AIPAC's Singular Ability to Remove and Influence Members of Congress; Senator Rand Paul On More COVID Cover-Ups; PLUS: Media Denies Biden's Decline
TIMESTAMPS:
Intro (0:00)
AIPAC’s Singular Power (9:12)
Interview with Senator Rand Paul (41:39)
Too Old (1:13:07)
Outro (1:42:10)
- - -
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.
Tonight, AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, is easily one of the most powerful, feared, and effective lobbying groups in Washington, if not the single most feared.
That assertion is so well documented by now that it barely requires debate, but their power lies not only, or even primarily, in their extraordinary ability to foster close to unanimous votes in Congress for every pro-Israel resolution or bill they wish to see implemented.
That is extraordinary enough, but even more amazing is their unmatched ability, and it is unmatched, Just simply remove incumbent members of the U.S.
Congress who are, in their eyes, insufficiently supportive of and dedicated to the foreign government of Israel.
A perfect example illustrating how this works is the current primary challenge being launched against the two-term Democratic congressman and former middle school principal, Jamal Bowman, who represents New York's 16th congressional district.
Bowman currently faces an extraordinarily well-financed primary challenger from George Latimer.
The longtime corruption play county executive in Westchester County, who polls now show has built a substantial lead over Bowman.
And it's not hard to understand why.
It's not because George Latimer is some beloved figure.
It's because his campaign is being fueled by a massive amount of money that comes almost entirely from out-of-the-district funding, the vast, vast majority of which comes from a pro-Israel PAC directed and funded by AIPAC.
It's an extraordinary, even unprecedented amount that is being spent on this single primary challenge to a Congressional House incumbent.
$20 million and counting.
Now, the reason Bowman faces such a powerfully funded primary challenge is simple and obvious.
He sometimes criticizes Israel and has been particularly critical of their 8-month US-funded war that has destroyed much of Gaza.
But voters in the district who are being drowned in anti-Bowman ads on radio, TV, online, everywhere, would have little idea that the reason for this overwhelmingly funded challenge to their congressmen is due to pro-Israel groups.
And that's because the ads that are run against him rarely, if ever, even mention the issue of Israel.
Instead, pretending that they are angry with Bowman for his failure to be a good Democrat.
That he's not sufficiently loyal to President Biden and his agenda.
But this has been AIPAC's long-standing and extremely effective tactic for punishing and even removing members of Congress for failure to support Israel with unquestioning praise.
And in an era where bipartisan systems ensure that congressional incumbents have even a higher re-election rate than Soviet-era members of the Russian legislature, AIPAC appears, as we will show you, to have become the one real threat to the ability of Congress members to win re-election or even to secure their own party's nomination.
Then we welcome back to System Update the three-term Republican senator from Kentucky and medical doctor Rand Paul.
Senator Paul has been relentlessly attempting to expose the truth about what happened specifically in the beginning months of the COVID pandemic when Dr. Fauci and his associates falsely claimed to the world that they had confirmed that COVID originated from nature and not from a lab leak in Wuhan.
That false claim of certainty ended up, as intended, shaping discourse about the pandemic around the globe for the next two years and, also as intended, caused a full-scale online censorship ban of any questioning or doubts about that official story of COVID's origins.
Just as importantly, Dr. Paul has been attempting to demonstrate that Fauci deliberately concealed his attempts to fund what is called gain-of-function research, meaning scientific attempts in labs to manipulate viruses and other pathogens to become even more contagious or more deadly to humans, something that, if it leaked, could cause a pandemic of the type that we saw with COVID.
But now Senator Paul is also warning about what appears to be bipartisan efforts to approve or to fund the exact kind of dangerous gain-of-function research which very likely caused the worldwide COVID pandemic in the first place.
I am genuinely amazed at how little interest there seems to be in investigating and finding the truth about what is easily one of the most consequential events in our lifetime, the COVID pandemic.
Dr. Paul is one of the few in Washington still demanding just basic accountability.
And we believe that that work is extremely important and deserves as much journalistic attention as we can possibly give to it.
So we'll speak to him in just a little bit.
And then finally, videos of Joe Biden frequently surface that confirm what Americans already know about him as polling data demonstrates, namely that he is aging in a way that has left him with serious cognitive impairment.
To the point that he sometimes barely knows where he is or what he is saying.
The evidence proving that is overwhelming from reporting to firsthand accounts to simply comparing his conduct now to what it was even five years ago.
And it's worth remembering that the very first time concerns about Biden's cognitive capabilities were expressed were not by Republicans or even Bernie Sanders supporters in the 2020 cycle.
It was by DNC operatives and DNC media allies in 2019.
Who were very concerned that Biden would simply get the nomination simply because he was the most well-known candidate, and they continuously warned that this is not the same Joe Biden, that he was likely not capable of sustaining the full rigors of a campaign.
It was only once that he got the nomination did those very same people turn around and say it's immoral to raise questions about Biden's cognitive capabilities, even though they were the ones who first cast doubts on it in the first place.
Nonetheless, despite all that evidence, most of the U.S.
corporate media, as we know, will say or do anything to ensure Trump's defeat, even if it means outright lying.
