a lot of tennis as well. He follows tennis. He actually pours money into professional tennis and he goes to a lot of tournaments. It's just one of the things he likes to do as a billionaire. But he went far beyond that. 

This week, there was an actual professional tournament. It wasn't a ProAm where amateurs come and get to play with pros the way they have in golf sometimes. It was an actual ATP tournament where professional tennis players go. To make matters worse, it's held at the Tennis Hall of Fame. It's supposed to be like sacred ground. The Hall of Fame is there to kind of preserve the most sacred moments in tennis, to honor the people who have achieved the most by admitting them into the Hall of Fame. They have one tournament every year, that's a professional ATP-level tournament, but right before that, in Houston, Rhode Island, in Newport, they have an APT Challenger event, which is kind of like the minor league, sort of like analogous to Triple A in baseball, where it's the kind of up-and-coming players. They're not among the 100 best, but they're kind of in the top 200 or 300. Extremely good. I mean, if you're the 200th best tennis player on the planet, you're extremely good. It's what you do for your work. But a lot of these are younger players, they come from poor countries, they have trouble sustaining themselves economically, and these kinds of tournaments are what they play in to earn some money, but also to make their way up the rankings. It's a serious professional tennis tournament, with a lot at stake for a lot of people. 

Somehow, Bill Ackman wormed his way into having the tournament accept his entry to play as though he were a professional tennis player. It was doubles. He was playing with a doubles partner. And this doubles partner used to be a big tennis star, Jack Sock. He hasn't actually played. He retired from tennis. He now plays pickleball. He's very good. He's a great doubles player. He's won Grand Slam titles in doubles. I'm sure he was paid. He didn't just show up out of benevolence and nobody knows what exactly the arrangement was that induced this tournament to degrade itself by allowing Bill Ackman at the age of 59 to play. But they did, and it was a professional doubles match.  

And Bill Ackman's like a decent player. He is somebody who plays at a tennis club. I'm sure he's taken lessons from some of the best pros. When you have unlimited money, I'm sure that's what he's done. But he's not impressive at all in his tennis abilities. To say nothing of the fact that he's 59 years old. These are all 23-year-olds, 26-year-olds, like the most precisely trained athletes on the planet. And there was Ackman on a court taking somebody else's position and his level of play was so abysmal, so pathetic, I mean, just like, taking balls that are so easy to return and just smacking them into the net or well out of the court, many, many feet out of court, constantly double faulting, couldn't even get a serve in, that for whatever reasons, and I think it's interesting to ask why, the three other players on the quarter who are professionals started to like baby him. They were kind of just hitting the softest balls possible directly to him to try to help him avoid embarrassment, to stroke his ego. I don't know what their motives were, I don't know why they didn't just say, if he wants to play, let him play and we'll smash balls at his face the way they would do to anybody else. So the whole thing ended up being a complete joke. I mean, it just made a complete mockery, a farce out of a professional tennis match. 

Again, if you don't care about tennis, maybe that doesn't bother you. Everybody who cares about tennis was disgusted by this, was horrified by it. It would kind of be like if the triple-A team of the Seattle Mariners, which is the minor league team right below the major leagues – where people who are about to get into the major league are trying to show their skills to get into the major leagues of baseball, people who have spent their whole lives playing baseball, learning baseball, training baseball, they get to that professional level – it'd be like if the Seattle Mariners announced, “Oh, we're going to have one of our starting pitchers be Bill Gates at the age of 63 because he loves baseball.” Never played professionally, just kind of likes to throw the ball around and they just put Bill Gates on the mound in the middle of a real sanctioned Major League Baseball game, just because he's a billionaire and greased whatever wheels he greased and then he just kind of got up there, pawed it up there, couldn't throw the ball to the catcher, like made everything a joke. 

