Glenn Greenwald
Politics • Culture • Writing
Interview: How the Media Got Cozy With Power, Abandoned Its Principles, & Lost the People, w/ Steve Krakauer
Video Transcript: System Update #48
March 03, 2023

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

We devote our program to one of the most scathing and insightful indictments of the modern-day corporate media, particularly their subservience to power centers and how they eagerly spread disinformation campaigns in service to that power. One of the most insightful critiques that has been published on this topic in years, our guest, Steve Krakauer, who is the author, has been around media for decades, and the book shows how much up close insight he has developed. He has worked inside a very diverse range of media outlets from CNN and The Blaze to Mediaite and NBC News, and he now works to produce one of the best shows in the most thriving sector of our media ecosystem, independent media, specifically, on “The Megyn Kelly Show.” 

Before we show you that interview, I want to share some of my own reflections on this book and the reasons why I believe that what is often dismissively and snidely minimized as “mere media” criticism is in fact one of the most consequential and necessary forms of real reporting and journalism. 

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

 


 

Many corporate journalists are very fond of trying to draw a distinction between what they call real reporting, which is noble and elevated and honorable – even though for them it usually consists of little more than calling the CIA and the FBI and writing down what they tell you to say – as opposed to media criticism, which they regard as tawdry and trivial.

 It is, of course, unsurprising that employees of corporate media outlets would seek to denigrate and minimize anything designed to put them and the many flaws of their work under a microscope. So, their antipathy to what they call media criticism or media critics – always said with a condescending sneer – can be reasonably dismissed as nothing more than self-interested whining. I actually regard the attempt to insist upon this distinction as quite revealing, one that provides insight into how these corporate outlets have come to see their role in the world. 

There's no universal definition for what journalism is, or even what constitutes reporting – it can mean a lot of different things and a lot of different contexts but I think we can identify foundational values, and defining goals, that distinguish journalism from other activities. These are the goals and functions that render journalism, when it is done, well as genuinely necessary to a healthy and functioning democracy, the reason the American founders decreed it as a guaranteed right in the First Amendment, one that could not be infringed upon for any reason. They did that precisely, or presumably, because they believed that a free press was essential for maintaining the equilibrium with which they were obsessed with preserving, the system of checks and balances that will ensure that no one institution or individual can ever acquire the kind of unchecked power that allowed the British monarch to act with such arbitrary force and under such personal whim that they were willing to fight an extremely risky war against the then most powerful empire on Earth in order to liberate themselves from those abuses. 

If journalism does nothing else, it must exist to impose checks and accountability on society's most powerful institutional actors. The unique attributes of journalism can impose on such institutions –transparency, investigative scrutiny, questioning, dissent – they are vital to ensuring that those actors remain limited, humble, and in check. I think very few people, even those who consider themselves journalists in the corporate world, would find those basic principles I just outlined objectionably. But what many of them overlook, or more accurately, what they choose to deny, is that near the top of the list of powerful institutional actors in need of journalistic scrutiny are the very gigantic media corporations that are their employers; highlighting the corruption and deceit of, say, Goldman Sachs and the CIA, is no more or less urgent than doing the same for NBC News and the New York Times. 

All powerful institutional entities need investigative scrutiny, unflinching critiques, and pushback against their propaganda and deceit. And that most definitely includes, perhaps especially includes, the media conglomerates that control the nation's airways and printing presses and which report and disseminate the news and analysis of our politics to tens of millions of people. As a result, what they try to mock and minimize as mere media criticism – something in their eyes barely different than idle gossip – is to me not only real reporting but some of the most important and valuable real reporting that one can do. If one affirms that journalism exists to place the actions of powerful institutions under an investigative microscope, but then excludes gigantic media corporations from the list of institutions that receive that kind of attention, then what is permitting those corporations to become exactly the kind of unchecked, unlimited power centers that the founders most feared? Worse, it will ensure that these corporate giants have the power to propagandize the population without any real systemic pushback or investigation because those who perform those services have been successfully marginalized as lowly media critics rather than people who do real reporting. 

And that is why I have always categorically rejected not just as artificial but dangerous, this self-serving attempt to differentiate critiques of media outlets from real journalism. Indeed, I have come to believe that debunking the propaganda and disinformation of the nation's most powerful media corporations is arguably the most valuable and necessary form of real reporting. It's what enables us to liberate ourselves from the kind of propagandistic prism. In which we would be permanently detained absent the ability to critique these institutions. 

That's a lesson that I actually learned very early on in my decision to begin writing about politics in 2005. When I started doing that, I had not been trained as a journalist. I had no intention of paying much attention to media corporations, let alone spending much of my time critiquing what it was that they were doing. My range of interests and why I began to write about politics was far more limited. I was setting out to critique the civil liberties assaults being waged under the banner of the War on Terror, and I was approaching it mostly as a constitutional lawyer. I was offended by the kinds of programs that deny the due process by imprisoning people without trial or that spied and surveilled American citizens without the warrants required both by the Constitution and by law. Those were the values and the interest I was seeking to vindicate and to report on and shed light on and I was doing it from a very limited perspective, largely as a journalist turned writer, trying to convey complex constitutional principles to people who had not gone to law school. 

But what I realized very early on was that it would be impossible for me to make any progress, to make any impact whatsoever if I was unwilling to confront the actual barrier to getting my fellow citizens to see things in the way I thought they should see them, which was the mountain, the avalanche of propaganda that was descending upon them on a daily basis from all directions, emanating from the country's most influential, wealthiest and most powerful media corporations. And I knew, for example, when, say, reporting on illegal domestic warrantless spying or on many of the pieces of the War on Terror, that if I were unwilling to debunk and dismantle and dissect the propagandistic framework being fed to people to induce them to accept these abuses as something noble or necessary to guarantee their security, I would have no way of making any headway of having my voice be heard beyond a very small and limited group of people already trained in constitutional law. 

So, very early on in my journalism career, I began adopting as a primary focus, even though that was never my intention, the lies that were being issued on the topics I knew most by the most powerful newspapers, by the most influential media outlets, because that was a way of getting people to clear their mind of what was being purposely put into it – the clutter that was being inserted into it – to prevent them from thinking critically. And as I did that, I began to view that work, namely the work of dismantling propaganda issued by media corporations on behalf of power centers, not just as a form of media criticism, but as a form of reporting. After all, if the goal of reporting – which is what I believe – is to show one's fellow citizens who don't have the time to engage in politics full time, who have families to take care of and other work to do – to show them the information in the public interest they need to see. If that's the goal of reporting, then debunking media propaganda showing them that what the media is telling them and inducing them to believe, showing them that it's actually untrue and baseless, is a vital way of reporting on the world. It's crucial for showing them the truth of what is happening, of what our institutions are actually doing. And from that very first year of writing, I learned that this attempt to isolate media criticism from real reporting was nothing more than an effort on the part of those media corporations to malign and discredit people who decided that all-powerful actors and all-powerful institutions, including media corporations, deserved to be subjected to that level of scrutiny. 

One of the things that Steve talks about in his book – and we talk about in this interview – is the cultural change that journalism has seen over the last several decades. If you go back to the 1920s, the 1930s, even into 19th-century journalism, what you will find is that journalism, which really wasn't much of a profession or a priesthood the way it is now, it was really an activity in which all citizens could engage – was really most commonly heralded in its muckraking form. These are people who really enjoyed more than anything, almost sadistically, taking down the elite institutions that like to drape themselves in all sorts of prestigious private praise and all kinds of awards. And then, when reporting became an actual way to earn a living, in the 1930s and forties and fifties, it was really a working-class kind of a job – It was people who formed guilds in order to provide themselves a livable wage and what it attracted, more than anything, was a personality type that I would describe as people who most enjoy throwing rocks from the outside of elite events rather than being invited into those elite events. What really changed – more than anything – the nature of journalism, in my view, was the corporatization of media. Media began to be more expensive, as you needed to own networks and studios and major printing presses, the kinds of things only large corporations could afford. The iconography of the outsider journalist with smudging ink on their fingers, working late hours for little pay, and the kind of slovenly dress got replaced by the mentality that corporations value most. The people who began to thrive within corporate journalism had the same kind of characteristics that cause people to thrive within any type of corporation – people who don't make waves, who are good at managerial tasks and doing what they're told – and it really began to incentivize the exact opposite kind of personality as what journalism used to encourage. As a result, the idea began that the way you thrive in journalism is not to strip our most powerful institutions of their mythology or expose their secrets but help elevate them and elevate respect for them and serve their interest rather than undermine them. And that, more than anything, became one of the most important cultural changes in how corporate journalism works. And that's why, for that reason, the people who continue to choose to remain on the outside, who still have that personality type, that would rather be the people throwing rocks at those powerful institutions rather than being bestowed with all sorts of awards within them, to me are the people who are often doing the most important work, and they may easily be dismissed by condescending employees of corporate media outlets who never break stories, whose only basis of self-esteem is the titles they get within these corporations. But nonetheless, you can call them the media critics if you want, who are performing the core function of journalism and showing that the emperor has no clothes. And most importantly of all, dissecting and shedding light on the lies that these institutions are disseminating and the reasons for it. 

And for all of those reasons, we decided to devote our show tonight to this discussion we're about to show you with Steve Krakauer. He has just published one of the most incisive critiques of the modern-day corporate media entitled “Un/cover/ed” – How the Media Got Cozy with Power, Abandoned its Principles and Lost the People. As I said, he's very well positioned to express this critique, given how many functions he has served within the media. He now authored the Fourth Watch Media newsletter. He hosts the Fourth Watch podcast, and he's the executive producer of “The Megyn Kelly Show”, one of the most successful ones in my views, one of the best forms of independent journalism. So, I really enjoyed talking to Steve. I enjoyed this book in ways that I didn't expect. It provided me with a lot of insights that I kind of had lurking in my brain, but never really quite articulated in the way the book enabled me to do – something that a book, a really good book, does best. And I am confident that you will enjoy listening to this interview as much as I enjoyed conducting it. 

 


The Interview: Steve Krakauer



G. Greenwald: So, Steve, first of all, thank you so much for taking the time to talk to me. Congratulations on the release of the book. I know that's always a happy time in life when you finally get a book out to the public. So, I'm glad you're able to talk with us about it. 

 

S. Krakauer: Glenn, thanks so much. Really, I've been such a fan of you and your work and it's great to be on. 


G. Greenwald: Absolutely. So, let's talk first about the title of the book. Even though my mother taught me not to judge a book by its cover – I'm also going to judge the book by what's inside of it as well, I promise - but the title of the book is “Uncovered - How the Media Got Cozy with Power, Abandoned Its Principles and Lost the People”. And this phrase, “how the media got cozy with power,” I remember back when I first started writing about politics in 2005, 2006, that was a time when, at least as I perceived it, the media was very cozy with, say, the intelligence community that was supporting the War on Terror. I think some people have forgotten the critical role The New York Times played in helping the Bush administration sell the war in Iraq, based on a lot of the falsehoods emanating from the government. My critique back then was that the press was far too cozy with power, especially the Security State. Do you think that that has gotten a lot worse in the past few years? And if so, how and why?

 

S. Krakauer: I do. I think that there were absolutely valid critiques of the media back then for decades. I mean, I describe the SLA media that's based in New York and D.C. and, by extension of just the pure geographic nature of the media, so much of that we see is this coziness between the people and elite positions on the government side, on business and the people in the media. The people that are supposed to cover them and be a check on power in support of the people, instead, they become part of the powerful, even the ones that are, you know – it's not clear exactly the connection. They might just be on the sidelines of their kid's soccer game and then they connected in some way. 

So, I absolutely think it's been a problem for decades. But I do think it's also gotten worse, partially because of the incentive structure that we've seen change and shift over time. On one end, there are the business models – completely broken now. And so, at once it was really good for business, to go after people in power in some ways. And so, yes, it was a mix, but you certainly get some good journalism out of it because those are the things that actually performed well. And then you have social media, Twitter, which really has a chilling effect in a lot of ways on younger journalists who won't go after stories that they think they might get backlash for on social media and might actually hurt them, stories that might make them less popular with people. That's the role of journalists. Journalists should be unpopular with people in power. Instead, we see people just sort of craving that attention, craving that popularity and influencer status, building their brand. It's all been detrimental and it only adds to the coziness that we see. 

 

G. Greenwald: I've been dealing a lot over the past couple of weeks with Sy Hersh, in part because of the story he published on Substack, claiming it was the United States that blew up Nord Stream 2. Regardless of what one thinks of that story or some of his other stories, it reminded me, as I was dealing with him in terms of how just generally cantankerous he is, how he's not particularly, you know, oozing charm, and doesn't really care to. That kind of old-school journalist – of which he is very much a vintage expression – was the kind of person who generally liked to find themselves on the outside of authority and society. They preferred to throw rocks out at elite events rather than be allowed into them. They really didn't care at all whether they were being applauded by elites. It was kind of a working-class profession. Clearly, all of those things have changed in so many ways. What do you think are the primary reasons why it has? 

 

S. Krakauer: Yeah, I think that journalists, you know, a positive phrase is they should be curious. I look at the total lack of interest in that Sy Hersh piece from the larger corporate press – total disinterest in pursuing that story, which is a fascinating story. I mean, maybe let's dig into it, let's look into it. No. Total lack of interest. But I think, you know, journalists should be nosy. They should be disliked. They should be annoying to people in power. And that's also something that has gone away. And there are a few reasons for it. I mean, I think that some of it is just general laziness and incompetence. I mean, how interesting is it that the most complicated stories, the stories that take a lot of work, are the ones that rarely get attention from the corporate press, the press that has resources and various people to dig into stories? No, we don't really get much coverage of those. But the stories that are easy, the ones that are quick turn, those are the things that get constant attention nonstop and across the board. I mean, some of this is political. Some of this happened and really became worse during the Trump years because all of a sudden it's good for business when you spend your time, spending every waking moment, 24 X 7, talking about Donald Trump, as if it's this big, giant existential threat, ignoring any other story. And then, in some ways also, we saw it, I think in many instances with COVID, where it's just a total like anti-speech activism I describe in the press, where it went from not only a disinterest in stories to this idea of working in tandem with the censors to make it so that the public won't even have access to information or to other points of view because there's a general distrust in the public. By being so disconnected from the public, the press has made themselves no longer connected, no longer even trusting that the public can get the information that it needs. 

 

G. Greenwald: You know, I think one of the strengths of your book is that you're not just this kind of harsh media critic, which you are, but a lot of times harsh media critics are people who have never actually worked inside of journalistic institutions and, I think, therefore, lack a certain perspective that might be helpful to inform their critiques and make them a little more nuanced. You actually have spent a great deal of time working within some of these more established media outlets and, as a result, you have sources, people who are willing to speak with you for this book, both on and off the record, and you share some interviews and some anecdotes that parallel mine as well, where you talk to journalists inside these major news outlets who often said to you, ‘look, there's a lot of things that I think are said that are critical of the prevailing narratives that our media outlets that I agree with.And yet I don't really have much of a willingness to be among the people speaking out and saying those things.” And there are a lot of different reasons why. And whenever it comes to kind of younger or even middle-aged but less established journalists, I've tried to give them the benefit of the doubt by saying, it's a shrinking industry, there are constant layoffs, and if one day you stick your head up on Twitter and say something off key and you become the person of the day who editors and journalists call, you know, all the names that you get called if you do that, your resumé is the easiest one to most quickly be thrown away the next time there's an opening. And that's part of the reasons why younger journalists are petrified of speaking out. Do you think that those economic reasons are the primary ones why it's become so conformist?

 

S. Krakauer: I think that is a huge reason for sure. I think that the business is truly in flux and in a lot of ways that's positive for both the public and the individuals who are willing to put themselves out there, to just trust the public enough to put information out there. Independent sources like your show are on the rise for a good reason, because the corporate press has so much disdain for the general public that there is this real opening. At the same time, as you say, I was in these newsrooms. An impetus for this book was that in 2018, after seeing just how totally just off the reservation the larger establishment press went after Trump won one election – shocked them in November 2016 and then what we saw in 2017 with the coverage. I kind of laid out an idea of sort of a three-page pitch to them about, you know, here's how you can kind of reconnect, maybe fix some of the blind spots. And I called it all my favors. I talked to executives at CNN and CBS, ABC, across the board, tried to sell them on this idea and, generally, there was a lack of real introspection or interest in this. And it's too bad.

