Tucker Branded “Traitor” Over Moscow Visit. A Heartening Free Speech Win in UK, w/ David Miller. PLUS: “Bipartisan” Border Deal Exposes Real Priorities in DC
Timestamp:
Intro (0:00)
Tucker Branded Traitor (7:25)
A Rare Win for Free Speech (49:12)
Interview with Professor David Miller (53:11)
Ending (1:06:02)
- - -
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...
There is a very serious and very grave scandal unfolding in American journalism.
Viewers should be warned that some of the details are very disturbing, at least for those of you who have ethical codes.
Over the weekend, it was discovered that the lifelong American journalist Tucker Carlson was physically present in Moscow, which is located in Russia.
Not only that, but he was caught red-handed appearing in person at the Bolshoi Ballet, the home of some of the most barbaric human rights abuses known anywhere on the planet.
It's known as Moscow's Gulag.
And if that weren't bad enough, and really, how could it get any worse?
Rumors were circulating that one of the reasons Carlson traveled to Russia is because he intends to do something that no genuine journalist would ever do.
It was rumored that he might be conducting an interview with the head of state of this foreign country so that he can ask questions of that leader and allow Americans and others to hear his responses.
It's nothing short of stomach-turning.
The liberal sector of our political media class handled the news with the scorn it deserved, but also very soberly in such a restrained way, that Tucker Carlson is a traitor to America that he committed treason.
Because of this visit was a virtual consensus among liberals and neocons.
Even though the U.S.
was not at war with the country he got caught visiting.
Some actually called for him to be stripped of his citizenship, or at least denied the most basic right of American citizenship, the ability to be let back into the country upon his return.
And some viral tweets even suggested that by going to Russia, Carlson, in light of his opposition to US financing of the war in Ukraine, is now a legitimate military target of the Ukrainian military forces.
Meaning, in other words, that they're arguing he should be murdered In a terrorist attack while in Moscow.
Now, all of this, needless to say, says far more about the McCarthyite state of liberal discourse and the base authoritarianism of the elite liberal mind than it does about Carlson.
And that's why we think it's so worth reviewing what is happening here.
Then, when it comes to the right of free speech and academic freedom, it is rare that we are able to report good news.
That's because, ever since 2016, with the dual blows to the neoliberal order of the withdrawal by the UK from the EU when British subjects decided to do that, and Hillary Clinton's defeat at the hands of Donald Trump, Western power centers have been aggressively and inexorably implementing a regime of political censorship, especially on the internet.
Earlier today we had genuine good news on the free speech and censorship front.
David Miller is a political sociologist.
In 2021 he was fired by Bristol University in the UK where he was a professor in the wake of complaints from prominent British politicians and Jewish student groups who argued that his harsh criticisms of and opposition to the Israeli government And the way that pro-Israel groups wield influence inside Britain, quote, incite hatred against Jewish students and make them unsafe.
Exactly the same theory often invoked in the United States to justify the firing of conservative scholars in campuses throughout the West for expressing heterodox and anti-establishment views on race, gender, ideology, and gay issues.
Now, Professor Miller was on our show last August to discuss why he was appealing his firing and why he was suing the university for wrongful termination as a violation of his rights.
And earlier today, the UK's Regional Employment Court issued a 108-page ruling That was a ringing endorsement of free speech rights and academic freedom, ruling that Miller's anti-Zionism views are squarely within the philosophical beliefs protected by human rights law, which guarantees freedom of conscience, freedom of thought and academic freedom, and that he was therefore a victim of wrongful termination by the university.
We'll have Professor Miller back on to discuss this important precedent and why it benefits not only him, but all of us.
And then finally, Democratic Majority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York and Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky proudly and jointly unveiled a $120 billion bipartisan bill which they say will successfully finance other countries' wars while helping secure America's own border.
Among the problems with this bill, the vast majority of the $120 billion will go to other countries to fuel their wars and not to the United States or to American citizens.
And that's because Mitch McConnell has long made clear that his highest priority is not the people of Kentucky, whom he ostensibly represents and who suffer from some of the worst deprivations in the United States, including among the lowest life expectancy.
But rather, ensuring that the U.S.
fully financed Ukraine and Israel's wars is somehow the priority of this Kentucky Senator.
We'll break down this bill to show why it's such a perfect expression of Washington's bipartisan, rotted priority scheme.
Before we get to the show, a few programming notes.
We are encouraging our viewers to download the Rumble app, where if you do, it will work both on your smart TV and your telephone, and when you do so, it will enable you to follow the shows you most love to watch on Rumble.
Needless to say, that first choice on your list would be System Update, but there are a lot of other good shows I presume that you watch on Rumble.
If you don't, you should.
And if you download that app and follow shows, you can then activate notifications, which means that the minute any of the shows that you follow or want to follow begin broadcasting live on air, you'll get a link immediately, which lets you just click on that link and will let you begin watching.
It really will help increase the number of live viewers for every program and for Rumble itself.
And that in turn helps Rumble's mission to continue to protect free speech.
Also, as a reminder, System Update is also available in podcast form where you can listen to every episode 12 hours after the first broadcast live here on Rumble on Spotify, Apple, and all other major podcasting platforms.
If you rate, review, and follow the show on those platforms, it really helps spread the visibility of the program.
Finally, every Tuesday and Thursday night, once we're done with our live show here on Rumble, we move to Locals, which is part of the Rumble platform.
That after show is designed to take your questions and respond to your feedback and critiques and hear your suggestions for future shows.
Aftershow is available solely for members of our Locals community.
If you want to become a member, which gives you access not only to those twice-a-week aftershows, but also to the daily transcripts of every program that we broadcast here on Rumble.
We publish written transcripts of each show on our Locals platform.
We also have a lot of interactive features where we take your questions and critiques and I try and respond to as many of them as possible.
It's the place we publish our original journalism and, of course, it's the place most of all on which we rely in order to support the original journalism, the independent journalism, that we do here every night.
If you want to join the Locals Platform, simply click the Join button right below the video player on the Rumble page and it will take you directly there.
For now, welcome to a new episode of System Update, starting right now.
You know things have degraded to a pretty low point when something that happens is so demented and unhinged that you can barely find the words for it.
And yet, at the same time, it's utterly unsurprising.
In fact, even predictable.
