False CIA Letter—Lying that Hunter Laptop was "Russian Disinformation"—Initiated by Biden Campaign. Plus: Darren Beattie on Ray Epps, Tucker, & More
Watch full episodes on Rumble, streamed LIVE 7pm ET: https://rumble.com/c/GGreenwald
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/
Follow System Update:
Twitter: https://twitter.com/SystemUpdate_
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/systemupdate__/
TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@systemupdate__
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/systemupdate.tv/
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/systemupdate/
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Welcome to a new episode of System Update, our live nightly show that airs every Monday through Friday at 7 p.m.
Eastern, exclusively here on Rumble, the free speech alternative to YouTube.
Tonight, the disinformation campaign that took place in the weeks before the 2020 presidential election is one of the most toxic and corrupt in modern political history.
And the days after the New York Post first broke a major story with multiple incriminating reports about Joe Biden and his family, particularly their efforts to trade on Joe Biden's name to pursue personal profit in China and Ukraine, 51 operatives of the CIA and other intelligence agencies issued a letter decreeing that they believed the material on that laptop, which served as the basis for that reporting, was, quote, Russian disinformation.
Notably, even those intelligence operatives, almost all of whom had declared their support for Hillary Clinton in 2016 and then Biden in 2020, admitted they had no hard evidence for their claim.
Quote, we want to emphasize, they said in the letter, that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement.
But then they added, quote, just that our experience makes us deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role in this case.
But the corporate media, as much on the side of Joe Biden as these intelligence operatives, predictably took that claim and immediately turned it into a disinformation campaign, with Politico's Natasha Bertrand being the first to launder it under a highly deceitful headline.
Quote, Hunter Biden's story is Russian disinformation, dozens of former intel officials say.
From there, that lie Which has since been proven to be a lie many times, became gospel in corporate media and in big tech.
Remember, both Facebook and Twitter used that lie to censor this story and prevented untold millions of American voters from hearing it or considering it before they went to vote for president.
Now this is a story we have covered many times for obvious reasons.
It shows, most of all, that the people in media and politics who most aggressively and vocally claim that they're the ones who fight disinformation, to the point that they need the power to censor the internet to protect you from it, are in fact those who spread disinformation most casually, aggressively, and destructively.
And that's what they did here.
But we return to this story tonight in light of brand new developments about how exactly this false CIA letter came to be, and specifically, who in the Biden campaign agitated for it.
We'll have all of that tonight.
Then, for our interview segment, we will speak to former Trump speechwriter and revolver news journalist, Darren Beatty, who did as much work as anyone in this country shining a light on the very odd case of re-eps.
Someone who was one of the most vocal and aggressive January 6th protesters at the Capitol, It never was among the close to 1,000 people arrested, many of whom were arrested despite never using violence, and he's someone who has now been repeatedly praised and defended by numerous left-liberal media figures and politicians who ordinarily believe that every other January 6th protester is a terrorist who should rot forever in jail.
Just last week, 60 Minutes broadcast a feature designed to defend raps.
We'll speak to Beatty about this case, the ongoing refusal of the media or Congress to show any interest in finding out who Epps is or what knowledge the FBI had of the key groups that led the insurrection, as they call it.
And we'll talk to Darren Beatty about Tucker Carlson's separation from Fox as well.
As we do every Tuesday and Thursday, as soon as we're done with our one-hour live show here on Rumble, we will move to Locals for our interactive aftershow.
To take your questions and comment on your feedback, to obtain access to that aftershow, simply sign up as a member to our Locals community.
The red button is right below the video player here on the Rumble page that also entitles you to access to the transcripts we post every day of the show, the written journalism we do, as well as that aftershow.
As a reminder, System Update is now available in podcast form on Spotify, Apple, and every other major podcasting platform.
It's posted, the episode is, 12 hours after it first appears here live on Rumble.
To follow us there, simply click follow, rate and review it to increase the show's visibility.
For now, welcome to a new episode of System Update, starting right now.
The disinformation campaign that was engineered in the wake of the 2020 election is one of the most significant in modern American history.
And I say that because of the number of institutions it ended up involving, the number who disseminated these lies, the number who took action on the basis of it.
It began, or so we always thought until just this week, when 51 former members of the intelligence community, directors of the CIA under both parties, the FBI, Homeland Security, issued a letter that essentially led people to believe that the materials that the New York Post had based its reporting on concerning the Biden family's activities in Ukraine and in China should be disregarded
Because, as this letter suggested, it was not genuine.
It did not come from a Delaware repair store where Hunter Biden had left his laptop to be repaired, as was claimed.
But instead, this letter suggested, it was Russian disinformation, which contained within it two claims.
Number one, that these materials and their emergence were engineered by the Kremlin.
And number two, it's disinformation, meaning they're false.
These documents are forged, they're unreliable, they're not authentic.
And based on that letter, which as I just got done highlighting, did not even claim that these intelligence officials were in possession of any evidence to prove it.
Let's put that up.
This is the letter that the 51 former intelligence officials Issued publicly, and you can see how strangely careful they are to not go farther than they wanted to go, or than the evidence allowed them to go.
They acknowledged a critical confession, which was, quote, we want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails provided to the New York Post by President Trump's attorney, Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not.
We don't know if they're genuine or not.
And we do not have evidence of Russian involvement.
They're making that clear.
Those two points.
They have no idea if these documents are genuine and they have no evidence of Russian involvement.
Nonetheless, they say, we want to leave clear that quote, our experience makes us deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role in this case.
And then they go on to say, if we are right, if we are right, this is Russia trying to influence how Americans vote in the election.
And we believe strongly that Americans need to be aware of this.
Now, why would anybody believe former operatives of the intelligence agencies that have the worst record of lying to the American people of any sector of American society?
And why would anyone believe this letter even more so, given that it's coming from, it's signed by, people who are admitting they want Joe Biden to win the election over Donald Trump, just like they supported Hillary Clinton.
These are the same 51 people who had spent the entire Trump presidency accusing him of treason, of being a Russian agent, of endorsing the collusion narrative Mueller could not prove.
And so just the fact that they were partisans in the election by itself warranted enormous amounts of skepticism.
But when they said, we have no evidence to believe this is true, it's just that our gut kind of tingles and sends a signal to our brain, because of our years of intuition, that this seems like the kind of thing Russians would do, that should have been the end of the story.
Everyone should have ignored the letter.
When people admit, especially operatives or partisans of a campaign, three weeks before an election, that the key statement they're making is one for which they have no evidence, it's not just that journalistic skepticism is warranted, it's that journalists should have ignored this letter entirely.