 But I think this ultimately became what the book was, which is here are all the ways that this went off the rails over the last few years. And at least if we could just lay all the cards on the table, face up. Anyone who's reading it, anyone in the public can be on the same page. And then we don't need the gatekeepers anymore. We don't need the corporate press and we don't need the people who I think really are showing a bit of cowardice, whether it's the younger generation, whether it's their editors who just give in to the mob, that we don't need them to necessarily change their ways to get the information that we need. 

 

G. Greenwald: Yeah, absolutely. I think the big cause for optimism is the success of independent media of what you're now a part of as well, working with “The Megyn Kelly Show,” and doing other projects. And I want to talk about a lot of those Trump era examples that you raised, because I also think that another major factor is for sure the arrival of Donald Trump and the way in which that transformed a lot of things, but probably, above everything else, media behavior and what they thought of their actual mission. But before I get to that, you know, I think part of the change we just touched on, is the economic motive. There's also clearly a cultural change, I think, where journalists often used to take pride in the fact that stories they filed or analyses that they offered provoked a kind of anger and disturbed people. It resulted in controversy. I told this story before, but I had dinner, I think maybe three or four years ago in New York with two very well-known and established journalists who are very secure in their careers because of their reputations, because of how well-known they are, because of their past accomplishments. They're not the kind of young journalists I was just referring to who are petrified that their resumés are going to be thrown away. And I remember having this to our conversation with them that contained really interesting and nuanced discussions about a wide range of controversial issues. They are both parents of teenagers, they were talking a lot about concerns about how gender ideology is infiltrating schools and clearly converting some kids who aren't really suffering from gender dysphoria but who feel a certain kind of pressure. It was a very interesting kind of conversation, an adult nuanced conversation that I really enjoyed, and yet the minute I left, and I was riding back to my hotel room in the taxi, I realized that under no circumstances would either of them even think about breathing a word of any of what they had just said to me, notwithstanding that they don't have that excuse – I might be fired and I won't get another job given, as I just said, all of this security they enjoy. 

What happened in the cultural milieu of journalism that has turned them all into such cowards and conformists? Not all of them, but the vast majority in the corporate media. 

.

S. Krakauer: Yeah, it does seem like across the board but there are some exceptions. You know, as you mentioned, I talk on the record with over 25 people in the book, all throughout the industry, some at Fox News, but some at The New York Times and The Washington Post, and trying to get at this question. 

And, you know, I look at The New York Times as a good standard of how this decline has really materialized because I spent a great deal of time about The New York Times’s Tom Cotton op-ed fiasco that we saw in 2020, which I think was just such an important moment. And yes, people who may know a little bit about it privately and then it spilled out publicly. But to really dig in and look at the circumstances and look at the implications of what we saw there, we saw the publication of an op-ed by a senator during the height of the protests and riots after George Floyd by Tom Cotton. And it was such a backlash. 

 

G. Greenwald: Just to remind people what he was advocating – it was something with which I disagreed – but he was advocating essentially for the deployment of military reserves and the military to keep order in the streets. Not exactly an unprecedented proposal or something that George Bush 41 had done during the Rodney King riots and many other times. And it wasn't that these reporters were saying they disagreed with the story. They were saying they were so offended that the newspaper wouldn't even air the opinion that they demanded and then ultimately won the resignation of a very senior editor at The New York Times. 

 

S. Krakauer: Exactly. And the way that they went about that, after having all this internal drama and crying on Zoom meetings, which I described in the book on the record, that if spelled out publicly in a very specific way, they said that publishing this column put the lives of our colleagues in danger. And that implies that it was actually dangerous to publish this op-ed is what was able to get the bosses to give in to this mob that was created, not just from the external activists, but from internally. So that was point one that was really alarming. But the second element here is that it was journalists. It was not even activists – it was not opinion columnists. It was the actual staff of the news side of the newspaper that put this out there and you start to learn that journalists these days, for whatever reason, whether they believed it or whether they just went along with it, they were able to use this scare tactic in order to get this changing dynamic culturally. And I do think what's interesting is more recently with what we've seen with the kind of trans coverage of The New York Times and the pushback that they got. The New York Times actually went a different route and has stood firm so far, pushing back against their own internal staff and the activists who are coming after them for daring to publish stories objectively looking at this issue from a variety of perspectives. 

 

G. Greenwald: You know, I pay a lot of attention to the times when journalists do things that aren't just wrong, but that seems to me to be such a fundamental violation of what the journalistic mission is supposed to be, what the defining values of journalism have always been. When I see, for example, journalists being the leading agitators for censorship, when journalists have long been expected to defend free inquiry to be, it's like seeing a cardiologist encouraging everybody to smoke six packs of cigarettes a day. They just do not combine. There's an anecdote in your book I want to ask you about, in part because I admit to finding it entertaining – but also revealing – which is that Charlie Wetzel, who was this sort of star columnist of The New York Times, was the test case. He left The New York Times for Substack and that was going to prove that there was this young generation of journalists that the world really did crave their work and loved them. And he was going to be a shooting star at Substack. It turns out nobody cared about him once he left the paper, and I think after nine months, ran back to the arms of the Atlantic. But you talk about the reaction that he had when, during this whole Tom Cotton episode, which I found really interesting and revealing. Why don't you tell that anecdote and tell us why you thought it was worth including? 

 

S. Krakauer: Yeah, absolutely. And this was a story that was relayed by Shawn McCreesh, who at the time was an opinion writer staffer and is now at the New York Magazine. And he went on the record with this, which, again, I mean, I give him credit for revealing this. But he describes a meeting with hundreds of people – and, again, if you remember this, at the height of the pandemic, everyone's at home, everyone's spending too much time on Twitter and getting emotional over watching cable news or whatever they're doing when it comes to these protests – and he describes Charlie as saying that, essentially crying during this meeting, saying that his friends wouldn't talk to him because he worked for The New York Times. And that was one of the impetus for why he was fighting against the publication of this column by the United States senator. You know, it's sort of silly and it's kind of funny, but it's also just really disturbing. And again, it's those kinds of anecdotes, I believe, that were able to move The Times in this very real way, which, as you say, you would think I get why maybe activists in a height of this were where you know would push back against The New York Times ... 

 

G. Greenwald: That's their job, right? That’s their job to influence papers to produce new journalism more favorable to their agenda. 

 

S. Krakauer: But the one occupation that should be the most for free expression and the free exchange of ideas is journalists. And potentially the paper of record should be the one that employs the ones that do it the strongest and most ardently. And that is completely the opposite. That was a real eye-opener for me. And I do think it was a very clear case of the perilous times to come when it comes to the support of censorship that we've seen in the intervening years, particularly after Trump left. 

 

G. Greenwald: Yeah, you know, again, I think it's very cultural. I was sort of steeped in the journalistic iconography of the 1970s, which in some ways was the peak for journalistic accomplishments. That was the era of Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers, the Watergate investigations, and the uncovering of a lot of the dirty deeds of the CIA as part of the Church Committee. So, journalism inspired me as a kid because it was, you know, a profession where people were expected to go risk their lives covering wars or you would expect to go to prison and instead of revealing your source a court told you to or do your reporting, that angered power centers to the point where they wanted to prosecute you. And now we have journalists crying in staff meetings because their Brooklyn liberal friends are angry about that with them and won't talk to them, not because of anything they wrote, but because of an opinion piece that their newspaper wrote. And I think we see this kind of degeneracy in terms of just the character of the people who are supposed to be journalists and what they're willing or not willing to endure. 

 

S. Krakauer: Yeah. And I do think –and I know you've written about this quite a bit – and in chapter one, I start to say, well, how did we get to this particular point? And I do think it was in how the press really was just subservient to the Obama administration, despite the fact that in many real ways, the Obama administration was an enemy to the press. […] talked about the Trump administration, enemy of the people, all that while, you know, we criminalized the act of journalism through using the Espionage Act, more times than every other administration combined, to prosecute and to criminalize journalists and journalism sources. James Risen, who was a victim of this, wrote in the New York Times, as soon as Donald Trump was elected, that if Donald Trump targets journalists, blame Obama. And I would also blame the journalists themselves who didn't push back against the Obama administration's overreach on journalism, instead continuing to deify him in every possible way. That's what you get. And then all of a sudden, this is what happens when the pushback on what was supposed to be the kind of criminalization of journalism that journalists should be outraged about, doesn't happen. 

 

G. Greenwald: Yeah. From personal experience, I mean, that was when I was doing the Snowden reporting and the government forced me to stay in Brazil for a year against my will. My journalistic colleague, Laura Poitras, was forced to stay in Germany. It was not Donald Trump threatening us with arrests because of the reporting that we were doing, it was the Obama administration. I remember at the time there were plenty of journalists not only not defending us but justifying that on the grounds that the reporting we were doing was criminal. I was notoriously asked by David Gregory on “Meet the Press”, whether I should be in prison because of the reporting. So I think you're right, you could really see the change then, as they undertook this very subservient posture with the Obama administration. 

 

S. Krakauer: But if you happened to do the Snowden reporting a few years later when Donald Trump was in office – I wonder how they would have treated you. And I wonder how that story would have played out if it was just simply under a different administration. 

 

G. Greenwald: Yeah, You know, one of the problems for sure is that whether the reporting you're doing is considered favorable by the government often determines your rights. I was doing it in Brazil, and the Brazilian government’s daily reporting is very favorable. Why? Because we were informing Brazilian authorities about the ways in which the NSA was spying on all their key civic institutions and the populations. So, it's very popular in Brazil. It was not in the United States. And so, I was protected by the Brazilian government and threatened with prison by the Obama administration. 

Well, let's move on to the Trump era and some of the specific examples you focus on most. I was thrilled that you basically began the book with a focus on the Hunter Biden story because I think sometimes even long-term readers of mine, people who are part of my work, think: “Is he ever going to stop talking about the Hunter Biden story? And he loves to talk about the Hunter Biden story. I can barely do a show without talking about it. I personally think it's for a good reason. I think it illustrates a lot. You obviously seem to agree, given the play that you gave to it in your book, why do you think it merits so much attention? 

 

S. Krakauer: Yeah. In fact, I did an interview last week with Brian Stelter and he asked me, what's the thing we got the most wrong during my time at CNN? And I said it was the Hunter Biden laptop story 100%. 

It was a really disturbing story because of the – I think [some of the stories I write] about in the book are laziness, incompetence from the press, you know, stupid mistakes. This one was not. This was a real determined effort – and we've seen through the Twitter Files that have come out since – but we really knew it at the time. I think any discerning consumer of the news would understand what was going on, even in the moment that the tech platforms were in collusion with agencies, at least in talking to you for four months before that with the FBI and the media, instead of being a check on that powerful collusion that was happening, we're instead a part of it. We're part of the entire elite censorship collusion because they not only were not outraged by it, but they also only gave attention to all the earmarks of Russian disinformation letter coffers of the world. And they were not at all anywhere close to the way that they should have been outraged by their colleagues at the New York Post, getting completely censored in a truly unprecedented way. The link to the New York Post was not available to be spread. And I laid this out point by point. You know, I mean, it's almost amazing to go back and look. Maggie Haberman shares a link to The New York Post and is trending as MAGA Haberman because her colleagues were mad that she happened to link to it, just noting that that story existed. Jake Sherman, now of Punchbowl, then at Politico, was suspended from using his account on Twitter. He linked to the story. He quickly deleted it and apologized for daring to link to this horrible text. It was so embarrassing that the media, instead of fighting for their colleagues, joined in on the censorship. We know what happened in October 2020, but it continued for years and years and obviously has since been banned. Oh, no, now The New York Times and CNN are confirming that this laptop is real. Yeah, we knew it all along. The public should have lost the distrust that they may have had in the press to give it to you straight. They can't even be curious about it and they can't even be honest about why they're not being curious about it. 

 

G. Greenwald: But this is the thing that I have to admit does somewhat mystify me, which is as people like Brian Stelter tell it, and I heard those parts of the interview, you know, then they were like, oh, look, we were in the dark. It was hard to know what was going on. You know, they have all these excuses for why they were unclear. They pretend they really didn't spread this lie, that it was Russian disinformation – even though you can spend all day showing people one video clip after the next, where they brought on people, including their own employees like James Clapper, to say exactly that. But even if you want to give credit to that version of events, ‘there's no way we could have known’ – even though a lot of us did know to the point where we were willing to stake our careers on it by putting our names on those stories because the authenticity was so obvious – at least now, as you say, even the institutions that they say are the ones you should trust most – The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN – have all come out and said these documents were never Russian disinformation. We've authenticated the documents independently. A political reporter did the same as well. And the story of how that laptop got into the hands of the FBI and Rudy Giuliani was also accurate: that Hunter Biden left it at that repair shop and it was abandoned. This means that whatever their intentions were before the election, the story they all spread day after day after day was wrong. And it's been the most basic rule of journalism forever, that when you get a story wrong – like The New York Times did after the Iraq war, and they went back and signed a long editor's note trying to account for how they got it wrong and why and what they need to do better – there's not been one single journalist or one single outlet, not one that has spread that story that is in any way even purported to grapple with the lies and falsehoods they spread before the election. And there seems to be very little demand on them for you to do so. That seems like a major change to me in how journalism functions. What do you think explains that? 

 

S. Krakauer: Yeah, so I think there are two things about that. First of all, I will say one of the people I spoke to for the book was Olivia Nuzzi, of New York Magazine, and she was a co-author of the cover story about Hunter Biden’s laptop, for New York Magazine a few months ago, which I thought was very good and actually called into account some of the real problems with the way that it was covered originally. Of course, her story barely got attention. I wrote about it for my newsletter, but very, very few in the press gave it much attention because I really think it's the second reason, which is that they didn't just get the story. They essentially got the story wrong on purpose They treated it as this toxic, contaminated piece of information that we can't even acknowledge exists. I mean, all this so often with Colbert. It's why I think just like the Hunter Biden laptop story, we're not getting the introspection with COVID either, because they realize that correcting the record now proves why you got it wrong in the first place, which is that either consciously or subconsciously, you intentionally didn't even cover the story. You weren't even curious enough. You wouldn't even give the oxygen of at least hearing other perspectives and allowing other information out there. We just shut it all down because of a fundamental distrust of the public. And that's too embarrassing to really start to go and put into account. 

 

G. Greenwald: So, we talked about it right at the start because of the book title that describes pathologies in the media that we both agree actually predated Trump but seems to have gotten much worse once he ascended to the presidency. And I think that's true across-the-board. Whatever media pathologies were already in existence went to an entirely different universe because of this overriding, not just even contempt they had for Donald Trump, but this belief that he was such a singularly threatening figure that they could, almost like abiding by journalistic ethics, became a luxury they couldn't afford. Here's somebody who has kind of had one foot in the kind of more corporate mainstream media, but also a foot in conservative media working with Fox and Megan and other people like her. Why is it that the media came to see Trump in those terms as so radically different than, say, more conventional politicians like John McCain and Mitt Romney and even George Bush and Dick Cheney? 

 

S. Krakauer: Yeah, for sure. It was very clearly different. I lay out in the book three specific reasons why. First of all, there's the business side of it. He was so good for business, and we saw that very early on in the way CNN and even MSNBC covered him in a very nice way, essentially. I mean, they just played all his rallies without any movement. So that was the way it started. It was a good business decision. But it was also personal. I mean, I write about all of the media executives and media personalities who were at Donald Trump's wedding only in 2005. Jeff Zucker, Katie Couric, Gayle King. You go right down the line. And so, they were kind of part of that and he became this turncoat to the elite power structure that he started in the media space in New York. So that was two. And then the third one, as you mentioned, I do think that there were elements of the media that truly believed they were doing Watergate every single day in this existential fight, and they were saving democracy. But I would argue that instead of what they should have done, which is even if they believe that, which I completely think is ridiculous, but if you believe that, that's when you double down on your standard, that's when you have your journalistic principles. And you have to even do that more stronger because you have to convince the public to trust you on it. Instead, they went in the opposite direction. The guardrails were completely off and just the trust of the public completely declined as well. 

 

G. Greenwald: But I want to probe a little bit of that more because I can understand why the media kind of like people like John McCain and Mitt Romney, who are these kinds of moderates. You know, John McCain carefully cultivated this maverick image his whole life reaching out across the aisle. Mitt Romney was this sort of a standard old-school Republican, just kind of a business guy. George Bush and Dick Cheney at the time they were elected were considered radicals by the media, especially after 9/11. And I think for good reason. It was part of what was my impetus for getting involved in journalism. They were doing things like instituting a worldwide torture regime and then invading Iraq based on false pretenses and creating CIA black sites and the Patriot Act and warrantless spying on American citizens. I would argue that, from a liberal perspective, Donald Trump, the first president in decades not to involve the U.S. in a new war, was nowhere near that same universe of moral evil from a liberal perspective as George Bush and Dick Cheney. And yet they look at Bush and Cheney as these very kind and decent human beings. Maybe a little bit of that is just the passage of time. People seem less horrible as time goes by. But I think there's a lot more going on there. What do you think accounts for that? 

