Glenn Greenwald
Politics • Culture • Writing
Covid Origins: After Years of Crushing Dissent, Government Backtracks on Lab Leak Hypothesis
Video Transcript: System Update #47
March 01, 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 Monday, Febraury 27, 2023. Watch the full episode on Rumble or listen to the podcast on Spotify

A blockbuster story from Sunday's Wall Street Journal reveals that at least two major agencies inside the U.S. government – the Department of Energy and the FBI – now believe that COVID originated not because it leaped from an animal to humans at a Chinese wet market - that theory, the U.S. government and its media leaps allies, from the start of the pandemic, insisted was indisputably and inarguably true. Instead, they believe the COVID pandemic was the result of a leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, a theory that was deemed by the U.S. government and Dr. Anthony Fauci to be not only false but such a ransom and deranged conspiracy theory that no debate should even be permitted over this question on the Internet. 

For more than a full year, the U.S. government succeeded in having banned from social media anyone who challenged their always dubious claim that they had immediately determined with absolute proof the genesis of the COVID virus. Only for the truth, the real truth, to now emerge from inside the U.S. government that this question, far from being the settled matter they claimed it was back in February 2020, is nowhere near resolved, and more importantly, that the lab leak theory, which was maligned and mocked by all the employees of the corporate media as an idiotic belief that only deranged conspiracy theories theorists would believe is, at least according to two key government agencies, the more likely explanation for how COVID consumed the world. 

We believe these revelations are so important not only for the question of Covid's origins, a truly monumental question for history but even more so for how the U.S. government bans debate by demanding that any dissent from its core orthodoxies and its claims be dangerous and impermissible. So, we'll spend the full hour of our show examining all of these implications. This is a particular urgency now that Brazil and other countries, as we reported over the weekend, are attempting to implement laws to empower the government to decree truth and falsity – much like our own Homeland Security Department tried to do last year with its disinformation czar – but also to order that all false ideas be banished from the Internet and have its authors punished either with fines or even imprisonment. There are laws now pending in many countries that provide that, and Brazil is poised, with the encouragement of the EU and the U.S., that also want similar laws to be implemented. If these new revelations that we're about to show you don't demonstrate the grave danger of the West's growing censorship regime, I believe that nothing will.

For now, welcome to a new episode of System Update, starting right now. 


Monologue

 

The classic tactic used by governments to secure authoritarian rule is by promising citizens that they will enjoy extreme safety or even various forms of Nirvana if they simply acquiesce to government demands to wield what were once unthinkable powers. It is for that reason that security threats, whether real or perceived, are in the legal framework for ushering in tyrannical frameworks when a population is at its most heightened state of fear – such as Americans after Pearl Harbor or the 9/11 attack – that is when they are most ripe to be persuaded to give up more and more liberty in exchange for often illusory guarantees of security. 

As we reported just this weekend in my new article on our Locals platform, that is exactly what is happening in Brazil right now. And I really urge you to pay attention and care about this – even if Brazil, understandably, does not appear in your top 20 concerns – because this new law, by design, is likely to result in a new and very draconian series of state powers that will threaten core free speech rights and the viability of our free and open Internet, not only in that South American country but throughout the democratic world. 

As we have previously reported on this show, well before this newly proposed law by Brazil's new government, an online censorship regime was imposed in the name of stopping the Bolsonaro movement. That makes both the U.S. and the EU, by comparison, look like bastions of liberty. But most of that censorship, which not only severely narrowed the range of permissible thought, but drove numerous writers, journalists and activists into exile due to their well-grounded fear of being imprisoned based on the claim that they've been spreading fake news, at least that was imposed not by any new legislation, but by an extremely ambitious and aggressive member of the Brazilian Supreme Court named Alexandre de Moraes, whose censorship fixation has become so radical that even The New York Times has published no less than three articles in the last six months alone warning of the threats to the democratic values of that country that he poses. Recently, the Associated Press and The Washington Post published articles of their own about this judge. 

Just to give you a very small taste of how repressive the climate has become for dissent in Brazil – and by repressive we are not referring to the kind of mean tweets Taylor Lorenz gets and has converted into an officially recognized mental health affliction – but instead, we're talking about prison, exile and due process for criminal investigations for people who deny or challenge government endorsed orthodoxies. As the New York Times explained – not me but The New York Times 

Judge Moraes has jailed five people without a trial for posts on social media that he has said attacked Brazilian institutions. He has also ordered social networks to remove thousands of posted videos with little room for appeal. And this year, ten of the court's 11 justices sentenced a congressman to nearly nine years in prison for making what they said were threats against them in a live stream. The power grab by the nation's highest court, legal experts say, has undermined a key democratic institution in Latin America's biggest country as voters prepare to pick a president on October 2. In many cases, Judge Morris has acted unilaterally, emboldened by new powers the court granted itself in 2019 that allowed it to, in effect, act as an investigator, prosecutor and judge, all at once, in some cases. 

Support for this escalated system of punishment for dissent, often carried out without a whiff of due process, has been cheered with virtual unanimity by the allies of Brazil's new president, Lula da Silva – both his leftwing supporters, but also their longtime nemesis and antagonist, Brazil's corporate media. Having surveyed this growing judicial censorship regime, they seem to have walked away, not alarmed, but impressed and eager for more, which is what tends to happen when the censorship targets are not those who share your ideology, but those who reject it. It is the rare person, indeed, who does not get excited and emboldened and feeling powerful, watching one's adversaries be silenced or worse and even better, having one's own beliefs declared not only correct but so indisputably correct that it should be illegal to question or challenge those beliefs.

As a result of those reactions, Lula's key allies in Brazil are very close to assembling a congressional majority to enshrine this judicial censorship regime into a congressionally enacted legal framework. Though the detailed provisions of the law have not yet been unveiled, its core powers have been disclosed. Namely, any citizen, including journalists who write or publish content containing ideas that the government and courts consider false, that they deem false or subject not only to have their writings barred and removed and deleted by force of law, but those citizens who wrote that false ideas will face punishment, including fines under certain circumstances and even imprisonment. It is, in other words, yet another return to the dark times of the pre-Enlightenment era, before the 17th century, when many of the world's greatest and most innovative thinkers – Socrates, Copernicus, Galileo, Voltaire, Descartes, and so many others – were constantly persecuted, forced to write in virtual code to conceal their attacks on establishment pieties and often imprisoned, all because of the claim that they defended ideas that were deemed false. 

And while all of those cases happened to different countries over the centuries, they must contain important differences, there is one fundamental thread that connects them. society was ruled by a centralized institution of authority – a monarch, a church, clerics, an emperor – which had convinced itself that it was no longer plagued by the human condition of fallibility, that instead, it had managed to acquire and embrace absolute truth. Absolute truths, by their very nature, are permanent and universal. They are also, above all else, unchallengeable. Once an institution of power decrees that it has discovered the kind of truth which only deities are capable of acquiring, it becomes almost rational – and certainly inevitable – that they would use the force of law to prohibit debates about those beliefs. After all, what is the point of entertaining debates and allowing dissent and questioning? They include a truth that is definitively and universally proven, that had the qualities of being, despite divinely inspired and endorsed, the belief of such institutions as that debates and dissent over their views that have been decreed true are not merely futile. Why bother discussing whether two plus two equals four? But such debates are outright dangerous and subversive. These absolute truths these authorities have acquired and bestowed on the world have gifted humans with stability and harmony and the comfort of knowing that falsity has been banished. As a result, anyone wishing to question such treasures is obviously either malicious or destructive or both. And so, there is no reason to allow such debates and no reason to permit those who attempt to disturb the comfort of absolute truths to remain free, at liberty to continue their threatening work that has the potential to incite mass discontent and even instability and violence. 

Once one adopts that classically tyrannical mentality, based more than anything on overwhelming hubris - the belief that a human being and their views are so self-evidently correct that nobody and nothing should be permitted to question them - then it is only a matter of time before all meaningful debates on the most important matters of the day become prohibited, simply by decreeing any deviations to be false or dangerous, or likely to usher instability and dangerous attacks on the ruling class. Such utter repression is the clear, continuous, and seemingly inevitable outcome of every era in every country in which a regime is able to seize the power to decree truth and falsity and then use the power of the law to ban what is deemed by them to be false. 

First, in my Substack space and now here on this show, we have spent the last couple of years warning with increasing fervor of the dangers of this rapidly escalating censorship regime in the West, one that it is quickly migrating from the most despotic regimes of the world – where laws have been in place for years that allow the government to decree what is and is not fake news and disinformation and then ban any dissent from it and punish those who do dissent – places like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Egypt, Singapore and Turkey – all have the kinds of anti-fake news and anti-disinformation law that Brazil is poised to implement – it's now migrating into the democratic world, including most of the West and now the United States, which is why they are cheering on Brazil's law and studying it and feeding them in the capitals of Europe because they intend to use that model that Brazil is about to implement as a model to impose in the United States and in the rest of Europe. 

This weekend, we were able to report that story and now the same weekend we are presented with one of the most vivid and potent examples yet of how readily such laws will inevitably be abused and of the grave dangers of allowing the government to proclaim the power to determine truth and falsity and for allowing these laws to continue to take hold. 

As you certainly remember, ever since the pandemic began, with remarkable speed but basically at the same time that we heard of what was called a novel coronavirus –novel, because it was unlike science, anything scientists had seen, it was of great complexity. They were going to need a great deal of time and have a great deal of difficulty, we were told, analyzing what this virus was, how to treat it. And nonetheless, somehow, within the very first week or two, Dr. Fauci created a universal consensus of scientists who had announced to the world that there was no debate possible about one component of this novel coronavirus, its origin. They were absolutely certain and made everyone who was able to hear have it known that the way in which the coronavirus was created and ended up infecting humans was that it made a species leap from animals to humans, whether at a wet market in China or in some other way. That was the truth. They had discovered it and proven it with remarkable speed and absolute definitiveness to the point where nobody rational could even question that claim, developed in a heartbeat.

And yet we learn, this week, from the Wall Street Journal, now almost three years into the pandemic, something quite remarkable. There you see the Wall Street Journal article and its headline on the screen, the title of which is “Lab Leak Most Likely Origin of COVID-19 Pandemic, Energy Department Now Says. The U.S. agency's revised assessment is based on new intelligence.” 

To be clear, the U.S. Department of Energy is not merely saying that we should remain open to the possibility that the way the coronavirus entered humanity was through a leak at the Wuhan lab. They're saying that their assessment is that that is the more likely explanation for how it happened and not zoonotic, not actually from animals to humans. They're not saying they know for certain. There's a humility that they have that Dr. Fauci lacked in the first week of the pandemic. But they're saying it's possible that there's another explanation, but that the most likely one is one that we were told for two years only lunatics believed, and that was so blatantly unhinged that it shouldn't even be allowed to be heard on the Internet. And it wasn't allowed on the Internet. That's how oppressive the debate was as a result of what Dr. Fauci did in the very first week or two of the pandemic, with the very vigorous assistance of the corporate media. 

The Wall Street Journal article reports, 

 

The U.S. Energy Department has concluded that the COVID pandemic most likely arose from a laboratory leak, according to a classified intelligence report recently provided to the White House and key members of Congress. A new report highlights how different parts of the intelligence community have arrived at disparate judgments about the pandemic's origin. The Energy Department now joins the FBI in saying the virus likely spread via a mishap at a Chinese laboratory. Four other agencies, along with a national intelligence panel still judge that it was likely the result of a natural transmission and two are undecided. 

U.S. officials declined to give details on the fresh intelligence and analysis that led the Energy Department to change its position. They added that while the Energy Department and the FBI each say an unintended lab leak is most likely, they arrived at those conclusions for different reasons. A senior U.S. intelligence official confirmed that the intelligence community had conducted the update, whose existence hasn't previously been reported. This official added that it was done in light of new intelligence, further study of academic literature and consultation with experts outside the government (The Wall Street Journal. Feb. 26, 2023). 

 

Note here that we cannot conclude, at least from this, that the U.S. government has discovered the actual origin. All of this would lead a rational person to conclude that that is still very much debatable. No rational person would want to prevent a debate on this question from being conducted on the Internet or anywhere else, based on the argument that the answer has already been definitively ascertained. Everybody should want this debate to continue. We should want to know the answer  – and clearly we don't, because experts who are tasked with studying the relevant data are reaching different conclusions. 

So, the point here is not that when the U.S. government opines on something we all uncritically, nod our heads and start repeating it – that's what the media does and that's what the media did as we're about to show you. That's what idiots and propagandists do. What rational people do is before they believe that a definitive answer to one of the world’s most important and pressing historical questions has been discovered, they want to see proof that it's true and that was never provided – even though our major institutions, starting with the U.S. government, followed by the corporate media and then ultimately by Big Tech, all did just mindlessly nod their head soon as Dr. Fauci announced, very early in the pandemic, that he not only knew the answer but knew it with such certainty that no dissent should be allowed. 

Just to remind you of how repressive the climate was as a result of that judgment that he issued, let's look at the fact that – here is a Politico article from May 26, 2021, so, well, more than a year into the pandemic, at least a year in three or four months – the headline of which reveals, “Facebook no longer treating, ‘man-made’ COVID as a crackpot idea. Facebook's policy tweak arrives as support surges in Washington for a fuller investigation into the origins of COVID-19."

Facebook announced in February it had expanded the list that had expanded the list of misleading health claims that it would remove from its platforms to include those asserting that “COVID-19 is a man-made or manufactured”. The tech giant has updated its policy against false and misleading coronavirus information, including its running list of debunked claims, over the course of the pandemic in consultation with global health officials. “In light of ongoing investigations into the origin of COVID-19 and in consultation with public health experts, we will no longer remove the claim that COVID-19 “is man-made” from our apps”, the spokesperson said in an emailed statement. “We're continuing to work with health experts to keep pace with the evolving nature of the pandemic and regularly update our policies as new facts and trends emerge” (Politico. May 26, 2021). 

 

Because there's so many corporate T's in this article, let's just stop for a second. Let's just pause and reflect on what actually happened here, as this article reflects. From the start of the pandemic, Facebook created a list of ideas, views, arguments, of beliefs that it had declared banned and off-limits. Just like every pre-enlightenment institution of authority had a list of banned ideas that they would not tolerate anyone airing as well. That was the model Facebook had adopted. You have this novel coronavirus pandemic. It's causing the shutdown of all of society. Massive infringement on our civil liberties. One of the most important things that will happen in our lifetime. And instead of encouraging debate about the various components of what happened, the exact opposite was true. The monopoly power of Big Tech was weaponized by the U.S. government to say, “These are a list of arguments we will not allow you to express” and they perfectly aligned with all of the beliefs that Dr. Fauci and the U.S. government had described as false. So once the U.S. government describes a claim as false, you become banned – at least on the biggest technology platforms where we all communicate – from questioning, deviating from, or challenging what the government has claimed is true and what has told you to believe. 

And one of the claims that Facebook had banned from the very start was the argument that the evidence seemed more convincing that COVID was a virus that leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, where, by a huge coincidence, exactly the kind of research on coronaviruses was being done, including making them more dangerous for humans, so-called “gain of function research”. And it just so happened that Wuhan was the exact place where this virus was first discovered and from which it spread to the rest of the world. Nonetheless, despite that amazing and massive and extremely improbable coincidence, we were all banned upon threat of being permanently banished from the Internet, from expressing the view that perhaps this option should still be considered as a possible viable theory. And the only reason we were banned from that was because the U.S. government and Dr. Fauci instructed Big Tech that should not be allowed because he was very eager, from the start of the pandemic, for reasons we're about to discover, to ensure that the lab leak was immediately placed off limit as something only people who are barely sane would even consider saying. 

It was only once the Biden administration itself, a year and a half into the pandemic, finally acknowledged what was clear all along, that, in fact, there was no definitive ever evidence ever in the possession of the U.S. government that proved one way or the other what the origins of the COVID pandemic was – only once the U.S. government admitted that a legitimate debate should be had, only then did Facebook permit you to go on to its platform and say, “You know what? I actually think that what's more likely is that this leak from the Wuhan lab and did not, in fact, jump from another species to human beings.”

Do you see what the Internet has turned into? The Internet, whose promise in the 1990s was it would be the most revolutionary and potent instrument of liberation and individual empowerment to allow all human beings to exchange ideas intellectually without mediation, much less the regulation of corporate and state power. Instead, it has become a tool for allowing information to be disseminated to the extent – and only to the extent – it aligns with what the U.S. government wants people to believe. And any information that meaningfully challenges the U.S. government gets banned. And that was why Facebook decided it would allow this idea to be heard, only once, even the Biden administration gave them the green light by saying, You know what? We don't actually know where the COVID virus came from and we actually are going to investigate. 

What happened to all of the definitive, mathematically certain proof that Dr. Fauci and his associates claim they had going all the way back to that notorious Lancet letter right at the beginning of February that told the world that we should not tolerate deranged and hateful conspiracy theorists who want to suggest that this might have leaked from a lab in China. Where did all that evidence go? You know what the answer is. It was never there, to begin with in the first place. And that's because the U.S. government, like virtually every institution of authority and power in history, abused its power and trust to decree what is true and false, to place off limits as false a theory not that they thought was false, but that they perceived as contrary to their own interests. 

And that is why it's madness to watch people in Brazil and the rest of the Western world be willing to give their governments the power to do exactly this, that from now on it will be the government, or other institutions of authority, that decree truth and falsity and not human debate and human reason. Remember, that was the whole point of the Enlightenment. For a thousand years, this is how human beings lived. This. This way. You had institutions of authority and they issued decrees, literal decrees and said, “these are truths and these are falsehoods”. And anyone who expressed an idea in the falsehood category – just like Facebook maintains falsehood categories – was not just mocked but punished. Such as Copernicus said, you know what, I don't actually agree that the universe revolves around the Earth, I think the Earth actually revolves around the sun. And then Galileo joined in that, and they were both persecuted, as were the list of people that I named earlier, like Socrates and like Voltaire and Rousseau and René Descartes, and so many people who ended up being incredibly prescient and contributing so much to our understanding as human beings of intellectual truth. And yet, because the government had proclaimed those ideas false and off limits, they were punished because no one wanted those ideas to be heard. The idea that we're now going to replicate this system of pre-Enlightenment, blind faith in an institution as a power, is remarkable – and these revelations demonstrate why that is. 

It wasn't just the government. Remember that, as I said, journalists were some of the worst culprits. Here is the lead New York Times reporter on COVID – she replaced the long-time and very well-regarded COVID reporter Don McNeil, who was fired because he apparently said things on a trip to Peru, which The New York Times sponsored very wealthy families to allow their teenagers to go on. When they asked him about controversial issues, he responded in a way that offended them and The New York Times fired their lead COVID Reporter right at their top peak of the pandemic and replaced him with this person, Apoorva Mandavilli. On the question of whether or not COVID came from a leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, this is what she said in May of 2021, “Someday we will stop talking about the lab leak theory and maybe even admit its racist roots. But alas, that day is not here yet”. The lead reporter of the New York Times said not only should we not talk about the possibility of the lab leak theory because it's false, as the government told us, but it's also racist for you to even consider. 