Tucker Carlson, over the weekend, was spotted by a member of the Russian public, or somebody in Russia, attending the Bolshoi Ballet, which is located in Moscow.
Now, the Bolshoi Ballet, you may have thought from hearing the commentary that ensued, is not actually a gulag, where some of the worst human rights abuses take place, but instead is one of the high cultural points of planet Earth, of the human species.
The Bolshoi Ballet is the pinnacle of the art form of ballet, and Moscow, for anyone who has visited, is filled with all kinds of Amazing and inspiring architecture and high culture and a very rich history from a country that has been around for many, many centuries with a very storied history.
It's a country that Americans have always visited.
It's a country where American journalists have always gone to interview Russian leaders, including at the height of the Cold War when the Soviet Union was the United States' number one enemy.
And yet, Tucker Carlson's visit to Russia, his appearance physically in Moscow, As well as the rumor that he has gone there with the intention of interviewing Vladimir Putin, something that every journalist worth that title would be eager to do, to interview any world leader, is one of the high points of a journalist's career.
It's always a vital public service, especially when Washington is now trying to convince Americans to send another $60 billion to a country that Russia is at war with.
In order to basically fight a proxy war against that country, we should of course want to hear from Russian leaders and should want to hear questions that come from an American perspective, which if Tucker is going to do that interview is certainly something that you would expect him to ask about.
The idea that we wouldn't want to hear that, that we would somehow be harmed if we hear an interview from a lifelong American journalist who has worked at basically every media outlet in the United States, of a leader of a country that's one of the largest and most influential in the world is madness.
And yet, not only are we being told that this event is threatening the United States and to Americans and that it's somehow a sinister act, many prominent liberal and neocon elites, and that's basically a repetitive phrase at this point, the overlap between neoconservatives and liberals is almost full and complete.
Basically, neocons are the thought leaders of the Democratic Party when it comes to foreign policy, and what they are pronouncing is that Tucker Carlson is guilty of the crime of treason.
Treason.
Even though the United States is not actually at war with Russia, there's no congressional authorization to use military force against Russia, there's no declaration of war against Russia.
Which is the bare minimum needed to be guilty of, quote, aiding and abetting an enemy of the United States, which is the constitutional definition of the crime of treason.
They're using this term, treason and traitor, earnestly, literally.
Some are even arguing, I'm talking about recognizable names in American politics, that Tucker Carlson should be banned from re-entering the country, even though he's an American citizen and has the obvious constitutional right To re-enter the country.
And there's even been some viral tweets suggesting that he ought to be murdered by Ukrainian forces while in Moscow.
Now that shouldn't surprise anybody who's been paying attention to the mentality of Ukraine supporters and the militias that dominate Ukraine.
This story made it to The Guardian, the British newspaper, earlier today.
And they're taking quite seriously this idea that something sinister has occurred.
It's kind of ironic.
I actually went to Moscow when I worked at The Guardian as a reporter to interview Edward Snowden.
They've sent their own reporters to interview Vladimir Putin and to interview Edward Snowden and others in Russia.
It's what journalists do.
And yet now they seem to be suggesting that anyone who goes to Russia as a journalist, either to visit the Bolshoi Ballet or to see the sights of Moscow, or even to potentially interview the Russian president, is somehow engaged in malevolent acts.
Here's the headline from The Guardian, quote, Kremlin quiet as Tucker Carlson's Russia visit creates Putin interview rumors.
The far right broadcaster spotted at the Bolshoi Ballet in Moscow, having reportedly arrived last week.
Quote, the Kremlin has declined to say whether Vladimir Putin would grant an interview to Tucker Carlson, the far-right American journalist, after the former Fox News presenter was spotted in Moscow.
Carlson was the most popular host at Fox News before he was abruptly fired last April.
Now let's stop there for a second and let us recall that to this day, almost a year later, Fox News has provided no explanation, even to its own viewers, as to why Tucker Carlson was fired from Fox.
To me, there has never been any doubt about why.
It is because he is a dissident of Republican establishment orthodoxy.
Tucker did not spend most of his time on Fox criticizing the Democratic Party.
He spent most of his time criticizing the Republican establishment people like Mitch McConnell, Kevin McCarthy, Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Lindsey Graham.
He had contempt for them.
And the Murdochs, it's well known, have long supported the pre-Trump establishment party and want to bring the Republican Party back in line with that pre-Trump ideology.
And what made a lot of Republican establishment Republicans particularly furious about Tucker And when he was fired, they anonymously celebrated, like the little rats that they are, running around in those sewers underneath the Capitol, meeting with reporters, maligning Tucker, but only anonymously.
They don't have the courage to use the real name.
And they were saying, essentially, that they were happy he was fired because now their lives would be much easier sending American money to Ukraine if they don't have the most influential voice and most trustworthy voice among American conservatives opposing the war.
I firmly believe that the reason he was fired is because he was using this gigantic platform, the biggest on Fox, not to disseminate establishment Republican orthodoxy, but critiquing it and opposing it.
And whatever else the Murdochs are, capitalists and billionaires, they are also highly politicized actors.
Remember, it was Rupert Murdoch who funded The Weekly Standard, the magazine long run by Bill Kristol during the War on Terror to push neocon ideology.
And if Tucker hates anything, he hates neocons.
The Guardian went on, quote, since leaving, he has used X, formerly Twitter, to distribute a right-wing talk show.
How many times are they going to use the word right-wing in this article?
It's now three times.
We're not even in the past the first paragraph.
Everything is designed to signify to the readers what to think and what to feel using these labels.
Now, this is, I think, one of the most insidious themes that has entered our discourse.
has since echoed many of the Kremlin's talking points in its war against Ukraine, slamming Washington for its support of Ukraine while suggesting the West is to blame for the invasion.
Now, this is, I think, one of the most insidious themes that has entered our discourse.
And actually, it's been around for a long time.
The idea that if you oppose the involvement of the United States in a foreign war, it means you are automatically on the other side, that you are a supporter of whoever the United States wants to go to war with.
And that you are spouting the talking points of America's enemies simply by virtue of opposing the war, because obviously it's always in the interest of the United States.
Of whatever country the U.S.
wants to go to war with, for someone in the United States to stand up and say, I don't want my country involved in this war.
