Trump Trial: How Judges Manipulate Verdicts; Anti-Woke Jewish Comedians Debate if They’re an Endangered Victim Group; PLUS: Reason Interview Recap
TIMESTAMPS:
Intro (0:00)
Trump Trial (7:51)
Debating Victimhood Narrative (37:08)
Outro (1:07:23)
- - -
Watch full episodes on Rumble, streamed LIVE 7pm ET.
Become part of our Locals community
- - -
Follow Glenn:
Twitter
Instagram
Follow System Update:
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Facebook
LinkedIn
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.
Democrats have made no secret of their primary plan for winning the 2024 election under Joe Biden, namely, do everything possible to ensure that Donald Trump is criminally convicted and imprisoned prior to Election Day.
That's not an exaggeration.
Democratic pundits on CNN, NBC, and elsewhere openly confess Now, as it turns out, it now seems that there will only be a verdict in one of the four separate criminal cases brought by a combination of the Biden Justice Department for two of the cases and Democratic Party prosecutors for the other two.
Now, as it turns out, it now seems that there will only be a verdict in one of the four separate criminal cases brought by a combination of the Biden Justice Department for two of the cases and Democratic Party prosecutors for the other two, namely the verdict and what by all accounts is the weakest and most dubious of a set of very namely the verdict and what by all accounts is the weakest and most dubious Namely, the one in Manhattan charging Donald Trump with 34 felony counts for what is, at most, a misdemeanor.
Namely, misclassifying payments to Michael Cohen to give hush money to Stormy Daniels as, quote, legal fees.
All just on internal Trump organization records.
And that verdict may come as early as tomorrow.
Now, we were all taught, and I certainly was taught when I was in law school and before, to believe that whatever else is true, one of the core American rights is a right to a fair trial, which necessarily requires before anything else a fair, impartial, and neutral judge.
Without that, no fair trial is possible.
Yet for so many reasons, and this is the thing that probably led me to be disillusioned with the practice of law when I was a litigator before I was a journalist, is that judges can, and so often do, manipulate and interfere in jury trials to fabricate the verdict that they want.
Liberals now speak of the judge presiding over this trial in Manhattan, Judge Mershon, the way they spoke of Robert Mueller, and now speak of Jack Smith, the way they spoke of Michael Avenatti, as people to whom they harbor a deep emotional connection, even a sexualized sort of love.
And the reason is obvious because Judge Murchon has continuously made his contempt for Donald Trump clear and made even clearer his desire for a guilty verdict in this case.
We'll examine how all that works.
Then, one of the most bizarre spectacles that I've watched over the last eight months is how the very same people on the American right who most vocally heap scorn on things like woke ideology and identity politics and victimhood narratives and safetyism and other victimhood-driven tactics long associated with the liberal left or with the woke left,
Are now the very same people who most vehemently defend and insist on these same concepts in order to convert American Jews into the main, really the only, real victim group in America, one that is endangered, systematically marginalized and discriminated against, and deeply endangered.
You can't even go on the street and walk safely if you're a Jew, we're constantly told.
Now we have extensively deconstructed and derided this attempt for months because what it really ultimately is about is a demand that censorship and a limitation on free speech be imposed in the name of protecting Israel by claiming that we can't allow what's called anti-Semitic speech, namely criticism of Israel, because there's an anti-Semitism crisis in the United States.
So we've talked about this a lot, but last week One of the best discussions of this entire subject came from a quite unlikely place, namely the podcast of Howie Mandel, a Jewish comedian who was quite famous in the 80s and 90s, and he insisted on his podcast that he and all other American Jews are endangered and discriminated against and victimized, only for his guest, another Jewish comedian named Ari Schaefer, to mock him to his face relentlessly and very effectively.
for him and others trying to claim the mantlehood of victimhood.
And he used, Ari Shaffer did, anti-woke and anti-identity politic concepts and ideas to deny, as a Jew, that he was part of a victim group or was in any way endangered.
It was really a fascinating conversation in part because of the unexpected place from which it came.
So we'll show you how that went and analyze some of the implications.
Then finally, One of the events I did last week when traveling the United States was a sit-down interview with Nick Gillespie of Reason Magazine.
It was held in a sold-out theater in Manhattan and the discussion was just published on video today by Reason and I felt it was really one of the more probing and illuminating interviews of many of these topics that I've done.
The U.S.
war machine, domestic bipartisan politics, the relationship of Israel and the U.S.
attacks on campus free speech rights, in the name of protecting Israel, the drug war, and other topics, many of which we don't often cover on this show.
And this kind of format really where you can delve in deeply gives you an opportunity to talk about issues in a way that you sometimes can, especially when you have an interlocutor questioning you and disagreeing with you.
So we'll show you several of those excerpts.
As I said, those kind of formats often uniquely permit such in-depth discussion.
Before we get to all of that, and I guess I should say that, you know, we've spent the last couple of days covering very heavy topics, namely the war in Ukraine, the war in Israel.
We would have obviously covered in depth the Trump verdict had it been issued today, and we'll do so whenever we have that.
We're going to have an un-match.
On the whole show for the full hour for tomorrow night, assuming there's no Trump verdict, Professor John Mearsheimer, who always is one of our most popular guests, and I think one of the most illuminating ones.
So tonight is gonna be, I guess you could call it maybe a little bit of a lighter show, but really more, I would say more accurately, talking about issues and topics that are a little bit removed from the news cycle, ones that we don't often talk about in ways that we don't often talk about.
So I think this will be a very worthwhile show.
Before we get to that, A few programming notes.
One, we are encouraging our viewers to download the Rumble app.
It works on both your smart TV and your telephone.
And if you do so, you can follow the shows you most love to watch on Rumble.
And then if you activate notifications, which we really hope you will, It means the minute any of those shows that you follow begin broadcasting live on air, you will be immediately notified by email or text, however you ask for, and that way you can just click on the link and begin watching.
There's no waiting around.
Obviously, we pride ourselves on being extremely punctual.
We're never late.
We start at 7 p.m.
promptly, but there are other shows we hear reports from that don't actually start on time.
You don't have to wait around when those other shows are late.
You just get that link the minute it begins.
You don't have to try and remember which show is on which time.
It really helps the live viewing audience for every program and therefore Rumble itself.
As another reminder, System Update is also available in podcast form.
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.
And if you rate, review, and follow the show on those platforms, it really helps spread the visibility of our show.
Finally, every Tuesday and Thursday night, once we are done with our live show here on Rumble, we move to Locals where we have our live interactive aftershow.
That interactive aftershow is available solely for members of our Locals community and if you want to join, which gives you access not only to those, after shows, but to a wide range of other features.
