TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @SystemUpdate_
@SystemUpdate_ - System Update
Prof. John Mearsheimer on Trump and Netanyahu: "These are two war criminals. These are two people who are responsible for a genocide. If we were to have Nuremberg Two trials, both of them would be found guilty and probably hung." https://t.co/pFTEbN4Des
Video Transcript AI Summary
Checklist:
- Identify the core thesis and the sequence of supporting points.
- Preserve the key claims and phrasing where possible, using direct quotes for pivotal statements.
- Eliminate repetition, filler, and tangential remarks while keeping the essential timeline and stakes.
- Maintain a neutral tone and refrain from evaluating the claims.
- Stay within 392–491 words; translate if needed (not needed here).
Summary:
The speakers describe a moral paradox in reacting to the Gaza-Israel crisis. They note moving reunions of Israelis held in Gaza and, separately, Palestinians held by Israel—“2,000 or so Palestinians … many of them for years, most of whom have never been charged with a crime” who are “hostages” without due process. They acknowledge relief that the current pause in what they describe as genocide allows Gaza residents to avoid bombing in tents and horrific violence “for the moment,” but insist they have witnessed a two-year genocide of unimaginable horror and criminality.
They criticize Western leaders who traveled to Egypt to commemorate what they imply is the end of the violence, arguing those leaders were participants and that there is no meaningful accountability for the perpetrators. The speakers express difficulty in accepting a momentary halt while the underlying crimes continue to be unaddressed, describing the situation as a mixed emotional and intellectual burden.
Speaker 1 asserts that President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu are “two war criminals,” responsible for a genocide since December 2023, with Trump “helping the Israelis execute that genocide” during nearly nine months in office. They claim both would be found guilty in “Nuremberg two trials” and lament that they are treated as heroes, highlighting a lack of accountability and the potential long-term implications for international norms.
Regarding information flow, Speaker 1 argues that journalists in Gaza could reveal the full story, and that increased documentation—bolstered by platforms like TikTok—could generate sufficient global dismay to deter future genocidal actions. While not predicting certainty, they call this a possibility and express hope that more voices will pressure Israelis, Americans, and Europeans to halt the genocide permanently.
The discussion then turns to Western elites, deemed morally bankrupt by the speakers, while recognizing that pressure from below matters. They point to political shifts in the United States and Europe, noting in Germany that “62% of Germans believe that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza,” which they view as indicative of changing public opinion. They suggest that elites may be feeling pressure even as Western institutions resist harsher actions, and they emphasize that as information disseminates, it becomes easier for people to acknowledge the horrific nature of the actions and to demand a stronger, more lasting response—though they concede uncertainty about the ultimate outcome.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You know, I I think a lot of people today and over the past couple days while it became apparent that this is likely to happen, have a hard time understanding how to react. Because on the one hand, you, you know, you see Israelis who have been kept in Gaza in captivity for two years in in very harrowing conditions, reuniting with their families, and any decent human being is happy to see that. And then you have, you know, 2,000 or so Palestinians who've been kept in Israeli dungeons, many of them for many years, many of them for months, most of whom have never been charged with a crime. I consider them hostages as well. They've gone had no due process, And you're seeing them reunite with their families as well, and these are very moving scenes.
You're happy that's happening, and you're also, as you said at the start, very happy that this genocide, at least for the moment, has has stopped. That that the people who are living in Gaza aren't going to be bombed in their tents and incinerated to death and watch their children's limbs blown off and all the other orders that we've seen at least for now, and it's hard on the one hand not to feel good about that. On the other hand, we've watched a genocide. I get actual genocide for the last two years. One that is unspeakable in terms of the depths of its, you know, just horrors and and and criminality.
And today, you watch all these Western leaders go to to to Egypt and kind of commemorate. I guess what they would say they're commemorating is the end of this, but they were all participants in it, and and there's obviously no movement at all to hold those responsible accountable in in any way, and it's kinda hard to just swallow the fact that we just watched this happen, and now we're all supposed move on and kind of applaud the fact that the people doing it decided to stop for a while. How do you kind of react, I guess, emotionally or intellectually to this mixed bag of of incentives?
Speaker 1: Well, when I watch, president Trump, in Jerusalem today, extolling the virtues of, prime minister Netanyahu, I say to myself that these are two war criminals. These are two people who are responsible for a genocide. If we were to have Nuremberg two trials, both of them would be found guilty and probably hung at the Nuremberg two trials. Again, what has been taking place since, I would argue, December 2023 in Gaza is a genocide. And president Trump has been in office for almost nine months now, and he has been helping the Israelis execute that genocide.
There's just no question about it. He is guilty of genocide. And, of course, it goes without saying that Netanyahu is guilty. Yet, these two are today being treated like conquering heroes. What does that tell you?
It makes one feel sick to his or her stomach. How else can you think about what's going on here? There's just no accountability. But that's just the way it is at this point in time. And I would imagine that down the road, there will be no meaningful accountability.
But let me make one other point. And that is that I think that once journalists get in there and see what has been done, and once journalists get in there and talk to people in Gaza, and the world gets a better sense of exactly what happened. I mean, we now already have a very good sense because a lot of this was available to see on platforms like TikTok and so forth and so on. But once we get journalists in there and the full story begins to come out, it could be the case that there's so much dismay around the world that it makes it almost impossible for Israel to start the genocide again. That is a possibility.
Am I saying that that's likely? No. Not at all. But one hopes that as people document what has happened here and more and more voices join in the chorus that the just how absolutely horrific this is becomes noticeable to more and more people, and more and more pressure is brought on the Israelis and on the Americans and on the Europeans who are all complicit in this complicit this in this genocide to shut it down permanently.
Speaker 0: I mean, I guess I have a real question about that, which is if you look at public opinion around the world, clearly, has turned against Israel in a generational and arguably an irreversible way in a lot of cases on in terms of popular opinion. And that has certainly been true in the Western states on which Israel most relies, including in Western Europe and and and The United States. And you were talking earlier about the military imperative for Israel to shut down the genocide for a while to give the time for their military to breathe and and rebuild. And maybe there was some similar PR or or image problem that was getting out of control as well. And they hope that by now making it look like they voluntarily stopped, hang out their hostages back and stop once they got their hostages back.
They hope that it'll relieve the pressure on western leaders that really did not want to do it. It was like pulling teeth to start doing things like recognizing the Palestinian state, start talking about suspending arms to to Israel. I think Western elites are very eager to get back to their comfortable pro Israel place, a place where they're comfortable because of domestic political incentive, they have their own Israel lobby, The US certainly does, and I think they're calculating that this pause, matter how long it lasts, no matter what it entails, will at least relieve that intense pressure to to to isolate Israel, and probably Israel thinks that as well. Do you think that's likely to happen?
Speaker 1: Well, I think there's no hope for the elites. I mean, the elites in the West have proven quite conclusively that they're morally bankrupt. There's no question there. You wanna remember the Biden administration was as deeply involved in this genocide as the Trump administration is. So I don't have much faith in the elites in the West.
But I do think that pressure from below matters here, and I do think that Trump was feeling pressure. If you look at what's happening inside the Republican Party, where people are turning on Israel, you look at what's happening inside the Democratic Party, and you look at what's happening in Europe. These general strikes in Italy, public opinion in places like Germany have changed in quite drastic ways. I saw a recent poll that said 62% of Germans believe that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. That's really quite remarkable.
So I think that the elites are feeling pressure. And my hope and it's just my hope, Glenn, and maybe I'm just guilty of wishful thinking here. But my hope is that it becomes clearer and clearer to people that as to what Israel has done in Gaza. I mean, it's absolutely horrific what they have done. It's just hard to believe.
And I think that the more information that comes out in that regard, the better because it will allow all of us to sort of wrap our heads around it in better ways than we're able to do now. But who knows in the end?
@SystemUpdate_ - System Update
Tucker Carlson's remarks at Charlie Kirk's memorial service were deliberately misinterpreted and twisted to smear his character. @ggreenwald on the revealing hysteria over Tucker's comments: https://t.co/FGC1lTNXIA
Video Transcript AI Summary
- the truly earth shattering and transformative event of Charlie Kirk's assassination
- one of the main controversies today as part of the fallout of that memorial service
- to express forgiveness for the person who took her husband's life
- Ultimately, he was a Christian evangelist.
- to talk about Charlie's life and the values that he represented
- This was not some scripted speech.
- The phraseology wasn't constructed in advance.
- Polling data shows support for Israel unraveling
- They wrote a letter to Fox News to the Murdoch family, condemning Tucker Carlson's impassioned defense of a quote, race replacement theory, and demanding that he'd be fired.
- Cut Tucker loose.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Ever since what has become the truly earth shattering and transformative event of Charlie Kirk's assassination, we still don't know as much as we hopefully will and should about the shooter and the motive. So we certainly know some, at least in terms of the person being accused of having carried out that assassination, but the implications are multifold, and so much happened just in the last week alone in terms of the Trump administration's reaction, in terms of the transformation of the political discourse, in terms of all sorts of media events and consolidation of power, some of which Li Fang very adeptly covered, some of which he just didn't have time to because of how many there were. So we hope to be able to get to as many of them both tonight and over the over the next week as possible. I think this really is one of those moments that is transforming American political history in ways that will endure certainly for years if not decades and longer. We wanna try and provide as comprehensive coverage as we can.
Now, along those lines, one of the main controversies today as part of the fallout of that memorial service that took place in Arizona that for a lot of people including ones who didn't even like Charlie Kirk or perhaps even strongly disagreed with him definitely had parts of it that were emotional and uplifting and inspiring. I think many people found at least parts of Erica Kirk's speech to be remarkably brave and inspiring, showing a lot of internal strength, what I think was the indescribably difficult, choice on her part following what she believed are the mandates of her faith to express forgiveness for the person who took her husband's life. It's hard to imagine how difficult that is, but one of the speeches that I think is gaining the most attention, perhaps the most attention was the one that was given by Tucker Carlson. And I think there's a couple of things to note, and I should say here that we were hoping to have Tucker on our show this evening to talk about this. The logistics made that impossible.
We're working very hard to secure that for tomorrow night. So hopefully, he'll be here himself so he can speak for himself, but I do want to go over some of what he said and what is being done in response to those comments. So first of all, let me show you the comments that Tucker made, and I should note here that unlike a lot of people, it's really amazing. Soon as Chuck, Charlie Kirk was killed, I mean, numbers of Republican politicians and people at media came forward to pronounce Charlie was their closest friend, was such a close friend, and he was a person who was very gregarious, very outgoing. He was always very friendly to me, very generous in his work, but I think there were a lot of politicians trying to latch on to Charlie Kirk and claim a degree of friendship with him that they did not in fact possess.
Almost mathematically, it would be impossible for that to be otherwise, but there were people in media, friends of mine in the conservative movement who were genuinely very close friends with him. And so a lot of them are very emotionally affected by not having a close friend die, but watching him be murdered in about as brutal of a way as possible. And one of those people among many is Tucker Carlson, who befriended Charlie Kirk very early on in his emergence into conservative media. I've heard Tucker talk publicly, but also privately to me about Charlie, and he had always expressed nothing but unadorned and gushing admiration for Charlie Kirk, and that is something that I think a lot of people, especially on the right shared almost in a unique way. There's probably no figure who could have been assassinated who was more unifying among all the different varying often warring factions among the right than than Charlie Kirk, but I know Tucker felt this very personally and has been affected by it a great deal and has spent two weeks pretty much every day talking about it going on Charlie Kirk show, which they are continuing and often having friends of his come on and Tucker's message pretty much for the last two weeks from the time that Charlie Kirk died has been very consistent, which is that he believes that Charlie Kirk above all else was defined not as a republican or a conservative or a podcaster or an activist or a supporter of Donald Trump, but instead the overarching attribute of Charlie Kirk's life, and he himself has said this many times as is his wife, is his Christianity, his faith in Jesus.
He always centered that in everything that he did. It doesn't mean you have to like it or not. I'm just saying that that clearly was the animating defining force for Charlie Kirk and Tucker is somebody I think especially later in life for whom that has become equally true. Tucker speaks with much greater religiosity than he previously did. I certainly think it's something as central to his life as it had been for Charlie's, and he went to the memorial service with the intention not to make political points, not to make partisan points, the way a couple of the speakers have done, the way certainly a lot of people have done in Charlie's name since he's killed, but instead to talk about Charlie's life and the values that he represented in Tucker's relationship to them beginning with his Christianity.
And that is what Tucker believes above all else is what caused the death of or the murder of Charlie Kirk. Not that he was a conservative, there's lots of conservative, not that he was conservative on social issues, but that he primarily was evangelizing both his religion and his politics through this prism of Christianity. And Tucker has talked often about how much violence that has provoked in history, how many people have been murdered professing their faith in Jesus Christ or evangelizing for Jesus. And so this is a very consistent theme that Tucker didn't just invent over the last couple of weeks or for yesterday, and he tried to make the center of his speech a focus on this. And the one thing I will add before I show you the clip is that Tucker is one of those people, and you can watch him in any context, and you'll see this, who does not prepare his speeches in advance.
Doesn't matter how important the occasion is at the Republican National Committee, convention, for example, and this true of the Democratic National Convention as well. They are extremely rigorous about the kind of messaging they permit or don't permit to be aired because there's a lot invested in how the party is defined in the electorate right before the election, which often takes place at the convention, and they require every speaker to submit in advance an exact script of what they're going to say, but Tucker being Tucker had the ability to refuse. He spoke off the cuff at the RNC. I'm not saying he doesn't think before a little bit about what his themes are, but he doesn't script it at all. He doesn't write it down and he and I shared this as well.
I don't ever like to speak from a script. I like to speak spontaneously to kind of have a general idea of what I might say, but really feel the energy of the crowd, connect to the crowd, and have things be organic in the way that you're communicating, which a script often impedes. And Tucker very much feels like he can be his truest and most effective self if he's speaking spontaneously. Now, one of the risks of doing that is that you can express yourself imperfectly as compared to say, if you labor over every word and you're very police and controlled about everything you're gonna say. But Tucker's a very skilled communicator.
I think his enemies will acknowledge that. He has a lot of confidence and trust in his ability to speak without notes, and I think there's good reason for that. And I just say that as the context, this was not some scripted speech. He wasn't reading from a teleprompter. The phraseology wasn't constructed in advance.
It was very much spontaneously delivered. And here is part of what Tucker said, the part that has caused so much coordinated high level in terms of the Israeli government, US government, and their, loyalists, very coordinated, very intense reaction and seizing on this passage to try and depict Tucker as an anti Semite, as a Nazi, as someone who doesn't belong in decent company. This is what he said.