This is a very common view among the left, internationally and here in the United States, that you will hear today, even in response to this Wall Street Journal story, that somehow it's racist to consider the possibility that a leak from a lab in China – I've never understood that claim. If anything's racist and playing on long-standing anti-Chinese tropes, it's the view that Dr. Fauci promulgated – that the left and the media mindlessly adopted – that the reason this virus emerged was because of the filthy, primitive and unsanitary habits of the Chinese at their wet markets. That seems a lot more racist to me than the idea that there was an accidental leak of a very sophisticated lab on which both Chinese and American scientists work that caused the COVID release. 

But at the end of the day, who cares what theory is racist and what is – the only thing that matters, especially if you're the lead New York Times reporter on COVID is what is actually true, what actually happened. But she made clear here – in a remarkable way –that she has no interest in that question of what actually happened. Her only interest was in further stigmatizing and banning debate by calling everyone questioning these things racists. 

This idea that the COVID virus unquestionably came from the zoonotic Genesis, rather than a lab leak did not appear out of anywhere. It's really important to go back and look at the ways in which that consensus didn't just emerge but was engineered by Dr. Fauci and several others because there was a corruption embedded within it that has never generated the kind of accountability it deserves. 

So, the very first article that was ever really published that widely influenced this question was this article in Lancet, in early March of 2020, so just at the very start of the pandemic, as the virus was starting to enter the consciousness of the United States. The date is March 7, 2020, but the date of the letter itself was February 19, 2020 – so very early in the pandemic, and the title of it was “Statement in support of the scientists, public health professionals and medical professionals of China combating COVID-19”. So, you'll notice it was framed as not a scientific argument, but an argument that would play on liberal sensibilities by saying “We as scientists are here to defend our colleagues in China from the defamation and attacks that they're enduring over the possibility that they might have been the ones that inadvertently caused this virus to leak”. And the statement read, 

The rapid, open and transparent sharing of data on this outbreak is now being threatened by rumors and misinformation about its origins. We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin. Scientists from multiple countries have published and analyzed genomes of the causative agent, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus 2, (SARS- CoV-2), and they overwhelmingly conclude that this coronavirus originated in wildlife, as have so many other emerging pathogens. Conspiracy theories do nothing but create fear, rumors and prejudice that jeopardize our global cooperation in the fight against this virus. We support the call from the director general of WHO to promote scientific evidence and unity over misinformation and conjecture (The Wall Street Journal. Feb. 19, 2020). 

 

Note here that this letter presented no scientific evidence of any kind. It did two things: it asserted that the coronavirus emerged from natural life, from a non-human species, and then, it accused anyone who doubted that or who questioned it being a racist conspiracy theory. And that is what set the tone from the very beginning that nobody could question the official explanation presented without scientific evidence that the construct that the coronavirus came from an animal species, not that lab in Wuhan. 

Behind the scenes, as we're about to show you, there was a lot of concern about this Lancet letter, including the fact that it was organized by a scientist, Peter Daszak, who had all sorts of conflicts of interest in debunking the claim that it came from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, in particular, the undisclosed fact that he himself and his company had received funding from Dr. Fauci and provided some of that funding to do some of this work with the Wuhan Institute of Virology. It is shameful that Lancet published such an influential article on such an important matter without disclosing that the main scientist who organized the entire letter had a direct financial and reputational interest in maligning and denigrating the explanation for its origins that that letter so successfully set out to do. 

And that was why another letter signed by different scientists was organized roughly a month later, on March 17, 2020, in Nature magazine, and it made claims slightly more subtle, but that was designed to achieve the same thing, to convince people that the answer was already known. It says, 

 

Here we review what can be deduced about the origin of SARS-CoV-2 from a comparative analysis of genomic data. We offer a perspective on the notable features of the SARS-CoV-2 genome and discuss scenarios by which they could have arisen. Our analysis clearly shows that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposely manipulated virus (Nature Medicine. March 17, 2020). 

 

So, it doesn't get much more definitive than that. They are absolutely emphatic that the coronavirus, like the Lancet letter suggested, was not a laboratory construct or a purposely manipulated virus, They say, “Our analysis clearly shows that.” 

What you didn't see during this time and what you didn't see until many months later was that many of the scientists, including those who ended up signing these letters behind the scenes, were telling Dr. Fauci and other leading officials in the health field, including those who control, like Dr. Fauci, most of the research budget, that a very, very different view about what they thought the origin of this virus was. 

Here, for example, is an email from Kristian Anderson, on January 31, and this person became a signer of the Nature paper and you can see here, it's an email to Dr. Fauci. So, it's about three weeks before the Lancet letter, about six weeks before the Nature letter, and in this email, Dr. Anderson says the following: 

The unusual features of the virus make up a really small part of the genome, less than 0.1%. So, one has to look really closely at all the sequences to see that some of the features (potentially) look engineered. 

 

Anderson goes on to say that after that discussion, he and other prominent virologists, “found the genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory”.

 So that was at least one letter Fauci got right around the same time from exactly one of the people who signed the Nature letter saying, “My analysis shows that this seems to be engineered and inconsistent with the explanation that came from Nature”. He then refers to this discussion that he had with other scientists. 

Here's another email. A lot of this was FOIA, and this is from Jeremy Farrar. and it's dated February 1, so right around the same time, and the relevant passage says the following: 

I really can't think of a plausible natural scenario where you get from the bat virus or one very similar to nCoV where you insert exactly four amino acids, 12 nucleotides that all have to be added at the exact same time to gain this function – that and you don't change any other amino acid in S2? I just can't figure out how this gets accomplished in nature (Dr. Robert Garry, Notes from Feb. 1 Conference Call. Source: House Oversight Committee).

 

So, another scientist, right at the same time, very emphatically asserting that this was something that seemed very implausible. This is from Robert Garry and the House Oversight Committee ultimately obtained it. 

So, you can see that already he felt he knows that there's, at the very least, a very active and vibrant debate on this question, far from this conclusive knowledge that three weeks later got asserted in that Lancet letter by people who had an interest in doing so, and in fact some of these people were being extremely emphatic about the fact that it seemed extremely unlikely, in fact, almost impossible, to understand how it could have come from this specie jumping. 

Here is another email from Dr. Jeremy Farr, on February 1. Farrar says, “Being very careful in the morning wording. “Engineered”, probably not. Remains very real possibility of accidental lab passage in animals to give glycans. Eddie”, referring to virologist Eddie Holmes, of Nature, “would be at 60:40 lab side. I remain 50:50.” 

So again, what is at least emerging from all of these messages to Dr. Fauci from the most respected virologists in the world is that either the evidence is pointing to a lab leak or there's a very interesting, complex and difficult-to-resolve debate about where it came from. So, the last thing you would think you would do is to say: we know for certain where it came from, it came from a zoonotic source, and only deranged conspiracy theories would even consider that it came from a lab leak – when you have all of the most prestigious virologists in the world, or many of them, telling Fauci they believe that's actually where it came from. 

Peter Daszak, who was, as I said, the organizer of that Lancet letter and one of the signatories on it, who had that very significant conflict of interest that was undisclosed, wrote an email to the fellow people with whom he was organizing this letter, and he said 

I have not seen the final version yet, but the draft version that we and an expert group that met last week added it has the following sentence, ‘The initial views of the experts is that the available genomic data are consistent with natural evolution and that there is currently no evidence that the virus was engineered to spread more quickly among humans”. I think this is a bit too specific because there are other conspiracy theories out there. Our current statement neatly refutes most of them by saying that ‘We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that 2019-nCoV does not have a natural origin. Scientific evidence overwhelmingly suggests that this virus originated in wildlife, as have so many other emerging diseases. Let me know if you would want to change specific wording using track changes above… Please note that this statement will not have the EcoHealth Alliance logo on it [That's the company of his that received the funding from biology and then gave it to the Wuhan Institute of Virology] and will not be identifiable as coming from any one organization or person, the idea is to have this as a community supporting our colleagues” (Peter Daszak in email to Lancet letter signatories. Feb. 6, 2020). 

 

Whether that was intentional or not, the effect of this hiding of the EcoHealth Alliance was to prevent the public from detecting the fact that at least one of the main signers and, in fact, the organizer of the letter, had a very personal interest in ensuring the world did not conclude that it came from that lab, the lab in which he had a very significant role.

Here is a Guardian article from June 9, that was also by Peter Daszak, he's returning now and has the lead role in trying to debunk the idea that this came from the lab in which he had any specific interest, something that was never disclosed. And there you see the headline on it which is “Ignore The Conspiracy Theories. Scientists Know COVID-19 Wasn't Created In A Lab.”

Something he was extremely emphatic about. He's saying: ‘Ignore the conspiracy theories" - who are the conspiracy theorists? Anyone who believes that it came from a lab leak, which now includes major parts of the U.S. government. He says scientists know COVID-19 wasn't created in the lab. 

Let me show you as well these documents that came from The Intercept as a result of a FOIA request in September of 2021. The Intercept knew that there were a lot of right-wing allegations against Dr. Fauci, specifically that he had funded gain-of-function research in the Wuhan lab that takes naturally occurring viruses and deliberately makes them more dangerous. And Dr. Fauci had always vehemently denied that he or his agencies had funded this kind of experimentation, either through EcoHealth and Peter Daszak or directly to the Wuhan Institute. 

So, Dr. Fauci also had, because of his connections to the Wuhan Institute, a very personal interest in ensuring that this got written off as false. And I don't know – my belief is that The Intercept  FOIAed these documents with the intention of debunking what they were calling right-wing conspiracy theories. Instead, when they got the documents, they got a big surprise. The documents confirmed the main arguments being made by the right wing conspiracy theorists that the media was claiming were deranged and were out to get Dr. Fauci. And to its credit, I guess The Intercept did what they should have done, which is they published these documents, which up to that point had been some of the most convincing, proving that, in fact, Dr. Fauci had been funding exactly this sort of research. 

The headline of the article is “NIH Documents Provide New Evidence of U.S. Funded Gain-of-Function Research in Wuhan. U.S.-funded experimentation in China posed biosafety risks, but did not cause COVID-19 pandemic, scientists say”. So, there you see The Intercept, trying to caveat what they found a little bit for the left that it didn't cause COVID-19, according to scientists but, nonetheless, the documents proved that these agencies were funding gain-of-function research in this institute that faculty had forever, vehemently and angrily denied. Here's the article, 

 

The Intercept obtained new evidence that the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the nearby Wuhan University Center for Animal Experiment, along with their collaborator, the U.S.-based, nonprofit EcoHealth Alliance, have engaged in what the U.S. government defines as “gain-of-function research of concern”, intentionally making viruses more pathogenic or transmissible in order to study them, despite stipulations from a U.S. funding agency that the money may not be used for that purpose. Grant money for the controversial experiment came from the National Institute of Health’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which is headed by Anthony Fauci. The award to EcoHealth Alliance, a research organization which studies the spread of viruses from animals to humans, included subawards to Wuhan Institute of Virology and East China Normal University. The principal investigator on the grant is EcoHealth Alliance President Peter Daszak, who has been a key voice in the search for COVID-19’s origins.

 

In a 2005 paper, Peter Daszak’s team showed that the first SARS virus originated in bats. Middle East Respiratory System, or MERS, is caused by a coronavirus that emerged in 2012 and also was believed to come from bats, which are now a prime target for virologists trying to understand and combat emerging diseases. Daszak has long maintained that his research is critical to preventing outbreaks, but the research on the BAT viruses in Wuhan showed that infecting live animals with altered viruses can have unpredictable consequences. A report to NIH on the project's progress in the year ending in May 2018 described scientists creating new coronaviruses by changing parts of WIV1 and exposing genetically engineered mice to the new chimeric viruses. 

 

Inside the lungs of the humanized mice, however, the novel viruses appear to have reproduced far more quickly than the original virus that was used to create them, according to a bar graph shown in the documents. The viral load in the lung tissue of the mice was, at certain points, up to 10,000 times higher in the mice infected with the altered viruses than in those infected with WIV1(The Intercept. Sept. 9, 2021). 

 

This shows three really critical points. Number one, the two primary and most important organizers of the view that the lab leak was a crazy conspiracy theory – that theory that nobody should believe it, that the COVID origin was already proven, that it was zoonotic – the two primary people who did that were Anthony Fauci and Peter Daszak, and both had extremely significant personal interests in making the world believe that the lab leak was out of the question – and here was the evidence presented by The Intercept of exactly what that personal interest was, and it was never disclosed. Number two was that the research that they were conducting was extremely dangerous because it made the virus far more transmissible, or, namely, it could explain why a novel virus that appeared out of nowhere suddenly started spreading all over the world at extremely rapid speed. And number three, it proved that the exact kind of research on bat coronaviruses that could easily cause a leak and then an infection of humans just so happened to be taking place in the same city in China where the virus first appeared. And yet nobody was allowed to connect the dots on any of this because everybody who did was immediately castigated as some crazy lunatic. 

And I want to show you just a couple of examples of how the people who always lead the propaganda, namely the U.S. media, are the ones who did that. So, let's just look at a couple of examples of how people who questioned the government's theory as propounded by Dr. Fauci and suggested that perhaps it was a lab leak. Look at how they were talked about. 


(Video 00:57:18)


Nicole Wallace, MSNBC News: Traditionally driven by science, not presidential politics and the scientists aren't the only ones rankled today by Trump's effort at reputational repair. The New York Times also advances recent reporting on U.S. intelligence agencies, which we learned this week provided intel in the President's PDB as early as January about the lethal spread of COVID. Those same agencies now have been tapped with investigating one of Trump world's most favorite conspiracy theories. New York Times reports this, “Senior Trump administration officials have pushed American spy agencies to hunt for evidence to support an unsubstantiated theory that a government lab in Wuhan, China, was the origin of the coronavirus outbreak. That's according to current and former American officials. The effort comes as President Trump escalates a campaign to blame China for the pandemic. Some intel analysts are concerned that the pressure from the administration officials will distort assessments about the virus and that they could be used as a political weapon in an intensifying battle with China over a disease that has infected more than 3 million.”

 

These people have no idea what they're talking about. All they know is the following – government officials told them to believe two things: that the origin of the COVID virus was definitively proven as zoonotic and, number two, anyone who questioned the alternative, or who dared to challenge the government's claims, was a crazy conspiracy theorist and a lunatic. 

Let's look at a couple more examples. 

 

(Video 00:58:57)

Joy Ann Reid, MSNBC News: … in a lab in Wuhan, China. And yet this week, Donald Trump is still pushing the debunked bunkum, despite his own intelligence community's findings that that is simply not true. 

 

Okay, according to her, who gets to go on NBC News and say this, all while they lecture you about the need to combat disinformation, according to her, the lab leak theory is debunked. It's debunked. It's been proven false – after everything, I've just shown you. And not only has it been proven false, but the reason we all know it's false and should never question it is because the intelligence community told us the truth. And once they tell us the truth, our job as citizens and journalists is to bow our heads and nod mindlessly. This is really what goes on every day in the media, in media discourse. This is how propaganda is so easily concocted and disseminated as it comes from government officials who make completely self-interested and unproven claims and they issue it to these subservient media outlets who repeated it over and over and over again, and any dissident or anyone who questions it is either maligned and excluded, ostracized or when that doesn't work – when they get to become too influential – they get banned by the major means of communication, which is Big Tech. And we know that the government has a very direct hand in doing that as a result of a lot of reporting, including the Twitter files. 

 

(Video 01:00:34)

Joy Ann Reid, MSNBC News: On Thursday, the intelligence community released a rare statement saying they agree with the scientific consensus that the virus was not not not man-made. But it's not like Trump has a history of going against the words of his own intelligence community or anything. 

 

I mean, that's how not just her brain functions, but how the brain of most people who work in journalism in the United States function. The intelligence community said this, and that's the end of the story. That's why for three weeks, before the 2020 election, they just said over and over that we should ignore the reporting about Joe Biden's activities in China and Ukraine because the documents on which they were based were fraudulent, they were Russian disinformation. How do we know that? The CIA told us that. That's the only simple-minded cognitive process of which their brains are capable. 

And I know some of you are going to say, no, no, actually, they're capable of more. They're doing this with malice because they're deliberate liars. Maybe that's true for some of them. But do not underestimate the fact that these corporations purposely hire people who are incapable of critical thinking because that's the last thing that they want. They don't want anyone going on their airwaves and saying, ‘wait a minute, how do we know this? And aren't there a lot of people who have interest in having us believe that the answer has been discovered and that the lab leak isn't how it happened?’ And they pick people on purpose. I just showed you, Nicolle Wallace, and Joy Reid. These are people who are incapable of that kind of thinking, and that's why they succeed there. Let me show you another example. 

 

(Video 01:02:10)

Kasie Hunt, MSNBC: Ken, the other thing I wanted to ask you about is this question about the Wuhan lab. We know that it's been debunked that this virus… 

 

We know that it's been debunked. Kasie Hunt is talking to Ken Dilanian, the national security reporter for NBC News, who before getting hired at NBC, got caught submitting all of his stories to the CIA for approval. There's a FOIA request that The Intercept did in 2015, when I was there, in which that was all discovered when he was at the L.A. Times. He then got promoted to AP and then got promoted to NBC after having got caught being a CIA spokesman. But just listen to, again, these people tell you that the biggest danger to democracy is disinformation and listen to what she just said, in the middle of this coronavirus pandemic. 

 

(Video 01:03:00)
Kasie Hunt, MSNBC: To the 24th. Can the other thing I wanted to ask you about is this question about the Wuhan lab. We know that it's been debunked that this virus was man made or modified or anything… 

 

That's what she claims. She knows that it's been debunked, that it was not man-made or anything like that. 

 

Kasie Hunt, MSNBC: …but, as you've reported, the Intelligence Committee has been sort of paying attention to the question of whether it was an accident at a Chinese lab… 

 

And now let me just show you not that this is a person who is remotely a journalist, but it's certainly somebody who has some degree of cultural cachet. And this was the sort of thing being said constantly on late-night TV for people who don't watch cable news, which is the vast majority of American people. The vast majority of American people also don't watch late-night cable TV, late-night comedy shows anymore because it contains things like this. But here's what Jimmy Kimmel told the world. 

 

( Video 01:03:52)


Jimmy Kimmel: … also pushing U.S. intelligence to find evidence for this theory that the virus was accidentally released from a lab in Wuhan. That's his new angle to feed the wingnuts – to treat this virus like it was a conspiracy of some kind. 

 

D. Trump: It should have never happened. This plague should never have happened. It could have been stopped. But people chose not to stop it. 