They already proved that in 2016 when they spread virtually every day.
All sorts of false collusion conspiracy theories about the Trump campaign in Russia, and then did so again in 2020 when they claimed that incriminating reporting about Biden and his family in Ukraine and China was the byproduct of what they called fake documents, meaning Russian disinformation.
Now with that same goal in mind, to manipulate elections, they are now insisting that the videos showing Biden's cognitive decline and incapacitation are somehow fake, as they hope to convince Americans to trust the media's partisan claims.
More than they trust their own eyes and their own judgment.
We will examine the latest self-humiliation of the media in pursuit of manipulating another presidential election by trying to disseminate claims that are so recognizably false.
Now before we get to all that, a few programming notes.
First of all, we encourage our viewers to download the Rumble app because if you do so, it works both on your smart TV and your telephone.
I know it's hard to believe apps usually work on just one or the other, but the Rumble app works on both.
And if you download it and begin using it, you can follow the shows you most like to watch on system here on the platform, obviously beginning with system update.
And then if you activate notifications, which we hope you will, it means that the minute any of the programs on Rumble begin broadcasting live on the platform, the ones that you follow, you will be immediately notified with a link to your email or text, however you want.
And you can just click on that link and begin watching the live show the minute it begins That really helps the live viewing numbers of each program as well as the platform of Rumble and its free speech cause overall.
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.
If you rate, review, and follow the program on those platforms, it really does help spread the visibility of our 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.
Those aftershows are available solely to members of our Locals community, and if you want to join, which gives you access not only to those twice a week aftershows, but to multiple interactive features that we have there that let us communicate with you throughout the week.
It's the place where we first publish our original written journalism.
We publish written, professionalized transcripts of every episode on that platform.
And most of all, it's the community on which we 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 we'll take you directly to that community.
For now, welcome to a new episode of System Update, starting right now.
It's long been discussed and talked about that one of the most powerful lobbying groups in Washington is AIPAC and the pro-Israel lobby in general.
Now there are a lot of other powerful lobbies.
Lobbying has become almost entirely legalized without limits.
We have lobbies for Wall Street and Big Pharma and Big Tech.
And all sorts of other components of our economy.
We have activist groups that are quite powerful, like the NRA and Planned Parenthood.
But you could definitely make the case that AIPAC not just is one of the most powerful, but is the single most powerful because it has the ability to do things that even those other extraordinarily well-funded lobbies have not proven they can do, which is to simply remove members of Congress at a rate incomparable to any other lobby
Anytime they see a member of Congress insufficiently supporting or expressing loyalty to the state of Israel, and they've been doing that over and over, and there is currently a primary challenge that is now taking place in New York's 16th Congressional District, targeting Congressman Jamal Bowman, who oftentimes is very supportive of Israel, oftentimes has voted to fund their Iron Dome, to send money to Israel, but occasionally he criticizes Israel, and that is a
Grave violation from the perspective of AIPAC, and they are now targeting him in a way that they have done repeatedly in the past to remove members of Congress.
And what makes that so notable is that one of the most difficult things to do in politics is to defeat an incumbent member of Congress.
In last cycle's race, as we'll show you, 100% of senators up for reelection won their seats.
And oftentimes, it's close to 95%, 96%, which is the rate of re-election for incumbent members of the House.
The entire system is built as an incumbent protection racket, so that it's almost impossible to remove them.
And yet, AIPAC is the one group that seems to have figured out exactly how to do that.
And they've been doing it for many, many years.
And members of Congress know that one of the groups, in fact, the group that you definitely do not want to alienate ...is APAC, precisely because of their demonstrated ability to remove people from Congress.
Now, here from OpenSecrets, which is the site that provides transparency on funding and the like, from October of 2023, there you see those statistics.
Incumbent politicians enjoy record re-election in an aging Congress.
Quote, in the 2022 elections, each of the 28 incumbent U.S.
senators seeking re-election came home with a win Incumbent House members boasted a similar level of job security, retaining their seats in 94% of races.
Now what's so amazing about that is polls constantly show that Americans hate Congress.
They hold that institution in contempt.
But the system is designed And obviously it's designed by these incumbents, so they're self-interested, and they designed the system to essentially give them, like, tenure.
So it's a democracy in name, but you basically, these people, once they get into Congress, are barely ever removed, unless you alienate AIPAC, and then you have a very good chance of losing your job permanently in Washington.
Here is the The statistics on what's happening in Jamal Bowman's district, which is the New York 16th Congressional District from Ad Impact Politics, which says, NY16 primary is one week away.
It has seen over $23 million in spending and reservations, making it the most expensive House primary ever.
Now why would this one House Congressional District And not even between a Republican and Democrat, between two Democrats to see who gets the nomination.
This one district out of 435 attracts such massive amounts of spending.
The tweet says, here's an updated look at top spending advertisers.
As APAC-affiliated group, the United Democracy Project makes up 61% of total spending.
And there you see on screen that this one PAC, the United Democracy PAC, has spent $14 million just from AIPAC and the pro-Israel lobby, all of which has gone either to negative ads against Jamal Bowman or much less commonly positive ads in favor of George all of which has gone either to negative ads against Jamal Because obviously the idea is that no one's going to love George Latimer.