Obviously, the fact that Bill Ackman is a billionaire makes it all the more tawdry, because obviously, there's a lot to do with his vast wealth and the power that comes with it that he exploited to put himself into that position. Just imagine that narcissism, and the need for ego gratification, that you have to have to subject yourself to that. So here's some video of Bill Ackman, I guess. You could call it playing. He's the one dressed in all white. So you can recognize him in just like a series of, not just errors, everybody makes errors when they play tennis, even Roger Federer, Novak Djokovic or Serena Williams, but just like the kind of errors that no pro would ever make, just not even one of them, let alone all of them. 

Video. Bill Ackman. 

You see, the players were laughing in his face. Having watched a good part of this match, I can tell you this was not cherry-picked; this was very illustrative and it was shocking to watch. As I said, everyone in tennis, former players, current players, tennis writers, tennis journalists, column after column, were expressing sickness, disgust and rage. 

Leaving the tennis part aside, we talked about this on the last show, actually, when somebody asked about Peter Thiel's interview with Ross Douthat, where Peter Thiel basically said, when asked if he believes in the continuation or survival of humanity, he had a great deal of difficulty answering yes, and kind of resorted to this deranged transhumanistic vision, at most, that he was willing to say, yes, I think humanity should survive, but in radically altered form. And we talked then about the mentality of billionaires, and I've never had anything to do with billionaires until maybe, I don't know, a decade ago, a little bit more. My first real experience was when I founded The Intercept with Pierre Omidyar, the multibillionaire founder of eBay, who ended up buying PayPal. Honestly, Pierre Omidyar, as billionaires go, is as good as it gets: he kind of withdrew from Silicon Valley, moved his family away from Silicon Valley to an isolated place in Hawaii just so his kids would grow up more normally. He did have like a few years where he was a little bit in the spotlight because he was funding media outlets like The Intercept and other groups, but he's kind of retreated since. He tries to be as humble as possible, but I noticed from the beginning, we knew we purposely formed The Intercept with people who were as anti-authoritarian as possible who were as undeferential to prestige and position as power, and just automatically he would walk in the room – and just like kind of the power and wealth that he has; it's not just wealth, it's wealth that is larger than what small nations have and the amount of power that comes with that – I just watched people naturally become almost sycophantic around him and he was always the center of attention. And of course, he comes with a big team of yes-men and sycophants who are just constantly flattering and bolstering everybody that he has. Like I said, he's as good as it gets. He tries to create a more normal, natural environment, but it's impossible. When you have that level of wealth, multiple 747 jets that you and your family constantly fly on, just buying whatever you want and influencing nations because of your wealth, it does distort the human mind. And if you listen to people like Mark Zuckerberg and Peter Thiel and, to some extent, Elon Musk, they talk about themselves as kind of like the Übermensch, to use a Nietzschean term, like this kind of species of humans that have evolved beyond normal humanity, almost to like a TD type figure. 

That's how they see themselves, that's how other people see them, and so every idea that enters their head, every thought that emanates from their mouth, is constantly subject to reinforcement and flattery, and they believe in their own genius, they believe in their power to do essentially everything. Even though, so many of them, as I've described before – I've gotten to know many more than Pierre – are mediocre or, like, at best, they have an Idiot Savant skill, some coding thing that they were able to create, something and they created it at the right time or might even get like managers of a business. But none of that remotely means they have wisdom or insight about philosophy, science, or political issues, the way they attribute to themselves. They believe they're kind of just all floating – Übermensch, is the best way I can describe it. 

To put yourself in such an embarrassing position where you become the focus of attention in the most negative way possible, where at the age of almost 60, who never even got close to a level of professional tennis, you decide that you're going to insinuate yourself into a professional match, take someone else's position that, like I said, that could have had that position to earn money and rankings, and just believe that you deserve to be on that court, that you belong on that court, the hubris of it – I don't know if you ever noticed, but every time Bill Ackman posts a tweet, it can't be just a tweet. It's like a proclamation, like a dissertation, extremely edited and has the language of a decree. That's the byproduct of self-importance that comes from being a billionaire. He really believes that every utterance, every desire, has to be immediately honored. It's kind of like people who get massive fame and wealth at a very young age, child stars and the like, or heirs to fortunes. Almost always, it is extremely corrupting of mental health, of the ability to understand and relate to the world, to think of yourself in some kind of like remotely humble way. 