 

S. Krakauer: I agree. I think that there is a general sameness in thought when it comes from the left or the right of the people that spend their time in cable news, green rooms and in the newsrooms of all these organizations. And so, yeah, you know, Dick Cheney, George Bush, and, you know, it's all sort of the same in a lot of ways. I mean, there was not a lot of outrage over the Patriot Act for a very long time – even from places like on the left, but most of the people on the left. And I write about this in chapter eight, in terms of Bernie Sanders, because I do think that in 2016, it's been widely reported Bernie Sanders was sort of screwed by the DNC and in cooperation with Hillary Clinton’s political job there. In 2020, when really it seemed that Bernie Sanders was going to coast to the nomination after Nevada, I remember just a political galvanization of all the candidates going behind Joe Biden in an effort to stop it, to stop Bernie Sanders before Super Tuesday. It was the media themselves. It was people like Joy Reid on MSNBC, even CNN to a lesser extent, that really just started to push against Bernie Sanders and his supporters in a very overt way. Why were they doing that? The same reason that they didn't like Trump. It was a disruption to the establishment and a disruption to the general sameness that they were used to for so long and they weren't going to have it. And on the Bernie Sanders side, whether it was from MSNBC or from the DNC, they were successful in doing that two times in a row. Trump was able to do it outside of the norms, even though he was not a fan or even not the candidate from the right either. 

 

G. Greenwald: So, I just have a couple of questions left, and one of them is actually one that you just kind of answered in a way but I think, for me at least, it's such an important question that I want to kind of ask it from a different direction and probe a little bit more. You know, for years I remember well before I was a journalist, it was kind of just gospel on the right that the United States media is liberal. The liberal media, Rush Limbaugh would rail against them every day, right? They were Democrats. They were on the side of the left. And it was never something that I believed. You know, I think on cultural issues, you can probably make a much better case. These are people who go to the same schools where left-liberal cultural ideology comes from. They live in blue cities. It makes a little more sense there from an economic perspective, a military perspective. They were never on board with antiwar protesters or the economic policy of Bernie Sanders. As you just said. They were very hostile to Bernie Sanders, who was clearly to the left of Hillary Clinton. And as I said when I was writing about politics, my argument was they were very subservient to the Bush-Cheney administration, serving their agenda in so many ways, and that the ideology isn't so much that they're left-wing. It's that they're just kind of pro-establishment. They're interested in protecting whoever is a status quo candidate, which is why they're comfortable with, say, a Mitt Romney and a John McCain in a way they're not comfortable with a Donald Trump. 

How do you see or how would you define the core bias of the corporate media now in the post-Trump era? 

 

S. Krakauer: I completely agree. I think that you can make the argument that for decades the bridge to someone who leans left, probably when they vote, they probably vote for Democrats much more often than Republicans. We see that in poll after poll. That changed. But something also fundamental has changed. Now it's even more overt. I see this in the way that objectivity has become this dirty word – I write about it a little bit in the book. 

There is no longer a sense that journalists should be even striving for fairness, you know, fairness to all sides or both sides. No, it's much more overt. I actually think it's a nonideological disdain for the average American. I think from the American media perspective, there is a real distrust in the people that you don't know. And I think it goes both ways. I think the average American has a real disdain for the elites on both sides of the aisle. We saw it with Donald Trump and we saw it with Bernie Sanders. And so I think, if anything, the sort of policy perspective of our current elites, the people who are in government, the people who are running our corporate media, is one of general distrust and disdain of the people that they're supposed to be the conduit for. Instead, they kind of dislike and feel like one thing might happen and they're all going to mess up what we have going on here. I think COVID has made this entirely worse, and that's a real problem because the public can feel that they get that sense. Every poll shows the lowest trust in the public of the media every year at the lower and lower. 

 

G. Greenwald: Yeah. This is a great place to end because this is the thing I worry about a lot, in general, is, you know, if you look at history, when the breach gets way too large between the elite sectors of the country and kind of the ordinary citizens, lots of instability or even worse can happen. That's clear here in the United States now, they don't just hate the media, they hate the media more than other elite inside institutions. They hate most establishment institutions, which is why they were driven into the arms of whatever politicians Obama or Trump promised to burn the system down. 

But I want to talk a little bit about why there's been this breach with the media, why they're so insular. I remember the interview at The Intercept. There was all this talk constantly about diversifying the newsroom. And, you know, you would look around over the years and it would seem like, on the surface, in the most superficial ways possible, that this diversification process was actually underway. And yet, I'm not exaggerating, Steve, some of the wealthiest people I've ever met in my life, meeting people who come from the wealthiest enclaves in the United States and were raised by the world's richest families, were people I met at The Intercept, reporters, editors, you know, just so whatever diversification of the newsroom meant, it definitely didn't mean class or education. They all went to the same schools and the like. 

How much of that in the culture of journalism – which really used to be a working-class profession, people unionized, they made very little money – what is the role of all of that and how much do you think is responsible for these changes? 

 

S. Krakauer: Yeah, it's gone in the opposite direction, right? And I do think that's one of the reasons that I wrote the book. I would love it if the corporate press got better and started to learn some of these lessons and had some ability. But I don't believe that's going to happen. Instead, lay it all on the table and actually band together because we don't need them. We need the independent press. But no, I think that one of the things I would argue is to actually get the press in a better position is to find people who don't want to be journalists, to almost drag them kicking and screaming into the profession. Because if you're looking for people who actually want to be the journalists of today, there are people that see themselves building a brand, accruing followings on social media, using it as a stepping stone to accrue more power and to have a voice in a larger way. In the olden days, I mean, a couple of decades ago, the best journalists were respected by the people, but not really known. You know, that was the way that journalism works. Yeah. 

 

G. Greenwald: David Halberstam, who won a Pulitzer for covering the Vietnam War for The New York Times, used to say, “if you're famous, it's likely that you're not a very good journalist”..

 

S. Krakauer: Right. Right. But that's clearly not the case. You can be a lower-level staffer at a big publication like The Washington Post or The New York Times and have 200,000 followers and think that you're famous – and in some ways you are – but being a famous low level journalist is really just a recipe for disaster if the media wants to get in a better place. Yes, I think ideologically there could be more diversity, cultural diversity, but also try to find some people who are not swayed by the current trappings of what journalists can be, find people who actually want to talk to people, tell people a story, and not worry about what's happening on Twitter every time, every day. 

 

G. Greenwald: But for your next book, I give you permission to call that the Taylor Lorenz syndrome. I think you could use that as good shorthand. 

Actually, I do have one last quick question for you. Yeah, it's about a part of your book I wanted to ask you about and it relates to a story that came out obviously after the publication of your book. So, you didn't talk about it. There's this controversy about the lawsuit brought by Dominion voting machines against Fox News, claiming that they were intentionally defamed through accusations that they were involved in voting fraud. And one of the arguments you make in your book that actually I thought was pretty novel, and I hadn't really thought about it this way before, though I think it makes a ton of sense, is that one of the things that our polarized environment has done is that it makes it so that if one side wildly exaggerates a certain story, the other side refuses to acknowledge any validity to it whatsoever. I think the Hunter Biden story is a good example of the role the FBI and the CIA play in influencing Big Tech, that's another. It has to be either or all. I think the coverage of this Dominion lawsuit has been terrible. They were eager to try and pretend that Tucker, who always is their number one target, was on the air constantly promoting theories of electoral fraud while in secret he was saying he knew it was untrue and in reality, he never did. In fact, he kind of bravely went on air and attacked Sidney Powell for refusing to show her evidence. 

Nonetheless, I'm curious what you make of this particular story and what we do know about it and whether it reflects any of these kinds of pathologies that are going on, not in the primetime shows of Fox, but in other sectors of Fox. 

 

S. Krakauer: Yeah, I think it's a fascinating story. I think any time you start to read the text messages of really famous people, it becomes a juicy media story. I'm all for transparency, I think that there's validity to that. I think what's interesting is you look at the original Dominion filing - I think it was 400 or so pages, 200 pages or so -  it was all tweets and Instagram posts and Facebook posts. And notably, he's the only person from Fox who essentially filed exactly this lawsuit with others. He was the star of the original filing, but he's not the star of the media coverage of these text messages that are coming out now. Instead, as you say, Tucker was someone who did not put this stuff on the air, and instead called out Sidney Powell on November 19, early on. 

So, at the same time, we also learned what was happening inside the heads of people like Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham, and some of these others. And it is interesting, you know, I think it's valid to say that perhaps there was a bias of omission, which is something I write about in the book, of not going full on and explaining ‘well, this is what we actually believe about what's happening here.’ At the same time, you also see the business decisions that get me here because Donald Trump had his grip on his supporters at that moment. And you have to tread carefully. These are your voters. In fact, in the text messages, they really, Tucker and others show care for their own viewers saying they're being spun this. We need to find a way of getting through to them, but not do so in a way that's going to alienate them. I think that's a very real thing. 

And the other thing I would just say, is I think I would be very curious to see the 2016 text messages of people like Rachel Maddow and others at MSNBC because I don't think they didn't believe what was being spun about Russiagate. I think that they actually bought fully into the 2016 election story. And I don't know what's worse, but I do think it's interesting to look at the stories totally. 

 

G. Greenwald: I think one of the hardest things to do in journalism is having to challenge your own audience when your journalistic revelations are your own sense of what's right and wrong compels you to do so. And I think there's a lot of fear in doing that. But ultimately, that's what builds trust, in my view, more than anything, is the more you're willing to show your audience that you're not pandering to them, you're not condescending to them, you're willing to tell them things you know they don't agree with or want to hear, but demand kind of a fair hearing for them to give it to you. That's what I think develops trust, the rapport between journalists and their audience. It can really rebuild trust. 

 

S. Krakauer: They'll respect that. Yeah, yeah. 

 

G. Greenwald: Yeah. Well, Steve, congratulations on the book. We will give everybody not just the information on where to get it, but also encourage them to do so. I think the issues you're writing about in this book are among the most important we face. We cannot have a healthy democracy when we have a rotted and corrupt press corps, which we absolutely do. And I think your book does one of the best jobs yet in laying out why that is and also how it's come to happen. So, I hope everyone will read your book. 

 

S. Krakauer: Hey, Glenn, thanks so much for having me. I really appreciate it. 

 

For those of you who have continued to watch and have made our show a much bigger success than we anticipated so early on, we're really grateful. We hope to see you back 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
22
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

WWG🦋WGA

post photo preview

Happy Independence Day, all you American Greenwaldians!

post photo preview
QUICK: Ask Questions for Today's Mailbag on System Update!

Because of the upcoming holiday, we’re doing our Q&A today. Fire away!

post photo preview
Prof. John Mearsheimer on U.S.-Israel War with Iran, Gaza, Trump's Foreign Policy, and More
System Update #475

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_4nXefOQrpDx4IQ9Wqat2AzCk_0DMP26NNx8eKs-FadXSYHlOZSa_IQ14RB1tMnORk9m2yKAViu9dHoMeKozfljt8BurqHTxgR3emTP9ytECMN6CsVuyyS3g4JhFDTfCWlmvehQznSQyVLhhIjB4J336k?key=WUv3IEZeaoNzq4sx3s5kUg

The past ten days were filled with extremely weighty and consequential events in foreign policy, obviously beginning, of course, with Israel's attack on Iran and then Donald Trump's decision to bomb that country's nuclear facilities. Though that was ended relatively quickly – at least it seems so, and one certainly hopes – the fallout is likely to be vast and will unfold over the next many months. 

The understandable focus on that war in Iran has also served to obscure other perhaps equally significant events, including the still-worsening Israeli destruction of Gaza, the economic and political fallout from this war, the one we just had in Iran, the prospect of future regional conflict there, the ongoing war in Ukraine – remember that? – that's still going on, and also, what we learned from all of these events about Trump's foreign policy. 

Given the importance, but also the complexities, of those developments, we are thrilled to have one of the most knowledgeable and clear-thinking voices anywhere in our political discourse. He is Professor of International Relations and Political Science at the University of Chicago, John Mearsheimer.

 Professor Mearsheimer doesn't need any introduction, especially for our viewers, who have seen him on this show many times over the past several years and is one of our most popular and certainly one of our most enlightening guests. He's the author of the genuinely groundbreaking 2007 book “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy,” as well as the highly influential 2014 article in the Journal of Foreign Affairs entitled: "Why the Ukraine Crisis is the West's Fault.” 

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
post photo preview
Why Did Zohran Win in NYC? Plus: Gaza Pulitzer Prize Winner Mosab Abu Toha on the Latest Atrocities
System Update #476

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_4nXfJtEO736zZmhbu03029He2NIPgIwCSd0RIU3SmMbVVQJsIpozYQRKwJXRpuREKRc7lorAoninw1oXGzHd8iktV6mC_v9BiXr_wjVD9eXyP3SAX-8BYlkPPs38ylNHr9K8HzKNTIMXwiA3AU5Rrx5A?key=TIQi3Fa0JLGop5rXvVQtjA

Zohran Mamdani, who had been a relatively obscure member of the New York state assembly, scored one of the largest political upsets in New York city politics last night – arguably one of largest upsets in American politics – when he won the Democratic Party nomination for Mayor of New York City against multiple candidates led by Andrew Cuomo. 

Many on the political right, including people who had never heard of him until about six days ago, and even more so in the establishment Democratic Party politics, are absolutely horrified and even terrified by Zohran's win. They're acting as though it's some sort of invasion by al-Qaeda and ISIS combined with Mao's China. 

In fact, many on the right appear to think that Zohran, who's a leftist Muslim from Uganda, is some sort of unholy love child of Osama bin Laden and Josef Stalin. Establishment Democrats believe, as they did for Bernie's campaign in 2016 and the AOC's win in 2018, in her emergence as a leader of the left-wing of the Democratic Party, that their future as a party will be destroyed by having a young candidate energize huge amounts of young voters, including young male voters with an anti-establishment and economic populist agenda of the range of views that are absolutely hated by their big donors, who demand they adhere to corporatism, the kind of corporatist that most Americans on both sides of the aisle have come to hate. 

First, we will talk to Mosab Abu Toha, who is a Palestinian writer, poet and scholar from Gaza. He lived in Gaza with his family on October 7, after which the massive Israeli assault on the Gaza Strip began. His daughter is an American citizen, which enabled him and his wife to flee to Egypt with their daughter in December, but along the way, he was detained and disappeared by the IDF and was released only under significant international pressure. 

He wrote a series of essays for The New Yorker on the suffering and humanitarian crisis in Gaza, which won the 2025 Pulitzer Prize for Commentary, the awarding of which, needless to say, generated outrage and protest. The war in Iran has really served to obscure and hide the still-worsening crimes in Gaza over the last couple of weeks. We think it's very important to talk with someone as informed as he is about the latest Israeli atrocities and what has been happening in Gaza. 

AD_4nXfJtEO736zZmhbu03029He2NIPgIwCSd0RIU3SmMbVVQJsIpozYQRKwJXRpuREKRc7lorAoninw1oXGzHd8iktV6mC_v9BiXr_wjVD9eXyP3SAX-8BYlkPPs38ylNHr9K8HzKNTIMXwiA3AU5Rrx5A?key=TIQi3Fa0JLGop5rXvVQtjA

The Interview: Mosab Abu Toha

As we just noted, Mosab Abu Toha is a Palestinian writer, he's a poet, a scholar, and has worked hard on various libraries in Gaza as well. He was in Gaza when Israel began its massive assault after the October 7 attack, and he was able to flee with his wife and young daughter, who is an American citizen, though just barely. He was there for about two months when he was about to flee. He is now a Pulitzer Prize winner as a result of a series of essays he wrote last year in The New Yorker that chronicle and powerfully express the extreme human suffering of the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza, and we are delighted to have him with us tonight to understand what has been happening there. 

G. Greenwald: Mosab, it's great to see you. Thank you so much for taking the time to talk to us. 

Mosab Abu Toha: Of course, it is my great pleasure. Thank you so much, Glenn, for having me. 