The idea is to make the members of the voters in this district hate Jamal Bowman.
And on top of that you see that George Latimer has donated $2.5 million himself.
And then you have this kind of, or those are his other donors, his campaign.
And then you have this $2.1 million of an entity called Fair Shake, which is also targeting Jamal Bowman.
Even though they're not a pro-Israel group, they have been running ads that focus on Jamal Bowman's abandonment, in their words, of Israel.
So you have this massive, gigantic sum of money in this race, the vast, vast majority of which is dedicated to removing Jamal Bowman from Congress.
And there's only one reason why that's happening, and that is because he sometimes criticizes Israel.
Not always, but sometimes.
And that alone is enough.
Now, AIPAC has a remarkable record of success.
As we've shown you many times, every time there's some AIPAC sponsored resolution or even proposed law that AIPAC lobbyists write, it not only automatically passes the House or the Senate, it does so with a close to unanimous vote.
There's almost no issue that commands a close to unanimous vote in our very polarized
political system the one that does is Israel because of the fear that AIPAC has put into the hearts and minds of members of Congress and for good reason because they have been so successful so singularly successful in removing people from Congress and it looks as though they are going to be successful in this race as well here from Emerson polling in June on June 11th so just last week There you see the poll.
George Latimer leads Jamal Bowen 48 to 31 percent and here you see the graphic of the Poll on screen, which is, the question is, if the primary election for Congress were held today, for whom would you vote?
George Latimer, 48%.
Jamal Bowman, 31%.
Undecided, 21%.
Jamal Bowman 31%, undecided 21%.
So although 21% say they're undecided, the gap between George Latimer and Jamal Bowman is just 17%.
So unless almost every one of those undecided candidates voted for Jamal Bowman between now and the election, it means that Bowman is likely to lose and not just lose, but lose by a vast margin.
And again, it is extremely rare for an incumbent to lose their race.
Even rarer for an incumbent to be challenged and to lose his primary.
It's not unheard of.
In fact, Jamal Bowman himself became a member of Congress back in 2020 when he challenged the longtime House member, the extremely pro-Israel, Eliot Engel.
That's how Jamal Bowman won.
He had a huge number of small donors who were basically part of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party who seek to make it more progressive, and he was able to not just outspend, but even to be able to get enough voters on his side to win.
But in general, it's extremely difficult to remove House members, let alone by a margin of this size, and yet AIPAC works well on their way to doing so.
Now, the amazing thing about what AIPAC does when they target a person in Congress solely because of the one issue they care about, which is Israel, is that when they run ads and flood the district or the state with negative ads against the incumbent who they want to remove solely because of Israel, They don't actually even mention Israel in their ads.
They know that most people are not single-issue voters the way AIPAC is and that they care about things other than this foreign government on the other side of the world.
And so what they do is they run ads that are deceitful in the sense that they pretend they're targeting Jamal Bowman for all sorts of other things unrelated to Israel, and they barely ever mention Israel itself.
So here is one of the ads that is most circulating in this district.
It's from the United Democracy Project, which is the pro-Israel AIPAC-funded PAC that is targeting Jamal Bowman.
And this is the kind of ad that is running in his district.
Jamal Bowman has his own agenda and refuses to compromise, even with President Biden.
Bowman voted against the President's Infrastructure Act, against rebuilding roads and bridges in New York, against replacing lit pipes.
And Jamal Bowman voted against President Biden's debt limit deal, putting Social Security and Medicare payments at risk, along with our entire economy.
Jamal Bowman has his own agenda and he's hurting New York.
UDV is responsible for the content of this ad.
Not a word about Israel.
Just basically alleging that somehow Jamal Bowman is a threat to social programs like Social Security and accusing him of being insufficiently loyal to the Democratic Party agenda as though AIPAC cares in any way about Joe Biden's agenda.
And so it really is a very deceitful dynamic where you have a pro-Israel group targeting Jamal Bowman solely because of his stance on Israel, while the voters in his district believe that the grievances against Jamal Bowman Have nothing to do with Israel and in fact have everything to do instead with all sorts of other issues relating to loyalty to the Democratic Party and Joe Biden.
Now, the amazing thing about all of this is that Jamal Bowman is hardly some obsessively anti-Israel, let alone anti-Semitic member of Congress.
In fact, he is often alienated The precise groups on the left that helped him become a member of Congress and that support him, including the Democratic Socialists for America, because they believe that he is too pro-Israel, that he has voted too often to send money to Israel, to fund Israel, to defend Israel.
To the point where they were willing, even actively considering, expelling him from those organizations and refusing to endorse him any longer.
Here from the Institute for Palestine Studies in April of 2022.
DSA, Jamal Bowman, and the BDS Working Group.
The BDS Working Group is the working group inside the Democratic Socialists of America who advocate for BDS, which is the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement against Israel.
And this headline is showing the strains between the left-wing members of the Democratic Party that helped put Jamal Bowman in office and Bowman himself because of his, in their view, excessive support for Israel.
Quote, issues with Representative Jamal Bowman who was endorsed by DSA started at the end of September 2021, when he voted in support of an additional $1 billion in U.S.
aid to Israel's Iron Dome.
