SCOTUS Skeptical of Main Jan. 6 Prosecution Theory. Neocons Try to Destroy Tucker over Israel. PLUS: Former Rep. Dennis Kucinich
TIMESTAMPS:
Intro (0:00)
SCOTUS Skeptical of Obstruction Charges (7:15)
Neocons Unite Against Tucker (31:09)
Interview with Representative Dennis Kucinich (45:21)
Outro (1:12:27)
- - -
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 daily show that airs every Monday through Friday at 7 p.m.
Eastern, exclusively here on Rumble, the free speech alternative to YouTube.
I saw a few people in the chat alleging that we were a little bit late tonight.
I actually don't believe that, but in the event that we were, I have a good excuse, which is I spent many hours testifying before the Brazilian Congress about the country's censorship regime, so I don't think we are late, but if we were, I'd have a good excuse.
Now, tonight, Immediately after the riot at the Capitol on January 6th, the Biden Justice Department was faced with extreme political pressure from Democrats and liberals and journalists, excuse the redundancy, to prosecute the protesters as aggressively as possible.
Now, with regard to the protesters who used violence that day against police officers, there's no difficulty in charging them with major felonies.
Even though the law is applied very selectively, some violent protesters aren't charged at all.
It is, of course, a felony to use physical force against the police.
The problem for the Justice Department was that only a small minority of the January 6th protesters used violence on that day, while the vast majority of them were, by the government's own admission, nonviolent.
But it would have been politically unacceptable for the Justice Department and D.C.
prosecutors to only charge most January 6th protesters with misdemeanor counts.
So they faced a serious dilemma.
How do we take non-violent political protesters or even non-violent trespassers and convert them into felons?
The solution they embraced was legally dubious, to put that mildly.
They decided to weaponize a 2002 law that was enacted after the Enron financial scandal, and which was designed simply to fill holes in the law that would have allowed Enron's accounting firm, Arthur Anderson, to escape justice.
And they took this law and decided to interpret it in a way that had never previously been interpreted or remotely understood.
As somehow covering protests at the Capitol during official proceedings.
Lower courts largely accepted this prosecutorial theory and hundreds of non-violent January 6th protesters were turned into felons as a result.
But as federal appellate courts began examining this theory more closely, they began to express serious doubts about the validity of this legal interpretation.
And today, the Supreme Court held oral argument on the question and a majority of the justices were clearly hostile to the main prosecution theory used in the January 6th prosecutions.
We will report on what happened at the court today and examine the implications.
Then, when Tucker Carlson was the most popular cable news host on Fox, conservatives were almost all unwilling to criticize him.
Indeed, when he was fired from Fox, several Republican congressmen ran to Axios to say how happy they were that he was no longer on Fox because now they could more easily fund wars, including in Ukraine, without the constant pressure from Tucker to encourage people to oppose financing of war.
But none of those members of Congress had the courage to criticize Tucker openly under their own name.
Instead, they demanded and were given anonymity.
But one of the few changes in Tucker Carlson since he left Fox and became an independent commentator and journalist, I would say the only change, is that he began to express serious doubts about the US policy of financing Israel and paying for its military and arming and funding its various wars.
Carlson has even begun to criticize the behavior of Israel itself, and in conservative Republican politics, criticism or questioning of Israel, this foreign country, is still the greatest taboo.
You have no idea how often I hear people who identify as America First, who insist that we have to finance and support and applaud and never question this foreign country.
And so now when it comes to Tucker Carlson, because of Israel, the gloves are off.
Just as they are for Candace Owens over the same issue.
Particularly in neocon journals and neocon writers who are now not just expressing disagreement with Carlson over Israel, but are obviously trying to destroy his reputation entirely.
We'll examine the latest article by the neocon Eli Lake published in Barry Weiss' The Free Press to illustrate how and why this is being done.
Now, finally, Dennis Kucinich has long been one of the most interesting and heterodox elected officials in the country.
At the age of 31, he was elected to be mayor of Cleveland, Ohio, and then he represented that state's 10th congressional district for the next 16 years, from 1997 until 2013.
He twice ran for president as a member of the Democratic Party in both 2004 and 2008, and he expressed harsh criticisms of both of the eventual nominees, John Kerry and Barack Obama.
Kucinich is now back after a brief stint as campaign manager for RFK Jr.' 's presidential campaign.
He is now running as an independent.
Against the first term congressman, the Republican Max Miller, whose sentence has always had interesting things to say on issues ranging from war to civil liberties and the corrupt bipartisan Washington system.
And we are excited to speak with him this evening and we are sure that the interview will be at least engaging, even if there's things he says that you don't agree with.
Before we get to all that, a few programming notes.
We are encouraging our viewers to download the Rumble app.
It works both on your smart TV and telephone, and if you do so, you can follow the shows you most like to watch on Rumble.
And if you activate notifications, as we hope you will, it means soon as those shows begin broadcasting live on the platform, you'll be notified by text or email, and you can just simply click on the link and begin watching.
It really helps the live audience numbers for those shows and helps Rumble as a platform itself in its mission of protecting free speech.
As another reminder, System Update is also available in podcast form.
You can listen to every episode 12 hours after their first broadcast live here on Rumble, on Spotify, Apple, and all the major podcasting platforms.
And if you rate, review, and follow our 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 at Rumble, we move to Locals, which is part of the Rumble platform, where we have our live interactive After Show, where we take your questions, respond to your critiques, and hear your suggestions for future shows.
That After Show is available only for members of our Locals community, and if you want to join, which gives you access not only to those twice-a-week After Shows, but to the multiple interactive features we have to interact with our audience throughout the week.
It's the place we publish transcripts of every program we broadcast here.
We publish written transcripts there.
It's where we first publish our original written journalism, and most of all, it's the community on which we most rely to support the independent journalism that we're doing here every night.
Simply click the Join button right below the video player on the Rumble page, and it will take you directly to that community.
For now, welcome to a new episode of System Update, starting right now.
One of the strangest and most revealing developments in the era of Donald Trump is how large parts of American liberals and even parts of the American left completely abandoned and jettisoned and often even renounced principles that had long defined left.
liberal politics in the United States.
One of the primary views of American left liberals for decades has been the need to reform the criminal justice system based on the argument that the United States is the country that imprisons more of its citizens than any other in the world, both in terms of raw numbers and in terms of percentage of our country that is incarcerated.
We are only 5% of the world's population, yet 25% of all prisoners in the world are in the United States.
And the argument has always been that the system is rigged in favor of prosecutors, that prosecutors have far too many powers, and there are almost no protections for criminal defendants, which is why the vast majority of criminal cases end either in a plea bargain of someone pleading guilty or a conviction in court.