I don't want my country financing this war against that country.
And this framework that they are imposing, namely that if you oppose the war in Ukraine and having the United States pay for it, you're somehow echoing Kremlin talking points, is so malignant.
This is what was done to people who opposed the war in Vietnam, that you were serving the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese communist leader because you were opposed to the U.S.
war in Vietnam.
If you were against the U.S.
war in Iraq, the invasion of Iraq, you were pushing Saddam Hussein talking points because Saddam Hussein was saying it's an illegal and unjust invasion.
And if you were an American saying that too, you were echoing Saddam Hussein's talking points.
Same with the effort to overthrow Bashar al-Assad if you wanted your country not to do that.
You got accused of being a pro-Assad propaganda.
Same with the attempt to change the regime in Libya.
If you were opposed to that, somehow you were echoing Muammar Gaddafi's interests.
Wanting the U.S.
to withdraw from Afghanistan meant you were pushing the Taliban agenda and the Russian agenda.
Do you see what they've done?
They've made it so that any dissent To U.S.
foreign policy, especially the U.S.
policy of endless wars, which enriches the large corporations that fund both parties, automatically makes you a traitor.
Means that you are espousing the talking points of this other country.
Now, Tucker had said so many times that he knew almost nothing about Russia.
He had no interest in Russia.
He had never been until this trip.
And his opposition to the U.S.
funding of the war in Ukraine was based on his view that he has espoused many other times that the United States should not be funding foreign wars, especially when it has no interest in the American people.
That's a common view in American political life.
If you poll Americans and ask, are we fighting too many wars?
Should we be the world's policemen?
Overwhelmingly, Americans will say no.
This is a neocon tactic to say that if you oppose American wars, then you're on the other side.
You're a traitor to the United States.
You're echoing the talking points of America's enemies.
But it's now in places like the Guardian, a liberal outlet, because American liberals, Western liberals, on the one hand, and neocons on the other have completely merged.
They have the same exact mindset, the same exact agenda.
And so this attempt to equate dissent to your government's war policies with treason used to be confined to the provinces of the lowest level scummiest neocons and now it is standard establishment liberal discourse, which increasingly is the one, the sector of American politics pushing new Western wars.
Quote, in his shows on Fox News and X, Carlson has described the Ukrainian president, Vladimir Zelensky, as a, quote, dictator, and, quote, sweaty and rat-like, while once stating that he was rooting for Moscow.
His pro-Putin and anti-Ukrainian rhetoric has been lauded in Moscow, where his clips have become a fixture on Russian state television, with local propagandists using them as evidence that influential people in the U.S.
are sympathetic to Putin's military campaign.
That is such a lie that people who are opposed to U.S.
financing of Ukraine's war are sympathetic to Putin's military campaign.
My view has always been very clear, namely that I don't think the Russian invasion of Ukraine is justified, but I also think the United States helped provoke it and should not be paying to prolong that war.
We're just sending Ukrainians to their death, Ukrainians, conscripts, not Ukrainian volunteers, for just some abstract effort to weaken the country of Russia.
And it's consistent with my view in every other war that the United States finances.
It's not confined to Russia.
But this is because Western liberal elites view the war in Ukraine as sacrosanct.
They have made it so that everybody who questions that war is a traitor to the West.
Quote, Carlson recently claimed he previously tried to interview the Russian president but was, quote, stopped by the US government.
Now, do you see how they say Carlson claimed this?
Carlson recently claimed.
So, is it true?
The Guardian really tries to imply that he was almost lying.
He just claimed it like it was some baseless, crazy conspiracy theory.
They have no interest in whether or not it's true.
They should have a lot of interest in whether or not the United States government Acted to intervene in a journalist's attempt to interview the Russian president.
It would be a pretty severe threat to a free press.
Something the Guardian pretends to care about.
We reported it at the time.
I know what happened in this case.
It's absolutely true.
The evidence that the NSA had spied on Tucker Carlson while attempting to arrange an interview with the Russian president while he was at Fox News is extremely persuasive and conclusive, in fact.
And yet, because it was Tucker Carlson and because most people in American journalism, as we're now seeing, think that a journalist should not go and interview This foreign leader, even though prior to Trump, it had been a basic tradition of American journalism to go and interview every foreign leader you can get your hands on, including America's most devoted enemies.
The most prominent journalists in the United States have always done that.
And for good reason.
You want to hear from those people.
You want to confront them with questions that you want to hear them answer.
But now we are so drowning in this kind of neocon ideology that you don't question your government's wars.
You just sit and applaud.
And the last thing you do is let the countries that want to go to war with be heard.
They have no interest in whether or not the U.S.
government tried to impede Tucker Carlson from interviewing Vladimir Putin because I'm sure they actually think that that's what the proper role of the U.S.
government is.
Here is Tucker Carlson in 2021 explaining exactly what happened.
Come on.
the largest intelligence gathering agency, the NSA, had been reading my private emails.
Even saying that out loud is weird.
It's one of those segments we never thought we would do ever, but the country has changed that much that fast.
And honestly, the whole thing was kind of shocking.
The government was spying on us?
Come on, it seemed crazy, but it's true.
And no one in Washington appeared to be shocked In fact, the usual shills right after our segment had a ready explanation for it.
Either it never happened at all, they said, just a cable news show lying for ratings, or there must have been a good reason it happened.
And they began furiously making excuses for why the NSA did it.
A powerful, heavily politicized spy agency surveilling journalists who've been critical of the regime?
No problem.
It's perfectly normal.
Just don't call it spying.
But it's not normal at all.
It is third world.
And as we told you repeatedly, it did happen.
Now that has been confirmed.
Yesterday we learned that sources in the so-called intelligence community told at least one reporter in Washington what was in those emails, my emails.
There was nothing scandalous in there, thank God.
We're happy to report that.
Late this spring, I contacted a couple of people I thought could help get us an interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
I told nobody I was doing this other than my executive producer, Justin Wells.
I wasn't embarrassed about trying to interview Putin.
He's obviously newsworthy.
I'm an American citizen.
I can interview anyone I want and I plan to.
But still, in this case, I decided to keep it quiet.
I figured that any kind of publicity would rattle the Russians and make the interview less likely to happen.
But the Biden administration found out anyway by reading my emails.