At the time, DSA made an official statement condemning this vote, declaring that they quote, unapologetically stand in solidarity with the Palestinian people and their ongoing struggle for liberation, as well as reaffirming their support for the boycott and divestment movement.
In November of 2021, Representative Bowman traveled to Palestine on a visit sponsored by J Street, a Zionist lobbying group.
Sort of, J Street was intended to be the softer version of AIPAC.
DSA noted that they were aware of Representative Bowman's trip and were actively working with the BDS Working Group to address that issue.
BDS guidelines state that, quote, visits by politicians and parliamentarians to Israel that are organized by Israel lobbying groups, including AIPAC and J Street, cross our nonviolent BDS picket line and harm our struggle for freedom, justice, and equality.
Jamal Bowman has been doing all sorts of things in favor of Israel that are pro-Israel that have alienated many of his anti-Israel left-wing supporters.
But that's not enough for AIPAC.
AIPAC demands full and total support and loyalty toward Israel.
Even if you occasionally criticize them, that makes you a target.
Now, in defense of this idea that Bowman is anti-Israel, it is true that since October 7th, like the majority of the world, he has been harshly critical of the Israeli destruction of Gaza and the killing of civilians.
But it hardly means he's some fanatical anti-Israel critic, as I just demonstrated.
Here from the New York Times on June 10th of this year, Jamal Bowman makes amends with Democratic Socialists after a rift over Israel.
told members of the socialist group that his views on Israel aligned with theirs and insisted that he never quit the group despite earlier claims.
He had actually said, Jamal Bowman did, that he was removing himself from DSA because he was offended by many of their more extreme anti-Israel views.
"Last fall, in the days after Hamas's deadly October 7th attack on Israel, Congressman Bowman of New York appeared ready to make a hard public break with the Democratic Socialists of America And DSA is actually quite influential and powerful in New York City politics, which is where Jamal Bowman is coming from in that New York City area, including Long Island, Westchester.
And so if you split with the DSA, as he was threatening to do over Israel, that actually can matter to an incumbent's chances.
Quote, Mr. Bowman condemned a rally promoted by DSA, quote, in the strongest possible terms After some attendees glorified the slaughter of 1,200 Israelis, his office also took the opportunity to publicize for the first time that he had let his own DSA membership lapse amid earlier disagreements over funding for Israeli defenses.
So he was playing up the fact that so many people on the left were angry at him over his support for Israel and its funding of the U.S.
funding of the Iron Dome.
And so you see this kind of history of him being sufficiently pro-Israel to alienate his most important and active supporters on the left.
But again, any criticism of Israel will provoke AIPAC to target you and try and remove you from Congress.
Here from The Guardian in July of 2022, quote, pro-Israel groups pour millions of dollars into the primary campaign to defeat Jewish candidate AIPAC, a Jewish candidate.
AIPAC says Democrat Andy Levin, a self-described Zionist, a Jewish Zionist in Congress, AIPAC says, quote, is insufficiently pro-Israel.
alarming some because of how much of the money comes from wealthy Trump donors.
Levin has been stung by the largest pro-Israel lobbying group's campaign to paint him as an enemy of the Jewish state because he has spoken up for the Palestinians.
AIPAC has spent more than $4 million to defeat Levin in next Tuesday's Democratic primary for congressional seat in northwestern Detroit with a twin strategy to discredit him with the city's sizable Jewish community while funding an advertising blitz aimed at the wider electorate that avoids mention of the Israel lobby's involvement.
Just as we showed you that ad, they'll target Jewish voters by saying he's bad on Israel, even though he's a Jewish Zionist.
But then they will target the rest of the electorate that doesn't prioritize Israel the way they do and pretend that they're angry that he's off the reservation on Democratic Party or Joe Biden's agenda.
Quote, "APAC boasts, they boast, that its favored candidate have won in nine of the ten Democratic parties it waded into in recent months.
Hardline pro-Israel groups have proclaimed these victories as evidence of American voters' support for its positions, but the campaigns funded through APAC's political action committee, the United Democracy Project, rarely mentions the Jewish state or Israel policy on Israel." They just flood so much money, an incomparable amount of money, into trying to destroy the reputations of political careers of anyone who steps even a little bit out of line.
When it comes to Israel, they boast themselves of how successful they have been in defeating the candidates whom they target in a country where the re-election rates for incumbents, as we showed you, are approaching 100%.
The Guardian in July of 2022 is highlighting another case where AIPAC destroyed a Democratic incumbent.
Quote, AIPAC hails Democrats' defeat for not being sufficiently pro-Israel.
Donna Edwards, the leading contender in Maryland primary for a safe seat, lost after pro-Israeli groups poured millions to block her.
And Donna Edwards had been a member of Congress representing that district in the past.
Quote, Edwards' defeat will be taken as a warning by other Democratic contenders not to criticize Israeli policies or risk a well-funded campaign against them.
AIPAC and its allies spent nearly $7 million through political action committees to block Edwards, who served eight years as the first black woman elected to Congress from Maryland before losing a bid for the Senate in 2016.