Watching Bill Ackman just try to glorify himself as a professional tennis player, have this fantasy and use my wealth to make it a reality in front of everybody... He did have to write a tweet where he kind of swallowed a lot of the criticism. Heather Crowe was very humble and said, "Oh, I'm so much better a player than this usually, but I just couldn't. I was too nervous. My arm didn't work. I couldn't breathe. I was suffused with anxiety and neurosis." It is a real professional tournament. They should have said no. I mean, they want to build tennis as a real sport. It's the fourth-largest sport in the world. And again, it would be like Bill Gates stumbling onto the field and being like, yeah, I want to be the quarterback for a quarter in an NFL game. It's like, the NFL would never allow that. No one would, I mean, it would be the most pathetic thing to watch. That's what this was. And again, even if you don't care about tennis, I think billionaire wealth and the billionaire mindset are really worth understanding. And this gives a pretty vibrant look inside that very, very toxic swamp. 

AD_4nXdAEXqZaCDbsmhpBzg7FVhbDHdgzO9WlRcq-apFS-bg-apyD1A8c_NiRYgxl9NIttoo93d2Nlg6Wh8NzwiGotAWEHXsOBmYBsnK87-AurzH3Omnnq16O3rF0QWLCSWaRdbBb61dnPrTL-iuZOJ8A5o?key=kaStcv36KCzuqrITeye1Cw

Speaking of toxic swamps, we have a question from @QuillDagg. He's not the toxic swamp! It's a question about Sam Harris. And it reads this:

AD_4nXcD51XQLS5tksiiri2zMZaf1DlnYOwM6E95MCEc9bEOKPtK7oz60MqVt6jOYMXAb3yIDo4FYa4zBBHLvRnA8aaakpzmq3BXCDlQhz7CMf7EiEdPRKj7nrYUftfpWTkAsQyCNvGgCshhiXjNgHmCmSQ?key=kaStcv36KCzuqrITeye1Cw

All right, so some of you may remember this, some may not know, but when I was at The Guardian, and this was April 2013, it was like three months before the Snowden reporting began, I wrote an article on Sam Harris because this is when the new atheist movement was kind of at its peak. 

I didn't pay a lot of attention to it. Atheism is not anything that's ever bothered me. I used to identify as an atheist when I was young. I only don't know now, because I believe in not some organized religious concept of a god, like a Christian god, or a Muslim god, or a Jewish god, whatever, but just in forces larger than ourselves that play a role in how the universe unfolds. But it became a very popular, especially online, but even offline, a popular movement which had a huge following. 

They called themselves the “Four Horsemen,” the four leaders of this movement: Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett. There's a gigantic following, and in Sam Harris's case, it wasn't just an expression of religious conviction or atheistic advocacy. He commandeered it for blatantly political ends. Sam Harris is Jewish, and he, you'd think, as an atheist, would have contempt for religions equally. And he very conspicuously had contempt for one religion, in particular, you’ll never guess which one: Islam. He also had harsh criticism for Christianity, like Christopher Hitchens did and Richard Dawkins did, and he had very, very, very, conspicuously few criticisms of Judaism. 

But also, it just so happened that all of his political views perfectly aligned with the kind of views someone would have if they were devoted to Israel. Namely, he was a big supporter of the War on Terror. He used to write articles like the Huffington Post, like “Are there good justifications for torture?” clearly intending to remove the taboo for torture, but since he never came out and said I'm pro-torture, just saying here's all the reasons why torture might be justified, if you said “Oh, he wrote a pro-torture article,” he says: “How dare you distort what I said?” 

