Glenn Greenwald
Politics • Writing • Culture
Post-Debate Analysis Live from Milwaukee
Video Transcript
August 24, 2023
post photo preview

Watch the full episode here: 



Interview with Rep. Matt Gaetz

Glenn Greenwald: All right, we're ready. This is Glenn Greenwald. We are here with a special edition of System Update following the live Republican presidential debate. We're outside the arena in Milwaukee where it happened. We're going to break it all down. My first guest, though, is Republican Congressman Matt Gaetz, of Florida, who confessed before we were on that he is a gigantic fan of System Update, which didn't come as a surprise but thank you for joining us in person. 


Rep. Matt Gaetz: What a weird debate, Glenn. I felt like we were watching open tryouts for like a minor-league baseball team. Like you had your batch of has-beens and then you have your batch of, like, not quite ready yet. 


Glenn Greenwald: But Trump himself said he viewed this as a potential audition for his vice presidential role. And I think that’s… 


Rep. Matt Gaetz: In that respect, look, Trump won the debate by not being here, and probably Kristi Noem won the vice presidential contest – by not being here… 


Glenn Greenwald: [Kristi Noem] not being here as well. I guess, first of all, let me just ask you. Trump's decision not to come obviously makes political sense. He's ahead by 40, 45 points. The argument is, that if you're going to run for president, you have an obligation to communicate with the American people by participating in these debates. What do you make of that decision not to come? 


Rep. Matt Gaetz: I have not ever heard the criticism that President Trump doesn't communicate enough with the American people. Typically, the criticism is he does a little too much of it at times for some people's taste, not mine. But if President Trump were to have been in the debate, I think that people largely would have been tuning in to hear him. And why punish those people with seven or 8 minutes of Asa Hutchinson and Chris Christie? You know, and so, I think that the 80 million views that President Trump got in his discussion with Tucker Carlson was probably more politically productive for him. But I still tried to pay attention tonight to the issue matrix and how people thought and talked about these issues and also how some of the campaigns in trouble reacted to the dynamics and the questions. Doug Burgum blew out his Achilles in the hours before the debate, stood there like a boss, didn't wince for a moment, and still appeared to be in less physical pain than Ron DeSantis, like during the entire discussion. So, for what? […] 


Glenn Greenwald: Despite that Ron DeSantis and his bones being in good shape [...] 


Rep. Matt Gaetz: Exactly. Yeah. 


Glenn Greenwald: I want to ask you, one of the clarifying parts of the discussion, to the extent there was one involving policy, was the section on Ukraine. There was one candidate – and one candidate only – emphatically saying we shouldn't be sending our money to Ukraine while we have all kinds of problems here at home, including with our own border, never mind the Ukrainian border. DeSantis, as Vivek kind of mocked him for, had his finger in the air saying, “Let's get the Europeans to pay more,” which isn't really a position. To me, it seemed like a kind of Republican Party debate that could have happened in 2004, 2008, 2012. The kind of Republican Party before Trump changed it. What are these people doing when they look at the polling data, seeing that Republicans overwhelmingly don't want to send money to Ukraine and saying that they don't care, they want that money going anyway? 


Rep. Matt Gaetz: Well, Glenn, maybe I shouldn't be so surprised that there's such a disconnect between the people on that debate stage other than Vivek and the typical Republican voter on the issue of Ukraine, because there's a similar disconnect with the United States Congress. Like when we had a vote on just whether or not you demand that Joe Biden write down a plan for Ukraine, he could just write any word, like a celebrity Jeopardy final answer, any word would qualify, and we only got 100 votes for that to condition future aid on it. Everyone else said don't even demand to play. It's unpatriotic to ask for a plan from the Biden administration just to give all the money that Ukraine demands. And, you know, the chorus for this globalism is really a challenge that the Republican Party has to deal with. President Trump will, I think, help cement the realignment that we've gone through when he's nominated, as we all expect. 


Glenn Greenwald: Just one more question on foreign policy, because you did have this amendment not just on Ukraine, but to withdraw troops from Syria. I doubt most Americans know we have troops in Syria. There's no war going on in Syria, at least a declared one, and all you want to do is bring them home because there's no clear reason. Overwhelmingly, through a bipartisan vote that got rejected. What do you think is the real reason why so many of these people in Congress continue to insist on this foreign policy of putting troops and fighting wars all over the world that so plainly have no benefit for the American people? What is really going on? 