Speaker 1: Ultimately, he was a Christian evangelist. And it it actually reminds me of my favorite story ever. So it's about two thousand years ago in Jerusalem and Jesus shows up and he starts talking about the people in power and he starts doing the worst thing that you can do, which is telling the truth about people and they hate it and they just go bonkers. They hate it and they become obsessed with making him stop. This guy's got to stop talking.
We've got to shut this guy up. And I can just sort of picture the scene in a lamp lit room with a bunch of guys sitting around eating hummus thinking about what do we do about this guy telling the truth about us. We must make him stop talking. And there's always one guy with the bright idea, and I could just hear him say, I've got an idea.
Speaker 0: Why don't
Speaker 1: we just kill him? That'll shut him up. That'll fix the problem. It doesn't work that way. It doesn't work that way.
Everything is inverted.
Speaker 0: Now, I watched this live. I was on an airplane, traveling for twenty four hours. As I said, I was in Malaysia. I was traveling back home, and I didn't think anything of that passage. It was very consistent with what I anticipated Tucker would say with what he has been saying, and I understood it to be the following.
Pretty simple point. It's basic Christian theology, basic biblical history. You read the the bible and there's no doubt that Jesus's death was preceded by a lot of guardians of mainstream Jewish thought who viewed Jesus rightly as a subversive, as a revolutionary, as somebody who was preaching a gospel and a religion that was directly at odds with the religion that prevailed at the time. That was the religion of the dominant Jewish leaders. I mean, obviously, that's what Jesus was as he overthrew the prior order and the prior thinking and created a a new gospel as in the views of Christians, the son of God, and he was creating a lot of agitation.
He was Jewish himself. His disciples were Jewish, and the Jewish leaders at the time viewed him the way they view many revolutionaries including Christian evangelists as very threatening to their prerogatives, as very heretical. And as Tucker said, they decided the only way they could really deal with him because he was becoming so effective. So many people were following him and being converted and moving away from their control that they decided their only solution was to kill him in the hopes that it would put an end to his teachings, into this new religion. And these specific Jewish leaders, not the Jews, but the Jews at the time, went to the Romans, to Pontius Pilate, and said, this is becoming a problem with us.
We would like to execute him. They couldn't have done it without the Romans approval. They got the Romans approval and then they crucified him. And that's how Jesus died on on the cross. This is, I mean, basic.
I mean, I I didn't even grow up in in a Christian upbringing and I learned that by the time I was, I don't know, 10. I mean, that's you I I'd never heard of any other version of that. Now, of course, I understand that this can be a sensitive topic for Jews because this did get distorted into a claim throughout the next centuries, many centuries, that it wasn't just those Jewish leaders who conspired to kill Christ and who organized and arranged for his death, but Jewish people as a whole and there were references to the blood, his blood shall be on us and our future generations and it was used to persecute Jews horrifically throughout the middle ages and that's became the blood libel. And so, of course, there is this sensitivity given history about saying, the Jews killed Jesus, but Tucker didn't even mention the Jews. That wasn't the point of his story.
He wasn't there to say the Jews killed Jesus. He wasn't even remotely talking about Israel or the Jews. He was there at a memorial service to memorialize his friend and to talk about the Christian connection. He was trying to say that Christians throughout time have been martyred for their faith, beginning with Jesus. And he was essentially trying to say that Charlie Kirk was similarly martyred the way he's been saying for weeks because his predominant characteristic, even though he was a conservative and pro life and, opposed to a lot of the agenda of the trans movement and DEI, it was all presented as I'm a Christian man with the Christian faith, my husband, I'm a husband, I'm a father, I'm a Christian man.
And he talked about that being his priorities came in Tucker was simply trying to say that he believes that Charlie's the primary cause of Charlie's assassination was his Christianity, just like that's what led to Jesus's death. That was it. I found it so benign. And I did find this reference to hummus strange. I I I just I don't know.
I didn't know. I thought I didn't know. Was hummus really a common food at the time in that epic, in in that in that era? Was it something that Jews were associated with? I think in common American parlance, hummus is very much a food associated with the Arab world.
If you go to the Middle East, you eat hummus all the time. I actually had a lot of hummus in Malaysia even though it's not part of the Arab world. And I think Tafir was just trying to create an image of what these people were doing, how these kind of establishment people were behaving as they sat over these lamps. And it was just the image that popped into his mind because he was talking about the Middle East, and he just picked hummus. And for some reason, all of this got interpreted as Tucker blaming the Jews for Charlie Kirk's for Jesus' death.
His reference to hummus was some sort of dog whistle about Jews even though I don't know anybody who has ever associated hummus with Jews before. If anything, was just kind of a off the cuff reference where he couldn't think of something else more expressive about what he was describing, so he just grabbed hummus because he associates that with the Middle East, which he visits a lot and eats hummus there. And then went on to say that the main point, which is that when you try and murder somebody and assassinate them as a means of shutting them up, as a means of destroying their message, obviously, he cackled because he said, the people who thought they were doing that when it came to Jesus spectacularly misfired. They couldn't have miscalculated worse. It was the killing of Jesus that spun Christianity as the major religion is a massive religion that ended up gaining billions of followers over the next two thousand years to this very day.
And he was laughing at the mismatch between them thinking they could kill him and silence him versus the reality. And he was making the analogy to Charlie Kirk saying, look, people thought they could probably silence Charlie Kirk and that we're in a stadium full of 65,000 people filled to the brim with huge numbers of people around the world being more inspired and emboldened by Charlie Kirk's message than ever before, that's clearly the case. Charlie Kirk has become much bigger in death than in martyrdom and an assassination than he ever was in his life, and that was the really the only point I think Tucker was making. And yet, all throughout the day, I don't mean at all from people on social media who are just randoms or people who are just of insignificant influence. I mean, there was clearly a coordinated campaign on the part of the Israeli government, Israeli officials, opinion makers in The United States who have long tried to destroy Tucker, not because they're upset about funeral protocol.
It was a very politicized memorial service as it should be. Charlie Kirk was a political person. But it wasn't that they were angry about his breach of political protocol at a funeral. They also are not upset about antisemitism. They're more than happy, the Israeli government and its and its loyalists in the West are, to embrace antisemite as long as they're supportive of Israel.
There's a big strain of anti Semitism in this dispensationalist evangelical movement, the most extreme version of it, that has become fanatically pro Israel even though they believe the Jews are damned because they reject Christ and they're going to hell for eternity. I mean, it's kind of an anti semitic theory at its core, in a way. I mean, you can make an argument why it's not, but it's certainly not an argument friendly to the Jews, but Israel doesn't care. They love John Hagee. They love those leaders who believe Jews are damned at going to hell because they support Israel.
That's what they care about. You can be as anti Semitic as you want, but as long as you support Israel, you're fine. And Tucker's sin is not anti Semitism. It's not even close. He's not anti Semitic.
Nothing he said is remotely anti Semitic. His sin is that he has one of the most influential platforms, especially among conservatives and young conservatives, where support for Israel for decades has been locked down completely, and he has become one of the several very influential people, and Charlie Kirk was starting to stick his feet in that pond to start questioning The US relationship to Israel. Why are we funding Israel? Why are our leaders going there all the time? Why are we sending billions of dollars out there?
Why are we sacrificing so much for this foreign country? And the ability to destroy Tucker is crucial to what has become this panic among Israeli leaders and among their loyalists in The US that public opinion in favor of Israel is collapsing. It's unraveling. And there's all sorts of things from takeover of social media as we'll get to, to buying up media outlets, to censorship laws on campuses, to try and basically destroy any ability to continue to have people hear criticism of Israel, and destroying Tucker is vital to that. The ADL, Anti Defamation League has been trying to get Tucker off the air for a long time back in 2021.
Before Tucker was even talking about Israel, but was starting to espouse a foreign policy of America first and anti interventionism that really makes them uncomfortable. They wrote a letter to Fox News to the Murdoch family, condemning Tucker Carlson's impassioned defense of a quote, race replacement theory, and demanding that he'd be fired. They demanded that the Murdoch family fire Tucker Carlson in 2021. They said he, quote, disgustingly gave an impassioned defense of the white supremacist great replacement theory, which was not true. Said this is, not legitimate political discourse, and then they concluded given his long record of race beating, we believe it is time for Carlson to go.
So they wanted the ADL did Tucker Carlson off the air in 2021 when he was at the 08:00 hour in Fox News and was the most popular cable host in the history of the medium. People saw Tucker Carlson as a threat to this agenda for a long time even before he started talking overtly about Israel. And just like Benjamin Netanyahu saw the assassination of Charlie Kirk as a very valuable opportunistic opening to go all over media and say, I know you're grieving Charlie Kirk. We are too. He was the greatest friend that Israel ever had to try and redirect emotion from Charlie Kirk to make him seem like his primary cause was supporting Israel, even though he talked openly about the pressures he was under for not being as steadfast or obedient to Israel and the anger he felt over getting attacked by donors and others.
They tried to rewrite history instantly. They are now seeing this opportunity as a way to finally destroy Tucker based on what you could argue at worst was some awkward or ill thought through phraseology. I don't even think it is that, but I'm being generous to his critics. But they unleashed a full on campaign of reputation destruction, of course, on the standard liberal tactic of just screaming racist everybody. Here at the time of times of Israel, Tucker Carlson appears to blame Jews for killing Charlie Kirk with his story on Jesus's death.
I mean, Tucker Carlson didn't even blame Jews for killing Jesus. He didn't mention Jews, let alone try and blame the Jews for killing Charlie Kirk. Tucker Carlson didn't even remotely suggest that, but this was the all out opportunity to distort everything that he was saying. Here's the New York Post, which has typically refrained from attacking Tucker Carlson, though has long been in New York City, a bastion of pro Israel support. Their headline was Tucker Carlson accused of stroke of stoking an anti semitic conspiracy theory about Charlie Kirk's murder at his memorial service.
What conspiracy theory was that? Here is tablet magazine, tends to be a kind of more moderate, but very, pro Israel Jewish journal. They issued an editorial, which was like a decree, and this is their order to Americans quote, cut Tucker loose. That was the headline. Cut Tucker loose.
The former Fox host escalating attacks on Jews, evangelicals, and Trump's foreign policy are fracturing the right. It's time for his friends in the administration to show him the door. What's actually fracturing right wing discourse is the fact that huge numbers are particularly on conservatives are finally waking up and saying, wait a minute, we were promised America first. We were promised no more wars. Why are we sending billions to Israel?
That doesn't sound like America first. Why are we constantly getting involved in wars for Israel? Why are our leaders always in Israel instead of tending to their own constituents in the neighborhoods in The United States and the lives of Americans? Why are we being censored over Israel? Polling data shows support for Israel unraveling, and that's why they're so desperate to eject the most influential people in the discourse who are talking to young conservatives and getting them to think about an issue which for so long was closed off from debate.
@SystemUpdate_ - System Update
After Tucker Carlson gave a speech at Charlie Kirk's memorial service, pro-Israel fanatics immediately accused him of being antisemitic. @TuckerCarlson responds to the smear campaign and tells @ggreenwald why he refuses to be intimidated: https://t.co/PICIHVbvfu
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 recalls watching Charlie Kirk’s memorial in Malaysia and an “extremely coordinated onslaught” by high-level actors who claimed the passage was “not just offensive, but was one of the worst blood libels ever uttered in a public setting since World War two” and that it “intended to imply that Israel was behind the killing of Charlie Kirk.” Speaker 1 frames the passage as the Christian gospel: “Ultimately, he was a Christian evangelist” who “tells the truth about the people in power” and that “they hate it and they become obsessed with making him stop”—“they end up torturing him to death to kill him, and then... it becomes the world's biggest religion.” He says he did not intend to attack Jews, criticizes antisemitism and Zionism for seeing everything as about Jews, calling that attitude “sick” and “bad for this country,” and urges treating Israel as a country with overlapping interests. He cites ADL pressure and stresses repentance in the Christian message.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Over the last week, I was in Malaysia. I I went to some event. I gave a speech there, and I was traveling back home, on Sunday, and I was watching live, portions of the Charlie Kirk memorial. And I happened to catch a few speeches, one of which was yours. And I listened to your speech and I, you know, I was kinda half left listening.
I was listening to other people's as well. And I heard your speech and I know, you know, how you speak. I've heard many of your speeches before, and I really didn't even pay much attention. I didn't think there was anything in it that was particularly surprising or or in the slightest, but controversial. It just never occurred to me.
I I mean, I really didn't. I, like, turned it off and I went I and then I went to the next speech, and I was like, okay, next speech. And then I woke up the next day once I got back home, and there was this extremely coordinated onslaught, not by a lot of the usual suspects, but by a much higher level of campaign at the highest levels of the Israeli government, parts of the American government, a lot of these advocacy groups, as well as very pro Israel factions within the American right, the Republican party who went on a full fledged jihad, a war, to claim that this passage in your speech was not just offensive, but was one of the worst blood libels ever uttered in a public setting since World War two, and that not only that, but it intended to imply that Israel was behind the killing of Charlie Kirk. And after I saw this, I thought it was crazy because I watched the speech. And I went back and watched the speech, and then I thought it was even crazier because I didn't understand remotely even what this I know I'm around the political for a long time.
I understand how people can make bad faith leaps to try and, you know, ungenerously distort somebody who's their political enemy. In this case, I didn't even understand the attempt. So let me just quickly show for the audience who hasn't seen it. It's just a minute long. What it is that you said that became the source of this insane, like, you know, campaign to try and demonize you in a way that you haven't even been demonized before.
And then let me ask you what your understanding of this passage was. Let's play that.
Speaker 1: Ultimately, he was a Christian evangelist. And it it actually reminds me of my favorite story ever. So it's about two thousand years ago in Jerusalem, and Jesus shows up and he starts talking about the people in power. And he starts doing the worst thing that you can do, which is telling the truth about people and they hate it and they just go bonkers. They hate it and they become obsessed with making him stop.
This guy's got to stop talking. We've got to shut this guy up. And I can just sort of picture the scene in a lamp lit room with a bunch of guys sitting around eating hummus thinking about what do we do about this guy telling the truth about us. We must make him stop talking. And there's always one guy with the bright idea, and I could just hear him say, I've got an idea.
Why don't we just kill him? That'll shut him up. That'll fix the problem. It doesn't work that way.
Speaker 0: It doesn't work that way. Everything is inverted. Alright. So we covered the insane reaction to that, excerpt on on last night's show and showed some of the insane organizational statements and condemnations, people calling you and you Nazi, the most dangerous anti Semite ever to appear in American history. And, again, these weren't just Internet trolls.