Most of all, it's the community on which we really 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.
There are a lot of things that, as Americans, we are taught to believe from birth through childhood, through our teenage years in elementary school and junior high and high school, and then through our teenage years in elementary school and junior high and high school, and then if we go to college and institutions of higher learning, certainly then, and even just independent of educational systems, things that we're constantly indoctrinated with to believe about our
We're constantly inculcated with the idea that we stand for freedom and democracy, that our wars are just, that we fight wars to spread freedom and democracy, that other countries around the world view us as this beacon of peace and freedom and adore us.
None of which is true, of course, but it's easy to ingest that propaganda if you don't actively seek to deconstruct it.
But one of the other things that many of us are taught, and I think if you go to law school as I did, you probably believe it more than people who had the fortune of not going to law school, is the idea that whatever else is true, And we are a country that imprisons more of our citizens than any other country on the planet.
There are more prisoners in the United States, Americans in American prisons, than there are Chinese people in Chinese prisons or Indian people in Indian prisons, even though China and India have a vastly larger population than the United States has.
We've imprisoned more of our citizens by raw numbers, but also by proportion.
We imprison more of our citizens than any other country by percentage and more of our citizens by raw numbers.
In fact, although the United States population is only 5% of the world population, 25% of the prison population lives on American soil.
And I think the reason we tolerate that is because we generally believe that even if we don't have faith in other institutions, in political institutions, in the White House, in Congress, in the media, in Wall Street, anything else, I think people generally believe in Wall Street, anything else, I think people generally believe that we at least have a fair and just legal system.
And That's something we're taught, that one of the rights guaranteed to you as an American in the Constitution is the right to a fair trial.
And you have all these protections that are designed to ensure a fair trial.
This is drummed into your head in law school.
And I think a lot of people end up believing it.
And I know I certainly did.
I know when I went to law school, I believed that.
And certainly when I started practicing law, I believed that.
And it wasn't extreme naivete.
I was aware of it.
Obviously, some judges are inept and incompetent.
Others are biased and corrupt.
But in general, I believed in the foundational fairness and efficacy of the American justice system.
And yet, when I began practicing law, as excited as I was, one of the things that most disillusioned me is when I began to see how easily And how, with no accountability, and how often judges cheat, they often begin with a preference for one side or the other.
That happens in civil cases, which is what I did.
They favored the plaintiff over the defendant, but it often happens in criminal cases.
Generally, the people who get confirmed to benches, especially the federal benches, are people with a history of prosecuting defendants, so they're generally pro-prosecutor in the federal system.
Something like 97 or 98% of cases that get taken to verdict in the criminal system end up with a guilty verdict.
Most of those cases are resolved through plea bargain.
And even though it sometimes worked in my favor and sometimes didn't, that wasn't the issue.
What made me extremely cynical and ultimately jaded about the legal system was the role, this kind of all-encompassing role, that judges played.
Where they can pretty much dictate the outcome of a case simply by the way in which they insert themselves or insinuate themselves into a trial.
I think one of the things that people often don't understand or fail to recognize about judges is people think, well, if a judge is really being so overtly biased or so overtly corrupt, all you have to do is go to the appellate court and the appellate court will strike them down.
The problem is it doesn't work that way.
Generally, with very few exceptions, While the trial is proceeding, or while the case is proceeding, it's very, very difficult to appeal any decisions to the appellate court until after the trial is concluded.
That's especially true in the federal system, where you have almost no what are called interlocutory appeals, where you can go and appeal a judge's specific ruling until the case is over.
Which means you lose.
And by then, you're talking about years until this error or wrongdoing is corrected.
And appellate judges give a lot of deference to judges.
And even in the state court system where you theoretically can go and appeal sometimes, it takes a very long time.
So these judges are basically dictators in their own fiefdom.
I mean, their fiefdom's not very big.
It's whoever comes before them.
But when you come before these judges, as a party, as a lawyer, you're subject to their, essentially, their absolute rule.
And they can do whatever they want.
And oftentimes, the ways in which they cheat, the ways in which they manipulate trials to get the verdicts that they want, are more subtle than they are overt.
There are all kinds of small, individual rulings that judges make about what evidence is allowed in and what evidence isn't.
about which witnesses are permitted to be called and which ones aren't, which questions get asked and which objections are sustained or overruled.
And based on just those small decisions alone, which appellate courts are very reluctant to try and overturn, especially after the trial is over.
They give judges a lot of deference on these individual evidentiary questions.
You can pretty much manipulate the trial and just almost guarantee that the jury is going to vote the way you want.
And if the notion here is that you have a judge who is particularly biased in favor of one side or the other, oftentimes, just by the way they speak to the lawyers, can manipulate the jury in all sorts of ways, because ultimately the jury sees a defendant and a prosecutor, or a plaintiff and a defendant, and they know that those parties are highly invested in a certain outcome.
And the judge, then, seems like the only neutral authority, the only fair and honest person they can trust.
So when the judge is extremely hostile to one side, extremely favorable to the other, just comportmentally or by tone, it has a major effect on the outcome of the trial.
Now, the only case where we're likely to get a verdict of the four criminal prosecutions that Donald Trump faces before the election is one that is taking place in Manhattan.
And as I said, this has always been the case that even Trump's harshest critics acknowledge is the weakest of all of them.
It was brought by a highly partisan Democratic Party prosecutor in Manhattan named Alvin Bragg, whose election was very much aided by a massive donation from George Soros and his foundations to a PAC that worked for Alvin Bragg's victory.
And although it's the most dubious case, Manhattan is basically a one party town.
I lived there for almost 15 years.
I worked there as a lawyer.
Anyone who becomes a judge, a state court judge in particular, inside the New York State system in Manhattan is somebody who by definition has been known in and worked within liberal Democratic Party politics for a long, long time.
You can survey Manhattan from the lowest point up until the highest point of that island.
And you will be hard-pressed to find a single person who supports Donald Trump.
Manhattan is one of the most lopsided one-party towns in the country.
Oftentimes, Manhattan votes 90 to 10 in presidential elections for the Democratic candidate.
It's an all-Democratic And so, obviously, the judge is going to be a liberal Democrat, and the jury are going to be liberal Democrats, and that's one of the things Alvin Bragg was counting on, was they knew this was a weak case.
The Justice Department reviewed it and passed it up.
Even prior Manhattan prosecutor Cyrus Vance, the district attorney, passed it up.
Even Alvin Bragg once did, and then got pressured by lower lawyers, who are more partisan even than he, to finally bring the case.
But ultimately none of that matters, in part because you're talking about an extremely liberal jury poll.