These are insane amounts of money, insane numbers, to be pouring into not a Senate race, not a presidential race, but simply to defeat a single House member in a primary for their own party's nomination.
And obviously, one of the main reasons they want to spend so much money is not only to remove that particular insufficiently pro-Israel member of Congress, but to frighten and deter and scare every other member of Congress to understand that if they don't stay in line in Israel,
The one thing that might jeopardize their future political career and their almost guaranteed re-election will happen, namely that AIPAC will pour so much money into their district to try and ruin their reputation that they will remove them from Congress permanently like they have done with so many other members of Congress in the past.
They also had success earlier this year with destroying the political career of a Republican member of Congress who they claimed was anti-Israel.
From the Times of Israel in May of 2024, longtime Israel critic loses Indiana Republican House primary.
Quote, Republican Jewish coalition in AIPAC had mounted a campaign against John Hostetler, who was soundly beaten by the Republican Jewish Committee's favorite candidate, Mark Messmer.
Quote, the former Republican congressman in Indiana, who was a longtime critic of Israel, failed in his bid to return to the House of Representatives after the Republican-Jewish coalition in AIPAC mounted an effort to support his opponent.
Election returns in Indiana's 8th district on Tuesday night showed state Senator Mark Messmer, the RJC's favorite candidate, soundly defeating John Hostleter.
Tonight we succeeded in keeping a vocal anti-Israel candidate at the Republican conference, the RJC, said Tuesday evening, this is a major victory for the RJC, the Jewish community, and for all pro-Israel Americans, and for common sense.
Common sense meaning make sure to always pay for Israel's military, finance all of its new wars.
sacrifice Americans standing in the world in defense of this one foreign country, even isolating itself from the rest of the world to do so.
Quote, the RJC has spent nearly a million dollars on ads in the district, mostly promoting Mesmer, said Sam Markstein, a spokesman for the group.
Now, if you're a member of Congress and you see all of this happening, and what you want, which is what most members of Congress want, is to stay in Congress and continuously get reelected,
Obviously, you're going to have immense fear, in fact, more fear than any other of offending this one particular lobby, a lobby that is devoted not to the interests of the United States, but to the foreign country called Israel on the other side of the world.
That is the one issue that members of the American Congress know they cannot deviate from, lest they risk in a singularly significant way their ability to get reelected.
Here from the Guardian in August of 2002, which is 23 years ago, Just to show you how long this has been going on, you see the headline, Pro-Palestinian Congresswoman ousted.
Quote, one of the most controversial figures in the U.S.
Congress, Cynthia McKinney, was effectively booted out of Washington yesterday when she lost a primary for reelection in her home state of Georgia after a bitter campaign that focused heavily on her support for Palestinian causes.
After 10 years, In the House of Representatives.
She had been re-elected, elected and re-elected five times.
Ms.
McKinney lost the nomination for her safe Democratic seat in Atlanta in a race that focused on the Middle East?
Under allegation that President George Bush had advanced knowledge of the September 11th attacks.
Her conqueror, Denise Majec, a state judge, is also black and female, but she is a more mainstream politician and a far less abrasive character.
Opponents painted McKinney as a dangerous extremist, and money from Jewish groups poured into the Majec campaign.
Though Muslim organizations supported McKinney, they were overmatched.
Now it is true that Cynthia McKinney had a lot of controversial positions, but a lot of members of Congress have a lot of controversial positions.
The one thing that got her booted out of the House after 10 years representing her congressional district in Georgia was the fact that she was pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel because that was what provoked all of that money to be poured into the race.
And you notice there a very common tactic that AIPAC uses that oftentimes the members of Congress that they're targeting are black liberal or left liberal Democrats or Muslim Democrats as well.
And the tactic they always use is to recruit another black candidate So that they can't claim that they're trying to put a white candidate in place of a black Democrat, although George Latimer is one of the exceptions.
He is a white man running against Jamal Bowman.
But so often they recruit these far more mainstream, willing to play ball politicians who have demonstrated a steadfast commitment to supporting the state of Israel.
And even when there's an open primary race like Nina Turner running in Ohio, she had been critical of Israel in the past, and so they recruited another black woman, Chantal Brown, financed her campaign overwhelmingly, and of course, Chantal Brown won, is now the incumbent representing that district in Ohio, and she is just an absolutely reliable and constant, consistent vote in favor of all things Israel.
And again, this tactic is something that they have been using for a long, long time.
So if you're a member of Congress, you obviously know that this is the one lobby you don't want to offend.
And you'll see that AIPAC keeps saying, oh, it's not that these people are being defeated because we pour so much money into the race.
They're being defeated because they don't support Israel, and their voters agree with us that Israel should be supported.
And yet, as we've shown you, the ads that they run often have nothing to do with Israel, because they know that's not enough.
to get an incumbent removed because actually voters don't care enough about Israel or aren't obsessed with making sure that the United States funds it.
And that's why they always promote and pretend that they're concerned about other issues as well.
Now, as I said, it's not just their ability to remove members of Congress, incumbent members of Congress, or more well-known candidates for open seats,
It's also their ability to ensure that any pro-Israel resolution or pro-Israel bill, especially when Israel has another war, and they want to make sure that Congress takes a stance in defense of Israel, not only does it get approved automatically, but it passes with near unanimity every single time one of these AIPAC-approved or AIPAC-written Resolutions or bills comes before Congress.