And the minute Trump became president, those principles were abandoned with things like the prosecution of Michael Flynn when he was lured by the FBI into describing, without a perfect memory, a conversation that they eavesdropped on.
They knew exactly what he said with the Russian ambassador.
They tried to criminalize that using theories that the left had long denounced And yet no one on the left had a problem with it.
Many cheered it because it was Michael Flynn being prosecuted.
That happened all throughout Russiagate and it particularly happened in the prosecution of January 6 protesters.
Obviously, the American liberals have long viewed the right of political protest as a sacrosanct right.
And especially when nonviolence is used, the idea that nonviolent political protesters or even trespassers can be charged not with a misdemeanor, but a felony was unthinkable.
And yet that's exactly what federal prosecutors and prosecutors in the District Attorney and the District of Columbia have continuously done in the wake of political pressure to turn Not violent protesters at January 6th at the Capitol, not into people charged with misdemeanors, but into convicted felons.
Now we did a show on March 1st where we described, there you see the headline, what was a major court victory for nonviolent January 6th protesters, namely that a federal court of appeals had examined The theory, the primary theory that prosecutors invented to convert nonviolent political protest into a felony and found serious flaws in it.
In sum, Many of you may not remember, there was a huge scandal in the corporate world in 2001 and 2002 involving the energy company Enron.
It was considered one of the great successes in the corporate world.
People like Paul Krugman sat on its board.
It was paid $50,000 a year to do so.
Enron looked like a very profitable company, but the whole thing was a fraud and a scam.
And when the whole thing collapsed, and it was evident that it was a fraud and a scam, the government wanted to prosecute not only the executives of Enron, but also its accounting firm, Arthur Anderson, that had played such a vital role in helping Enron perpetrate this fraud.
The problem was that there were holes in federal law that really didn't apply to the kind of hiding of information or the kind of attempts to obstruct justice that accountants at the Arthur Anderson firm engaged in.
And so as a result, Congress enacted a law called the Sarbanes-Oxley Law, which was named after the two members of Congress who sponsored it, that was just designed to call it a federal offense, a felony, if you deliberately and corruptly hide information or obstruct if you deliberately and corruptly hide information or obstruct an official proceeding, such as an investigation, into financial fraud.
It was a very narrow statute clearly designed to do things like be able to empower the federal government to charge people engaged in financial fraud with felonies more easily.
And the law has been there since 2002, and nobody ever dreamed of using it to turn nonviolent political protesters into felonies that have nothing to do with the enactment of this law.
And what prosecutors decided to do was to classify the January 6th ceremony where the Congress approves the Electoral College results as though that were some kind of an investigation of an official ceremony so that people who protested there, even nonviolently, could be accused of obstructing it.
As if that was equivalent to obstruction of justice or an investigation and charged nonviolent protesters with a felony.
And in order to do that, ironically, it had to be characterized as some sort of official investigatory proceeding.
And so they used Donald Trump's theory about January 6th, namely that it wasn't just a ceremonial event.
Where the Congress automatically has to accept the report of the electoral college, they decided instead to classify it as some kind of an investigation where Congress has discretion.
To accept or reject the results of the Electoral College so that they could call it an investigative body or an official investigative proceeding in order to squeeze in these protesters into this law that had nothing to do, ever, with political protesting.
And so the U.S.
Court of Appeals, the most important court in the D.C.
Circuit after the Supreme Court on March 1st in the case of the USA, versus Larry Rendell Brock, said the following, quote, the court, the lower court convicted Brock, he was a January 6th protester, of six crimes, including corruptly obstructing Congress's certification of the electoral court under 18 U.S.C. 1512 C.2, that's the Sarbanes-Oxley law.
At sentencing, the district court applied a three-level sentencing enhancement to Brock's conviction on the ground that Brock's conduct resulted in, quote, substantial interference with the administration of justice, meaning the January 6th ceremony.
me.
And then the appellate court said this, quote, we hold that the administration of justice enhancement does not apply to interference with the legislative process of certifying electoral votes.
For that reason, we vacate Brock's sentence for his section 1512c2 conviction and remand to the district court for resentencing.
Considered in context, Congress's counting and certification of electoral votes is but the last step in a lengthy electoral certification process involving state legislatures and officials as well as Congress taking as a whole the multi-step process of certifying electoral college votes as important to our democratic system of government as it is
There's little resemblance to the traditional understanding of the administration of justice as the judicial or quasi-judicial investigation or determination of individual rights.
Barack's interference with one stage of the electoral college vote counting process, while no doubt endangering our democratic processes and temporarily derailing Congress's constitutional work, Did not constitute interference with quote the administration of justice which is the term that that Wall Street reform law used to again criminalize the attempt to obstruct a investigation by the Justice Department.
And that was a big blow to this core theory.
They didn't nullify the conviction.
They didn't say that this applies to all January 6th defendants who are convicted under this theory, but obviously it expressed serious doubts about how this law was being interpreted.
The Wall Street Journal back in 2021 said the following, quote, to prosecute January 6th Capitol rioters, government tasked a novel legal strategy.
Quote, as first trials approach some defendants are challenging use of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act to obtain felony convictions and stiff sentences.
This was always an extreme stretch of the law and yet few people cared because they were maniacally obsessed with punishing the January 6th protesters in the harshest way possible Even if the law did not permit charging them with felonies, they decided to do it anyway, because of the political pressure to put these people in prison, even if they didn't use violence.
They used a distortion of the law, not the law itself.
Finally, after all this time, an appellate court rejected that theory.
Today, this case went to the Supreme Court.
And the New York Times, obviously supportive of this overall effort to punish these January 6th defendants, was forced to admit the following, quote, of using the obstruction law to charge the January 6 rioters.
Quote, "The justices' questions considered the gravity of the assault and whether prosecutors have been stretching the law to reach members of the mob responsible for the attack.
Justice Clarence Thomas, who returned to the bench after an unexplained absence on Monday, like a little school child who didn't provide a sick form to school after he missed class on Monday, He asked whether the government was engaging in a kind of selective prosecution.
Quote, there have been many violent protests that have interfered with proceedings, he said.
Has the government applied this provision to other protests?
Justice Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch asked questions along similar lines.
But the justices mostly considered whether a provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act Enacted in the wake of the collapse of the energy giant Enron covers the conduct of a former police officer, Joseph Fisher, who participated in the Capitol assault on January 6, 2021.
The law figures in two of the federal charges against Mr. Trump as well in his election subversion case, and more than 350 people who stormed the Capitol have been prosecuted under it.
If the Supreme Court sides with Mr. Fisher and says the statute does not cover what he is accused of having done, Mr. Trump is almost certain to contend that it does not apply to his conduct either.