After all, it lacked the thing that journalists should need more than anything else, the first and most basic thing, evidence, in order to believe that something's true.
Journalists, though, did the opposite.
The corporate media did the opposite out of desperation to ensure Joe Biden won that election.
And I say they were desperate with first-hand experience.
Remember, I was inside of a media outlet that was founded in 2013 explicitly to be independent of the two parties in order not to be a media outlet that served the Democratic Party, a media outlet that was supposed to be adversarial to the intelligence community.
And yet the people who ran that outlet that was founded on my name were people who lived in Brooklyn.
They were liberals and leftists.
They had endured a lot of criticism in 2016 because we did our jobs in 2016 by reporting on the release that WikiLeaks made.
About Hillary Clinton.
The difference there was, there was evidence.
WikiLeaks had evidence.
The evidence was authentic.
And we used that authentic evidence to report critically on Hillary Clinton's campaign.
I think the editors of The Intercept allowed that only because they were sure Hillary Clinton would win anyway and it wouldn't matter.
And I remember very well when Donald Trump won, the night in Slack, which is the channel that media outlets use to commiserate and to meet, There was weeping in the Slack.
People were saying we should apologize to the world for the role we played in helping Donald Trump win the election, even though the role we played was purely journalistic.
We did our jobs.
We reported on authentic documents.
And The Intercept was like every other media outlet that reported on those documents.
They were determined not to repeat this, what they considered this mistake, which really was their job in 2020, so that they were determined to take any information that might be incriminating to Joe Biden and find a reason to bury it, to declare it discredited.
And so The Intercept, like every other news outlet, after this letter was issued, did say something that to this day is one of the biggest journalistic scandals and disgraces in the last several decades.
They went way further than these pro-Biden intelligence officials were willing to go by asserting that the laptop was Russian disinformation and that these intelligence officials said it was, when in fact, they hadn't said anything of the sort.
Here you see the very first article that Reported on this letter and it's very unsurprising how it came to be.
They took this letter and obviously that letter is not going to be reported on unless they call journalists to make them aware of that letter.
And the first journalist they called is the person who has done the most in the last six years since Trump was elected to serve mindlessly whatever the CIA tells her to say.
That's Natasha Bertrand.
She started at Business Insider.
She was obsessed with the fake Trump Alpha Bank story, the idea that Trump had a secret server with a Russian bank that allowed him to communicate in secret.
That was the story that Hillary Clinton's lawyer took to the FBI and the FBI immediately recognized it was a scam, that it was false.
It was baseless.
She was one of many reporters that claimed it was true, even though it was as much of a lie as this.
And because of that work she did undermining Donald Trump, she got promoted to MSNBC, where she did the same thing, told the same lies, served the CIA narrative.
She then got promoted to The Atlantic, Ground Zero for Russiagate, run by Jeffrey Goldberg, the Supreme Neocon, where David Frum is employed.
And then by then she had gotten promoted to Politico.
I've never seen a journalist promoted so rapidly in such a short time as Natasha Bertrand for serving the CIA.
So by the time she was at Politico, she was the journalist of choice for the CIA.
Whatever they gave her, she would repeat.
We've covered that many times.
Although every lie of Russiagate that there was the Havana syndrome, bounties on the Russian soldiers that Trump ignored, every single last lie she was there to endorse because she was the CIA spokesperson.
And she was the very first person to report on this story and it affected how it was perceived and look at the headline on the Politico story and contrast it with what the letter actually said.
The Politico story said, quote, a Hunter Biden story is Russian disinformation.
Dozens of former officials say let's put that headline up just so people can see the headline as contrasted with what the letter actually said.
There you see it.
There's no Hunter Biden's story might be Russian disinformation, former intel officials say, who admit they have no evidence.
It's that she lied.
She said they, the former intel officials, said it was Russian disinformation.
I just showed you what they actually said.
Now, obviously these intelligence officials knew exactly what they were doing.
They knew they were feeding it to a media desperate to lie for Joe Biden.
So none of this is surprising.
In fact, at no point when The Intercept told this lie, when CNN told this lie, did anyone ever stand up and say from this letter, oh wait, you're exaggerating what we said.
We didn't say it was Russian disinformation.
There you see the letter on the screen.
We, in fact, said specifically we want to emphasize we don't know if the emails are authentic and we do not have evidence of Russian involvement.
They didn't stand up and object because they wanted those headlines to be generated.
They knew they would be.
And they got what they wanted.
They got a lie.
They got a campaign of disinformation that the intelligence community engineered and imposed on the American public to interfere in and manipulate the outcome of the 2020 election.
That's why it's the worst disinformation campaign in modern political history, because it didn't come from the media.
It came from the intelligence community, which is duty-bound not to interfere in our politics.
Now, just to give you a sense for how widely and aggressively the media spread this story, do we have this video ready?
This video?
Okay, let's look at just how widely this lie percolated.
Obviously, we're not going with the New York Post story.
This is really one of the stupidest October surprises I've ever seen.
It helps to really view this as storytelling.
Not so much as news coverage, but as political entertainment.
NPR explained, we don't want to waste our time on stories that are not really stories.
Who even thought to make that story up?
It's a story that many intelligence experts say has all the hallmarks of a foreign interference campaign.
It looks like it's tied to Vladimir Putin in Moscow.
This is a Russian intelligence disinformation campaign.
Foreign intelligence operation.
Foreign intelligence operation.
Russian...
Rudy Giuliani was not fed passively Russian disinformation.
He ordered off the menu.
This is a classic example of the right-wing media machine.
And he's in the midst of a scandal.
He's not.
And he's taking... Of course he is, Leslie.
We should note Hunter Biden isn't running for president.
That argument has been debunked.
There is no evidence that Joe Biden For all we know, these emails are made up.
It just lacks credibility.
I would love if you guys would start doing that digging and start doing that verification.
No, we're not going to do your work for you.
I mean, there are so many examples of them saying this is information that ought not even be considered.
It is fake.
It comes from the Russians over and over and over and over.
And all these liars had from the very beginning was that letter from trained liars and the CIA.
I mean, if you are a journalist and you don't harbor extreme skepticism more than for anybody else, the people who work in the CIA and the intelligence community, you have no idea what you're doing.
Those are trained liars.
They're career liars.
They're the ones who lied the country into the Vietnam War with lies about the Gulf of Tonkin incident to justify a resolution to use military force against North Vietnam.
They're the ones who spread the lies about weapons of mass destruction.
All the Russiagate lies emanated from them.
Originally, they were supposed to engage in disinformation campaigns to destabilize other countries.
And so dangerous were these dark arts that embedded in their mission was they could never turn their powers inward.
And yet, that's all they do now.