Rep. Matt Gaetz: The neoconservative worldview is well funded in every think tank in Washington, but a few. It buttresses campaign donations. It funds a military-industrial complex. And if you hold that worldview, you really are willing to allow the United States to become the block captain of the world. President Trump had a more thoughtful and, I think, modern approach to interacting with the world, but really what props it up is the neocon money is sweet, man, whether it's for your golden parachute when you leave Congress at a think tank, whether it's for the, you know, a deliverable to the people who fund your campaigns. And I find it all sickening. And that's why I don't participate in it. It's why I hold a different view. 


Glenn Greenwald: But to me at least, it seems like when you put these people in Republican Party politics for decades, the way a lot of them are up there, on some level, the line between self-interest of being funded and true belief starts to kind of blur. There's only so long you can be that cynical, I think, to me… 


Rep. Matt Gaetz: Oh, you're totally wrong. You need to hang out with the people I hang out with… 


Glenn Greenwald: Which are the people in Congress, I'm glad I don't. But you don't think there's any sense of kind of conviction and true belief that we're still in this Cold War, that fighting continues over the war? Is that not part… Am I being incredibly naive? 


Rep. Matt Gaetz: Conviction?! Mike Pence looked like a 1980s avatar of foreign policy. Right? 


Glenn Greenwald: Right. 


Rep. Matt Gaetz: It was so dated and so tired. And frankly, it's been disproven in the world we live in now. Thank goodness, Doug Burgum occasionally tried to focus on the real threat of China. 


Glenn Greenwald: I saw you becoming a Doug Burgum fan! 


Rep. Matt Gaetz: Man, I've got some North Dakota roots and I thought, you know, as he talks about China being the dominant threat, it made a lot of sense in it. It had some contrast with the obsession over a land war in Europe. Did it seem to you like Chris Christie was running in the wrong primary? 


Glenn Greenwald: I think both Nikki Haley and Chris Christie's views on foreign policy would find ample support in the Democratic Party… 


Rep. Matt Gaetz: Sure. 


Glenn Greenwald: … in the Democratic Party than in the Republican Party. They don't recognize the transformation in the Republican electorate that Trump first identified and then ushered in. 

Let me ask you one last question. I know you're short on time. You've been very generous. Your wife is waiting. You want to get out of here. So, I appreciate your indulgence. So let me just ask you one last question, which is about the weaponization of the Justice Department. It is an extraordinary reality in the United States that the leading oppositional figure to the current president is being indicted four times now, probably a fifth or maybe even a sixth is coming. The kind of thing, if we looked at any other country or especially an adversary, but even an ally, we would be shocked by how overt it is. I know there are a lot of Republican voters on your side in terms of denouncing it, but I feel like not enough is being done, that not enough hardball is being played by the Republican Party in retaliating and making Democrats live under the same prism. Do you share that frustration and what do you intend to do to kind of amplify the pressure that is kind of a remarkable state of affairs for abusing the Justice Department? 


Rep. Matt Gaetz: Well, first, you have to accept the fact that Congress has equities here, and a lot of my colleagues don't. They just say, well, this is an investigation and so, we have to hold our hands up and leave this to the courts. And that grants the premise that this is a legitimate legal process. Right? The premise that I approached this dynamic with is that this is election interference. And if your underlying belief is that it's election interference, then I think Congress can assert greater equities. Here's how I would assert them. You sent Jack Smith a letter saying that you want him to appear for a transcribed interview in 15 days. If you don't answer, you send a subpoena. If he doesn't comply, then you hold him in contempt of Congress and you force him to try this case while he himself is in criminal contempt. And if Merrick Garland won't enforce that, then you impeach Garland on those grounds. And that could actually unify Republicans because it is a step-by-step process. Instead, what we see from our leadership is a whole lot of handwringing and bedwetting, but not action that will actually have an impact on the election interference that troubles so many. 


Glenn Greenwald: All right. Well, I know you’re being waited for. And so, I don't want to make enemies, but knowing what a huge fan you are of my show – you watch it every single day, from the first minute into the last – we're going to have you back on that in-depth discussion when you have more time. Thanks again for taking this. 


Rep. Matt Gaetz: We've done on-location in Milwaukee. I'm waiting for the on-location in Brazil invite for System Update. 


Glenn Greenwald: I’m going to get you a reason to go to Brazil. Everybody needs one. Thanks. Have a great evening. Thanks a lot. All right. 

So, there you have it. There is Congressman Gaetz. He is off and we really appreciate his time.