G. Greenwald: I wish we were meeting under better circumstances, I wish we had something less depressing and horrific to talk about, but the world is what it is. So, I just want to get a little bit of understanding from you since one of the things that you do is convey thoughts and emotions in words as a poet, as a writer, obviously, a now widely recognized one. 

As somebody who's lived in Gaza, it's not new to you to be bombed by the Israelis. Israel has been bombing Gaza, killing civilians over many, many years, but I think it was very obvious for a variety of reasons, not just October 7, but the composition of the current Israeli government, the obvious support the world was going to give them, that this is going to be far worse and quickly it turned out to be. So, you went to Gaza for about two months before you were able to get out. What were those two months like for you and your family? 

Mosab Abu Toha: First of all, it is important to note that I was born in a refugee camp. My parents were born themselves in refugee camps. My grandparents on both sides were expelled from Yaffa in 1948. So, I lived in Gaza all my life and I was a witness and a survivor of so many Israeli assaults. I was wounded in one of the airstrikes in 2008-2009. I survived by chance and I still have the wounds in my body: in my neck, in my forehead, in my cheeks and on my shoulder. So, surviving the genocide in Gaza was not the first time I survived the Israeli aggression. In fact, I was in the United States between 2022-2023. I returned to Gaza in 2023 after I finished my MFA from Syracuse University and I then traveled to the United States again for a literary festival, Palestine Writes, held at UPenn in Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. And I returned to Gaza 10 days before October 7 and I resumed my work as a teacher in Gaza. 

G. Greenwald: Can I just interrupt you there, because that literary festival that you're referring to shortly before October 7, as I recall, there was a gigantic movement, this was before October 7, to have that canceled simply because people like you and other Palestinians were participating and speaking critically of Israel. Can you just talk a little bit about that? Then I want to get back to what the experience was in Gaza. 

Mosab Abu Toha: Yeah. I would like to say, Glenn, that the criticism that I or other people are critical of Israel is not true. We are not critical of Israel. All we are doing is exposing the crimes that Israel has been committing, whether it's in the Gaza Strip or in the West Bank. So, I don't care if it was a different country, if it were a different people, I would still do the same thing, because this is happening to me and to my people, to my parents, to my children, and also to my grandchildren. So, it is not that people in Palestine or Palestinians or even pro-Palestinian people who care about human rights, it's not that they are critical of Israel or whatever you call it. It's that people are talking and advocating on behalf of the people who have been living under occupation for 77 years and this is perceived as a crime when you talk about crimes that are committed by a state that has been created in 1948 and that's been funded by, unfortunately, Western countries and also the United States until today, even as they are committing an ongoing genocide. 

So, it is shameful that some of the participants in the festival were canceled or not permitted to be on campus at the University of Pennsylvania in September 2023. But here we are, in 2025, Palestinian people, Palestinian writers and Palestinian journalists have been the main target of the Israeli airstrikes and Palestinian activists and pro-Palestinian activists have been canceled from so many places, even artists, even singers. They were canceled from big events because of what they say about the Palestinian people and their right to exist and to exist with dignity. 

G. Greenwald: Yeah, I mean, we covered so many censorship-based reactions to suppress pro-Palestinian speech, but I just thought it was important to remember that that's been happening in the United States well before October 7, and in fact, just a week or two before, at one of our great universities, the University of Pennsylvania, where apparently just the mere presence of Palestinian voices in the view of a lot of people justify trying to get the entire event canceled and ended up getting some of the people banned. 

All right, so you went back to Gaza after that event and shortly thereafter, the October 7 attack happened, then followed by this massive Israeli air assault on Gaza, unlike, I think, anything that has happened in Gaza for a long time, despite how terrible and fatal so many of the other ones were. Just in your own words, what was that like, just to be constantly surrounded by death, by the risk of death, by the fear that you would go to bed and not wake up? How did you navigate that? 

Mosab Abu Toha: So, it is important, Glenn, to note that Palestinians in Gaza have been massacred by the Israeli forces, the Israeli army, without – I mean, I was 31 years old when I left Gaza for the last time, I've never, before October 7, in my life, seen an Israeli soldier. Israel was bombing us from the sky, Israel was firing at us from gunboats and warships in the sea, in our sea, just seven or eight nautical miles off our shore. They were shooting at us, they were killing us, they were dropping bombs on us without us seeing. I've never seen an Israeli, not even one Israeli soldier, never seen any Israeli soldier or Israeli civilian, in my life. So, we have been killed, we have been abducted, we have been injured, our houses have been destroyed on top of our families, without us seeing who these people are, who have been killing us without us seeing. 

I mean, they see us from a screen. They see us as dots, black and white dots moving on the ground or maybe structures on the ground. Lately, they have been filming us through their drones, people who are trying to get aid. There are so many videos of people who try to go back to their homes to collect food and then there is footage of an Israeli drone missile hitting them and killing them. 

So, I lived in Gaza all my life and I've never seen an Israeli soldier. I was wounded and I don't know whether that soldier knew or whether that Israeli pilot who dropped the bomb in 2009 knew that they killed seven people in that airstrike and they wounded a 16-year-old child who became a Pulitzer Prize-winning author. 

So, when Israel attacked Gaza, it was not only a military attack. Israel did not only drop bombs, they did not fire bullets at people, unarmed people, but they also shut off electricity, shut off water, shut off food trucks. They control everything, right? So, it's not like Israel just attacked Gaza militarily. No, they blocked everything, even as we are talking, people do not have, not only enough food, because we always talk about the lack of food, the lack of water, the lack of shelter, but there is a lack of medicine. 

One of the relatives of my brother-in-law who was wounded in a strike that killed his brother 20 days ago, and I wrote about him in my last piece in the New Yorker, he was at the hospital, at al-Shifa hospital, and the shrapnel covered his body, and his arms and his body was wrapped in gauze, and he complained to the doctors that he has some pain in his body. And do you know what they gave him? They gave him something like Tylenol, something that you take when you have a headache. There's no medicine in Gaza. And even though there is no healthy food – the kind of food that is entering Gaza is canned food: canned beans, canned peas, sugar and frying oil. There is no fresh food, not only for people to grow normally, but even for those, the dozens of thousands of Palestinians who were injured. There is no healthy food. Fresh food like vegetables, fruit and meat, for them to heal. 

So, people in Gaza are dying several, times and if you allow me I mean because now as we are talking, today in Gaza, it's 2:20 a.m., it's Thursday today, June 26, as we are talking, just in the past hour, Israel bombed a tent in Khan Yunis, killing five people. And before that, yesterday, they killed 101 people all over the Gaza Strip. Of these people, there was a whole family, the Al-Dahdouh family. I wrote their names on my social media, I mean, we don't get to know the names of these people who are killed. The father is named Salah al-Dahdouh, his wife is Salwa al-Dahdouh, their children are Ahmad, son, Abdallah, son, Mostafa, son, and Alaa, his daughter. The brother of the father was killed, and then there was a nephew. So, the Israel attack on Gaza is not by killing them, but even by bombing the internet, bombing the electricity, not allowing people even to report. So, there is difficulty in reporting, not only by not allowing journalists, international journalists, to go to Gaza, but they are also bombing every means that Palestinians can use to report on their miseries and their suffering and their demise. 

So, that's why it is very important to talk about what's happening in Gaza and also in Palestine every day. Israel is killing people in Gaza and Palestine every day. That's why every day we have to speak, to talk, about Palestine. 

G. Greenwald: There's a lot, obviously, we could talk about; we cover a lot of the atrocities pretty much on a daily basis, or close to it, on this show. I do want to get, to that as well, just some of the more recent things that have been happening that, as I said, have been even more covered up than usual, not just by the lack of media in Gaza, international media, and the lack internet, but also by so much attention paid to what was happening in Iran.

I had John Mearsheimer on my show yesterday and we were both talking about how is it that the world can watch what's going on in Gaza, even to the extent that we get to see it, how is it the West, that's paying for it, that's enabling it, can watch what's happening? It's just no one seems to mind, nobody seems to care, nobody seems to be bothered by it, it just kind of goes on, no one is even close to stopping it. 

We just saw Trump order Netanyahu to turn the planes around from Iran, which obviously Biden could have done, Trump could have done at any time, and they just won't. I'm trying to figure out, like, how can this be? 

I think one of the ways that that happens is the language of dehumanization. So, I think a lot of Americans have this perception of what Gaza is, what Palestine is, radically different than the reality. I was interested in the work that you've done in creating libraries in Gaza. You're obviously very well-spoken. You just won a Pulitzer Prize for your writing in English. I've had Gazans on my show before who are very similarly highly educated, well-spoken. 

There is a whole network – there were at least – of Gazan universities and advanced centers of learning that are all now destroyed. Gaza had one of the highest literacy rates in the world before October 7. Some of the best doctors, respected all around the world as specialists in their field. Can you talk about what Gazan society and Gazan culture are like and how it has been just so completely destroyed in the last 20 months? 

Mosab Abu Toha: Sure, yeah, I mean, before I answer your question, I would like to highlight the fact that, for two years now, not a single student in Gaza has gone to school. The schools have become shelters, as we are talking. Just half an hour, at the same time that Israel bombed a tent in Khan Yunis, Israel bombed a classroom on the third floor of a school called Amr Ibn al-Aas in Sheikh Radwan, in Gaza City, and two or three people were reported to be killed. 

So, two years, no schools. So anyone who was five years old when Israel attacked Gaza on October 7 hasn't gone to school for two years. So, if my children were to be there at the moment, my five-year-old would have missed his first and second grades. For two years, students have missed their high school diploma tests. So, people in Gaza are missing not only their lives, but even those who survive are missing a lot in their own lives. 

The Gaza Strip lies on the beach of the Mediterranean Sea. Gaza is rich in its plants and trees. One of the best places in Gaza is a city or town called Beit Lahia and it's very, very famous for the strawberry farms. My father-in-law is a strawberry farmer and they also used to plant corn, onion, watermelon, oranges, and they used to even, I mean, when it is allowed, to export some of the strawberries to the West Bank. But I think Gaza is very beautiful, even though it has been under occupation since 1948 and it's been under siege since 2007. 

Israel controls how much food gets into Gaza, how many hours of electricity is available in Gaza, how much medicine is allowed to enter Gaza, what kind of equipment, medical equipment get into Gaza, how many books get into because when I was trying to build the Edward Said Public Library, two branches in 2017 and 2019 – and unfortunately Israel destroyed the two libraries just like they destroyed all the universities in Gaza – Israel was in control of the entry of these books into Gaza. Sometimes the books would be delayed by months. It usually takes eight weeks for any books or packages to enter Gaza. So, Israel was controlling every single aspect of our lives in Gaza, despite that, we managed to make Gaza as beautiful as we could. 

This campaign of destroying Gaza is nonstop. Israel has been blowing up the houses in Bethlehem: 70%, this is an old statistic, 70% of Gaza has been either destroyed or damaged by not only Israeli airstrikes, while people are sleeping, but even the houses that people had to live in because Israel announced them to be a combat zone. Israel has been systematically blowing these houses up, and there are so many videos of Israeli soldiers documenting the blowing up of neighborhoods and of schools, of their bulldozers destroying a hospital in north Gaza just next to the Indonesian hospital in Beit Lahia. 

Israel has systematically been destroying everything in Gaza. So, the question is not about when there will be a cease-fire in Gaza, although the cease-fire is just the beginning of a bigger change in Palestine. The question is, even after the cease-fire, Israel is trying to make it impossible for people to live again. So, let's say there is a cease-fire today. There are no schools in Gaza; 70% of the population in Gaza do not have homes, they are living in tents. Even though they are living in tents, including some of my family members, these tents get bombed. 

Just a few days ago, Glenn, my neighbor was killed in an airstrike when Israel hit a group of people walking next to it. She was inside her tent. These tents are pulled up on the street. So, she was killed while she was inside her tent. Her mother is still critically wounded, and all her brothers were wounded. So, Israel continues to destroy, to decimate as much of Gaza as possible, and there is a systematic destruction of the refugee camps in Gaza. Something that I wrote about in one of my pieces in The New Yorker is that Israel is not only destroying Gaza, the cities, the villages and the towns, but they are also destroying refugee camps. 

The refugee camps after 1948 were groups of tents here and there. Their refugee status continued for years and years, then people started to build rooms from concrete, and, over the years, they started to build multistory buildings. So, the refugee camp changed into a small city. 

So, Israel currently destroyed most, I mean, much of the Jabalia refugee camp, the largest refugee camp in Gaza. So, these are people, now, who lived in the refugee camp or people who were born in refugee camps like me and now are living in tents on the street, and maybe sheltering in a school, in a hospital, these people now are dreaming of returning to the refugee camps. So, this is the fault of the world. 

This is the fault of the word because they left the Palestinian people to live in refugee camps, they left them without protection and they not only left them without protection, they continue to support, to fund Israel's genocide, like the United States cut its funding for UNRWA, which has been responsible for the delivery of aid and for the education of so many people, including me. So, this world is not working properly, really. It's very strange for us to be watching this, even 20 months after the start of the genocide and for me to watch it from here, from the United States. 

G. Greenwald: Yeah, it's got to be almost impossible.

I know I don't need to tell you, but for people who are watching, I mean, the control of Gaza by the Israelis – including it probably intensified since they removed troops, which they had there in 2005 – the control that continued was so great that the Israelis had phrases like really macabre, horrific, dark phrases like mowing the lawn, which meant let's just go in and kill some Palestinians or let's put the Palestinians on a diet when they would cut back the amount of food that they allowed in into Gaza. This has been the mentality going on for a long time. 

I want to just to ask you something: we talk a lot about the number of people in Gaza who have been slaughtered since October 7, the Israelis are now open about the fact that they want to make Gaza uninhabitable to force people to leave, to kill them until they leave, to destroy civilization until they leave. It's at least a policy of ethnic cleansing. One thing that I think about a lot, though, is, for the people who do survive, who are able to survive the genocide, survive this ethnic cleansing, this onslaught, I have to think about, how is it possible that they'd have a future? 

I live in Brazil, in Rio de Janeiro, which is a city, especially in poorer areas, that has a very high level of violence, drug gangs and the like, very high murder rates and I know some people who grew up there and they talk about, one time when I was seven years old, I saw a dead body on the ground twice, when I was in my teenage years, I saw a gun shootout, and they talk about how psychologically scarring that is for life, like to be exposed to those kinds of horrors even once or twice while you're growing up. And here you have this massive civilian population in Gaza, 50% of them are children, and the last two years, their lives have been nothing but bombing and destruction and murder and fear of death. Just psychologically, how do you think that the people who are there who do survive will be able to overcome that and, at some point, return to a normal semblance of life? 

Mosab Abu Toha: Well, this is a very hard question to answer. It's very obvious that the population that's been trying to survive – I mean, I don't like to say that people live in Gaza. No, people are trying to survive in Gaza because there is a difference between living in Gaza and trying to survive a genocide. 

So, these people, for 20 months, at least, haven't lived a single day without suffering, without looking for food, looking for medicine, looking for water. I mean, Glenn, I was in Gaza for the first two months. I remember walking in the street looking for water to fill a bucket of water for my children and for my wife, to wash the dishes, maybe to have a shower in the school, because there are no services in the school shelters, by the way. 

I remember walking in the city and seeing five-year-old children standing in line to fill a bucket of water for their families, or children maybe 10 years old. I saw some of my students standing in line to get a pack of bread and that was in October and November 2023, that was before Israel tightened its genocide. So, these children, five or seven years old, are no longer children. These children are not practicing childhood. 

This is a very dangerous reality and it should also be a signal that there would be a very dangerous future for these children. So, 50% of the population in Gaza is children. So, the question is for the Americans, for the Europeans who have been funding Israel's genocide and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians in Gaza and also in the West Bank: what do they expect of these Palestinians once this genocide comes on in? So, what kind of people is the world expecting to see in the future? That's a question that I don't have an answer to, but I'm sure that these people, Palestinian people who have been surviving the genocide in Gaza, will no longer be normal. 

I'm not a scientist, I am not a psychologist, but I think people in the world, especially officials, politicians and decision-makers, should think seriously about this. What kind of people are we going to see after the genocide comes to an end? What kind of people are going to be those who have been living under occupation? I don't have an answer to that, but if you think about it, I think there are many answers. 

G. Greenwald: Yeah, I couldn't agree more. A couple more questions: there's this old phrase, it's often attributed to Stalin, I'm not really sure. I don't think anyone is sure if he's really the one who said it. It’s this idea that when one person dies, it is a tragedy, when 1000 people die, it's a statistic. We often talk about, oh, 50,000 people are dead or 100,000 people dead in Gaza, and so often, as you said, the names of the people aren't very well known. We don't talk about them; we don't humanize them. 