But everything about U.S. foreign policy from a neocon perspective, Sam Harris was commandeering his supposed new atheism to fuel, and he did it from this position, like, I'm a liberal. My new atheism comes from my liberalism. I hate Islam because it doesn't respect women's rights and gay rights, etc., etc. And it commandeered a lot of liberals into this political agenda; the atheism was kind of like the candy offered at the playground. But the politics were what happened once you lure the kid into the car. And so many liberals thought they were being taught this like very rational, anti-tribalist philosophy, when in fact, at least from Sam Harris' perspective, nothing could have been more tribalistic. 

And he had a podcast about why I don't criticize Israel. But hey, wow, what a coincidence. Here you have a state explicitly constructed around religious identity, the Jewish state, or ethnic tribes that are adjacent to religious identity, Judaism, like the living embodiment of what you're supposed to be against, if you take anything that you're saying seriously. And he'd always talk about the IDF as the most moral army in the world, he talked about why he doesn't criticize Israel and he would somehow try to reconcile his support for Israel. Again, an ethno-religious state based on the supremacy of one particular sectarian faction, Jews, with his posturing as someone who's so rising above it, just a vessel of objectivity, no allegiance to tribe or religious identity or identity politics. He hates all that and yet, noticeably not only would refrain from criticizing Judaism and Israel, even if it was bashing particularly Islam, but Christianity as well, but every other view that he had about bombing, about enemies, it all aligned with what you would expect a standard neocon to believe in and to disseminate and defend. 

Writing this article, I kind of dissected what were the obvious inconsistencies in the new ideas movement as expressed at least by Sam Harris and for suggesting that what he was saying was his worldview was not his worldview, it was a facade in disguise to mask what the real worldview was, that was actually the exact opposite of what he claiming he was, Sam Harris went on a jihad against me that lasted years. Actually, to this day, when my name comes up, he'll just explode and I'm the worst person ever to exist in media. I mean, he pretty much has that with every single person who disagrees with him. He once went on Ezra Klein's podcast, the most anodyne, restrained person in media, practically, tries very hard never to engage in vituperative exchanges or harsh criticism, unlike myself, and he came out of that accusing Ezra, kind of criticizing him in bad faith, distorting all his words. 

And this went on for years with him, just because of that one article. And obviously, I repeatedly defended my views of Sam Harris. But at some point, I just decided he really wasn't worth it any longer. I said what I had to say. He just continued to go on so many shows. You can find him talking about me for years and years and years for that. 

So, Sam Harris has lost a lot of his following. But not all of it. He mostly became this sort of obsessively anti-Trump and obsessively pro-establishment, which didn't surprise me in the least. He was contemptuous of anybody questioning any of the orthodoxies around COVID. He despises Trump. He turned against all the Silicon Valley friends that he used to have, including Elon, as well as people like Joe Rogan, because they were questioning establishment dogma or not seeing Trump as Hitler the way he saw them. 

He had one very notorious clip in 2020, after it became obvious that the media had lied by saying the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation, and he basically said, “I consider Trump so blatantly evil and so inferior morally and ethically to Democrats that the most important thing is to stop him. And if that means that somebody lied to do it, I really am not bothered by it. I think it's justifiable. The means justify the end of destroying Trump.” Of course, he denies that's what he said. Everybody can listen to the video. It's exactly what he said. 

As a result, he's lost a big part of his following because even though he claimed to be a liberal, a lot of them were right-wing, a lot of them were just mostly motivated by his contempt for Islam. At one point, he was on Bill Maher with Ben Affleck, who attacked him, quite eloquently actually. But Sam said something like Islam is the mother of all bad ideas. He's supposed to be an atheist, supposed to have contempt for all religions, but no, Islam, for by a huge coincidence, happened to be the one that Sam Harris hated most. A lot of people who were anti-Muslim more than they were anything else found him very appealing. 