So, we're going to try and get a few more guests, although it is pretty late here. I did another show prior to coming on, so I just want to share a couple of my thoughts with you about the debate that I didn't find particularly fascinating. I don't have a lot to say about it, and I certainly don't want to do the kind of punditry that I'm supposed to say which candidate helped himself, and which one did not. 

The thing I found most interesting about the debate was how much attention Vivek Ramaswamy succeeded in bringing to himself. He was clearly the center of the debate. You had politicians on that stage who had been elected governors, the vice president of the United States and senators who have been in politics for a long time, and he continuously provoked them into wanting to pay attention to him. That's in part because he is clearly the closest ideologically to Donald Trump in terms of the positions he's taken. You saw him as the only candidate emphatically saying that we should not be sending any more money to Ukraine, which is the representative of the vast majority of Republican voters at this point. Governor DeSantis kind of said it. He tried to avoid saying it too directly, trying to resort instead to the idea that European countries should be picking up their fair share, which would only continue this dangerous war with no end in sight while destroying Ukraine. It's not really a solution. And you saw Vivek kind of mock him by putting his wet finger up in the air, suggesting that that was what Governor DeSantis was doing. However, I do think Governor DeSantis made a more direct statement about the fact that we shouldn't be sending money to Ukraine. Their argument that resonates in Republican politics is we should be using it to fortify our own border and not caring so much about the Ukrainian border. 

But we saw these politicians Nikki Haley, Chris Christie, Tim Scott and Mike Pence, who really sound like they're from the Republican Party of 2004, 2008, 2012. They would fit perfectly within the party of Mitt Romney, John McCain and George Bush when he was running. I don't think they have any conception of the fact that the reason 2016 and Donald Trump's victory was such a cataclysmic moment in American politics, isn't that Trump ushered in changes in how Republican Party voters were thinking about things like militarism and imperialism, and war and priorities and the swamp and their contempt for corporatism and lobbyists and the way that they run Washington. Those sentiments predated Trump. He detected them. He observed them. He was the one who was able best to give voice to them. 

If you go back and look at Ron Paul's campaign in 2008 and 2012, he was sounding exactly those same things going into South Carolina and Iowa and some of the deepest red districts that are in the early part of that Republican presidential campaign and railing against neoconservatives and the evils of the Iraq war and the complete waste of funds that go into constant new regime-change wars in places like Syria and Libya, that not only come at the expense of the American people in terms of the money that is spent not on their interests but on the interests of other people but also the dangers that are brought to the United States as a result of doing that – the reason why there's so much anti-Americanism, the reason why the world is now gathering in this confederation under BRICS, under China, that's expanding because of this narrative. 

And so, I don't think these politicians have any sense at all of the radical changes in the views of the population, of the people who compose their own parties. They sound like Reagan-era militarists when it comes to foreign policy, and that is just radically out of step with the Republican Party voter, which is why you see Vivek rising in the polls while Donald Trump has a 45-point lead, while DeSantis remains a viable candidate while avoiding that sort of thing, and the rest of them who sound like they're from that old Republican establishment era cannot get traction and it's inconceivable that they will because the things they're saying actually resonate now more in the Democratic Party. 

I just wanted to share with you one of the observations I had from being here, which is that the setup of the audience is extremely well coordinated. I'm here as part of Rumble’s coverage. Rumble has exclusive online streaming rights. And so, I was able to sit very, very close to the stage. I was sitting in the row behind Marjorie Taylor Greene, Matt Gaetz, his wife, Donald Trump Jr. and his wife, Kimberly Guilfoyle – they were there as part of Rumble as well – but the entire middle section up to the stage, right behind the Fox News microphones, every single seat says “reserved for the RNC.” 