And most of all, because the judge in this case has been so overtly hostile to Trump and his lawyers, so desperately craves a guilty verdict, that almost everything he's done, almost every ruling he's rendered, almost every comment he's made has been toward that goal.
Now, I'm not saying that that means that Trump is going to be convicted.
He could very well have a hung jury if there's just one or two holdouts, or you can have an acquittal when the case is particularly weak.
But, so I'm not predicting what's going to happen here.
All I'm saying is that everything that Judge Murshan has done has been geared toward getting a guilty verdict for Donald Trump for political reasons.
Now, here's the Wall Street Journal editorial board, which itself is ideologically motivated, but here's their argument that, quote, Alvin Bragg hasn't proved his case in the Trump trial.
The evidence shows why the charges should never have been brought.
And this is what they say.
To get a guilty verdict on the 34 bookkeeping felonies, and that's what they are, bookkeeping felonies, Mr. Bragg must prove both that Mr. Trump falsified business records and also that he did it with intent to commit or conceal a second crime.
Yet there was essentially no direct evidence that Mr. Trump conceived of this all as a scheme to break the law.
The only real witness to Mr. Trump's state of mind was his former fixer, Michael Cohen.
And I've rarely seen a witness whose credibility was more destroyed than his, Michael Cohen's.
So it's not enough to prove, if you want a felony conviction, that Trump himself altered or ordered altered the internal bookkeeping records of the Trump Organization.
That would be a misdemeanor at most.
To make it a felony, you have to prove these other elements that were completely absent.
Now, the only real The only real prospect for a conviction in this case is that the judge has been so biased in favor of the prosecution.
And so here is an article on The Hill entitled, A Manhattan Canned Hunt, the Trump Jury is Out, But Is the Case in the Bag?
And they're a more liberal or at least anti-Trump outlet and this is what they say, quote, "The judge has ruled that the jury does not have to agree.
on what actually occurred in the case.
Mershon ruled that the government had vaguely referenced three possible crimes that constitute the "unlawful means used to influence the election: a federal election violation, the falsification of business records, and a tax violation." The jurors were told that they could split on what occurred, with four jurors accepting each of these three possible crimes in a 4-4-4 split.
The court would still consider that a unanimous verdict so long as they agreed that it was in furtherance of some crime.
Second, the judge said that he would instruct the jury on the law, but then omitted the key elements that established that there was no federal campaign violation.
Indeed, the blocked legal expert that Trump wanted to call, Ben Smith, the former chair of the FEC, was going to testify that this could not have been A federal election violation.
Moreover, even if Trump's legal settlement money to Stormy Daniels could be viewed as a federal campaign contribution, it could not have been part of a conspiracy to influence the election since any reporting of a contribution would have had to have occurred after the election.
It goes on with a lot of other weaknesses that this case had for the reasons that it has always been viewed as It's just preposterous, absurd to try and take this misdemeanor at best and turn it into a felony count.
There is nobody on the planet, nor in the United States, who would have been accused of felony charges for this case other than Donald Trump.
In fact, the theory on which the prosecution is relying is a totally novel theory of how to interpret this law that had never been ratified before by an appellate judge.
Now, the behavior of the judge has been so Off kilter and so obviously in favor of the prosecution that even CNN's legal experts, anticipating either a hung jury or acquittal, have started to kind of turn on him just because the way he's doing everything is just an invitation for complete chaos.
Here was one of their legal experts that CNN called today to explain why the judge's behavior earlier today when the jury asked to see The legal instructions, the judge's instructions that he gave to them about how to understand the law, how to interpret the law, which is a sign, a good sign for Trump in the sense that it means the jury is not in agreement.
Usually if the jury comes back immediately, it means there was a conviction.
Everybody just instantly said, I think this guy is guilty.
When the O.J.
Simpson trial jury came back after two hours, people assumed that was very bad for O.J.
Simpson because usually a quick verdict means the jury has agreed on the defendant's guilt.
But in general, that often is what it means.
And the fact that the jury is now arguing about jury instructions and wanting to see the jury instructions signals there's some dissension or some confusion about what they're supposed to do.
And yet the judge refused to give them any written instructions.
And here's what CNN's own legal expert said about that.
The jury must be overwhelmed.
I mean, to have all of these instructions just read to them without them getting a copy is going to be overwhelming for them.
And also, it's crazy that the lawyers were not able to discuss the instructions in their closings yesterday.
Typically, lawyers can go through the instructions and explain why they've met them or why the government hasn't met them, and they weren't able to do that yesterday, which I find bizarre.
I think the lawyers should have been able to do that, because the jurors right now must be wondering, What is this all about?
Now, all along...
If you listen to MSNBC or CNN or read liberal op-ed writers and most major newspapers, they were talking about Judge Mershon, who's a lowest-level state court judge possible.
These are all political appointees.
They're very rarely high-level judges.
Sometimes, but very rarely, the difference between federal judges and state court judges usually is very visible and immense.
They began talking about Judge Mershon like he was one of the greatest legal minds ever.
And obviously the only reason why they would do that is precisely because he has been so anti-Trump, which makes them not only want to heap praise on him, but almost like fall in love with him.
There's been this bizarre trend over the past seven or eight years since Trump emerged victorious in the 2016 election, where anyone who liberals perceive is confronting Trump in what they perceive to be some kind of courageous and aggressive way, They really start developing not just an intense love for, but sexual attraction to, and they openly admit it.
They did that to Robert Mueller.
They did it to Jack Smith, the current prosecutor.
They did it to Michael Avenatti.
I mean, all of them had articles running in a lot of liberal magazines, like the newest sex symbol, Robert Mueller, Michael Avenatti, women are in love with Michael Avenatti, gay men and women are in love with Michael Avenatti.
That was all those very obviously sexualized, adoring descriptions of Jack Smith when he stared down Trump in the courtroom.
We showed you a lot of those from even CBS News where they were gushing over how strong his posture is and how tough and aggressive he is.
And I want you to listen.
To this thing that took place earlier today on MSNBC.
It's actually skin crawling to watch.
It's from Andrew Weissman, who was one of the top and most beloved prosecutors on the Mueller team.
who ended up arresting no one in the Trump family, who prosecuted nobody for the central crime of collaborating with the Russians to interfere in the action.
But he's still beloved.
Another one is, there's a whole slew of them.
Dan Goldman, who was on MSNBC all the time as a beloved Mueller prosecutor, who then parlayed that as well as his billionaire status into a seat in Congress representing Manhattan.
So they had Andrew Weissman on to talk about the Trump trial.
And I just want you to listen to what he says and how he said it about Judge Mershon. - With, as you've noted, with respect to Judge Mershon, I mean, I am like now, you know, I have like a man crush on him.