One of the people who was killed after October 7 is a friend of yours, Refaat Alareer, who was a very well-known and accomplished poet. He has a book, “If I Must Die,” a poem that was turned into a book after he died, which became a bestseller in the United States and the West, and it's really remarkable. I got a copy, I read it and I really encourage people to do so. 

He was killed in an airstrike in December, so just a couple of months after October 7, and he was killed in his house, along with his sister and several of her children. Then, I guess, I don't know, what is it, five months later, his eldest daughter and her grandson were separately killed in airstrikes on their home as well. It just kind of gives you a sense for the number of families being wiped out. 

He was English speaking, he participated in the American Discourse, and one of the things that happened – I think people have really overlooked this, I want to make sure it's not forgotten and I want to get your views on this: after October 7, as we know, there were all these lies that were told about what was done in Israel, that children were killed in ovens, which obviously invokes the Holocaust by design; that babies were cut out of the wombs of their mothers, none of which ended up being true. Refaat, on Twitter, responding to these kinds of insane lies that were being told, mocked them. 

We have the tweet on October 29 where he said, “With or without baking powder?”, obviously mocking the idea that they were killed in ovens, which turned out to be a complete lie: 

AD_4nXerf2K5MrSKeKmWkMOl72MKiEBDlDx4hqzNJsmIz38o0Hxvzl9zwS1UiD0Xu6a4TjeRnprR1wRerKjfZ0sbyxtHP34mjYdmUOQM95fYthLEUJav40zF1bwjONBvrruubeH0wZIbTp0-ddEM5Zlynq8?key=TIQi3Fa0JLGop5rXvVQtjA

And Bari Weiss, who obviously has a big platform, immediately seized on that and put a target on his back: 

AD_4nXduUz3N_uoMUocamdkV4kMYB_G17QaVuYoUrISWhcfFV5_j8V9F_sQyqxiWi6vSuqtrd74DXr4fydwv6w9RkOyMoKLf8myVCd1RjZMiMB0iJEYHhNmJHbOfTyPXNJTaYtqNOCGZjZrB7qofTuIPcD8?key=TIQi3Fa0JLGop5rXvVQtjA

An obvious distortion of what he said. The claim that Bari Weiss made that babies were killed in an oven was a complete and total lie disseminated by the Israeli government. And then he went the next day and said:

AD_4nXe4cc6Th_f_BiOooTd8He-WZqgATARn_ro-mP_7GA5G-LbmBSZovnU3x9ddzrlmigL7ONq2Or4vzvqYop4PAvs3oUq5k9Up98pbXtf9CafcN5-DiU5Fh9t6P17q0SdNQ-uMfAKsVENiS89G9k42Dyw?key=TIQi3Fa0JLGop5rXvVQtjA

Then, about a month later, he was dead at a targeted bombing of his home. Lots of human rights groups believe it was deliberate. Can you reflect on him and his work, but also how you see that killing and Bari Weiss's role in at least spreading these lies, if not helping to target him? 

Mosab Abu Toha: Of course. First of all, Refaat was a professor of English and Comparative Literature at the University of Gaza, where I studied, where I did my bachelor's degree. He was someone like a mentor. He was one of the founders of “We Are Not Numbers,” which is a group that is dedicated to mentoring emerging writers in Gaza, in the West Bank and also the refugee camps in Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria. So, Refaat introduced me to that project in 2014-2015, so, in fact, Refaat was killed in his sister's house in Gaza City. His sister, Asmaa, lived in Gaza City, and he also lived in Gaza City, but he evacuated his house, so Refaat, by the time he entered his sister's house, he was bombed in that apartment. He was killed along with his sister Asmaa and four nephews, along with one of Refaat’s brothers. 

Refaat was known for his satire. Of course, he and me and other Palestinians would never believe that any Palestinian, whether it's Hamas or other people, would burn babies, put people in ovens, or behead babies, I don't know what, I mean, even an evil person wouldn't do that. So, of course, he thought that this was a lie, this is a joke or something, and there is no evidence that that happened.

G. Greenwald: And it was proven to be a lie. He was absolutely right. It did not happen. It was a complete fabrication. 

Mosab Abu Toha: Yeah. Yeah. I mean, if you go back, if you go to Refaat’s social media accounts before October 7, you would see a lot of jokes. So that was one of his jokes, and it was used against him. It's like one of the posts when I say, when I commented about an Israeli hostage, Emily Demary, and I said, how on Earth is this soldier a hostage while other Palestinians, like me, who were abducted from checkpoints, from hospitals, from school shelters, are called prisoners or detainees. 

G. Greenwald: Right, they're putting them in danger without any charges, and they're convicted of nothing, and those are prisoners, and yet people who are active IDF soldiers found in tanks, found in combat, who are taken as prisoners of war, those are all hostages. 

Mosab Abu Toha: Yeah, so that was one of my questions. And then that was used against me, until after I won the Pulitzer. Oh, he is denying his status as a hostage; this is an anti-Semite. She called me a Holocaust denier. So, it's really irritating and it's ridiculous even to call someone like me a Holocaust denier, someone who has never talked about the Holocaust. In fact, I have some of the books that are about the holocaust that I relate to, that I feel very outraged when I read about the experiences of the Jewish people at the hands of Europeans, not Palestinians. 

So, Refaat's tweet, and I remember that post when Bari Weiss posted that, just to get a lot of hate, more hate for Refaat. Refaat was a Palestinian poet, essayist, a fiction writer, an editor of a book called “Gaza Writes Back,” which he published in 2014, an anthology of short stories by some of his students at the University of Gaza and other students from other universities. 

It's been devastating that Refaat was killed in his sister's house and then, a few months later, his daughter Shayma was killed with her baby, whom Refaat himself didn't see because his daughter was still pregnant. So, Shayma was killed with her baby, Abd al-Rahman, and with her husband, an engineer called Mohammed Siyam. And, by the way, Glenn, there is something that people don't know, which is that that poem, If I Must Die, which is the title of that book you referred to, in fact that poem was written in 2011 and that poem was dedicated to his daughter Shayma.

G. Greenwald: The one who died in that airstrike with her infant son. 

Mosab Abu Toha: Exactly. So the poem Refaat re-shared the poem after October 7. So that's how people came to know the poem. So, just imagine, in that poem, he's telling his daughter, if I must die, you should live, to tell my stories, to sell my things, to make a kite, that's the meaning of the poem; if I must die let it bring hope, let it be a tale. And we, truth tellers, writers, poets, journalists, we should write the tale of those whose voices were taken away from them by killing them and their families. So that was his message to his daughter, who unfortunately was killed in an air strike. 

So in that poem, to me, it's very clear that the I and the you were killed. That's why the you must become a collective you, that every one of us, the free people of the world who care about the human beings, especially those who have been living under occupation and siege and apartheid for decades, not for months, not four years, for decades, we should be the voices of these people, especially because we know what's happening or what has been happening. 

G. Greenwald: Yes. Mosab, I know you have time constraints. It was such a pleasure speaking with you. I think your voice is uniquely valuable and important to be heard by as many people as possible. So, we're definitely going to be harassing you to come back on the show. I had a lot more to talk about, but I want to respect your time as well, but super appreciative for you to come on. It's great speaking with you. 

Mosab Abu Toha: Thank you so much. I appreciate it. 

G. Greenwald: All right, have a good evening. 

AD_4nXfJtEO736zZmhbu03029He2NIPgIwCSd0RIU3SmMbVVQJsIpozYQRKwJXRpuREKRc7lorAoninw1oXGzHd8iktV6mC_v9BiXr_wjVD9eXyP3SAX-8BYlkPPs38ylNHr9K8HzKNTIMXwiA3AU5Rrx5A?key=TIQi3Fa0JLGop5rXvVQtjA

So, I want to talk about the extraordinary victory – and it was truly extraordinary – last night, in the Democratic Party primary, of Zohran Mamdani, who has really vanquished a political dynasty, the Cuomos. 

However, I just want to note, though, in relation to that last segment, that shortly before we went on air, Donald Trump, I guess, just learned for the first time that Benjamin Netanyahu, who is facing extremely serious corruption charges and is on trial for those corruption charges. These are not things like an accounting scheme to cover-up payments to a porn star or anything else like Donald Trump was accused of. This is hardcore, real corruption. It would have probably gotten him out of office a long time ago, had it not been for the various wars that he started. Lots of people believe that's one of the reasons why he needed these wars: to stay in office. 

Right before we were going on air, President Trump put out a quite lengthy and passionate, spirited statement on Truth Social in which he essentially said, “I know that Benjamin Netanyahu is now being called to return to his trial on Monday. This is an outrage.” I read it several times and I'm summarizing it very accurately. He said these trials should be canceled and/or Prime Minister Netanyahu should be completely pardoned. Then he went on to say that he and Bibi Netanyahu just secured a very tough, important victory against what he called Israel's longtime enemy, not the United States’ long-term enemy, but Israel's long-time enemy, Iran. 

He's essentially saying we just together fought a war against Israel's enemy, which is, of course, exactly what that war was and the reason why it was fought. Then he went on through this long, lengthy expression of outrage over the fact that Bibi Netanyahu is facing criminal charges. At the end, he said, the United States just saved Israel, and the United States will also now save Bibi Netanyahu. 

So, Trump himself is describing this war as one against Israel's longtime enemy and that the United States just saved Israel. There are a lot of people who get extremely outraged when you observe that it seems like this is another war for Israel being fought, not for the United States' interest, but for Israel, against Israel's enemy, not the United States’ enemy. Yet, President Trump, apparently, sees it that way as well, based on what he's saying, and instead of focusing on the people that he promised to protect and work for, namely the forgotten American worker, remember he's right now back to trying to interfere in the Israeli court system and the Israeli domestic politics by demanding that his very close friend, Bibi Netanyahu, be pardoned because he fought a good war. I don't really understand the relationship between those two things, but that is what President Trump said. 

AD_4nXfJtEO736zZmhbu03029He2NIPgIwCSd0RIU3SmMbVVQJsIpozYQRKwJXRpuREKRc7lorAoninw1oXGzHd8iktV6mC_v9BiXr_wjVD9eXyP3SAX-8BYlkPPs38ylNHr9K8HzKNTIMXwiA3AU5Rrx5A?key=TIQi3Fa0JLGop5rXvVQtjA

AD_4nXcSIISp-Ah6qbCH1ZgWDtri0mNTsFJFxDYUqWec3dLUQc3N6sMZ4UNXUnAwVs2v1R3XQtX5h43nI2HpHkSY3XAXkO4MNmOhpPuCYDNEj4oI5c8r3rZwGeOWHk_J34yn5uR2bAbJTcR3IAd-AHydk9w?key=TIQi3Fa0JLGop5rXvVQtjA

Zohran Mamdani's victory last night is extraordinary for a lot of reasons. Back in February, so I'm not talking about a year ago, I'm talking about four months ago. All the polling showed Andrew Cuomo with his gigantic lead. Obviously, he has massive name recognition, part of a beloved political dynasty. I mean, Mario Cuomo, for those who didn't live through that time in the eighties, was probably the most beloved Democrat in a long time. But then he had these two sons, Andrew and Chris, and Chris ended up parlaying that last name and those connections into being a journalist and his other brother, Andrew, was basically groomed to be the president of the United States from a very young age. He went around with his father everywhere, just the absolute classic nepo baby. And then he got all sorts of positions in Democratic Party politics because of his dad. At a very young age, he was made a cabinet secretary in the Clinton administration. In the early 1990s, he married a Kennedy, Kerry Kennedy Cuomo. 

The entire thing was being shaped, from the very beginning, to groom Andrew Cuomo as part of this political dynasty based on the nepotistic benefits he got from being Mario Cuomo's son, not just to be governor of New York, but to be the president of the United States. That was absolutely where Cuomo is headed. It was supposedly remembered that liberals turned him into the hero of the COVID crisis saying only he was acting with the level of aggression necessary and all of that came completely crashing down because he had a litany of women who credibly accused him of sexual assault, sexual harassment, and this was a couple of years after Democrats made the Me Too movement. His brother also ended up getting fired from CNN because he was plotting with his brother about how to discredit these female accusers while he was still on CNN. And then it turned out that his greatness on COVID, which was his greatest strength that was going to jettison him to the presidency, ended up being one of his worst disgraces because he kept a bunch of old people locked in nursing homes and a lot of them ended up dying as a result. 

We covered all that before, but suffice to say, nonetheless, four years later, he comes back with much less ambition, already the governor of New York with three terms. He resigned in the middle of his third term, having been groomed to be president. 

Now they kind of convinced him, look, you're 67, the only thing there is for you to do is to run for mayor. He clearly thought it was beneath him, wasn't particularly excited, thought his victory was inevitable, and it looked like it was. Who's going to beat a Cuomo in Democratic Party politics? And not just because they're Cuomo, but he has all the billionaire money behind him. 

 

In February, when I really started paying attention to Zohran's campaign, because I could kind of tell it had the big potential to really take off, I could just tally at a lot of political talent, that he was forming a campaign that can really connect. You don't know for sure, but I noted at the time that it seemed very interesting to me that what he was doing was very different. You can see he had a lot of political talent. It reminded me of AOC, where, say what you want about her now, and I have mostly negative things to say about her, there's no denying that she has a kind of charisma and a political talent as well. 

But anyway, still, I mean, even though I was interested in and could see the potential, I never imagined that he would actually win. I just thought, oh, this is going to be a political star, he's probably going to end up attracting a good number of left-wing voters. But never imagined he would defeat the Cuomo dynasty and all the billionaire money behind it. 

As Zohran started increasing in the polls and then clearly became the main threat to Cuomo, huge amounts of billionaire money, largely afraid, in part about Zohran's democratic socialist policy, kind of a type of democratic socialism of Bernie Sanders and AOC. I know people want to call it communism, which just isn't. But obviously, people on Wall Street hated it, which definitely means things like increasing taxes on the rich, redistributing resources to the working class and poor people. It is that philosophy that people on Wall Street hate, that big billionaires hate. Also, he's a very outspoken critic of Israel, which in New York, with a very large Jewish population, a very large pro-Israel faction that's very powerful, is typically not something you can be. I mean, even the Democrats who won, like Ed Koch and Bill de Blasio, have been typically pro-Israel. That's just a red line for any politician who has ambitions in New York. 

He has said things like he supports a boycott and divestment sanction; he's talked about globalizing the intifada. Interestingly, unlike people who, when they run for office, have their past quotes dug up and are confronted with them and they repudiate them immediately, like Kamala Harris reputed everything she said she believed when running for president in the Democratic primary in 2019 and they brought it all to her when she was running in the general election. 

Mamdani did not do any of that. He was asked, “Do you still support the globalizing intifada instead of running away from it?” And he said, “Yeah, I do, but I think it's often distorted. It doesn't mean anything more than a struggle, a resistance, not blowing people up.” He supports boycotting Israel; he didn't repudiate that. He was asked whether, given Benjamin Netanyahu's indictment and the warrants for his arrest issued by the ICC, he would have him arrested if he came to New York, and he said he would. So, obviously, a lot of billionaires like Bill Ackman, whose primary loyalty is to Israel, were desperate to make sure Mamdani didn't win. 

I promise you, Bill Ackman does not care about zoning laws or the efficiency of services in New York. He has about 10 estates all over the world. To the extent he lives in New York, he lives in a $30 million duplex apartment very high above Manhattan, he chauffeured around in cars and the like. That's not his interest. His interest was in stopping somebody who was critical of Israel, and he put huge amounts of money, as did other billionaires, into packs for Andrew Cuomo that largely just attacked Zohran Mamdani as an anti-Semite, all the rest. And none of it worked, even though usually those things are guaranteed to work in any major democratic race. 

It's very difficult when I watch Democrats trying to convince Americans that Donald Trump was a Hitler-like figure, it's like a vicious dictator who was going to put people in camps. One of the reasons why it was so hard to do that, why it was so obviously destined to fail, was because Trump doesn't read that way. Americans watched him for four years in the presidency and they, even the ones who didn't like him, didn't see him as Hitler. And so, this attempt to try to turn Zohran Mamdani into a raging anti-Semite, I mean, we showed you a few of these tweets throughout the week, just absolutely insane ones from people saying his election would be an existential threat to New York Jews. What is he going to do, like round them up from synagogues and put them in concentration camps, is that what Zohran Mamdani is going to do? 