So, the RNC obviously takes its biggest donors. We watched a lot of the big donors from the hotel we're staying at migrate from that hotel to the debate. And so often the reaction that you're hearing to each candidate's position is one that is anything but organic. It is coming from Republican Party donors. They don't want to hear condemnations of Donald Trump because they want the Republican Party to win and they obviously recognize the chance that Donald Trump will be the nominee. So, they don't want to hear from Asa Hutchinson and Chris Christie that he's a criminal and beneath the dignity of the office – that's why you heard booing for that sort of thing. But so often when Vivek would speak, you would hear the kind of booing about certain denunciations he made of other Republican Party candidates. There was a gigantic pro-Vivek, young vocal section off on the side. I don't know if they were visible in the air or not, but so much of the audience's reaction shapes how viewers perceive these candidates. And that is all coordinated. That is all very carefully constructed. And that's something that you see only while you're at this debate. It's one of the reasons why I wanted to come. I haven't been to a Republican Party presidential debate before. I very much wanted to see the theater and the circus of it to understand how it's constructed, to get a feel for what the dynamic is here, and clearly, there is a sizable portion of the Republican donor base that is desperate to get somebody, anybody other than Donald Trump. I think they continue to think Governor DeSantis is the most likely alternative. Republican voters like DeSantis, I think he performed perfectly competently tonight in a way that will continue to make them like him. But it's impossible for me to imagine a reconstructed party whose ideology has transformed about the military-industrial complex, regime change wars, wars themselves, the foreign policy in Ukraine, the CIA, the FBI, the weaponization of the Justice Department, abandoning President Trump absent some very unforeseeable event. There was nothing in that room that changed that. The fact that Vivek became the center of attention, to me, illustrates that they understand that what they need to do is not so much attack him. It's not like he has some gigantic surge in the ball, though he is increasing – you saw him at the center of the stage next to Governor DeSantis reflecting his polling increase – but the fact instead the dynamic they need to defeat is Trumpism, is the ideology of Trump of rejuvenating within the Republican Party, the idea that we need to be fighting foreign wars, we need to be supporting proxy wars when it comes to Ukraine. This idea of the kind of glorification of the United States as this great, inspiring country that is still so wonderful for everybody. You saw Vivek explicitly reject that; Trump's politics is all about talking about the forgotten man, about the people who no longer are in any way assigned any value by the political class. They need to wrench the Republican Party back out of the hands of the people who think that because that is an establishment is an ideology that is genuinely threatening to the establishment. Despite all the ways Trump failed to carry through in his first term, despite the way in which the establishment ran circles around him, that ideology itself ever continues to take hold in The Republican Party will be irretrievable. And if you get somebody aggressive, inarticulate, incompetent, and I think someone like Vivek showed how that can be done, then you're going to have a Republican Party that has an ideology that is fundamentally anathema, not just to the police, but to the interests of the Republican Party. That's why there's so much more vibrancy taking place in the Republican Party than there is in the Democratic Party. 

So, I think all the guests wanted are kind of gone. And that's fine. I just wanted to share some thoughts we'll certainly have on guests over the next week or two. I was able to talk to a lot of people about coming on the show and they're interested in doing so, so, we will have them on shortly, but those are my thoughts. I'm also interested, as I know my colleagues are, in getting home. We have an early flight back to Miami tomorrow where I'm going to appear on Patrick Van David's podcast on Friday, so you can look for that. 

I don't think we're going to have a System Update tomorrow because we're going to be flying late to Miami, but we will certainly be resuming that and then, Friday night we're flying back to Brazil. So, you should probably look for the next System Update next Monday at 7 p.m. Eastern. 

I'll be on a couple of podcasts and I'll promote those.

That will conclude our live coverage of the Republican presidential debate. 

I hope you have a great night. I hope you enjoyed watching the debate and the interview with Congressman Gaetz and we will see you shortly next week at our regular, scheduled time. 

Have a great night, everybody.

community logo
Join the Glenn Greenwald Community
To read more articles like this, sign up and join my community today
What else you may like…
Watch Tonight's Monologue

Due to a connection issue, our stream was cut short tonight.
You can find the entire episode below.

We apologize for this technical difficulty - thank you so much for your continued support.

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
WEEKLY WEIGH-IN: Let us know!

What’s happening in politics that you want to talk about? Are there any topics you think Glenn needs to cover? Any thoughts you’d like to share?

This post will be pinned to our profile for the remainder of this week, so comment below anytime with your questions, insights, future topic ideas/guest recommendations, etc. Let’s get a conversation going!

Glenn will respond to a few comments here—and may even address some on our next supporters-only After Show.

Thank you so much for your continued support of SYSTEM UPDATE with Glenn Greenwald! Have a great week!


Dog-of-the-Week goes to KIERA. Our cute-as-can-be cohost got some rest while Glenn and Victor did the heavy lifting of answering our Weekly Weigh-In questions. But, she wasn’t the only one, Toby – seen in our second photo – also got to nap.

UPDATE: Alan Dershowitz vs. Glenn Greenwald at The Soho Forum
15 hours ago

I’m impressed with how well informed and how IFORMING some of the audience here is! Someone offered a list of reports from Al Jesera that includes a report on the current use of the floating aid port and how it’s being received from the perspective of Gaza and the international community. It’s really important to know about! Thanks to who did this!

post photo preview
As the Daily Wire Publicly Negotiated a Debate with Candace Owens, it Secretly Sought -- and Obtained -- a Gag Order Against Her
Due to a prior restraint order against Owens, the much-anticipated Israel debate with Ben Shapiro appears to be off.