This was a very coordinated effort. What was that passage? What did it mean? That's the
Speaker 1: Christian gospel. That's the story of Jesus. That's the kind of cliff notes of the of the New Testament. So Jesus, you know, basically tells the truth about the authorities, the religious authorities. Jesus is, of course, a Jew.
All his apostles are Jews. Everyone in the story is a Jew, for the record. And But he tells the truth about the people in power. They try to shut him up. They end up torturing him to death to kill him, and then with the hope that that will be the end, and of course, it becomes the world's biggest religion.
So I was laughing because I'm speaking, by the way, to a mostly Christian audience who's very familiar with this, and I'm laughing because, of course, you can't shut up the truth. And that that was that's the only point I was making. But what's so interesting about the reaction is that I had no idea it would get that reaction, and I had intentionally there'd been a lot of drama about me speaking at Turning Point events, and I really love Charlie, for real, as I've said that, and his wife. And so I brought my wife, and I said to her that morning, was like, man, I'm not gonna do anything relating to politics at all. I'm only gonna talk about the Christian message because I don't wanna be divisive at a funeral, and I don't honestly think you should be talking about politics at a funeral.
It's deeper than that. It's more important than that. So I wanted to be respectful, and I wanted to talk about the thing that Charlie cared about most. And then you get this reaction, and I wasn't on Twitter, but I kept getting texts from people like, they're so mad at you about the hummus or something. Hummus?
Since when is hummus Jew? It's an Arab food. I mean, the whole thing is so bonkers. And I love hummus, by the way, and every time I'm in an Arab country, eat hummus. I guess my point is it takes a certain kind of mindset to see that as an attack on Jews.
The two groups that immediately assumed I was attacking Jews were anti Semites and Zionists. Both of them reached the same conclusion like instantly, oh, he's talking about the Jews. And it just points up a deep truth that we should remember, which is that anti Semites and Zionists see the world through the same lens. Both of them think everything is about Jews for different reasons. And that's just not my worldview.
I I don't think everything's about Jews. Like, I have whole periods of my day where I don't brood about Jews. I mean, it's so crazy. And it's actually the definition of craziness. You know?
You, like, see things that aren't there. If I was trying to make a point about Israel, I would just say it. Why wouldn't I? That's the last thing I intended to do. And I think it's very bad for your soul to become obsessed, either because of hate or because of ethno narcissism.
I mean, both are kind of the same thing. They're twins. With an ethnic group, the it's crazy. I think they're both really sick and need to pull back from this. And you do see it a lot online, where everybody on, you know, your ex feed is talking about the Jews.
How is that good? It's not good for the Jews, it's not good for anybody else. It's it's all kind of a species of mental illness. And because it doesn't reflect reality, like in real life, you know, I have a million interesting concerns. In fact, almost all of them that have nothing to do with Jews or Israel or like it's just not an obsession for me at all.
But it is an obsession for Zionists in a very unhealthy way and an obsession for antisemites and also in an unhealthy way. So I just and they feed off each other. They're symbiotic, you know, and one kind of helps create the other and needs the other. It's very bad. It's sick.
And it's bad again, bad for people engaging in it and bad for this country. So I hope we can get off that topic, treat Israel like we just treat a country with overlapping interests and diverging interests. It's you know, it shouldn't be that different in our mind from Malaysia where you just were. You know? A lot of things I like about it.
Some things I disagree with. That's okay. You know, but it's not that. It's something really bad, I would I
Speaker 0: mean, to me, your point was so simple. The main argument of Turning Point USA faithful, including Erica Kirk and the entire top management of Turning was a very, you know, natural moving one. I've seen this in in many other contexts where someone dies, and you wanna say, look, their death was not in vain. Like, they're not gonna be forgotten. They're, in fact, probably going to embolden the movement.
This has been a very common media theme media theme on the right that Charlie Kirk's death clearly has done more to elevate Charlie Kirk and his message and his cause and to embolden people to join it by far than any other thing that has happened, and all you were doing was saying that it's exactly the same thing that happened when they thought if they killed Jesus, they would get rid of Christianity. Of course, the same thing happened. It's but but but, I mean, I I just wanna I think, though, the key context here is it's not just like people misunderstood what you were saying. You have become a very important and influential person on the American right. It doesn't matter on the American left.
There's always been a lot of criticism of Israel, very virulent, but on the American right, it's been more or less locked down that people are supportive of Israel. You've had some exceptions, some important ones like Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul who definitely not were on board with those things, but Mhmm. It it's much bigger now, and you are one of the most prominent people doing it. There's clearly an attempt to drive you out of the discourse. The ADL, when you were at Fox, tried to get you fired.
There's clearly an attempt to destroy your reputation, and they seized on this Charlie Kirk speech that was so benign in order to do it, and did so under the disgustingly, you know, projecting guise that you were the one who politicized the Charlie Kirk memorial by bringing up Israel and bringing up how the Jews killed Jesus when it had nothing to do with that, but do you do you is this something that I'm just wondering because it is a as we know, Israel is a very intensely debated topic. There is a huge lobby that wants to destroy people who question any of the orthodoxies. Is this something that you have been feeling more of? I know you stay off social media, but you know, it's so big that you can't be a nurturant. Is that affecting you, if at all, and and what is your strategy for dealing with it?
Speaker 1: Well, makes me sad because in in this specific case, because actually what I said was the Christian message before anything else calls on us to repent, which is to admit what we've done wrong. Not what you've done wrong. Not what Israel's done wrong. What I have done wrong. That is the ticket, okay, in my religion.
And Charlie said that a lot, and I think that's so it's the opposite of blaming other people. It's blaming yourself first. That's the Christian message right there. And I really want people to hear that, because I think it's so important, and I try to practice that. I try.
It's hard. I try. So I was bummed out that other people's hate and narcissism, crazy narcissism, obscured what I was trying to say. It's actually not about you. Sorry.
It's about the world's biggest religion and my faith, if we could just talk about me for one second or talk about Jesus for one second. So that's a look. I never wanna fight about Israel ever. I'm actually pretty moderate on the subject, I think. Always like going there.
I know a lot of Israelis. Always like them.
Speaker 0: You never know what I mean? Mean before in '27. To us. You never really No. I don't know.
On the front burner.
Speaker 1: Exactly. It's like this is my country. This I mean, I don't own the country, but I'm a shareholder in the country. I'm an American. And you can't use my country like some kind of disposable product.
Like, just can't. I mean, BB's running this is a fact. I'm not guessing about this. Because I talked to people he said it to, is running around The Middle East, his region, and his own country, and telling people, point blank, just stating it, I control The United States. I control Donald Trump.
He's saying that. And again, I'm not guessing at all. That's a fact. And I dare them to say that's not true because it is true and they know it's true. So I'm an American.
How do you think it makes me feel? Even if I didn't vote for Trump, which I did. I did vote. I campaigned for Trump. But if it was Joe Biden, I'm an American.
You can't treat it's too humiliating. I can't handle that, and I shouldn't have to put up with that. This is a country of 9,000,000 people. I'm not saying it's I'm not even attacking the country. I'm attacking my leaders who are allowing my nation of 350,000,000 people to be forced into doing things that are bad for me and my children because of some other country.
Like, that is a violation of the most basic arrangement we have with our leaders, which is represent us, please, at least most of the time, and they're not. And there's a ongoing humiliation ritual designed to make us all crazy, designed to turn us into haters. I'm gonna I'm not gonna give them the satisfaction of becoming what they call me. I'm not a hater, and I'm never gonna become one. But I will never accept this.
I shouldn't have to accept it. I have nothing to be ashamed of. I have no unexpressed views. I'm not hiding anything. I say exactly what I think all the time.
This is wrong, and if it's not wrong, tell me how it's not wrong. Why don't you stop attacking me and my trying to get family members fired, which they never stopped doing. Why don't you instead tell me how you disagree with me? But they can't because they don't actually have an argument. There's no way to justify controlling the US government for the purposes of another country's, whatever their plan is, expansion.
There's no way to justify that. And so they just scream at you and call you names. And I guess I'm just blessed because I don't believe that about myself, so that doesn't hurt me. You know, if they said, well, you've gained 10 pounds, you might hurt my feelings. But calling me a bigot is doesn't hurt my feelings because I know that I'm not.
How's that?
Speaker 0: And the irony of it, you had ten years of practice anyway, because the primary tactic of liberals was exactly the same as the one being wielded now against you by Israel supporters, which is That's for sure.
Speaker 1: Thank you for saying that. It's amazing that they will
Speaker 0: realize that, You know? We all had to kind of, you know, find a tactic for deciding that we don't care about being called those names because of how easily and casually they were being thrown out. So I do think it it's been good practice.
@SystemUpdate_ - System Update
State Dept. Spokeswoman Tammy Bruce said her comment about Israel being the greatest country in the world was taken out of context. But, the full interview reveals even more about how the U.S. prioritizes Israel. @ggreenwald on Tammy Bruce's remarks: https://t.co/xbSojFEKfT
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker discusses Tammy Bruce, a State Department spokesperson and former Fox News personality, who stated in an interview with Israeli media that the U.S. is the "greatest country on earth, next to Israel." The speaker finds this statement unusual, especially coming from a U.S. official, and contrasts it with how people might react if a U.S. official made a similar statement about another country like Qatar.
The speaker mentions Bruce issued a statement claiming her comments were taken out of context. The speaker then describes the beginning of the interview, where the interviewer asks Bruce if she is Jewish, assuming her pro-Israel stance indicates she is. Bruce responds that she is not Jewish, but wishes she were, and recounts a story about ordering a Star of David necklace after 9/11 or October 7th to show solidarity, despite her jeweler warning her about the dangers of appearing Jewish. The speaker concludes that Bruce's statement about the U.S. being second to Israel was intentional and consistent with the overall tone of the interview.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Last night, president Trump's, state department spokesperson Tammy Bruce, longtime Fox News personality, which is where president Trump got a lot of his cabinet from. He watched Fox News all day. There's a New York Times story out today claiming that one of the reasons he wanted to become involved in this war is because Fox News said he was watching after the Israelis attacks said it was a huge success. It was an incredible operation. And then Trump the next day said, I did this.
I approved it. We joined it together and started talking about the war as if it was his and not even the Israelis anymore. So he watches Fox News all the time. That's how he knows Tammy Bruce, found Tammy Bruce. She's one of those, like, people who would claim she used to be a liberal or a Democrat.
She talks all the time that she's a lesbian, so she's gay. She used to a Democrat, and she realized the left was so bad. The liberals were so bad. She didn't leave the left. The left left her, the Dave Rubinstein.
And that's how she became a Fox News personality. And now she's, like, a standard conservative. She was being interviewed by twenty four News in Israel and last night, and this is what she said.
Speaker 1: The pride of being able to be here and do work that facilitates, making things better for people, and in the greatest country on earth, next to Israel. It is an honor to be able to make a difference and to be able to speak in this regard with an administration that I love so much and I, and that I feel genuinely represented by. It's a it's a real honor.
Speaker 0: Now, I have heard my entire life from the time I can remember just being as young as any memories, that I retain, being told that The United States is the greatest country on Earth by far, that we should be so grateful to live in The United States. It's not only the greatest country on Earth by far. It's the greatest country ever to exist in all of human history. It's incredibly improbable that a person would be born into not just the greatest country on Earth at the moment, but the greatest country ever to exist in all of human history, but that's what we're taught. I don't know how many times I heard that.
I always thought that was a little strange. Like, wow, that's like hitting the lottery. Like the probability of that is very small, but that's what we're taught to believe. I've never once heard anyone, especially an official of the United States government, say that we're the greatest country on earth next to Israel. And next who could mean alongside of but typically in that formulation next to means after vanilla is my favorite flavor next to chocolate.
Meaning chocolate's the real thing, vanilla is my second favorite. I mean, we're saying, oh, she was just being polite. She was talking to Israeli media. I wanna know how those people who are defending that would react if Joe Biden's state department spokesman, Matthew Miller or Jake Sullivan, were giving a interview to Qatari television and said, look, I'm so grateful to live in The United States because next to Qatar, it's the greatest country in the world. United States is the greatest country in the world next to Qatar.
You think you're like, oh, yeah. That's just normal diplomatic politeness when you're talking to a foreign The only way that's acceptable is if you say that about Israel. Cami Bruce issued a statement today because this viralized for an obvious reason. She claimed, oh, anonymous people on the Internet are taking it out of context. Almost everybody I saw commenting on this was not anonymous, including myself.
The person who was the one who alerted the world to this clip was Ken Klipenstein, the independent journalist who's not anonymous. And she said, if you listen to the full interview, it makes clear that it was taken out of context, like what Tulsi Gabbard said about her testimony. Even though you go and listen to what she said, it doesn't change the meaning at all, even though she said it exactly the same way in that written report that I showed you. So I went and looked at the full Tammy Bruce interview. It's like ten minutes long.
I swear to you, this is how it begins. The reporter says, Ms. Bruce, I'm so honored to talk to you. I've seen your social media over the years, and you are passionately devoted to Israel. You really understand the importance of Israel.
I presume you're Jewish. Are you Jewish? You're Jewish, right? And she said, actually, I'm not Jewish, unfortunately. I'm Italian, she said.
I'm not Jewish, unfortunate. I wish I were Jewish. I'm so sad I'm not Jewish, but I wish I were. And she's Italian, and then she went on to tell a story about how it was either after nineeleven or October 7. She went to her jeweler and she ordered a custom made Star of David that she intended to wear as a pendant around her neck as a necklace.
And supposedly her jeweler said to her, Tammy, you should really think about this twice because it's dangerous to be Jewish in America now. Nothing's more dangerous than being a Jew in America. You walk on the street and you're Jewish. Good chance you're going to be not just assaulted, but murdered. Epidemic as we've been told for two and a half years now.
And so this jeweler said to Tammy Bruce, I think you should be more careful. Like, if you if you wear that, people are gonna think you're Jewish, and that's very dangerous. And Tammy Bruce said, that's exactly why I'm doing it. I want people to think I'm Jewish. It was that was the whole ethos of the interview.
And so when she got to the point where she said The United States is the greatest country on earth next to Israel, it's exactly what it sounded like.
@SystemUpdate_ - System Update
Sen. Ted Cruz made it clear that he serves the interests of Israel in U.S. Congress. But, when pressed about his pro-Israel priorities, Cruz resorted to accusing Tucker Carlson of antisemitism. @ggreenwald on Tucker's stunning interview with Ted Cruz: https://t.co/kbCF0njWQ5
Video Transcript AI Summary
Ted Cruz and Tucker Carlson had a heated exchange where Cruz questioned Carlson's "obsession with Israel," implying anti-Semitism. This occurred after Cruz stated he goes to Congress to "advance and serve the interest of Israel."