The law signed in 2002 was prompted by accounting fraud and the destruction of documents, but the provision is written in broad terms.
It did that in two-part provision.
The first makes it a crime to corruptly alter, destroy, or conceal evidence to frustrate official proceedings, which obviously does not apply to the January 6th defendants.
They didn't destroy anything in terms of documents as part of the proceedings.
The second part, says the New York Times, at issue in Mr. Fisher's case, makes it a crime, quote, otherwise, to corruptly obstruct, influence, or impede any official proceeding.
The heart of the case is that pivot from the first part to the second.
The ordinary meaning of quote, otherwise, prosecutors say, is quote, in a different manner.
That means, they say, that the obstruction of official proceedings need not involve the destruction of evidence.
The second part, they say, is a broad catch-all applying to all sorts of conduct.
Mr. Fisher's lawyers counter that the first part of the provision must inform and limit the second one.
To obstruction linked to the destruction of evidence they would read otherwise, in other words, as similarly.
Now the New York Times is giving a lot of credit to this prosecutorial theory for obvious reasons than the New York Times.
One of the journalists who has, in my view, covered the January 6th prosecutions in the most intrepid and tireless and well-informed way is Julie Kelly.
She's like an encyclopedia for January 6th prosecutions.
She has been covering the flaws in the Justice Department's case, the abuses of the prosecutors and the judges.
She's been on our show before to talk about the January 6th prosecution.
There's really no journalist in the country, I believe, who is as well informed as she is.
And here's what she had to say about the oral argument.
Today, she appeared.
Let's find out whose show she appeared on.
But this is what she said.
Fisher v. United States.
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments today.
Before we get into where you think the judges are going, can you just give us background as to what's at issue here and why it's such a big deal, not just for Trump, but for a lot of J6 defendants?
Right, so this relates to the government's use, DOJ's use, of 1512c2 obstruction of an official proceeding statute.
This was passed in the wake aftermath of the Enron Arthur Anderson scandal.
It has to do with evidence tampering or document shredding, as we saw in that case.
What the DOJ has done for the first time ever is weaponize that statute to criminalize political dissent and charge now roughly 350 January 6th protesters with this felony offense, punishable by up to 20 years in prison.
It finally, three years later, has made it to the Supreme Court.
Now, just to illustrate how abusive the justice system has been to the January 6th defendants, we all know that nonviolent protesters are almost never charged.
And the DOJ appealed that, which is how now we got to the Supreme Court oral arguments today.
Now, just to illustrate how abusive the justice system has been to the January 6th defendants, we all know that nonviolent protesters are almost never charged.
Even violent protesters often are not.
Because this case is now before the Supreme Court, because an appellate court raised questions about the interpretation, There have been January 6th defendants who have gone to the judge and asked for a reduced sentence based on the doubt about whether this law can be used to prosecute them.
And at least one of the judges in several cases said, I'm not reducing your sentence because even if the Supreme Court invalidates your prosecution under this law, I will simply increase the sentence I gave you for your conviction under a different law.
In other words, I'll make them consecutive instead of concurrent and you'll end up spending the same amount of time in prison anyway.
They're going to readjust retroactively to increase the sentence, even if they said the Supreme Court invalidates his prosecution.
Now, just to give you a sense of some of the skepticism and hostility the court today expressed during oral arguments, I just want to show you a couple of illustrative clips.
The first one is from Chief Justice John Roberts of the Supreme Court.
And to come up with some a textual gloss from C1 to port over into C2, I don't understand what the court could look at to guide its determination of exactly what the relevant similarity would be.
General, I'm sure you've had a chance to read our opinion.
By the way, this is an exchange that Justice Chief Justice Roberts had with the Solicitor General of the United States, which is the lawyer responsible for defending the United States in before the Supreme Court.
General, I'm sure you've had a chance to read our opinion released Friday in the Voice of Net case.
It was unanimous.
It was very short.
But it explained how to apply the doctrine of Euston Generous.
And what it said is that specific terms A more general catch-all, if you will, term at the end.
And it said that the general phrase is controlled and defined by reference to the terms that precede it.
The otherwise phrase is more general, and the terms that precede it are alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record and document.
And applying the doctrine as was set forth in that opinion, The specific terms alters, destroy, and mutilate carry forward into two.
And the terms record, document, or other object carry forward into two as well.
And it seems to me that they, as I said, sort of control and define the more general term.
So, Mr. Chief Justice, I think that the statute... I'm sorry, just to interrupt so I can put out exactly what... And the otherwise means in other ways.
It alters, destroys, and mutilates record, document, or other objects that impede the investigation, and otherwise, in other ways, accomplishes the same result.
So I think the problem with that approach with respect to 1512 is that it doesn't look like the typical kind of statutory phrase that consists of a parallel list of nouns or a parallel list of verbs where the court has applied a usedom generis or the noscator canon.
These are separate prohibitions that have their own complex non-parallel internal structure and I think actually the best evidence that it's hard to figure out how you would define a degree of similarity between them just based on the word otherwise Is that there are multiple competing interpretations at issue in this case.
You know, Justice Alito touched on them, and they're reflected in the competing interpretations between Judge Katzus on the D.C.
Circuit and Judge Nichols on the District Court.
Competing interpretations of what?
Which phrase?
And it relates to exactly the question you asked me, which is that Judge Nichols thought that C-1 should limit C-2, and he looked at it and said, well, the relevant thing about C-1 is it deals with records, documents, and other objects.
And so that means C-2 should be limited only to other acts that impair physical evidence.
Meanwhile, Judge Katsas looked at the specific intent requirement in C-1 to take action that impairs the availability or use of the evidence, and he defined a broader gloss to put on C-2 and said it should be other impairment of all other evidence.
Well, they're just applying the same doctrine to different aspects of it, and I think you do that as well.
What are the common elements?
Alters, destroy, and mutilates a record or a document.
You have the first few, what you're doing, and what you're doing it to.
And you apply both of those, as it's said in Boysenet, controlling and defining the term that follows, so that it should involve something that's capable of alteration, destruction, and mutilation with respect to a record or a document.
That's that's how I actually don't even understand when you when you apply that doctrine again as we did on Friday it it responds to some of the concerns have been raised about how broad So I realize that sounds like a legalistic and semantic dispute, but it's actually crucial because the government's theory requires an interpretation of this law that would basically encompass almost any behavior.
And obviously, Chief Justice Roberts, who often is a swing vote, he's not one of the most reliable right-wing judges on the court by any means,
You hear him not really trying to be subtle or ambiguous about it, very clearly opposed to the government's interpretation, an interpretation of this law that has been used once again to convert hundreds of January 6 protesters into felons and is now being used by Jack Smith as well to add felony counts to what Donald Trump is accused of doing as part of that federal case.