I learned from a whistleblower the NSA planned to leak the contents of those emails to media outlets.
Why would they do that?
Well, the point, of course, was to paint me as a disloyal American, a Russian operative, been called that before, a stooge of the Kremlin, a traitor doing the bidding of a foreign adversary.
And of course, I'm hardly the only person who's been accused of those things in the last several years.
We've seen this movie several times now.
At the same moment the Communist Chinese government increases its already stunning level of control over this country, our leaders prattle on about the threat of Vladimir Putin.
He's an evildoer, they tell us.
A totalitarian dictator.
Vladimir Putin does things that no American leader would even consider.
He runs domestic disinformation campaigns.
He lies to the public.
He punishes people for opposing him or for believing the wrong things.
He even uses intelligence agencies to spy on his own citizens.
Beyond the pale stuff.
So no decent American would interview Vladimir Putin, at least no reporter from Fox News.
That was the point they wanted to make.
That's why they plan to leak the contents of my emails to news organizations.
And yesterday, as noted, we learned they actually did it.
Even now, some of the media are claiming that we deserve this.
Emailing with people who know Putin, are you?
Of course the NSA is watching you.
That's what you get.
Now, this was eight full years after we did the reporting enabled by our source, Edward Snowden.
And right before we began that reporting, the Justice Department under Eric Holder had been caught spying on multiple American journalists, including James Rosen of Fox News and two reporters at the Associated Press.
And a big part of our reporting was that the NSA had been abusing its spying mechanisms designed to identify threats to the United States and instead was spying on all kinds of American citizens with no words, including American journalists.
And the fact of the matter is that people inside the government confirmed to Tucker Carlson exactly what the content of his emails were.
And then they leaked them to the media.
Proof that they were in fact spying on his emails as he tried to arrange an interview.
I would be surprised if you even remember that because of how little media attention it received.
And the reason is that they, as he said, they think it's warranted.
And if you doubt that, look at the reaction to the news that Tucker visited Russia.
Was seen physically in Moscow.
Hear from the weepy former Republican Congressman Adam Kinzinger, who knew better than to seek re-election and ran into the arms of CNN.
He was responding to a report that read, quote, Tucker Carlson has been in Moscow for the past three days, according to Russia's mass outlet.
He was spotted at the Bolshoi Theater today.
And there you see a picture of him with the very storied Seats at the Bolshoi Ballet, which I've been to.
It's extremely beautiful.
If you have a chance, by all means, go there and see it.
Who wouldn't?
Who wouldn't want to?
And in response, Adam Kinzinger, who has the flags of two foreign countries in the United States in his bio, The American flag, the Ukrainian flag, and the Israeli flag, so America and the two countries whose wars we're currently financing, with the long-term fascist phrase, Slava Ukrania, which has been repeated by Nancy Pelosi and all the bipartisans in Washington.
In response to this news, Adam Kinzinger said, quote, he is a traitor for going to Russia and appearing at the Bolshoi Ballet.
Do you see how completely deranged these people are?
And again, Adam Kinzinger was in the Congress for several terms and then knew he couldn't be reelected within the Republican Party.
He avoided Liz Cheney's fate of losing by a record-setting 36 points in her own primary, booted out by Wyoming Republicans who have been voting for the Cheney family for decades.
And he avoided that fate and ran into the loving, comforting arms of CNN, where he's now an analyst.
So CNN employs somebody who accuses an American journalist of being a traitor for the crime of visiting a foreign country with the potential that he might actually be conducting an interview with a foreign leader.
Think how demented that is.
Here is Alexander Vindman, the hero who stood up to Donald Trump by leaking the contents of the phone call that led to his first unsuccessful impeachment.
Had been celebrated by American culture as his hero.
Real whistleblowers end up like Julian Assange or Edward Snowden.
In exile or in prison.
They don't end up writing best-selling books and appearing on Curb Your Enthusiasm and being applauded by every major corporate network.
Without ever being prosecuted for anything.
He's never suffered anything, Alexander Vindman.
He's not a hero, he's a coward.
And he's Ukrainian, an American Ukrainian, and has been obsessed with having the United States and American citizens who are hardworking pay for Ukraine's war.
And here's what he said in response to the news that Tucker Carlson committed the crime of visiting Russia, quote, Tucker is eating and abetting the enemy.
The same enemy that threatens us with nuclear weapons interferes in our election allies with Iran, North Korea and Hamas.
This is who Tucker courts.
Again, by no stretch of the imagination, in any legal or constitutional sense, is Russia an American enemy?
You're allowed to visit Russia.
You're allowed to interview whoever you want in Moscow.
It's not against the law by any reasonable interpretation.
These people are absolutely deranged.
This is what authoritarianism looks like.
This is the mindset of authoritarianism.
That says if you visit a country, you're a traitor to your own?
Or if you're a journalist and you want to interview a foreign leader, you're somehow guilty of the most serious crime in the U.S.
Code for which capital punishment is applied?
Here was a viral tweet by a vehement supporter of Ukraine and really a basic American liberal Who said the following, if Tucker Carlson is in Moscow as the guest of Vladimir Putin, I think that makes him a valid Ukrainian military target.
No?
There you see it was retweeted by 2,000 people, liked by 16,000.
Now, this person is a coward calling for the murder of other people while hiding behind anonymity.
I mean, think of an act more cowardly than that.
It's almost hard to imagine.
But this is their mindset, these people who support Ukraine and have aligned with these neo-Nazi militias in Ukraine.
I've been put on lists issued by the Ukrainian intelligence calling me a pro-Russian propagandist because I don't think my country should be fueling that war with American money, along with a bunch of other people in media and Politics, this is how authoritarian these word supporters are.
Here is Guy Verhuista, who is a longtime official in the EU.
And there you see his bio.
He's president of the European Movement International.
He says, hashtag, I am European with the EU flag.
Europe, everything is Europe.
I believe he used to be the Prime Minister of Belgium.
We'll check that.
So he's a member of the European Parliament, which is what MEP is, but I believe he used to be, if I'm not mistaken, the Prime Minister of Belgium and a high official in the EU, but he's a member of the EU Parliament, and he's a vehement supporter of the war in Ukraine, and he has this picture of, again, Tucker Carlson committing the war crime of visiting a ballet, the Bolshoi Ballet.