On April 5, Candace Owens publicly invited her former Daily Wire colleague Ben Shapiro to a debate about "Israel and the current definition of antisemitism." It was Owens' criticisms of U.S. financing of Israel, and her criticisms of Israel's war in Gaza, that caused her departure from the Daily Wire two weeks earlier.

Both Shapiro and Daily Wire CEO Jeremy Boreing responded by saying they would like to arrange the debate requested by Owens. That night, Shapiro appeared to accept her offer, writing on X: "Sure, Candace. I texted you on February 29th offering this very thing." The Daily Wire co-founder added: "Let's do it on my show this Monday at 5pm at our studios in Nashville; 90 minutes, live-streamed."

After Owens objected to the format and timing, she and Boreing exchanged several tweets in which they appeared to be negotiating, and then agreeing to, the terms and format for the debate. Owens had suggested the debate be moderated by Joe Rogan or Lex Fridman. Shaprio said he wanted no moderator. They ultimately agreed to the terms, with Boreing offering a series of conditions, including a no-moderator debate, and with Owens publicly accepting

Two weeks later, many readers of both Shapiro and Owens noticed, and complained, that the debate had not yet happened. On April 24, Owens addressed those inquiries by explaining that the Daily Wire had yet to propose dates, while reiterating her strong desire to ensure the debate happened.

But the debate was never going to happen. That is because the Daily Wire -- in secret and unbeknownst to its readers -- sought a gag order to be placed on Owens after she had called for a debate. They did this under the cover of secrecy, before a private arbitrator, at exactly the same time that they were claiming in public that they wanted this debate and were even negotiating the terms with her. To this date, the Daily Wire has not informed its readers, seeking to understand why the much-anticipated debate had not yet happened, that they had sought and obtained a gag order against Owens.

When seeking a gag order to be imposed on Owens, the Daily Wire accused her of violating the non-disparagement clause of her agreement with the company. To substantiate this accusation, the company specifically cited Owens' initial tweet requesting a debate with Shapiro as proof of this disparagement, along with concerns she voiced that Shapiro appeared to be violating the confidentiality agreement between them by publicly maligning Owens's views to explain her departure from the company. While the company claimed before the arbitrator that it did not object in principle to a "healthy debate," it urged the imposition of a gag order on Owens by claiming that the way she requested the debate constituted disparagement of Shapiro and the site.

To justify the gag order it wanted, the company also cited various criticisms of the Daily Wire and Shapiro on X that Owens had "liked." This proceeding took place as part of an exchange of legal threats between the parties after the public agreement to debate about Israel was solidified. Those threats arose from the fact that various Daily Wire executives and hosts, in both public and private, were castigating Owens as an anti-Semite. On March 22, Daily Wire host Andrew Klaven published a one-hour video that hurled multiple accusations, including anti-Semitism, at Owens. The Daily Wire cited Owens' response to that video -- her defense of herself from those multiple accusations -- as further proof that she needed to be gagged.

The initial tweet from Owens not only requested a debate, but also included a video from the popular comedian Andrew Schulz, who had mocked the Daily Wire for firing Owens over disagreements regarding Israel, and specifically mocked Shapiro for his willingness to debate only undergraduate students. The tweet underneath Owens's original debate request included a summary of Schulz's mockery of Shapiro which stated: Schulz now "realizes Ben Shapiro is only good at debating college liberals & can’t win debates against serious competition." 

After the prior restraint hearing sought by the Daily Wire and Shapiro, the arbitrator sided with them and against Owens. The arbitrator agreed with the Daily Wire that Owens' call to debate Shapiro, and her follow-up negotiations of the debate, constituted "disparagement" of the company and Shapiro. The company argued that any further attempt by Owens to debate, as well her suggesting that the debate would expose the Daily Wire's real "priorities," constituted criticisms of the site and of Shapiro, criticisms that the arbitrator concluded Owens was barred from expressing under her contract with the company.

The arbitrator thus imposed a gag order of prior restraint on Owens. Among other things, the order banned Owens from saying or doing anything in the future which could tarnish or harm the reputation of the Daily Wire and/or Ben Shapiro. Given that the Daily Wire had argued, and the arbitrator agreed, that Owens' offers to debate Shapiro about Israel and anti-semitism were themselves "disparaging," the Daily Wire has ensured that the debate with Owens that they publicly claimed to want could not, in fact, take place. Any such debate would be in conflict with the gag order they obtained on Owens from expressing any criticisms of the site or of Shapiro.