The speaker highlights the US's extensive financial and military support for Israel, arguing it impacts foreign policy, civil liberties, and free speech. They claim criticism of Israel is often met with accusations of anti-Semitism, a tactic they compare to conservatives being labeled bigots for questioning liberal views.
Carlson denied being anti-Semitic and accused Cruz of deflecting from valid questions about US foreign policy and loyalty to foreign governments. The speaker criticizes Cruz's "cowardice" for implying bigotry through innuendo rather than direct accusation. They state that Carlson was questioning the propriety of going to war for Israel, and Cruz insinuated that Carlson was an anti-Semite obsessed with Jews.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I just wanna show you this last extremely revealing clip between Ted Cruz and Chuck Carlson where things got particularly heated. Ted Cruz got particularly uncomfortable and you'll never ever guess, never in a million years, even if I give you a 100 guesses, what Ted Cruz decided to imply was truly motivating Tucker Carlson.
Speaker 1: Do you think that It's just interesting because what you're now describing in a very defensive way, will say, is foreign influence over our politics. No. And you began And it's so transparently obvious to everybody. I don't know why you would be embarrassed of it. You've said that you are sincerely for Israel.
I believe you. I don't think you have some weird agenda. You seem to be sincere.
Speaker 2: By the way, Tucker, it's a very weird thing. The obsession with Israel. We're talking about foreign countries.
Speaker 1: It's probably an obsession.
Speaker 2: You're not talking about Chinese. You're not talking about Japanese. You're not talking about the Brits. You're not talking about the French. The question, what about the Jews?
What about the Jews?
Speaker 1: Oh, I'm an anti Semite now. The senator, you're just
Speaker 0: I I just wanna do you remember the clip we just showed you where Ted Cruz said that he went to the US Congress with the stated intention of working, quote, every day to advance and serve the interest of Israel, a foreign country. And then that very same Ted Cruz announcing that what Barry Weiss does, if they're honest, what Ben Shapiro does, if he's honest, what Chuck Schumer does, and he has been honest, is that their supreme cause, their primary loyalty is advancing the interest of a foreign government even though they're American citizens and, in this case, American politicians. Ted Cruz just minutes ago, that was just like in this clip. There's there we separated the clips, but it's just a couple minutes earlier. He's the one who said that he works up every single day to serve the interest of Israel.
Every day, he said that's what he does. And the reason why many of us who don't do that talk about Israel a lot is because Israel is the country we give more money in foreign aid to over many decades by far than any other group. We fund their military. We go to war for them. The reason, as general said, we're so hated in the Middle East and that people from the Middle East want to attack our country in large part is because they know that we're the ones who provide Israel with all the weapons that bomb their countries and blow up babies and kill Arabs and Muslims all the time and have done so for decades.
They know The United States is behind that. We pay an enormous price financially, militarily, in lives and soft power and reputation, in terms of our own physical security for dedicating ourselves to the state of Israel for all the reasons we've been showing you people admit and get the government admit they do. We've been arming and financing their destruction of Gaza, what human rights groups all over the world, what I agree as well, will say is the worst crime by far in the twenty first century, the worst atrocity, the worst they're coming up for starvation, all the other things that we've documented. The US government has been right at the heart of that first under Biden, now under Trump. Nothing changes with in foreign policy when you vote for one party or the other, even though Trump promised a major break from bipartisan foreign policy.
That's why we talk about Israel because the Ted Cruz's and Chuck Schumer's and so many others have made it the centerpiece of our foreign policy and of our country to the point where we now have civil liberties attacks, attacks on free speech in the name of this foreign government. People getting deported and expelled for the crime of criticizing the state of Israel. Hate speech codes being imposed to prevent you from saying things about Israel or particular Jewish people, what you can say about anybody else, including American citizens or The United States. It's infected and contaminated every last aspect of our political life. And so Ted Cruz who says that he wakes up every day to serve the interest of Israel, this one foreign government can then turn around to Tucker and say, why are you obsessed with Israel?
It must be because you're an anti Semite. That's the nature of this discourse always. Conservatives went around for a decade whining, complaining, screaming, and I was with them a lot on these grievances. The minute you disagree with a liberal on anything, they call you a racist or a misogynist or a transphobe, whatever. You question liberal dogma and you get accused of being a bigot.
That's exactly how most pro Israel advocates function. The minute you question them, the minute you criticize Israel, you're instantly branded as a bigot and anti Semite. Exactly the same tactic they pretend to loathe when it's done to them. Here's how this played out.
Speaker 2: I'm not talking about the Brits. You're not talking about the French. The question, what about the Jews? What about the Jews? Oh, I'm
Speaker 1: an anti semite now. Senator, you're asking the questions tough. Towards me. You're why
Speaker 2: are the Jews controlling our foreign That's what you just asked.
Speaker 1: Hardly saying that, and I have That is exactly what you just said. Well, actually, I can speak for myself Good.
Speaker 0: And tell
Speaker 1: you what I am saying.
Speaker 2: Good.
Speaker 1: On behalf not simply of myself, but on of my many Jewish friends who would have the same questions, which is to what extent and I it's interesting you're trying to derail my questions by calling me an anti Semite, which you are.
Speaker 2: I did not.
Speaker 1: Of course, you are. And and rather than be honorable enough to say it right to my face I am sitting in sleazy, feline way implying it or just asking questions about the Jews. I'm not asking questions about the Jews. I have It has nothing to do with Jews or Judaism. It has
Speaker 2: to do with foreign government. Isn't Israel controlling our foreign policy? That's not about the Jews. You said I'm asking And by the way, you're the one that just called me, I think, as sleazy feline, so let's let's be clear.
Speaker 1: Sleazy to imply that I'm an anti Semite, which you just did. I just Why is that the
Speaker 2: only question you're asking? You answer it. Give me another reason. If you're not an anti Semite, give me another reason. I will.
What the obsession is Israel.
Speaker 1: I am in no sense obsessed with Israel. We are on the brink of war with Iran, and so these are valid questions. But you're not asking about Iran. I
Speaker 2: can finish,
Speaker 1: you asked me why I'm obsessed with Israel Yep. Three minutes after telling me that when you first ran for congress, you elucidated one of your main goals, which is to defend Israel. Yes. And I'm the one who's obsessed with Israel. I don't see a lawmaker's job as defending the interests of a foreign government, period.
Any government, including the ones that my ancestors come from. So that's my position. That does not make me an anti Semite, and shame on you for suggesting otherwise, and I mean that.
Speaker 0: Okay. You know, this is the one thing that I I really hate more than anything is this kind of cowardice and discourse. If you wanna call someone an anti Semite, just call them that. Say, I know that you hate Jews. I believe that you hate Jews.
I believe that you're operating from bigotry. The reason you're questioning my loyalty to Israel isn't because you think in reality that the job of a US politician is to serve the interest of the American people rather than the foreign government is because you hate Israel. You hate Jews, you are anti Semite. Okay. At least if you say that people will see what you're doing, but they very rarely do that.
I mean, online will do that because who cares? They say anything off anonymously. But obviously, he was implying very strongly using innuendo and insinuation. And the reason Tucker Carlson is questioning APAC, questioning our the loyalty that Ted Cruz said he has to Israel and the propriety of that, the necessity of going to war for Israel and Iran fighting alongside them against their worst enemy. He's insinuating and implying that it's because Tucker Carlson is an anti Semite who is obsessed with Jews.
But then when Tucker Carlson says, you're calling me an anti Semite to resign. I didn't say that. Just asking you, why are you so obsessed with Jew? Of course he was saying that, but he's such a coward. I hate it when people use insinuation and innuendo to accuse somebody else of bigotry and then give themselves plausible deniability.
I didn't say that you hate Jews. Why are so sensitive? But of course, that's exactly what he was implying, and this is the way the discussion always ends up. It always ends up here.
reSee.it AI Summary
I believe the US continues to push for nuclear exchange with Russia due to decades of aggressive NATO expansion. There are many in our government who lack common sense and treat this situation like a game. Real diplomats have been warning us about the dangers for years.
@SystemUpdate_ - System Update
Jeffrey Sachs on *why* the US would continue pushing toward nuclear exchange with Russia—from 3 decades of aggressive NATO expansion to the war today: "There are so many stupid people in our government, believe me... People who don't think, who are extraordinarily lacking in basic common sense... They think it's a game, it's extraordinarily reckless... The real diplomats inside the US have been warning about this for decades."
Video Transcript AI Summary
Sherwin recalls, along with insights from Dan Ellsberg, that the government is full of "stupid people" lacking common sense, making nuclear war a real possibility. Reckless actions include Nancy Pelosi's Taiwan visit and G7 meetings attacking China and Russia.
Diplomats have warned about these dangers for decades, as revealed by WikiLeaks and Bill Burns' 2008 memo cautioning against NATO enlargement. George Kennan also warned against NATO expansion in 1997. Zvi Brzezinski outlined a plan in 1997 to incorporate Ukraine into NATO, years before Putin's presidency.
Victoria Nuland, described as a deep state figure, has been involved in multiple administrations. She was ambassador to NATO when Ukraine was invited to join and was a key figure in the overthrow of Viktor Yanukovych in 2014, which initiated the war. Her promotion is bringing the world closer to disaster, using Ukraine as a proxy in a war that is destroying the country.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: What Sherwin recalls and what we've learned from Dan Ellsberg and from so many others is how close we've come and how easy it is to come close because there are so many stupid people in our government. Believe me. This is something I can tell you. Absolutely. People who don't think, who are extraordinarily lacking in basic common sense, who believe that power is the only coin of the realm, who believe you really do have to be tough on whatever it is, and nuclear war will see them down.
And all of this is extraordinarily reckless, and we're really in it now. And it's, of course, not just Ukraine. It's Nancy Pelosi flying to Taiwan. It's, us doing whatever we can to humiliate China. It's having an absurd g seven meeting last week in Hiroshima of all place places that The US, of course, bombed with the first nuclear atomic bomb, spending the whole g seven in essence to attack China and Russia.
They think it maybe they think it plays politics. They think it's a game. It's extraordinarily reckless and extraordinarily dangerous and extraordinarily predictable what's going on. Yeah. Because the the the real diplomats inside The US have been warning about this for decades.
We're only finding some of it out by WikiLeaks and by, by disclosures such as, Bill Burns, their CIA director, who was in 02/2008, The US ambassador to Russia, and he sent a memo that everybody should read The Condoleezza Rice. Thousand eight. Yeah. He explained, my god. This NATO enlargement business is absolutely dangerous.
And, of course, George Kennan a decade earlier, and George Kennan was absolutely brilliant and understood already in the fifties how we could have gotten out of the Cold War. But certainly in 1997, he wrote an op ed in in the New York Times when they still ran such op eds, that this whole NATO enlargement business was absolutely reckless. And what's interesting when Kennen was writing that 1997, I hadn't actually realized it until I went back and saw a reference to, an article in foreign affairs by Zvi Brzezinski that I didn't remember writing in 1997, laying out almost the precise timetable for how we were going to incorporate Ukraine into NATO. Now this is years before Putin's president. This is when we're not having any, war with Russia.
People tell me, oh, yeah. Well, they have to be a NATO. Look at Putin, you know, madman. But this is well before and Brzezinski lays out basically to the year the sequence of how it's going to be the first row of countries, which was Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic, then it's gonna be the next row, then Ukraine. By 2005 to 02/2010, he writes, they're gonna have their invitation.
It turned out to be 02/2008. Our ambassador to NATO in 2008 was none other than Victoria Nuland. If you wanna know what deep state means, she's been in every administration. She's been almost every night. Except when Trump was elected.
That's the only way apparently to get her out of the government. Except Trump. Yeah. So she was Cheney's adviser. She was ambassador to NATO when we asked Ukraine to come in.
She was the point person on The US engagement in the violent overthrow of Viktor Yanukovych in February 2014, which started the war in Ukraine, and she is now promoted for all of this, bringing us ever closer to disaster. And by the way, putting Ukraine in the classic place in a proxy war guaranteed to destroy that country, which is exactly what it's doing.
@SystemUpdate_ - System Update
“There is no USAID project on God’s green earth that is honest.” Former State Dept. official @mikebenzcyber exposes how the U.S. uses USAID to topple foreign governments and covertly influence other countries: https://t.co/AaAd80G5j3
Video Transcript AI Summary
Donald Trump has empowered Elon Musk to address perceived waste in government agencies like USAID, which operates independently of elected officials. This agency is often seen as a facade, with its projects serving dual purposes that align with U.S. foreign policy interests. Historical scandals involving USAID include controversial actions in Afghanistan and Cuba, raising concerns about its operations. The CIA's past misuse of public health initiatives for intelligence work casts doubt on USAID's integrity. The potential exposure of classified information at USAID poses risks to U.S. national security and could damage diplomatic relations, leading other nations to favor adversaries like Russia and China. The lack of transparency about USAID's activities could result in significant international repercussions, undermining U.S. credibility and economic interests abroad.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Whether you like it or not, Donald Trump has deputized Elon Musk to have this agency that's designed to eliminate waste as the White House sees it. Wasteful spending, unnecessary spending. And so when the people that are part of this effort that Donald Trump has created after he won the election went to USAID, and it's happened in other agencies too, you see almost this physical resistance, like, how dare you come into our realm? You have you don't run us. You're just the elected part of the government.
Where this agency that exists, independent of you, where does this mentality come from that they have this right to pursue their own agenda independent of any elected officials or elected parts of the government?
Speaker 1: Well, there the the entire agency exists as a carefully constructed lie. And just like, James Clapper and, you know, John Brennan and Leon Panetta. These are these are the holders of the great American, you know, the closet of skeletons of state secrets. And, you don't just hand that over to a random taxicab driver because 51% of the population elected him because he population elected him because he does funny TikTok dances. What I think what I'm trying to say here is, is if you remember the recalcitrance around sharing, sharing intelligence with president Trump, both, in his 2016 presidential run.
And then again, in the, in the lead up to the 2024 election, I think what's happening at USAID is, is essentially an echo of that, which is that USAID is supposed to be untouchable. I mean, virtually, there's no USAID project on God's green earth that is honest. If we are irrigating the rivers, you know, the, or irrigating the agricultural fields in a country, it's because we're trying to control the, you know, the the territory there. If we are working on the rip the water supply, it's because we're trying to control the rivers. If we're we're working on famine relief, it's because we're trying to control the food supply and make inroads into the indigenous populations there.