He is such a great judge that it's hard to see that the jurors wouldn't have the same impression.
And he's just, you just keep on thinking if you looked in a dictionary for like judicial temperament, that's what you'd get.
I mean, how does anyone have so little dignity that they're willing to go on television and say that they have a man crush on a state court judge, that he's like the embodiment of the perfect judicial temperament, when it's so obvious the only thing they like about him is that he's corruptly presiding over the trial in a way that is expressing the kind of contempt and hatred for Donald Trump that spews out every day on this network.
And I mean, you could tell by the breathless tone that he used and the way he was talking about Judge Mershon.
I mean, he means it.
I mean, he called it a man crush, which I think is a term that men use to try and call it a crush, but like distance themselves from it, from the intimacy and the arousal of it.
But I don't believe that distance at all, the way he talked about him and the words that he chose.
I just can't imagine anyone talking about a state court, any judge that way.
But that's because he's not really serving in the capacity of a judge.
He's serving in the capacity of someone trying to put Donald Trump in prison.
Like Robert Mueller and Jack Smith and Michael Avenatti all tried to do before him and they treated all of them the same way.
Now here is that CBS News report from Norah O'Donnell that day that Jack Smith had indicted Trump in the Washington, D.C.
case for his behavior after the 2020 election, and they went into court where Trump had to appear for his indictment, and Jack Smith was there as well.
Listen to how Norah O'Donnell reacted to Jack Smith's presence in the courtroom.
We've just been told that Donald Trump has entered the courtroom.
Also in the courtroom is the special counsel, Jack Smith.
And I want to spend a moment on Jack Smith, because... She wants to spend a moment on Jack Smith, and you're about to hear why.
What kind of moment she wants to spend on Jack Smith.
Listen to this.
Because he is essentially who Donald Trump is up against.
in multiple of these indictments.
The two, of course, the classified documents and the January 6th one.
And they are sitting across from each other inside this courtroom.
Jack Smith is someone who has run over and competed in over 100 triathlons.
He was reportedly at one point hit when he was on his bike by a truck.
And 10 weeks later, he ran another triathlon.
I mean, she is really enamored with Jack Smith.
She's talking about how many marathons he ran, how many triathlons he did.
And he's basically Superman.
He got hit by a truck.
And most people would have been flattened and be dead or be in the hospital for a month.
Not Jack Smith.
He got hit by a truck.
And then, 10 weeks later, did another triathlon.
That's the kind of superhuman power that Jack Smith has, the kind of supernatural strength that he has.
I mean, this is almost more embarrassing than the way they're talking about Judge Mershon.
Although, it's not quite as breathless, but it definitely, the tone and the words together, make clear what's going on here.
when he was on his bike by a truck, and 10 weeks later, he ran another triathlon.
This is a man of a lot of grit and a lot of determination.
And even what we have seen in these indictments is just a sliver of what they know and his prosecutorial team knows, right?
I don't know if you remember, but all throughout Russiagate, whenever these people would talk about Robert Mueller and the Mueller investigation, they would always talk with so much adoration about everything Robert Mueller did.
There was an article in the New Yorker about his fashion and how he is re-inventing and making chic again, the kind of 1950s buttoned up FBI look.
Because remember, Robert Mueller was the FBI director under George Bush and Dick Cheney, the sex symbol in 2017 and 18, 19 for the same liberal television personalities, and they would talk about him openly as a sex symbol, Robert Mueller.
And they would all the time emphasize how Robert Mueller had such discipline.
There were never any leaks from the Mueller team.
And as a result, he always knew things that none of us knew, which was very dangerous for Donald Trump.
These are very sophisticated operatives who work in the dark in secret, who have the discipline to keep things secret.
And so the arms and the weapons they were building against Donald Trump, they constantly said, must really be intimidating and frightening.
None of us even can conceive of the things these people are doing and what they know.
And after the Mueller investigation, all Mueller said was, about every core conspiracy theory, we can't and did not find the evidence to establish these accusations.
And then closed up shop without arresting any of the key Trump circle on the crime of Collaborating with the Russians, which was the conspiracy theory that led to that whole investigation.
And this is the same language that they're using for Jack Smith.
He knows things we don't know.
I gotta just play that again.
That's amazing.
to his personal health and exercise correlates to how he approaches his prosecution and his strategy.
We've talked a lot about how the former president.
I gotta just play that again.
That's amazing.
This metaphor.
Team knows, right?
His aggressive approach to his personal health and exercise correlates to how he approaches his prosecution and his strategy.
We've talked a lot about how the former president is under pressure, but Jack Smith is also under pressure today.
These are journalists.
These are people on CBS News, the nightly news.
And they devoted this segment to talking about the physical and robustness and prowess of Jack Smith and how his toughness and strength and discipline and rigorous approach to things and courage and bravery are how also to understand his prosecutorial approach, just turning him into this kind of matinee idol.
This is what they do.
We've shown you many times before how they often talked about Michael Avenatti and how he should probably be the next president.
They adored and worshipped Michael Avenatti.
They often talked about his sexual appeal that they said he had.
This is like a sick pathology.
It's still embedded in liberal politics.
They are so monomaniacally obsessed with Donald Trump that they don't think about anything else.
They don't know about anything else to the point where they believe that you are confronting Donald Trump in some sort of intimidating way.
They feel this kind of uplift from it, this kind of arousal and excitement.
And again, these are not even Democratic Party activists, at least not formally.
These are people in media who are reporting on these trials.
So I don't know what the Trump verdict is going to be.
It is, I think, fascinating that the only verdict we're likely to get is the one in Manhattan.
So even if there is a guilty verdict, I just can't imagine, unlike, say, a guilty verdict in the Florida trial where he's accused of stealing national security secrets under the Espionage Act, or in the Jack Smith case, the other Jack Smith case where he's accused of, or in Atlanta, where he's accused of having conspired to overthrow the government.
I mean, if there were guilty verdicts in those cases, that might actually really have an effect on independent voters, people undecided.
But to get a conviction of Donald Trump?
In a Manhattan jury with a very liberal, politically motivated judge, prosecutor, and a very politically motivated judge on the Stormy Daniels case?
That's about nothing more than supposed deceitful entries into the Trump Organization's books?
I can't even imagine that having any real impact.
And if there's an acquittal, or even a hung jury, if they fail to get into conviction, and this is the only verdict that they hear, I think that's going to have a real effect, because that will be the first impression that they have of this ongoing, multi-pronged effort to prosecute Donald Trump, to turn him into a criminal and put him in prison.
And if that fails in this first case, With a Manhattan jury in the middle of New York City, I think that's really going to create the impression that this whole thing all along has been an abuse of the justice.