 

Jimmy Kimmel: What people? Tomorrow he'll blame the Spanish flu on Antonio Banderas. Trump has also reportedly been upset with... 



And like, look at the arrogance and smugness of these people. You know, like they think they're such experts on everything. They follow science. They don't know. Their brains are completely broken. They do nothing. They're incapable of reading even a simple sentence and analyzing whether any evidence accompanies it. And so, for a year and a half, they just walked around with that smug, smug look on their face, mocking anybody who said that they think we should remain open to the possibility of not lean toward the possibility that it came from this lab, a claim that we now know many people inside the U.S. government believe is the most likely explanation. And I'd be willing literally to bet every single one of my worldly possessions that not one of these people – and there are, you know, obviously countless more examples who did exactly the same thing. They always speak from the same script. I could spend the rest of the night showing you people doing these same things. I have a lot of them here -- not one of them will go back and say, ‘Hey, remember a year ago when I mocked the idea that this could have come from the Wuhan Institute? Because I was told by my government that I should say that. Well, it turns out I was wrong. There's ample evidence to believe that it actually might have come from there. And we should have had that debate. And I am sorry for being one of the people who used my TV platform to foreclose the debate by saying only idiots and conspiracy theorists believe that or using my journalistic credentials to tell you falsely that that theory had been debunked definitively.” 

Not one of these people will even acknowledge any of this, let alone apologize for or account for their role in what they did because this is actually their job. Their job is not ever to tell you their truth. Their job is to spread government propaganda to the extent that it advances the liberal cause and because they did that in this case – when they told you Hunter Biden's laptop was Russian disinformation; when they told you the Trump Organization had a secret bank or secret connection with a bank, that Putin was controlling the United States through secret blackmail control of Trump, all things that were classic disinformation – they were doing their jobs. Spreading disinformation for this hidden agenda is their job. 

Just to kind of conclude the circle here about what actually happened, I really think it's worth looking at all of this because it's a complex series of events. Some of it has taken place a while ago. I think it's really worth revisiting it to remind ourselves what happened in light of the findings from The Wall Street Journal. 

Let's look at this Lancet letter that the journal was forced to release in July of 2021, a year and a half into the pandemic, in which they radically backtracked and compensated for a grievous error they committed in that first Lancet article without acknowledging they did so. This time they weren't here to say, ‘We know for sure what the answer is’, the way they did somehow, right at the start of the pandemic, they did the opposite. 

The article was entitled “Science not speculation is essential to determine how SARS-CoV-2 reached humans” and it was signed by several of the same people, including Peter Daszak. The article reads, 

Recently, many of us have individually received inquiries asking whether we still support what we said in early 2020. Opinions are neither data nor conclusions. Evidence obtained using the scientific method must inform our understanding and be the basis for the interpretation of the available information. 

 

The critical question we must address is How did SARS-CoV-2 reach the human population? This is important because at such insights that will drive what the world must urgently do to prevent another tragedy like COVID-19 (The Lancet. July 5, 2021).

 

That sounds radically different – does it not? – than that first letter in which they asserted they knew the answer for sure – that set what the entire world thought for the next year and a half, that we knew the answer and it was lunatic. Now they're back to say we can't use speculation, we can't use opinion, only evidence. And it's urgent that we find out the answer, implicitly admitting they didn't know the answer, even though they implied previously that they did. 

What also happened here is that they included an addendum and it was entitled “Addendum: competing Interests and the origins of SARS-CoV-2”, which was designed to do what they should have done back with that original letter – which was to acknowledge that Peter Daszak has a direct personal and financial interest in the outcome of the debate on which he’s so emphatically opining, given his involvement in the Wuhan lab, something that they just neglected to do and never went back and apologized for either, they just kind of tacked it on to this much more benign letter a year and a half into that pandemic. 

As I said, it's the people who are constantly holding themselves out as the guardians of disinformation, who are the ones who most aggressively and casually spread disinformation. Just to show you an example, here's Anne Applebaum, who is constantly on boards about the dangers of disinformation and how we stop it. Here's a tweet of hers from September 9, 2021, commenting on an appearance on Fox News by Tom Cotton, who reiterated his suggestion that coronavirus originated at a super lab in Wuhan. 

So, Tom Cotton went on Fox News and reiterated his suggestion that much of the government now shares that the coronavirus did not come from another species but originated in a super lab. And Anne Applebaum said, the writer at the Atlantic: “Wow. Just like the Soviet propagandists who tried to convince the world that the CIA invented AIDS”. 

Who's the conspiracy theorist here? Tom Cotton or Anne Applebaum? Who's the purveyor of disinformation? The one who's saying we should be open to the lab leak or the one who's saying that it's clearly a lie? 

Remember, there were a lot of other claims that were similar in nature where things that were either uncertain or untrue were deemed false. Remember that Rand Paul had a hearing on whether cloth masks are actually effective in preventing the transmission and contracting of the coronavirus and he was suspended for a week because, even though he's a senator and a physician, he called into question the effectiveness of cloth mask and for that, he got banned by YouTube. That was one of the prohibited views. 

If it were true that cloth masks were ineffective in preventing the spread of the coronavirus, you would think that would be something the public ought to know. Given that a lot of people who might be endangered by COVID, such as old people, or people with diseases, might be misled into thinking that a cloth mask is effective in keeping them safe when in fact it isn't. That's a debate we would want to have. And yet, Google decided that debate was also off limits because Dr. Fauci and others had said cloth masks are what you should wear. And the senator from Kentucky got banned from YouTube over trying to have that debate. That happened even though the same month a very senior medical expert inside the Biden administration said that he was ashamed of his profession for misleading the public on the efficacy of cloth masks. This is Michael Osterholm, who was on with Christiane Amanpour. Listen to what he's saying about cloth masks. Again, this is not a member of the Trump administration, but the Biden administration. 

 

(Video 01:12:53) 

 

Michael Osterholm: I have had concerns that dates back to April of 2020 about the concept of masking. Needless to say, it is a political hot button beyond anything I've ever seen in public health. And yet, at the same time, I think we've all done a disservice to the public. When you actually look at face cloth coverings, those cloth pieces of hanging over your face. They actually only have very limited impact in reducing the amount of virus that you inhale in or exhale out. And in fact, in studies that have been done show that if an individual might get infected within 15 minutes in a room like time in concentration of the virus in the room, if you had a face cloth covered on, you only get about five more minutes of protection. And so, I've been really, unfortunately, really disappointed with my colleagues in public health for not being more clear about what can mask and do or not do. 

 

In case you're wondering about his credentials, he's the director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota. He had been a senior member of President Biden's medical expertise team to advise him on COVID, and he's clearly saying something very similar to what Senator Paul was trying to warn people about, which is that you're being misled on the efficacy of cloth masks – and Google had declared that off-limits because Dr. Fauci told them to. 

Over and over and over, we see the same type of regime of censorship, which is not the individuals inside these Big Tech companies making decisions about what is and is not permissible but, instead, what the government tells them they should and should not allow, to the point that the public is being repeatedly deceived. 

This is one last example. I'm certain that you recall the debate about the efficacy of natural immunity, meaning the inability of a human to get COVID, even if they're not vaccinated once they get the COVID vaccine. We were told over and over that that shouldn't even be discussed – that the only solution for everybody was to go and get the vaccine. 

We all know that major media figures lied continuously to the public or misled them about the efficacy of the vaccine. The famous Rachel Maddow clip where she explains to everybody like they're idiots what she knows, as an expert, that if you get the vaccine, the virus will try and enter your body but there's a brick wall there because of the vaccine that will stop it from entering your body. And that means that you can no longer transmit it to anybody else so everybody is vaccinated there's nowhere for the virus to go any longer. 

That's what the queen of anti-disinformation told everybody. That was the common perception and message being disseminated by the media to coerce people who didn't want the virus into getting it. Of course, all of that proved to be untrue, as we know that millions and millions and millions of people – who have been not only vaccinated but boosted constantly – get the COVID virus and transmit it to other people. But one of the things that was a major source of close debate was the efficacy of natural immunity. And yet, as you see here from the Wall Street Journal, “Three years late, the Lancet recognizes natural immunity”. Again, The Lancet, which had a lot of antipathy to the idea of natural immunity because they were playing politics instead of following science. 

 

The public health clerisy rediscovers a principle of immunology it derided throughout the pandemic. The Lancet medical journal this month published a review of 65 studies that concluded prior infection with COVID – i.e. natural immunity – is at least as protective as two doses of many vaccines. The most surprising news is that the study made the mainstream press, quote, Immunity acquired from a COVID infection is as protective as two doses of mRNA vaccines. “Immunity acquired from a COVID infection is as protective as vaccination against severe illness and death, study finds”, NBC reported on February 16.

 

The study found that prior infection offered 78.6% protection against reinfection from the original Wuhan Alpha or Delta variants at 40 weeks, which slipped to 36.1% against Omicron. Protection against severe illness remained around 90% across all variants after 40 weeks. These results exceed what other studies have found for two and even three mRNA doses. This comes after nearly three years of public health officials’ dismissing the same hypothesis. But now that experts at the University of Washington have confirmed it in a leading – and left-leaning – journal, it's fit to print (The Wall Street Journal. Feb. 26, 2023)

 

That was from The Wall Street editorial page. 

What I want to take away from all this, and the reason I think it's so important to have reviewed this from the start, the way we did, to take the time to show you the documents, is because it's very easy when you're being bombarded with a flurry of propaganda to forget what has been debunked, because so often the debunking comes long after it matters any longer, and you forget just how effective the original lies were. And in the case of Dr. Fauci and the way in which that Lancet letter was organized, and then the Nature Magazine letter was organized right after it, we know not only that it was done with a lot of personal interest, but it was done knowing that at the highest levels of epidemiology, the claim that they were making, namely, there was no debate on this question of where this virus came from was completely untrue. They disseminated a very significant claim knowing it was false, by which I don't mean they knew that it actually came from the lab as opposed to a non-animal and non-human animal. But what I mean is that by claiming that there was no reasonable debate to be had about this and that only crazy conspiracies believe it came from a lab leak that they knew was false because they were hearing from major epidemiologists that having studied this very carefully, they found it extremely hard to believe that it could have come from natural evolution or natural progression. 

But I think the most important thing to take away from all of this is not the epidemiological or scientific questions. Those we can leave to other people for another day. For now, what we know for certain is that a major part of the U.S. government believes it's more likely than not that it leaked from the Wuhan lab and that by itself means that the last three years – the propaganda that told us over and over and over and over again that we knew where the virus came from, and the government's all but official declaration that any alternative theories were false – what we know is the lie was that they claim that they knew when they did it. 

But the reason this matters so much right now is not just because, again, you should, of course, have enormous amounts of skepticism about the government telling you things. It's much more severe than that. There is clearly a global movement underway, not within the tyrannical part of the world that has already had laws that criminalize fake news and allow the imprisonment of people who spread them but there's a movement in the democratic world to start adopting identical laws that empower the government to do what they did here, which is decree, official truth and official falsity, and then render off limits the ability to challenge their truths, to question their truth, to dissent from their truth, even to the point where you can risk prison for doing so. 

And that is why I keep emphasizing the importance of this Brazilian law and to follow it as Brazil, as the Brazilians have developed this law. What has happened is that the leading advocates for it, people who are pro-government lawyers, long-time loyalists to Lula or YouTube stars – with absolutely no credentials, anything, who like most online influencers change their views with the wind. PT used to be very unpopular five years ago. They all hated it. Now PT, Lula’s party, is popular. Now they're all on board with it – so, it's YouTube influencers and pro-lawyers and even journalists at major corporations who believe they're the owners of the truth. 

All of these people in Brazil who are behind this law to criminalize fake news that will be determined by the government or courts are all now being celebrated and treated like royalty in European capitals because the EU wants to copy what Brazil is about to do, and Brazil is the perfect place for it to work because on January 8 they had their own January 6 – that they treat like 9/11 – Brazilians on the left talk about it like it was a terrorist attack and, as Americans, we all learned that when you put the population in fear and convince them that they're under attack from terrorists, they will give up any right the government asks for and they'll be persuaded – “It's only temporary” – but of course, it's not temporary. The Patriot Act was supposed to be temporary. It's here with us 23 years later. 

But what Brazil is being used as is a lab, to see that once that law is implemented and then, the Brazilian government, or the Brazilian courts, have the power to order tech companies to remove posts that they consider false – such as the virus came from the Wuhan lab – and even punished where fines and imprisonment of those who said it. The EU will then say, ‘Oh, look, Brazil has already implemented this law that's implemented here' – there may be more problems in doing so in the U.S. because of the First Amendment but Homeland Security, the FBI, the CIA have shown over and over that they have no qualms about working around the First Amendment and attempting to influence what the Internet will and will not allow. 

Remember, Facebook didn't come up on its own with this prohibited list. It came right from Dr. Fauci. I don't think there's a more important issue at the moment than this one. There may be ones as important, and I will always concede that but if we're about to embark on a world in which the Internet is now officially controlled by a legislative framework that allows the government to formally and officially adopt these powers that we haven't really seen since the Enlightenment – to have their views of what is true and falls binding on the citizenry to the point that it's illegal to question it – I don't think those dangers can be overestimated. 

And so, we definitely intend to continue to follow a very dangerous law that is advancing rapidly in Brazil, watch how European countries intend to copy it very, very quickly and the more stories like this that we can dissect and analyze that prove how readily these authorities lie and how easy it is to get the media to become their complicit partners. Hopefully, at least there will be more and more people angry about these laws, who object to them, who are concerned about them, and who are watching out for the propagandistic purposes that they serve. 

 

So that will conclude our show for the evening. We really appreciate you indulging us and taking the time when we feel it's necessary to delve into what we regard as complex and important topics in ways that require more time than most shows allow. That was what we wanted to do with this show from the beginning – avoid the cable format of having to treat everything within six and seven-minute segments in between commercial breaks, or have you had this carousel of ever-changing guests and topics based on the belief that you don't have a significant enough attention span to pay close attention to complicated matters. 

We have a lot of respect for the audience we've developed over the years and believe that this is what you want. We hope to continue to provide that for you and we are really appreciative of your help in letting us have built a very significant audience in such a short period of time, one that exceeded our expectations – and hope you'll join us again tomorrow night and every night at 7 p.m. EST, exclusively here on Rumble.

 

community logo
Join the Glenn Greenwald Community
To read more articles like this, sign up and join my community today
58
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

Stay strong, Glenn! What an irony that out of all people it’s you being targeted with sth like this, after decades of writing about the importance of privacy protection on the internet.

Started following your work 15 years ago and nothing changes after these ‘revelations’. Haters gonna hate.

Greetings from Berlin!

Oh Noes! Someone, somewhere is having consensual sex!

I'm wondering how many more subscribers or just interest this will bring to your journalism?

Once again I'd like to request a longer form interview with Daryl Cooper of the Martyr Made podcast.

You have both been attacked by what is (imo) the same source - supporters of the actions of the government of Israel.

In one way it's probably the most pathetic smear of all time, in another I'm sure it's embarrassing.

Fuck 'em,
Kurl

May 31, 2025

Long time listener, I deeply value Glenn's integrity (so rare these days) and I finally was motivated to sign up as a paid supporter in the wake of this nasty, low blow smear attack on Glenn.

I hope it backfires and only serves to galvanize support for Glenn. Stay strong, really sorry this happened to you, nobody should have to deal with this bs.

post photo preview
Briahna Joy Gray on Dems in Disarray, the "Big Beautiful Bill," Biden Cover-Up Receipts and More; Plus: Interview with Journalist Katie Halper
System Update #461

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_4nXd1whDrOlAuKnJGzyVcYLjG4CwFNKNudYodjWTHSZ3uIZ_IA80QZCgCiwNyj0MZrJ5mP7m8nbgLJlIVb2O69WvRP_zaPYL7gCcUsGsrm0eHTlV2iBI9jn_zKUOTUi_uyEThNWmU2298UQieL9EgYQI?key=c5V_hySTnoyfhfcJ7OVvmg

Glenn Greenwald is away this week. 

I’m Briahna Joy Gray, the guest host for this episode. 

You might know me from my own podcast, “Bad Faith,” or from my previous hosting responsibilities over at The Hill’s “Rising,” less of a free speech platform than this one. 

Today, I'll be walking through the implosion of the Democratic Party, the pathetic hunt for a Joe Rogan of the left, the party's instinct for corporate self-preservation over real populist reform and the media cover-up of Biden's cognitive decline. 

Afterward, I'll be joined by independent left podcaster and co-host of “Useful Idiots” podcast, Katie Halper, to continue the conversation about how the DNC is continuing to try to rig elections in favor of incumbents, even as they repeatedly keep dying in office, and the likelihood that there might be more independent third-party runs in 2028, a la RFK Jr.'s 2024 attempt. Now, let's get right into it. 

AD_4nXd1whDrOlAuKnJGzyVcYLjG4CwFNKNudYodjWTHSZ3uIZ_IA80QZCgCiwNyj0MZrJ5mP7m8nbgLJlIVb2O69WvRP_zaPYL7gCcUsGsrm0eHTlV2iBI9jn_zKUOTUi_uyEThNWmU2298UQieL9EgYQI?key=c5V_hySTnoyfhfcJ7OVvmg

AD_4nXcv6AwAqSPTXeTzwRFgQILY2mU1WCE2kpKm8IdjhFLIFVhqm6ELy6KW0Oq-73016snDLGUUrc8b4CEjJbU_XIigzJfBTT5HbHtYpWYE5lUi4UtPnaTNgRei4a_KkoDGDSGhaETVbXBDXImJo2oMD4s?key=c5V_hySTnoyfhfcJ7OVvmg

For a decade now, corporate Democrats have been warning that Donald Trump presents an existential threat to the Republic. During Trump's first term, much of that handwriting seemed to be hyperbolic – Trump derangement syndrome, if you will. His big legislative accomplishment was in line with the policy priorities of your typical establishment Republican: a $1.7 trillion tax cut that went overwhelmingly to the rich.

There was some good stuff too: unlike Biden, he didn't start any new wars. While he continued to fund Israel's genocide in Gaza and crack down on free speech rights of Americans who protested the said genocide, Trump did accomplish the temporary cease-fire that AOC merely claimed Kamala was “working tirelessly” to achieve. 

But now that President Trump is finally following through on some of his less popular and less populist policy commitments, like the Medicaid cuts, included in his Big Beautiful Bill, which passed the House last week, or throwing markets into disarray with his erratic application of tariffs, which can be good policy.

Establishment Democrats seem almost happy to have something to justify their hatred of Trump. So, you see, the less populist Trump behaves, the more it disguises the Democrats' own failure to meet the needs of the people. Some Democrats are outright advising that the way they should respond to this alleged “existential crisis” is to simply do nothing: Just sit back and wait to benefit from the backlash. 

You don't have to take my word for it: Listen to a veteran DNC advisor, James Carville, describe the strategy: 

Video. James Carville, The View. February 18, 2025.