That is their primary focal point.
The US security state, as we're going to talk to Darren Beatty about, explicitly says that their number one enemy is no longer foreign terrorist groups or foreign states, but our domestic extremists.
That is their primary focus.
And that's exactly what they did here.
And instead of having any skepticism toward it, the journalists not only repeated it, but took it and made it far more extreme than it actually was.
Now, let me show you what I consider the most egregious example.
And remember, these are the people.
These are the outlets that constantly whine about disinformation.
They have disinformation experts on.
They think it's justified for them to be able to censor the media to protect you from disinformation.
Who spreads disinformation more than these propaganda agents?
So here is CNN and this is I find so incredible.
They have a huge team of people on their payroll who used to work for the U.S.
security state.
They come now right from the CIA, the FBI, the NSA and the Justice Department onto the payroll of NBC News and CNN.
It's almost impossible to turn one on one of those networks and see a panel that doesn't contain agents of the U.S.
security state.
And on this particular panel, on October 17th, we're talking about two weeks before the election, seven days or five days after the New York Post published its story, CNN called one of their employees, James Clapper, who used to be Obama's senior national security official, the top national security official in the Obama administration, is now working for CNN disseminating the news.
And remember, it was James Clapper whose biggest scandal was he got caught lying Red-handed to the US Senate when he was asked by Senator Ron Wyden whether the NSA collects data on millions of Americans and he said no.
And it was three months later Edward Snowden came forward in part because of that lie and furnished the documents to me and others proving that James Clapper had lied on purpose.
That exactly what he denied the NSA was doing was what they were in fact doing for many years.
So he's not just someone from the security state on the CNN payroll, he's a known liar And look at what they aired about the information provided by the New York Post based on this Biden laptop.
Obama.
So, Judge, a bunch of questions from this.
Let me just start with this.
How much does the source matter, right?
So you hear the story of this laptop.
We don't know a lot.
We do know that the way that this information is getting out is through Steve Bannon and Rudy Giuliani.
How much does the source matter here?
Well, source matters a lot and the timing matters a lot, I think.
Let me just interrupt there because just that claim alone is important and worth considering.
The source matters a lot.
That is something every journalist knows is a lie.
In 2016, somebody, to this day no one knows who, including the reporters who worked on the story, mailed to the New York Times newsroom, just dropped in the mail, a year's worth of Donald Trump's tax returns.
The New York Times took those tax returns, verified that they were true, sufficient to their confidence level, and then reported on their contents.
To this day, they have no idea who the source was for those materials.
It's illegal to disclose someone's documents without their permission.
Whoever did it committed a crime by definition.
It could have been a foreign power that hated Donald Trump.
It could have been Venezuelan hackers.
It could have been Iranian hackers.
It could have been Palestinian hackers.
It could have been Cuban hackers.
Could have been anyone.
No one has any idea who the source was for the New York Times, but they publish it anyway because the source doesn't matter.
All that matters is the document.
The only two questions are, is the document authentic and is it in the public interest?
So even if it were true that Russia had played some role in generating this archive, showing what the Biden family was doing in China and Ukraine, Like the Democrats to this day claim it was true that Russia played some role in WikiLeaks' ability to report on the Clinton campaign and the DNC.
It wouldn't matter at all from a journalistic perspective.
All that would matter is, are the documents true?
We know the documents are true.
And are they in the public interest?
Do they shed light on the Biden family?
Which of course they do.
Just like the WikiLeaks materials did.
But what the media did in the four years between those WikiLeaks reports and this is they started changing their rules that they had operated by for decades, for centuries.
Where they basically adopted a rule saying if we think of materials that are damaging to the Democratic Party come from a foreign power or in any way were the result of foreign government actions we would take that into account and perhaps not show the American people them even if the documents are true and we know they're true and even if they're in the public interest.
A complete corruption of the journalistic function and something no media outlets had ever We do know that the way that this information is getting out is through Steve Bannon and Rudy Giuliani.
Donald Trump lost this time.
So even that beginning part of this statement from James Clapper, the source matters a lot, is something that every journalist who has a minimal amount of knowledge or integrity would tell you is false.
But let's listen to the more important thing that he says.
We do know that the way that this information is getting out is through Steve Bannon and Rudy Giuliani.
How much does the source matter here?
Well, source matters a lot, and the timing matters a lot, I think.
And to me, this is just classic textbook Soviet-Russian tradecraft at work.
The Russians have analyzed the target.
They understand that the president and his enablers crave dirt on Vice President Biden.
Whether it's real or contrived, it doesn't matter to them.
And so all of a sudden, two and a half weeks before the election, this laptop appears somehow, and emails on it without any metadata.
It's all very curious.
So that is CNN, two weeks before the election, telling the country an absolute lie.
That this is Soviet tradecraft, the Russians are involved, and this was all over.
The media.
The media that tells you they hate disinformation, lying to the American public on purpose, and then as you know...
Big tech, not just Twitter, but also Facebook.
Based on this lie that this was hacked by the Russians, that it was disinformation, Brute censored the story.
Twitter refused to allow the story to be aired or mentioned for days.
And Facebook, even worse, through a longtime Democratic operative named Andy Stone, algorithmically suppressed the story.
Until the election, they prevented it spread, they prevented Americans from hearing about the reporting, all based on this lie that emanated from, at least we always thought, from the intelligence community through that letter.
Now, the reality that we're now learning is a little bit different.
Because new facts have emerged that shed actual light on how this all happened.
Now, first of all, let's remember that the intelligence community was preparing big tech and media outlets to anticipate that a dump of information incriminating against Joe Biden was coming and tried to lead them to anticipate that it was Russian disinformation and they should censor it.
Here's Mark Zuckerberg telling Joe Rogan in August of 2022 that the FBI warning is what prompted Facebook to censor the laptop story.
In other words, Facebook suppressed it and censored it and Mark Zuckerberg said it's because for months the FBI was warning Facebook there's likely something coming that is Russian disinformation.
They were ready to label anything that emerged against Joe Biden as Russian disinformation in order to induce Facebook to do their censorship for them to interfere in the election and not allow Americans to see that evidence.
Now, As I said earlier, this lie has been debunked many, many times by many news outlets.
Even before the 2020 election, there was way more evidence than necessary to know that this laptop was authentic.
That's why I was willing to stake my career on it.
I had a battle with The Intercept and my editors and was ready to put my name on reporting based on I knew it was authentic.
The evidence was overwhelming.
If you actually wanted to know, the evidence was there.
But since the election is over and Joe Biden has been safely elected, the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, and here's CBS, all came out, and there you see CBS's admission, quote, copy of what's believed to be Hunter Biden's laptop data turned over by repair shop to FBI shows no tampering, analysis said.