Coincidentally, he comes from an extremely wealthy family. His mother was the creator, showrunner and screenwriter of multiple successful shows, including The Golden Girls and Soap – and by the way, Soap is actually a very risqué, but, I thought, very good show in the late 1970s, early 1980s, way ahead of its time. But it's discovered Bill Kristol. Anyway, he comes from a very wealthy, prominent family as well. He kind of has that mindset and the last thing I'll say before showing you this video, which kind of is him finally confessing who he really is, in a way that was just so satisfied to watch him do, is that somehow he's also like, in the intervals, where he's not like screaming at everybody and expressing grievances toward everybody and accusing everybody of being a bad faith attacker of him and spewing contempt for everybody and being filled with resentment and grievance, he somehow also presents himself as a meditation guru. 

He does these videos where he teaches people how to breathe and relax and expel tension and stay in the present. I'm a big believer in meditation and yoga, I believe it, but I've never honestly heard anything less relaxing in my life than Sam Harris' voice. Like even when he's telling you “close your eyes,” “release all tension,” “focus on your breathing,” his voice still sounds so filled with hatred and resentment and anger and grievance that I can't imagine anyone relaxing in any way by listening to Sam Harris' voice. I mean, I don't know. I'd rather listen to Laura Loomer talking about Israel and Palestine to relax than listen to Sam Harris telling me how to breathe. But anyway, there are a lot of people who listen to his meditation videos as well. 

So here's a YouTube show called JewishUncensored, which appears on YouTube. It's hosted by an Orthodox Jew who's an extreme supporter of Israel as well. And he basically says, “Hey, guys, I want to show you Sam Harris talking about Israel and Zionism, because it's remarkable to hear him saying what he says here. Listen to this. 

Video. Sam Harris, JewishUncensored, YouTube. July 6, 2025.

Out of bullshit, you could not say that before October 7, he was not a Zionist. He never once expressed opposition to Zionism and, in fact, he realizes that that claim was totally baseless. And he goes on to describe what he actually said and thought about Israel and Zionism before October 7. Remember, he just said, “I think one of the biggest plagues of the world is sectarianism.” Israel is nothing but, whether you love it or not, a sectarian state. It's called the Jewish state. That's what Zionism is. It guarantees the supremacy of Jews within the state. You cannot reconcile love of Israel and support for Zionism, on the one hand, with your view that sectarianism is the greatest evil on the other. They're completely antithetical. He's basically saying, I believe sectarianism is the great evil, except I have exceptions for my principles, that's called Israel and Zionism. Shockingly, that just so happens to be my own group for which I've made an exception, but it's totally coincidental. I'm extremely objective. I rise above tribalism's pure coincidence. 

He's now trying to suggest, oh, I was an anti-Zionist before October 7, October 7 showed me the virgin. He was always a Zionist. And he even says it right there. He just claims, back then, “I was kind of reluctant.” Like, I hesitated. I realized that it was a complete contradiction of everything I pretended to believe in. But I nonetheless defended it, but with reluctance. 

“The seeming contradiction,” it's just for you idiots out there, for you intellectual mediocre, it may seem like it's a contradiction on the one hand to go around accusing everybody of destroying humanity because of sectarian allegiances, and then at the same time defending a state of Israel based on a philosophy, a new philosophy called Zionism, that's nothing other than a country formed based on sectarian identity and sectarian allegiance. And sectarian superiority. It may seem like there's a contradiction there, to you idiots, even though I think more deeply, so I understand why it's not a contradiction. And then he goes on for this. 

For a long time, in conservative discourse, even more in centrist discourse, there grew a lot of frustration and ultimately contempt for victimhood narratives. Black people saying, “We've been uniquely victimized, so we deserve these special protections,” Latinos saying, “We're uniquely victimize, we have to migrate, we deserve the special protections,” women saying they've been uniquely victimized throughout the ages and they deserve special protections, gay people, trans people, Muslims, all of whom have a version of history based in some truth that they faced extreme amounts of discrimination, oppression and other forms of bigotry and therefore merit special protection. 