One more exchange.
This one is with Neil Gorsuch, and it is also with the U.S.
Solicitor General, Elizabeth Prologar, just to give you a sense for, again, the hostility that her arguments and the government's arguments confronted before the court today.
If that's the case, what work does Authorized do on your theory?
Because I think I might, as I'm hearing you, I think that whoever corruptly obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding or attempts to do so stands alone.
And the otherwise, I'm not hearing what work it does.
Can you explain to me what work it does on your view?
Yes.
So the work that otherwise does is to set up the relationship between C1 and C2 and make clear that C2 does not cover the conduct that's encompassed by C1.
Now, I acknowledge that there were- Beyond that.
Beyond that, beyond saying, okay, C-1 does some things, and the whole rest of the universe of obstructing, impeding, or influencing is conducted by C-2.
Is that a fair summary of your view?
Yes, but there was a good reason for Congress to do it this way.
It traces to the statutory history.
I understand that.
If I might, so what does that mean for the breadth of this statute?
Would a sit-in that disrupts a trial or access to a federal courthouse qualify?
Would a heckler in today's audience qualify or at the State of the Union address?
Would pulling a fire alarm before a vote qualify for 20 years?
Now, those are exactly the right questions.
And obviously that last question very clearly referred to the behavior of Jamal Bowman on the date of the vote in Congress where he pulled the fire alarm and it delayed the proceeding.
And he claimed he was doing that in order to try and get out of the door.
None of his claims actually made sense.
It was actually illegal.
And what Justice Gorsuch is saying is that if you interpret this law to mean any kind of disruption to any sort of congressional proceeding, you're going to include all sorts of things that have been very common forms of protest in our country.
There are all kinds of people who occupy the Congress who disrupt congressional proceedings in order to scream things out in the middle.
about all kinds of things.
People who go and occupy the Congress in defense of abortion rights or who frequently disrupt hearings on war.
None of these people are committed felonies and they don't, it's never been interpreted as that.
By the way, the comments from Julie Kelly that we played, just to give credit to the show, was from the Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show.
But I think the key point here is that there are a few things more dangerous than what mob justice prevails.
The Democrats ran on a platform of depoliticizing the Justice Department.
They constantly claimed that the Justice Department was acting as the personal lawyer of Donald Trump.
They were going to depoliticize it.
And if these January 6th prosecutions reek of nothing but political pressure and politicized motives, you can hate the January 6th protests all you want.
You can even hate the protesters.
But you don't want the law being distorted and abused for any purpose.
because that becomes a threat to everybody and the interpretation that they are using will absolutely end up encompassing a wide range of political protests that we have long considered legal in this country and certainly not felonies when tucker carlson was the most popular host in cable news during his six-year stint at fox news
very few republicans or conservatives were willing to criticize him certainly not by name when
When Tucker was fired from Fox for reasons that still are not quite clear, although in my view they obviously have something to do with his opposition to the kind of Republican ideological orthodoxy that the Murdoch family has long supported, including his opposition to the war in Ukraine and all sorts of other criticisms of the Republican Party and Republican leadership,
There were several Republican congressmen who were delighted, gleeful over the fact that he had been fired and they wanted to say so, but they were afraid to do so under their own name because of Tucker's popularity among the Republican base.
He is probably more popular than any single politician outside of Donald Trump.
Here from Axios, May 4th, 2023, which is the week that Tucker was fired, you see the headline, quote, good riddance.
Republican lawmakers private glee at Tucker Carlson's firing.
Quote, a sizable number of Republican lawmakers are quietly cheering Fox News's decision to remove Tucker Carlson from its airways as making it easier to provide aid to Ukraine, Axios has learned.
What they're saying, multiple House Republicans speaking on the condition of anonymity.
Slammed the former Fox News host for rhetoric on Vladimir Putin and Russian aggression, and said his inflammatory remarks on an array of issues often put them in a tough spot.
Quote, Tucker being gone makes my life easier with many things, including Ukraine, one Republican lawmaker said.
Quote, though I think that somebody will own that space in a couple of weeks anyway.
Another quote, well, no one is more unhappy about Tucker's departure than the Russians.
Add another House Republican.
Imagine the cowardice to be a member of Congress and to insinuate that Tucker Carlson is a Russian agent and to celebrate his firing only by hiding behind anonymity because you're so afraid, even though you're a member of Congress, to criticize This cable host.
Quote, a third lawmaker argued that Carlson quote, thrived on destroying Republicans.
I say good riddance.
Such profiles encourage these people are, but it is illustrative of the point I'm making, which is that Tucker's popularity among conservatives meant that it was very rare ever to see him criticized.
All of that changed when Tucker left Fox and began a new media company where he is completely independent.
His new podcast that's barely beginning already skyrocketed to the top of every podcasting chart ahead of the New York Times, Daily Show, and NPR ahead of every other show.
And so now it is open season among many conservatives and Republicans on Tucker Carlson.
Whereas I said they're not just disagreeing with his views, but obviously trying to destroy his reputation to cancel him, if you will.
And the question is why?
Why was he so untouchable and popular when he was at Fox News?
And yet now many conservatives feel so comfortable just maligning him in every conceivable way.
Members of Congress now do that under their own Twitter account.
Conservative journals do it all the time.
If you look at Tucker Carlson's range of views, that he expressed at Fox and compare it to the range of views that he expresses now, the only real difference you will find is that when he was at Fox, he basically avoided the issue of Israel entirely.
He just never spoke about it.
He didn't praise Israel.
He didn't advocate for US support for Israel, but he also never critiqued it or questioned it or criticized it.
It was just an issue he largely avoided.
And yet since becoming independent, and obviously a big part of it is that a major war broke out between Israel and its Palestinian neighbors that the United States is heavily involved in, that we're funding and financing and arming and using our soft power to protect Israel.
It's almost impossible not to talk about it.
Whereas when he was at Fox, it was pretty much on the back burner.
But in any event, he has become a leading critic of the U.S.
support for Israel.
He had me on his show very early on after October 7th to talk about the way in which conservatives, who were branding themselves free speech champions for years, Suddenly decided to turn around and support censorship of Israel critics and pro-Palestinian activists, both on campus and beyond.
But then it turned into a more holistic critique of the US relationship to Israel.
And most recently, he interviewed a pastor, a Christian pastor in the West Bank, who was highly critical of Israel.
And that was basically the straw that broke the camel's back.