I'm in a persecution campaign and I can only see Trump benefiting from whatever the outcome here is.
So obviously whenever that verdict is announced, The jury deliberated all day today.
It could take just one more day.
It could take two weeks.
We have no idea when juries are deliberating how long it will take.
we will obviously be live and analyzing and dissecting not just the verdict but the implications of it as well.
I often talk about and I mean this earnestly the pride that I have in being here on the Rumble platform primarily because it is a company that although for is for profit tries to make a profit it's
a publicly traded company also has a cause a very noble cause they don't just speak about but actually back up with actions often actions that are to their detriment in terms of their immediate financial interest but I think will build admiration for the company over time and that is the cause of free speech.
There was an article today,
In Axios reporting on how the Daily Wire is so financially successful in part because they have sold products in their name so that if some product ceases to advertise on a right-wing outlet or on the Daily Wire saying, we're not comfortable being associated with your content, they will then just sell their own product that's a similar one and Daily Wire viewers will go and buy it en masse to support free speech and the Daily Wire's cause.
And now Rumble is doing the same thing.
It only works if the product is actually as good at, if not better, than the thing that people were previously consuming.
And that is absolutely the case with 1775 Coffee, which is a product that was launched by Rumble in part to help them support themselves to be able to grow financially, to be able to grow in terms of their influence, their defense of free speech.
And I've tasted the coffee several times.
I've tasted all of the flavors.
It is ethically sourced from the heights of Bolivia.
So the way they get the beans from Bolivia is the top-notch way to be able to produce coffee.
There's no pesticides in it.
There's no weird stuff.
Just plain good coffee.
And there are all kinds of roasts you can pick from and discover which you like the best.
I've said before my favorite is the dark roast.
It just has this very rich deep taste and The kind of jolt that I love that coffee gives me in the morning.
But all you need to do is think about your morning routine and think about how to integrate a cause-driven product into it, one that is of highest quality, and that is 1775 Coffee.
You go to 1775Coffee.com.
you go to 1775coffee.com, you see that address on the screen, 1775coffee.com.
And if you use the promo code Glenn, you will save 10% off of your first offer.
I can definitely vouch, obviously, for Rumble's cause, but also for the quality of the coffee itself. .
As viewers of this show know, one of the things that we have talked about and covered most often since October 7th
And it's a topic about which I feel quite passionately, is the way in which Americans, so many pro-Israel conservatives on the American right, many of whom I've been aligned with on a lot of different issues, primarily the issue of free speech and opposing censorship and opposing the dividing up of everybody into little minority groups and insisting on special rights for them based on their demographic characteristics or insisting that everybody in a certain minority group are victims who need special protection, including censorship protection.
So many of them have completely reversed all of their claim beliefs because this time the censorship is in their interest.
It's for a cause that they support.
The speech that's being censored is speech that they hate.
And I've spoken about this often on other shows, on this show, so I don't want to give you my views on that again, but I do want to show you a remarkably interesting and I think highly illuminating conversation that took place when Howie Mandel, who's a Jewish comedian, Had on his podcast another Jewish comedian Ari Shafir and Ari Shafir comes from this kind of the world of Joe Rogan.
I think he became very well known for how many times he went on Joe Rogan's show and although Joe Rogan's show and that kind of sphere of comedians that grew up around him aren't really politicized in the classic sense.
That's one of the reasons why Joe Rogan is popular amongst so many people.
They do have certain views in common or certain values in common and one of which for certain is a lot of hostility toward woke ideology, to the idea that people should be canceled or censored because of things that they say.
That is probably the connective tissue between all of these people.
And they particularly hate efforts to self-victimize, to insist that your group is somehow so marginalized and unfairly treated that you can't succeed or that you're endangered.
And I've watched a lot of people who have been saying those things for years, if not decades, who are American Jews, who are conservative, or at least anti-woke, suddenly start sounding like every leftist at Oberlin's campuses with purple hair that they've been mocking for the last decade.
Suddenly, they're in the one group that's endangered in the United States that needs protection.
And this is all the things that Hallie Mandel Share it, I think, without even any plan of doing so with Ari Shaffir, just assuming that Ari Shaffir would agree with him.
Because this is something that Howie Mandel is hearing from everywhere.
It's something he just assumes is true.
He believes there's no other side to this.
And yet Ari Shaffir didn't in a way that was really interesting because of how organic it was.
It was not a political conversation overtly, but Ari Shaffir was obviously responding and reacting to the things Howie Mandel was saying.
And I want to play it for you because I thought it was an incredibly effective way of debunking what has become, in some ways, the dominant strain in American politics.
How many congressional hearings have we had over the last eight months on this topic?
How many times have Members of Congress have gone to Israel and proclaimed their commitment to battling anti-Semitism in the United States.
There have been laws passed, and presidents of campuses fired, and speech codes implemented, and censorship laws enacted, all in the name of this cause.
So, because there's so many people saying it from every side and so few people contesting it, because if you contest it, you'll immediately be accused of being an anti-Semite, a lot of people just assume it's true because they never even realize that there's another way of looking at it.
That's how views often get formed in the United States.
And that was clearly the case for Howie Mandel, and you'll see how surprised he was that someone he obviously likes and thinks he's like-minded with doesn't see it that way at all.
Let me show you part of this.
Speaking of culture, you know, like we were just saying, there were three Jews sitting here.
Have you felt, have you felt the... So by three Jews, he's referring to himself, Howie Mandel, his daughter, who's a co-host of his podcast, and then Ari Shaffir.
So he's saying, speaking of groups or whatever, there are three Jews here.
We were just saying, there were three Jews sitting here.
Have you felt, have you felt the...
Are you feeling the- What?
The fucking- We're back in- The love?
Dude, we're back.
Center of attention again.
We're back.
I love it.
Really?
Oh, yeah.
We were a joke before.
Now we're taken seriously.
Who else wants some?
Who else wants some?
You seeing the positive in this?
Yeah, dude, we're fucking- He likes attention.
Yeah.
We're back.
Before, we were just some, like, joke.
Like, I remember the tribe.
Like, little light things.
Now, people take us seriously.
Seriously?
Go ahead.
Keep pushing the students.
See when we push back.
It's horrible.
It's not horrible.
It doesn't happen.
It's statistically irrelevant.
It should be on the news too much.
None of it's really happening.
Are you fucking kidding me?
I've been all over the country.
I've seen no actual anti-Semitism.
Have you?
You look Jewish.
You walked around, people yelled Jew at you or something?
I don't go out.
Yeah, good point.
I don't go up.
I yelled you at him this morning.
Yeah.
No, no, no, no.
I think it's real.
No, no.
I think we gotta take it seriously.
I think what you're saying is wrong.