When asked for comment to be included this story, Owens replied: I "wish I could comment on this but I can’t." She added: "can neither confirm nor deny."

Boreing said: "your story is inaccurate to the point of being false," though he did not specify a single inaccuracy, nor did he deny that the Daily Wire had sought and obtained a gag order on Owens at the same time they were publicly posturing as wanting a debate with her. The confirmation we obtained of all these facts is indisputable. Boreing added: "I’m sure you can appreciate how fraught a high profile break-up like this is. For that reason, we are trying to resolve our issues with Candace privately."

It certainly seems true that the Daily Wire is attempting to achieve all of this "privately." Nonetheless, Ben Shapiro has constructed his very lucrative media brand and persona based on his supposed superiority in debating, a reputation cultivated largely as a result of numerous appearances at undergraduate schools around the country where he intrepidly engages with students who are often in their teens or early twenties. Both Shapiro and the Daily Wire have also predicated their collective media brand on an eagerness to engage in free and open debate with anyone, and to vehemently oppose any efforts to silence people, especially those in media, from expressing their political views.

It was the imperatives of this media branding that presumably led the Daily Wire and Shapiro to publicly agree to a debate with Owens over Israel and anti-semitism in the first place. Indeed, when it became apparent early after the start of Israel's war in Gaza that Owens had major differences with Shapiro, Boering responded to calls from Israel supporters for Owens to be fired by proclaiming in November: 

[E]ven if we could, we would not fire Candace because of another thing we have in common - a desire not to regulate the speech of our hosts, even when we disagree with them. Candace is paid to give her opinion, not mine or Ben’s. Unless those opinions run afoul of the law or she violates the terms of her contract in some way, her job is secure and she is welcome at Daily Wire.

But a mere four months later, Owens, despite being of one of the company's most popular hosts, was out. The company had concluded that her increasingly vocal criticisms of Israel, opposition to U.S. financing of it, and her views on anti-semitism were incompatible with the Daily Wire's policies.

All of those issues would likely have been the subject of the public debate that Owens sought, and that the Daily Wire claimed to want. Instead, the Daily Wire has succeeded in obtaining a gag order that, on its face, prevents Owens, in advance, from questioning or criticizing both the Daily Wire or Shapiro in any way.



Read full Article
post photo preview
Weekly Newsletter

We are pleased to send you a summary of the key stories we covered last week on SYSTEM UPDATE. 

—Glenn Greenwald

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
Weekly Recap

Welcome to the SYSTEM UPDATE recap: your weekend digest featuring everything we’ve covered throughout the previous week. 


Prefer to listen to your daily news analysis? Reminder that FULL episodes of SYSTEM UPDATE are available anywhere you listen to podcasts🎙️


Jen Psaki's Lies Expose the Fraud of "Disinformation"; Israelis Endanger Americans and Block Humanitarian Aid

Full transcript available for paid supporters: HERE



Intro (7:26)

Queen of Disinformation (14:11)

Israelis Block Gaza Aid (47:32)

Outro (1:12:12)



House Prioritizes Israel Over Funding U.S. Government; Seinfeld Commencement Debacle Fuels Antisemitism Panic; PLUS: China and Hungary's Close Ties Explained

Full transcript available for paid supporters: HERE



Intro (10:29)

House Prioritized Israel Over U.S. (16:19)

Media Meltdown (48:28)

Hungary and China Strengthen Ties (57:50)

Outro (1:17:07)


Supporters-Only After Show for Tuesday, May 14

We moved to Locals for our supporters-only, interactive after show where Glenn shared his thoughts on some audience questions and comments:


Available for paid supporters here

Want to join us every Tuesday and Thursday for this supporter-exclusive, live after show? Become a paid supporter here!



INTERVIEW: Professor Jeffrey Sachs on Ukraine's Failures, Israel's War in Gaza, China, and More

Full transcript available for paid supporters: HERE



Intro (6:31)

Interview with Professor Jeffrey Sachs [13:12 - 1:10:23]

  • Ukraine (13:12 - 48:33)
  • Israel (48:34 - 58:40)
  • Columbia Student Protests (58:45 - 1:03:23)
  • China (1:03:24 - 1:10:23)

Outro (1:10:24)

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