Where he's now not just questioning U.S.
support for Israel, but actually dared to criticize this foreign country, something that has long been the surest way to destroy your career and reputation within Republican and conservative circles.
And now you're seeing, especially among the United States' most fanatical supporters of Israel, an all-out effort to destroy Tucker's character here today.
In the outlet called the Free Press, which was founded by Barry Weiss, who has branded herself a free speech champion, and yet at the same time has very little to say about the six or seven months of censorship of Israel and yet at the same time has very little to say about the six or seven months of censorship of Israel critics and pro-Palestinian activists on American campus justified on the rationale that the left uses for its censorship, namely that views that
That is now the right-wing narrative about Israel critics on campus and therefore need to be censored.
Barry Weiss's Free Press, and Barry's promoted this article today, written by Eli Lake, who is also a pure neocon, somebody fanatically supportive of Israel, has this as a headline, quote, "Tucker Carlson's turn.
Why is the pundit persuading the American right to abandon its rightful contempt for foreign tyrants, terrorists, and cranks?
And this is what the article says, quote, When I turned in last June to watch Tucker's new show on X, it became apparent that Fox had kept him tethered to reality.
Without a strong editor or producer at the wheel, his skepticism is curdled into sophistry.
Now let me just say, I can't tell you how many times I heard that about myself after I left The Intercept, even though people had no idea what they were talking about.
I didn't have editorial supervision at The Intercept.
I actually did have editorial supervision once I left The Intercept because I hired editors to work with me on my journalism.
And Tucker's not out there alone working on his media company.
He's surrounded by the same team he had at Fox News.
But they just make up, make things up.
That, oh, he used to have editorial limitations and now he doesn't.
This goes on, quote, He is now platforming conspiracy theorists, allowing them to spout falsehoods while never challenging the veracity of their claims.
What was most appalling was Tucker's descent into moral relativism, his muddying of the line between good and evil.
For Tucker, America is not exceptional enough.
It is no better than its enemies.
And this is particularly corrosive because he is persuading a large segment of the American right to abandon its rightful contempt for foreign tyrants, terrorists, and cranks.
Now, just a reminder, Donald Trump in 2016 ran on a platform and then won the Republican nomination and ultimately the election.
of advocating against endless war, against Republican orthodoxy and foreign policy.
It wasn't Tucker who was the first to do it, but Donald Trump, who said we fight far too many wars, we're involved in far too many countries, internal affairs, the war in Iraq was misguided and dumb, the war to change the governments of Libya and Syria were things we had no right to do, were things we shouldn't have been involved with.
And it was under Donald Trump that the United States, for the first time in decades, did not start a new war.
He inherited wars and escalated a couple of them, including the one against ISIS, but he did not start any new wars.
And the Republican Party became far more skeptical of neocon foreign policy because of Donald Trump, Trump, which is why most leading neocons became the never Trump advocates and even joined the Democratic Party because they thought Hillary Clinton and then Joe Biden was a far more reliable vehicle for traditional antagonistic and warmongering foreign policy than Donald which is why most leading neocons became the never Trump advocates and even Here is Eli Lake's next paragraph.
First came Moscow.
He told us he was dazzled by the city's gleaming subways and orderly fast food restaurants.
Then he interviewed Russian despot and world champion liar Vladimir Putin, allowing him to deliver a slanted history of his country's dominion over Over Western Ukraine, never once did Tucker ask him about Alexei Navalny, the opposition leader who died 10 days after the interview in one of Putin's Arctic dungeons.
The skepticism that served him well in the Trump years, when much of the fourth estate behaved like an oppositional political party, has led him all the way around the horseshoe.
His opposition to the people he hates, liberals and neocons, has turned him into Noam Chomsky in a bowtie.
Now, between the foreign policy of neocons and establishment liberals, the people who brought us into Iraq, into Vietnam, into Afghanistan, into Libya, into Syria, now into Ukraine, now into Israel, now into the Middle East, between those people, neocons and establishment liberals on the one hand and Noam Chomsky on the other, it's not difficult to determine whose foreign policy views have been more vindicated over the last several decades.
Calling Tucker Noam Chomsky might be an insult in neocon circles, but to anyone who has become skeptical of the endless war posture of the United States, it ought to be considered high praise.
He goes on, quote, Tucker has even adopted some of the same progressive talking points he once used to ridicule.
For example, in February, Tucker said he despises former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley because of her hawkish foreign policy against Iran, claiming that her real agenda was to resurrect the military draft.
Quote, I've got four draft-aged children, he told comedian Russell Brand, so if you're playing recklessly fast and loose with their lives, then I have a right to despise you.
So, A big part of Tucker's transgression was that he despises Nikki Haley who has advocated one war after the next while she's then sat on the board of Boeing and got very rich giving speeches to pro-Israel and pro-war think tanks.
And that's Tucker's crime that he says he despises Nikki Haley because of her history of sending other families into wars that have nothing to do with the United States, while never herself fighting or sending her own family to fight.
He goes on, quote, but even after that, and now we get to the real reason, Tucker needs to be smeared in a character destructive way.
But, quote, even after that, it's Tucker's interview last week with Munther Isaac, a self-described evangelical Christian pastor who lives in Bethlehem, that most alarmed me.
Exactly, it's criticism of Israel that is the obvious motive for destroying Tucker.
Quote, unmentioned is the fact that Munther is an extremist who praised the, quote, strength of those who invaded Israel on October 7.
The other curious omission is that Bethlehem is no longer governed by Israel.
That is such a lie.
Bethlehem is in the West Bank.
It's in the part of Jerusalem that the IDF occupies and completely controls.
And he goes on, quote, yet Isaac claimed that one of the biggest problems for Christians in Bethlehem is the Israeli occupation.
Quote, people keep leaving because of the political reality.
Life under a very harsh Israeli military occupation is difficult to bear.
Tucker has also kept silent.
about Iran's strike on Saturday against Israel, our country's only democratic ally in the Middle East.
He has said nothing about the lunatic fringe rising up in the United States, which is cheering on Iran.
So I'm glad we took this big detour, but finally got to the real reason Eli Lake and Barry Weiss and so many other devotees of standard American warmongering that has been so destructive to our country, To the people in our country, to our financial condition, to the standing in the world, they want that foreign policy to go on forever, especially to the extent that it involves support for Israel.
And anybody who is in any influential position You can pretty much do whatever you want, but the minute you start questioning and criticizing Israel, and as they say, convincing people on the right to begin questioning U.S.
support for Israel as well, that is the red line, still the third rail in conservative politics.
And you see these people whose priority is not the United States, but Israel, whose number one goal is to ensure That this foreign policy that led us into so many destructive wars, especially in the Middle East, continues.