Here from the Israeli newspaper Haaretz in July of 2014, which was one of the times, the many times, that Israel was also aggressively bombing Gaza.
There you see the headline, the US Senate unanimously approves a resolution giving full support of Israel on Gaza.
The resolution had 78 bipartisan co-sponsors, 78 out of a Senate that only has 100 members.
78 of them didn't just vote yes, they demanded to be put as sponsors of this AIPAC-remoted bill.
It was introduced by Senators Robert Menendez, Democrat from New Jersey, Lindsey Graham, Republican from South Carolina, Chuck Schumer, Democrat from New York, and Kelly Ayotte, Republican from New Hampshire.
The House passed a similar resolution on July 11th, and here's the article, quote, the U.S. Senate unanimously approved a non-binding resolution in support of Israel's right to defend itself against rocket fire from the Gaza Strip.
A similar resolution Introduced by Congressman Steve Israel, the Democrat of New York, and Tom Cole, the Republican from Oklahoma, in the House that had over 140 co-sponsors, passed unanimously in the U.S.
House of Representatives on July 11th.
Now all over the world, Various countries were condemning that Israeli bombing campaign against Gaza, which wasn't nearly as extensive or enduring as the one that's still ongoing now, but still was.
Extremely destructive, killed a huge number of civilians, and yet at the same time, Somehow the United States not only stood on the side of Israel, but couldn't find a single member of Congress willing to vote no against that resolution.
And then the Harrods article goes on, quote, the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, AIPAC, which backed both resolutions, praised the Senate for its passage.
So AIPAC does use both the Positive reinforcement and the negative reinforcement.
When people in Congress stand up and do what they're told and support Israel and demand that U.S.
funds Israel and stands behind Israel, they get the head pat from AIPAC.
In fact, Bernie Sanders, shortly after the October 7th attack in November, two months later, went on Face the Nation and when asked whether he supports a ceasefire in Gaza, he said, of course I don't support a ceasefire.
A ceasefire would help Hamas.
And AIPAC then took that tweet, or that video rather, and posted it on their account and said, thank you so much, Senator Sanders, for your support of Israel and for opposing a ceasefire because you know that it will only help Hamas.
So they absolutely do these head pats.
They will give money to the members of Congress who stay in line.
So there's all kind of benefits.
from supporting Israel but then they have the stick that they use very aggressively and very effectively where essentially they and they alone are capable of just removing large numbers of members of Congress for failure to always in a hundred percent of the cases adhere to the pro-Israel AIPAC agenda.
And if you wonder why these bills passed unanimously, it's not because every member of Congress is so fanatically pro-Israel.
They're fanatically pro-reelection, and they know one of the ways to guarantee that.
In fact, the most effective way to guarantee that is to avoid alienating AIPAC.
That really is the true power of this one lobby in Washington.
Of course, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, both of whom we have on our show several times, wrote the definitive book about this called The Israel Lobby back in 2006.
But as Professor Mearsheimer has told us several times, if anything, the pro-Israel lobby is even more powerful in Washington now than it was back in 2006 when they wrote that book.
And all of this is demonstrating that, their ability to destroy the careers of anyone who steps on the line.
And we'll see what happens if Jamal Bowman loses the race, as is likely.
but either way it is obviously a very vivid illustration yet again of AIPAC's singular power in our politics.
As is often true in the United States, especially when there are moments of economic turmoil and economic difficulty, there are a very large number of people who owe there are a very large number of people who owe back taxes to the IRS and who in return are often harassed and followed and culled and have their assets frozen by the IRS because of their inability to pay that back taxes.
And especially during COVID, We had all kinds of businesses that were closed, people out of work, and a lot of the relief that Congress provided to people who are suffering during the pandemic economically is basically now over.
And along with the fact that the IRS has received new budgets to hire all sorts of new agents and field officers, the IRS has kicked off 2024 by sending over 5 million letters
Now, people are often told that if they are arrested or charged with a crime, they should never speak directly to the police or to prosecutors without a lawyer present because they will often do things or say things that, unbeknownst to them because they're not experts in law, will end up harming their interests.
The same is true of the IRS.
And you do have a lot of rights when it comes to tax collection in the United States and when the IRS is pursuing you and we would suggest that you don't waive your rights or speak to them on your own because it is true that the IRS are not your friends.
And that's why we are very happy to have a new sponsor, Tax Network USA, which is a trusted tax relief firm that has saved over a billion dollars in back taxes for their clients.
And they can also help you secure the best possible deal they can if you're somebody who has back taxes and are being pursued by the IRS.
Now whether you owe $10,000 or $10 million, they're able to help you.
And whether it's business or personal taxes, even if you have the means to pay, or you're on a fixed income, they can help you finally understand your rights and directly deal with the IRS on your behalf and to insist on all of the legal protections that you have and then to try to negotiate the best possible deal for you to have your taxes paid in a way that is manageable.
You can call 1-800-245-6000 for a private free consultation or you can visit tnusa.com/glenn and you can arrange a consultation with them and an
embrace and vindication of the rights that you do have when dealing with the IRS.