No, it's, it's being on the news.
It's, are you familiar with the, um, what's that app that tells you all the robberies in your neighborhood?
Citizen.
Citizen app.
Yeah.
So before this app, everybody was having a great time in the neighborhood.
And then suddenly all these housewives are like, there's a robbery every 20 minutes.
I can't believe everything's going to shit.
They're just aware of it suddenly, the small percentages.
It's a little bit in colleges you don't go to.
It's not there.
It's statistically irrelevant.
I go all over the country.
I've never... Now, imagine that here you have Howie Mandel.
And again, he was he was a very famous comedian in the 80s and 90s.
I don't know how I think he's still pretty well known.
He's been on judge on one of those reality shows on a major network.
So I think he's probably well known.
But he just got done saying after saying, Oh, wow, Jews are really being mistreated in the United States.
We are being assaulted.
We're being attacked.
And then when he was asked, like, what?
Has that happened to you even once?
He says, oh, I don't go out.
So how does he know?
And the explanation that Ari Shaffir is giving, I think, is a very important point, not just for this topic, but generally, which is social media has the ability to distort so many issues.
You can take extremely aberrational incidents and just post one of these aberrational incidents Every day or every week and then people who follow you and think that you're reporting accurately will think they're seeing the truth.
I have a countless number of Jews in my life.
My entire family is Jewish.
Most of my friends with whom I grew up in the United States when I was a kid are Jewish.
I don't know of a single Jewish person in the United States That has ever been the victim of an anti-Semitic act or expression of hatred toward Jews, let alone having some kind of epidemic of it since October 7th.
I just spent more than a week in the United States and then the prior week in Canada.
It never even occurred to me that I was somehow endangered because someone might think I'm a Jew or might recognize me and know I'm a Jew.
And then assault me?
This is not anything that's happening, as Ari Shaffir is saying.
This does not exist.
And yet, American Jews have been told for eight months now that they cannot send their children to school, they cannot send their kids to colleges, that on Ivy League campuses they're being violently assaulted.
And I know on social media, I kept hearing all the time, Oh, there's hordes of people going around chanting, kill the Jews, kill all Jews.
And I would ask, like, where?
Where?
Where did that ever happen on American college campuses?
Or people would claim, oh, there's so many Jews, Jewish students being assaulted physically or threatened with violence on American college campuses.
I would say, what are their names?
Show me the links to these reports.
It hasn't happened.
I'm not saying it never happened once, where some argument at Israel or the Gaza or whatever escalated into some physical confrontation, but the only example anyone could ever point to was one that was promoted by Barry Weiss's Free Press and by other conservative journalists about a Jewish woman And they acted like she was just some random Jewish woman when, in fact, she's a longtime pro-Israel activist in the United States.
And they claim that she was stabbed in the eye with a Palestinian flag.
And Mike Johnson, the Speaker of the House, went to the Holocaust memorial ceremony where Joe Biden was, and he stood up and said, we can't tolerate this anti-Semitism.
We now have Jewish students, plural, being stabbed in the eye with a Palestinian flag.
Now, obviously, if you say that, the image that you're deliberately invoking Is one where some Muslim or Arab student has taken their Palestinian flag and stabbed the eye out of a Jewish student.
And this is like a pandemic according to Mike Johnson.
This is like happening multiple times.
That went all over the media.
It turned out to be a complete hoax.
We reported on this.
We deconstructed it.
We showed you the video.
She was standing there.
She was watching these pro-Palestinian protesters walk by.
She was yelling things at them.
And one of the people who walked by was waving a flag, like you do with flags, just back and forth.
And he brushed by her, and she claims it hit her in the face.
She went on television.
The next day, there was nothing wrong with her eye.
I mean, if you get stabbed in the eye with a flag with the sharp end of the flag, You're going to have eye damage if that actually happens.
She went on TV the next day and they were like, well, your eyes seem pretty good.
And she was like, yeah, the only real symptom I have had is a light headache.
I was fortunate.
It's like, you were fortunate?
You mean it didn't happen?
And that's the only example I've heard.
So you have this complete moral panic, this complete fabricated victim narrative that isn't real.
And the people pushing it are the same conservatives Who insists that any victimhood narrative from literally every other minority group in the United States, from black people, from Latinos, from immigrants, from Muslims, from trans people, from gay people, any other minority group claims victimhood status, points to attacks that they've endured, People on the right instantly mock it, insist it's not real.
They point to the Jussie Smollett hate crime hoax.
This is eight months of a Jussie Smollett hate crime hoax, but not happening just in an isolated incident, but writ large in terms of the entire country.
And laws are being passed based on this hoax.
And investigations are being launched.
And hate speech limits and codes are being implemented on college campuses and laws being enacted based on this victimhood narrative that the right mocks in every other case except this one, where they finally are either members of that group, so want to claim victimhood status for themselves, or it's a group of people with whom they just feel some sort of empathy because their religion tells them Israel is special and blessed and chosen.
And it's amazing to watch.
Let me show you a little bit more of this.
Just because this is not a person who's a political pundit.
He doesn't go around reading and speaking about politics often.
He's just listening to this and he's saying, what are you talking about?
This isn't happening.
Where is this happening?
And there's no answer provided.
Are you on a college campus?
No, I'm not.
Go over to USC today.
I'm not on a college campus.
Nobody I know is.
Students are!
They're just dumb.
No, you're wrong.
Oh, you're really wrong.
You're really wrong.
Bro, if you shut the laptop, you'll never see it.
You'll never know it exists.
Oh, I believe that you can hide from it.
I believe that you can be... Out in the world, never seeing a single thing.
It's just a citizen app.
It's just another citizen app thing.
They're just pushing this thing and all the Arabs feel attacked and all the blacks feel attacked and all the Asians feel attacked.
So there's no antisemitism, there's no racism, there's no... It's statistically irrelevant.
It's like getting a set over a set.
It doesn't, it's not something that's even, it's less than 0.1%.
We're less than 0.1% of the population, Jews.
I thought we're two.
No, no, no.
Yeah, we are.
We are 2%.
But I think that we're hated.
Sure, by something, I guess.
Deep in the way they don't see us.
Do you still have friends in Israel?
That's a no.
If you have to think that long.
Yeah, my Rabbi still lives there.
Do you talk to him?
I haven't in a bit, no.
But, you know.
Why is that relevant?
Do you have friends in Israel?
The claim is about what's happening in the United States.
No, I should correct something I said earlier.
I was in the United States for 8 or 9 days and I said I was not assaulted or accosted for being a Jew.
Actually, that's not true.
There was an incident I had, which is where I debated Alan Dershowitz on the question of whether we should attack Iran and whether we should be fighting Israel's wars.