Fiddle while Rome burns, the expert says, then exploit the tragedy. 

But so far, the backlash isn't coming. A new Economist/YouGov poll, out yesterday, shows that while GOP favorability is low, at negative 11%, Democrats are doing even worse, at negative 21%; 41% of Americans still view Republicans favorably, while a mere 36% of Americans view Democrats favorably. 

These polls come as no surprise to those of us who consume independent media. I mean, just look around: Democrats are in the throes of a credibility crisis that arose out of Joe Biden's obvious unfitness to run for president. 

They're trying to distract from their complicity and the cover-up, but going all in on the idea that it was Biden himself, his family, and his closest advisors that hid his decline from the party and the public until it was too late, not the liberal media. But it's hard to call Biden's infirmary a “cover-up” when it was out in the public for all of us to see and comment on. The president was confusing Haifa and Rafah, mixing up the president of Egypt and the president of Mexico, and even dodged culpability in the classified documents case on the basis that he didn't have the mental competence to knowingly take the files. 

He even seemed to wander off at the G7 Conference a year ago, like a distracted child. 

Video. Joe Biden, The Economic Times. June 14, 2024.

His mental lapses were evident as far back as the 2020 primary, during which presidential candidates Julian Castro and Cory Booker had the temerity to call him out for not remembering what he had just said at the primary debate. This clip is from way back in 2019, when Dems still could have avoided the albatross of a historically old and declining candidate around their necks. What did they do instead? Disappear both Castro and Booker, once rising stars from the ranks of up-and-coming leadership. 

Video. Cory Booker, CNN. September 13, 2019.

You heard it there. The mainstream media accused anyone who noticed Biden's obvious decline of being motivated by Trump-like conservative politics. “Believe our Trump derangement syndrome, not your lying eyes,” they seem to say. 

Reuters reported the story about Biden wandering off at the G7 as “lacking context.” Meanwhile, his inability to finish sentences was “contextualized” as a mere stutter. 

Jake Tapper, one of the authors of the book “Original Sin,” which sheds light on the extent of Biden's mental infirmity, was himself one of the original apologists for Biden's cognitive decline. A few good mainstream pundits on MSNBC question the co-author on Tapper's own complicity. 

Video. Alex Thompson, MSNBC, May 26, 2025.

That was some good questioning. And I got to say, I don't think we need medical degrees to be able to accurately observe what was going on with Joe Biden. We didn't need this new book to know the truth either. Independent media, along with the voters, knew what was been going on for years. 

Biden's midterm rating was worse than any other elected president on record and, back in August 2023, polls show that 77% of Americans, including 69% of Democrats, thought Biden was too old to be president. But Democrats wouldn't listen. Or rather, they simply didn't care. 

Now, as part of the media's effort to whitewash its own complicity, the same media figures who were involved in the cover-up are claiming, well, they had to defend Biden's mental competency because no one else primaried him. They were stuck with him as a candidate. This, even as the party shut down the possibility of a primary from the jump. 

Contrast former DNC chair, Jamie Harrison, making that incredible claim that anyone could have primaried Biden if they wanted to, followed by Biden/Harris spokesperson turned MSNBC “journalist,” Symone Sanders, proclaiming that under no circumstances will there be a primary. 

Video. Jaime Harrisson, Symone Sander, MSNBC. 

“If folks wanted to primary Joe Biden, there was nobody to tell them that they couldn't?” Is he serious? The mendacity is frankly shocking. As Symone admitted, Dean Phillips and Marianne Williamson did throw their hats in the ring, as said RFK Jr., and you can hear how much respect they got for doing so reflected in Symone's smite tone and her inability to pronounce Marianne's name. Then don't forget, RFK Jr. also ran as a Democrat before the party pushed about and it's no surprise why he left the Dems.

 The Democratic Party, its pundits and politicians, were simply all behind Joe Biden, no matter how ill-fated his electoral chances were from the get-go. And while they want to memory hole their role in setting Dems up to fail, I have the receipts. 

Take “Pod Save America,” one of the most popular liberal podcasts in the country. These former Obama speech writers turned media moguls finally admitted that Biden wasn't fit to lead after Biden's disastrous debate with Trump. But the hindsight is 2020. Listen to how hostile they were in conversation with moderate primary candidate, Democrat Dean Phillips, when he joined their show during the primary season that wasn't. 

Video. Phillips, Pod Save America. November 20, 2023.

Phillips and I do not share the same politics, but he was right. At a certain point, internal polls show that Biden could not win. According to “Original Sin,” the Jake Tapper book, Biden traded trails rather in every battleground state, and the race that tightened in states he won comfortably back in 2020. But the voters don't matter, the polls don't matter, not to Democrats. What matters to the Democratic Party elites is who they choose to top the ticket. 

As Bernie Sanders’s former national press secretary in 2020, I know this all too well. In two back-to-back election cycles, the Democratic Party ignored polls that showed Bernie was more electable than Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden against Donald Trump. 

Now, this is not some Monday morning quarterbacking from a disgruntled leftist. Democratic Party insider Donna Brazile admitted the primary was rigged back in 2017.

Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson admit as much in “Original Sin.”  They admit it! The election was rigged. But even with all of the faux mea culpas happening around Biden's lack of mental fitness, the Democrats STILL refuse to act any differently going forward, to learn a lesson from their past mistakes. Tapper and Thompson write that Bernie was perceived to be unable to attract Black voters, but Bernie was the only candidate in 2020 who matched Biden's popularity with that group, while also outstripping the field when it came to Latino voters

Bernie remains popular. Not only have he and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez been turning out tens of thousands of voters across the country during their anti-oligarchy tour, including in deep red states. Bernie's recent appearance on the “Flagrant” podcast, with Andrew Schultz, had a whole room of popular podcast “Bros” clamoring for the exact “democratic socialism” establishment Dems insisted would turn off the public!

Everybody's saying it. Look, it seems obvious that left populism is the way for Democrats to push back against Trump's right populism, which unfortunately, is increasingly informed by the tech billionaires that fund his campaign rather than the working-class real populists who voted him into office. You've got to ask yourself, is pardoning reality TV stars convicted of tax fraud really improving your ability to support your family? 

What about growing the military budget (and the deficit) at the same time while cutting special education funding? 

What about shifting wealth from the bottom 60% of working-age households to the top income brackets? 

Look, no matter what your politics are, two parties that are competing for the support of working-class Americans instead of aligning with corrupt billionaires would be a good thing! But you can't convince someone of something they're paid not to understand. Which is why Democrats are, instead of embracing popular policies like Medicare for all or a tax on billionaires, are choosing to spend millions of dollars to figure out how to, get this, speak to American men. I really wish I were kidding here.

You really can't make this stuff up. Dems are obsessed with finding the Joe Rogan of the left, but they could not be barking up a wronger tree. 

Hilariously, they seem to be tapping one of their most insidious surrogates, Oliva Juliana, to “message better” on men while continuing to treat Sanders – the man who was literally endorsed by the actual Joe Rogan back in 2020 – as a pariah. 

Video. James Carville, The Daily Beast. May 2025.

To be clear, Carville hasn't won an election since Bill Clinton in the ‘90s, but I digress. 

The reason why Democrats’ mission to find their own Joe Rogan will fail is obvious: to be a credible interlocutor in the political space, you have to be willing to say the true thing when it's hard, even when it is critical of your party. Especially when it's critical of your party. The popular “Manosphere” podcaster, Andrew Schultz, gets it. 

Video. Andrew Schultz, Flagrant.  May 28, 2025.

Even on MSNBC, a guest of Ayman's show was also able to identify the core issue here. 

Video. Ayman Mohyeldin, MSNBC. May 24, 2025.

See, right there at the end is a great summary of the impossibility of what Democrats think they're going to achieve. “We need an authentic voice that's going to become popular organically, and we need to control them.” 

Good luck with that, Democrats. Good luck with that. 

AD_4nXd1whDrOlAuKnJGzyVcYLjG4CwFNKNudYodjWTHSZ3uIZ_IA80QZCgCiwNyj0MZrJ5mP7m8nbgLJlIVb2O69WvRP_zaPYL7gCcUsGsrm0eHTlV2iBI9jn_zKUOTUi_uyEThNWmU2298UQieL9EgYQI?key=c5V_hySTnoyfhfcJ7OVvmg

Briahna Joy Gray: Back with Katie Halper. You know her from the “Katie Halper” podcast and as co-host of “Useful Idiots” with Aaron Maté. Welcome to System Update. 

Katie Halper: Thanks, Brie. Thanks for having me. Excited to be here. 

Briahna Joy Gray: Katie, it's a pleasure. I can't wait to pick your brain about some of the viral clips, especially from the sort of Manosphere podcast arena that have gone viral precisely because of how well Bernie Sanders himself and his ideas have translated into his sphere, that Democrats have insisted were so right-wing and so far gone, and they spent so many years vilifying but now seem to be trying to enter into those kinds of spaces. What do you make of it? 

Katie Halper: I think it's funny because, of course, Bri, not to be self-promoting, but they're searching for the – what is it? – left-wing Joe Rogan. What about Briahna Joy Gray and Katie Halper to take the mantle? 

It is ironic that the same people who were throwing Bernie under the bus, smearing him, attacking him, are now saying that he has some kind of messaging that's good for the democrats. There's always this obsession with messaging over content and program, but that's kind of another issue. 

I think people continue to smear Bernie Sanders but to the extent that they are praising him, they're praising him now because they know he's not going to run. So, I think they think it's safe for them to praise his ideas because they actually are either just paying lip service to it or they are afraid of Bernie's more progressive stances that challenge the status quo. 

Briahna Joy Gray: Yeah. I think that really gets to the core of the issue that the Democratic Party for years has managed to try to frame themselves as somehow different than the establishment wing of the Republican Party, despite having, substantively, the same corporate donors by leaning and going all in on identity politics.

There's been a backlash against that. They're saying, okay, well, now we've got to find some other messaging prong when the whole reason why they went all in on identity politics and now we're going all in this idea that they just get the right man who's lift enough weights to say the right thing that they will also be able to compete, it's because they're allergic, their corporate base makes them allergic to actually advancing the kind of ideas that made Bernie popular in the first place acting like this guy was somehow a ball of charisma as much as I liked his sort of like a grumpy straightforward persona. He wasn't winning hearts and minds because he was a charm generator. It was because, as Joe Rogan himself said when he was endorsing Bernie Sanders back in 2020, he's a man who's been saying the same thing for the last 40 years, and he has credibility. He's trustworthy. And it's amazing to rewatch that endorsement now that the Democrats are in the middle of this incredible credibility crisis. 

I want to ask you specifically about this book, “Original Sin,” by Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson. I don't know if you had seen that clip before, that super cut that Ayman put together on MSNBC of Jake Tapper doing exactly what is sort of criticized in this book, although I will say this book stays away mostly from media criticism and focuses on the idea that it was Biden in his inner circle that knew the truth and were just lying to everybody else and everybody else was sort of deceived by them, including the liberal media. What do you make of that sort of framing there? Is Jake Tapper really innocent in all of this? 

Katie Halper: I mean, I joke that Jake Tapper was well-positioned to write a book about a cover-up because he participated in the cover-up. So, he does probably have some inside knowledge and real insight into it. But no, I mean, you alluded to this and the mashup that I'm in proves this. Jake Tapper was doing the exact kind of cover-up and running of interference that you and I have commented on the media doing for Joe Biden, for the DNC, for centrist Democrats, that we know that they do, they love to do. And so, it is rich seeing someone who participated in that cover-up profiting off of a book about a cover-up and he's hawking that product on his shows and on the various CNN shows that he appears on and all the appearances he's been doing. And I think at the end, once again, it's fine for people to have the eureka moments in hindsight. Somehow, it never happens in real time. And he keeps making these media appearances and talking about how he has a great humility, and his co-writer talks about the humility, which is, I guess, as close as to a mea culpa that we'll get, but that's not, I'm always so frustrated when people say humility like they always do these humble brags. I'm truly humbled by, insert whatever praise, so that's just a little pet peeve I have with that word. 

But, yeah, I think that Jake Tapper, like much of the media, keeps making the same mistakes. They're warmongers for every war. I mean, the cover-up, is disgusting but another disgusting thing is that he has spread so many lies about Palestinians and has run so much interference, much like he ran so much interference for the Biden campaign, he's running so much interference for IDF and he and Dana Bash have done such a disgusting job at vilifying Palestinians, Palestinian Americans like Rashida Tlaib, but all Palestinians, and taking every single rumor and fabricating a narrative and running with it and never correcting it. 

Tapper and Dana Bash pushed the mass rape Hamas narrative that has been totally debunked; they've never corrected it and, at the same time, they've ever once acknowledged the fact that there's video footage of Israeli soldiers raping a Palestinian,  – what I would call hostage, what our media calls prisoner or detainee, but I think, to be consistent we should say hostage – and it's one thing to push a debunked narrative and never correct it, but at least acknowledge the fact that we do know of people who are raped by Israelis, but the fact they don't acknowledge that and that this is something that mainstream Israeli media covers shows that they really don't care about sexual violence. They don't about rape and they're happy to be doing PR for a genocidal state. 

Briahna Joy Gray: Yeah, I think it's a really…

Katie Halper: Sorry, we're talking about cover-ups, but they're related. 

Briahna Joy Gray: No, I think that's a really important point because there is something deeply ironic and dissonant about Jake Tapper in particular. I don't know that Alex Thompson and it could be similarly described as hypocritical, but Jake Tapper for sure, go doing the press rounds about a cover-up while still actively participating in a misinformation campaign, at least as significant as the lies about the Steele dossier or claiming that Hunter Biden's laptop was misinformation. I mean, someone else had another super cut sort of juxtaposing what he's saying now about Hunter Biden with what he said back then about Hunter Biden and framing any and every criticism of Joe Biden or just observation from people who actually love Joe Biden, that doesn't seem to be up to his best, he's not the same Joe Biden who was vice president back in 2008/2012 cycles, as somehow being Trumpy as though supporting Donald Trump, even if that were your perspective, precludes you from seeing the truth with your own eyes. And Katie, this is what's so frustrating about Democrats, and frankly, my concern with some folks on the left who seem to be taking this sort of measured praise for the enthusiasm Bernie and AOC are capturing on these anti-oligarchy tours and predicting that there's going to be real change to the Democratic Party this time, how optimistic are you that we're likely to see the Democrats learning from the lessons of the past? And if not, why aren't you optimistic? 

Katie Halper: Right. Yeah, I mean, I think that, unfortunately, the Democrats would really rather lose to Trump than have someone like Bernie in power. But you're asking a slightly different question, right? You're kind of saying, well, what suggests that the Democrats will deliver anything, even with this good messaging that Bernie and AOC are bringing? And certainly, they leave a lot to be desired when it comes to Gaza, but, sure, on economic issues, Bernie, especially, is excellent. 

I think that the problem is, and you've spoken a lot about this, Bri, it's great to have fresh ideas, fresh policies, fresh but also consistent. I mean, as you alluded to earlier, Bernie's been saying the same thing for decades and that is something that I think has endears him justifiably to lots of people. But the question is, will the Democratic Party actually allow for any of these policies to take hold? [audio problems]

So, there's a lot of rotating villain phenomenon, right? 

So, I think that the Democrats really love to pretend that they can't get things done, that they'd love to get things done. But the truth is they just don't want to get them done. They don't want to see these things because they're as beholden to their donors as the Republicans are, they're just better on social issues often. And to the extent that they're better on social issues, they certainly are willing to sacrifice these social issues in the name of fundraising, which is why, for instance, neither Obama nor Biden codified Roe v. Wade. 

Briahna Joy Gray: Yeah. I’m glad you brought up Roe v. Wade because I have more optimistic folks, left side of the aisle saying, “Oh, no, this didn't waste strategy, whatever you think of it, it's likely to work” because look at how well Joe Biden did in midterms.” And I think in retrospect, and I think some of us at the time reported that we suspected that there was not a red wave in 2022, it was not a signal that voters were actually secretly happy with Joe Biden. Polls at the time showed, as I said in my radar, that he had historically low favorability at that time. What people were coming out to vote for was not Joe Biden; it was for Roe v. Wade. It was to express their discontent with Roe being overturned and anti-abortion laws being put into effect in all the country. And a lot of red states like Kansas, bipartisan majorities came out to defend those kinds of formerly constitutional rights. 

I want to ask you, though, about this particular clip where Chuck Todd, even someone who is very much an establishment pundit, seems to think and maybe even seems to hope that there will, unlike 2024, when the Democrats completely shut down a primary, that there will not just be a primary, but that there'll be independent third-party style candidates, a la RFK Jr., running in that race. Let's take a look. 

Video. Chuck Todd, The Chuck Toddcast. May 27, 2025.

Briahna Joy Gray: I don't even know where to start with that, Katie. Why a military guy? Why this Bill McRaven person, who apparently is the former chancellor of the University of Texas system? And why the optimism that we're going to have someone operating outside of the two-party system, from this person who is very much an establishment pundit? 

Katie Halper: Right. And who really, I think, took part in a mocking of third-party candidates that so much of the corporate media took part in. I think that it's interesting you asked about why it has to be a military figure. And I think this speaks to how much the media and our political elites are so obsessed with optics and messaging and so inattentive to substance. So, it's not about what this person's going to offer. It's not about the changes that they're going to bring to people's lives in any qualitative or meaningful way. It's about whether they can tap into people's, I don't know, like, crushes on military figures or tap into our militaristic society. It does have a bizarre obsession, I think, with optics that, again, I think is because no one who is powerful, no political or media elites actually want to see real changes. So, they just want to have kind of like different presentations that get people excited, but nobody wants to see the actual changes happen. 

Briahna Joy Gray: Yes. It’s a different kind of identity politics. It's the same thing as, like, yeah, like the Joe Rogan of the left thing. It's like they think that they can find a podcaster who lifts enough weights. I guess that's why we're just disqualified Katie. We're not, we don't lift heavy… 

Katie Halper: Yeah, I know. I do a lot of repetition of light weights, right? 

Briahna Joy Gray: Right. It's totally vibe-based. 

Now look, of course, there is a, like a substantive claim for having a veteran, but I think it also misses the mainstream pundits' missing how much we are in a sort of anti-interventionist/isolationist/anti-war moment in both parties. And that's exactly why someone like Trump, who definitely ran as an anti-interventionist and didn't start any new wars, at least in his first term, was so popular. So them saying a military guy, I mean, I think someone like Matthew Ho, who ran on the Green Party for a Senate in North Carolina some years back, could be exactly that kind of guy because he served and learned from his service exactly why we shouldn't be sending troops to fight pointless wars and ruining lives all because young kids see no other avenue to access things like healthcare and a quality education. That could be your guide, but we know Chuck Todd isn't going to throw his hat in behind a Green Party leftist, kind of Bernie-style candidate like Matthew Ho. 