And they know that anybody who is an impediment to that, who is to begin questioning it, who might convince other people to be skeptical of it as well, have to be destroyed.
And that is what explains the sudden and very concerted and coordinated effort to destroy Tucker Carlson's reputation.
As I said at the start of the program, Denis Kucinich has long been one of the most interesting figures in American politics.
He became, at a very young age, the mayor of Cleveland.
He then served for 16 years in the Congress, representing the 10th Congressional District as a Democrat.
And yet that whole time, he was also a harsh critic of the Democratic Party and its leaders to the point that he ran for president in 2004 and 2008, often directing his harshest critiques for the leaders of the party and the orthodoxies that drove and formed it, including its commitment to and support for various wars.
He appeared again as earlier this year, or late last year rather, as the campaign manager for RFK Jr.' 's presidential campaign,
After leaving that campaign, he announced his candidacy for Congress, representing Ohio's 7th Congressional District, where he is running, not as a Democrat, but as an Independent, against a first-term Republican Congressman, Max Miller, and we are delighted to speak to Congressman Kucinich and to hear about all the reasons why he is running.
Congressman, welcome to our show.
It's great to have you on.
Glenn, I am very grateful to have a chance to speak with you.
I've waited for this for a long time and let's go for it.
Thank you so much.
Absolutely.
We're excited as well.
So let's begin with your candidacy, the candidacy that you are now committed to.
Your opponent, as I said, is a Republican member of Congress, Max Miller.
He was elected in 2022 for the first time, so he's only a first term member of Congress.
Why did you decide that he needed Well, first of all, what's happening right now is there's an assault on the Constitution.
The national security state is getting stronger than ever.
This recent passing of the next iteration of Section 702 of FISA was destructive of the Fourth Amendment.
We've got the World Health Organization waiting in the wings with a treaty that they're trying to get approved that would essentially vitiate Numerous sections of the Constitution.
Our economy right now is in a dangerous place for people in the 7th District.
I've got plenty of reasons to run.
And I have a district now that contains almost half of my old constituency.
So I have the name recognition.
I have the desire, the willingness to serve.
The energy, the love of country.
I'm ready to go back to Congress as an Independent at a time when it's quite likely Congress could be split right down the middle.
If it's 217 Democrats, 217 Republicans, and one Independent, I'm ready to take up that challenge on behalf of the 7th District and on behalf of the American people.
There were many members of Congress in the weeks after October 7th who made statements that I think can only be described as fanatical and even genocidal.
Congressman Miller was an example of someone who made those kind of statements.
Do we have the video of Congressman Miller?
I want to just play this video quickly.
It's a short video of Congressman Miller talking about what he hopes Israel will do to the people of Gaza.
Rashida Tlaib has the, I don't even want to call it the Palestinian flag because they're not a state, they're a territory that's about to probably get eviscerated and go away here shortly as we're going to turn that into a parking lot.
So obviously calling for Israel to turn Gaza with 2.2 million people in it, half of whom are children, into a parking lot is as genocidal and fanatical of a statement as you can make.
But what is it beyond that, specifically about Congressman Miller, that you decided warranted a challenge?
Well, I don't know if you have to go much beyond a member of Congress who calls for genocide.
Implication being ethnic cleansing, revenge, collective punishment.
I mean, all these things in violation of international law.
A member of Congress ought to know better.
And I think that what it reveals is not just a lack of understanding of the moment, That it wasn't just Israel that suffered.
Israel did suffer on October 7th, and all of us who care about people and the world and humanity strongly protest what happened to Israel then.
But what happened afterwards to Palestinians as a result is also a disaster for the world.
And it came at the hands of the Israeli government and continues to this day with policies of starvation.
This is heartbreaking, but it's also wrong.
And so Mr. Miller represents a certain point of view.
That supports those unfortunate actions on the part of the State of Israel.
Furthermore, he recently, he's voted five times to support Section 702 of FISA, which is a destructive undermining of the Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure.
He voted against the Biggs Amendment, which would have put Actually put the Fourth Amendment back into the law by saying you cannot have a warrantless search, you have to have probable cause if you're going to search an American, and you have to go to court to get it.
He came into Congress.
He's been there a year.
I don't think that he has the understanding, the maturity, and the judgment to be able to represent the district and to be able to engage in those matters that are important to the world, to America, and the people of the 7th District.
So about this renewal of warrantless spying, domestic warrantless spying on American citizens.
When we reported on it last night, we went through the history of how this program came to be and how the law that legalized it also came to be.
Because I think most people don't remember the history.
I'm sure you do because you were in Congress at the time.
But this was a program that Bush and Cheney authorized in 2002 and kept it a secret.
The New York Times divulged it in 2005, won a Pulitzer for doing so.
And at the time it was a huge scandal.
The idea that the NSA was spying on Americans without the warrants required by law.
There was talk of impeaching George Bush.
And then under Nancy Pelosi, the solution that the Congress embraced was to retroactively legalize warrantless spying on American citizens.
That is the law that has subsequently been renewed and Congress is ready to renew it.
As long as there was just some reform to it, including requiring a warrant.
The vote failed by 212 to 212.
Obviously got a lot of support, not just from Republicans, but also Democrats.
In fact, more support for this bill from Democrats than Republicans.
What does this say about the nature of the bipartisan political class in Washington that they're holding hands, uniting?
It was Mike Johnson as Republican House Speaker working with the Biden White House.
Well, you know, Mike Jones is a constitutional attorney, and I think he would know better.
Maybe his tenuous position has caused him to rethink.
But let's look at it this way.
Start with the FBI.
In 2021, they had over 3 million FISA searches of Americans.
In 2022, there were hundreds of thousands of queries, or rather, hundreds of queries per day.
And in 2020 and 2021, the FBI conducted over 278,000 searches of the 702 database, which is a clear violation of their own rules.
So this national security state is a danger to our Constitution.
It opens the door to a police state.
Had I been in Congress, I would have broken that tie, and the Biggs Amendment would have passed.
I will tell you, Glenn, that my experience in Congress, seeing this, being in briefings where intelligence operators would lie to Congress, watching Congress spying, or rather watching the intelligence agency spying on Congress, look what happened with Senator Feinstein and her intelligence committee.
I myself had an incident where one of the intelligence agencies intercepted a phone call to my office, violating the separation of powers, and then turned around and gave the actual recording to a D.C.
newspaper so that they could see the conversations I had to try to stop an escalation of the war against Libya.
So, you know, at the beginning of each Congress, members of Congress are asked to sign a note that they will not divulge any classified information.
I stopped signing that because the whole thing is a charade.
And if you sign it and suddenly you take a position and they say, well, look what you did.