If we are helping them write their constitution and go through democratic legal performance so that we can control their their laws. Every single thing USA does is dual purpose. It's dual purpose by charter. They're only allowed to do the the things that advance US foreign policy interest. And we just put a little bow on top of it, and we say, in the process, we're making the world a better place.
There because it's, you know, it's going to these humanitarian groups who are administering this thing, which in the process will help US far foreign interests. But the fact is is, you know, the worst scandals in in, American statecraft in the 19 sixties seventies and maybe early eighties were were the CIA. In recent years, the worst, the worst scandals in American statecraft have been USAID, from, from funding the Wuhan lab to, to growing heroin in Afghanistan and irrigating the poppy fields to setting up a fake Twitter in, in Cuba with, an explicit USA document saying that the plan is to have algorithms favoring sports news and hurricane updates. And then once we have enough people switch to get them to hate their government and topple their their government and take to the streets in smart riots, to them even using public health HIV prevention clinics as, as, undercover for, for for USAID workers doing intelligence work to get people to overthrow their governments. And this gets me to another point that I feel remiss if I didn't say it because I've been thinking about it so long and haven't really had a venue to just kind of open open say it.
But we do this.
Speaker 0: Open and say everything that you want because this is the venue for it.
Speaker 1: You recall, you recall how in 2011, the CIA was busted running a fake this this this this this this this this this this this
Speaker 0: this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this
Speaker 1: this this this this this this this this this this
Speaker 0: this this this this this this this
Speaker 1: this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this
Speaker 0: this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this Vaccine activists were angry because they had worked so hard to build confidence in vaccines, and it turned out that it was a whole fake plan and designed to get the United States to get data on Pakistanis.
Speaker 1: Yes. Right. Had nothing to do with David Petraeus' counterinsurgency manual calling to collect 85% of the country's biometrics. Yep. It was just a.
But the fact is is they were they were caught flat busted in that in that situation, with a fake vaccine drive, fake vaccine clinics, and that was 2011. It took them 16 months to issue a written statement, a nonbinding written statement that they would no longer use vaccination work or public health work or public health facilities to do intelligence work out of. So we have a nonbinding written statement from the CIA that took them 16 months of fighting it to issue, to say that we will no longer use our public health facilities as a front for CIA work. Well, given that USAID is CIA, there is no daylight between those those two those two organizations. That is why you see the likes of AOC and Chuck Schumer saying that if Elon Musk gets access to the highly classified documents at USAID HQ, it will put US National Security at grave risk.
Well, what is a humanitarian NGO humanitarian aid NGO sponsor doing with so many troves of such highly classified state secrets that it will massively endanger all of US national Security if somebody outside of USAID reads it. That's the sort of thing that you typically would reserve for a CIA or NSA, level document. But the fact is is that's USAID for you and but USAID is not under that obligation that this nonbinding we don't know that when CIA, pledged to not use public health facilities for intelligence work, then the baton wasn't just handed off to its identical twin twin cousin, USAID. And I have an open question. When you look at the fact, for example, that HIV clinics in Cuba and the Western Hemisphere were being used by US as cover for color revolution work, formal cover.
In fact, in their, you know, own documents, they said that the HIV program would be the perfect excuse because, Cuban counterintelligence would never think to look there. Well, how many other public health facilities operated by USAID are doing the same thing in Africa, in South America, in Eastern Europe, in Central Asia? And so I guess what I'm getting at here is turning over that level of scandal, it's one it's bad enough if Americans know it, but it becomes an international incident. I mean, one of the things that I ran into at state, Glenn, which you might find interesting is, you know, when we were trying to convince foreign countries to move off of Huawei, what they would turn because it's, you know, it's back channeled by the CCP and Chinese intelligence, we would get hit by the with a counterargument. Well, you want us to use American, you know, IT architecture, but Snowden we read the Snowden files.
Speaker 0: Yeah. That was that was part of the big story that we published was that they were, you know, backdooring that same technology. At the same time, they were telling people not to use, the Chinese, companies because they were backdooring it. We were backdooring it. In fact, we were intercepting the the devices that people around the world ordered, opening devices the FBI was, and putting in the technology that would allow us to backdoor that equipment.
And of course, that created skepticism while we were trying to convince them not to use, OI and other Chinese companies.
Speaker 1: Right. Right. So, you know, the the point that I'm that I'm driving at here is these things the Snowden story is very easy to look at as an American, and and the concern that I think folks in in the blob, folks in the National Security Complex and the international relations complex have is, you know, it's if only Americans learned how bad USAID was and what it was really doing, for example, if that story I just mentioned in Bangladesh, if Americans had full access to everything that that USAID, and its and its spindle groups were doing in all these other, countries, that's one conversation. That's bad enough, but may be tolerable. But the problem is is when other countries learn about this, it becomes a diplomatic incident.
It be it becomes something that that harms our standing with partnered nations and with it it it makes neutrals wanna turn to Russia and China instead of the United States because we look like the bad guy. It harms our standing at the UN. It allows foreign countries who may be hostile or neutral to us to hold up these scandals in front of the UN and, and and move international favor against the US, which then can have, trickle down effects on our national security, our our economic, engagements in various countries with, it can sever trust in in countries that we're trying to court, and that then harms the economic interests of all the different private sector companies who draft behind the battering ram of American statecraft.
@SystemUpdate_ - System Update
"These people, if I'm being totally honest, they make me sick. They cannot think in any form of principle whatsoever." @GGreenwald eviscerates @BenShapiro's impressively hypocritical justification for @RealCandaceO's Daily Wire departure 👇
Video Transcript AI Summary
Candace Owens was let go from the Daily Wire due to crossing the line on Israel criticism. The Daily Wire has set boundaries on acceptable views, with Matt Walsh's isolationist stance being tolerated. Criticizing Israel's actions, as implied by Owens, was deemed unacceptable. Ben Shapiro defended the decision, likening it to censoring bigotry, not dissent. The issue is not about Israel but about antisemitism, according to Shapiro. The left also justifies censorship by labeling dissent as bigotry. The Overton window at the Daily Wire restricts criticism of Israel while affirming its moral superiority. Owens' comments on Israel and interactions with the ADL led to her departure.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: But here's the real meat of the matter when Bench Bureau tries to explain what line it is that Candace Owens crossed.
Speaker 1: And so when it comes to the hosts on the Daily Wire, obviously, everyone is able to say what they want. Nobody ever comes to me and says you can't say x. Nobody ever says that to Walsh. No one ever said that to Candace. But the reality is that there is an Overton window at the Daily Wire.
Obviously, there was a non meeting of the minds. That's pretty much all I can say on this. And, you know, a a lot of this has happened publicly, in the but, you know, to the extent that that the Daily Wire is in fact not a publisher, it is a that that is in fact not a platform, it is a publisher, that means that there is no moral obligation for The Daily. And there's no free speech problem with The Daily Wire saying, we don't wish to pay a particular host or that host saying, I don't wish to work here anymore because, again, there's a parting of the ways that I'm that, you know, is not really open for discussion at this point.
Speaker 2: Does it surprise you that so
Speaker 0: Okay. So oh, let's hear this question.
Speaker 2: So many people, even on our side of this, are confused about that as it relates to free speech and quote, unquote cancel
Speaker 1: I'm not super surprised with the controversy on
Speaker 0: Okay. These people, honestly, if I'm being totally honest, they make me sick. They cannot think in any form of principle whatsoever. One of the biggest media controversies in the last 5 years was that the New York Times had published an op ed by Tom Cotton during the Black Lives Matter movement in which Tom Cotton advocated that the US military should be deployed onto the streets of the United States to crush the Black Lives Matter movement on the grounds that that movement had become systemically violent. And many many journalists inside the New York Times said that is out outside of our Overton window as Ben Shapiro put it.
Overton window. Ben Shapiro is really not using that phrase correctly. The Overton window really is a theory that says you wanna create as broad of a range of political views as possible. You wanna widen the Overton window if you're a radical so that views that have been deemed way far outside of the mainstream get closer and closer to the mainstream. Ben Shapiro, when he says Overton Window is saying, there's a range of views that I may not agree with, but these are the acceptable views within our media outlet.
And you can't cross line here and you can't cross the line here because then you're outside of the Overton window. And he's saying we as a media outlet have every right to set the boundaries of what we consider to be acceptable views. And if you go outside of those boundaries, we have the right to fire you And free speech is not implicated by that. Okay. So if that's the if that's the case, why was there so much uproar when the New York Times decided to fire 2 of its editors for publishing Tom Cotton's op ed that called for the deployment of American military to quell the Black Lives Matter movement.
But the New York Times editors were simply saying what Ben, Shapiro was saying. We have an Overton window and that op ed was outside of our Overton window. We don't want to be associated with views that call for the US military to crush a social justice movement against racism. That was their perspective. And we don't wanna be associated with that view.
We're not saying these editors should be put in prison. We're not saying Tom Cotton should be put in prison for that view. We just don't wanna host this view. We don't wanna subsidize editors who would publish this sort of thing. I don't know a single person on the right who defended the New York Times there.
Just like I don't know of a single person on the right who defended NBC News from getting rid of Ronald McDaniel. It was presented as a kind of crisis. In free discourse that within major media outlets, you cannot express certain political views that are within the mainstream without getting fired. And yet, here is Ben Shapiro trying to justify why Candace Owens is gone from the daily wire. Not because of a business reason.
Outside of Ben Shapiro, Candace Owens is the biggest name at the daily wire. She has the biggest audience. They're probably comparable in terms of the number of people who watch their show, who listen to their podcast. Maybe Bench Bureau is bigger. But, Kim Owens is in that same category.
There's nobody else at the Deli wire who competes with Candace Owens. I guess Justin Peterson if you want, but it's The point I'm making is that Candace Owens is a huge, draw. That's not It's not for that business reason. But what is true is that the daily wire was started with investment from a right wing billionaire, 1,000,000 of dollars. A pro Israel billionaire.
And Benchbure was essentially saying that we have limits on what you can say about Israel, and Candace Owens went outside of them. Now, if you're comfortable with that, and you think that's fine to fire journalists because they express political views outside of some line. Then how can you criticize NBC News for doing the same with Ronald McDaniel or the New York Times for doing the same when deciding they don't want any Trump supporters there? Now, let's listen to
Speaker 2: the rest of Bench Bureau's answer to this next question because this too is extremely illuminating.
Speaker 1: Honestly, because to to a certain extent, I think that there's been a a reaction on the right to the excesses of the left. So because what the left did is they said that the Overton window ought to be closed so tight that no one can get inside the Overton window. Basically, if you're to the right of Hillary Clinton, you can't be allowed inside the Overton window. Yes. Exactly.
And and not just with regard to platforms, but with regard to publishers. So for example, this week, NBC News deciding that Ronna McDaniel was too much for them. Ronna McDaniel can't work in NBC News. The sacred halls of NBC News must not be sullied by the former head of the RNC. Jen Psaki, however, can have a show on MSNBC despite being the press secretary for the White House 5 seconds ago.
Right? The the the right to response to that is, I think, correct to say, guys have shut the Overton window too tight. But I think some elements of the right have basically said there is no Overton window. The Overton window should be completely exploded with regard not just to platforms, which I kind of agree, but with regards to publishers.
Speaker 0: So Alright. So I mean, do you do you see what he's saying? He's saying we're all drawing over to windows, meaning, and again he's misusing this term. But what he really means is we all have limits on lines that you cannot cross on certain issues. And the reason I'm angry about what NBC news did even though it's exactly the same as what the daily wire did, is just because their line is wrong and mine is right.
Except, you can go to the you can go to NBC News. They have a lot of Israel supporters at NBC News. And you can support Israel there, but then you can also criticize Israel. They have a lot of Israel critics at NBC News or at least at MSNBC as well. And they have debates about this topic.
Apparently, you can't have that debate though at the daily wire because you're about to hear Ben Shapiro describe what the line is that counted on cross specifically when it came
Speaker 1: to Israel. NBC News not only has an obligation to hire Ronna McDaniel, NBC News has the obligation to hire Alex Jones, for example.
Speaker 2: Right. Which just makes no sense at a business level beyond beyond free speech. I mean, there's a reason that networks existed.
Speaker 1: Right. They have editorial positions. Yeah. Daily Wire has a very strong editorial position on a wide variety of of issues. And by the way, I should say that, you know, there are a lot of people who are suggesting this is about disagreements over Israel.
I mean, I can safely say it is not about disagreements over Israel to the extent that, without reference to Candace at all here, Matt Walsh has taken the position that America ought not be involved in the Middle East at all. Matt Walsh's position, so far as I understand it, and I've talked to him about it, is that Israel in a conflict in Israel and Hamas, Israel is obviously a more moral party than the genocidal terrorist group Hamas, but also it's very far away. He doesn't care and it doesn't involve America. That's just a pure isolationist position. I disagree with it.
I think he's wrong. I think that that it's shortsighted. But, again, he's on our platform that that is well within the range of acceptable discourse at the Daily Wire. So
Speaker 0: Okay. So that's the line at the daily wire. You're allowed to take Matt Walsh's position. Matt Walsh is safe, I guess, for now. He's allowed to work at the daily wire even though he doesn't support the United States financing Israel's military and Israel's wars.
On the ground said, it's not our business. You're allowed to say that. Why? Because, explained Ben Shapiro, at the end of the day, Ben Matt Walsh does affirm the moral superiority of Israel. He he he says, look.
I don't want the US financing Israel but of course Israel is morally superior to its enemies. And as long as you say that, as long as you pay that kind of homage to Israel, then you're on the right side of the line. You're permitted to say I don't think the US should finance Israel. But notice too that Matt Walsh, though I guess he has said this before, he barely ever talks about it. And I really wonder what would happen if he actually went on a crusade about it.
If that was a primary focus of Matt Walsh's commentary instead of what it is, which is trans issues and LGBT issues and the culture war. It's one thing for Matt Walsh every once every 4 months to say I don't think the US has any business caring about Israel, Hamas. It's not my war. I wonder what would happen though if he really went on a crusade about it. I don't think the US should be financing Israel.
I I wonder if he'd be within the Overton window of the daily wire. But in any event, we don't know that because Matt Walsh barely talks about Israel. And what Ben Shapiro is saying is that's acceptable because at the end of the day, Matt Walsh affirms that Israel is the superior party. And as long as you affirm Israel's superiority, its moral superiority, won't let you occasionally as an aside question whether the US should be financing it from an isolationist perspective. But what you cannot do is make the sort of commentary that Candace Owens made.