The reason it doesn't work is that you just listen to the guy for three minutes and you see that he is not anything resembling that. He has a lot of policies, especially culture war ones, with which I'm uncomfortable. His economic policies are ones that obviously a lot of people are going to have problems with, but the idea that he's like Osama bin Laden, or Joseph Stalin, that just doesn't work. If you just listen to who he is, how he speaks, what he says – there has to be some alignment with the smears with the person in order for it to work. 

A lot of liberals have this monolithic view that everybody on the right has the same exact views of everything, there are no divisions, and of course you pay attention to right-wing politics, there are major ideological rifts and divisions and debates. We saw it with the Iran war and many other issues already, H-1B visas, all sorts of things. But a lot of people on the right see the Democratic Party as this monolith as well. They think like Chuck Schumer, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi are the same, like, AOC or Bernie or Zohran, and it's completely untrue. 

New York City doesn't elect socialists. When they elect Democrats, they elect very established – Ed Koch was a very centrist member of Congress for a long time, very pro-Israel, always at war with the left-wing of the Democratic Party, kind of the classic New York city mayor, very outspoken, loud, kind of charismatic in his own sort of way. And even Bill de Blasio, who was considered more progressive, had very close relations with the large New York City developers, even though Wall Street didn't like Bill de Blasio. 

So, it's hard to overstate what a sea change this is. Even if you think New York City is a cesspool of baffling, it's not. I mean, it is in little places, but a citywide election, that's not who wins in New York. 

Here, just to give you a sense of the funding gap. I'm doing this because I want to underscore to you how improbable this victory is, what a reflection of it it is of a remarkable sea change in how American voters are thinking about politics or thinking about elections, what they respond to, what they don't respond to, not just on the left, but on the right, not in Democratic Party or the Republican Party, but across the spectrum. 

AD_4nXfmqcyWY5hszM_ZgVpseXQysH8q33M0UFFFfhBhMEyFZbHrymX_5KWejL6IAx99ZNKjkMxoFgP29o-N_WY9adfaxtFkksZb-CW1ZoBtKgHq1SPMG8rqGU1-VN2UTqTiRWbQ7-lBuXBXMguj2hpO_do?key=TIQi3Fa0JLGop5rXvVQtjA

You have three types of funding: campaign funding directly, matching public funds and then aligned super PACs. Andrew Cuomo had at least $35 million, $35.6 million. In second place, was Zohran with 9.1, almost entirely small donors. So, look at this gap, talking about a gap of $25 million – $25 billion for a city-wide race. And that's why people are describing it as such a major upset.

Now, just so you don't think I'm like hopping on some train once it left the station, pretending that I knew all along, I've watched Zohran for quite a while now, but I'm going to show you the reasons why. Back in February, when he was at less than 1% of the polls, I just wanted to draw people's attention to him, even though nobody was paying attention then, because I could see the kind of campaign he was running. I, for the first time, understood what his political talent was. It's just like a native inborn thing that you either have or you don't. He has it. He's a very effective political speaker, but he just kind of has an energy that people find attractive and appealing. And to be clear, I hate the fact that if you analyze somebody's political appeal in a positive way, people are like, “Oh, you're a cheerleader for him. You must love him.” I went through this with Donald Trump for so many years, I would say liberals don't understand Trump's appeal. He's funny, he is charismatic and exciting and he vessels and channels anti-establishment hatred, which is the driving force of American politics and American political life, and you should understand that about him. 

I can admit that the people I can't stand most, Dick Cheney, are very smart. I can acknowledge that attribute of theirs without liking them. So, what I'm saying here is it's important to understand why's Zohran had this political appeal. It doesn't mean you like him or hate him. It's a completely separate question. 

So back in February, I wrote this:

AD_4nXcK-v6KCEnuwTyp7LP-G1IrHv4NjO_qnW10En5eUeH0cO2jXySdE6PniaI6EZbt36kMRiPzGwCX4wQ35SydndF5AwV21DUhEhJGCW_cptLcj6RG56VJr7ZxTDTEYUvdg5FhjpP0_czm3sF_SgZVuW4?key=TIQi3Fa0JLGop5rXvVQtjA

So, it was clear to me something was happening there. I'm not suggesting I knew he was going to win. I just knew that there was a lot of potential there, people should pay more attention to him. And so the question is, okay, why did this happen? 

So, I want to show you a video that was probably the first thing that really attracted my attention to him and why I thought he was just a very different kind of Democrat. 

 This is at a time when Joy Reid and MSNBC were telling everybody that Trump won simply because white voters are too racist and misogynist to vote for a black woman, which is a very self-certifying, pleasant narrative to tell yourself. But here's what Zohran did. He went specifically to the neighborhoods in New York City that had the biggest swing from Democratic voters to Trump. They weren't the Upper West Side or the East Side. They were poor neighborhoods, working-class neighborhoods, racially diverse neighborhoods, or even predominantly Black or Latino neighborhoods, immigrant neighborhoods. All he did was go around and ask them why they voted for Trump and the things that they told him clearly shaped what he decided to do when forming his own campaign and the issues that he wanted to emphasize. In other words, he went to speak to the people of New York and asked why they were dissatisfied and then formed a campaign to speak to what their dissatisfactions and desires were. Imagine doing that. He didn't go to consultants or political strategists or whatever; he really just went and talked to voters. 

Listen to what happened. Listen to how he did it, too. 

Video. Zohran Mamdani, X. November 15, 2024.

That's a very good sampling of why a lot of people voted for Trump. The Democrats want to send all our money to wars in Ukraine and Israel, we can't afford things, they only care about the wealthy. 

The things that they care about are obvious, the things that they encounter every day in their lives, the bus fares and the cost of rent and the like. And that's what his entire campaign was structured around. 

A lot of people found tweets of his from 2020 when he was in his mid to late twenties, running for New York assembly right during Black Lives Matter. Tons of left-wing culture war, nonsense, lots of extreme positions. He was positioning himself for a very left-wing seat in the state assembly, stuff like defund the police over and over, queer liberation requires defund of the police. Things that, obviously, if you're running in a citywide election, you're not going to run on. And he didn't. He ran a very economic populist campaign, despite being called a communist or a socialist or whatever. 

I want to show you this clip that I also found incredibly interesting. So, this is one that he did in January, when again, people really weren't paying attention to him and he posted a video with a tweet, and the tweet said: “Chicken over rice now costs $10 or more. It's time to make halal eight bucks again.”

Video. Zohran Mamdani, X. January 13, 2025.

 If you live in New York City, one of the things you see everywhere is street vendors. Lots of people buy food from street vendors, like snacks, pretzels, or all kinds of ethnically diverse food that you can eat from. If you don't have time to sit in a restaurant, you grab something from one of these street vendors and, especially in the more working-class neighborhoods, it's where people eat and people are complaining that the price of that food is increasing. If you're Andrew Cuomo, you don't eat at these; you have no idea about any of this. If you're Bill Ackman, obviously you don’t have any clue. You think that voters are going to vote on the fact that Iran is not pro-Israel enough, voters in New York City, that's what they wake up and care about? Just like the Democrats thought voters were going to wake up and care about Trump having praised a fascist, or fascist or Hitler, or whatever, so removed from their lives, or Ukraine. 

This is what populism is. I saw people today, a lot of conservatives, saying when I called it economic populism, “Oh, socialism is an economic populist.” No, when you appeal to people's life, when you tell them the rich and corporations are running roughshod over you, are preventing you from having a survivable or affordable life, and that's what became his keyword is affordability which obviously a lot of New Yorkers are being driven out of New York City, they can't afford it anymore, things are too expensive. 

So, look at what he did in this video. You tell me if this is like some sort of Stalinist communist, at least in terms of how he ran his campaign. He wanted to understand why chicken over rice, something that people eat every day in New York City, especially in more working-class neighborhoods, and why that food has increased. So he did his analysis, and concluded that the solution was to change a few things.

The laws that he's promoting here, the four laws are number one, better access to business licensing, repeal criminal liability for street vendors, services for vendors, and reform the sitting rules. It's almost like libertarian, like “Oh, there's too much bureaucracy, too many too many rigorous permit requirements, they have to pay someone else as a permit owner $20,000 a year, which obviously affects food prices. 

I mean, on top of the very kind of regular person appeal of that, talking about things that people care about a lot, things that are affecting their lives, talking about solutions to them in a very non-ideological way. There's also a lot of humor in there, a lot of kind of flair, something you want to watch. It's not like a lecture, it's not like an angry rant. You look at this and it's not hard to see why he won. 

Now, let me show you the counterattack, the way they thought the Andrew Cuomos of the world thought they were going to sabotage him. It's an amazing thing.

 This is the New York mayoral debate. There were, I think, seven candidates, eight candidates on the stage, and it was hosted by the local NBC News affiliate. And just listen to this question that they thought was important for people wanting to be New York City mayor to answer and how they all answered, except for Zohran. 

Video. New York Mayoral Debate, NBC News. June 4, 2025.

So, do you see how excited Andrew Cuomo got? He really did base a huge part of his campaign on his loyalty to Israel, his love of Israel, his long-time support for Israel, his father's support for Israel, his family's support for Israel. And you heard those voters who voted for Trump when asked why. Did any of them say, “Oh, I think Democrats are insufficiently pro-Israel?” No, no one said that. These people aren't waking up and thinking, I want to make sure my mayor is going to go to Israel as the very first foreign visit. 

It was supposed to be controversial that he said, “Look, I'm the New York City mayor. That's what I'm running for. Not the Secretary of State. I'm not thinking about foreign trips. I'm actually wanting to represent the people of New York City. I'm going to stay here at home and talk to the people I'm supposed to be working for. Why would I plan my overseas trips and make sure Israel is for?” 

“Oh, a lot of them said Israel. One of them, said, “Oh, the Holy Land, Israel.” So that was supposed to be the kind of thing that they thought was going to sabotage him. They have these old ideas on their heads about what you can and can't do. That's why Trump won, too. He broke all of those rules that people thought were still valid and he proved they weren't. 

Now, just a couple of things here. If you want to win in the Democratic primary in New York City, you can't just rely on left-wing voters. Like DSA, Democratic Socialists of America, AOC-Bernie types, that can give you a certain momentum, a certain energy, but you're not going to win a city-wide race just with those kinds of voters. You have to attract a lot of normie, liberal Democrats. That's who lives in New York City. 

 They're not people who hate Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden. These are not them. There are some in places like Brooklyn and Queens, but the majority of Democrats in New York City and most liberal American cities are very normal Democrats. They love the democratic establishment; they love Pelosi and Chuck Schumer. Chuck Schumer represents New York and has forever. That's who they like. That's what you need to attract: those voters. 

 

They've become convinced that the Democrats has this kind of aged stagnant, listless, slow, uninteresting leadership base. And it's true. It's basically an aristocracy. Obviously, the debacle with Biden underscored that more than anything. They were being told they had to get behind someone who was suffering from dementia. And so, they want this kind of new energy, this exciting energy. That's a big part of it. 

It was kind of a referendum on what Democrats want their party to be. They don't want to be voting for a 67-year-old person of politics for 40 years, who has billionaire money behind him as part of the democratic establishment, who was in the Clinton cabinet, have Bill Clinton kind of come in from wherever he is and be like, yeah, I'm endorsing Andrew Cuomo. That's not appealing to these Democrats anymore. They know that they can't keep going down that road. 

So that's part of it. But I really think a big part of is that the primary division, not just American politics, but politics throughout the democratic world, certainly something we've talked a lot about before, is the difference between someone perceived to be part of the establishment and someone who seems to be an outsider, who hates the establishment. There are a lot of people in the United States, millions, who voted twice for President Obama in 2008, 2012, and then voted for Donald Trump in 2016. That's a reason why Trump won. And people who continue to cling to this archaic, obsolete way of understanding American politics, whether it's about left v. right, conservative v. socialist, whatever, they can't process that. 

In 2016, there were a lot of people who were saying to reporters, my two favorite candidates are Trump and Bernie Sanders. And again, same thing, if you think everything's a right v. left, you'd be like, what are these people? They're crazy? That makes no sense. But when you see that things are about hatred for the establishment, a desire to reject establishment candidates and vote for outsiders who seem anti-establishment, you understand why Obama won against, first, Hillary Clinton, and then, John McCain. 

Zohran Mamdani is obviously an outsider candidate, very unknown, very young, doesn't speak like those other candidates, certainly doesn't speak like Andrew Cuomo, doesn't have billionaire backing, is highly critical on a fundamental level of the political establishment. That's a major reason why he won as well. 

I really believe that one of the things that was like Trump's superpower was, as I said, that he didn't care that the things he was saying were supposedly disqualifying. He wouldn't retract them. I remember in 2015 when he had a pretty sizable lead, people were shocked by it. But they thought, “Oh, it's just early. This is the kind of candidate Republicans flirt with but won't actually vote for. They're going to snap it to line at the end and vote for Jeb Bush.”  

In 2015, he gave an interview that's now notorious where he said, when asked about John McCain, who never liked Trump, and he was asked about his heroism and Trump said, “I don't know that he's so heroic. He crashed a plane and got captured. I prefer soldiers and heroes who don't get captured. I think that's what makes you a winner.” I remember the outpouring of articles over the next few days from all the, like, deans of political reporting or whatever, saying, “OK, that's the end of Trump's campaign. You can't criticize John McCain.” And of course, they went to him, “Do you apologize?” “No, I don't apologize. I meant every word I said.” 

And there were so many things like that. Mocking the New York Times reporter who has cerebral palsy, I believe it was some sort of degenerative disease. Over and over, and his refusal to renounce his own statements, actions, and beliefs made him seem more genuine. Even if people don't like the things he has said, the fact that he's saying, “No, that's what I believe,” is a big political asset. 

The fact Zohran, who has a long history of passionate activism in opposition to Israeli aggression, Israeli settlements in the West Bank, Israeli assaults on Gaza, when he would say things like “Globalize Intifada”, which he did, and he was confronted about that a month before the election, and he's like, “No, I'm not going to withdraw that. People distort what that means. They try to make it seem like it means you believe in terrorists, like killing people with car bombs. It's just a word, intifada, an Arabic word for struggle or resistance, including peaceful struggle and resistance for equal rights for the Palestinians.” 

A lot of people may not like that term, a lot of people don't like that term, but I think the fact that he was not running away from it, not apologizing for it, ran a pretty unique campaign as I'm trying to show you, is also a major reason that he won. I just think, again, populism is nothing more than there's a system over here of powerful people, politically powerful, financially powerful people, they do not have your interest in mind, they don't care about you, they're exploiting you, they're abusing you for their own aggrandizement, their own wealth, their own power and I want to fight them on your behalf. That's what economic populism is. 

Go look at what Josh Hawley does, threatening to vote against Trump's bill because it cuts Medicaid, knowing that a lot of Trump voters, the working-class voters, rely on Medicaid. Something really interesting about Josh Hawley, every week he holds like hearings, and he summons executives of all kinds of industries, the airline industry, the meat industry, bankers, and he just pounds them about hidden fees or, the like. Josh Hawley has said the future of the Republican Party is a multiracial working-class coalition, which requires economic populism. Josh Hawley stood with Bernie to stop the COVID bill from being passed and they were going to give out billions and billions of dollars to big business and he demanded that there be direct payments to all Americans, and they got the bill, they tried to stop bill, and they got $600 direct payment to Americans, that's economic populism. And then it went to Trump and Trump said, $600 is enough, I'm vetoing it, I want $2,000 payments, promising to represent the forgotten person. 

That's what economic populism: not serving Wall Street, not serving bankers, not serving real estate developers, not endorsing establishment dogma, not tying yourself to old, decaying people who've just been around for decades, who interest and excite nobody any longer. That's the goal of American politics. I don't think it matters at all to people if it comes from the right or the left. And the lots of things about Zohran, Marjorie Taylor Greene today posted the Statue of Liberty in a burqa, Ari Fleischer said, “New York Jews, you need to evacuate,” as some kind of nation, as I said before, like Joseph Stalin and Osama bin Laden – you look at him, do you think, is that at all what he reads as, what he codes as, is it what seems a convincing attack on him? 