You divulged classified information.
It's a gotcha moment.
I mean, the government lied about Iraq.
You know, they've cost this country trillions of dollars with the lies.
And frankly, for me, there is such a thing as truth.
There is such a thing as being true to one's country.
And one way you can do it is you have to see through the lies.
And these are eyes that can see through the lies.
Absolutely.
So let me ask you about Speaker Johnson, because you mentioned that he was a constitutional lawyer.
By chance, I actually had him on my show just a couple of months before he became House Speaker.
Obviously, nobody knew at the time that that was even possible.
And I remember walking away very impressed with his knowledge, but also his passionate commitment to the beliefs he had, including the dangers of having the US security state have this wide range of powers of censorship and warrantless eavesdropping.
He was also vehemently opposed to more funding for the war in Ukraine.
He then becomes speaker and he has a 180 degree reversal on multiple issues within a matter of a couple of months, including now he's promising to get $60 billion more to Ukraine.
He was the key vote.
He was the one who made it a tie by voting in favor of warrantless eavesdropping against the Biggs Amendment.
Now, I presume you don't know Mike Johnson personally because you haven't served with him in Congress.
I'm not asking you to speculate on his motives personally, but you have been in Washington for a long time.
What is it about How Washington culture works.
We obviously saw the same thing with President Obama.
He vowed in 2008 when he was running to undo a whole range of war on terror programs that once he got elected he instead embraced and even strengthened.
What is it about the culture of Washington, the U.S.
security state, that gets these people into their grasp and can get them to radically change their views on what seem to be very thoughtful and convicted principles in such a short period of time?
I think what it comes down to is this, and this is not no disparagement of Speaker Johnson, who probably has the toughest job in America.
There is a desire to join a consensus in Washington.
It's a very powerful thing to be part of a party, to be in agreement.
If you're in a position of real power inside the Congress to hold that position.
And when that happens, often the Constitution is set aside.
And I started at the beginning by talking about how the Constitution is under assault.
You know, Article 1, Section 8 is the one that empowers Congress to decide whether to go to war or not.
That has been totally trashed by a series of administrations.
You know, whether it was Serbia, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Iran, there's various iterations of war.
Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7.
Check it out.
That's the one that talks about the constitutional responsibility to make appropriations and also basically to keep the books.
How do you end up with a $34 trillion national debt if that's what's happening?
The Patriot Act.
Clear violation of Fourth Amendment.
But leadership in Congress went for it.
I read it.
I didn't vote for it.
The WTO.
How did we get there?
We gave away our sovereignty to WTO, GATT, NAFTA, China Trade.
I mean, these are all things.
This is a Washington consensus.
It's about the blob, about going along with it instead of going back to the Constitution, which is really our guide, as should have been the guide in the FISA debate.
Fourth Amendment again set aside.
This World Health Organization treaty sets aside five different constitutional amendments.
I mean, we are the leadership.
When they get in there, it's about staying in power.
And it's not about empowering the American people through upholding the Constitution.
Now, back in the day when the war on terror was unfolding and a lot of these civil liberties abuses were taking root in the name of fighting terrorism.
I think it's fair to say that the Republican Party was more or less united.
A few exceptions, but largely united behind this scheme of laws that abridged civil liberties in the name of fighting terrorism.
And there were a lot of Democrats on board with it too, but at least the opposition, to the extent there was, largely came from the left, from the Democratic Party.
I looked at your social media account last week, or when the FISA vote was happening, and I saw that you were retweeting and promoting several people, clearly conservatives, on the right, who were vehemently opposed to renewing warrantless eavesdropping, people like Jim Jordan and Ana Paulino-Luma.
I think you heard my last segment talking about how Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens are conservatives who have started really questioning Israel, opening up a lot of space for skepticism of the U.S.
security state as well.
Do you see any kind of a potential realignment in terms of the two parties' views or at least more space in the Republican Party to question a lot of these policies that maybe 10 or 15 years ago they were united in support of?
Yes, and I think that my candidacy will help underscore that there are people in both the Democrat and Republican Party who are looking for a center place to be able to rest, that partisan politics has reached its terminus, that the hyperpolarization makes party more important than anything.
My candidacy is about putting country above party.
And I intend to do that.
And members of Congress, such as the ones that you mentioned, participating in the debate, Representative Jordan, Biggs, Representative Luna, and Gates and others, have taken a strong stand for the Constitution.
And I think that's where it starts.
We take at the beginning of a congressional session, we actually articulate an oath.
To protect the Constitution of the United States.
And I took that seriously, which is, you know, one of the reasons I voted against the Patriot Act, and one of the reasons why I kept voting against wars.
Because, you know, they were not about protecting the Constitution.
It wasn't about protecting American interests.
It was about the opposite.
So, you know, do I think that there's a center point around which people can coalesce?
Absolutely.
Am I intending on behalf of the people of the 7th District And the rest of the people in the other districts to be able to help create that space, to kind of tease it apart, so that we can see that there is an underlying unity in America about the things that all Americans care about.
Our Constitution, the Bill of Rights in particular, our economic interests, I mean, Americans want Congress to do something to protect them economically and politically.
And I think that we could actually, Glenn, be moving in that direction.
And I hope that my candidacy helps to demonstrate the potential of such an approach.
So a couple more questions for you, just in respect to your time.
This is not a new perspective for you, this idea that you can build these Bridges or coalitions across party and ideological lines in defense of civil liberties and against war and the like.
I remember very well when you were running for president in the Democratic Party in 2007 and you were asked who might you consider to be your vice presidential running mate and you said at the top of your list would be Ron Paul, the longtime conservative Republican congressman from Texas who Was so interesting because he was one of the most principled opponents of warmongering foreign policy and the neocon ideology but also in defense of civil liberties.
Talk about what it is that you were, because I remember how shocked and even indignant a lot of Democrats were that you would say something like that, but what is it that you saw back then and how do you think it applies now to your candidacy and to our current political state?
Thank you so much.
That's a terrific question.
Well, first of all, Ron Paul and I saw a point of coalition on the issues that related to war and the folly of the United States going into one war after another.
And so we were closer together, and we were joined by others such as Walter Jones, the rest is Saul, and Jim Duncan and others.
And we Articulated a point of view that war is not inevitable.
Peace is inevitable.
We should, you know, use diplomacy and we should remember these wars are put on a national credit card and they're breaking our nation's capacity to meet the real urgent needs of our people.
Ron Paul is a straight shooter.
He's a good man.
What I tried to do in Congress is to build personal relationships with people.
I knew there were things you're going to disagree on, but the things that you might agree on can really change the direction of a country.