So they were able to confirm, A, that it came exactly the way that The Trump campaign and people promoting this material said it did, which is Hunter Biden left it at that laptop in Delaware and never picked it up.
It became their property and he turned it over to the FBI.
And most importantly, it's completely authentic.
It was never tampered with.
The documents were true all along.
Not a single media outlet, not one media outlet that we just showed you and all the others that we didn't, that repeated the slide before the election, not a single one has gone back and told their audience, looked in the camera and said, look, you probably remember before the election, We told you these documents were fake.
We told you that Russia was behind the leak.
It has since emerged definitive proof that these documents were in fact genuine, that Russia had no role, and so what we told you was fake, was false.
We thereby retracted it, we apologized for it, and this is how we got it wrong.
Not a single one has done that, or even mentioned This long line of reporting that subsequently authenticated the documents and grappled with how they told this lie because they wanted to tell the lie.
They don't need to apologize for the lie because their audience is glad they lied.
Because they know these media outlets are partisan activists.
They wanted the media outlets to lie on behalf of Joe Biden.
The Intercept, despite the huge conflict it had with me, I left in a very loud way.
It was covered by every media outlet my departure because my argument was a week earlier, you lied and said this archive was Russian disinformation and as a result refused to let me publish it.
Never once said, you know what, he was right.
They don't need to apologize because they're a closed system of information.
Whatever disrupts their narrative, they ignore.
They have that power.
So often, the biggest news items in conservative media aren't debunked or disputed in liberal media outlets or in corporate media.
They're simply ignored.
You'd be amazed how often Democratic partisans and establishment liberals have no idea what the stories are outside of CNN and MSNBC because they don't ever hear of them.
They live in a closed information system.
These outlets don't air dissent.
They don't put anyone on who has a different perspective of the world.
Except in the approved ways, and so these stories never penetrate.
And that is absolutely true of this new development in this story that sheds remarkable light on this entire series of events.
Because as it turned out, Michael Morell, who was the former CIA director under President Obama, he was the acting CIA director, who was an ardent supporter of Hillary Clinton,
And let's just stop there for one second before we get to this letter to point out that in 2016, George Bush and Dick Cheney's CIA director, Michael Hayden, went to the Washington Post to endorse Hillary Clinton and write an article saying Donald Trump is a Russian agent unqualified for the presidency.
Michael Morrell, Obama's CIA director, so one former Republican, now a Democrat, went to the New York Times and did the same thing.
Ardently endorsed Hillary Clinton and said Donald Trump is an agent of the Kremlin and therefore unqualified for the presidency.
Why was the entire CIA, the directors under first George Bush and then Barack Obama, so united in their desire to stop Donald Trump from ascending to the presidency and ensuring Hillary Clinton won instead?
And then here those same people are in 2020, the same exact people, who signed that letter, who spread lies to the American people to interfere in our politics, with a disinformation campaign with the aid of the media, who did the same thing.
And so now that the Republicans have control of the House and are able to engage in oversight and investigations, one of the things they're investigating is the origins of that letter.
As they should.
That was the CIA interfering in our politics, our domestic politics, the one thing they're never supposed to do, and doing so with lies.
So the House, to their credit, wants to find out what happened.
And so they interviewed one of the key people who organized the letter, former CIA director under Obama, acting CIA director, deputy director of the CIA, Michael Morrell.
And here in this letter, Jim Jordan, who is the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, along with Michael Turner, who's the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, wrote a letter to Anthony Blinken, the current Secretary of State, who at the time was a senior advisor in the Biden campaign, asking him about the role that he Anthony Blinken played in organizing this letter.
And the reason they know he did that was because Michael Morrell testified that he did.
So here we have on the screen the key excerpts that are brand new facts about who was really behind this letter.
How did this letter come to deceive the American public and interfere in and manipulate the 2020 election?
And they interviewed Michael Morrell.
Here's the letter.
It says, quote, the committees, meaning the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees, recently conducted a transcribed interview with Michael Morrell, a former deputy director of the CIA and one of the 51 signatories of the public statement.
In his transcribed interview, Morrell testified that on or around October 17, 2020, you, meaning Secretary Blinken, reached out to him to discuss the Hunter Biden laptop story.
At the time, you served as a senior advisor to the Biden campaign.
According to Morrell, although your outreach was couched as simply gathering Morrell's reaction to the Post story, it set in motion the events that led to the issuance of the public statement.
Morrell testified under oath, quote, this is the question, but prior to Secretary Blinken's call, you did not have any intent to write this statement.
Morrell, answer, I did not.
Question, okay, so his call triggered Morrell.
It did, yes.
Question, that interest in you triggered that interest in you?
Morrell, yes, absolutely.
That same day, October 17th, you also emailed Morrell.
Blinkin' did.
An article published in USA Today alleging that the FBI was examining under the Hunter Biden laptop was part of a disinformation campaign.
The very bottom of the email you sent to Morrell included the signature block of Andrew Bates, then director of rapid response for the Biden campaign.
Morell testified that his communication with you was one of the few communications he had with the Biden campaign, explaining that he had also received a call from Steve Ricchetti, chairman of the Biden campaign, following the October 22nd debate to thank him for writing this statement.
He testified, quote, after the debate, I think it was an after the debate.
In fact, I'm pretty sure it was after the debate.
I got a call from Jeremy Bash, who I work with at Beacon and who is active politically.
And Jeremy said, do you have a minute to talk to Steve Ruscetti, the Biden campaign chief?
I said yes, of course.
He was the head of the Biden campaign at the time.
Jeremy got him on the line, and Steve Ruscetti thanked me for putting the statement out.
And that was the extent of the conversation.
Morrell also explained that the Biden campaign helped to strategize about the public release of that statement.
Morell testified, quote, question, what was the intent of the statement?
Answer, there were two intents.
One intent was to share our concern with the American people that the Russians were playing on this issue.
And two, it was to help Vice President Biden.
Chairman Jordan, question, you wanted to help the Vice President, why?
Answer, because I wanted him to win the election.
Chairman Jordan, you wanted him to win, that's why?
Answer, yes, sir.
So it's not surprising, but it's nonetheless proof That the reason these CIA operatives and these intelligence officials interfered in our 2020 election that way is with the specific purpose of facilitating a specific outcome, namely the defeat of Donald Trump and the victory of Joe Biden.
Why are the senior members of the intelligence community, why were they so desperate to make sure Donald Trump lost both in 2016 and 2020?