Katie Halper: Right. I mean, I think you're right that it would be great to have a military figure who was anti-war. I mean those are extremely powerful voices and they have a lot of credibility and, of course, more importantly they're anti-war which is something that wins votes, but also is obviously good for the planet and good for all people on the planet, except for people who work in the arms industry and people who support genocide. 

But I think that it is interesting to see people again, the very same people, who, I mean, I think it was Chuck Todd who said Bernie Sanders would get “hammered and sickled,” he actually said that to him, see them act poetic about working outside of the duopoly. They acknowledge that the two-party system doesn't work, but what were they doing except for running interference for this two-party system? 

Briahna Joy Gray: Yeah, absolutely. And just as the final nail in the coffin, which is perhaps a metaphor, now that I said it out loud, that's in poor taste. If we pull up the graphic, a significant number of Democrats who have quite literally died in office, a margin that would have prevented the Democrats or enabled the Democrats to block the passage of Biden's big, beautiful budget bill in the House had they stayed alive. 

AD_4nXdo--gKTy48kpd7liE8NEvuAhA_ggERGbusokm_wUD4t_hqSInsgI2qeOvCDq-l8uR1iXhDRHiQXkkhvQ4y8MxncNsifUl7UPnnE2jOUBiVImCUMh5lW7SuIh4KTk9VWDqD99Vnzk4tTsgOXdS8-A?key=c5V_hySTnoyfhfcJ7OVvmg

Now, remember, DNC vice chair David Hogg got an enormous amount of pushback simply saying you wanted to start a pack that funded challengers to incumbents, observing accurately that younger members of the party like AOC and people who are outsiders like Bernie Sanders are the ones that have managed to capture whatever energy is left in the husk of the Democrat Party. And for that, Democrat elites have rallied the ranks to literally push him out of his position at the DNC and are frankly using sort of identity politics as a lever to get him out. Even as Democrats are unable to whip sufficient votes to block win priorities, precisely because their members are so old and enfeebled that they are quite literally dying in office. What do you make of it? 

Katie Halper: Yeah, I mean, of course, the final nail in the coffin was the perfect turn of phrase. But what better represents the narcissism and selfishness and moribund nature of the Democrats than the way that they are refusing to resign? Because, again, the Democrats are constantly fearmongering – and I want to be clear, I mean, Trump is something to be feared. I mean, he's not an anti-war candidate. He is terrible for many reasons.  The Democrats often criticize him for the things that aren't even that bad, which is another irony. But they say he's an existential threat, he's a fascist and yet if they're so worried about this, why don't they retire so that they have a better chance of having someone from the Democratic Party who can vote against his bill? I mean literally, his bill passed because Democrats refused to resign despite having been very sick or old. It reminds me also of the way that if Kamala Harris cared so much about defeating Trump, if this was the most important election ever, then why didn't she listen to the base, which was clamoring for her to depart from Biden on several issues and most notably on Gaza. We know now from someone who worked with her, it was because she didn't want to be rude, and it's not, it's gauche to depart from your president's policies when you're the running mate. 

We also know that Joe Biden said, I don't want any daylight between us, kid. And so, for Biden, his legacy, much like these Democrats who are dying in office, their legacies are more important than defeating Trump and Trumpism or helping the people that they claim to serve. For Kamala, I guess, ruffling feathers was more important– or not upsetting donors, or not being able to run around with Liz Cheney, or not incurring the wrath of AIPAC. So, it just belies the whole claim that this is something that is an existential threat. 

I think that I mean we are facing existential threats. We're facing existential threats that neither party is willing to deal with, especially when it comes to climate change. But it's very hard to convince people that you're taking this seriously as an existential threat when you don't do the minimal things needed to either win an election or prevent a Republican from taking your seat in the case of people who are not resigning. 

Briahna Joy Gray: Yeah, it's really hard, frankly, to see in concurrent election cycles the voting population stand up and clearly, clearly be clamoring for a legitimate, sincere populism. I mean, the outrage around inflation, cost of living, housing prices, gas prices, food prices, education prices. These are the sectors that are driving inflation and which are causing life to be so precarious for so many Americans and it's nice now that Democrats are like acknowledging that economic precarity, economic anxiety is a real thing because for I don't know like eight years after the 2015-2016 cycle they acted if you said well yeah people voted for Trump because of economic anxiety they said that oh that's just racism that's just a synonym for racism we won't take that argument so now they're finally embracing it and trying to say we're going to do a Joe Rogan sort of a situation. But again, they're not backing any of those policies. You're still getting Democrats out here arguing against baseline things like raising the minimum wage, which hasn't been raised since Bush was in office. The longest period without a minimum wage raise since it was invented in like the 1930s.

And meanwhile, Americans are struggling. So this huge lane is opening up. Meanwhile, on the right side of the aisle, I think people who voted for Donald Trump in good faith hoping that he was going to follow the sort of banded wing of his party and do real economic populism are seeing that Bannon is engaged in a battle with the other wing of the party that frankly bought the election, the tech wing, the Elon Musk's, the Marc Andreessen's, the folks who are very openly saying, “We need to do AI, we need to put the public out of business, we're going to make all of these arguments that legitimize defunding the welfare state that so many Americans, including so many American in very low-income red states in the South and elsewhere, are relying upon to survive.”

And we can do that because we literally bought this election. And I'm afraid that that tech wing, the billionaire wing, who has no alignment and interest with the working-class in this country, most of whom are frankly not even American or relatively recent transplants are going to win out and it's going to be too late for a genuine populism to actually restore a democracy that reflects people's values. What do you think? 

Katie Halper: I think it's a justifiable fear. And I think what you're saying it really does ring true. Again, we've seen in the cases of the leadership of both parties, we have seen a real embrace of anti-populism, right? And one of the most frustrating things was to see people equate Bernie Sanders with Donald Trump because there's a big difference between actual populism and pseudo populism, just like there's a big difference between being anti-war and being pseudo-anti-war. And Trump is great at appealing to populist sentiments. But of course, he's not someone who cares about the working class, the middle class. He is someone who, in some ways, is more dangerous than traditional Republicans because he talks a good talk. He knows how to sound like he's a populist. He knows how to sound like he's against the status quo. But of course, in some ways, the most dangerous thing to have is someone who substantively is status quo, but performatively and stylistically is not. 

Briahna Joy Gray: Yeah, it is interesting to see float things like, we’re going to do a tax on the rich, right? But then walk it back. And you can read that in a couple of different ways. You can say Donald Trump is just a bad faith actor. He never met in the first place, or you can write it as, well, he actually is the one who's got a good sense of what the wind is blowing and what the base wants. And maybe he would be happy to do a little bit. He's a billionaire himself.  I wouldn't take it too far that he was willing, would be willing to do too redistributive justice to return the hard working, increased productivity of the working-classes back into their pockets the way that it was 50 years ago or so before a bunch of laws redistributed it to the very top, including Trump's own 2017 tax cuts. I won't take it too far, but there's a way you could read it that says, well, maybe Trump did get a sense that you need bread and roses. You need to get the masses a little bit to keep them on your team and that the corporate interests within his own party won't even let him do the bare minimum. And so, it's not clear to me how much there is a real war between the Steve Bannon's who seem to be more genuinely committed to working-class politics, even if it's also mixed in with sort of a nativism and some other unsavory aspects that I personally don't agree with. And this is like the raw, open, we don't need workers anymore. We're going to do AI, we're going to feed you cricket slop and you're going to like it, we don't even need humanity, we're to be on the moon types. And like my concern, I don't know how to read it, but if I had to pick, I would much rather the Steve Bannon's – I can't believe I'm saying this, but I would rather the Steve Bannon’s wing of the Republican Party went out. The problem is the Steve Banning wing of the Republican Party didn't spend half a billion dollars electing Donald Trump. 

Katie Halper: Right. And I think he also doesn't appeal to certain segments, demographically speaking, who are very powerful. I mean, again, I think that it is kind of a funny thing to say, I hope that Steve Bannon wins. But of course, I do think that populists, you can work across the aisle with economic populists on certain issues, whereas there's nothing you can work with Elon Musk types about, right? They are scarier in many ways, and their policies are scarier, and there's very little overlap between the populist left and the populist right, to the extent that you can even have a populist right. But yeah, certainly I think that the Elon Musk wing is more frightening than the, I mean, they're both frightening, but yeah, I guess if. I mean, Bri, you're not someone who likes the lesser of two evils, but maybe that's the furthest I can say is that Steve Bannon is the lesser of two evils when it comes to the Bannon wing or the Elon Musk wing. 

Briahna Joy Gray: Amen to that. I can't disagree, Katie. I really appreciate your willingness to talk through some of this with me. This was cathartic for me because watching all of this happen in real time has been difficult. I appreciate the opportunity to talk about it with you, talk about it here on Glenn's amazing platform, and to continue to follow the Democrats' self-destruction cycle and incredible cope over their complicity and the great Biden cover-up. Thank you, Katie.

Katie Halper: Thank you, Thanks, Bri. Thanks Glenn.

Read full Article
post photo preview
Glenn Takes Your Questions on the Trump Admin's War with Harvard, Fallout from Wednesday's DC Killing, and More; Plus: Lee Fang on Epstein's Dark Legacy in the USVI
System Update #460

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_4nXfZ35Onr3PIkolV7wl58VFyzpeDm5re6EnjVDqRPEXx9FQXmIXQnlKudIIsEIR5MGd8WkCOTLjtNdCmMsZnEQ52DwZM0AQduhNGUwDVVp_QZl8jiF2Jhd3gKbRJXC_5WUT9k5x2k_vEBV0spNdfcwA?key=FQVwqSW7NJ8CuINptXnLyw

Tonight: There was major news this week, and we always try to devote our Friday night show to covering as much of that as possible, both through our “Week in Review” segment as well as the Q&A session, where we take questions from our Locals members and get to as many of them as we can. As always, we have a wide range of very probing questions from our followers on Locals – I'd expect nothing less from my viewers – and we'll try to answer as many of those as we can. 

Before we do that, we talk to the friend of the show, the intrepid independent journalist, Lee Fang, about numerous issues this week, including a new article he published on his Substack which investigates how officials in the Virgin Islands, where Jeffrey Epstein's notoriously bought that island, have been fraudulently profiting from victim funds and the residue from his presence. 

AD_4nXfZ35Onr3PIkolV7wl58VFyzpeDm5re6EnjVDqRPEXx9FQXmIXQnlKudIIsEIR5MGd8WkCOTLjtNdCmMsZnEQ52DwZM0AQduhNGUwDVVp_QZl8jiF2Jhd3gKbRJXC_5WUT9k5x2k_vEBV0spNdfcwA?key=FQVwqSW7NJ8CuINptXnLyw

Our guest tonight to help us go over some news events of the week as well as some investigative reporting that he has published this week, is a good friend of the show the independent journalist I've worked with at The Intercept, who has been published in many places now. He has one of the best Substack pages in the country where he does his investigative journalism and commentaries, Lee Fang.  

G. Greenwald: Lee, it’s always great to see you. 

Lee Fang: Hey Glenn, great to see you. Thanks for having me. 

G. Greenwald: Yeah, so I want to start with the murder of these two Israeli embassy officials in Washington. We did a whole show on it last night, but the fallout sort of continues. 

I don't think we need to go into the question of whether there was any moral justness to these murders. I don't think any moral framework that I at least I recognize as valid suggests that anything other than unjust and horrific but there are a lot of attempts to exploit these murders beyond just expressing grief for the victims or condemnation for the shooter, including, essentially, immediately attempting to suggest that anyone who criticizes Israel or its war in Gaza in some sort of harsh way, or over some imaginary arbitrary line, is responsible for the killing as much as the shooter is, if not more so, and therefore we need to do something about that because that's spawning antisemitism and endangerment for Jews. What's your reaction to all that? 

Lee Fang: Look, I'm concerned about the kind of creeping martyrdom politics that have been coming into our system really for the last few decades. We see it more and more escalating on both the far left and the far right, whether it's far left activists seizing upon every kind of video of a police killing to make broad assumptions about the American criminal justice system and to engage in riots and calls for abolishing police, whether the far right who grab hold of any kind of immigrant crime or immigrant murder to say that we need to deport all immigrants or engage in some kind of draconian crackdown on immigrants. 

Now, we see this kind of increasingly in our Israel-Palestine debate where partisans are seizing upon this heinous crime that happened just a few days ago and really weaponizing it to engage in some type of collective punishment for their political opposition to claim all people who support peace in Palestine, justice or equal rights in that region, are somehow guilty of violence, that this act of political violence reflects on every American who supports peace or a cease-fire in Gaza. I mean, it's a little bit absurd, but it's kind of a continuation of this cycle of saying we want collective punishment on our political enemies, we want to weaponize any kind of tragic death into a partisan football, or just or partisan cudgel, to beat our political opponents. 

G. Greenwald: I actually started noticing it for the first time, I think, back in like 2005, 2006, right when I created my blog, started writing about politics. At the time, there was this blogger who was very pro-War on Terror, like very much of the view that we are at war with Islam after 9/11. Ironically, he became a sort of liberal resistance. His name was Charles Johnson. He wrote a blog called The Little Green Footballs. And one of the things he would do every day when he was in like his War on Terror fanatical stage was he had a daily occurring segment or a weekly occurring segment and he would title it “Religion of Peace” and he just published some sort of random robbery or burglary or assault or rape or violent crime that some Muslim somewhere in the world engaged in and thought that because he was constantly doing it, it was somehow making this point about Muslims in general being a menace. 

Obviously, you can do that to any race. You could do that to black people, you could do that to white people, you could do that to Christians, you could do that with Muslims, you can do that to Jews. When I recently was condemning or objecting to Matt Walsh, who went on Tucker Carlson to say it's better to leave kids in foster care and orphanages than to allow them to be adopted by same sex couples, I remember all these people replying to me, would show me stories about gay men molesting children and for everyone that they could show me, I could show them 20+ uncles molesting nieces at the age of five or some father molesting his daughter. It's such a stupid obviously, fallacious way to try to demonize a certain group of people and, obviously, the minute something like last night happens, we're supposed to believe that anyone now who condemns the war in Gaza is somehow a homicidal maniac or wants to kill Jews or wants to be antisemitic even though you can find literally every day Israel supporters in the United States saying the most nauseating things about Gazans. 

I mean, you can find Israeli officials in the last week saying Gazan babies are enemies because they grow up to be terrorists; “There's no such thing as innocent Gazans,” one official said we should segregate all the women and babies and children in Gaza and put them on one side and then put all the men 13 and above, so “13-year-old men,” they were calling them, and put then on another side and just execute all the men. It's such sophistry to try to argue this way, and yet it's done so often. 

Lee Fang: All connects back to my previous point that these are emotional arguments. They're not logical, they're not rational, they're certainly not empirical. It's very emotionally arresting when you see one of these police shooting videos. Often, they're without context, but even if the cop was in the wrong and was doing something unjust, that doesn't reflect on the millions of police-civilian interactions and all the thousands of different police jurisdictions that have completely different rules in training people will make sweeping assumptions about American policing after one of these very emotional videos. The same for an immigrant killing an American. You can see why someone could say that's unjust. This person was not supposed to be there, they're guests in our home and they're out killing or raping individuals, therefore, all immigrants are criminals or dangerous. It's that type of argument, and it's just being driven into overdrive with social media, with the kind of incentives around war. 

You have very well-financed pro-Israel advocacy groups. It's not just AIPAC, the super PAC and lobbying group, but dozens of other pro-Israel advocacy groups spending tens of millions of dollars per year pushing the U.S. foreign policy in one direction. So, for them to have this very tragic event that they can weaponize and use against their political opponents, they continue this push so that the U.S. stands in lockstep support of the Israeli government. Of course, that's what they'll do, but this is kind of an escalation we've seen in society over many years. It's just this dynamic that is very tribal, that is crude. It kind of appeals to the most basic instinct among us, and it really should be rejected. 

There are some principled Israel supporters and conservatives who have spoken out against this attempt to weaponize these tragic events, but it's really disappointing seeing people from across the board taking this and just saying, “We should have more censorship. We should support crackdowns on students. We should restrict speech. We should really support ethnic cleansing in Gaza because of it.” It is absurd. 

G. Greenwald: What makes it so much worse is, let's say, over the past decade, but especially as this kind of left-wing cultural war reached its apex with the word zenith, depending on your perspective with things like Me Too and then the Black Lives Matter riots of the fall of 2019, or 2020. Just then, the kind of wave that produced, of all sorts of language controls, taking premises to these completely preposterous conclusions. Most conservatives, in fact, almost by definition, were vehemently opposed to these sorts of victimhood narratives, these group-based grievances, these attempts to curb speech in the name that it made people uncomfortable or incited violence against them. And most of them, not all, but most of them, have now done an exact 180. 

All day yesterday, you heard people saying things like “There's systemic racism against Jews,” “Your speeches inciting antisemitism and bigotry.” Who knew that Donald Trump would be elected, and, within the first four months, his main cause and the main cause of his movement would be to declare a racism epidemic all around the world and the need to control speech to prevent it and protect these minority groups? 

It sounds very familiar, but just from a different direction. One of the people who was most vehemently opposed to this sort of left-wing oppression is Steven Pinker who was a very well-known biologist at Harvard and also a very vocal supporter of Israel but a very vocal critic of this sort of left-wing repression that has appeared on campuses and elsewhere. He has an article in The New York Times today that I thought was super interesting because it's also in the context of this attack by the Trump administration on Harvard and he said: “[…] For what it’s worth, I have experienced no antisemitism in my two decades at Harvard, and nor have other prominent Jewish faculty members. […] (The New York Times, May 23, 2025.)

So, we're talking here about this epidemic. I was reading some people yesterday, who were Jewish people in media, Jake Sherman was one, there were others, saying, “It's incredibly terrifying to be a Jew in America.” Not only did I live in the United States for, I think, 37 years, as an American Jew, and I'm there all the time. I've never once experienced an antisemitic assault or comments or anything like that, nor has anyone I know, and yet you're hearing this kind of wildly exaggerated set of claims about how Jews are endangered. 

So, he says: “My own discomfort instead is captured in a Crimson essay by the Harvard senior Jacob Miller, who called the claim that one in four Jewish students feels “physically unsafe” on campus “an absurd statistic I struggle to take seriously as someone who publicly and proudly wears a kippah around campus each day.” […] (The New York Times May 23, 2025.)

So that's not just a Jewish person, that's someone who wears a Kippah around campus every day and he's saying it's preposterous that people are saying there's some epidemic of antisemitism at Harvard. 

I mean, what he's basically saying there is that everything I thought I was supporting, fighting against when it was coming from the left, these group-based narratives, this attempt to restrict speech, this is a wild exaggeration of the danger of certain minority groups in the United States is now being flooding our discourse, from Israel supporters, he's making the point that it just sounds extremely familiar to him, but from the other direction. 