We are very happy that Senator Rand Paul, the three-term senator from the state of Kentucky and a medical doctor, has become a frequent and even you could say regular guest on our show.
He was just on our show a couple of weeks ago to talk about the hearings where Dr. Fauci appeared and we also sat down with him a little bit earlier today where we interviewed him about a wide range of issues regarding what is the seemingly bipartisan resistance to really having a serious investigation to simply review what was done with the COVID pandemic.
It's something that we regularly do when we have major political controversies, the JFK assassination, the 9-11 attack, even the January 6th Riot, which was of far less significance than these other events, including the COVID pandemic, all got these sort of bipartisan blue ribbon commissions to issue what was supposed to be the definitive report about what happened.
Oftentimes, we don't get the full story, but at least a recognition that these events deserve that kind of investigative attention, and yet none of that has happened When it comes to the COVID pandemic, even though arguably it is the single most significant and consequential event in our lifetime, being one of the few voices in Washington who has been relentless and continuing to pursue the truth about what was done with regard to COVID policy, what was done with regard to claims about its origin, whether the U.S.
was involved through funding and other support into research that manipulated the coronavirus and made it more dangerous and more contagious and then escaped.
All of those questions are still unresolved and yet there seems to be very little attention being paid to it.
Senator Paul has been following this from the beginning.
He continues to follow it when a lot of other people seem to have the idea that this is all in the past, we don't need to find out.
And we sat down with him just a little bit ago to talk about some of the Pending issues, some of the questions that still are unanswered with regards to Dr. Fauci and his associates, as well as what the future might hold when it comes to funding this very dangerous gain-of-function research.
Here is the interview we had with Dr. Paul.
Senator, it's great to have you back on the show.
We appreciate your time.
Let me begin with an exchange you had in the Senate this week where you, in an extremely factual way, almost without any assertions of any kind, just reading documents and laying out the timeline of what happened that led up to this journalistic and scientific scandal where they published this Lancet.
article proclaiming to be certain about the origins of COVID when in fact, not only were they uncertain, but what they were getting secretly was information that was contrary to what they were claiming, namely that it was far more likely a lab leak.
And then on top of that, the last time you were on the show a couple of weeks ago, we talked about these emails showing that they purposely deleted emails in order to make sure they couldn't be obtainable by FOIA, which is a classic coverup.
In the past, when you've had major events in American political life, like the JFK assassination or the 9-11 attack, even January 6th, which pales in comparison to the impact of the COVID pandemic, we've created these kind of bipartisan blue ribbon commissions of all the wise men and women in Washington who were bipartisan, and they would issue a comprehensive report that would be the trusted definitive account of what happened.
That was at least the theory.
And what strikes me so much is despite the fact that you can make the case that COVID is the most significant event in our lifetime, we've never had any commission like that.
And there's actually seems to be very little interest, even in Congress and both parties, very little push to have a comprehensive accounting of what was done here, what was said here and what happened.
Why do you think that is?
You know, as a journalist, you can recall how curious people are, particularly when journalists think they're being lied to or that there's a cover-up.
When a government official says, I've deleted all the earlier emails, I think we're safe now.
You would think that that would excite journalists across the spectrum and they would be scouring and going after every tidbit.
You know, that was the senior advisor to Anthony Fauci who said that.
You know, I've deleted all the emails.
I've been taught by the FOIA lady how to do it.
They started changing the spelling and we actually are now refiling all these FOIA because if you take the words eco-health and you replace the vowels with numbers, it doesn't show up in FOIA.
Christian Anderson, one of the Uh, acolytes or disciples of Fauci, one of the virologists who wrote the paper saying there's no way this could have come from the lab while privately saying it came from the lab.
They began to misspell his name with dollar signs in the place of the vowels.
Now, there's a certain irony in that since he got a $9 million grant shortly after he published this paper saying it couldn't have come from the lab.
But this is the kind of thing that you would think this would excite people on both sides of the aisle.
When the House committee brought in that senior assistant to Fauci, they did grill him pretty well.
But he also alleged that he thought Fauci had deleted his emails.
He said that he could take private messages to Fauci and call him on the phone and that Fauci was smart enough to not put this stuff in writing.
And yet, nobody's really gone after Fauci.
The Democrats still are in love with him.
Nobody's subpoenaed his private emails or his private phone records.
And these are things I would have done immediately.
I would have given him two weeks to comply and I would have subpoenaed him, because it takes a while to go through court to enforce a subpoena.
But I think they've let him get away with it, and Democrats continue to defend him.
Even though I think really philosophically he was a driving force behind letting gain-of-function research go on that led to this disaster.
So we're going to put that video, that exchange where you go through these events, into this interview.
Today we are here to examine one of the most critical and debated questions of our time.
Did COVID-19 originate in a lab?
To answer this question, let's revisit the early days of the pandemic and examine what some of Dr. Anthony Fauci's inner circle said privately about the origins of the virus.
Discussions that were only revealed through FOIA litigation.
Christian Anderson wrote, the lab escape version of this is so friggin likely to have happened because they were already doing this type of work and the molecular data is fully consistent with that scenario.