And in response to this picture, he says, quote, Tucker Carlson is surely on the path to being labeled a propagandist for the Russian regime.
If he enables disinformation for Putin, the EU should explore a travel ban.
They're going to exclude American citizens who pay for their defense.
Europe's.
Because he went and interviewed a foreign leader, and because he opposes the American-EU war in Ukraine.
They want to exclude him from any country in the EU.
These people constantly portray themselves as the guardians against authoritarianism, when in reality they are the supreme perpetrators of it.
Speaking of neocon scumbags, the supreme one, Bill Kristol, Obviously reacted to this story as well and said, quote, perhaps we need a total and complete shutdown of Tucker Carlson re-entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.
Now, obviously he's mocking Trump's formulation when he announced his ban on citizens of certain Muslim countries during the 2016 campaign.
But he's also very seriously arguing that Tucker Carlson should be banned from re-entering the United States.
Something that would be blatantly unconstitutional.
But even the mere suggestion of it shows how, I can't express how completely unhinged establishment liberal and neocon discourse has become.
These people are warmongers.
Joe Biden, lest we forget, Is the president who came after Donald Trump.
Donald Trump involved the United States in no new wars.
He inherited the war against ISIS in Syria and Iraq.
He escalated that war and then pulled out.
Although he tried to pull out of Syria and generals basically ignored the order and got celebrated for it by the media.
Even though it's a complete subversion of civilian rule in the United States.
And then Biden inherited the presidency and that state of affairs from Trump.
And Biden has involved the United States in three new wars, heavily involved, or four, depending on how you count.
The war in Ukraine, which we've given $120 billion to and now proposed another $60 billion proposed by Joe Biden.
We're paying for Israel's war to destroy Gaza.
We are bombing Yemen repeatedly now with no congressional authorization, something we weren't doing before 2022, or as of 2022.
And the United States is now involved in a escalated Middle East war, bombing multiple sites in Syria and Iraq.
So it's either three new wars or four new wars, a new Mideast war, financing Israel's war in Gaza, and financing and being heavily involved in the war in Ukraine.
Joe Biden is going to run for your election almost certainly with three new wars waging that he got the United States involved in.
And these people believe that if you oppose any of that, if you question any of it, you become an American traitor.
It's just repressive, by definition.
Now, as I said before, the tradition of interviewing Not just foreign leaders, but the foreign leaders that the United States government has regarded as the most adverse is something that is a long-standing tradition in American journalism.
It had always been, prior to the authoritarianism that emerged as a response to Donald Trump's re-election, or to his election, had been celebrated as something that journalists ought to do.
Here, for example, in 2011 is Barbara Walters interviewing the Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad.
She went to Damascus to do it.
They see one-on-one with the Syrian president ABC News exclusive here.
From PBS, promoting in May of 1998, John Miller interviews Osama Bin Laden.
Obviously it was before 9-11, but Al Qaeda was on the designated list of U.S.
terrorist groups and had been reported to have attacked the United States before.
Here in 2009 is Larry King, while at CNN, you can see the CNN marker there, sitting down with Muammar Gaddafi and quoting him, quote, I am the leader of a revolution, not a country.
Now, I could go on and on.
Barbara Walters interviewed Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez.
It's something journalists competed to do.
It was considered a mark of prestige to be able to go and interview foreign leaders and have the United States hear what they have to say.
They would regularly interview Yasser Arafat, all sorts of Palestinian leaders, people in the Middle East that the United States was at war with.
Now this rhetoric that you are a traitor, you are some kind of a historically disgraceful figure if you don't have the United States pay for the wars of other countries is something that has seeped into the highest levels of Democratic Party and liberal discourse.
Here is the former ambassador under President Obama to Russia, Michael McFaul.
who yesterday said this about the announcement by Speaker Mike Johnson that the bipartisan bill that would allow $60 billion be sent to Ukraine, another $17 billion be sent to Israel, that's $77 billion, while $20 that's $77 billion, while $20 billion be spent ostensibly to secure the border.
And Speaker Johnson, speaking on behalf of Republican voters and Republican House leadership said the bill is done on arrival We will not vote for that.
It doesn't do nearly enough at the border and there's so many Republican voters who oppose sending any more money, let alone $60 billion, three times the amount that would be proposed to be spent securing the United States' own border.
And this is what Michael McFaul said, quote, if Speaker Johnson continues to block a vote on aid to Ukraine, his legacy will be the American who lost Ukraine.
Historians will compare him to Neville Chamberlain.
It's not too late to change course, Mr. Speaker.
Do the right thing.
Now, this neocon tactic, and again, this is a neocon tactic.
to compare everything to only one historical event.
Everything is the Nazis and Adolf Hitler and World War II.
Every new American war gets compared to that.
Every new leader that we want to go to war against immediately gets equated with Adolf Hitler.
And therefore, anybody who opposes any American war is immediately accused of being Neville Chamberlain, who went down in history for trying to appease Hitler.
In fact, back in 2006, Seventeen years ago, I had written, I wrote this article, it was about seven months after I began writing about politics, I, as I've told you before, began writing about politics to oppose the excesses of the war on terror, and the title of my article was The Chamberlain Appeasement Cliché.
I noticed back in 2006 that every single time the United States wanted to go to war with some other country, anybody who opposed it was immediately accused of being Neville Chamberlain, as though there's no other historical event that they understand other than World War II.
That's why every leader that we've wanted to go to war with for the last 40 years has been accused of being Adolf Hitler, with Vladimir Putin being only the most recent.
The other part of Michael McFaul's statement that's so deceitful is this idea that, oh, if we cut off funds to Ukraine now, Ukraine's going to lose, and the people who cut off funds to Ukraine will be responsible, go down in history as those who caused Ukraine to lose the war, as if Ukraine is well on its way to winning.
This is the other tactic that warmongers in Washington use, always.
They go to war, they make a whole series of promises, they vow that America will win, and when over and over the United States does not win but loses, when none of their promises are fulfilled, they never accept responsibility, they blame their losses on the fact that the American public rose up and said, we're not allowing you to spend any more of our money on these failed wars, we're not allowing these wars to go on indefinitely.
When the U.S.
lost the war in Vietnam, even though it had gone on for 13 years, the proponents of that war said, we didn't lose because we lost.