Lee Fang: Yeah, I mean, everything he's describing is pretty much accurate. The tools of wokeness that these kinds of studies claim astronomical levels of bigotry in society, you look back at 2020, a lot of Asian American groups claimed that anti-Asian hate crimes were skyrocketing. 

G. Greenwald: What was the name of that group? Stop Asian Hate? 

Lee Fang: Stop Asian Hate, yes, which was a spin out of Chinese for Affirmative Action. But this group, if you look carefully in their kind of footnotes of how they were quantifying anti-Asian hate, they were taking tweets that were critical of the lab leak theory or floating the lab leak theory that the COVID-19 virus might have come from Wuhan, China, and other kind of China critical tweets as examples of anti-Asian American hate crimes. So, they were grouping actual forms of violence, where, a lot of times, you don't know the intent. Perhaps someone of one race attacked someone else of another race. Is that a hate crime? It's context-dependent, but they were taking a broad brush on those. Then, they were juicing the numbers by taking tweets of something that they claimed was hateful, but turned out to be just a true fact, or likely a true fact, that the virus escaped from a bioweapons lab in China. 

Now, for the antisemitism kind of crisis or hysteria that we're in today, you look at the ADL and other pro-Israel advocacy groups at these studies that show a 300%, 500%, 1,000% increase in antisemitism. You look at the footnotes, and it's the exact same dynamic. It's folks who are critical of Israel in a completely neutral way, saying they just disagree with Israel's policies. That's deemed now antisemitic: groups like Jewish Voices for Peace, a Jewish-led leftist group that is critical of Israel's policies, holding rallies around the country. Each of these rallies in the ADL's report is tagged as an antisemitism hate event. So, that's how they're quantifying this gigantic, skyrocketing antisemitism problem. 

This would be laughably absurd if it weren't being weaponized and used by our government to crack down on speech and to defund science and medical research at universities around the country, but that's exactly what's happening. The Trump administration is citing these statistics and similar statistics when they're going after Harvard University and other universities, when they are cutting federal funding and when attempting to impose speech codes like the IHRA definition of antisemitism, which redefines antisemitism to include some criticism of Israel, and it's part of this kind of an investigation of Harvard around civil rights violations.

I mean if you zoomed out and just looked at the evidence, any normal person would laugh it off; any kind of ordinary person looking at what's been assembled as supposed examples of antisemitism are, you know, either incredibly minor or absolutely manufactured. And yet, this is the crisis that we're living in today. I wouldn't defend Harvard University on almost any other grounds. This is a school that acts like a hedge fund, that's accumulated huge amounts, that has deplatformed speakers in the past, that is kind of a platform for privilege, for billionaire donors to at times donate and get their kids into the school, and has engaged in some racial discrimination in the past, although the recent Supreme Court rulings on affirmative action have kind of rolled that back. Yet this current Trump administration attack, demanding that the school create safe spaces for Jewish students, create speech codes, preventing students from criticizing or even discussing Israeli policies, even getting rid of some of their departments that study the Middle East or study Israel's history or Palestinian history, I mean, it just kind of shocks  that they're doing this with absolutely no evidence. 

G. Greenwald: I mean, the idea that Harvard is some place that's hostile to Jews is almost as funny as that time the ADL issued a statement saying it's time for Hollywood to include Jews in their pro-diversity policies because Jews have been excluded for long enough from Hollywood and you just can't believe it's even being said. 

By the way, the thing that you mentioned about COVID drove me very crazy at the time and to this very day when I think about it, it still drives me crazy, which was It was really the Lancet letter, the proximal causes, notorious Lancet Letter that decreed well before they had any idea if it was remotely true what they were saying, that we know for certain that COVID came from the zoonotic leap, from animal to human, and that any attempt to suggest that it came from a lab leak in Wuhan was essentially racist and like an attack on our Chinese colleagues or whatever. Then, it immediately became canon that anyone who even raised the possibility that it might've come from a lab leak was being racist against Chinese people. 

The New York Times COVID reporter who became the COVID reporter when the real COVID reporter got fired because he said some things that upset a bunch of very wealthy teenagers whose parents paid for them to go on a field trip to Peru or something with him and they were offended by what he said, and so he got fired. So, they put this woman in, and she said one day we're going to grapple with the fact that this lab leak theory is racist, but I guess today is not the day. 

One always drove me so crazy about this. Besides the fact that who cares what theory was racist about where COVID came from? Like, all that mattered was what the truth was? Who cares which theory was more racist? It was like, where did it actually come from? But the idea that it was somehow more racist to say that COVID came from a highly sophisticated research lab in Wuhan, funded and partnered with the United States than saying, “Oh, Chinese people have these disgusting, filthy, primitive eating habits where they consume these filthy bats in wet markets and therefore got the coronavirus because they were the ones who were just eating things they shouldn't,” like the far more racist theory was the one they were insisting on, to this day insist on. It just always drove me crazy. Of course, the overwhelming evidence now is that it did come from that lab leak funded by the United States. 

All right, let me ask you about this article you wrote in your Substack

AD_4nXeLkopca_znSSmhV5Y-hGVvqRsIlmHyVHhsXZjwB3KWsOx2ikBh_hmh-LSs9JgQZFlfXCq1NPomYgXtooIHs88lcfDF8aWO1hKx65tc--IZmTKhRTD7QjblEMv1LDV7KsCy4eV2i-6rCYs5m6VBPj0?key=FQVwqSW7NJ8CuINptXnLyw

So, I think it's a little bit self-explanatory, but you go into some really disturbing and interesting detail about what these funds that were set up for Jeffrey Epstein's victims and how much opportunity there was for Virgin Islands officials to profit from their protection that they gave him. What is it that you've been finding? 

Lee Fang: Yeah, so the Jeffrey Epstein saga is still not solved. There are still many unanswered questions. In February, the Trump administration promised to release unredacted files. The FBI, when they raided Jeffrey Epstein’s homes in 2018, collected CD-ROMs, other recordings, binders, all these files that remain unreleased to this day. They're sitting in a warehouse, the FBI warehouse in Winchester, Virginia and still, nothing has really been released. 

The documents that were supposedly released by the Trump administration were all previously released disclosures. There's nothing new there. My story takes a look at the other side of this, where the national media has really not paid attention. Many of the most important disclosures about Jeffrey Epstein's political network, how he's paid off politicians, particularly politicians in the U.S. Virgin Islands, but also some politicians in the territorial U.S., were released very suddenly and briefly during a lawsuit in 2023 between J.P. Morgan and the Virgin Islands. 

This sudden disclosure was kind of accidental because the U.S. Virgin Islands was hoping to win some settlement money from these crimes, a form of accountability after his death. They really did not expect it, but J.P. Morgan hit back hard, and it countersued and alleged that the Islands' officials were far more complicit in Jeffrey Epstein's criminal operations. From those disclosures, we got hundreds of emails, depositions, and other documents showing how Jeffrey Epstein kind of methodically paid off local politicians, customs agents, various governors and law enforcement agents to receive exemptions from the sex offender list in the Virgin Islands to travel back and forth. As he was bringing young girls, aged between 12 and 15, to his island, customs agents saw that and looked the other way, they refused to check on their safety. There's really just a litany of red flags he was raising, and yet he was paying off politicians to allow him to run his criminal enterprise. 

This piece kind of looks at how the governor, Albert Bryan, closed that window of disclosure. He quickly settled the lawsuit, he fired the attorney general, leading the JP Morgan lawsuit, he later replaced the attorney with one of Epstein's own lawyers, who serves to this day in the U.S. Virgin Islands. He promised that this legal settlement money would be used to prevent another Epstein criminal enterprise by using it to counter human trafficking, sex abuse, and that type of thing. Instead, it's being used as a piggy bank. Legislators there don't know exactly how the money's being spent but for what we do know, it is going to backdate government wages, it's going to vendor payments, it's going to a series of earmarks refurbishing various buildings in the Virgin Islands. There's very little transparency on how this money is being used and it's an ultimate irony or perhaps an injustice that the governor, who now controls these funds, is almost a quarter billion dollars of money, was part and parcel to the Epstein enterprise. He was receiving regular donations and gifts from Epstein. He was the one responsible for giving Epstein special tax breaks and then later pushing for his exemption from the sex offender list. 

So, while we have this kind of national conversation about the Epstein saga, and it's mostly focused on these documents in Virginia that are held by the FBI, which deserve to be disclosed, there are still so many unanswered questions and a lack of accountability in the Virgin Islands. 

G. Greenwald: It's interesting, for the last four years during the Biden administration, the Epstein files, as they've been called, were a major topic on right-wing media, especially independent right-wing media. Two people in particular, who are very influential and popular in that realm, went around constantly talking about whether Jeffrey Epstein killed himself, the doubts about why we should think that, as well as just bashing the FBI every day for concealing the Epstein files. 

Those two people were Dan Bongino and Kash Patel, who are now the Assistant Director and the Director of the FBI. And they, I'm sure you saw them on Fox News earlier this week, and one of the questions they got was about the Epstein documents. The interviewer said, “Did Jeffrey Epstein kill himself? And they both said, “Yes, Jeffrey Epstein absolutely killed himself. We saw the documents.” They were very uncomfortable, but they're saying we saw the documents that prove he killed himself. 

Well, all of you, including Donald Trump, ran on the platform of making the Epstein files public. Why haven't we seen these documents that convinced them of that? But more so, I think the biggest, most interesting question in the Epstein case is, and always has been, “Was Jeffrey Epstein working with or for foreign intelligence agencies?” And it's a binary question. Maybe there's more complexity to it. 

But why is it, do you think, that after four, almost five months, in office, not just the Trump administration, but the very people who kind of built their reputation, in part, on banging the table about the Epstein files, about crushing and bashing Christopher Wray and the FBI for not releasing them, are now in charge of the FBI, and these documents are still not released; not a single one, that wasn't previously public has been released. 

Lee Fang: Well, I was in your program last year to discuss our lengthy investigation about why every […] that influence operation in the U.S., that attempts to change our laws, change who gets elected to Congress, affect American policy – there is an effort to enforce the Foreign Agent Registration Act, so that they disclose their lobbying activities, except for Israel. There is very ample evidence that the Israeli government – and its evidence from Israel, from Israeli news outlets and from Israeli investigations – shows that show Israeli government is pouring millions and millions of dollars over the last 10 years into influence operations in the U.S. and there's been a conscious effort to avoid far registration. 

The Epstein saga kind of raises many two-tier justice questions: one is just generally broadly about the wealthy in society because they were working with Epstein, facilitating his crimes, potentially engaging in sex crimes with him. They are kind of protected from scrutiny. If this were any ordinary American, any lower-class American, they could expect severe penalties and a severe form of justice, but because these are the rich and powerful, they do not receive the same level of scrutiny. Then, for your question around the Israel issue, there is… 

G. Greenwald: To be clear, I didn't say Israel. I just wondered whether he was working for any foreign intelligence agency. 

Lee Fang: Well, many would say that there might be an Israel issue. Interestingly enough, within the J.P. Morgan litigation, the kind of discovery process in some of the exhibits that were filed in the Virgin Islands case, many of the emails between former Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Jeffrey Epstein and some of his associates were disclosed in that litigation in 2023. It was really just an incredible window into Epstein's network. Many other emails of VIP individuals who received help from Jeffrey Epstein, who gave him donations or asked him to “manage their money,” even though it wasn't clear what he was doing with the money, or were traveling to his island, or to his New York home, these were details that were ferreted out from the J.P. Morgan case. Perhaps, again, that's why they moved so quickly to settle it, to close that case. But yes, I think just generally, whether it's Israel or another country… 

G. Greenwald: Maybe it's like Sweden, or Nigeria, but we should know. 

Lee Fang: We don't know, it could be Finland. It's really any of those Nordic countries, but the fact that we don't have these answers and they're sitting on servers, not just with the FBI, right? 

In just this countersuit from J.P. Morgan, they were able to get a huge amount of discovery from Epstein's servers, from his estate, from his associates. He had a close network, Richard Kahn, [Darren] Indyke, […], these three or four individuals who helped arrange many of his financial affairs and helped with the facilitation of his operations in this one little litigation, we were able to see kind of peer into his world. If the government wanted to, if this was a priority for either the Biden administration or the Trump administration, they could make it happen because these emails we know exist. 

G. Greenwald: And I think it's worth noting, and this to me is one of the most persuasive pieces of evidence, that when Jeffrey Epstein was convicted in 2010 in South Florida when he was trafficking minors into his home in West Palm Beach to have sex with them and eventually got caught, the U.S. Attorney in Miami, Alex Acosta, who eventually ended up in the Justice Department, is the one who presided over this extremely shockingly generous plea bargain he got where, I mean, his charges were sex trafficking minors. Everybody who does that goes to prison for a long, long time. And he basically got something like 12 months, six months in prison, a suspended sentence and like community service or whatever. And then he was done and he went back right to… 

Lee Fang: Yeah, he got to spend most of it at home, right? He didn't even spend much of the time. 

G. Greenwald: Right, he started at home. Exactly. Alex Acosta, years later, when asked, “Why would you give a sex trafficker of minors such an incredibly light sentence?” He said, “I was told that he was Intelligence and to leave him alone.” 

So, there's every reason to believe that he had some connection to foreign intelligence. There were a lot of people with whom he was a close associate, including Jelaine Maxwell, whose father, Robert Maxwell, was most definitely a Mossad member; Les Wexner, who is the multi-billionaire who made Jeffrey Epstein rich, who has all kinds of ties to Israel. A lot of people try to say, “Oh, it was probably Qatar.” They always try to say like, “Oh, the country that's really influencing our politics and buying our politics is Qatar.” That was something Bari Weiss just published. I have a feeling that if Jeffrey Epstein were working for Qatari intelligence, that was something we would know and have known very quickly. 

The fact that you have two very hawkish people on the Epstein question, Kash Patel and Dan Bongino, who have been running around for years demanding full disclosure, outraged that it's not coming, and now they're suddenly the ones running the FBI and yet there's still not a single document, not one, release that hadn't already been seen – they did that ridiculous, humiliating debate where they called those right-wing influencers like Libs of TikTok and others to the White House and they gave them binders that said, “Epstein files set - phase one” and they were all waving around that binder and it turned out every single document in that binder had been already publicly disclosed long ago – it does really start to make you wonder, doesn’t it? 

Lee Fang: Yeah, this reporting, these details have not been easy. Some of this is a source from just the Virgin Islands for my story, a source from the Virgin Islands’ legislature. I talked to lawmakers there, I looked at litigation files, some which had never been published, even though there were litigation files from 2023, but also, the Virgin Islands operate in kind of a weird space, to U.S. territory, but they do not have an online system for just routine campaign finance disclosures. I had to pay a University of Virgin Islands journalism student to go in person and request documents and then pay an exorbitant fee, just to make photocopies and then have those sent to me.

Reporting this out over the last few months on a story that really should have been public way earlier was not easy to do, but it's clear that for Kash Patel and Dan Bongino, they don't have to do all these kinds of extra steps that I engaged in. This is not a question of ability, this is the question of will. Do they have the political will? Do they have the kind of wherewithal to weather the criticism, the kind of pressure from elite groups, potentially foreign intelligence agencies, by disclosing this information that could be very harmful to the political and kind of intelligence elite? 

G. Greenwald: And the fact that you do that reporting that is often expensive is another good reason for people to join your Substack, aside from the quality of the reporting that they get if they do. 

All right, let me ask you this last question. You're somebody who began journalism, associated primarily with the left. You worked at left-wing think tanks, not necessarily hardcore leftist think tanks, but you wrote for The Nation. You worked for the Center for American Progress, and you had a pretty left-wing outlook on things. You began to kind of have a breach with the around issues like crime and race, things that you were previously talking about, but crime was a really big one that, the left was constantly opposed to, almost reflexively, to any efforts to take crime seriously, to have the police emboldened or empowered to arrest criminals. You were particularly incensed by things like “defund the police,” that movement that arose in the wake of the George Floyd killing. And that has been something that you've taken seriously for a very long and in part because of your personal experience growing up in a mixed-race, working-class environment where there were a lot of working-class residents constantly victimized by violent crime. 

Now you live in California and San Francisco, where there's a lot of crime, obviously, including from immigrants who enter the country illegally. So as somebody who has taken those issues seriously, like the need to really crack down more on crime and violent criminals, as well as, you know, the flow of immigrants across the border, how do you look at thus far the Trump administration's efforts to crack down on people who have entered the country, especially those who have engaged in some sort of violence? 

Lee Fang: I see kind of like a lot of the same examples you've highlighted on the show as draconian as probably unconstitutional, illegal, immoral. If you look at what the Trump administration has done in terms of sending Venezuelans to CECOT, the maximum-security prison in El Salvador, I think it's morally horrendous. The Washington Post recently reported that many of the individuals that were sent there were people who were cleared for asylum status, who had protested Maduro, and then fled here after doing so.

Which senator was the one who encouraged people to rise up against the Maduro government in Venezuela and said that if you came to this country, we would provide new asylum protections and TPS protections to protect you? That was Marco Rubio. He led that.

So, just the absurdity, the kind of partisan cruelty for him to turn around and take those same individuals and send them to this prison without any due process is disgusting. Broadly speaking, I look at the kind of confirmation hearings this week for the USCIS role that the immigration wing of the Department of Homeland Security, that kind of manages a lot of the visa programs, and they're saying a lot of things that I think make sense, talking about the role of foreign workers, of these kind of temporary visa programs that were initially created 20 years ago, 30 years ago, like the one H1-B program and then the OPT program to encourage just the most skilled, scarce workers that we don't have in this country. These programs have ballooned into a kind of internal job replacement program where corporations are bringing millions of workers in who will work for lower wages for tech-related software and IT jobs. 

The Trump administration, which initially, back in January, rejected attempts to reform programs, is now kind of changing its tune and is considering a reform of these programs. This is something that Bernie Sanders and many of the more traditional class-focused left have talked about for a very long time. I don't see any problem with that. The other kind of enforcement areas of just like how do you get folks who are in this country illegally out of this country and then how do you prioritize to make sure that you're doing it in a way that's just and fair, it's a mixed record, right? 

At the end of the day, the Trump administration, on a month-to-month basis, has deported less than the Biden administration, compared to last year. There are some different variables here. There are fewer border crossings this year than last. You can also compare this year between this year and the last few years of the Obama administration, which had way more deportations. Again, there's a different variable there. There's more police ICE collaboration back in the Obama years than this year. There's simply not as much collaboration between police agencies and ICE in 2025, so it's perhaps not possible. So, it's hard to compare. If you look at some of the extreme measures they've taken against speech, ongoing after legal students who are here to study and who have protested Israel, and focusing on them to deport them. That's clearly absurd. The CECOT prison is absurd. I think for the rest of their kind of agenda, it's a mix. There's some good and bad. And I think just in terms of a policy, a lot of it just hasn't come into effect yet. The deportation numbers are actually quite low. 