And I was obviously critical of the idea that we should attack Iran, critical of the idea that we should go to war for Israel, that Israel is guilt free.
And as I was leaving the auditorium, I was surrounded by this extremely hostile, yelling mob of pro-Israel, Upper West Side Jews and other Israel supporters who were quite menacing in their behavior.
As I think I said before, I lived in New York for 15 years, so I understand how New Yorkers can get agitated.
It's just kind of their way, but if you didn't know that, any person would have felt menaced.
I mean, they were physically surrounding me, I mean, really screaming at me, not trying to engage in any dialogue, just like insulting me in very personal ways.
You know, how can you be a Jew?
You're not, you're a disgrace to Judy, you know, that sort of thing.
So, but not only have I never experienced any of this in my entire life, let alone since October 7th, and, you know, I don't live in the U.S., though I've been there quite often since October 7th.
Again, I don't know a single person.
Do any of you know a single person?
A single Jewish person?
Who is the victim of some sort of hate crime or physical attack or like very vicious violent assault since October 7th?
I'm not saying it never happens.
Everything happens.
You know, there are actually like massacres of black people by white nationalists.
Those are things that happen.
One went to Buffalo and killed 10 people in a supermarket.
Another went into a church in South Carolina.
And gunned down, I believe, nine or 10 people because they were black.
There was recently a similar hate crime in Jacksonville, but no conservative says, oh, well, if there's an incident that you can point to where black people are being slaughtered for being black, that must mean that we have a racism epidemic in the United States and we have to rearrange our laws.
No, they'll mock you if you say that.
Obviously, nothing like that has happened since October 7th, but where is any of this These are completely fabricated claims.
And he's right that it all comes from social media, just people repeating it over and over and over.
I told you I had this experience.
It was driving me crazy.
For months, all I heard, I kept hearing, What do you mean, free speech?
You don't have the right to go around chanting, kill all Jews.
And I would say, where did that ever happen?
On what college campus were groups of people, protesters, pro-Palestinian protesters, going around chanting, kill all Jews?
Where did this happen?
And that was what Elise Stefanik tried to imply when she was questioning the presidents of Harvard and Penn who got fired, and MIT, who hasn't yet, was, what about calls for genocide?
And they were reluctant to answer because they knew that a lot of Israel supporters claim that any criticism of Israel is a call for genocide.
And that's why they were saying, well, it depends on the context, which of course it did.
That's the free speech theory that you should want college presidents adopting.
Now, the problem is they don't adopt that free speech posture in almost any other case.
So when they did it here, they just had no credibility.
That was their fault.
But at least Stefanik is somebody who is trying to be Trump's vice president.
She has spent the last decade just scorning woke ideology and identity politics.
And there is no greater practice of identity politics in the United States than American Jews insisting that they are a victim group, either because people don't like Israel or people don't like Jews.
And I think of all the different minority groups that you might want to claim that about.
American Jews are one of the most difficult to try and depict as some sort of marginalized and discriminated against and repressed minority group that can't thrive or prosper in the United States.
The reason this narrative exists and it's coming from so many places is precisely because American Jews, like other minority groups, like Nigerian Americans or Indian Americans, do quite well in the United States and have a lot of influence and power in various sectors.
But this whole victimhood claim from the very people who claim to hate victimhood discourse has been so bizarre to watch.
And I just showed you the first, I don't know, three or four minutes or so.
If you want to watch the rest of it, it continues like this in a very persuasive vein.
You can just go to YouTube and search Howie Mandel, Arya Shafir.
and anti-Semitism, and you'll immediately find it.
The whole podcast is, I think, two hours long, but this portion of the discussion is, I think, 10 minutes, 25 seconds.
So you can find it.
I would highly recommend it.
I found it incredibly engaging because I don't want to – I think there's an important point to make, an interesting point to make, which is sometimes people who are immersed the most in politics, who are paid to be political commentators or analysts or whatever, who live in New York and Washington are just constantly immersed in political discourse, often are the most who live in New York and Washington are just constantly immersed in political discourse, often are the most incapable of seeing the truth, of seeing reality, because they're just so blinded
Their brains are just drowned in it.
And I think that's a good thing.
I had this experience once and I really don't like these kind of attempts to romanticize working class people or people in the middle of the country.
They can be just as awful as anybody else.
But I remember one time, it was actually at the time when The Intercept had one of its biggest scandals that had nothing to do with but was blamed on me, which was when they got a hold of that story about this memo that claimed with no evidence that Russia actually interfered in the 2016 election by trying to change votes.
And they, through total carelessness and unprofessional and amateur behavior, Unintentionally outed the source, which was Reality Winner.
And the scandal made it to the front page of the New York Times and I was in a cafe, for other just reasons, in Milwaukee, just outside Milwaukee, in like a suburb of Milwaukee, just like in a diner or whatever having lunch.
And it's kind of banal for political people to talk about, oh, I was in a diner in the middle of the country.
But I really was.
And there was a group of, I don't know, five people.
Obviously, they had working class uniforms, labor uniforms on.
And the way they were talking, there was obviously not people very politically engaged.
But they would have, on their phone, whatever the top two or three stories were on The New York Times, they would see those.
And they would look at those.
And one of the stories was about how the Intercept so poorly handled the source of their source and source protection and unintentionally outed her.
But it was also about the story itself, about how the Russians were trying to influence the 2016 election.
And what they were saying, they didn't really have any interest in the Intercept part of the story, but they were saying, You know, when it comes to this, all these claims about Russia, this was 2017.
So obviously the whole 2016 campaign was based on this.
And then we were into the Trump presidency where the Steele dossier had flooded the media and everything was Russia and Trump and Russia and Trump.
And they kind of said, look, it's so hard to know what's true when it comes to all these claims about Russia, because they're always anonymous and you never see any evidence for it.
And it's impossible to know if it's true or not.
That's all they said.
And I remember thinking, That is the core of all of it.
But if you try to say that to some supposedly politically sophisticated person who works in that Acela Corridor in New York and Washington, who gets paid to spend their time on political and social media, who knows every detail of every Russia case, they would think that that's crazy, that only a Kremlin agent would say that.
And it was just the most common, obvious wisdom.
And oftentimes, you see things more clearly when you're not immersed in these political centers, just like I think that you can practice and understand journalism better if you don't get contaminated by journalism school.
Now, before I conclude this segment, let me just show you one thing that happened, which is the official Twitter account of the State of Israel Posted this, I think it was about a 30 second clip of the interview that Jerry Seinfeld gave to Barry Weiss.
Jerry Seinfeld has been a very outspoken Zionist and a supporter of Israel.