Even though they did, they said we lost because the American left sabotaged us by making us get out.
Same with the war in Iraq of U.S.
neocons to this day.
They said our real mistake was that we didn't stay longer.
Same with the war in Afghanistan.
After 20 years we left, the Taliban marched right back in, and the advocates of staying said the reason we lost was because we didn't stay long enough.
And this is what they're doing in Ukraine.
Ukraine is losing this war.
Here from NPR in January of this year, January 31st, as Ukraine seeks to replenish its depleted army, a divide grows among its civilians.
They don't have any artillery to fight against Russia, nor do they have any men left to send to the front lines as cannon fodder.
Quote, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky told reporters at an end-of-the-year news conference that military officials have asked to conscript an additional 450,000 to 500,000 civilians to help replenish the country's armed forces and spell soldiers serving on the front lines.
At the same time, Ukraine's parliament is working on legislation aimed at reforming the country's conscription process.
A draft version of the bill published in late December called for lowering the minimum draft age from 27 to 25 and other reforms such as allowing the Ukrainians to draft people with disabilities and severe health problems of the kind that exempt people from fighting in every country.
An attorney based in the Donetsk region of eastern Ukraine, who represents soldiers looking to be dismissed from service and civilians fighting against mobilization, says she hears from people who are morally opposed to taking up arms.
Others are afraid of being sent to the front lines.
She says she has talked to people who have attempted suicide to avoid mobilization.
Quote, all these were children, says the attorney who asked NPR to use only her first name, Elena, because she's worried about retaliation from Ukrainian security services.
Quote, they were the same age as my daughter, children of 18 and 19 years old.
That's the state of the war in Ukraine.
They're well on their way to losing.
It's way past time for them to go to the negotiating table.
Or for them to fight on if they want, just not with American money.
And the framework by the people who told us that Ukraine would win and expel Russia and Russian troops from every inch of Ukrainian territory, including Crimea, which was never going to happen, instead of admitting their defeat, they're now going to blame the people who are listening to the American public and saying, we don't want to send more billions to this war.
That is achieving nothing other than destroying Ukraine, which would then pay for its reconstruction, while sending huge numbers of young Ukrainian men who don't want to fight to their death.
The reason that there is an anti-establishment wing of the Republican Party that has taken over in the form of Donald Trump is because this bipartisan, uniparty ideology is so rotted
They drove neocons out of the Republican Party because what they are more than anything is totally antithetical to the worldview of neocons and they should be because there is no group of people in the United States more dishonest, more deceitful, more adverse to the interests of the American people, more bloodthirsty, more war-hungry.
Then American neocons, and they have formed a perfect alliance with establishment liberals, with the Democratic Party, and even with the anti-Trump faction of the Republican Party like Mitch McConnell.
And in this reaction to Dr. Carlson, in this reaction to anyone who questions their work, calling them a traitor, claiming they're pro-Putin, you see the standard neocon tactics that have been used for decades to force the United States to fight wars that have nothing to do with the interests of the American people.
And it's just in this case, it's so over the top in terms of its arrangement that it's really worth deep breaking down because it's such a vivid illustration of how they think. it's so over the top in terms of its arrangement We are very happy that CB Distillery is one of our earliest sponsors.
Their product is genuinely something that we feel very good about recommending.
As probably most of you know, if you live in the West, if you live in this kind of high-pressured, atomized environment where it's very difficult to maintain steady levels of mental health, huge numbers of people are constantly being medicated with heavy pharmaceutical products that are designed to address huge numbers of people are constantly being medicated with heavy pharmaceutical products that are designed to address And what CBD is, is a product that is purely organic,
It's made with the highest quality, clean ingredients.
In fact, it is often associated with marijuana, even though it has nothing to do with marijuana because the THC agent of marijuana, which is what makes it a narcotic, is completely absent from CBD.
CBD simply uses hemp, which is a naturally growing plant that can address issues like anxiety and depression and insomnia and even addiction to these pharmaceutical products can ease your way off of the addiction in very healthy and organic ways.
The CBD distillery, one of the reasons why I feel so good about endorsing them and about encouraging you to take a look at them is because they really stand behind their product and believe that they've done non-clinical surveys in which 81% of their customers experienced more calm, 80% said CBD helped with pain after physical activity and an impressive 90% said they Slept better.
One of the people that we hear most from are people who have begun using CBD at CBD Distillery as a result of our ads and the thing that we have heard almost universally, in fact I think universally, I don't think a negative comment has come, is how enthused people are from using their product.
They have over 2 million customers and they give a 100% money back guarantee where if you don't where if you use the product and don't see the benefits and are dissatisfied, they will give you a full guarantee.
CBDistillery is a very trustworthy company.
We've seen that over and over ever since we began promoting it.
And if you go to cbdistillery.com and use the promo code GLEN, you will get 20% off your entire purchase.
That's cbdistillery.com.
Use the promo code GLEN and you will have 20% off, along with the 100% money-back guarantee in the extremely unlikely event that you are dissatisfied with their product.
Thank you.
. you Professor David Miller was employed as a political sociologist at the University of Bristol until 2021 when there was a campaign launched on the part of British politicians
Which should sound familiar because we have a lot of politicians now trying to dictate to colleges what views they can and cannot allow, as well as Jewish student groups and Jewish activist groups in the UK demanding that he be fired.
Not because he had any altercation with any student, not because he engaged improperly with any student, there was no harassment claims, no claims of physical assault or anything of that kind.
It was solely and strictly based on his philosophical view that Zionism was a philosophy that he believes is inherently unjust.
He opposes Zionism as a philosophy.
Obviously, a lot of you don't agree with that philosophy.
Some of you probably do.
But if there's one thing that's important, at least I've been hearing for the last many years from the American right in the United States, is ensuring that journalists, or rather that professors and scholars and academics have the full-fledged right to express their views without being punished for the expression of those political opinions or because those political opinions don't align with establishment orthodoxy.
We had him on our show back in August to tell the story of how he got fired and why he decided to appeal the firing to a British court and, And earlier today, the court issued a unanimous judgment Fully in his favor, or at least in his favor on the court question of whether he was unjustly fired, and here's part of what the court said.