G. Greenwald: Yeah, they've relied on these kinds of very theatrical and flamboyant expressions of police state strength. “We're going to throw them into prisons in El Salvador, we're going to send them to Libya, we're going to put them in South Sudan,” things like that. But the reality is that there have been no mass deportations as promised by the Trump campaign. They've spent huge amounts of time and energy and money instead of going after them almost right away, as you said, people in this country who are completely law-abiding, who are here with green cards or student visas, for the crime of protesting Israel or criticizing Israel. And so in lieu of getting what they were told for 10 years from Donald Trump they would get, which is mass deportations, they're instead getting this massive crackdown on speech under the guise of immigration policy aimed at protecting this foreign country, Israel, from criticism and people have really not noticed, given all these kinds of sideshows over the Alien Enemies Act and shipping them to El Salvador and the fact that the integration deportation numbers are actually quite low. 

All right, Lee, thank you so much. It was great to see you, as always. I'm sure we'll have you back on our show soon. I hope you have a good evening 

Lee Fang: Thanks, Glenn. Have a good weekend. 

AD_4nXfZ35Onr3PIkolV7wl58VFyzpeDm5re6EnjVDqRPEXx9FQXmIXQnlKudIIsEIR5MGd8WkCOTLjtNdCmMsZnEQ52DwZM0AQduhNGUwDVVp_QZl8jiF2Jhd3gKbRJXC_5WUT9k5x2k_vEBV0spNdfcwA?key=FQVwqSW7NJ8CuINptXnLyw

All right, Friday night is for our interaction with our Locals members, but also in front of our entire Rumble audience. The reason we do that, as I've said before, is I think interaction with your audience is of the most importance. I have always hated the model of journalism that's monolog inform, where some journalists just step on a mountain top and bequeath to people the truth. I think it's very important to hear critiques and questions and interact. And we do that throughout the week on Locals. So, let's get into them. We have a lot of good ones tonight. I want to try to get to as many as possible. 

The first one is from @ChristianaK, who says:

AD_4nXff2tw0O1gFFqK3GdK6nTYfKk-tAa9ekE_HDb-ZHE3_vevejYRaXJaJcKK6v8LLcLMjTaxHcZ3hMkHKun5BKqT6K8dbKiwGz1-D4aWjFa8oGqeFaEJpkkc6aSTKFOjaLLqf2rMlcTeQpS0SsYT5zsQ?key=FQVwqSW7NJ8CuINptXnLyw

I talked a little bit with Lee about this and he said something I completely agree with, which is, I never thought I would be defending Harvard in my life. Especially over the last, say, 10 years, Harvard really has become a place which is almost ground zero for censoring speech. It's often ideologically homogenous. It's become just this kind of closed circle, a very specific, idiosyncratic, academic-ish left-wing culture war homogeneity. There's a lot wrong with academia in general. 

All that said, I find academia to be extremely important. I think it's a vital part of society. If you go back to the Enlightenment, which I regard as the founding principles of Western civilization, at least in the modern era, in terms of our political values and the like, academics talk frequently about the need to have at least one place in society where everything is up for grabs in terms of what you can debate, what you could challenge. There are no taboos, there are no pieties. I think having an institution in society like that, where everything is studied, everything is questioned and everything is poked at, is vital. It helped me learn a lot. 

It really stimulated my interest intellectually that there were all sorts of things out there that had been about questioning these long-term pieties and you were free to express the things that you wanted to express. I think it is quite disappointing, quite harmful, quite tragic that in so many ways our universities have become these ideologically homogenized outposts of political activism at the expense of what should be this academic freedom.

 Nonetheless, it really is true that one of the things that has been most responsible for America's success, economically, technologically, politically, socially and militarily, has been research that takes place at our highest institutions. Everywhere in the world, people look at Harvard and talk about Harvard with great admiration and awe. Here in Brazil, if somebody went to study at Harvard, even for a year, and they come back and they say, “Oh, I studied at Harvard,” it imparts them with immense credibility, and that's how it's looked at around the world. I mean, Harvard is one of the symbols of American greatness. It's been a leading college for 450 years, same as Yale, Brown and Princeton, but Harvard, especially globally, is at the top. 

So, I think, if you're going to have a government that suddenly decides that it's going to wage a major war to try to destroy what have always been America's leading academic institutions, it’s kind of out of the blue, just start attacking it in every conceivable way, I think everybody should be very guarded about why that's happening. 

In general, leading academic institutions and the government have had extremely close partnerships. The reason the federal government gives money to places like Harvard and Yale, and all sorts of other schools, is not because the government is being benevolent. It's not because the government wants it to have a nice gender studies program. Sometimes it's to fortify financial aid so that not only rich people from rich families can go to the top schools, but mostly it's for paying for research projects that the United States government once undertook. It was federal-funded research programs at our universities that led to the invention of the internet in the United States and American dominance over the internet for all those years. It came right out of the federal funding of academic institutions, cures and medical treatments, scientific advances and technological advances that often were things the government wanted done for military use. 

When you have well-funded research programs, that's how you attract the greatest minds from all around the world and that only fortifies the institution. Without these research facilities, it basically just becomes like a liberal arts school for 18-year-olds and 19-year-olds, as opposed to institutions where the highest-level research and innovations take place. On top of that, it's the question of why these institutions are being attacked. 

In the case of Harvard, Columbia, Yale, Brown, Princeton and all the others that the Trump administration has targeted, there has been one argument that I think is a valid one, which is that there has been discrimination in the admissions process for a long time. It was considered affirmative action, where you would purposely go out of your way to divide all the applicants into groups of race, to ensure that there was a representative percentage from each group. Part of that was to correct historical injustices, other parts of it were to have a more diverse campus. I think there was a time when you could make that argument that was necessary and over time we've gotten to the point where we've decided that that's no longer necessary that it's actually a form of racism in its own way and courts have stepped in and begun to rule against those sorts of practices and they had to scale back greatly on them. 

So, I understand that objection, but the much bigger reason, as we know, is that these schools allowed protests against Israel to take place. For many years – you can go back to 2010, 2012, 2014 – all of these groups that are funded by Israel or Israeli loyal billionaires were obsessed with American college campuses because they knew that that's where the primary activism against Israel was based on this boycott, divestment and sanctions model that helped bring down the apartheid regime in South Africa. Israel and its loyalists were petrified that that would work in American campuses. They knew a lot of the anti-Israel sentiment was being talked about and allowed on American campuses and they set out this whole anti-woke thing if you go and look at it, all these people who were obsessed with Israel, who led this anti-woke movement on college campuses, were doing it, in part, because they hated American colleges because it allowed too much Israel criticism. The Trump administration is saying that you have allowed too much antisemitism, meaning Israel criticism on your campus; they're actually forcing institutions to put their Middle East Studies program under receivership so the government can control what is taught in Middle East Studies programs. 

Who thought that the role of the U.S. government was to control the curricula of how adult academics who teach adult students can do their curriculum, can pick their course materials? But that's what the Trump administration is doing. And it's all because of Israel, to some extent, it's because they perceive it's kind of a left-wing institution, they want to attack it. But they've already denied funding these schools. 

Here from AP News on April 15: “Trump administration freezes $2.2 billion in grants to Harvard over campus activism (AP News. April 15, 2025.)

We know what that “campus activism” means: the Israel protests that you allowed. Harvard said, “Look, you've gone too far. We made a lot of concessions, but we're about to become a branch of the Trump administration if we go too far, we're going to sue instead.” And they sued, that's when the government went ballistic. 

Today, Homeland Security announced that they were canceling the student visas of all Harvard students, revoking them immediately, and would refuse to give student visas for any international students that want to go to Harvard in the future. So only 25% of Harvard has international students. It's a way that the United States spreads pro-American sentiment. People want to come to the United States, they want to study in the United States, they get integrated into American culture. It has great benefits for the U.S. As I said, people look at Harvard as this place that everyone around the world wants to go to, or Yale, or Princeton, or Columbia, Stanford, whatever. 

The idea that Harvard, of all places – its current president is Jewish, most of its past presidents, close to a majority, if not an overall majority over the last 30 years, have been Jewish. Larry Summers is one of the people who ran Harvard for the longest. Their biggest donors are overwhelmingly Jewish. Jews do very, very well at Harvard. The idea that it's some kind of cesspool of antisemitism is laughable. 

But as we know, any criticism of Israel is now deemed antisemitic and that's what's driving the Trump administration. So, now, you take these huge numbers of foreign students who have spent years pursuing PhD programs, a lot of them are going to graduate and stay in the United States and become extremely productive members American society, and even if they don't, even if go back to their countries, they're obviously going to have a connection to the United States, and now you take all these people who have put years and years into their studies, and out of nowhere, they're instantly told “Your visa is revoked and you can try to get into another school, we'll extend your visa then, but if you don't, Harvard doesn't have any more student visas. We're revoking them all, and we're banning Harvard from accepting any foreign students in the future”. 

This is basically on the verge of destroying Harvard, notwithstanding their $50 billion endowment. As Lee said, this $50 billion endowment almost makes them like a hedge fund. So, I don't have sympathy for Harvard, but it is true that denying them all federal money, destroying and forcing them to dismantle all research programs, and then disallowing any international students will absolutely cripple this institution that has for 500 years been the pinnacle of American greatness, a symbol of it, and a crucial tool in soft power. 

It's just yet another way that this government got into power and decided that one of its goals, if not its number one goal, was to punish anybody who was criticizing Israel. I think it's incredibly dangerous. What we've done is we basically turned the United States into a country where a requirement to enter, to study, or to work is that you love Israel and worship Israel, or that you at least agree that you were framed from ever criticizing it. We're just sacrificing so much of our national interest for this foreign country. 

AD_4nXfZ35Onr3PIkolV7wl58VFyzpeDm5re6EnjVDqRPEXx9FQXmIXQnlKudIIsEIR5MGd8WkCOTLjtNdCmMsZnEQ52DwZM0AQduhNGUwDVVp_QZl8jiF2Jhd3gKbRJXC_5WUT9k5x2k_vEBV0spNdfcwA?key=FQVwqSW7NJ8CuINptXnLyw

Question #2. It’s from @Kurt_Malone, who asked the following:

AD_4nXe2YudGiHjlfLkrzRO9HhiYglMXIX1GFrLfJGo3X-tWz8SsmTK4EOmLpsH3jFmLoMeS55AJMmoVO50HwTB8H2ydEsPJ0XWXTLGfWIVQ8Cos9UmqYBwRxyplkTNsQhm5wmbIBMB1SWcDIHCKUPlOIo0?key=FQVwqSW7NJ8CuINptXnLywAD_4nXcm5VvCrueVmgf1u5oHRkWel4WKIEbXvTsneQGzbJWrZdzySVNnimkfgobyOatKMJv72KoWqx6_-35pH5gReFCwkYEg_13RvKvRpemgA0v9c_VHecBGFN74uIUB3-l3oHHIPsL7i4jOY6YRMGeeGX0?key=FQVwqSW7NJ8CuINptXnLyw

This has been a controversy taking place among various journalists. I've certainly talked a lot before about how many of the people who have very lucratively branded themselves as free speech champions over the last several years, but who are really just Israel loyalists, who are doing this to attack college campuses and now have turned around.

Now you’re looking at this massive First Amendment attack in the name of stopping Israel criticism and they either barely care, barely mention it, occasionally mutter some mild opposition to say they have done it, they did or oftentimes, even support it.

Bari Weiss, yesterday, in response to the murder of the two Israeli embassy staffers, basically said anyone who's been attacking Israel or denouncing it in harsh ways, or its supporters, has blood on their hands. So, there are a lot of people who have built a large audience, mostly conservatives, right-wing people, or MAGA people, by championing free speech because over the past 10 years, conservative speech has been one of the main targets of censorship. And so, these people who are independent media outlets, who rely on subscription money from their viewers, it's a big problem in independent media. I've talked about it before. It's a problem in corporate media as well, that a lot of people don't want to say things that will ever alienate or offend their audience because they know if they do, there's a good chance that they'll lose subscribers, which is how they make their money. 

I've talked about it before, as an independent journalist, I also have that dynamic. After October 7, we lost a lot of subscribers who were pro-Israel and didn't want to hear my critiques of Israel and who still don't. We still lose subscribers over that. But over time, if you actually build yourself and your audience with a look to the long term as somebody who has integrity and you build an audience of people who know that you can't come and expect that you're going to always hear what you want to hear but you're always going to, at least, hear the honest perspective and an argument behind it, then you build an idea of people who respect your integrity and aren't here for validation,  which I would suggest is a much more valuable audience to have. 

So there have been some disputes. One of the people who has been most criticized for this is a friend of mine. So, I'm reluctant to speak specifically about him. You can go see these arguments. I will say, one of the reasons why I think it's so important to me that I have a great distance from the kind of social scene in Washington and New York and politics and media is because it is corrupting, it is difficult. If you end up immersed in a social circle and you end being friends with all these politicians who you're supposed to be adversarial to, or other journalists whom you're supposed to criticize because there is a sort of ethical, I think, valid principle, that if somebody is really your friend, I don't mean acquaintance, I don't mean somebody who you say hi to occasionally, but somebody who's really a friend is doing something you disagree with, to turn around and denounce them publicly. It's a real conflict in principles between, on the one hand, you want to hold people accountable and critique them when they deserve it, but on the other hand, like turning around and just publicly denouncing a friend is hard. 

So for the most part, that's why I avoid that social circle. I see it all the time. You see Jake Tapper in this book with all these journalists going around and talking about how they've known these Biden White House officials forever. And so, when they said there's nothing wrong with Biden, they didn't think they were being lied to; they believed them. They didn't want to criticize these people. That's what being friends can do to journalists or to, and I think it's a major reason why Washington is so corrupt, media and politics. They all live in the same neighborhoods and they all socialize with each other. They're all intermarried, the media and the political class. And so, they're anything but adversarial to each other, but I will say there's this idea that some of the people are saying, “Look, I don't want to comment on Israel and Palestine because I don't know enough about it, it's too complicated, it is just not an issue I want to talk about.” And then there's a resulting critique. No, the reason you don't want to talk about it is because you don’t want to defend Israel or the censorship being implemented in the United States in its name. After all, you would be obviously betraying everything you ever said you believed in. But you also don't want to denounce it because you have a lot of people who support Donald Trump or Israel in your audience and you're afraid of alienating them and losing money from saying what it is that you believe. 

So, let me just say, quickly, a few things about this because it is a growing controversy. One is that I actually am somebody who has always tried to, who strongly believes in the idea that there's nobody who can be an expert in everything. There's no person who has expert-level or specialized knowledge in every debate. 

It's always been so important to me never to report on, comment on, or analyze topics that I don't actually understand better than just the ordinary person who's not paying much attention. I've always only covered a handful of issues at one time that I believe I have some kind of specialized knowledge or expertise in, or some unique perspective that's informed, so that I can basically place a claim on the audience's time if I want to write about something or talk about something. I do agree that if there's something you don't understand well, if there is something that you haven't covered, it's best just not to talk about it. 

That said, once there's an issue that becomes so significant, maybe tariffs is an example, which is something that Trump's tariff policy was something I ordinarily would not talk about since I'm the last person who can give you a good microeconomic assessment of tariffs and the like. But I can talk about other aspects related to it. I can have people on my show that I've talked to, that I asked about, because some issues are just too big to ignore. And the war in Israel, especially if you're an American citizen whose government is paying for that war and arming that war, given that world organizations have called this a genocide, people have said this is the worst war in their lifetime that they've ever seen, even an Israeli former Prime Minister came out and said today that Israel is committing war crimes in Gaza, two million people being starved to death. Our government is paying for it, at the same time, there are major implications in the United States, on Americans and our basic constitutional rights. It's just not an issue that I think you can just say, “Yeah, I don't understand that. I think I'm going to avoid that.” I'm not saying you have to cover it every day, I'm saying you have super didactic opinions about it, but I think it's kind of an abdication of your responsibility if you have influence on a platform to just refuse to talk about the most significant issues that the entire world is discussing, especially when they directly affect the causes that you have claimed you're most invested in. 

Again, I think there are a lot of people in the sort of what had been called the international dark web, as they self-glorifyingly named themselves, who pretended to be free speech advocates, who have now abandoned that because the real loyalty was to Israel. And then some people just haven't really spoken much about it because audience capture is very real in independent media. It's not like you're either super noble and you don't care about it, or you're just integrity-free, greedy money, sucking pig. There are a lot of nuances, and there's a big spectrum between those two things. But I do think it's very important if you're going to have any credibility that you do everything possible to ensure that you never have a fear of your own audience and that you have this view that it's better to lose some audience and subscribers short-term or maybe even long-term that you won't replace, especially if you're somebody who's built a big platform and making a very good living doing this, than it is to just have the goal to build the biggest audience possible by avoiding ever telling them anything that might make them at all upset.

AD_4nXfZ35Onr3PIkolV7wl58VFyzpeDm5re6EnjVDqRPEXx9FQXmIXQnlKudIIsEIR5MGd8WkCOTLjtNdCmMsZnEQ52DwZM0AQduhNGUwDVVp_QZl8jiF2Jhd3gKbRJXC_5WUT9k5x2k_vEBV0spNdfcwA?key=FQVwqSW7NJ8CuINptXnLyw

 Question #3 is from @teardrinker who says:

AD_4nXcAseH0g9dYrSls2nKEBtc6zvme3fa-odICxdHUC_uuZ1K1vraEqMqzcTm5aAwe9KHT8GNWdp8N-FSk8Aygrpgr3ji_aa2ZOAxoAYKg5xcLH1QEE0mwAoVSC-tfcv4vt0uAuWOqABd0uutwmasnXA?key=FQVwqSW7NJ8CuINptXnLyw

So, just for those of you who didn't see it, there's this big controversy in Brazil, actually a major epidemic in Brazil. Brazil, under this very unpopular president, in 2017, legalized gambling basically overnight. As a result, all these apps popped up to allow people to put their money into these accounts and then start betting on sporting events or all sorts of things online, playing casino games. Huge numbers of people, millions of people, Brazil's a country with a huge economic inequality, have become addicted to gambling, to these apps on their phones. The minute they get government assistance that is supposed to feed their family, or their paycheck, they transfer the whole thing into their gambling account. They've been told that it's a way to get rich, to escape poverty. And you have people massively in debt, losing everything, destroying their families over this gambling addiction. 

A major reason why is that you have these Instagram influencers who have tens of millions of followers who show people their super glamorous, luxurious lifestyle. These betting companies are paying these influencers to tell their young audience, their poor audience, “Oh, you should go bet. Use this betting app. You can make so much money.” And they show videos of the influencers betting and making money that are often fake. And not only do these influencers get millions of dollars to lead their poor and young audience into betting but they get percentages of whatever losses their audience has, which is profit for the betting app. And we showed you a part of an investigation that the Brazilian Senate is doing on this. 