But the more important point here is that the genesis, the catalyst for this letter, were calls from the Biden campaign, from Anthony Blinken in particular, and then from the chairman of the Biden campaign, who called the CIA director kind of saying, what do you think of this, Hunter Biden?
Laptop story.
What do you, what's your view of it?
Kind of encouraging him and pushing him to go and gather a group of intelligence officials and issue this letter containing false statements.
Morrell said it had never occurred to me to do that until Antony Blinken called him.
Now, one of the things when I first started writing about politics that was one of the worst things the media had done as part of the War on Terror, and this is what happened all the time, is Dick Cheney was a master at this tactic.
Dick Cheney would get somebody inside the Pentagon like Paul Wolfowitz or other neocons or people close to the Cheney campaign to leak lies to the New York Times that they wanted the New York Times to publish because it would help the Bush-Cheney administration sell the Iraq War to liberals, to the American people.
So they would get leaks from Cheney.
Intelligence shows that Saddam Hussein is on the market for aluminum tubes of the kind that can only be used for nuclear weapons.
So the New York Times would publish, on the front page, Saddam Hussein in the market for aluminum tubes that are only used for nukes, officials say.
And it came from Dick Cheney.
That day, Dick Cheney would then go on to meet the press, and he would be asked, you keep saying Saddam Hussein has an active nuclear weapons program, what evidence can you show us And Dick Cheney would say, obviously, I can't show you any evidence because it's classified.
I can't, unfortunately, reveal intelligence with you.
But look today in the New York Times.
Just go read the New York Times this morning.
Even they say that Saddam Hussein is on the market for aluminum tubes of the kind that can only be used for nuclear weapons.
So Cheney would cause the leak, filled with lies.
And then he would cite that leak as though it didn't come from him, as though it was completely independent and provided independent neutral proof for what he was saying.
And according to Mike Morrell's testimony under oath, that's exactly what happened here.
The Biden administration injected into the bloodstream of the intelligence community their need for this letter.
They then went and published this letter that was very cautious in what it said, knowing the media would take it and exaggerate it and say it said things it didn't say.
They left out the part where they admitted they had no evidence.
And then Joe Biden, when he was on the few occasions asked by reporters about the revelations of the New York Post about what his son was doing in Ukraine and what he was doing in China and pursuing profitable deals, Joe Biden would say that's Russian disinformation.
One of the few times a reporter asked Joe Biden about this was during during the campaign was when Bo Erickson of CBS News Took a microphone and put it in Biden's face after he was getting off his campaign plane.
And all he did was say, Mr. President or Mr. Vice President, what is your response to these revelations that show that your son was trading on your name in Ukraine and that you were part of profitable deals in China trading on your name?
And Biden would say, what are you doing?
Working for Putin?
Citing this letter that the Biden campaign actually helped arrange.
And for doing his job, Bo Erikson was mauled on social media by his colleagues, by other journalists, who accused him of doing the work of the Kremlin, because he was pursuing what turned out to be all along accurate documents, accurate materials.
And then Joe Biden himself, in the two debates that he had with Donald Trump, where Trump brought up this laptop, said, oh, everyone knows that's Russian.
You're using, you're doing Putin's bidding.
So it was the Biden campaign that originated this lie we now know, working with their allies in the intelligence community, getting their allied media outlets to spread this lie two weeks before the campaign, getting their allied big tech firms to censor the reporting, and then having Joe Biden himself cite
This lie, this false letter of disinformation from the CIA, as though he had nothing to do with it, claiming, oh, I don't know, the CIA says this is Russia, so I don't need to answer this.
Do you see this multi-institutional scam that this was?
And as I just said a few minutes ago, the thing that amazes me the most is that there is an essential blackout on this information about the role the Biden administration played.
I'm not saying that blackout is absolute.
If you try hard enough, you can probably find a CNN article or a New York Times article that alludes to it and mentions it on the way to debunking it and dismissing it.
But I will guarantee you that you have on the one hand conservative outlets that have treated this as the extraordinarily important revelation it is.
Given the magnitude of this lie, and I will guarantee you that 90-95% maybe more of news consumers of liberal outlets like CNN, the New York Times, and the Washington Post, and NBC News, don't have a negative opinion of this story.
They have no idea that it took place.
That is how partisan and polarized our media is.
They just block out stories that undermine their narrative in any way.
And so you have this gigantic revelation That most people in the country won't end up hearing about unless they listen to independent media like the show or the now dead Tucker Carlson program or other shows that aren't captive to this narrative.
And that is amazing because it is crucial to realize where the disinformation comes from.
It comes from those people who constantly claim they're combating it.
As most of you know, this show, System Update, is independent journalism.
We are part of independent media.
And what that means is we have no corporate management, no corporate structure to which we report that supervises or controls our show in any way.
And because of that, being independent media, We need ways to fund the show, to ensure that we can present to you a professionalized show here in a professionalized studio with a fairly large team that helps me and works with me to put the show together.
And that, in turn, means that there are two ways we can do that.
One is we rely on viewer and reader support, which used to mean Substack subscriptions, and now it means people who join our community on Locals.
And the other important means is we have sponsors for our show.
That's something we decided to do when we launched it.
That's something necessary to do that.
But what I made clear to everybody when that was proposed is that I would never, ever look into the camera and talk about a product that didn't completely align with my values and that I didn't feel my full integrity in order to talk about.
And we have already rejected a whole variety of proposed sponsors, things like my recommending to you investment vehicles or different places to put your money.
or different companies that I didn't know much about and don't feel comfortable recommending because the trust that I've built up over the years with my viewers and my readers is something that is invaluable and I would never trade away.
So we are really excited to have our first sponsor, which is Field of Greens, that completely aligns with everything I believe in, with my life, the way in which I live my life, and I feel not just willing, but excited to recommend it.
There are obviously a ton of supplements on the market.
You probably hear about them all the time when you watch these shows, but this is a fruit and vegetable supplement that's specifically designed with each fruit and vegetable to target a specific part of your body like your cardiovascular system, your liver and kidney health, your immune system, your metabolism.
As some of you might know, I am a vegan.
I stopped eating factory food meat many years ago, and in part it's because I love animals so much and didn't want to support their industrialized torture, but also it's just for health reasons because factory farming food is just a vector of infection and disease, and it's incredibly unhealthy.
And as you start to get older, if you haven't already, you will start to see you have to start focusing on your health if you want to stay fit and energized and And Field of Greens really helps you do that.
It will immediately start making you feel healthier, more energetic, your skin will be visibly brightened, your hair will look healthier, you will be slimmer, and they really believe in their product so much that if you begin taking it and don't immediately see benefits, they actually give you a refund.
They're very confident, I've seen it, that people who begin taking it, people start saying, You look really young.