And so, I think there are a lot of lessons here, not just for the Democratic Party, though, certainly not for what American voters respond to and what they don't. And in this case, the lessons are so powerful, so penetrating, that it drove the unlikeliest of people to crush one of the most powerful political dynasties in America, the Cuomos, backed by every institutional advantage you could want, and very poised to – I'm not saying it's certain, but highly likely to become what a lot of people have long said is the second most important position in American politics – as mayor of New York City. New York City, obviously, is the center of American finance, American wealth, massive tourism, a gigantic city, and so that is an important position. That's not a joke. The fact that a 33-year-old Muslim self-identified democratic socialist was able to win despite that history of statements, I think it's very important to derive a lot of lessons from that. And I think anyone interested in understanding politics, let alone winning elections, would be studying him in a very non-judgmental way. It doesn't matter if you hate him, it doesn't matter if you love him. The lessons ought to be the same. 

 

Watch this segment on Rumble.

Read full Article
post photo preview
Glenn Takes Your Questions on War with Iran, Executive Power, the Trump Presidency, and More
System Update #473

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_4nXe8KrWPtheBtj3TNK0GTDJj-j-IRu5nvWvk6JFZaj2gK7NumsQriYbJVofe0xyTCkr6A2DjUogTRL4myoKLBSd-lye4oNJ-N2wUST3Q4Ep3jFRp1Z9LK_LALNMUMHq5hGBg2kUMTKdHR-FcCBOkr14?key=e_ZHnrFqkrp2Zy5WcoMRBg

As you probably know, Friday night is when we try to have our Q&A session. The questions are submitted only by our Locals members. We try to do it every Friday night, but when news events are developing, major news events that we have to discuss – and preparations for a huge war, a huge, dangerous, destructive war, are the kind of thing that we're going to cover and often everything is very fast-moving so, oftentimes, we end up having to cover something on Friday and not being able to do the Q&A we wanted. 

The list of questions is always eclectic. We try to choose a variety of topics, people who haven't asked questions and who have, people who are critical and people who aren't, we always look for good-faith, critical comments and we have a couple of those tonight. So, let me just dive into this. You don't need all the prefacing and the explanations. Most of you are probably very familiar with this arrangement and it's not particularly complicated; it doesn't require a lot of explanation. It's just a Q&A. 

AD_4nXfaWfmyoPkXx-ZomkmyTHWNh152WuY7LMYfyMX6YqKglDa4hgBXUp2J3tQmbjdG4ln-lbXY8VbWgrwQljSIV2xqS9YB3Oy3qCCe-seZumEQzTYt37BfdSTtJ48npmh8qLKhapbGNGRbZXHvxE6ee7s?key=e_ZHnrFqkrp2Zy5WcoMRBg

The first question comes from @wineverett:

AD_4nXejGgF2oFWtXcLHWYVib7eofz5CHIae8dHUYiabn_FF4TLkumNwoymkSH6hh384RkykamSMNRBR59rbywp8Dyb4sKz9UkPIAME-2HM_Tq6mEEqTy4uvJQFQFMAtbuztTciaBQbys6pS7TW4zNT29A?key=e_ZHnrFqkrp2Zy5WcoMRBg

AD_4nXevbaJAHezTziEqaR9BALxVFd8__O0IVRA9cS0nCq3OFHQ6dfWIpd9fjVnuuxHDPIJ9GRBEJSZTXK0amA6lAxOI9fK-Mu6QFCa-9Zntvdpng0BbSlQ3xcw-rJNOey5lDcRQWI9yk7Xb271di8JudR0?key=e_ZHnrFqkrp2Zy5WcoMRBg

All right. I could not agree more with all of that. I think a major reason for Donald Trump's victories and, by victory I mean starting in 2016 when he was never even remotely considered a candidate or politician and he's gunned down the field of all those professional, highly funded Republican politicians starting with Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, all through them, got the nomination and then crushed the Clinton political machine, obviously filled with nothing but political animals, long-term professional career politicians, is precisely for this reason. People understand that both political parties speak a language, live in a world, spend money on things, talk about things, vote on things completely detached from their concerns and their lives and that's why they've lost faith and trust in most institutes of authority because they perceive correctly that people in power who are there to essentially represent them care about everything other than what they care about. It's so incredibly obvious from how these people speak to what they say, and Donald Trump was the first to come along and sort of break all those rules that people have come to hate about how they speak, how they talk, what they talk about, the things you're allowed to say and he was basically a weapon to smash that glass, to smash the system that they were so eager to smash. 

Obviously, Donald Trump is now a politician. There's no denying that. It doesn't mean it's bad, it doesn't mean it’s good, he's been president for four years, spent four more years running for president and is now president again. So, the last 10 years of our political lives have been dominated by the political figure of Donald Trump. It's clearly the Trump era of politics. He's not really an outsider force anymore. He can't be president twice, having run a third time and almost won, just constantly running for president for 10 years, and be a political outsider anymore. 

He's still an outsider in a lot of different ways, compartmentally and the like, but it's not as appealing, I think, as it once was and especially now that we're watching in the first five months of this first term, that was consumed by things like tariffs which was a major promise of the Trump campaign, no doubt but I think people ended up feeling like economically they had been beaten upon and crushed for so long, including by the Biden years, that there was, even Trump admitted, short-term pain, the stock market became unstable, it went down, people's investments and retirements funds became less valuable, small businesses struggled. So, that was already kind of a feeling that, wow, we have Trump again, who promised to help us in the working-class, but instead, we seem to be suffering with this tariff policy that we're being told will have long-term benefits, but for the moment, we don't seem to have them. 

And now, political discourse is being dominated by a potential war with Iran that I just don't think most people have spent the last two years caring about. I used to always say about Russia when Democrats are spending all that time on the evils of Putin and the threats posed by Russia, it's just so obvious there's a huge gap between what Democrats spend all their time talking and warning about and what Americans wake up thinking about. I just know that Americans are not waking up worried about Vladimir Putin and the threat posed by Russia. That's not something they're scared about. They were during the Cold War, when nuclear war was very possible, people were taught to go to shelters, which was very much part of the culture, and there was an existential war between communism and capitalism. There was a lot at stake. But people don't worry about Russia anymore. They don't consider Vladimir Putin one of the leading threats to their well-being, unless you are an MSNBC viewer. And so, there was this gigantic gap between what Democrats were talking about and what people care about. I think that's the reason they ended up losing. 

But now you look at what Republicans have talked about. What has Trump done aside from tariffs? He's gotten in and he resumed a bombing campaign in Yemen against Houthis and unleashed the Israelis again to continue their destruction of Gaza, which the United States is paying for. Started deporting, not people in the United States illegally or who have committed crimes, but people who were guilty of the crime of protesting Israel or speaking out against Israel. I think that's what people were worried about: people in the country legally, PhD students, Fulbright scholars, biologists, chemists, with nothing but a record of achievement, being booted out with a new precedent because they spoke out against Israel. I mean, people were definitely worried about illegal immigration, especially people who are dangerous to their children or their communities. You think they're worried about Harvard and Yale biologists who wrote up ads about Israel? So, a lot of that as well. 

And now we have this war with Iran, which, if you ask, you can get polling answers or polling data about anything the way you want, based on how you ask the question. So, if you say, “Look, Iran is about to get a nuclear weapon, should the United States do nothing, or should it try to do what it can, even if it means military force, to stop Iran from getting a new weapon?” Yeah, we don't want Iran to have a nuclear weapon. But if you say, “Israel has launched a war against Iran, do you think the United States should involve itself militarily in a new foreign war in the Middle East? Overwhelmingly, people say no, and polls are showing both. 

I don't care what the polling data is, if you ask somebody, “Do you want Iran to have nuclear weapons? Yes, or no?” I do not believe that Americans are waking up saying in the morning, “Wow, I couldn't sleep last night because I'm really worried about the prospect that Iran is going to get nuclear weapons.” 

By every account, they don't even have the missile capability to send one to the United States. Even if they could, why would they? North Korea doesn’t. Everyone understands that it's going to be immediate mutual suicide. I just don't think that's what people care about in their lives and polls constantly should have shown that. I don't think people elected Donald Trump to go to war with Iran or to restart the bombing campaign against the Houthis. And that's all they're hearing about now. That's what the Trump administration is focused on, which is not what the American people are focused on. I know this from polling data; I cover politics and we've all seen over time what Americans care about and what they don't care about and when they feel like their interests are ignored and when their interests are not. 

I want to just answer this with a story about Marjorie Taylor Greene. Not really a story so much as kind of my thoughts on Marjorie Taylor Greene. So, I want to be very honest and say that I really like Marjorie Taylor Greene, I have always liked Marjorie Taylor Greene. I think she's a good person. I think that she's sincere and earnest about the things she says and believes. Obviously, Marjorie Taylor Greene has said things over the last many years that I don't agree with, that you can describe as whatever, outside of the realm of what reality is. I think most politicians do. I think Donald Trump running around talking about how Iran's about to get a nuclear weapon and use it or whatever, that's way outside the realm of reality, to say nothing of what was said about the Iraq war and the 2008 financial crisis. But the reason I like Marjorie Taylor Greene is that she is what a lot of people wanted and were so fond of, so attracted to Trump. 

Marjorie Taylor Greene was never a politician. She didn't run for office, she wasn't like on the city council and then in the state legislature in Georgia and then worked her way up to the Georgia state Senate and was being groomed by the Republican Party to one day run for Congress, like kind of a career politician. That was not Marjorie Taylor Greene. She has a business, the business is prosperous, she's not incredibly rich, but probably upper middle class; she lives on a good upscale Georgia suburb. And she became very politically active with the MAGA movement and America First. It resonated with her just as a citizen and then she got politically involved and probably had some connections and money that helped. 

However, she wasn't part of a political dynasty, nor was her father the governor or anything. She really just did the kind of classic “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” type of political trajectory, where a citizen wakes up and says, I'm starting to get angry and concerned by what my government is doing. I think it's totally on the wrong track, the things they're saying make no sense, and I don't think they're representing our interests. 

She got very inspired by Donald Trump and the MAGA movement and took it seriously and she suddenly became a member of Congress. And, yeah, because she's somebody who was not a trained politician, she often was not on script. She's charismatic and she says things that get people riled up and that bring a lot of media attention. That's why there's so much attention on Jasmine Crockett as well, not because she is some important figure in the House Democratic caucus, but because she says that gets people angry and cable news loves that and builds those people with a big platform. That's what happened to Marjorie Taylor Greene, but I don't think Marjorie Taylor Greene was ever doing or saying things on purpose to make people angry. I think she was doing and saying things that she really believed in that if you go to her district, I guarantee you, people like her, people who live near her, people who lived in her district, which is why they voted for her and keep re-electing her, despite how much the media hates her and says she's so evil and bad. 

I've talked to her before. I found her to be exactly the same when talking personally to her and when I listened to her in public. I've had her on the show before, and one of the things that really I found so interesting and eye-opening about Marjorie Taylor Green is that she's been reluctant to criticize Donald Trump too much previously. 

I remember I had her in the show. She was one of those people very much against the Ukraine war, making all those good arguments that I agree with about how we have women who can't get baby formula and our communities are falling apart. Why are we sending billions to finance a war that has nothing to do with us? I remember I asked her, like, does that apply to Israel, that rationale? It seems like it should, does it? And she wasn't enough confidence to say like, yeah, also Israel. That's a very sensitive topic, she knows that. But sometimes you get to Washington, and you have to find your way, you've got to understand how things work, especially if you're not a career politician. 

I remember when I started journalism, there were a lot of things I didn't understand. I hadn't done it full-time, I thought I knew about things, but once I really started looking, I started learning things and realizing how much I didn't know. And so, it took me a while to kind of feel like, okay, I have a good, secure sense of where things are. And I think that's where she is.

 When Donald Trump announced this new bombing campaign in Yemen, she was very outspoken against it and the way she made the argument really struck me. She said, “You know what, I've been a Congresswoman now for six years, or whatever it is, representing my district, but I've lived in my district forever. Nobody in my District even knows what a Houthi is. Nobody talks about Houthis, nobody has met Houthis, nobody is threatened by Houthis, nobody fears Houthis and nobody understands why we are spending all this money to bomb the Houthis. What does this have to do with us?” 

I thought about it. I was like, that's the benefit of having people who are not professional politicians. One of the things that makes Kamala Harris such a terrible candidate is that she worked her way up that ladder from her mid-20s. She's basically been a politician her whole life. She got elected to the San Francisco District Attorney, very ambitious. You can go find national interviews with her because she was doing things like imprisoning parents for truancy if their kids didn't go to school. “Good Morning, America” and those types of shows loved her. She parlayed that into a run for Attorney General of California, won that, worked her way up to the California Senate, and then became Vice President. And she never had a moment where she was off script, where she was saying things that people in Washington would be like, “What? What is that?” She clung to those scripts like her life depended on it. She was petrified of saying anything that official Washington would find odd or strange to disapprove of. And as a result, she was totally vacant. She never spoke naturally, she never spoken like a human being because that's all she knows is she's been clicked into the political system and she speaks about the things that her donors care about, that other politicians care about, that the media she consumes talks about and she has no ability to say what Marjorie Taylor Greene said, no courage to say it, even if she understood it. 

You can take that too far, before 9/11, and nobody in America, for the most part, understood what al-Qaeda was, thought much about al-Qaeda, didn't mean the government should not do anything about al-Qaeda. Of course, sometimes the government has to work on things that are real threats or problems that most people don't know about or think about or understand, but I think there's a basic wisdom to the idea of asking, especially when we're going to war, why are we bombing and killing these people on Yemen? What do they have to do with us? And at the time, they were not attacking American ships, we've gone through that timeline before, and the only reason they had been previously was because they knew we were arming and funding Israel's destruction of Gaza, so even that was because we were financing and fighting a war for a foreign country, and the way Marjorie Taylor Green said it was like, “a Houthi, well, who knows even, in my district, what a Houthi is? I'm not going to cheerlead a war against the Houthis that have nothing to do with the lives of the people who sent me to Washington.” 

And then, when it came to this war in Iran, she lost all fear or concern about recognizing the relationship between the United States and Israel, and in whose benefit that relationship is, and who's really pushing and shaping the decisions of the United States Congress and the executive branch when it comes to war. 

I think she has enough confidence now, she's seen enough, she’s learned enough, she's read enough, and she understands enough. Marjorie Taylor Greene is not dumb. I'm sure Democrats will say she is. She's not dumb, she is smart. She just doesn't speak like Kamala Harris, Hillary Clinton, or Joe Biden because she's not from that. She doesn't emerge from that; she's a citizen. 

That was the idea, by the way, of the Congress, we weren't going to have a professional class of politicians, we're going to have people who represented their constituents, get sent to Congress for a few years and then go back to their lives and do what they were doing previously. And that's the kind of person she still is. She's very much still a resident of her Georgia district, much more so than a creature of Washington and so, she can think about things and say them in a way most Americans are still thinking and saying them. 

And when it came time for the war in Iran, too, she was like, “I am just sick” of having all of our money and all of her service members be put in harm's way for these wars that have nothing to do with our country. “Ukraine is not our country and Ukraine's wars are not our wars. Israel is not out country and Israel's wars are not out wars.” And I think she's able to speak so plainly about these things and insist that we focus on the things that her constituents and people in America really care about because she's not subservient to or taking orders from a political party or a kind of system. 

There are other people like her in Congress, too. I'm not suggesting she's the only one. I'm just saying she's been very noticeable over the last three, four months, because, especially when it comes to foreign policy, that's where politicians typically step most delicately and she's not stepping delicately at all. To me, she's become a voice of great clarity and confidence, and I think she's earnest about everything she's saying. I'm talking about these things the way most people talk about them. 

I've told stories before, and I hate to romanticize them. I'm not going to even tell the stories because I've told them too many times. Probably you've already heard them. But if you go to the United States and you get anonymous and you just go to some, like, again, it sounds so cliche, but like a diner, where you talk to drivers of Ubers or taxis or whatever, it is enlightening. You hear things that are actual wisdom, just common-sense wisdom, that no people who work on politics and are paid to work in politics in D.C. and New York ever say that is that chasm, it's a huge chasm.

Now, all of official Washington is worried about a war with Iran that I do not believe most people in the United States view as a threat or something that ought to be subsuming their lives. I don't think they want Donald Trump, whom they elected to benefit their lives as working-class people, to be focused on yet another new war in the Middle East. 

I think that's why he's hesitating too, that he has a sense for that. A good sense for that. He's a good politician in that way. It's like instinctive and I think the more Trump goes in those directions that are basically the Bush, Obama, Biden direction, the more people are going to start to see him as like every other politician in that attachment that people had to him, similar to the attachment they had to Obama, who people also viewed as a transformative figure of change but quickly became a just a mouthpiece for the establishment of the perpetuation of the status quo in Washington. They lost that inspirational connection to him. I think that's going to happen to Trump as well if he continues down this path. 