Such as implying, but not stating that Israel was committing a genocide. And one of the tweets that really angered Ben Shapiro at the start was when Candace Owens said, I think no country has the right to commit genocide. And she was very purposeful about not identifying any country. But it was clear the context was Israel. She had talked before about the sadness she feels watching Palestinian children die.
That too was one of the tweets that generated anger. And then more recently, she's been into these arguments with the ADL and with rabbis accusing her of antisemitism. And that was the claim. That's always the claim. That is in every case when Greg Abbott, the governor of Texas as we discussed in our first segment is trying to force Texas universities to constrain the range of free speech.
Of course, what he's arguing is not, I'm censoring dissent on Israel. He's saying, this kind of criticism of Israel or this kind of advocacy for pro for Palestinians crosses into racism, into anti semitism. And that's why it needs to be censored. That's the left liberal view for censorship as well. Nobody on the left ever says, I'm censoring dissent.
They say, these views that we dislike cross over into bigotry. They're anti black racism. They're transphobic. They're homophobic. They're xenophobic, they're Islamophobic, they're misogynistic, and that's why we're censoring them.
Exactly the same thing that Ben Shapiro is saying. Oh, no. It's not about Israel. It's about antisemitism. But of course, those two things get conflated.
reSee.it AI Summary
Glenn Greenwald questions why Donald Trump was not charged with inciting or participating in the January 6th insurrection. He highlights that the prosecutor, Jack Smith, has been aggressive in other cases but chose not to charge Trump. The Omni Liberal suggests that there may have been other prosecutorial paths. Greenwald agrees, stating that it would be difficult to prove the insurrection and Trump's involvement.
@SystemUpdate_ - System Update
The Jan 6 Rematch: Glenn Greenwald x Destiny @GGreenwald: "To the extent you want to say that Donald Trump was somehow involved in this "insurrection," the only thing he did was give a constitutionally protected speech, and that is the reason why Jack Smith has not charged him with inciting or participating in an insurrection... Why did Jack Smith, an extremely aggressive prosecutor in these cases, not charge Donald Trump with inciting or participating in an insurrection?" @TheOmniLiberal: "Nobody in the history of the United States has ever been charged with that particular crime. It could just be that he felt like there was an easier prosecutorial path to go. You're not seriously of the contention right now that if somebody isn't charged with a particular crime, nobody thought they did it, right?" @GGreenwald: "What I'm saying is this specific case of a prosecutor who has demonstrated an eagerness to be extremely aggressive in the charging documents... opted not to charge Donald Trump with inciting an insurrection. I think your answer is actually correct, that he believes it would be very difficult to prove that what took place on January 6th was an insurrection and/or that Trump participated in or incited it." Full debate here: https://rumble.com/v4abx2x-system-update-show-219.html
Video Transcript AI Summary
Donald Trump's speech before the Capitol attack was constitutionally protected and did not incite violence. Only a small percentage of the protesters resorted to violence, while the majority peacefully protested. Calling it an insurrection is an exaggeration, as it was more of a protest. The prosecutor's decision not to charge Trump with inciting or participating in an insurrection may be due to the difficulty of proving it.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: There was one time and only one time when Donald Trump addressed the question of whether or not violence should be used when those people went to the Capitol. And what he said was this, quote, I know that everybody here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard. And the fact that people, because he said peacefully, they'd have to resort to things like, oh, will he invoke political cliches like fight like hell? Politicians use fight like hell in almost every speech. Joe Biden, you can read this in the New York Times on December 2nd said, quote, I wanna make sure we're going to be fighting like hell.
You can find pretty much every politician saying that. So that's one thing is that to the extent you wanna say that Donald Trump was somehow involved in this quote unquote insurrection, the only thing he did was given a constitutionally protected speech, and that is the reason why Jack Smith has not charged him with inciting or participating in an insurrection. It's not my opinion, obviously, Jack Smith shares the opinion that he could never obtain a conviction. The second thing is on the numbers, 2,000 people, let's use the maximum number, went into the capital, a small percentage, a tiny percentage of people who went into the capital actually used violence. So most of those people, the vast majority, according to the US government themselves, were doing nothing other than peacefully protesting.
Again, protesters entering the capital without authorization, occupying offices of members of Congress in order to pressure them to take some step or not take some step, is something that happens all the time. We've seen many more than 2,000 protesters. So don't try and imply that on January 6, 2,000 armed people or well trained people intending to commit violence went into the Capitol. The most of that number that you could possibly squeeze out of it is something like a 100 or a 150, and now we're back way closer to the most ridiculous example that I began by asking you about where even you said, oh, that probably shouldn't be called an insurrection, than we are to an actual threat to American power or to our system of government, which is necessary to claim in in order to turn this into what you want to turn it into.
Speaker 1: Okay. Just before I respond to this, so then, do you think then that the Whiskey Rebellion or the Whiskey Insurrection, Was that not a rebellion or insurrection then in your eyes?
Speaker 0: It's people were saying something against Wait.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry. Wait. Say that again. You're getting a rebellion.
Speaker 0: I think it's a rebellion. I don't think I would call it an insurrection. I think it's perfectly fine to call it a rebellion. I would have to look a lot more into the facts of exactly what happened with the Whiskey Rebellion. I don't I haven't thought about that question before, but I think the word rebellion is vague enough that any kind of protest could be called or rebellion.
I mean, people who are protesting and interrupting political events and going to the White House and begging on the fence against the war in Israel and US support for it are rebelling against US policy I don't have a problem with that term. But I
Speaker 1: often look at more closely
Speaker 0: with the whiskey rebellion to be able to say definitively what I'm in
Speaker 1: regarding that. If you wanna make these arguments that any protest can be called a Kura rebellion, you're free to make that argument. But you have to understand that you are using it in a ahistorical way That no legal legal scholar, that nobody who's passed laws in Congress that refers to an insurrection or rebellion, literally nobody in the legislative or historical conduct in the United States has used rebellion or insurrection to mean protest. That has just never been the case. And that
Speaker 0: is not my argument at all. What? My argument that's not my argument at all. My argument is that what happened on January 6th was a protest. That's fine.
Speaker 1: But I'm saying that you're what you just said what you just said, any 2 people knocking on a fence might be considered a rebellion or insurrection, that can be your assessment, or that the Whiskey Rebellion wasn't was a was a rebellion, but not an insurrection. That might be your assessment. But at the time, it was known as the Whiskey Insurrection, which was around the time when people were drafting the 14th amendment. So I would think that their understanding of what an was at the time, it's probably a more important analysis than what your personal subjective and convenient interpretation of what an insurrection might be right now.
Speaker 0: Now you're just ranting.
Speaker 1: I mean, this claim that, like, everyone who
Speaker 0: was ever involved in the law making process or the legislative process sees the term as you do, you you we can agree just like to set this fact straight that Jack Smith, who charged Donald Trump with many crimes, including crimes that were considered quite aggressive from a prosecutorial perspective, like he was not a overly cautious prosecutor, but a quite aggressive one who stretched a lot of theories to accuse him of certain felonies, he chose not to accuse Donald Trump of a crime that is in the US Code, which is participating in or inciting an insurrection, you agree that that's not part of what Jack Smith charged Donald
Speaker 1: Trump? I agree that Jack hadn't charged him with that, but whether or not somebody did something isn't right on to a particular criminal charge. Yeah.
Speaker 0: But say well, I mean Well,
Speaker 1: I mean, there's 2 reasons. Well, one is because
Speaker 0: members of the lawmakers are on your side. Why didn't mean.
Speaker 1: Well, because 1, if we're talking about, for instance, the 14th Amendment, a criminal conviction isn't relevant here. We don't need a criminal conviction for No.
Speaker 0: That would be why Jack Smith I'm not talking about the banning from the ballot. That'll be a US Supreme Court decision, and the courts have thus far split on that question. Democratic judges in Colorado include and then Secretaries of State in California and Rhode Island both have taken the opposite position. I'm not asking you about whether he should be stricken from the ballot or you need a a criminal conviction. I'm asking you, Why did not why did Jack Smith, an extremely aggressive prosecutor in these cases, not charge Donald Trump with inciting or participating in an insurrection?
Speaker 1: It could be for a variety of reasons. It could be that that's a question Do do you have an idea? Well, I was I was about to, but then you cut me off. Go ahead. It could be that he feels like he doesn't have enough strength to secure for insurrection, it could be that if you actually read the statute, for insurrection, even the the criminal statute itself is like kind of vague, because it uses insurrection, like in the statute of insurrection, doesn't really give much guidance as to what it is.
Nobody in the history of the United States has ever been charged with that particular crime, and it yeah. It could just be that he felt like there was an easier prosecutorial path to go. You're not seriously making you're not of the contention right now that if somebody isn't charged with a particular crime, nobody thought they did it. Right? You don't think that prosecutors just think that we're gonna charge you with everything we think you did.
Right? You understand that when people are charging crimes, they're charging what they think they can get a conviction on. Yeah?
Speaker 0: Yes. Having worked in the legal profession as a lawyer for more than a decade, you actually understand that sometimes prosecutors opt not should charge people with crimes, even though they may think they're guilty. What I'm saying is a specific case. A prosecutor who has demonstrated and eagerness to be extremely aggressive in the charging documents, including bringing crimes that many legal experts, including ones who aren't pro Trump, believe, is quite a stretch and will be very difficult to prove in court, opted not to charge Donald Trump with participating in or inciting an insurrection. I think your answer is actually correct that he believes it would be very difficult to prove that what took place on January 6th was an insurrection and or that Trump participated in or incited it.
The Jan 6 Rematch: Glenn Greenwald & Destiny Debate
Become part of our Locals community: https://greenwald.locals.com/ Follow Glenn: Twitter: https://twitter.com/ggreenwald Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glenn.11.greenwald/ Facebook: https://www.
rumble.com
reSee.it AI Summary
Is TikTok an agent of the CCP? Despite fear mongering, the US govt controls TikTok's content moderation, banning criticism of Zelensky or bin Laden's "Letter to America." TikTok prioritizes profit over moderation, while the US security state wants control. Threats to ban them are about compliance.
@SystemUpdate_ - System Update
**Is TikTok actually an agent of the CCP?** Despite fear mongering claims from every US politician & media outlet, the US govt has a total stranglehold on TikTok’s “content moderation.” It’s why they’ve banned any criticism of Zelensky—or bin Laden’s "Letter to America"👇
Video Transcript AI Summary
Many people believe that TikTok is controlled by the Chinese Communist Party and that its content moderation decisions are meant to manipulate young Americans. However, investigations have shown that the CIA and FBI are actually influencing TikTok's censorship. The founders of TikTok, who are capitalists, want to maintain access to the lucrative US market and have agreed to let the US government dictate what content should be censored. This is part of the US government's broader effort to control communication channels and ensure that critical videos or topics are censored according to their interests. TikTok's compliance with political censorship is driven by profit rather than ideology.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I'd be willing to bet a lot of money, but there are a lot of you who believe this. Who believe that TikTok is controlled by the Chinese Communist Party. That the censorship or content moderation decisions they make are designed to manipulate young American people, young Americans into hating their government, into fighting with one another. Just like we were told the Russians do. We're constantly told the Russians are trying to infiltrate Social media to turn us against each other to create division.
That was for a long time the reason more social media censorship was needed to Prevent the scary Russians from dividing us. Now they've added China to it. Knowing that a lot of people aren't afraid of Russia, That the Russiagate hoax proved to be a fraud. They've now switched the fear mongering to China. And I know there are a lot of people Who opposed the war in Ukraine, the US role in the war in Ukraine.
Who know Russiagate is a fraud. Who say, no, Russia is not rendering a China. That's who we really have to be afraid of. Now what happened was, I actually did a lot of investigation and research into this because I wrote about it here in December of 2022 when I was still at substack, reflecting new US control of TikTok censorship, our report criticizing Zelensky was deleted. What happened was we produced a segment on our show here That was very critical of president Zelensky of the Ukrainian government and the war effort of the United States in Ukraine.
And it got Went pretty viral. A lot of people were spreading it around and watching it. And then suddenly very short quickly it got banned, taken down by TikTok. That sent us a note saying this video is a violation of our terms of service. And of course I thought to myself, okay, I kept hearing that China censors to propagandize Americans against our government.
So why would they wanna delete my video critical of the US government? Would they want to protect the US government from my criticism of it? Why would they want to protect the US government's war effort in Ukraine by banning critiques of it? That doesn't make any sense, does it? Just like it didn't make sense that TikTok banned mention of the Bin Laden letter?
And we went and investigated what actually was going on. And it turns out that what's really going on. I'm gonna show you the evidence and you can make your own decision. Is that the CIA and the FBI have taken the position they want TikTok banned. The people who own TikTok, who are the founders of TikTok, the main founder in particular, is someone who was born in Singapore.
He went to the London School of Economics. He then went to Harvard Business School. He's a capitalist. He's trying to get wealthy. He's getting rich.
He's the founder of TikTok. And the US is an incredibly lucrative market for TikTok that they don't wanna lose access to because it would cost them 1,000,000,000 of dollars in valuation in their company. They're now trying to compete with Amazon and have ecommerce on that site. It's a gold mine. And so they're desperate not to get banned from the United States.
And so they've told the CIA and the FBI, look, we don't care about political censorship. We'll turn that over to you. We'll let you Tell us what you want censored. In order for us to stay in the United States. And that is what's been happening.
The US security state has been gradually commandeering the ability to content moderate on TikTok. As a condition for allowing TikTok to remain in the United States. The United States government has worked very hard to make sure it controls all important means of communication. It obviously has the US media in the palm of its hands. US media reports what the CIA and the FBI tell it to and doesn't report what they tell it not to say.
The big tech platforms Facebook and Google and Twitter before Elon Musk, as we know were subject The constant orders from the government about what to censor and they did it. And the reason they're so fixated on Elon Musk. And the reason they hate Rumble and other any other site that doesn't obey them is because they can't stand the notion that Americans can go on a platform and communicate ideas that they can't stop. And this is what the ban The threats to ban TikTok are about. Is about trying to have the American government be able to commandeer those censorship decisions.
So that Critical videos of Zelenskyy and the war in Ukraine or topic videos about the Bin Laden letter get Censored because the US government wants it to and they can easily get Google and Facebook to censor it It's a little harder with TikTok And TikTok has had to agree more and more because they don't care about political censorship. They care about profit. These are capitalists. They don't care about giving the US government control over content moderation. They're happy to do it.
If that's the condition they have to meet in order to keep access to the very lucrative US market.