He went to Israel after October 7th.
His wife donated money to have those counter protesters go to UCLA.
I'm not saying she wanted this to happen, but she was one of the financiers of the counter protesters who went to the pro-Palestinian encampment at UCLA.
and used violence against them.
One of the very few times that violence was introduced in any of these protests on campus.
When it came from the pro-Israel counter protesters who weren't students there, Jerry Seinfeld's wife had donated money to them.
And this was the exchange that Jerry Seinfeld and Barry Weiss had, that the official Twitter account of the state of Israel found very heartbreaking.
There you see the emoji and it's like a heart but with the crack inside.
Oh my god, I watch this, it breaks my heart.
Here's what happened.
And all they said was very poignant.
Jerry Seinfeld, heartbroken emoji, thank you.
Here's what happened.
Do you think punching down is a thing?
Like is that a real phenomenon?
No.
I don't.
This is not the clip.
Do we have the clip?
We could just pull that tweet up because I do actually want to show this.
We're going to find this in just a second.
We just want to find the right clip.
You can get it if you just go to the State of Israel Twitter account.
We're just going to have that in a second.
And I do think it's worth just taking a second.
Here it is.
Okay, let's get that up on the screen.
All right, it's about to be shown in the screen.
It's a 51 second clip.
Very, very poignant.
So I want you to see it.
Very moving.
All right, can we press play?
Israel?
Yes.
Since the war started.
Let's just start that again.
The most... You were in Israel?
Yes.
Since the war started.
How was that trip?
The most powerful experience of my life.
Really?
I'm sure, yeah.
Why?
Um...
You know, you just...
Are you thinking of someone in particular?
I don't know.
Sorry.
All right, that's the Honestly Podcast with Barry Weiss from the Free Press.
Now, I don't want to get cynical about people expressing emotions.
It's something that shouldn't be stigmatized.
I think it's totally fine if you have an emotional reaction to something, to be honest about it, to express it.
If you can't control it, just let it go.
So Jerry Seinfeld wanted to cry and weep a little bit about his trip to Israel.
And he did, he couldn't even speak.
But he and Barry Weiss exchanged this like knowing kind of connection.
They both understand why.
So I think one point is that a lot of people in the United States do simply have an extreme, overarching, paramount emotional connection to this foreign country.
And it's not just Jews that have that.
Almost as importantly, at least when it comes to Congress, is there are a lot of evangelical members, primarily in the Republican Party, who will tell you explicitly that the reason they are so pro-Israel is because they believe their theology compels them to do that.
They believe the two blessed and chosen countries by God are the United States and Israel, and in particular, Israel.
Obviously, the United States is not mentioned in the New Testament because it didn't exist then, but the Israelites are, and Israel is, both in the Old and New Testament, and they have theological beliefs about the importance of Israel.
And there are a lot of people who do have extremely deeply set Emotional, spiritual, and religious devotions to the State of Israel that explain a lot about why that country receives our largesse and our constant support and protection that we don't give to any other country.
I mean, we're obviously fueling Ukraine's war for two years, but over decades, Israel has received billions and billions and billions of dollars, so much more by far than we've given to any other country.
And obviously a major part of that is because there are a lot of Americans that just have a extremely intense, I would say overarching connection to that foreign country.
And you see it expressed here.
I'm not even saying there's anything wrong with it.
I just wish we could acknowledge that a little bit more openly without having it be a taboo for whatever reasons.
And then I do also think that it's extremely notable That this interview just happens.
We're talking about an interview about October 7th from eight months ago that brought both of them to tears, but especially Jerry Seinfeld.
On October 7th, there were a lot of terrible things that happened, obviously, that Hamas did.
And they killed a total of 1,200 people, 700 at least of whom, 700 at most, rather, were civilians, and the rest, something like 500, were active duty members of either the military or the police.
Not people in the reserves, but active duty.
So it was kind of almost like a one-to-one ratio of civilians to Military targets or police people think that would say are legitimate military targets and a lot of them were Those civilians were killed in terrible brutal ways.
I think it's okay to be emotional about that The problem of course is that since October 7th Where 1,200 people in Israel died 700 of whom were civilians 35,000 people in Gaza, just right over the border, have been killed in the most horrific ways.
They've endured seven, almost eight months now, of constant bombardment.
Their entire society has been destroyed.
They're on the brink of famine.
They have no medical care, no hospitals left standing.
Their universities have all been destroyed.
All civilian infrastructure and civilian life in Gaza is gone.
These people live in tents.
It's going to take years and years and years before they have any semblance of a minimally normal life, if ever.
Can you even imagine?
Jerry Seinfeld and Barry White sitting there expressing emotion, let alone crying, about what's happening to the Muslims and Christians in Palestine, in Gaza, as a result of this war.
And I think a big part of what's going on in the United States is that there is clearly a sense, which I think is horrific, And it's the basis for every crime against humanity that certain lives have far more value than other lives.
And it's not just based on nationality, but on ethnicity and race and religion.
And that is a big part of our policy toward Israel and a big part of, I think, what that moving, poignant little vignette illustrates as well.
All right, so that concludes our show for this evening.
We had said we were gonna go over some excerpts from my interview that I did in New York last week with Nick Gillespie of Reason.
We'll probably do that on another night, but if you want to look at the interview, it's about an hour and 15 minutes long.
It covers a wide range of topics.
You can do so on the Rumble page or the YouTube page for Reason.
They have posted it there as well as on their own site.
We'll probably show you some segments on another day.
We ran out of time.
Tomorrow we're gonna have Professor John Mearsheimer on, who I think is one of the most poignant, most incisive voices on foreign policy in general, international relations, obviously the wars in Israel and Gaza, the U.S. relations in general.
We're going to devote the whole show to that, assuming there's not a Trump verdict or some other news event that requires our attention.
So look for that.
Otherwise, that concludes our show for this evening.
As a final reminder, System Update is also available in podcast form, where you can listen to every episode 12 hours after they are first broadcast live here on Rumble on Spotify, Apple, and all the major podcasting platforms.
And if you rate, review, and follow our program on those platforms, it really does help 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, part of the Rumble community, where we have our live interactive After Show, where we take your questions, respond to your critiques and feedback, your suggestions for future shows.
That After Show is available solely to members of our Locals community, and so if you want to join, you get access not only to those twice-a-week After Shows, but to the multiple interactive features we have there, to the daily transcripts of every program we broadcast here.
We publish professionalized written transcripts of our show On that platform, it's where we publish first our original written reporting, and it is the community on which we most rely to support the independent journalism that we do 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 local's community.
For those of you watching this show, we are, of course, very appreciative.
We hope to see you back tomorrow night and every night at 7 p.m.