What are you doing with your hair?
Have you done something with your skin?
It's just an overall fitness level that it really does provide you.
And so as part of becoming our first sponsor, what they have done is they've created a way to help you get started, which is that you can get 15% off of your first order and another 10% off when you subscribe for recurring orders.
You just visit fieldofgreens.com and you use the promo code Glenn, G-L-E-N-N.
That's fieldofgreens.com, promo code Glenn.
That will help you and your health.
that helps the show, and it enables us to have sponsors that are only the kinds of sponsors that I feel very good about having and that are in full alignment with my values and the way I live.
Many things have been odd about January 6th and the reaction to it, beginning with the need to call it an insurrection, which is a way of intending being able to criminalize a huge portion of the United which is a way of intending being able to criminalize a huge portion of the United States by claiming that what at best was a three-hour riot was really some credible attempt to overthrow the most
But another extremely interesting fact is that we know for certain that the FBI had its tentacles in the three key groups that it says most aggressively organized the January 6th riot, including the Proud Boys, the Three Percenters, and the Oath Keepers.
And yet, there seems to be very little interest And asking either what did the FBI know as a result of its agents and infiltrants inside these organizations or asking why the FBI, given how it has infiltrated these groups, didn't know more than it did in advance about the intentions of these rioters to enter the Capitol using force and violence.
There's no interest in that at all.
Except on the part of our next guest and a couple of other people.
But another very weird part is that there have been close to 1,000 people, maybe a little more now, prosecuted and arrested in connection with January 6th, the vast majority of whom are not even accused of using violence.
Nonviolent protesters.
Some of whom have been given many years in prison, including Jacob Selzy, the so-called Q Shaman, who is, you see him on video, you know he didn't engage in violence, he's not accused of violence, and yet he got a four-year sentence in federal prison after spending nine months in solitary confinement prior to trial.
The kind of things usually liberals would be screaming bloody murder about And as many people as they've swept up in what they boast is the most vibrant, aggressive law enforcement investigation in history, there's one person who we see in video egging on the crowd, being one of the most vocal leaders of it, urging people to invade the Capitol.
And yet, bizarrely, he's not only one of the people who never got arrested, despite how many people who played very ancillary and passive roles have, He's somebody that liberals are now almost turning into a hero.
His name is Ray Epps.
Look at the things we know that he did on video as part of those events.
Base bed posting?
We need to go into the Capitol!
I didn't see that coming.
Okay.
Our president is not speaking.
We are going to the Capitol where our problems are.
- Oh my God, we're going to go. - Oh my God, we're going to go! - Hey, Corey! - So you would think the person who did all that on video would be someone whose head the government, the Democratic Party, and liberal media figures would be calling for the Democratic Party, and liberal media figures would be calling for on a And yet the opposite has happened.
He's never been arrested.
People who ask questions about why get attacked by these liberals.
And just this week, 60 Minutes ran a segment with Ray Epps.
That was very favorable to kind of turn him into a victim to say that because some people have asked questions about why he was oddly not one of the people arrested, his life has turned into this constant barrage of threats and the people to blame are those who've been asking questions.
Look at a couple of these 60-minute clips.
That question has animated Fox News host Tucker Carlson for nearly two years.
Ray Epps?
He's on video several times encouraging crimes, riots, breaches of the Capitol.
Carlson has focused on Epps more than 20 times on his top-rated show, a half-dozen times so far this year.
He's obsessed with me.
He's going to any means possible to destroy my life and our lives.
Why?
To shift blame on somebody else.
If you look at it, Fox News, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Ted Cruz, Gates, they're all telling us before this thing that it was stolen.
So you tell me, who has more impact on people, them or me?
Epps, once a loyal Fox News watcher, told us he doesn't understand how he got cast as the villain.
The Epps version is more mundane.
They believed the 2020 election had been stolen from Donald Trump and considered January 6th a legitimate protest.
It was a sloppy election.
And then to top that off, you have talking heads reporting that there's problems with the voting machines and different things like that.
The election's stolen.
So yeah, we had concerns.
I wanted to be there.
I wanted to witness this with my own eyes.
No, obviously the main question that has led people to focus on him is, given the very aggressive role he played at the center of these events, why wasn't he one of the people arrested?
They just kind of assume over and over that these questions are invalid and in bad faith, but they never actually answer them.
Here's one attempt where they actually confront Ray Epps with some pretty incriminating writing that he left and try and get him to justify or reconcile what he said with what he's now trying to say.
I was in front with a few others.
I also orchestrated it.
Explain this to me.
I was boasting to my nephew.
I helped get people there.
I was directing people to the Capitol that morning.
You know how this sounds.
I know exactly how it sounds.
I've been...
Scolded by my wife for using that word.
I shouldn't have used that word.
So we see him on video orchestrating it and we see him in his own writing saying he orchestrated it.
How is it possible?
I'm not saying he worked for the FBI or anything like that, but I definitely want to know why he is somebody who has gotten very special treatment not being arrested and now being defended by the likes of 60 Minutes and others.
One of the people who's the best to talk to about all of these events is the reporter who has done as much to shed light on What the FBI might have known about this event and Ray Epps and the questions surrounding him.
He's Darren Beatty who is a former Trump White House speechwriter.
He is an investigative reporter with the Revolver News where he does some very good dissident reporting.
He's been on our show before and we're delighted to have him on again tonight.
Darren, good evening.
Great to see you.
How are you?
Wonderful.
Fantastic to be back.
Absolutely.
So there are a lot of things I never thought I would see in my life.
One of them is a bunch of left liberals and media, including 60 Minutes, going to bat on behalf of somebody who, in every other instance, they would consider a terrorist and an insurrectionist, somebody who they'd want rotting in prison for the rest of their lives.
And yet in the case of Ray Epps, he got a full red carpet 60 Minutes segment.
What do you make of that?
Well, it is bizarre.
You know, as you point out, on paper, he's precisely the sort of January 6th participant that the regime would want to make an example of.
He's the only person caught on camera as early as the 5th, exhorting the crowd to go into the Capitol, into the Capitol.
He's a veritable Where's Waldo on the 6th.
He's everywhere, directing people to the Capitol, quote-unquote, where our problems truly lie.
It's in that direction.
Spread the word.
He has an exchange slightly before the first breach with an individual, saying, when we go in, leave this here.
And of course, he's famously depicted right before the breach, whispering into an individual's ear before he breaks through.
His text messages show that he says he orchestrated it, and his behavior was initially considered so egregious he was one of the first 20 people the FBI put on its January 6 Most Wanted list.
The New York Times, before it was doing puff pieces on Epps, featured Epps in its ominously titled Day of Rage showcase on January 6th.