@SystemUpdate_ - System Update
TikTok cares far more about profit than content moderation—And the US security state cares deeply that no corners of the internet exist outside their control. It's what these constant threats to ban them are really about: Do what we want, or you're gone. https://rumble.com/v3yfiop-system-update-show-188.html
Americans Fired Since Oct. 7—What They Really Said. Is TikTok Censoring for China or the US? | SYSTEM UPDATE #188
Become part of our Locals community: https://greenwald.locals.com/ Follow Glenn: Twitter: https://twitter.com/ggreenwald Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glenn.11.greenwald/ Facebook: https://www.
rumble.com
reSee.it AI Summary
As US public support wanes, Zelensky and his team resort to overtly threatening the West and war critics. Zelensky's tactics include extortion, warning of potential consequences if aid to Ukraine is cut off. Ukraine also intensifies its threats through propagandist outlets, targeting anyone questioning the war effort. These actions coincide with the imprisonment of an American blogger expressing antiwar sentiments. The prolonged war raises questions about the democracy being defended.
@SystemUpdate_ - System Update
As US public support for the war erodes, Zelensky and his spokespeople are now overtly threatening both the West and war critics. Zelensky has moved to full-on extortion, making threats about what might just happen if aid to Ukraine were cut off. .@GGreenwald “He's essentially saying: “I have terror cells embedded in your country. And if you give into your population's growing hesitance to keep sending all of this money to our war and keep enduring higher energy prices in the risk of escalation, nuclear war, if you stop that, I'm not saying I would tell them to do it, but no telling what they might start to do to you, these millions of Ukrainian refugees that you now have embedded in your country.’”
Video Transcript AI Summary
Ukraine's President, Vladimir Zelenskyy, expressed concern that curtailing aid to Ukraine would prolong the war and create risks for the West. He explained that millions of Ukrainian refugees in Ukraine and European countries would not react well if their country was abandoned. Zelenskyy emphasized that Ukrainians have been grateful to those who sheltered them and warned that driving them into a corner would have negative consequences for Europe. Although he didn't use explicit threats, his remarks implied that if the West stopped supporting Ukraine financially and militarily, the behavior of Ukrainian refugees in Western countries could change. This could potentially pose a threat to the host countries.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I'm gonna do 3 to you. I'm not gonna tell you what I think of this ahead of time. I just want you to hear what he said and then we can talk about what he pretty clearly means by it. So here is first, there's the title of the Economist headline, Donald Trump Will Never Support Putin, said Vladimir Zelenskyy. But Ukraine's president fears that some of his country's Western backers are losing faith.
And that is the context for all of this. He's getting desperate. And so this is what he said. Quote, curtailing it to Ukraine will only prolong the war, mister Zelensky argues. And it would create risks for the West and its own backyard.
Why would curtailing aid to Ukraine create risks in the for the West, in its own backyard. This is how he explained what he meant. Quote, there is no way of predicting how the millions of Ukrainian refugees in Ukraine in European countries would react to their country being abandoned. Ukrainians have generally, quote, behaved well and are, quote, very grateful to those who shelter them. They will not forget that generosity.
But it would not be a good story for Europe if it were to drive these people into a corner. What does that mean exactly? What is he threatening there? Now, you notice he didn't use the most flagrant overt formulation for threats, which is either you do x, y, and z or I will do a, b, and c to you. Either you give me money or I will kill you.
It was more the kind of extortionist formulation. Like, oh, that's a really nice building that you have there. It would be a shame if it got burned down by someone. Which is always said when a company by demands for money. And that sounds a lot to me like what he's saying, which is, oh, you know, thank you so much for accepting all these Ukrainians into your countries in the west.
It's very nice of you. So far, they've been pretty appreciative. They've behaved well. But if you were to stop fueling our war, if you were to start stop giving us all the money and all the the weapons we are demanding, it doesn't seem like there'd be a good outcome for you. I would think that those Ukrainian refugees would start to have a much different view of their hosts in the West, And they would behave in the way that people behave when you quote drive them into a corner.
That sounds very much like a threat to me. That he's essentially saying I have basically, like, terror cells embedded in your country. And if you give in to your population's growing hesitance to keep spending all of this money to our war and keep enduring higher energy prices and the risk of escalation nuclear war. If you stop that, I'm not saying I would tell them to do it, but no telling what they might start to do to you, these millions of Ukrainian refugees that you now have embedded in your country.
@SystemUpdate_ - System Update
Besides Zelenky’s outright shakedown on the West, Ukraine ramped up its threats through propagandist outlets with a new and obviously unwell official American spokesperson for their Territorial Defense Forces who promises that all “Kremlin agents” will “pay for their crimes.” .@GGreenwald “They're threatening specifically a Russian propagandist, what they're calling a Russian propagandist, which as we know from that quote I just referenced from President Zelensky and the Economist, means anybody who questions the war, anybody who questions the accuracy of the claims of the Ukrainian government or who questions the war effort itself.”
Video Transcript AI Summary
The Ukrainian government has chosen a spokesperson who they believe is effective and likable in the West. This person threatens a Russian propagandist, which they define as anyone who questions the war or the accuracy of Ukrainian government claims. The spokesperson claims that justice will be served as they are led by faith in God, liberty, and complete liberation. It is worth noting that the spokesperson is seen next to a logo for the Territorial Defense Forces, suggesting an official position. The Ukrainian government believes this individual appeals to the West, and they may be correct in their assessment.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I want you to take a listen to the person they've sent out to be their spokesperson. Someone who they apparently think is an effective and likable spokesperson among people in the West for the Ukrainian cause.
Speaker 1: Russia hates the truth that their obsessive focus on a Ukrainian volunteer is simply allowing the light of the Ukrainian nation's honesty to shine brightly. Next week, the teeth of the Russian devils will gnash ever harder and their rabid mouths will foam in uncontrollable frenzy as the world will see a favorite Kremlin propagandist pay for their crimes. And this puppet of Putin is only the first.
Speaker 0: Okay. So you notice they're not saying that somebody who helped the Russian military will pay by their crimes and gnat on the teeth of the devil. They are threatening specifically a Russian propagandist, what they're calling a Russian propagandist, which as we know from that quote I just referenced from president Zelenskyy and The Economist means anybody who questions the war, anybody who questions the accuracy of the claims of the Ukrainian government or who questions the war effort itself. That's what they mean by that. Listen to this strange person make these threats in this way.
Speaker 1: As the world will see a favorite Kremlin propagandist pay for their crimes. And this puppet of Putin is only the first. Russia's war criminal propagandists will all be hunted down and justice will be served as we in Ukraine are led on this mission by faith in God, liberty and complete liberation.
Speaker 0: Okay. So, I don't know if you find that to be compelling or inspiring or something that you want to go and applaud or if it attracts you to the Ukrainian cause. What I find interesting is that the Ukrainian government, and you can see here, let's put that on the screen please, the video. You can see here that the person is speaking next to a logo for the Territorial Defense Forces. So this very much appears to be an official, position of the Ukrainian government, they have some sort of, some sort of military garb or some kind of, like, official insignia.
I wouldn't be surprised if there was some, like, Neo Nazi picture on the back that's typical for this. Although, I don't know if that's the case with this person. But that is pretty strange to me. And the fact that they think that this individual appeals to the West, you know what? Probably they're right in that calculation.
@SystemUpdate_ - System Update
These threats coincide with the ongoing imprisonment of Gonzalo Lira, an American blogger arrested for expressing anti-war sentiments — which as the Ukrainian government has made abundantly clear, is tantamount to working for the Kremlin https://t.co/BLRJ2NurxI
Video Transcript AI Summary
A person who criticized the Zelensky government on social media has disappeared in Ukraine. The government sent a propagandist with the military to assure the world that the person is safe. It is unclear if the person mentioned in a previous video is the same one who has been detained. The Ukrainian security service arrested Gonzalo Lyra, a US Chilean national residing in Kharkiv, accusing him of harboring pro-Russian sentiments and criticizing Ukraine's leadership. He was previously detained in April but released without charges. The SBU accuses him of justifying Russia's aggression and undermining Ukraine's military. He is now imprisoned for expressing his opinions.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Oh, yeah. The rule of law is an incredible strong point in the Ukrainian society, which is why this person whose crimes consist of making YouTube videos and being on Twitter, criticizing the Zelensky government has now disappeared to the point where they have to send out this propagandist with the Ukrainian military to try and convince the world that he's safe and able to still speak. Now, I don't know whether that first video were there, promising that some Russian propagandist is gonna really feel the wrath of Ukrainian justice, is the person is the same Gonzalo Lyra. I think it is. Clearly, they were no.
What I'm saying is I don't know if that first video where they swore that the Russian propaganda is gonna feel the harsh weight of Ukrainian justice. If they were referring to Gonzalo Lyra, it certainly appears that that to be the case since this person has been involved directly in the Gonzalo Lyra prosecution. We don't know why Gabzololira is disappeared, why he's not free, why the Ukrainians have detained him forcibly, why this deranged person is threatening him publicly. If Ukraine is such a country of the rule of law, why is it that they appear to know what the outcome is ahead of the verdict to the point where they feel comfortable going and threatening him in this very unhinged way. But for those of you aren't familiar with the story, here is the Helensky Times in May.
The, the headline is detaining Gonzalo Lyra, another blow to the freedom of caused in Ukraine. Quote, the Ukrainian security service SBU arrested Gonzalo Lira, a US Chilean national residing in Kharkiv, on his visions of harboring pro Russian sentiments. This marks the 2nd time Lyra has been apprehended by the SBU. Lyra, an author and filmmaker, who relocated to Kharkiv years ago and married to a and is married to a Ukrainian, was initially detained in April 2022 but was released after a week without charges. He was subsequently instructed not to leave the city and prohibited from discussing his arrest.
As reported by Ukrainian media, the SBU be used statement accuses Lyra of publicly justifying Russia's armed aggression, denying or glorifying supposed Russian war crimes, and undermining Ukraine's top military and political leadership and defense forces, meaning he criticized president Zelensky. On May 5th, the SBU web site published a statement in Ukrainian titled, quote, SBU detained a foreign blogger in Kharkiv, who denied the crimes of the Russian Federation and assaulted Ukrainian defenders. Do you understand? This person is arrested and imprisoned. He's an American citizen for exclusively things that he said in this glorious democracy that we're supposed to deplete our own military and send 100 of 1,000,000,000 of dollars in order to defend
@SystemUpdate_ - System Update
.@GGreenwald “Maybe someone’s going to say, as I’ve heard people say to justify anything and everything president Zelensky does, that when there’s a war there are no more rights. But if that’s true, this war’s gone on for a very long time — what democracy are we defending there?” https://t.co/uHSDdvCXVX
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker questions the justification of President Zelensky's actions during the war, suggesting that if rights are suspended during war, then this war will last a long time. They criticize the abuses carried out by previous administrations in the name of the war on Terror, such as assassinations and warrantless spying. The speaker also mentions the governor of New Mexico suspending a right established by the Supreme Court under the 2nd Amendment due to an emergency. They express concern about the situation in Ukraine, highlighting the threats and prosecutions by Zelensky, and claim that those defending Ukraine online seem coordinated and unhinged. The speaker concludes that Ukraine is anything but a democracy.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Now, maybe someone is going to say, as I've heard people say to justify anything and everything that president Zelensky does, that when there's a war, there are no more rights. But if that's true, this war is going to go on for a very long time. What democracy are we defending there? That was, remember, the excuse for the abuses of excesses of the war on Terror carried out by the Bush Cheney administration, by the Obama administration, assassinating people, spying on people with no warrants, en masse, people in prison with no due chart with no due process or any charges? Oh, well, there's a war.
All bets are off. There's that's not how things work in a democracy. That's what the governor of New Mexico is currently trying to do in saying that a right that the Supreme Court established and recognized, whether you like it or not, under the 2nd Amendment, is now suspended simply because she decreed an emergency to the public safety. And now she's saying in a time of emergency, all bets are off. Whatever's going on in Ukraine, The threats that Zelensky is making, these prosecutions, this incredibly maniacal person.
Every time you look at who's defending Ukraine online, it's so clear it's some kind of coordinated Effort is always the most just the most unhinged people possible. Whatever is in Ukraine, it is anything but a democracy.
reSee.it AI Summary
Elon Musk faces criticism for refusing to activate Starlink satellites, seen by some as treason. The media attacks him for challenging their power to silence dissent. Musk's crime? Not obeying Ukraine's demands, despite not being a citizen. This highlights the attempt to stifle opposition and ban dissent. Many Americans would also be considered traitors if judged by the same standards. The goal is to strip Musk's rights and censor any questioning of government war policies. It's crucial to protect the right to oppose.
@SystemUpdate_ - System Update
Elon Musk is under fire, again, this time from neocons and corporate journalists insisting that his refusal to turn on Starlink satellites to enable an escalation of Ukraine's military actions amounts to a form of treason. From where does this obligation come? Do we care that this attack may have caused a major escalation of this war?
Video Transcript AI Summary
Elon Musk denied Starlink services to the Ukrainian military's submarines as they planned to attack the Russian Navy. Despite providing Ukraine with $1 billion worth of free Starlink services, Musk refused to extend it further, fearing it would escalate the conflict. He believed that complying with the request would make SpaceX complicit in an act of war. Musk's decision led to accusations of treason and calls for the US government to seize his company. However, it is important to question whether private companies or foreign governments have an obligation to fulfill every demand of the Ukrainian military. Refusing such demands does not necessarily make one pro-Russian.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: A new biography of Elon Musk claims that Musk denied Starlink services to the Ukrainian military, specifically to its fleet of submarines as they prepare to attack the Russian Navy. Musk's company, SpaceX, controls more satellites they send any company or government in the world and is used to, among other things, ensure Internet connection anywhere in the world even if the military forces of one's enemy tries to deny Internet service by bombing. Musk has provided Ukraine with 1,000,000,000 of dollars of free Starlink services since the war began when the U. S. Government refused originally to compensate them for it.
He originally said he would have to withdraw it because they couldn't afford it, but then announced he would continue to provide it for free. But it. As always with Ukraine and its supporters, nothing is never enough. You must always give more. Musk confirmed part of the story its in this new biography, and provided his motive this way, quote, There was an emergency request from government authorities, meaning in Ukraine and then in the United States, to activate STARLINK all the way to Sevastopol, the obvious intent being to sink most of the Russian fleet at anchor.
If I had agreed to their request, then SpaceX would be explicitly complicit in a major act of war and conflict escalation. A he went on to point out that he didn't actually cut off existing services, but just refused the request of the Ukrainian military to extend it even further so they could attack the Russians in an all new way that he feared would lead to escalation, that his company and he would ultimately be responsible for it ethically, if not legally. Now it. That concession immediately led to widespread accusations that Musk was guilty of treason or at least being pro Russian and calls for the United States government to seize his company, his Starlink services, were widespread. But in what way is this pro Russian?