Quote, the claimant, that's Professor Miller, anti-Zionist beliefs, qualifies as a philosophical belief and a protected characteristic pursuant to section 10 of the Equality Act of 2010 at the Material Times.
Professor Miller succeeds in his claims of direct discrimination because of his philosophical belief contrary to Section 13 of the Equality Act in relation to A, the university's decision to dismiss him on October 1st, 2021, and B, the university's rejection of his appeal against his dismissal on February 23rd, 2022.
Professor Miller succeeds in his claim for unfair dismissal pursuant to Section 98 of the Employment Rights Act of 1996, And Professor Miller succeeds in his claim for wrongful dismissal.
Quote, throughout his academic career, Professor Miller focused his research and teaching upon state and corporate propaganda, public relations, and lobbying.
He had been published extensively on a diverse range of topics.
His academic work has been both political and controversial.
He has also been a politically active academic.
Prior to the incidents and events in this case, he was never subject to any disciplinary process by any university.
During this period, Professor Miller also frequently made public statements and expressed his views on a range of issues, a number of which could be viewed as controversial in nature.
Professor Miller believes, and also believed when he was employed by the university, that Zionism, which he defines as an ideology that asserts that a state for Jewish people ought to be established and maintained in the territory that formally comprised the British Mandate of Palestine, is inherently racist, imperialist, and colonial.
He also considers Zionism to be offensive to human dignity, and on that basis, and he therefore opposes it.
And it was that view, and that view alone, ruled the court, that led the university to fire him under great pressure and the university and the court unanimously ruled in his favor upholding core rights of free speech free thought free discourse and academic freedom in saying that even opposing israel is an opinion that is protected by free speech and for which you cannot be fired as a professor at a university
we are delighted to welcome professor miller back to the show to speak about the culmination or up until now the culmination of his effort to vindicate his free speech rights professor miller it's great to see you congratulations thanks so much for joining us thank you very much so
So before we get into this amazing victory, and it's a victory not only for you, but for everybody who believes in free speech, including people who disagree with you about your views, remind us of the kind of pressure campaign that was exerted in order to try and get you fired that led to your ultimate firing in 2021.
Where did it come from and what was the arguments of that campaign?
Well, it started in 2019.
There were complaints about an election on Islamophobia, where I talked for a brief period on the relationship between Zionism and Islamophobia.
That complaint eventually, after a year and a half, ran into the ground and I was exonerated on all charges.
It was said by the external QC that I hadn't said anything remotely anti-Semitic.
But the second element of the campaign against me started six for that.
Where I went on a public meeting on a Saturday afternoon and I said that I had been attacked and complained about by two Zionist student groups, which was true.
But as a result of that, the Zionist student groups concerned and other Israel lobby groups started to complain about me and asked for me to be sacked.
They encouraged others to do so.
Zionist professors at my university called for me to be sacked.
Zionist professors around the world called for me to be sacked.
More than 100 members of the Houses of Lords and Commons in London called for me to be sacked and the university was pressured by some of its funding agencies that they would withdraw funding should I not be sacked.
That pressure of course had its effect.
They had a further investigation where it was determined I had not said anything which was in any way anti-semitic but they determined nevertheless that because my statements had made some students upset or caused them to feel what they said was unsafe that that was the reason enough to sack me.
And so they did.
I mean there is an irony here because for so long the American right in particular, but I think the European right as well, has been very opposed to this idea that students on college campuses who are adults have the right to feel quote-unquote safe
And that complaints by them that they are unsafe as a result of having to hear political views that make them uncomfortable is essentially the kind of whining that if we listen to, we will cleanse and purge academia of all vibrant debate.
Just to be clear, there were two different tribunals at the university, one of which said you've done nothing wrong at the beginning of the second of which, as the pressure grew, said you should be fired.
But is it true that both of them Emphatically cleared you of any charges of anti-semitism.
In other words, found that what you were saying was not anti-semitic, but that the university should fire you because some students felt unsafe from hearing your views.
Well, so what happened was that I was investigated three times by the university.
Once by an internal university panel decision-maker who found I hadn't been anti-Semitic, then twice by an external QC who found that nothing I had said, including statements I've made over over some many years nothing I had said had any anti-semitic but they then in the in the third investigation the one which led to me being fired
they added in some investigation of the effects that my words had had on students so although they acknowledged they weren't anti-semitic they said that that it wasn't appropriate for students to be upset by things that I had said at a political meeting outside of work which were true so that was that was the the question you know I've been three times now for the fourth time with this court case judgment fourth time
Clear of saying anything anti-Semitic ever in my life, and nevertheless I have still faced this entire process of three years of assault and battery on my reputation, which has not of course abated.
It continues today with the response of Zionist groups to this judgment, where they'd simply ignore the judgment and say, "Oh no, he's an anti-Semite." So this is the state of the debate.
And of course, as you say, the American right and some others in the free speech debate in the US do have an analysis which should defend critics of Israel from censure.
And let's hope that it does.
Yeah, I mean, it's certainly something we've been working on a lot on this show of trying to encourage people who are supporters of Israel and yet also supporters of free speech to understand that if you make an exemption for free speech when it comes to this one foreign country, you are essentially attacking it's certainly something we've been working on a lot on this show of trying to encourage people who are supporters of Israel and Um, what I'm saying is that the American right Let me ask you in terms of the effects that
This decision to fire you has had, obviously, you just mentioned the reputational injury, which is going to be very great if large numbers of people are accusing you of anti-Semitism, one of the worst crimes in the West that you can be labeled with.
What has been the financial cost in terms of your career and losing your job and just on your life in general?
Can you talk about that?
Sure.
I mean, what the Zionists hope to do in these kinds of cases is to destroy the person who they are criticizing.
They want them to, yes, lose their jobs.
They want them to lose their reputation.
And they want them to lose the ability to earn a living in the future.
And that's what, of course, they've tried to do to me.
And to some extent, they were successful.
I lost my job.
I had my reputation besmirched.
I can no longer get an academic job at a UK university.
So all of that had very significant material and economic effects on me and my ability to live in a house and to feed my children.
So, of course, that's something which matters to me a great deal.
But the other thing I would say about this, however, is that since I was sacked from the university, I have been doing journalism and investigations.
I run a show called Palestine Declassified, a weekly TV show where we investigate the Zionist movement and the question of Palestine.