AD_4nXfaWfmyoPkXx-ZomkmyTHWNh152WuY7LMYfyMX6YqKglDa4hgBXUp2J3tQmbjdG4ln-lbXY8VbWgrwQljSIV2xqS9YB3Oy3qCCe-seZumEQzTYt37BfdSTtJ48npmh8qLKhapbGNGRbZXHvxE6ee7s?key=e_ZHnrFqkrp2Zy5WcoMRBg

All right, next question. @Commissar69 asks:

AD_4nXcbot7Ll9rtFzXT-Ak1-3GHSwnAyBq0-XAXB0mjAw0_uXqDWzQL7Tvt2BlPRJtRxcmt3AzMWavKtZGFt3lEnpaYUp9v5PwCH9hu8SgzI0eRqfAfAQNmN2m-YbmVRgVX27_jFjLbaI8HJBTBtRNXSMs?key=e_ZHnrFqkrp2Zy5WcoMRBg

It is amazing to me that you go study the Constitution, you go to law school, not even law school, our civics class, and the design of the Constitution, in some cases, is kind of ambiguous. They constructed that on purpose, that was part of how they obtained the votes they needed to ratify it: leaving some things purposely left ambiguous that would be interpreted in the future. So, you could tell people whose votes you needed, it could mean this: you tell other people you needed who thought differently, it could mean that. 

So, some of it is ambiguous, but some of it is not. It's not ambiguous because of the language, it's not ambiguous because of what the Federalist Papers say, it's not ambiguous because of the debates that were had. 

One of the things that was not ambiguous is that if the United States is going to go to war, it can do so only if Congress declares war. Only Congress has the power to declare war. The rationale for this is very clear: it was assumed, based on experience at the time, that if we go to a war, people are going to be drafted and it's the ordinary citizen who's going to go and die in these wars and the only way the United States should go to war is if the people consent, through their representatives in the House and the Senate. And I can read you so much from the Federalist Papers talking about this. 

The president is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. By the way, the armed forces were not intended to be a standing army. The founders really feared standing armies, meaning like armed agents of the federal government, like the ATF or the FBI. They're basically like armed permanent agents or armies, but also the army itself. That's why they talked about well-regulated militias. You compile an army when you want to go fight a war, but you don't have a permanent standing army. They thought that was dangerous. 

So, when they said the president is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, what that meant is Congress approves a war and we go to war, and the person responsible for executing that war – because you cannot have Congress managing the war, you need a leader, a military leader, and we wanted civilian rule, it's not a top general – it is an elected president, he becomes the commander-in-chief of the armed forces that makes the decision about how that war will be fought. 

For a lot of reasons, over the last decades, we've completely forgotten about, ignored, the congressional power to declare war. I believe the last war we declared was the Korean War.

Now, the idea there is if Congress really was serious about this, they could have cut off funds for the war, but mostly it's been a desire by Congress not to have to take the hard vote of voting yes or no on a war. I mean, it destroyed political careers. Hillary Clinton lost because she was forced to vote on the Iraq War and voted yes. It got tied to John Kerry when he tried to run against Bush in 2004, against the Iraq War, when he had voted yes on it 18 months earlier. Joe Biden voted for it as well. It definitely was a huge reason why Hillary Clinton lost to Barack Obama in 2008 and even why Hillary Clinton was weaker than she could have been when running against Bernie Sanders in 2016, because of that Iraq War vote. They don't want to vote on war. They're happy to leave it to the president. So, they purposely kind of gave up the power that the Constitution assigned to them. It's really an abdication of their responsibility. But politicians don't want to take hard votes. 

And now the view of the executive, I remember very well that Bush and, I mean, of course, if our country is attacked, it's like this sudden invasion, the way Iran had with Israel, suddenly attacking it out of nowhere, of course, the president has the responsibility to order the country defended without first going to Congress and waiting for a vote. That's the one exception. 

That didn't apply to the war in Iraq, but Bush-Cheney said we have the right to go invade Iraq even without congressional support. And now that's the view of the Trump administration: we don't need to go to Congress to start the war in Iran. Why? Why don't you? If you want to enter a war with Iran, that's not an emergency war. Iran is not attacking the United States. Why don't you need a vote in Congress? But most people in Congress don't want that responsibility. They'd rather let Trump take the blame for it if things go wrong. 

And so, we basically have a president who single-handedly runs foreign policy, runs the intelligence community. We barely have a functional Congress at all. 

I mean, I'll just give you one example that's kind of amazing. Most of you who watch this show for a while know that I was vehemently opposed to the ban of TikTok or the forced sale of it, talked about a lot of reasons about why it’s a major act of censorship to just ban a social media app that a third of Americans – a third – and a majority of young people are voluntarily choosing to use, just saying, “No, you can't use it. We don't like that one anymore; we don't like the content there.” 

It was originally justified because Chinese ownership and influence were nefarious. That wasn't enough to get the votes, what finally got the votes was the view that there was too much anti-Israel or pro-Palestinian speech being allowed on TikTok and that was what was turning the nation's youth against Israel. And that's the reason why Democrats finally joined, and the Biden administration advocated the banning of TikTok. 

I was vehemently opposed to that, but Congress did pass it. The House passed it, the Senate passed it with a bipartisan majority, an overwhelming bipartisan majority. Their argument was that it's vital to our national security to ban TikTok. Joe Biden signed it into law and it had a deadline in the law that it had to be banned or sold the day after the election. They didn't want TikTok being shut down during the election so that Biden would get blamed, so they cynically made it the day after, and then Trump had 90 days to extend it if he wanted one time. 

Trump extended it, that 90 days came and went; he extended it again, for another 90 days that came and went, he just extended it again. In other words, he's just refusing to implement the law that Congress passed. And nobody cares! Do you hear anyone in Congress saying, “President Trump, we passed this law because we said it was vital to national security, what right do you have to ignore the law?” 

We basically are a country now that has centralized so much power in the presidency that Congress barely exists, except as a sort of symbolic body of pretense of democracy. George Bush and the Democrats under Obama and Biden, and especially now against Trump, of course, the whole idea: each branch is going to want to grab more power for itself. In that fight, the Congress is trying to take this from the executive, the executive says “No, that's ours,” the court says, “No, that's ours,” Congress says, “No, that's ours,” and you get a balance of power. But when one of the branches, Congress, just says, “We're content not to fight for any of our power. You can have it all, we just want to get reelected, enjoy the perks of our office, travel around the world, get the title, be perpetually re-elected, have these nice offices in the Capitol building, go on TV, get special privileges and perks,” then you don't have balance of power anymore. You have the centralization of power in a president and an executive that the founders were really here to avoid. That has completely twisted and distorted what our political system is supposed to be. It by no means started with Trump. 

The Trump administration came in as one of its major plans to eliminate anything that could oppose it, including Congress. Trump uses threats against the Republicans and all sorts of other means. But he's just continuing a trend that started, I would say, that ideas were formed by the Dick Cheney in the 1980s, but really implemented with 9/11 as the pretext by Bush-Cheney. It's just all grown as powers do from there, and we have a model of the government that is very unlike what the founders envisioned. Of course, it affects all the discourses as well. 

AD_4nXfaWfmyoPkXx-ZomkmyTHWNh152WuY7LMYfyMX6YqKglDa4hgBXUp2J3tQmbjdG4ln-lbXY8VbWgrwQljSIV2xqS9YB3Oy3qCCe-seZumEQzTYt37BfdSTtJ48npmh8qLKhapbGNGRbZXHvxE6ee7s?key=e_ZHnrFqkrp2Zy5WcoMRBg

All right, @Readalot. That's a very good name. I hope it's accurate. 

AD_4nXfx_M3YejPrJpL3UOJSujJcYOcwX0Y6FdXMmADcw5AtoQTbEaVO6Zq-hUuUgoJBo34M9J7UHjdH3dIXHWGjo6WmjTMf3iAuW1w2l0LEjtHBKcJTw6tCss1xrLPIa0CT9oUUZLXgTnKYQGfNev9cUi8?key=e_ZHnrFqkrp2Zy5WcoMRBgAD_4nXdzJh-F8T8lAU49bkBx2iFU0CS0ALQcAkDa_-DkIxRAoGtQLmXpqKVwIGCA6xv8yOBofxXML8Y-o2LVpxJWVST_y1wQ67tj24sFkQ7FFQkUS1m8wPc3AzQXxQD0VSXgisoE1zpIBEfm-uaE1KFJXUQ?key=e_ZHnrFqkrp2Zy5WcoMRBg

All right, so that's a critique, a pretty strongly expressed one. So, let me just clarify, because I do think it's good sometimes to just talk to, especially, our members, about how we think of the show, how we try to put the show together. 

When I say that we don't want to be captive of the news cycle, what I mean by that is that 24-hour cable networks are forced to talk about things every day. And even if nothing significant is happening, they'll make something trivial or insignificant the centerpiece of what they talk about so there'll be some offhand comment by Trump, or there'll be some rumor about somebody resigning or somebody being in trouble, or there will be some bickering in the Congress, or there'll be some law that might get passed, that they're speculating about, or some scandal. 

When I say we don't want to be caught at the news cycle, what I mean is, I don't want to come here every night and feel obligated to talk about things that I don't think are interesting or important just because every other media outlet, newspaper, podcast or other show is discussing them. 

In part, I don't want to talk about things I find trivial. That's what I mean by I don't want to be captive by the news cycle. But it also means sometimes there are important things that are going on that I don't feel competent to talk about or I don't have anything particularly interesting to say, I try to be very mindful that when I was writing a lot and I hit publish, and I hope to get back to writing a little more soon, we'll talk about that sometime in the near future, that when you press publish, you're making a claim to your readers that they need to rely on, that when you hit publish, you're saying to them, “Look, I'm promising you that I've written something that I think is worthwhile for you to take your time and read, that I have something to say that is unique or interesting or that sheds light on something important.” I was always very mindful of that. I would rather not write something on a given day than write something that was just I'm writing just to write or because everyone else is talking about it. 

And that also means that I try not to write about things I have no specialized knowledge of and that's why we don't cover economic policy or economic debates very often, almost at all. And if we do, we'll have a guest who's an expert. Every time I covered tariffs, I had a guest on to talk about it. So that's what I mean by not being captive to the news cycle.

Now, having said that, there are obvious topics, major topics, that I do cover, that I've covered for a long time, that I have a specialized knowledge in, a lot of expertise built up over the years, a lot of knowledge about, a lot of passion about, things like foreign policy, things like war, the intelligence community, civil liberties, free speech and when there's major debates like there were with the deportations of students who were here legally because of the speech that they made, or taking immigrants out based on allegations that they were in gangs without any due process, or when there is a new war or foreign policy, obviously I'm going to not just talk about it, I'm going to cover it in depth. 

And so, I don't necessarily want to talk about Israel every night, but the reality is it has been the center of our politics since October 7. We have fought a massive, dangerous war, one of the worst wars, and it's not really even a war, it's just sort of an attack on a population that the United States has paid for. We've supported Israel taking land from Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq – bombing, not taking land from Syria and Lebanon, bombing them and bombing Iraq. And now we're on the verge of a major war with Iran. Of course, I'm going to talk about that a lot. I'm going to talk about it in the lead up to it, I'm not going to talk about it while the war is occurring, which is now, I'm talking about everything related to it, that's not being counted in the news cycle. That's right at the heart of what we do. 

And I think we talk about it and I hope we talk about it in a way that's not being talked about in many other places. They're getting a different kind of perspective on it, a different way to understand it, different types of information, different voices. And when war broke out in Ukraine and the Biden administration decided to be heavily involved in that, we did endless numbers of shows on Ukraine and Russia because that was a proxy war between the two largest nuclear powers on the planet. It had all kinds of things to do with the alignment of each party. We do a lot of political talk that way about what it means to be left and right. What is Democrat and Republican? How has that changed? Is that meaningful? 

So, when we talk about major events like the war in Ukraine, like the destruction of Gaza, like the imminent war in Iran, the ongoing war and our relationship to Israel, as we talked about with Tuck Carlson and Ted Cruz, the attacks on free speech on the Biden administration, the ones from the Trump administration, we don't just repeat over and over whatever the headline is. I think we try and delve deeply into it and talk about everything ancillary because it often sheds light on other parts of it that aren't directly related to it. That's what I mean by not being captive to the news. 

I don't feel obligated to follow the cable news framework of doing a movement, I don't think you have short intelligence span where you can only talk about a topic for four minutes and every four minutes we have to move or talk about something for two minutes, bring on a guest for five minutes, seven minutes maximum, and then move to another topic. We don’t do nine topics a night like a cable show does for an hour. We do one or two topics at the most. We want to dive deeply into them. We respect our audience enough to believe that the people here want to pay close attention, want detailed analysis and want to dive deep into things. And then, when we can and when we have something to do, we will do a show completely detached from the news cycle. 

Last week, we did a very deep dive into Palantir, what that company is, how it started, what its history has been, what it was built for, who runs it, what their ideology is, and what function they're now playing in the government. We do a lot of those. We've done deep dives into the anthrax and things like that, even though that had nothing to do with the topic. We spent a lot of time on COVID and related policies like that. So, I think our range is pretty broad, but yes, if there's a major war that Washington is heavily debating, getting more involved in, that's going to be something we're going to talk about, maybe not every night, but certainly close to it. The consequences of that make it impossible to ignore. 

And it's the sort of thing that, as I said, I think we naturally cover and it would be very odd if people came here, and I spent maybe one night a week, two nights a week, talking about the war with Iran and then just talking about a bunch of other stuff on the other three nights and didn't mention it, especially given how fast moving it is, how much of a debate there is, how much other topics that it implicates. 

We make our own decisions about what's important, what we think we have something unique to offer, provocative, interesting, informative to say, and just say it in a way that other places are not saying it, and we try and take our time to delve in, even though we know that maybe we would have more viewers, potentially, if we just constantly, can get members of Congress to come on the show every night, people want to come on the shows all the time but I want to do one or two topics that I find extremely interesting that give you a kind of an analytical perspective, a depth of information that other platforms don't allow you to. That's the reason I like this platform so much, and I think we try to use it for that end. So that's how we think about putting the show together. 

AD_4nXfaWfmyoPkXx-ZomkmyTHWNh152WuY7LMYfyMX6YqKglDa4hgBXUp2J3tQmbjdG4ln-lbXY8VbWgrwQljSIV2xqS9YB3Oy3qCCe-seZumEQzTYt37BfdSTtJ48npmh8qLKhapbGNGRbZXHvxE6ee7s?key=e_ZHnrFqkrp2Zy5WcoMRBg

All right, last question is a tennis question, which I'm always happy to take. It's from @Alan _Smithee, who I recognize as somebody who submits tennis questions, who says this:

 

AD_4nXdRo06TuEyGEY46oA4Gtzmfwq83LJXXxCV41dIgvv8-eoehmGXPVONPJn04sGytwAnehc1do9YFqgFN5WVVDLhSdJe7mEOvdhWsH-6p7VsE3zVOhlmJoEFkN_rWe6F3_2PwKZaB0KL9B7YGF_pGMfQ?key=e_ZHnrFqkrp2Zy5WcoMRBg

Okay. First of all, that is slander, that last part. I don't pick the slam owners after the event is played. No, I do pick them after, say, the first round. So, I don't like to pick somebody who then gets eliminated in the first run; I like to see how they're kind of playing. It's still not easy to pick the slam winners just after the first round, and I have done a great job on that. 

I did actually watch the Onyx Center match today. He played a player who's one of my favorite players, Alexander Bublik, who has an extremely exotic and idiosyncratic game. He's very funny as a person, but he's extremely talented and inventive, especially on grass, so I like seeing him toy with Center. I don't think it happens a lot that when you move from clay to grass, you lose your first match. Corey Gauff won the French Open, but she lost her first match on grass as well. It just takes some transition. I don't think it means that he's in trouble or he's going to have a bad Wimbledon or anything. 

But anyway, I'll probably pick the winners of Wimbledon when we get a little bit closer to the tournament, as you say sardonically, maybe once we start the tournament, right at the beginning, then you can go and take those to the bank. But if you do and you lose, do not blame me, don't leave me rude and abusive messages, because I do have a lot of knowledge about it. My predictions have been weirdly good for the last year, but that could stop at any time. So, although I'm telling you can rely on me, that doesn't mean that you actually should or can, especially when it comes to betting money that you can't afford to lose. 

All right. Those are all the questions we have for tonight.

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