We seem to have arrived at this consensus, especially after the excesses of Me Too and the Black Lives Matter movement, that we've gone way too far in that direction. A lot of these historic bigotries and repression aren't nearly as strong as they've been. They've made a lot of progress from them. There's still lingering effects of them, but we've made allot of progress and maybe the best way to move forward isn't to keep reinforcing them by dividing everybody up into groups and treating them differently based on their race or gender, sexual identity, or religion, or instead, just say, you know what, we're all actually the same, and we're going to work to make sure the treatment of everybody is the same but not endlessly treat people differently by emphasizing their divisions based on these demographic characteristics. That was certainly a unifying view of the right, without doubt. 

And yet, so many people claim that Sam Harris is one of them. Or like, you know what? There's one group and only one group that has a meritorious claim to that self-victimhood defense and that just so happens to be Jews, which a lot of people, creating that exception, happen to be, coincidentally. Like, hey, you know what? I can't stand victimhood narratives for any other group. It's totally whiny and snowflake behavior, all fabricated. It’s time to buckle up and stop being so frightened and demanding safety with your little blanket and your therapy dogs. But my group, that's the real one that's discriminating against. 

So that's what you heard the host of the show say. It's like, yes, Sam Harris is finally realizing, everybody hates us. That guy hates us, that guy hates us, antisemitism is everywhere and we, alone, are entitled to form sectarian allegiance based on our sectarian religious identity. Nobody else is, but we are. And Sam Harris is Jewish, he was raised Jewish, and he wants you to believe it's a coincidence that he's finally at the point in middle age where he's willing to admit every principle that I've said that I have, every principle in which I've built my career, every principle that supposedly defined my brand, that made me rich, that created a huge following ring, I want you to know I subordinate all of these principles, I have a huge exception to all of them called Israel and Zionism. 

I'll tell you one of the things I hate most about Sam Harris, the reason why I believe he deserves a particular level of disgust. I can have a certain baseline respect for people who have whatever views they have, even if I find them repellent, who are honest about those views, who don't hide them, who don't pretend that they have an agenda that's different from their actual agenda, whose expressed values and beliefs are actually their values and beliefs, and they're willing to stand up and defend it. Sam Harris is one of the most blatant, brazen frauds ever to present himself as a public intellectual. 

I mean, as I said 12 years ago, I wrote that article based on exposing this entire sham that what Sam Harris claimed his driving force was had nothing to do with his actual agenda or his set of beliefs. And it was the fact that he would deny that – and not just deny it, but accuse anybody who saw it, of being a liar, a bad faith fabulist, someone deliberately distorting his so-clear words because what he feared the most was having people understand what his real agenda was. He's just a standard Jewish neocon who loves Israel and forms his worldview based on that, which is fine.  There are a lot of people in every group who do that. There are people who are Black, who form their worldview based on their membership as a Black person, who see the world through the historical victimhood of Black people or women who do that, or gay people who do, or Muslim people, that's fine, that is in every group. But it was his constant, endless insistence that there's no tribalism to him, there's no sectarianism to him, he hates those things, he rises above it, he's just an objective atheist that lured so many people into his little web. Then, once they got there, they were fed something completely different than what had been promised. And here he is finally admitting it. 

I really think that the person that you should be most wary of is not a person with one particular ideology or the other. Obviously, there are a lot of people who are honest about their views and I find those views repellent but the person I find meriting the most amount of legitimate contempt, disrespect, and discredit are those who are too cowardly to admit what they really think or too conniving and manipulative to admit it. And Sam Harris is the vintage case of somebody who's all of those things. And to watch him just so casually admit that everything he's been saying for his whole life is a huge fraud because he has a gigantic exception to all of it, based on special prerogatives and rights that extend to his group, but to no other, as discussing as it is, it is kind of cathartic as well to have forever Sam Harris's agenda laid bare for all of the world to see in his own words. 

Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals