Glenn Greenwald
Politics • Culture • Writing
Trump’s Latest Interviews Reveal A More Focused Vision
System Update #379, Part 1/3
December 18, 2024
post photo preview

The following is an abridged transcript of a segment from System Update’s most recent episode, lightly edited for clarity and readability. 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 that is 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!


Since his election victory, Donald Trump has given two major, lengthy interviews about his intentions for his second term in the presidency and one can't help but notice that the version of Trump that we are seeing is a much different one, at least in some key respects, than the one we saw during the campaign. 

Trump's constrained demeanor and the content of what he is saying are all quite striking. It is a very calm, sober, focused and one might even say thoughtful Trump that we are seeing. And what he is saying aligns in many cases with how he is saying it: it's a more cogent and consistent Trump, one who has a clearly defined worldview on many issues accompanied by an obvious desire to be less polarizing and alarming to those who did not vote for him, one might even say a more moderated and serious Trump. That doesn't mean he's compromising on every or even most issue – though he is on some – only that he's avoiding gratuitous flailing. We'll look at this ethos but more so at the substance of what he is saying as perhaps a window into what the second term will be.

AD_4nXed8QGtBQg6Gv0TK5TbMJKLEswvdwcaDqV8aVVRlbLJ6O3VyG5is4nshQ-lWCNYp6Vtsha7rdop3jCSyKcm3TRuD_K9xR5rjnGgQJ8fxfsYPj8FFPfI1SudrRLsRsIoKB7NbaE-Isfcmbj0rDTy2x8?key=626zuuB2EZaQcgJKqxtpHEgO

A More Moderate Side

One of the many reasons why I think that the media campaign and the Democratic Party campaign to make people afraid of Donald Trump’s character, to depict him as Adolf Hitler, to claim that he's a white supremacist seeking to impose a Nazi dictatorship on the United States, failed – and there were many – but one of the reasons it definitely failed was because it's easy to do that to somebody that the public doesn't know where fearmongering has space to grow. However, for someone who is known to the American public – and he was very well known to the public before 2016 when he first ran and, after, basically dominated our political lives over the last eight years, being president for four years. Americans already know Donald Trump so well that they really don't need the media to try to fill in the gap for them. They have their own perceptions of who he is, how he conducts himself, of how he acts in power. So, the media just was unable to scare people who weren't already scared of Trump based on what they had seen. That's why I have to say Donald Trump as a character has been pretty consistent. I don't think he's been aligned at all with the caricature that has been manufactured for him by the media outlets most hostile to him. He has been fairly consistent in his behavior, his character and how he responds to certain events – and I say that as somebody who lived in New York City for a long time, beginning in the early 1990s, when Trump was a larger-than-life figure, all the way back then, and people had a good understanding of who he was then, he was very much in the media. 

That's why I think these two major post-election interviews that he did, one with “Meet the Press” and Kristen Welker, the host of that program about two weeks ago, two weekends ago, and then today, a new one that was published with Time Magazine after it named him Person of the Year and put him on the cover, obviously much to his delight. It's actually quite striking because there are some palpable changes in the way he speaks and the tone he's using to speak in what I think is the remarkable cogency of how he's articulating his views. There's no rambling, there's not a lot of stopping and starting. He's being more articulate than usual and I think that's one of his failures as a politician. He has a great amount of charisma, he's hilarious to most people who are willing to see it, he draws a lot of attention to himself and he understands instinctively how to communicate with people, but I don't think he's a great order at all. A lot of times in debates or interviews, you kind of almost have to know what he's trying to say to really understand it because he just doesn't fully articulate. I think a lot of that has changed. 

It is possible, I think one might even say likely, that the two attempts to take his life, particularly the first one that came about a centimeter away from blowing his head off would have to change even the most fixed-in-own-ways person. By all accounts, people close to Trump speaking off the record, or on the record, say they noticed visible changes in Trump in what he values and how he speaks after those incidents. No matter how cynical you are, in general, about Donald Trump, I think it'd be very hard to reject that out of hand. In fact, it would be much more surprising to me, if someone didn't change after two incidents like that, particularly the first one. But it's also the case that, if you look at these interviews, it just seems a different Donald Trump. It's the same Donald Trump in a lot of ways. I'm not saying there's a radical transformation or departure from what he's always been, but it seems like it's a much more content Donald Trump, a much more secure Donald Trump. Someone who no longer is desperate to win the election because, remember, winning the election was really his only way out of staying out of prison. Not only did he win this time, but there's no one questioning his win, no one claiming it's illegitimate, and no one claiming it's because of Putin. It was a pretty sweeping victory. We knew he was going to win almost by eleven o’clock at night, certainly confirmed by one in the morning, which is pretty early for American politics. It was a pretty sweeping vindication of who he insists he's been and what he's been. 

I think this is appearing in interviews and one of the things substantively that is appearing as well is that he is clearly attempting to be less provocative. He's not only avoiding making statements that may play into the worst smears about him or his character, but he's going out of his way to try to be reassuring in a way that I find convincing because it does seem to me more consistent with his worldview than what one might do during a campaign. That's true of all politicians. 

AD_4nXcPoUWMgoyLH5_E_Lyk-CnnzpIc31vd3TsaQqafj8qIaOpbKVDhfFwwSPZDRWKhTfuUynAe9UCXJJCvKJpCDMaECutbRL9HsLadQHWN_a8HVruFY-WC3SBWYDmfV7mm_pJn90cU8X3nAyrDAX34FNQ?key=626zuuB2EZaQcgJKqxtpHEgO

So, let's look at Time Magazine, released today, and there you see him on the cover. The article reads:

For 97 years, the editors of TIME have been picking the Person of the Year: the individual who, for better or for worse, did the most to shape the world and the headlines over the past 12 months. In many years, that choice is a difficult one. In 2024, it was not. (TIME. December 12, 2024)

It's hard to argue with that. I don't really care who Time chooses, I'm more interested in the interview. But given what they said, I think it's very, very difficult to argue there was anybody who shaped political culture or political life, not just in the United States, but through the democratic world more than Donald Trump did over this past year. The fact that he came back from being impeached twice, from being indicted four times and then he rolled to victory in the GOP nomination against a lot of credible opponents – well-funded, credible opponents. He brought a lot of other people to his side. Clearly, he's reshaped political life in the United States in ways that no one else can compare and even, therefore, globally agree that the U.S. is still the largest, most powerful country in the world. 

The magazine published a transcript with Trump, a pretty lengthy, detailed transcript and I want to give you a sense of what I mean when I said all the things I said about how Trump appears to me. As you know, during the campaign, an ad that the Trump campaign ran and ran and ran and ran over and over and over that was quite effective, was one that focused not so much on the issue of transgender people. It was really more focused on something Kamala Harris had said in 2019 when responding to a questionnaire by the ACLU and running for office, where she said in response to the ACLU question that she does support having U.S. government funding the sex reassignment surgery and another treatment, even to people who are in prison or who are illegally detained. I don't really think the reason why that ad works so well, showing Kamala Harris saying that and concluding with that famous phrase, therefore, “Kamala is for they/them, Trump is for you.” I don't even think the reason it resonated so much is because people think much about that issue, whether the government should pay for sex reassignment surgeries or treatments for prisoners and illegal detainees. I think that became a proxy for trying to say, look at how out of touch the Democrats are with your lives, that's the reason that you're suffering under their government, they don't care about you at all. They have these lofty radical issues and factions that they please, but they don't think about things that you're going through and that's what the commercial is about – not let's go stop the evil of transgenderism but more you need people in Washington who care about you and your lives. And so, I thought it was so interesting what Trump said when he was asked about this issue in general, but also the specific issue of whether the first ever member of Congress who is transgender, Sarah McBride, who was elected from the state of Delaware in the Democratic Party, should be able to use the women's bathroom. That has become a controversy in Washington among some people, and they asked him about that as well. I think his answer was surprising, at least to me. It's what I would expect him to say, I guess what was surprising was that he's just willing to say it, even if it means alienating a lot of people who are on his side, especially on this issue. So here was the exchange:

Can I shift to the transgender issue? Obviously, sort of a major issue during the campaign. In 2016, you said that transgender people could use whatever bathroom they chose. Do you still feel that way?

I don’t want to get into the bathroom issue. Because it's a very small number of people we're talking about, and it's ripped apart our country, so they'll have to settle whatever the law finally agrees.

But on that note, there’s a big fight on this in Congress now. The incoming trans member from Delaware, Sarah McBride, says we should all be focused on more important issues. Do you agree?

I do agree with that. On that – absolutely. As I was saying, it's a small number of people. (TIME December 12, 2024)

So, what he's saying is: look, this issue of transgender people using the bathroom is not an issue we should be focused on. 

As I said, I know there are a lot of conservatives, a lot of Trump supporters who disagree with that, who think that is an issue on which we should be focused. There are a lot of people who are focused on that issue, which is what I think is so notable about the fact that Trump didn't choose to demagogue this issue, he didn't choose to exploit the polarization in genders. In fact, he said, yeah, I agree with the newly elected trans member of Congress when she says we shouldn’t be focused on the question of which bathroom people use, but instead on far more important issues facing the country. 

Here is Donald Trump in 2016. I think it's really worth remembering that when Trump announced he was running, he was extremely emphatic on the issue of immigration but Trump has never been a hard-core conservative on any social issues to put that mildly, and it's pretty easy to understand why. He's been a Manhattan billionaire for his entire adult life, he was a star in Hollywood on his own show. Obviously, he's coming into contact with gay people all the time, constantly, in Manhattan, in Hollywood. He himself is on his third marriage. Those three women to whom he was married, were not the only women with whom he has had sex. He doesn't live a life focused on this, he never cared about social issues before and he's giving checks to the Democratic Party. What motivated him was immigration, trade and economics. That clearly was what gave him the most passion but obviously, during a campaign, you have to focus on the things that will get your votes. I always knew that Trump's heart is not in social issues. And you saw him quite calculatedly in this election afraid of what the abortion issue could do to his campaign and backing off a lot of hard-core pro-life stances that were once the requirement of the Republican Party, including saying he doesn't believe in a national abortion ban. 

Here is Trump in 2016, addressing kind of briefly when asked the question of trans people in bathrooms: 

Video. Donald Trump. NBC News. April 21, 2016.

That's something we talked about last week. That it is true that, for a long time, the trans issue was never anything that anybody bothered with. It only became a source of controversy when it got pushed into areas that were predictably designed to provoke a lot of conflicts, one involving trans women in sports, biological males who transition to women in women's sports, and especially the question of administering treatment to children, to preadolescence to stop their puberty or give them hormones, cross-sex hormones, as we talked about that last week. I think Trump is very representative of most people: this is not the issue that's driving me. Live and let live. This is not something that he newly unveiled. It's something he's been saying for a long time. 

During the campaign, Trump did talk about trans issues and I remember seeing the first time he did it. He basically said in a kind of ironic way: “Wow, you mention the trans issue, people go wild, I don't know why people care about this so much, but they do. Every time I mentioned it in my rally, they go insane.” So, being a politician wanting to win, he definitely did raise it and talk about it. But even when he saw the benefit, it was bringing it to him politically he never quite understood why this was something so important to other people, since it wasn't to him. Here's one example, at a rally in June of 2023:

 Video. Donald Trump. Newsmax. June 10, 2023.

He was basically mocking the audience that gave him a standing ovation. He said, yeah, “I talk about tax cuts and the economy, well, yeah, okay, I care about that a little. But if you mention trans…” I mean, the audience there in North Carolina where he was speaking, gave him a standing ovation, a prolonged applause. So Trump is obviously subtly, at least being confounded by, if not criticizing the audience for prioritizing this issue to such an extent because he does not. There you see in this article today where they basically ask him about whether he agrees that this is not the issue that we should be focused on. He said, yeah, this is in fact a tiny number of people. And he even went on to say, look, I mean, what the majority wants matters, but so do minority rights. And I want to make sure we're treating everybody justly and fairly not only was there no hostility to trans people, but there was also compassion and empathy towards them of the kind you saw in that clip going all the way back to 2016 – and I think that is who Trump consistently is. 

Another thing that I found very interesting in this article is that there's a lot of confusion among some people on what exactly Trump wants in Ukraine. In part because so many people whom he's chosen for very key positions in the foreign policy part of his administration are people who have been critical of Joe Biden for not having done more, not having done more and sooner, including allowing American long-range missiles to be used to bomb Russia, which is what Joe Biden just about three weeks ago announced he would do. And so the reporter asked him the following:

 … the question people want to know is, Would you abandon Ukraine?

And I had a meeting recently with a group of people from the government, where they come in and brief me, and I'm not speaking out of turn, the numbers of dead soldiers that have been killed in the last month are numbers that are staggering, both Russians and Ukrainians, and the amounts are fairly equal. You know, I know they like to say they weren't, but they're fairly equal, but the numbers of dead young soldiers lying on fields all over the place are staggering. It's crazy what's taking place. It's crazy. I disagree very vehemently with sending missiles hundreds of miles into Russia. Why are we doing that? We're just escalating this war and making it worse. That should not have been allowed to be done. (TIME. December 12, 2024)

I know there are people in both parties who disagree with Trump on this saying “I don't want to escalate this war,” “It's crazy to allow the Ukrainians to use American missiles and probably personnel to shoot deep inside Russia, bomb deep inside Russia. Why are we doing that?” He's speaking kind of from the heart in terms of what he really thinks. I've made this point actually once before, a couple of months ago when I was on Fox, I think it was with Laura Ingraham. She had played a clip of Trump talking about the war in Ukraine and he was basically saying what he said there, which was like “this war has ended the lives of hundreds of thousands of human beings, young people. What is the point of this, the sense of all this bloodshed?” And I remarked that it's very rare to hear a politician talking about war in that way. That is the only way, or at least the primary way to talk about war. That is war. It's spilling blood, it's ending people's lives, it's extinguishing their existence – young people who don't even want to be in the war, and don't know why they're there. It doesn't mean war is always unjustified. It means that one of the reasons why it should be an absolute last resort, only done when absolutely necessary, which is not the case for this war is because, as he often puts it, so many people are bleeding and dying and losing their lives and it's tragic. Most people in Washington in both parties talk about it as a geostrategic issue. “We can't let Russia expand.” They almost never talk about the human cost of war, in part because it doesn't really come to American soil. We haven't had a war where people are drafted since Vietnam. And so most people in the United States see war as kind of a game, as an abstract issue. It's not fought on our soil, and it's not fought with most of their families. But when Trump talks about it, he talks about it always in this very humanistic way, which is why I also do believe that, at least to some extent, there's authenticity to his desire to avoid war. Along with, as I talked about before, what is an obvious fear of nuclear weapons, which he talks about a lot. 

One of the reasons why this was so interesting – that he so adamantly said he opposes the use of long-range missiles in Ukraine – is that a lot of people who are going to be in his cabinet and who are supporters of his have said the exact opposite. Just a couple of weeks ago, General Keith Kellogg was on Fox News, and here's what he had to say on that same exact issue. 

Video. Keith Kellogg. Fox News. November 27, 2024.

That's Trump’s former national security adviser and that is the representative view of the establishment wing of the Republican Party, people like Marco Rubio, Elise Stefanik and others whom he's chosen, whose criticism of the Biden policy toward Ukraine is not that we've gotten too involved, that we've fueled that war, that we've risked escalation too much, but that we haven't done it enough. And so, for Trump to just come out and say “This is crazy, to send that kind of missiles there,” I think is indicative of why I say we need to wait to see what the Trump administration is and not judge based on the people he's choosing because it seems a very engaged Trump, a very determined Trump to make sure that this time his policies are the ones who end up shaping his administration and not people who are supposed to work for him. 

TIME Magazine also asked Trump about the war in Israel and Gaza and here's what Trump had to say about that. 

You mentioned the Palestinian people. In your first term, your administration put forward the most comprehensive plan for a two-state solution in a long time. Do you still support that plan?

I support a plan of peace, and it can take different forms.

Do you still support a two-state solution?

I support whatever solution we can do to get peace. There are other ideas other than two states, but I support whatever, whatever is necessary to get not just peace, but a lasting peace.

The real question at the heart of this, sir, is, do you want to get a two-state deal done, outlined in your Peace to Prosperity deal that you put forward, or are you willing to let Israel annex the West Bank?

So what I want is a deal where there's going to be peace and where the killing stops.

Would you tell Israel—that Bibi tried last time and you stopped him. Would you do it again this time? 

We’ll see what happens. Yeah, I did. I stopped him.

Do you trust Netanyahu?

I don’t trust anybody. 

 (TIME. December 12, 2024)

That is not the answer that most of the people who are working for Trump, whom he's chosen, would give. None of them is saying, in fact, oh yeah, we want peace. They're saying we want to unleash the Israelis even further and we'll see what happens in the administration. That's the area where I am least optimistic and hopeful, given the people who funded Trump's campaign and who he surrounded himself with. But I do think Trump prides himself on ending wars. And there again you're seeing his view that the priority has to be ending wars. He has no reason at this point, unlike two months ago, to say things he doesn't believe because he's never going to face the electorate again. 

When Trump was on “Meet the Press,” one of the issues he was asked about was whether he would allow RFK Jr. to ban childhood vaccines, or to otherwise codify the idea that vaccines cause autism and here's what Trump said about that. 

Video. Donald Trump. NBC News. December 8, 2024.

So, here he's saying, look, I'm not asserting that childhood vaccines cause autism, but I do want to know why autism has skyrocketed. She keeps saying scientists say it's because we identify it better as if he's just supposed to swallow that and say, well, there's no longer any need to research, like, do all scientists think that? Is it possible scientists are wrong like they were in so many instances with COVID? And this is a very, again, reasonable, non-dogmatic way of looking at it. I want to study these causes. I want to work with drug companies. If somebody wants to ban all toddler vaccines like the polio one, that's going to be pretty difficult for them to get me to do. So, again, you're seeing this kind of image of Trump that if you were to believe what you've been hearing about him for the last year, you would not recognize this person. 

Here's one particularly good example. I think this not only surprised a lot of his supporters but even angered them. He was asked about whether he would really intend to deport every single person illegally in the country, all 11 million, including the so-called Dreamers, the people who came here very, very young, who have studied here, who went to school here, who have integrated into the society. She asked him, would you even deport them? And here's what he said about that. 

Video. Donald Trump. NBC News. December 8, 2024.

So again, here's the person we were supposed to believe hates all Brown people, wants them all extinguished and wants them gone and sent to concentration camps and here he's asked about dreamers – and again, I know this made a lot of supporters of Donald Trump angry, who don't think anyone in the country, including Dreamers, should be able to stay – and he said, “Yeah, I want them to stay. Of course they have to stay. We need to get something worked out.” He even criticized Joe Biden and the Democrats, for not having done it when they had full power. 

I have to say this again: all of this is very cogent. Do you see how easy it is to understand, to listen to him, to follow the logical train of thought that he is asking us to travel with him on? It's a very relaxed Trump. It's not that hyper-combative defense of Trump. And again, I think that comes from the security of having just won an election that nobody can challenge the legitimacy of. Remember when he ran in 2016, it was instantly delegitimized as the byproduct of Russian interference. No one could do that this time, and so he's just extremely secure when he's talking to anybody and that makes him, I think, a more effective communicator and a more effective speaker. I know I'm being pretty positive and I'm praising a lot of aspects of what I see of Trump and this is just what I'm seeing and I'm showing you the reasons. 

One of the superpowers of Trump has always been that he is extremely funny and so often the things he said that were funny and clearly intended as jokes, the media just could not comprehend or intend it humorously. A lot of times they purposely distorted it, other times they simply were confused. I think the time that I really became radicalized when it came to media lying about not just Russiagate but Trump in 2016 was that time he stood at a press conference and was asked about Russia – they were obsessed with Russia and Russian hacking into the DNC – and he said, “I don't know about that, but Russia, if you're listening, maybe you can find Hillary Clinton's deleted emails, the ones that she had deleted.” Trump was obviously making a joke. Hey, you want to know about Russian hacking? Maybe the Russians can find Hillary Clinton's emails! And they decided to pretend that Trump was standing up in front of the world and earnestly placing a request to the Kremlin about what they should go hack. And they took that as proof that he obviously was in collusion with Putin in the Kremlin since he was specifically requesting that they go hack in a way that was politically advantageous for him. The stupidity of this was so self-evident. If Trump was in collusion with the Kremlin, why would he stand in front of cameras and submit his hacking requests to them? It was such an obvious joke and they decided to take it seriously and it made them look like idiots – like deranged, hysterical idiots. 

Trump is still funny. And I want to show you this one clip just to underscore that while he does seem to be sort of more sober and serious communicator, it's also the case that he has retained that, especially that kind of bitter, sardonic humor that comes from certain kinds of resentments. Here's what he said when he talked about the first debate he did with Joe Biden. 

Video. Donald Trump. NBC News. December 8, 2024.

So, he says, yeah, I mean, it's one thing to debate one person, just Joe Biden. That's pretty easy, he said, but to debate three people, actually that's pretty easy too, to be honest. 

Again, I think that I don't have any reason to believe this is a contrived Trump. What is most striking to me is the engagement and focus and confidence he shows now, because I think that's what was missing more than anything in the first term. I don't think he was that focused, he was not engaged, he was more focused on the vendettas he had, with Russiagate and the like, and he just allowed all these other people to do policy in a way that contradicted not only what he ran on, but what I think is his worldview. 

I am still skeptical of whether that will change in the second term, despite how many people close to Trump insist it will, that he's aware of that, that they're aware that that's the priority. But this Trump, someone very clearly focused on policy, speaking about it in an informed way, feeling strongly about it, but not so strongly that it becomes just this inflexible obsession, but still not compromising on the core worldview. That's a Trump that I think has the best chance to correct that fundamental problem that happened in his first administration when he simply didn't know enough or cared enough, wasn't competent enough and was more focused on criticisms of himself. This Trump, I think, has the best chance of actually being a Trump that can align his actual worldview and ideology, regardless of whether it appeared in the campaign, with what administration policy actually is. It remains to be seen, but this is what we have to go on. And I think it's very interesting how he appeared in both interviews. 

community logo
Join the Glenn Greenwald Community
To read more articles like this, sign up and join my community today
4
What else you may like…
Videos
Podcasts
Posts
Articles
Lindsey Graham: Senator from Tel Aviv

New video: Glenn discusses Sen. Lindsey Graham's (R-SC) extreme devotion to Israel.

00:18:06
The NYT Performs Loyal Stenography—Masquerading as Journalism—to Protect AOC

The New York Times dutifully protected AOC after her disastrous interview flop at the Munich Security Conference, watch Glenn's reaction here:

00:31:25
AOC Makes Her Big Foreign Policy Debut, Falls Flat on Her Face
00:23:22
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
Good news about your Locals membership and our move to Substack

Dear Locals members:

We have good and exciting news about your Locals membership. It concerns your ability to easily convert your Locals membership to SYSTEM UPDATE into a Substack subscription for our new page, with no additional cost or work required.

As most of you know, on February 6, we announced the end of our SYSTEM UPDATE program on Rumble, or at least an end to the format we’ve used for the last 3 years: as a live, nightly news program aired exclusively on Rumble.

With the end of our show, we also announced that we were very excited to be moving back to Substack as the base for our journalism. Such a move, we explained, would enable us not only to continue to produce the kind of in-depth video segments, interviews, and reports you’ve grown accustomed to on SYSTEM UPDATE, but would also far better enable me to devote substantial time to long-form investigations and written articles. Our ability at Subtack to combine all those forms of journalism will enable (indeed, already is enabling) us to ...

Day 19: US Burning Through Munitions Amid Gamble to Topple Iran, Cut China From Oil with 1 War (~36min)

The New Atlas | Wednesday March 18, 2026

Excellent analysis by Brian at a critical point of US War on Iran. Thanks Brian!

Video Description:

  • The US has burned through huge quantities of high-end weapons on Iran it had been stockpiling for war it sought to provoke with China in the Asia-Pacific;

  • The US not only likely never had enough weapons for a war with China, but it will be unable to even replace what it has spent on Iran for years to come;

  • The US war on Iran is thus likely an attempt to reduce or remove 2 obstacles to US primacy with one war, degrading or toppling Iran and the imposition of a global maritime oil blockade on China at its source (US capture of Venezuela, US strikes on Russian energy production, and now the incremental shutdown of energy exports from the ...

placeholder

Very good interview. Thanks both! Doctor and former politician Ron Paul had a lot to riff about. I very much like what he had to riff about. With a different temperament he could've been a stand-up comedian.
https://open.substack.com/pub/lenapetrova/p/ron-paul-us-strategic-defeat-in-iran?r=onv0m&utm_medium=ios&shareImageVariant=title

NEW: Message from Glenn to Locals Members About Substack, System Update, and Subscriptions

Hello Locals members:

I wanted to make sure you are updated on what I regard as the exciting changes we announced on Friday night’s program, as well as the status of your current membership.

As most of you likely know, we announced on our Friday night show that that SYSTEM UPDATE episode would be the last one under the show’s current format (if you would like to watch it, you can do so here). As I explained when announcing these changes, producing and hosting a nightly video-based show has been exhilarating and fulfilling, but it also at times has been a bit draining and, most importantly, an impediment to doing other types of work that have always formed the core of my journalism: namely, longer-form written articles and deep investigations.

We have produced three full years of SYSTEM UPDATE episodes on Rumble (our premiere show was December 10, 2022). And while we will continue to produce video content similar to the kinds of segments that composed the show, they won’t be airing live every night at 7:00 p.m. Eastern, but instead will be posted periodically throughout the week (as we have been doing over the last couple of months both on Rumble and on our YouTube channel here).

To enlarge the scope of my work, I am returning to Substack as the central hub for my journalism, which is where I was prior to launching SYSTEM UPDATE on Rumble. In addition to long-form articles, Substack enables a wide array of community-based features, including shorter-form written items that can be posted throughout the day to stimulate conversation among members, a page for guest writers, and new podcast and video features. You can find our redesigned Substack here; it is launching with new content on Monday.

For our current Locals subscribers, you can continue to stay at Locals or move to Substack, whichever you prefer. For any video content and long-form articles that we publish for paying Substack members, we will cross-post them here on Locals (for members only), meaning that your Locals subscription will continue to give you full access to our journalism. 

When I was last at Substack, we published some articles without a paywall in order to ensure the widest possible reach. My expectation is that we will do something similar, though there will be a substantial amount of exclusive content solely for our subscribers. 

We are working on other options to convert your Locals membership into a Substack membership, depending on your preference. But either way, your Locals membership will continue to provide full access to the articles and videos we will publish on both platforms.

Although I will miss producing SYSTEM UPDATE on a (more or less) nightly basis, I really believe that these changes will enable the expansion of my journalism, both in terms of quality and reach. We are very grateful to our Locals members who have played such a vital role over the last three years in supporting our work, and we hope to continue to provide you with true independent journalism into the future.

— Glenn Greenwald   

Read full Article
post photo preview
The Epstein Files: The Blackmail of Billionaire Leon Black and Epstein's Role in It
Black's downfall — despite paying tens of millions in extortion demands — illustrates how potent and valuable intimate secrets are in Epstein's world of oligarchs and billionaires.

One of the towering questions hovering over the Epstein saga was whether the illicit sexual activities of the world’s most powerful people were used as blackmail by Epstein or by intelligence agencies with whom (or for whom) he worked. The Trump administration now insists that no such blackmail occurred.

 

Top law enforcement officials in the Trump administration — such as Attorney General Pam Bondi, FBI Director Kash Patel, and former FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino — spent years vehemently denouncing the Biden administration for hiding Epstein’s “client list,” as well as concealing details about Epstein’s global blackmail operations. Yet last June, these exact same officials suddenly announced, in the words of their joint DOJ-FBI statement, that their “exhaustive review” found no “client list” nor any “credible evidence … that Epstein blackmailed prominent individuals as part of his actions.” They also assured the public that they were certain, beyond any doubt, that Epstein killed himself.

 

There are still many files that remain heavily and inexplicably redacted. But, from the files that have been made public, we know one thing for certain. One of Epstein’s two key benefactors — the hedge fund billionaire Leon Black, who paid Epstein at least $158 million from 2012 through 2017 — was aggressively blackmailed over his sexual conduct. (Epstein’s second most-important benefactor was the billionaire Les Wexner, a major pro-Israel donor who cut off ties in 2008 after Epstein repaid Wexner $100 million for money Wexner alleged Epstein had stolen from him.)

 

Despite that $100 million repayment in 2008 to Wexner, Epstein had accumulated so much wealth through his involvement with Wexner that it barely made a dent. He was able to successfully “pilfer” such a mind-boggling amount of money because he had been given virtually unconstrained access to, and power over, every aspect of Wexner’s life. Wexner even gave Epstein power of attorney and had him oversee his children’s trusts. And Epstein, several years later, created a similar role with Leon Black, one of the richest hedge fund billionaires of his generation.

 

Epstein’s 2008 conviction and imprisonment due to his guilty plea on a charge of “soliciting a minor for prostitution” began mildly hindering his access to the world’s billionaires. It was at this time that he lost Wexner as his font of wealth due to Wexner’s belief that Epstein stole from him.

 

But Epstein’s world was salvaged, and ultimately thrived more than ever, as a result of the seemingly full-scale dependence that Leon Black developed on Epstein. As he did with Wexner, Epstein insinuated himself into every aspect of the billionaire’s life — financial, political, and personal — and, in doing so, obtained innate, immense power over Black.

 


 

The recently released Epstein files depict the blackmail and extortion schemes to which Black was subjected. One of the most vicious and protracted arose out of a six-year affair he carried on with a young Russian model, who then threatened in 2015 to expose everything to Black’s wife and family, and “ruin his life,” unless he paid her $100 million. But Epstein himself also implicitly, if not overtly, threatened Black in order to extract millions more in payments after Black, in 2016, sought to terminate their relationship.

 

While the sordid matter of Black’s affair has been previously reported — essentially because the woman, Guzel Ganieva, went public and sued Black, accusing him of “rape and assault,” even after he paid her more than $9 million out of a $21 million deal he made with her to stay silent — the newly released emails provide very vivid and invasive details about how desperately Black worked to avoid public disclosure of his sex life. The broad outlines of these events were laid out in a Bloomberg report on Sunday, but the text of emails provide a crucial look into how these blackmail schemes in Epstein World operated.

 

Epstein was central to all of this. That is why the emails describing all of this in detail are now publicly available: because they were all sent by Black or his lawyers to Epstein, and are thus now part of the Epstein Files.

 

Once Ganieva began blackmailing and extorting Black with her demands for $100 million — which she repeatedly said was her final, non-negotiable offer — Black turned to Epstein to tell him how to navigate this. (Black’s other key advisor was Brad Karp, who was forced to resign last week as head of the powerful Paul, Weiss law firm due to his extensive involvement with Epstein).

 

From the start of Ganieva’s increasingly unhinged threats against Black, Epstein became a vital advisor. In 2015, Epstein drafted a script for what he thought Black should tell his mistress, and emailed that script to himself.

 

Epstein included an explicit threat that Black would have Russian intelligence — the Federal Security Service (FSB) — murder Ganieva, because, Epstein argued, failure to resolve this matter with an American businessman important to the Russian economy would make her an “enemy of the state” in the eyes of the Russian government. Part of Epstein’s suggested script for Black is as follows (spelling and grammatical errors maintained from the original correspondents):

 

you should also know that I felt it necessary to contact some friends in FSB, and I though did not give them your name. They explained to me in no uncertain terms that especially now , when Russia is trying to bring in outside investors , as you know the economy sucks, and desperately investment that a person that would attempt to blackmail a us businessman would immeditaly become in the 21 century, what they terms . vrag naroda meant in the 20th they translated it for me as the enemy of the people, and would e dealt with extremely harshly , as it threatened the economies of teh country. So i expect never ever to hear a threat from you again.

 

In a separate email to Karp, Black’s lawyer, Epstein instructs him to order surveillance on the woman’s whereabouts by using the services of Nardello & Co., a private spy and intelligence agency used by the world’s richest people.

 

Black’s utter desperation for Ganieva not to reveal their affair is viscerally apparent from the transcripts of multiple lunches he had with her throughout 2015, which he secretly tape-recorded. His law firm, Paul, Weiss, had those recordings transcribed, and those were sent to Epstein.

 

To describe these negotiations as torturous would be an understatement. But it is worth taking a glimpse to see how easily and casually blackmail and extortion were used in this world.

 

Leon Black is a man worth $13 billion, yet his life appears utterly consumed by having to deal constantly with all sorts of people (including Epstein) demanding huge sums of money from him, accompanied by threats of various kinds. Epstein was central to helping him navigate through all of this blackmail and extortion, and thus, he was obviously fully privy to all of Black’s darkest secrets.

 


 

At their first taped meeting on August 14, 2015, Black repeatedly offered his mistress a payment package of $1 million per year for the next 12 years, plus an up-front investment fund of £2 million for her to obtain a visa to live with her minor son in the UK. But Ganieva repeatedly rejected those offers, instead demanding a lump sum of no less than $100 million, threatening him over and over that she would destroy his life if he did not pay all of it.

 

Black was both astounded and irritated that she thought a payment package of $15 million was somehow abusive and insulting. He emphasized that he was willing to negotiate it upward, but she was adamant that it had to be $100 million or nothing, an amount Black insisted he could not and would not pay.

 

When pressed to explain where she derived that number, Ganieva argued that she considered the two to be married (even though Black was long married to another woman), thereby entitling her to half of what he earned during those years. Whenever Black pointed out that they only had sex once a month or so for five or six years in an apartment he rented for her, and that they never even lived together, she became offended and enraged and repeatedly hardened her stance.

 

Over and over, they went in circles for hours across multiple meetings. Many times, Black tried flattery: telling her how much he cared for her and assuring her that he considered her brilliant and beautiful. Everything he tried seemed to backfire and to solidify her $100 million blackmail price tag. (In the transcripts, “JD” refers to “John Doe,” the name the law firm used for Black; the redacted initials are for Ganieva):

 



 

On other occasions during their meetings, Ganieva insisted that she was entitled to $100 million because Black had “ruined” her life. He invariably pointed out how much money he had given her over the years, to say nothing of the $15 million he was now offering her, and expressed bafflement at how she could see it that way.

 

In response, Ganieva would insist that a “cabal” of Black’s billionaire friends — led by Michael Bloomberg, Mort Zuckerman, and Len Blavatnik — had conspired with Black to ruin her reputation. Other times, she blamed Black for speaking disparagingly of her to destroy her life. Other times, she claimed that people in multiple cities — New York, London, Moscow — were monitoring and following her and trying to kill her. This is but a fraction of the exchanges they had, as he alternated between threatening her with prison and flattering her with praise, while she kept saying she did not care about the consequences and would ruin his life unless she was paid the full amount:

 



 

By their last taped meeting in October, Ganieva appeared more willing to negotiate the amount of the payment. The duo agreed to a payment package in return for her silence; it included Black’s payments to her of $100,000 per month for the next 12 years (or $1.2 million per year for 12 years), as well as other benefits that exceeded a value of $5 million. They signed a contract formalizing what they called a “non-disclosure agreement,” and he made the payments to her for several years on time. The ultimate total value to be paid was $21 million.

 

Unfortunately for Black, these hours of misery, and the many millions paid to her, were all for naught. In March, 2021, Ganieva — despite Black’s paying the required amounts — took to Twitter to publicly accuse Black of “raping and assaulting” her, and further claimed that he “trafficked” her to Epstein in Miami without her consent, to force her to have sex with Epstein.

 

As part of these public accusations, Ganieva spilled all the beans on the years-long affair the two had: exactly what Black had paid her millions of dollars to keep quiet. When Black denied her accusations, she sued him for both defamation and assault. Her case was ultimately dismissed, and she sacrificed all the remaining millions she was to receive in an attempt to destroy his life.

 

Meanwhile, in 2021, Black was forced out of the hedge fund that made him a billionaire and which he had co-founded, Apollo Global Management, as a result of extensive public disclosures about his close ties to Epstein, who, two years earlier, had been arrested, became a notorious household name, and then died in prison. As a result of all that, and the disclosures from his mistress, Black — just like his ex-mistress — came to believe he was the victim of a “cabal.” He sued his co-founder at Apollo, the billionaire Josh Harris, as well as Ganieva and a leading P.R. firm on RICO charges, alleging that they all conspired to destroy his reputation and drive him out of Apollo. Black’s RICO case was dismissed.

 

Black’s fear that these disclosures would permanently destroy his reputation and standing in society proved to be prescient. An independent law firm was retained by Apollo to investigate his relationship with Epstein. Despite the report’s conclusion that Black had done nothing illegal, he has been forced off multiple boards that he spent tens of millions of dollars to obtain, including the highly prestigious post of Chair of the Museum of Modern Art, which he received after compiling one of the world’s largest and most expensive collections, only to lose that position due to Epstein associations.

 

So destroyed is Leon Black’s reputation from these disclosures that a business relationship between Apollo and the company Lifetouch — an 80-year-old company that captures photos of young school children — resulted in many school districts this week cancelling photo shoots involving this company, even though the company never appeared once in the Epstein files. But any remote association with Black — once a pillar of global high society — is now deemed so toxic that it can contaminate anything, no matter how removed from Epstein.

 


 

None of this definitively proves anything like a global blackmail ring overseen by Epstein and/or intelligence agencies. But it does leave little doubt that Epstein was not only very aware of the valuable leverage such sexual secrets gave him, but also that he used it when he needed to, including with Leon Black. Epstein witnessed up close how many millions Black was willing to pay to prevent public disclosure in a desperate attempt to preserve his reputation and marriage.

 

In October, The New York Times published a long examination of what was known at the time about the years-long relationship between Black and Epstein. In 2016, Black seemingly wanted to stop paying Epstein the tens of millions each year he had been paying him. But Epstein was having none of it.

 

Far from speaking to Black as if Epstein were an employee or paid advisor, he spoke to the billionaire in threatening, menacing, highly demanding, and insulting terms:

 

Jeffrey Epstein was furious. For years, he had relied on the billionaire Leon Black as his primary source of income, advising him on everything from taxes to his world-class art collection. But by 2016, Mr. Black seemed to be reluctant to keep paying him tens of millions of dollars a year.

So Mr. Epstein threw a tantrum.

One of Mr. Black’s other financial advisers had created “a really dangerous mess,” Mr. Epstein wrote in an email to Mr. Black. Another was “a waste of money and space.” He even attacked Mr. Black’s children as “retarded” for supposedly making a mess of his estate.

The typo-strewn tirade was one of dozens of previously unreported emails reviewed by The New York Times in which Mr. Epstein hectored Mr. Black, at times demanding tens of millions of dollars beyond the $150 million he had already been paid.

The pressure campaign appeared to work. Mr. Black, who for decades was one of the richest and highest-profile figures on Wall Street, continued to fork over tens of millions of dollars in fees and loans, albeit less than Mr. Epstein had been seeking.

 

The mind-bogglingly massive size of Black’s payments to Epstein over the years for “tax advice” made no rational sense. Billionaires like Black are not exactly known for easily or willingly parting with money that they do not have to pay. They cling to money, which is how many become billionaires in the first place.

 

As the Times article put it, Black’s explanation for these payments to Epstein “puzzled many on Wall Street, who have asked why one of the country’s richest men would pay Mr. Epstein, a college dropout, so much more than what prestigious law firms would charge for similar services.”

 

Beyond Black’s payments to Epstein himself, he also “wired hundreds of thousands of dollars to at least three women who were associated with Mr. Epstein.” And all of this led to Epstein speaking to Black not the way one would speak to one’s most valuable client or to one’s boss, but rather spoke to him in terms of non-negotiable ultimatums, notably similar to the tone used by Black’s mistress-turned-blackmailer:

 


Email from Jeffrey Epstein to Leon Black, dated November 2, 2015.

 

When Black did not relent, Epstein’s demands only grew more aggressive. In one email, he told Black: “I think you should pay the 25 [million] that you did not for this year. For next year it's the same 40 [million] as always, paid 20 [million] in jan and 20 [million] in july, and then we are done.” At one point, Epstein responded to Black’s complaints about a cash crunch (a grievance Black also tried using with his mistress) with offers to take payment from Black in the form of real estate, art, or financing for Epstein’s plane:

 


Email from Jeffrey Epstein to Leon Black, dated March 16, 2016.

 

With whatever motives, Black succumbed to Epstein’s pressure and kept paying him massive sums, including $20 million at the start of 2017, and then another $8 million just a few months later, in April.

 

Epstein had access to virtually every part of Black’s life, as he had with Wexner before that. He was in possession of all sorts of private information about their intimate lives, which would and could have destroyed them if he disclosed it, as evidenced by the reputational destruction each has suffered just from the limited disclosures about their relationship with Epstein, to say nothing of whatever else Epstein knew.

 

Leon Black was most definitely the target of extreme and aggressive blackmail and extortion over his sex life in at least one instance we know of, and Epstein was at the center of that, directing him. While Wall Street may have been baffled that Wexner and Black paid such sums to Epstein over the years, including after Black wanted to cut him off, it is quite easy to understand why they did so. That is particularly so as Epstein became angrier and more threatening, and as he began reminding Black of all the threats from which Epstein had long protected him. Epstein watched those exact tactics work for Black’s mistress.

 

The DOJ continues to insist it has no evidence of Epstein using his access to the most embarrassing parts of the private and sexual lives of the world’s richest and most powerful people for blackmail purposes. But we know for certain that blackmail was used in this world, and that Epstein was not only well aware of highly valuable secrets but was also paid enormous, seemingly irrational sums by billionaires whose lives he knew intimately.

Read full Article
post photo preview
Amazon's Ring and Google's Nest Unwittingly Reveal the Severity of the U.S. Surveillance State
Just a decade after a global backlash was triggered by Snowden reporting on mass domestic surveillance, the state-corporate dragnet is stronger and more invasive than ever.

That the U.S. Surveillance State is rapidly growing to the point of ubiquity has been demonstrated over the past week by seemingly benign events. While the picture that emerges is grim, to put it mildly, at least Americans are again confronted with crystal clarity over how severe this has become.

 

The latest round of valid panic over privacy began during the Super Bowl held on Sunday. During the game, Amazon ran a commercial for its Ring camera security system. The ad manipulatively exploited people’s love of dogs to induce them to ignore the consequences of what Amazon was touting. It seems that trick did not work.

 

The ad highlighted what the company calls its “Search Party” feature, whereby one can upload a picture, for example, of a lost dog. Doing so will activate multiple other Amazon Ring cameras in the neighborhood, which will, in turn, use AI programs to scan all dogs, it seems, and identify the one that is lost. The 30-second commercial was full of heart-tugging scenes of young children and elderly people being reunited with their lost dogs.

 

But the graphic Amazon used seems to have unwittingly depicted how invasive this technology can be. That this capability now exists in a product that has long been pitched as nothing more than a simple tool for homeowners to monitor their own homes created, it seems, an unavoidable contract between public understanding of Ring and what Amazon was now boasting it could do.

 


Amazon’s Super Bowl ad for Ring and its “Search Party” feature.

 

Many people were not just surprised but quite shocked and alarmed to learn that what they thought was merely their own personal security system now has the ability to link with countless other Ring cameras to form a neighborhood-wide (or city-wide, or state-wide) surveillance dragnet. That Amazon emphasized that this feature is available (for now) only to those who “opt-in” did not assuage concerns.

 

Numerous media outlets sounded the alarm. The online privacy group Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) condemned Ring’s program as previewing “a world where biometric identification could be unleashed from consumer devices to identify, track, and locate anything — human, pet, and otherwise.”

 

Many private citizens who previously used Ring also reacted negatively. “Viral videos online show people removing or destroying their cameras over privacy concerns,” reported USA Today. The backlash became so severe that, just days later, Amazon — seeking to assuage public anger — announced the termination of a partnership between Ring and Flock Safety, a police surveillance tech company (while Flock is unrelated to Search Party, public backlash made it impossible, at least for now, for Amazon to send Ring’s user data to a police surveillance firm).

 

The Amazon ad seems to have triggered a long-overdue spotlight on how the combination of ubiquitous cameras, AI, and rapidly advancing facial recognition software will render the term “privacy” little more than a quaint concept from the past. As EFF put it, Ring’s program “could already run afoul of biometric privacy laws in some states, which require explicit, informed consent from individuals before a company can just run face recognition on someone.”

 

Those concerns escalated just a few days later in the context of the Tucson disappearance of Nancy Guthrie, mother of long-time TODAY Show host Savannah Guthrie. At the home where she lives, Nancy Guthrie used Google’s Nest camera for security, a product similar to Amazon’s Ring.

 

Guthrie, however, did not pay Google for a subscription for those cameras, instead solely using the cameras for real-time monitoring. As CBS News explained, “with a free Google Nest plan, the video should have been deleted within 3 to 6 hours — long after Guthrie was reported missing.” Even professional privacy advocates have understood that customers who use Nest without a subscription will not have their cameras connected to Google’s data servers, meaning that no recordings will be stored or available for any period beyond a few hours.

 

For that reason, Pima County Sheriff Chris Nanos announced early on “that there was no video available in part because Guthrie didn’t have an active subscription to the company.” Many people, for obvious reasons, prefer to avoid permanently storing comprehensive daily video reports with Google of when they leave and return to their own home, or who visits them at their home, when, and for how long.

 

Despite all this, FBI investigators on the case were somehow magically able to “recover” this video from Guthrie’s camera many days later. FBI Director Kash Patel was essentially forced to admit this when he released still images of what appears to be the masked perpetrator who broke into Guthrie’s home. (The Google user agreement, which few users read, does protect the company by stating that images may be stored even in the absence of a subscription.)

 

While the “discovery” of footage from this home camera by Google engineers is obviously of great value to the Guthrie family and law enforcement agents searching for Guthrie, it raises obvious yet serious questions about why Google, contrary to common understanding, was storing the video footage of unsubscribed users. A former NSA data researcher and CEO of a cybersecurity firm, Patrick Johnson, told CBS: “There's kind of this old saying that data is never deleted, it's just renamed.” 

 


Image obtained through Nancy Guthrie’s unsubscribed Google Nest camera and released by the FBI.

 

It is rather remarkable that Americans are being led, more or less willingly, into a state-corporate, Panopticon-like domestic surveillance state with relatively little resistance, though the widespread reaction to Amazon’s Ring ad is encouraging. Much of that muted reaction may be due to a lack of realization about the severity of the evolving privacy threat. Beyond that, privacy and other core rights can seem abstract and less of a priority than more material concerns, at least until they are gone.

 

It is always the case that there are benefits available from relinquishing core civil liberties: allowing infringements on free speech may reduce false claims and hateful ideas; allowing searches and seizures without warrants will likely help the police catch more criminals, and do so more quickly; giving up privacy may, in fact, enhance security.

 

But the core premise of the West generally, and the U.S. in particular, is that those trade-offs are never worthwhile. Americans still all learn and are taught to admire the iconic (if not apocryphal) 1775 words of Patrick Henry, which came to define the core ethos of the Revolutionary War and American Founding: “Give me liberty or give me death.” It is hard to express in more definitive terms on which side of that liberty-versus-security trade-off the U.S. was intended to fall.

 

These recent events emerge in a broader context of this new Silicon Valley-driven destruction of individual privacy. Palantir’s federal contracts for domestic surveillance and domestic data management continue to expand rapidly, with more and more intrusive data about Americans consolidated under the control of this one sinister corporation.

 

Facial recognition technology — now fully in use for an array of purposes from Customs and Border Protection at airports to ICE’s patrolling of American streets — means that fully tracking one’s movements in public spaces is easier than ever, and is becoming easier by the day. It was only three years ago that we interviewed New York Timesreporter Kashmir Hill about her new book, “Your Face Belongs to Us.” The warnings she issued about the dangers of this proliferating technology have not only come true with startling speed but also appear already beyond what even she envisioned.

 

On top of all this are advances in AI. Its effects on privacy cannot yet be quantified, but they will not be good. I have tried most AI programs simply to remain abreast of how they function.

 

After just a few weeks, I had to stop my use of Google’s Gemini because it was compiling not just segregated data about me, but also a wide array of information to form what could reasonably be described as a dossier on my life, including information I had not wittingly provided it. It would answer questions I asked it with creepy, unrelated references to the far-too-complete picture it had managed to create of many aspects of my life (at one point, it commented, somewhat judgmentally or out of feigned “concern,” about the late hours I was keeping while working, a topic I never raised).

 

Many of these unnerving developments have happened without much public notice because we are often distracted by what appear to be more immediate and proximate events in the news cycle. The lack of sufficient attention to these privacy dangers over the last couple of years, including at times from me, should not obscure how consequential they are.

 

All of this is particularly remarkable, and particularly disconcerting, since we are barely more than a decade removed from the disclosures about mass domestic surveillance enabled by the courageous whistleblower Edward Snowden. Although most of our reporting focused on state surveillance, one of the first stories featured the joint state-corporate spying framework built in conjunction with the U.S. security state and Silicon Valley giants.

 

The Snowden stories sparked years of anger, attempts at reform, changes in diplomatic relations, and even genuine (albeit forced) improvements in Big Tech’s user privacy. But the calculation of the U.S. security state and Big Tech was that at some point, attention to privacy concerns would disperse and then virtually evaporate, enabling the state-corporate surveillance state to march on without much notice or resistance. At least as of now, the calculation seems to have been vindicated.

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