And so, here's this question:

AD_4nXe8QGrafqoubQiqQQJE8jh78_gpN-gzRujrhL5UdXVzIZuHAMX5FfZmLYFSjs-YEJAr7hmisJw3Is-JwEdJVXlY9Bgq4lKvASoO-wcfDLHQBjALoqnoj45F7zroi8i1raOyvOROrPeu54mXjWjww2I?key=FQVwqSW7NJ8CuINptXnLywAD_4nXdfdkUKNY18tIJuiNaUfLCH-pqZl2AVTex9bBNwDv4xkWMhrVIQ0AHaGJr1-cRW3qffyk2dzPm8tRkN0TFRkyyzesZHMNkJwT8uG9qen2mIc2eKVoknsx_IFRIpIcmk7-NoTQd2ZAc_T_ef2ktIyw?key=FQVwqSW7NJ8CuINptXnLyw

Okay, it's so interesting because I have always taken a very libertarian approach to all of these issues. My general philosophy is that if you are an adult, you have the absolute right to consent to whatever behavior you want to engage in, as long as it's not directly harming somebody else. And by that, I mean like punching somebody or attacking somebody violently. I don't mean like blowing your money on some stupid, ill-advised shopping spree and then harming your family because now they can't pay their bills. I mean, direct harm. 

I believe that about pretty much everything. What drugs people take, what alcohol they consume, whether they gamble, whether what kind of sex they engage in with other adults consensually, my view of that has always been very strongly this libertarian view that adults should be able to make whatever choices they want that involve consent, and it's nobody's business to stop them. You can have public campaigns about the dangers of alcoholism or drug addiction. I'm all for that, so you give people information, but I don't believe in intervening, and I think they are responsible for the choices that they make. 

I have begun to rethink and retreat from that absolute libertarian view of people's choices a bit. I'll explain why. We're really entering a dystopian society, and we've had this for a long time, a dystopian world, where there are parts of the world that are extremely affluent and that most of the world is incomprehensibly poor. And you have things now, like for example, we talked about this before, we'll probably do some reporting on it because I want to learn more about it, but you have these affluent Europeans, I'm sure Americans as well, who need a kidney transplant and there's nobody who's compatible, who will give them a kidney. So they're traveling to countries in West Africa that people are barely at a subsistence level. And they're paying them $20,000, $30,000 and $40,000 to donate a kidney. I mean, is that something that we really should say is nobody's business? You have two adults in a transaction, one selling their organ to the other so that they can feed their children. Or is there something like incredibly exploitative about that to the point where it's very hard to say that that's actually consensual? 

I've been thinking the same thing about surrogacy arrangements. You have very wealthy couples. Most of them, by the way, are not gay couples; most of them are straight couples, contrary to belief, overwhelmingly straight couples, although the number of gay couples doing it as well has increased. And they want a baby. They can't produce a baby for whatever reason. Gay couples can't procreate. A lot of straight couples can’t either. Sometimes they don't want to, the woman doesn't want to carry a baby. 

So, they find a woman who needs $30,000, $50,000, whatever, $100,000 to carry their baby with an agreement that the minute that baby is born, the biological mother just hands over the baby, has no rights to it. Probably, if you asked me 10, 15 years ago, I would have said, “Yeah, that's their own choice. Who is the state, or anyone, to intervene in that transaction?” 

I find it hard to believe that the vast majority of women who do that are not very, very harmed psychologically. And again, as people get richer and the rich-poor gap increases, these kinds of transactions are going to become more and more complex. What about couples in the West who can't procreate and want to adopt but don't want to go through the adoption process? And so, they go to Africa, or they go to Asia, to extremely poor countries, and they pay some family. They say, “Hey, I see you have a healthy three-month-old infant, or a six-month infant, or a two-year-old, we want one of those. If we pay you $100,000, can we take your kid?” I mean, that's the same thing, right? That's very consensual, it's transactional, but is anyone going to say they have no qualms about that? 

I think sometimes Americans have problems understanding what poverty around the world is if you haven't lived in a country where it exists. What's considered poor in the United States, I mean, now it's become a little more severe, but what is considered poverty in the United States is nothing like what is considered poverty in most places in the world. There may be people who don't have access to clean water, don't have access to healthcare, don't have access to anything. And the internet is everywhere, and people are influenced. That's why they're called influencers. 

That's the same with gambling. So, I'm not saying that people who end up gambling and losing everything and destroying their lives and the lives of their family have no responsibility. Of course, they have some. Nobody forced them to do it. I've stopped thinking that all these things have this kind of pure, beautiful, consensual character to them because I have trouble seeing that as purely consensual. And again, I'm not saying it should be banned. I'm not even saying necessarily that I think it's the role of the state to stop it, but it doesn't make it so that it's perfectly fine either. Yeah, this is something I've been reconsidering. I think there's a lot of pressure for exploitation. 

As for this word “gaslighting,” I just, in general, hate new words that pop up and become part of the ethos. And especially gaslight was used mostly by a kind of MeToo movement. It was part of that MeToo lexicon where I think the excesses of Me Too have been well-documented. I oppose them from the beginning. I hate mob justice. I hate the idea that accusations should be treated as true with no evidence. I don't trust any human being, man, woman, anybody, with that level of power to say, “Oh, your accusations, they have to be inherently believed.” And that's where gaslighting came, a very, kind of vague accusation that people began making against their husbands or their boyfriends to claim that their relationship was, quote-unquote, “toxic.” I understand what it means. 

AD_4nXfZ35Onr3PIkolV7wl58VFyzpeDm5re6EnjVDqRPEXx9FQXmIXQnlKudIIsEIR5MGd8WkCOTLjtNdCmMsZnEQ52DwZM0AQduhNGUwDVVp_QZl8jiF2Jhd3gKbRJXC_5WUT9k5x2k_vEBV0spNdfcwA?key=FQVwqSW7NJ8CuINptXnLyw

Next question, @kkotwas asked:

AD_4nXcEjG0jhNH2hCiWL5qhLaV7-mLBEnIYZ7Vt7oV_hikpiTofM4_rRHTcFyLKCUruDh1xWaJDeIsx7DeM69yVzwp3gwzILdVP9vkJ_RWIGiGDS_euRWjr9S1UiYANV3IxEmg8GHDBHdccIhtB7_gx-lo?key=FQVwqSW7NJ8CuINptXnLyw

 It's funny, I was going to ask Lee a very similar question. I think that there has been a drastic, visible, palpable, documentable, severe turn in public opinion both in the United States and globally toward Israel. Israelis are talking about how they're becoming a “pariah state.” The level of dehumanization and cruelty and suffering and killing that Israel has perpetrated on the Palestinians for 17 months, as we've all watched it live every day and that they're saying they're going to continue to perpetrate basically until these people are in concentration camps, driven out of their land – and imagine the level of violence that's going to cause. They are announcing that they are entering Gaza. They're going to take to it all, they're going to bomb whatever's left, they're going to force Palestinians to leave, the ones who don't are going to be in concentration camps, a little walled-off, fenced-off areas that they get to stay in, surrounded by the IDF. These are concentration camps. 

It has turned the world against Israel in ways never previously seen since the creation of Israel in 1948. And they know that, polling data shows it. You see countries that have been among the most vocal Israeli supporters and allies for a variety of political reasons, like Canada, the U.K. and France, jointly issuing a statement, vehemently condemning Israel, not merely a mouth condemnation. Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant have been officially indicted by the International Criminal Court as war criminals. They have to avoid certain countries. IDF soldiers are afraid to go to various countries. There are projects to make sure they get arrested or chased out of the country, which happened in Brazil. We actually interviewed the head of one of the groups that tracks IDF soldiers who participated in crimes in Gaza, because all these countries are signatories to various conventions that forced them to arrest people on their soil who have committed war crimes. One almost got arrested in Brazil, he got snuck out at the last second. 

And then Israeli tourists as well are being met with all sorts of hostility and I think that's why there have been these desperate attempts to censor Israel criticism, to criminalize it, to attack these universities over it, to arrest and deport people for criticizing or protesting Israel; these are acts of desperation. 

And yeah, I don't think that the murder of two Israeli staffers, as terrible as it obviously is, and the scope of what's happening in Gaza that's been happening for the last 18 months, that will continue to happen unless it's stopped for the next year or so, or however long, I think it's going to be a speed bump. 

Israel supporters are hoping they can turn it into something much greater, but I don't think it's going to succeed, given how Israelis are still not just destroying all of Gaza and the people in Gaza, but saying some of the most Nazi-like horrific things, including Israeli officials that think we should separate the women and the children and then take all men 13 years over and exterminate them. They're all them saying Gazan babies are enemies, there are no innocent Gazan babies, they grew up to be terrorists. Really sick, sick stuff. They don't think the world is good. I want to say tolerate, but I don't think there's any stopping Israel in the sense that they're an apocalyptic cult, and it would take some political will on the part of the West and the United States, almost like a humanitarian intervention, to really stop it. 

But I think Israel is going to pay a huge price for a long, long time; they have all kinds of internal dissent. Netanyahu is consolidating all sorts of undemocratic power. They were in a civil war before October 7 over the Supreme Court, whether orthodox Israelis have to serve in the military, and they have a lot of internal tension. People are fleeing the country. So no, I do not think these two murders of last night are going to radically change the trajectory of how Israel is perceived. 

AD_4nXfZ35Onr3PIkolV7wl58VFyzpeDm5re6EnjVDqRPEXx9FQXmIXQnlKudIIsEIR5MGd8WkCOTLjtNdCmMsZnEQ52DwZM0AQduhNGUwDVVp_QZl8jiF2Jhd3gKbRJXC_5WUT9k5x2k_vEBV0spNdfcwA?key=FQVwqSW7NJ8CuINptXnLyw

All right, the @farside asks:

AD_4nXeP7K3vnApK-n9xteb82gjnK4jxQAnwlwLtMJF8gJHftng1Vi53s8uzzvVVTmkDAmN7t2IAEFEQJmaZ9_Yjvd5tVq2wwoJaOR8yLCn0njpRkGlveHg8_RRR7A_rjU-E1Sr3w-dDAXk4vSIl3gym0ik?key=FQVwqSW7NJ8CuINptXnLyw

AD_4nXcOVUk1HrcLKQkvFm3swjOa3poDkhevXs-XxbueCgZvtHZRmqCWQFJEaGbtf4vPp8b5sJ-iVfkodhbOmBD7s31kOt9_sajAsAyE96ZbTFk8SGA_BZRqehXr7LzuS7M80-REO7DRxkmzgVhpYW1ojP0?key=FQVwqSW7NJ8CuINptXnLyw

I've been saying this from the beginning. Every time there’s a Supreme Court ruling against the invocation of the AEA, where they're required to give the new process. Now, a Trump-appointed judge and an appellate court have said Trump's not even allowed to invoke the AEA: it's only for wartime. And then you have a bunch of Trump supporters saying, “But what do you mean? We voted for mass deportation. Are we supposed to give trials to 20 million people?” 

I've always turned to emphasize, I think it's now finally being understood, not just for me, but others, that the problem is that you have a deportation system instead of laws. It's very easy. You just deport. You show they're not in the country illegally, you send them back to their home country. The problem is that Trump didn't want to use that. He wanted to invoke the Alien Enemies Act. Something that has only been invoked three times before, during wartime, the War of 1812, World War I and World War II, because it gives Trump immense power, far more power than he has otherwise. 

So, automatically, the president's powers increase in times of war, the deference that courts give a president when there's a wartime emergency automatically increases. So, by declaring war, Trump's already consolidated more power. And then, the Alien Enemies Act gives him almost unfettered power to do anything to people he declares to be an alien enemy. He can just put them in camps. 

Remember, he sent them to Guantanamo and that's the policy that FDR invoked to put Japanese Americans in camps. You don't have to send them back to their home country. That way, you can just send them to El Salvador, a country they've never been to and have nothing to do with, and put them into prison. And you can send them to Libya. You can send them to South Sudan, which the Trump administration is now talking about doing and in the process of doing. The Trump Administration came in wanting to ensure, and I think understandably in a way, because Trump’s first term was basically characterized by constant subversion of the president's authority. Trump was boxed in all the time, he was sabotaged, and they were determined to not allow that to happen by this big bureaucracy, by the deep state, by the administrative state. And so, they came in determined to have a plan to allow Trump to do whatever he wanted with no constraints. The Alien Enemies Act was part of that.

The problem is that it is a very severe law, only intended for wartime. And even then, as the Supreme Court said, 9-0, when it said they're all entitled to habeas hearings before being removed under the AEA, even people suspected of being Nazi sympathizers, Nazi operatives inside the United States were given a hearing before they were detained or deported. All these legal controversies around deportation are not about deportation itself; they're about the AEA, which Trump invoked, because of the extraordinary powers that it gives him. 

AD_4nXfZ35Onr3PIkolV7wl58VFyzpeDm5re6EnjVDqRPEXx9FQXmIXQnlKudIIsEIR5MGd8WkCOTLjtNdCmMsZnEQ52DwZM0AQduhNGUwDVVp_QZl8jiF2Jhd3gKbRJXC_5WUT9k5x2k_vEBV0spNdfcwA?key=FQVwqSW7NJ8CuINptXnLyw

All right, I think this is the last question. It's from @65wakai:

AD_4nXfXyILHey1ZrBJnEnK3pUv0Ui_AnPyiaURHtPV0agTYe6JSYL4szad5Km3xx7PXirExFZuqfyts5h5I55eAQgbUl9O7vIGnp6bO5tUoaJfYr6GdXhDDGfQXozsPWS_6LRhOQk8ZRAyjPt4fEQvRPiI?key=FQVwqSW7NJ8CuINptXnLyw

Yeah, that's a very complex question to answer in a short period. It all depends on how long people have been there. I mean, there's obviously an indigenous population in the United States that American settlers and colonialists went to war with, massacred, and now they have rights recognized by the United States, including their own sovereignty inside reservations. There are indigenous people in Brazil who came way before Portuguese colonization. Primarily in the Amazon, there are tribes that are still undisturbed, unconnected to the world. It's a little hard to say that they don't have rights to Brazil, where they've been for who knows how long. Same with Africa. 

If you're talking about Israel and Palestine, I think the problem there is that it's not really a claim that, “Oh, my people have a right to this land.” It's really that “God gave my people this land,” it's not, “Oh, we've been here for a long time, therefore, we should have it,” it's that “God said this is ours.” 

I do not think that theological claims about what God wants and who God wants to be in certain places are a valid claim for that land. We have a geopolitical system of solving diplomatic conflicts, which the world recognizes, and the Israelis are lucky, because for a long time, it didn't look like this. Would Israel, with certain borders, the 1967 borders, with the West Bank and Gaza belonging to the Palestinians and most Israelis who now want to steal the West Bank in Gaza and act against all international law and take it for only Jews, are doing so because they believe that God has bestowed them that. And I think that's a much different question. It's one of the things that bothers me about Zionism as an ideology: it inherently depends upon a Jewish supremacy that, at least within Israel, Jews will always be supreme and I don't think that it's an ideology that leads to anything good.

Read full Article
post photo preview
Israeli Embassy Staffers Killed in DC: Reactions and Implications; DHS Terminates Student Visas for Harvard
System Update #459

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_4nXfcYT5sdGmVLltipdFhEKNx-tKcG4RtBuekCqT7nOGEwVsJOZeJfOXB4yqzlpdkJeFMjxVfMnXT2NnjpyMDg57UVGTYZXPBJjxHSU2zumHCkZ9ht4hP1AGbOFUw1IMHV-PEkkTB56JjS9gTRkvLJFk?key=MF3jYdUEH_qFY9YzD4x8OQ

There's a lot to talk about because a cold-blooded murder happened last night on the streets of Washington, D.C., as a gunman apparently targeted people associated with an event held at the Capital Jewish Museum, where the American Jewish Committee was hosting a reception for young diplomats. The two victims, a couple in their mid-20s, soon to be engaged, were both staffers at the Israeli embassy in Washington. The shooter left behind a manifesto stating he was doing it, killing people, to protest Israel's ongoing destruction of Gaza, and he yelled pro-Palestinian slogans, including “Free Palestine,” once he was arrested. 

It goes without saying, or at least it should, that randomly targeting people you don't know for murder is morally unjust in all cases, regardless of the justness of the cause in whose name you're doing it. But the reaction to this violence predictably lurched very quickly. We'll look at all the ramifications and the attempts to use these killings for various agendas. 

Then, the Department of Homeland Security announced today that it was immediately revoking all international student visas for Harvard, forcing all students to try to find another school or face deportation from the United States. All of this comes as the Irish rap band Kneecaps has been formally charged with terrorism crimes by the U.K. government – terrorism crimes – for featuring a sign at one of their shows in support of Gaza and against Israel, as well as using images of Hezbollah in their show. As global public opinion grows against Israel, threatening to make it, in the words of an Israeli official, a "pariah state", the censorship campaign and the efforts to suppress Israel's criticisms become more severe and more desperate every day. 

AD_4nXfcYT5sdGmVLltipdFhEKNx-tKcG4RtBuekCqT7nOGEwVsJOZeJfOXB4yqzlpdkJeFMjxVfMnXT2NnjpyMDg57UVGTYZXPBJjxHSU2zumHCkZ9ht4hP1AGbOFUw1IMHV-PEkkTB56JjS9gTRkvLJFk?key=MF3jYdUEH_qFY9YzD4x8OQ

AD_4nXdiH_4umh20uNlJqmIlDhbKpVB2Y9bhP1hBhs--wZKrpCE9MBnlCCJIR1ea7I4HtY9RHHaXwoMCv8_TFyl_4POD0Ylqb2IytT0W0bRzMOdpJlR1FdFc1n_xqBXBgZpCORbl_4-arxgfcWzEYPELrw?key=MF3jYdUEH_qFY9YzD4x8OQ

What happened last night in Washington, D.C., by all appearances, and we should definitely wait for more investigations and for facts to unfold because often things aren't what they appear to be in the first day or week, but by all appearance it seems as though somebody very committed to the cause of protesting the Israeli destruction of Gaza, the Israeli ethnic cleansing in Gaza, and the Israeli genocide in Gaza decided that, even though the world is starting to realize what's going on, even though the U.S. government itself understands that the population is turning against it, that there's simply nothing that will be done to stop the slaughter of Palestinians by Israel – based on some very twisted moral reasoning, that he thought it was justified and helpful – to randomly gun down too young Americans with ties to Israel although he presumably didn't even know they had ties to Israel at the time that he did it. 

It was a couple that was going to be engaged when they went to Israel next week, She was Jewish, grew up in a Jewish family, had very strong ties to Isreal, had often gone there but when she would go there, she would work on with the groups that try to bridge gaps between Israelis and Palestinians to kind of create dialog between the two, to try to encourage peaceful coexistence. 

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
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