And so when I mentioned Ron Paul's possible running mate in 2007, despite the fact that I gave some of my colleagues then the vapors, I felt it was really important to be able to show that my view It's not dichotomized.
I don't think in terms of polarity.
I have a unified field theory view of the country and the world.
The underlying dynamic of the world, I believe, is human unity, that we're interdependent, we're interconnected.
And the human genome theory says that 99.9% of us, we're all the same.
So war then is stupid.
War defies the logic of the universe.
And so I'm looking for always an opportunity to draw Order from the chaos that seems to be ever present.
And when I traveled the country twice as a presidential candidate, I witnessed that underlying unity.
Partisan politics looks for ways to try to divide people in order to build the fortunes of political parties only for the sake of having power.
And, you know, George Washington and others warned About the dangers of partisan politics.
And I'm saying right now, as an independent candidate for the United States Congress, I intend to make a difference and to work with people on both sides of the aisle to address our commonalities, to address the mutual interests of the American people, whatever their political philosophy or political party.
But we need to start looking at the world as one.
We cannot continue to proceed with the idea that there are enemies out there that need to be destroyed, because that thinking ultimately will destroy our own country.
I don't want to spend a lot of time on this because it's a little bit in the realm of political gossip.
But you were RFK juniors.
's campaign manager for his presidential campaign.
We had him on our show.
There was a lot that he said that I really liked, that I thought was important to be heard.
Although he was more extremist even in the Democratic Party when it comes to his support for the state of Israel and the need of the United States to finance it.
Was that position part of why you left the campaign?
And if so, or if not, what was the decision-making behind your departure from his campaign?
Well, first of all, about Bobby Kennedy Jr.
I've known him for 30 years.
He asked me to run his campaign.
I agreed to do it because I believed then, and I believe now, he's a good person.
He's somebody who really cares about the country, and he's been through it himself.
He has taken heroic personal decisions to conquer numerous type of addictions that would have destroyed other people.
He's a very special person.
Now, in running the campaign, look, if you've ever managed a political campaign, it's an interesting exercise.
And so I think that there was a coincidence of forces going on.
One was the evolution of the campaign and direction it was going.
I took it to a certain point and thought, you know, This is about as far as I could take it, and I was glad to be helpful to help my friend get started.
Were there differences on certain policy questions?
Of course.
But he's the candidate.
I wasn't.
But as the candidate, I wanted to make sure that he had a campaign manager who was going to be consistent with him on everything.
You know, on the issue of Israel, there's no greater supporter of Israel than Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
I have another view of how to support Israel.
My view of supporting Israel is, Mr. Netanyahu, be careful about overstepping to where you could actually destroy the very state you're trying to advance.
But, you know, Mr. Kennedy has a different view.
Would that in and of itself have been enough to cause me to leave?
No.
But, you know, there are other things.
And I will just say that, you know, I wish him well.
I'm on my own path now, and I'm hopeful that if, you know, people go to Kucinich.com, if you like what you hear, help us out.
This campaign is really just as much about changing the country from inside the Congress as a campaign for the president is about changing the executive branch.
So I was going to ask you actually at the end where people should go to learn more about your campaign, your positions, how they can support it, but we'll put the link as well at the bottom of the video.
So my last question for you is before October 7th, the major foreign policy debate that was dominating the Biden administration was the decision by the United States to involve itself in the war in Ukraine, financing Ukraine and its attempt to ward off What has been your view on this debate over the U.S.
So here we are now two years later, and even if people who at the beginning hoped that the Ukrainians could win, I think it's very clear now, there are very few people who deny it, that the Ukrainians aren't gonna win.
They have a shortage of artillery, and even more importantly, a shortage of people to send to the front line.
What has been your view on this debate over the US role in Ukraine, and how do you see that war now? - You know, I go back to 2000, I've been to Ukraine several times, and I met with various leaders.
I saw the United States, particularly under the instance of one Victoria Nuland, move to overthrow the government of Ukraine and to put in a leader or leaders who would be more congenial to challenge the Russian government at its core.
And so the events that happened in Donetsk and Luhansk in the Donbass region were followed this The people of Ukraine believe strongly in freedom.
destabilize Russia.
The people of Ukraine have paid a horrible price.
The people of Ukraine believe strongly in freedom.
When they say "Slava Ukraini," they mean it.
Freedom in Ukraine is something that people live and breathe.
And the Ukrainian leaders filed the United States government attempts to attack, to go after Russia.
Russia responded, I do not take any delight in seeing anybody killed in that battle, but Ukraine paid a horrible price.
What I'd like to see now happen Ukraine has to be rebuilt.
The people have to be given a chance to be restored.
They have suffered horribly.
And my heart goes out to the people on both sides who have paid a heavy price for this foreign entanglement.
But I think the war, you know, this war is effectively over.
And now You know, in the words of President Lincoln after the Second World War, when he, you know, in his second inaugural, he talked about with malice towards none, with charity towards all, you know, let's bind up the wounds.
And America, who helped to open those wounds, really needs to be in a position of binding them up.
Well, I've been following your career for a long time.
I have always found you to be an interesting person in Washington, and I'm glad.
I'm always interested in any campaigns that are running as an independent against this bipartisan consensus trying to unite people around common principles.
So we will definitely continue to report on your campaign.
We would love to have you back on the show.
We will put the link to your website underneath the video for people interested in finding out more or how to support you.
And we really appreciate you taking the time tonight to come and talk to us.
Glenn, thanks a lot.
And I've been following your career, too.
This book, With Liberty and Justice for Some, which I've read over and over, is something that ought to be read for those who care about equal application of the law.
That's very nice of you to say.
Have a great evening.
We will talk to you soon.
Thank you so much.
Bye-bye.
So that concludes our show for this evening.
As a reminder, System Update is also available in podcast form.
You can listen to every episode 12 hours after their first broadcast live here on Rumble on Spotify, Apple, and all other major podcasting platforms.
If you rate, review, and follow the program on those platforms, it really helps spread the visibility of the show.
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, where we have our live interactive aftershow, where we take your questions and comment on your feedback and critiques, hear your suggestions for future shows.
That aftershow is available only for members of our Locals community, and if you want to become a member, which gives you access not only to those twice-a-week aftershows, but to various other features we have on that platform, including the transcripts we publish every night of the show.
It's the place we publish our original journalism.
We have multiple interactive features.
And most of all, it's the community on which we rely to support the independent journalism we're doing here every night.
Simply click the join button right below the video player on the Rumble page, and it will take you to that platform Tonight being Tuesday, we will, in just a couple minutes, start our live show on the Locals platform.
For those that have been watching this show, we are, as always, very appreciative and we hope to see you back tomorrow night and every night at 7 p.m.