And so I have been able to spend many more hours investigating Zionism than I would otherwise have been able to do had I still been in an academic job.
So I You know, I of course resent what they've done to me but I thank them for that because I have been able to conduct investigations which they certainly do not like and I will continue to do that.
So we went through a little bit of the court ruling and I think, as I understand it at least, one of the reasons why it's kind of historic is because it's the first court ruling, at least in the UK, maybe in Europe, to rule that anti-Zionism is basically part of the umbrella of free speech, that it's a philosophical belief or akin to a religious belief, something for which one cannot be punished or fired institutionally.
What was your reaction to this court ruling and how is it that you see the implications of it?
Well, this was a key element of the case.
I mean, obviously, I wanted to establish that I had been wrongfully dismissed, and we did that.
But the key important question here was the question of anti-Zionism.
So I maintained I'd been sacked because I had anti-Zionist views.
The university maintained I had been sacked because I'd upset students.
But what happened in the court case was the university witnesses themselves conceded that what made my views so bad that they had to sack me was the anti-zionist element of them it wasn't that i'd upset the students in fact it was the anti-zionist element and that's what lost them the case it was their own evidence where they admitted in court that what they said exactly was not true and so that was the that was the basis of this now
of course that the importance of this is this establishes that under the equality act that uh anti-zionist views if they're coherent are are protected and And you cannot sack someone who is an anti-Zionist for being an anti-Zionist.
And so this will protect everybody who is targeted by their employers in the UK from now on.
Of course, there will be further case law perhaps, but it seems inconceivable that this will turn back such that anti-Zionist views are held to be not protected.
I mean, on the contrary, we've established the principle and this will now be available to every pro-Palestine campaigner Who is targeted for suppression and censorship by their employer.
Yeah, and again, I really hope that people understand that when free speech is upheld for anyone, including people with whom you have disagreements or even vehement divergences of views, it benefits everybody because obviously it expands and strengthens and fortifies what free speech actually means.
Now, before I was a journalist, I was a lawyer, a litigator.
I litigated a lot of cases, including one similar to this in the United States, not in the UK.
But nonetheless, I know enough about the UK system to be able to know that Anyone who gets dragged into court, any private citizen, and I'm not talking about an institution, but I'm talking about a private citizen, really goes through the wringer, even if you end up winning.
I mean, you spend a lot of your time meeting with lawyers, having accusations hurled at you, preparing for your depositions, preparing for your hearings.
Are you going to get some meaningful compensation as a result of your victory?
And in general, what is going to be the impact of this ruling on that part of your life that was harmed as a result of your firing?
Well, we have to have a further court session.
It's called a remedies hearing, where there will be arguments about compensation I am due.
Under the UK law, usually, if you're wrongfully dismissed, you can get something like a year's salary by way of compensation.
But the key difference with the question of equalities law and discrimination, which I was found to have been discriminated against, is that they take off that cap.
and that allows the court to award you significantly larger sums of money as a result of being discriminated against it and it's technically for your hurt feelings so we have to decide how much my hurt feelings are worth and we will see what happens the important point is not how much money i get because it will never a fat which was left by my sacking and the subsequent inability to get an academic job
The point is the principle and the fact that it establishes a principle for others.
And also I would say that it establishes that people can take on the Zionists and they can win.
We shouldn't be scared or frightened of doing so.
Last question.
Does the University of Bristol have the right to appeal this decision and have they indicated in any way whether they intend to?
The University does have the right to appeal.
They have not indicated whether they will do or not.
They've issued a statement.
Today, which is a rather mealy-mouthed expression that they will write all along and they will consider this judgment and see what happens.
I mean, I think that they've made a catastrophic error in trying to pursue a case on the basis that I was something like a Nazi.
That was never going to fly.
And I would say to them, you know, if that's the kind of advice you got before, I would think again about taking that advice again, because it's likely you will come a cropper once again.
Well, Professor Miller, congratulations to you both for your personal victory, but also your victory for this broader cause of free speech, the right to criticize Israel.
We have the right to criticize every foreign government, our own government.
That's what it means to be someone who lives in the West with free speech.
And you didn't just win for yourself, but you won, as I said, for all of us and for this principle.
We're going to continue to cover your case and hope to have you back on if it proceeds.
Hopefully it'll be the end of it other than the judgment that you get.
But I want to thank you very much for pursuing this case and for coming on to talk to us about it tonight.
Thank you.
Have a good evening.
So we had intended to cover as our third segment the bipartisan bill on both Border security and aid to Ukraine and Israel, more money for the war against Yemen, for more aggression against China and that whole Asian region where the United States has been very active.
But because I'm going to be on Jesse Watters Fox Show in about 10 minutes talking about the latest polls regarding Donald Trump and how much the media has attempted to Destroy his reputation as a racist and a fascist and a white supremacist only for his polling numbers to go up and up not only against Republicans but against Joe Biden as well, to the highest numbers yet.
What that says about the legitimacy of these institutions, we're going to have to go and call it, put that segment on for tomorrow night.
So we will definitely cover that bipartisan bill, which I want to cover even more in depth than we would have been able to tonight.
And as a result, we're going to go ahead and end the show here.
All right, as I just said about four seconds ago, that does conclude our show for this evening.
As a reminder, System Update is also available in podcast form, where you can listen to every episode 12 hours after the first podcast live here on Rumble on Spotify, Apple, and all other major podcasting platforms.
If you rate, review, and follow the show, it really helps spread the visibility of the program.
As a final reminder, every Tuesday and Thursday night, once we're done with our live show here on Rumble, We move to Locals, which is part of the Rumble platform, where we have our live interactive aftershow.
That aftershow, which is interactive in nature, is available solely for members of our Locals community.
And if you want to become a member of that community, which not only gives you access to those twice-a-week aftershows, but also to the daily transcripts we publish of every show we do here on Rumble, to the interactive features that we have where I respond to as many critiques and questions as I can, And it's the place where we publish our original journalism, and most of all, it's the place we really rely upon to support the independent journalism that we do here every night.
Simply click the Join button right below the video player at the Rumble page, and it will take you to that local's platform.
For those of you who've been watching this show, we are, as always, very appreciative.
You're really helping make the show a success, and we hope to see you back tomorrow night and every night at 7 p.m.