Of all the footage they could have used to emphasize how dark and foreboding this quote-unquote insurrection was, they chose the footage of Ray Epps urging people to go into the Capitol.
And yet, something strange happened.
At a certain point, The FBI quietly took Ray Epps off of the FBI's most wanted list.
The New York Times goes from featuring him in its Day of Rage piece to doing a fully dedicated puff piece on Ray Epps, a full sympathy profile.
And then the 60 Minutes, another mainstream outlet, does this sympathy piece on him.
And of course, Adam Kinzinger, who's never met a Trump supporter he didn't want to see rotting away in prison for 50 years, Uniquely comes to the defense of Ray Epps, and the latest development is perhaps the most shocking.
Ray Epps' new legal counsel that he's evidently retained in order to intimidate me and Tucker Carlson with defamation threats, his new counsel is an employee of notorious disgraced Democrat hatchet man David Brock.
And he's a former employee of the Democrat-aligned law firm Perkins Coie, which is best known for basically being the laboratory in which the now-discredited Steele dossier was cooked up.
So it's a very, very strange bedfellows indeed for the former head of the Arizona chapter of the Oath Keepers, who is depicted in camouflage gear and a Trump hat, You mentioned the tweet by former Republican weeping Congressman Adam Kinzinger, who very predictably got hired by CNN the minute he could no longer get reelected to Congress.
And this is what he tweeted.
Why are we defending Ray Epps, who was at January 6th?
Because it exposed the lies and sickness of people like Congressman Thomas Massie, Ted Cruz, Tucker Carlson, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Matt Gaetz, sunlight, disinfects, evil.
Now, the argument that people in 60 Minutes are making, the mainstream media are making is, look, The FBI has been repeatedly asked whether Ray Epps ever worked for them and they have continuously stated unequivocally that he has not.
Ray Epps has said over and over that he has never worked for the FBI.
And though you have questions that you just raised, you don't actually have evidence that he did work for the FBI.
So why isn't the combination of those denials and that lack of evidence sufficient to resolve this inquiry?
Well, you're missing the fact that the 60 Minutes segment also included the authoritative testimony of some overweight guy with crooked teeth from the third-rate neoconservative think tank, FDD, to simply tell the audience, there's nothing to the Ray Epps story.
I'm sorry, I missed your description of him.
Could you repeat that?
What is it?
How does he look?
Well, he's a guy with chubby cheeks and crooked teeth that they plucked out of the trash can of the third tier, actually third tier is being too generous, maybe a fifth tier neoconservative think tank that's a laughingstock called FDD, and he does consulting work for the FBI.
So not only do you have the word of Ray Epps, against me and the January 6th committee, but you also have some third-rate neocon hack who does consulting work for the FBI say, "Oh, there's nothing to the Ray Epps story." So, I mean, I guess I'm fully discredited here.
But in all seriousness, to take Kinzinger's claim that sunlight is the best disinfectant, I would love sunlight on this.
I would love if it, if they had asked the basic questions, where did Ray Epps get this idea to go into the Capitol?
Why was he so persistent about it?
Why does Ray Epps think, even though he prefaced in this methodical rehearsed Seemingly professional fashion.
He didn't just tell the crowd to go into the Capitol.
He said, I'm probably going to get arrested for this.
I'm probably going to go to jail for this.
Why don't you think you were arrested?
Why don't you think you went to jail?
What explanation do they possibly have for this unique level of protection that he enjoys that nobody else seems to?
There's no innocent explanation for this.
As to the FBI bit, I mean, again, it's a completely simplistic mischaracterization of Revolver's reporting here, because I've never maintained that he works for the FBI.
I personally don't think he's worked for the FBI.
In fact, before he retained this lawyer from the Clinton machine, he had a lawyer who was a nine-year veteran of the Phoenix FBI field office who went on this publicity tour.
Emphasizing that Ray Epps had never worked for the FBI or any law enforcement agency.
And he clung to this law enforcement agency phrase for dear life.
The Department of Homeland Security is not a law enforcement agency.
Military intelligence is not a law enforcement agency.
Any private sector contractor cutout group that works at the behest of indirectly those organizations is not going to be a law enforcement agency.
So the specific focus on the FBI, I think, is kind of ridiculous and misleading and amounts to a kind of fake refutation.
They don't answer any of the truly damning questions that surround Epps.
Where did he get this idea to go into the Capitol in the first place?
Why wasn't he arrested like everybody else?
Including people who did far less.
Including people who did far less.
Why is he the lone J6 participant about whom, you know, the New York Times will write a puff piece on all these others.
When prior, you know, back before Revolver started writing about federal involvement, he was on the FBI Most Wanted list.
The New York Times was featuring him in a very different context.
And As part of the Day of Rage, why this about face?
These pointed questions are not even explored in the 60 Minutes piece, and that's the insult to injury, is that the 60 Minutes piece references Revolver News' reporting over five times, and they find time to interview this fifth-rate, you know, garbage-tier neocon hack, who doesn't even explain why the rate It's not a good situation.
He's not a person who should be on national television.
He's not a good representative for the, you know, you'd think that the feds could find someone a bit more photogenic than that, or at least someone with good credentials.
That's the insult.
At least get someone from the Brookings Institution who, you know, went to a university ranked in the top hundred at least, but they went to the bottom of the barrel, I think, because they knew it would irritate me.
In fairness to them, I mean, the pickings when it comes to neocons is not that deep and abundant.
So let me ask you this, Darren, because this is the issue that always strikes me so much.
It's not so much about just re-apps.
I remember when you first reported it and you went on Tucker Carlson's show and he began asking these questions.
And I remember Huffington Post and that whole crew immediately said, these are conspiracy theories.
This is paranoid.
And number one, you know, if you just look at the history of the FBI, it's little more than infiltrating groups they regard as dissident and anti-establishment groups going back to the 50s and the 60s.
They had their hands in every anti-war group and every group that was in any way opposed to the U.S. security state.
We know for sure because they admit it that they have their hands in the three groups that they say coordinated January 6th, the Pallboys, the Oath Keepers and the three percenters.
security state officially says that the greatest threat to U.S.
national security to which all of their resources, or most of their resources, are now devoted is not ISIS, Al Qaeda, or China, or Iran, or Russia, but right-wing domestic extremists.
The idea that they didn't have agents and informants and all kinds of infiltration in these groups is impossible to believe, and yet there's not only no interest in finding out, but if you ask those questions, you're immediately branded a conspiracy theorist.
What has the experience like for you been in just trying to get some answers to these questions?