Do private companies or, for that matter, foreign governments have some obligation to provide the Ukrainian military with everything and anything it demands? Its are those who refuse those demands, including out of a desire not to help escalate a already dangerous war, are they inherently guilty of wanting the Kremlin to win the war or being pro
@SystemUpdate_ - System Update
It’s never been easier to be a “Russian propagandist” or “Kremlin agent” now (just don’t expect a paycheck) — all it takes is voicing any view oppositional to the prevailing media view on our involvement in Ukraine. https://t.co/EFEUOTTtTu
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker criticizes anti-war conservatives for aligning with left-wing and Islamist anti-war movements, denying and excusing terror, spreading conspiracy theories, and wanting America's enemies to win. They mention how similar language is now used to discredit anyone questioning the U.S. war effort in Ukraine, labeling them as pro-Russian propagandists. The speaker emphasizes that dissent and resistance to the prevailing media and political orthodoxy on the war are met with demands for censorship, accusing dissenters of spreading pro-Russian propaganda. They argue that the war serves the interests of the arms industry, CIA, and financial institutions, while advocating for the destruction and rebuilding of Ukraine.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: From went on, quote, but the anti war conservatives have gone far, far beyond the advocacy of alternative strategies they have made common cause with the left wing and Islamist anti war movements in this country and in Europe. They deny an excused terror. They espouse is a potentially self fulfilling defeatism? They publicize wild conspiracy theories, and some of them explicitly yearn for the victory of their nation's enemies. Do you see how the language has not changed at all?
It's just repurposed. They espouse conspiracy theories. They don't believe in the crimes of the other side. They, in fact, want the other side to win. They want America's enemies to triumph.
He's talking here about people who very presciently and wisely knew that, people like David Frum were vying. And that we were getting into a Quagmire that would have no exit, where hundreds of thousands if not millions of people would die, where we would spend 1,000,000,000,000 of dollars pursuing a goal that we had no business pursuing. And for that, they were routinely branded by people like David Frum as being pro Al Qaeda, pro terrorist, pro Iraq, pro Saddam, spreading conspiracy theories, etc. And if that language doesn't sound familiar to you, which should, because it's exactly the language now marshaled, to try and destroy the reputations of anybody who questions the U. S.
War effort in Ukraine. Everyone who has done so, who stood up, has been officially decreed to be pro Russian propagandist. I've been put on several lists, at least official lists of the U. S. Of the Ukrainian government, of the Ukrainian intelligence agencies for being a pro Russian propagandist, even though never once in my life have I uttered a positive word about Vladimir Putin or the Russian government.
It's not necessary. The only thing necessary is any kind of questioning, any kind of resistance to, any kind of dissent from The prevailing media political orthodoxy on this war, that the United States Government has the moral obligation and the legal obligation to deplete our own military if necessary to go further into 1,000,000,000,000 of dollars or 100 of 1,000,000,000 of dollars into debt in order to feed the Ukrainians forever to destroy Ukraine and then rebuild it, while the arms industry and the CIA benefit along the way, while BlackRock and JPMorgan and other vaulters wait in the wings for the rebuilding effort. That's what this war has been about from the beginning and still is in the way that they try and Not just stigmatize, but demand the censorship of Any dissenters is by claiming that they're spreading pro Russian propaganda or even pro Kremlin.
@SystemUpdate_ - System Update
.@GGreenwald “The reason why Elon Musk is being targeted by the ADL as an anti-Semite and now being depicted as a traitor to his country, the United States… is not because necessarily they're angry about what he did in Ukraine, although they are, but more so because it's punishment for his refusal to censor on demand.” The media continues its relentless attacks on Elon Musk because he poses an existential threat to what they hold most dear –– their ability to silence any opposition.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Elon Musk is being targeted by the ADL as an anti-Semite and traitor to the US because he refuses to censor on demand. If he buys Twitter and reduces censorship, it poses a threat to establishment centers of power. They fear free speech on the internet. They blamed the free internet for Brexit and Trump's election, leading to increased censorship. Elon Musk is one of the few in technology standing up against this censorship.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The reason why Elon Musk is being targeted by the ADL as an anti Semite and now being depicted as a traitor to his country, the United States. He is a citizen of the United States, even though he also was a citizen of South Africa and I believe Canada, is not because Clearly, they're angry about what he did in Ukraine, although they are, but more so because it's punishment for his refusal to censor on demand. We predicted this way early that if Elon Musk actually buys Twitter and proceeds to even partially fulfill his word to reduce censorship on the platform, there's no way they're going to permit that. There's no way establishment centers of power in the West will permit that because that is way too much of a threat to them. The thing they are feared the most is free speech on the Internet.
We documented that on Wednesday when we went through the historical context of how they watched the British people defy their orders and voted for Brexit to leave the EU. And then months later, the American people all asked Donald Trump and not Hillary Clinton and that scared them to their bones. They went into panic mode. They genuinely did. It was traumatizing for them.
And they ended up blaming a free Internet for it, saying that if we don't control the Internet, there going to be disinformation circulating on the Internet that will deceive people into voting against the way we tell them to vote. They'll end up voting for Brexit. They'll end up voting for Trump, not for the candidates that we want. And ever since then, they've been imposing a regime of censorship that has been growing by the year and now targeting the one of the only people in technology who's standing up to that, which is Elon Musk.
@SystemUpdate_ - System Update
Musk’s only “crime” was not following Ukraine’s orders –– a country he doesn’t even count among his three citizenships. .@GGreenwald “The pretense here is that you have no right to resist the Ukrainian military’s demands. If you’re a citizen of the West you are duty-bound to give them everything they demand, and if you don’t, that’s considered sabotage."
Video Transcript AI Summary
Elon Musk reportedly ordered his engineers to turn off Starlink coverage near the Crimean coast, preventing drones packed with explosives from reaching their target. Ukraine urgently requested Musk to restore the service, but he refused, stating that he did not want his satellites used for offensive purposes. The book attempts to portray Musk as a traitor, but in reality, he simply chose not to assist in escalating the conflict, especially considering the potential for a nuclear response. The underlying message seems to be that citizens of the west are expected to comply with the demands of the Ukrainian military without question, and any resistance is labeled as sabotage.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Isaac Newton writes that the that Musk reportedly panicked when he heard about the planned Ukrainian attack, which was using Starlink satellites to guide 6 drones packed with explosives towards the Crimean coast. After speaking to the Russian ambassador to the United Nate United States who reportedly told him an attack on Crimea, would trigger a nuclear response. Musk took matters into his own hands and ordered his engineers to turn off Starlink coverage within 100 kilometers of the Crimean coast. This caused the drones to lose connectivity and wash ashore harmlessly, effectively sabotaging touching the offensive mission. Ukraine's reaction was immediate.
Officials frantically called Musk and asked them to turn back the service on, turn back, turned the service back on, telling him that quote the drone's subs were crucial to their fight for freedom, but Musk was unwavering. He argued that Ukraine was going too far and inviting strategic defeat and that he did not want his satellites used for offensive purposes. Now according to the book, US officials then called Musk, got a hold of him several hours later, and he agreed to restore services or to activate the services, as he had been doing since the start of the war. But you can see the flamboyant attempt to depict Elon Musk as actively sabotaging in a war being fought by Ukraine and supported by the United States and NATO, which is designed to essentially defect them as a traitor, subverting the war policies of the United States government. Even though what he really did, he didn't actively subvert or sabotage anything.
He just refused to have his company assist in the escalation of ore when the Russians were telling him that it very could likely could lead to a nuclear exchange. In other words, the subtext, the pretense here is that you have no right to resist the Ukrainian military's demands if you're a citizen of the west. You are duty bound to give them everything they demand. And if you don't, that's considered sabotage.
@SystemUpdate_ - System Update
Using the reasoning applied to Elon Musk, the vast majority of Americans are also “traitors,” since most people didn’t take President Zelensky’s invitation to go to Ukraine and join the fight against Russia. https://t.co/QBr5bmIHJc
Video Transcript AI Summary
President Zelensky urged Western supporters of Ukraine to join the fight against the Russian army due to Ukraine's disadvantage in population size. He called for assistance in the form of arms and manpower, emphasizing the importance of continuously sending soldiers to the front lines. However, despite repeated pleas, only a few individuals from the West chose to participate in the war effort. The majority opted not to get involved, potentially hindering the Ukrainian military and US war policy in Ukraine.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Early on in the war, President Zelensky issued a plea to Westerners who support the Ukrainian cause who are of fighting age to go to Ukraine and pick up arms and help them fight the Russian army. Because Zelensky knew, and it's turned out to be true, that the Ukrainians had a huge disadvantage, many disadvantages, but one that the biggest was simply population size. In a ground war of attrition like this, the ability to just keep sending men to the front, men to the front, men to the front is crucial. It sounds harsh, it sounds primitive, but that's the nature of this war. And Russia is many times larger than Ukraine and therefore has a much larger population to dip into to spend as soldiers to go and fight the Ukraine.
They can just outlast Ukraine for that reason alone. So Zelensky sent out repeated pleas saying, look, if you're in the West and you support our cause, don't posted on Twitter or Facebook posting Ukrainian flag emojis, come to Ukraine. We'll give you arms for free and you can help fight the Russians, but a lot of people chose not to for whatever reasons. Maybe they were scared. Maybe they thought the war was important, but not important enough to go fight in, meaning they were willing to have other people die in the war, but didn't want to die themselves in it.
Maybe they were too busy, maybe whatever. But they made the choice, every single person in the West, to go or not go. And overwhelmingly, almost everybody, very few exceptions, chose not to go and fight with Ukraine in that war. A few people went, but very few. By this reasoning, those people can be said to have sabotaged the war, the Ukrainian military effort and the U.
S. War policy in Ukraine by not going and giving Zelensky what he demanded. That's all
@SystemUpdate_ - System Update
.@GGreenwald “What is actually going on here is an attempt to legally ban any dissent, take away Elon Musk's right to be a military contractor, haul him before a congressional committee, require Twitter to ban what they're calling pro-Russia propaganda, which is really nothing other than people questioning or opposing their war policy of their government –– which is absolutely the right of every American citizen or the citizen of any country to do.”
Video Transcript AI Summary
David Frum accuses an American citizen and US government contractor of sabotaging a military operation in Ukraine. He claims that this act could have shortened the Russian war, saved lives, and ended the Russian food blockade in Africa and Asia. Frum argues that anyone who questions or opposes the war in Ukraine is deemed unpatriotic and morally wrong. He suggests that dissenters should be investigated by Congress and that platforms like Twitter should ban what they consider pro-Russia propaganda. Frum's rhetoric aims to suppress any form of dissent and limit the rights of individuals to express their opinions on government policies.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Quote. This is David Frum speaking. 20 years after he first accused antiwar opponents of the war in Iraq of being unpatriotic. He says, An American citizen and U. S.
Government contractor acknowledges that he personally sabotaged the military operation of a U. S. Ally. Musk thwarted what might have been a decisive military operation to shorten the Russian war against Ukraine, save who knows how many lives and put an end to the Russian food blockade of poor countries in Africa and Asia, all while a US government contractor. So apparently, these few drones were gonna bring down the entire Russian military, the few drones that the Russians were planning on launching on this one specific day.
But what's really going on here is that they are simply fortifying a climate in which it is the moral obligation of everybody to pay homage to Ukraine and to every other US ally as he put it. If you question the war in Ukraine, if you are opposed to the war in Ukraine, if you don't want your tax money going there, if you are not willing to go and fight even though David Frum and his family aren't Of course, apparently you are of bad moral character, you're unpatriotic, you don't deserve to be a U. S. Military contractor and You probably should be investigated by the Congress, which is what his last week called for. Do you see how consistent the rhetoric is?
Do you see what the framework here is for what the Washington establishment does to anybody who Distense from them. And again, if it were just about unjust reputational destruction the way it was back in the war on terror when people were accused of being outside of Al Qaeda, that would be one thing I would still object, but not as strenuously. What is actually going on here is an attempt to legally ban any dissent, take away Elon Musk's right to be a military contractor or haul them before a congressional committee, require Twitter to ban what they are calling pro Russia propaganda, which is really nothing other than people questioning or opposing Their war policy of their government, which is absolutely the right of every American citizen or the citizen of any country to do.
@SystemUpdate_ - System Update
SUPERCUT: Rather than press the govt on the content within the Ukraine Docs leak, "journalists" used today's Pentagon briefing to demand that more be done to prevent future leaks. This should be unthinkable—what kind of journalists push for *less* govt transparency?!
Video Transcript AI Summary
DoD has taken steps to reduce access to classified briefings and materials following the leaks. The ability of a 21-year-old airman to access top secrets is seen as a security breach. The Pentagon is implementing technologies to detect leaked documents and track potential indicators of leaking practices. They are considering investing in more such technologies. The distribution list is being actively pared down, but it is unclear how quickly meaningful changes will occur. DoD has also taken measures to restrict access to classified information for others in the Massachusetts Air National Guard. It is unknown if DoD is monitoring chat rooms or social media platforms for leaked information, but the question of whether they should is raised.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Okay. In the days after the leaks came to light, what steps has DoD taken to reduce the number of people who have access to not only these classified briefings, but the classified material in general? But you are taking steps to tighten that, I guess, population who might have access to this level of information?
Speaker 1: General Ryder, you say that there are strict protocols in place, and yet a 21 year old airmen was able to access some of the nation's top secrets. How did this happen, and isn't this a massive security breach? What is your message to anyone who might be thinking of leaking these kind of documents in the future?
Speaker 2: Can you tell us where are there less people Who have access to this type of information today than there were a week ago.
Speaker 3: To follow on that, these documents were available long before April 5th 6th? So what took so long for DOD and the intelligence communities to to locate these documents?
Speaker 2: Are you going to release this airman's service record?
Speaker 4: What technologies is the Pentagon applying right now to both spot leaked documents online and track potential indicators of leaking type practices? Do you plan to be investing in more?
Speaker 5: Given the gravity of the situation, Are you actively paring down the distribution list now? Is this a process that's moving quickly? Or is it going to take time for there to be meaningful substantive changes to the distribution? And then is DoD or has DoD taken additional measures to restrict the access to classified information of others in the Massachusetts Air National
Speaker 6: Guardant. Sort of as a follow on to Carla and Brandy's questions, can you say whether DoD has anyone looking at chat rooms on Discord, for example, or other social media platforms right now for leaked information? And, if not, should should DOD have these people?