Well, you know, this Fed's direction, I maintain that Ray Epps and the pipe bombs, which we've both covered extensively, are the twin smoking guns of the January 6th Fed's direction.
I also maintain if one were intellectually honest, one could be vehemently opposed to Trump.
One could think that Trump lost the election.
One could think that Overwhelmingly, the crowd was misbehaved and Trump supporters.
And yet when looking at the evidence pertaining to Ray Epps and the pipe bomb situation, an intellectually honest person who held all of those other views, which I don't subscribe to, would have to conclude that in both cases, It defies any innocent explanation.
And, you know, that's the problem is that 60 Minutes, the mainstream, they're not interested in treating these matters in good faith.
They're here to consolidate the regime's narrative on things.
And I think it was quite amazing.
I remember very well after going on Tucker the first time to talk about the Fed's direction.
The reaction was absolutely profound.
The regime went apoplectic.
Everyone freaked out.
It was conspiracy theory, this or that.
Everyone started attacking me, attacking Revolver, attacking Tucker.
Because really, if it hadn't been for Revolver's coverage and Tucker's brave amplification, the national narrative would be very different on January 6th.
And there was a lot at stake for the regime.
This was the pretext for the completion of this Weaponization of the national security state against the American people.
And by delegitimizing this pretextual narrative, we've really made it difficult for them, given them an unexpected headache, at least, in terms of moving forward with their full agenda.
And so there was a lot at stake.
And you can really see every now and then, you know, in the media, you step outside of the playpen.
Tucker was basically the only person on American mainstream television who was willing to step outside of the playpen.
This is an instance of being outside of the playpen.
Challenging the official narrative of January 6th is outside of the playpen, and that means the stakes are a lot higher and it's a lot more dangerous, and you will get attacked.
You will get incoming.
And to be honest, it's been an incredible inconvenience in so many different ways.
But here we are.
I mean, I think it speaks volumes, the reaction itself.
The thing about it is, even if you were somebody completely naive, who had no idea the FBI has done this repeatedly throughout its history, infiltrate groups they regard in any way as kind of threatening,
You would still want to then ask the questions from the opposite direction, which is you would be angry at the FBI for not having infiltrated these groups sufficiently to have known January 6th was coming and had gained the ability to stop it.
In other words, if you were in Congress, you would say, we give you Billions and billions of dollars a year for surveillance technology, and we give you surveillance authorities, and you have all these informants and agents at your disposal.
You told us these are the groups you regard as the most threatening.
How is it even remotely excusable if you didn't have, you know, radar on these groups?
How is that possible that you didn't?
Shouldn't you have that?
But they never really make them answer that question.
Well, you know, it's funny you should say that because the congressional exchange, which really precipitated our first major piece on January 6th, was actually an exchange between Amy Klobuchar.
I remember this.
Yeah, go ahead.
And Christopher Wray, where she said, you know, in retrospect, don't you just kick yourself that you didn't have informants in any way?
See, she does him the service of being presumptive here and just assuming there were no informants, and he doesn't correct her on the matter.
She just says, don't you just kick yourself that you didn't have anyone?
And of course, subsequently, we learned that, you know, the Proud Boys was littered with informants.
They had Informants texting their handlers in real time as January 6th unfolded.
Even the New York Times said that, that the FBI had operatives on the ground, informants on the ground.
Right.
The number two guy of the Oath Keepers is revealed to have been an FBI informant.
The, you know, the head of the Proud Boys is like, who wasn't an informant at this point?
And so indeed they had informants everywhere and therefore they were presumably informed And the question is, why didn't they do anything to stop it?
But the case of Ray Epps and the pipe bomb, I think, are still more damning because it's one thing to know what's going on and do nothing to stop an event for one political purposes.
But to actively instigate is another matter and even more damning.
And of course, the pipe bomb is a story unto itself that we've spoken about in a separate interview.
And so it's just really dark.
It's really dirty.
They're protecting this narrative at all costs.
They're closing ranks.
And they've enlisted their most loyal janitorial squad to do the mop-up job here.
And they got their most loyal and obedient regime janitor at the New York Times called Alan Foyer.
And they got some third-tier janitors for 60 minutes.
I guess it's a lower-tier operation.
So they have to dig deeper into the barrel for the janitors for the night shift.
Darren, so just briefly, because you mentioned Tucker and the fact that he was the one person who put you on his show.
I've had that experience many times with stories I've worked on and reported that that was the only show that would cover that.
And there's a reason, which is that he deliberately created a space for the kind of dissent that wasn't available anywhere else.
Now, in a very odd way, very abrupt way, He has, quote, separated from Fox News.
There's been no reliable reporting about what exactly happened.
I haven't talked to Tucker since then.
I know many people close to him who haven't either, so I don't purport to know exactly what the immediate events were leading up to it.
But, and I don't know anyone who does either, but what do you make of this event?
Well, it's kind of like what I said earlier, is that Tucker was unique, not only with respect to his colleagues at Fox News, but with respect to the American media generally.
He was, on many critical issues, the lone voice in American mainstream media who would present an alternative view of extremely important matters.
Just to take one example, The alleged, you know, Assad chemical attacks in Syria that were being used as a pretext to launch the war in the Middle East that Hillary Clinton so desperately wanted and didn't get because Donald Trump won.
That's one such example of the kind of thing that it's not only that he's the lone voice on Fox that will say, he's a lone voice in American media generally.
And for that reason, it was kind of a fluke.
In the globalist American empire, you're just not supposed to have somebody on primetime television saying the kinds of things that Tucker was willing to say.
It was a fluke that Tucker was on and it was a fluke that I was on, you know, able to talk about, you know, January 6th.
That's just that's not supposed to happen.
But the Matrix fixed itself because he's not on anymore.
Right.
No, right.
and it was only a matter of time. - Yeah, I have a hard time believing that whatever happened, it was unrelated to the fact that you just described that in so many ways he was outside of the lines, prescribed for everybody in which pretty much everybody else pretty much loyally stayed.
Darren, always a pleasure.
You've done, you know, as I said, I think, among the most important, if not the most important, journalistic investigative work on this question of January 6.
So you're always the perfect person to talk to and it's, in general, great to see you.
Thanks for coming on.
Thank you so much, Glenn.
All right, have a great night.
So that concludes our show for this evening.
Again, because it is Tuesday night, we will now move to Locals for our interactive after show.
For those of you who are members of our Locals community, if you'd like to be, just join, and you'll have access to that show as well.
For the rest of you, thank you so much for watching.
Remember, we're available on podcast form.
You can follow us on Spotify, Apple, and the rest.
And we hope you continue to keep watching and to come back tomorrow night and every night at 7 p.m.