Ian Lipkin stressed the nightmare of circumstantial evidence to assess regarding the possibility of inadvertent release given the scale of bat coronavirus research pursued in Wuhan.
Bob Gary said, I really can't think of a plausible natural scenario where you get from the bat virus or one very similar to it to COVID-19, where you insert exactly four amino acids, 12 nucleotides, and all have to be added at the exact same time to gain this function.
I just can't figure out how this gets accomplished in nature.
According to Gary, it's not crackpot to suggest this could have happened, given the gain-of-function research we know was happening at Wuhan.
These are all private statements, which you'll discover today differ greatly from their public statements.
Even Ralph Baric, world-famous gain-of-function researcher and collaborator with Wuhan's Dr. Xi admitted So they, the Wuhan Institute of Virology, have a very large collection of viruses in their laboratory.
And so, as you know, proximity is a problem.
It's a problem.
Federal court orders reveal that even Dr. Fauci himself privately acknowledged concerns about gain-of-function research in Wuhan and mutations in the virus that suggest it might have been engineered just days before he commissioned the proximal origin paper.
Despite these private doubts, publicly these so-called experts and their allies were dismissing the lab leak theory as a conspiracy.
Within days, Anderson, Lipkin, and Gary were putting final touches on what would be remembered as one of the most remarkable reversals in modern history.
In their proximal origin paper, these scientists concluded, we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible.
Privately, they were saying one thing.
Publicly, they were saying another.
Media pundits parroted the narrative while social media platforms censored discussion about the lab leak, labeling it as misinformation and stifling open discourse about the virus's origins.
Have several criminal referrals that you've made to the Department of Justice regarding Dr. Fauci and his associates deliberately deleting emails about major government policy to evade FOIA or using things like dollar signs and characters to ensure they're not detected.
Those are absolutely criminal acts.
We've had major political scandals over attempts to conceal emails in the past from the public, including the Hillary Clinton private server at her home, but others as well.
This is on a much larger scale.
And then you have the question of whether Dr. Fauci and other scientists violated gain-of-function limitations and limits in everything that happened here and whether he's lied to Congress about it.
Why do you think criminal investigations from the Department of Justice are warranted and why do you think Merrick Garland is essentially ignoring them?
Well, you know, lying to Congress is a felony, but also destroying evidence is a felony as well.
So I think both of those are significant and severe crimes.
It's against the law to try to avoid FOIA and to not use your government email.
It's not clear that that's a felony, and it's not clear that it's very enforceable.
That's why people keep doing it.
You know, there have been various politicians accused of using private email through time.
But I do think that The only way you'd get to the bottom of this would be, for example, David Morenz has admitted to most of these things.
He actually didn't admit.
We found it through FOIA that he was doing these things.
But I would bring him back in for testimony because after his testimony, they brought in Anthony Fauci, who basically through his 20-year acquaintance under the bus and said hardly knew the guy never brought him into any meetings He didn't attend policy meetings his office was in another building and by golly He didn't know he it sounds like he was not adhering to a policy line I bring friends back in and ask him again now that he's heard
Uh, you know, Anthony Fauci's description of him and his testimony, whether he wants to add anything, because the human element is he may well want to, you know, have a more complete testimony after he hears Fauci throwing under the bus.
But really, typically in things like this, you get more information.
If someone who's committed malfeasance is indicted and there's someone above them, they often will testify further in order for some leniency.
So I would have hoped that he would have been prosecuted by now or at least indicted.
I think the FOIA lady, I reserve judgment over whether she should be indicted, but they are going to take her testimony.
The problem with all of this is, and this is what makes a lot of Americans unhappy, is nobody believes Merrick Garland will indict someone because these are, you know, Anthony Fauci is the love of the Democrat Party.
He's the paragon of government medicine.
He's a paragon of government, centralized government authority over your medical decision-making process, and nobody believes that he'll ever be, you know, investigated or indicted by this administration.
And that's a bad thing that if we're voting for administrations based on who they're going to prosecute.
And that's a world we don't want to live in, but I think that's the world that's coming.
Yeah, I mean, it's amazing.
You know, he himself equated himself and his pronouncements to science so that if you criticize Dr. Fauci, you're automatically anti-scientific.
That seems to be embedded in a lot of liberal discourse and a lot of liberal mentality.
And by liberal, I mean establishment liberal institutions that there should be no criticism or questioning or accountability for Dr. Fauci because he is the science.
And so any attempt to investigate him is basically to undermine science.
So let me ask you about that.
Well, last time you were here, one of the things we discussed was the issue of gain of function research, which is when scientists Take a certain virus or pathogen and manipulate it in a lab to make it either more contagious for humans or more fatal or dangerous for humans or both, presumably to engage in research about these viruses.
And of course, we talked about the justification, which is that, oh, they have to do that in the event that something like this arrives.
They need to be able to study these more dangerous and more contagious pathogens to figure out defenses against them.
Obviously, COVID-19 showed us how dangerous this research can be.
And it's been known in science for a long time how ethically questionable it is.
And yet now it seems like there's almost a bipartisan movement in Washington to even go further and give this kind of research more authorization legally and even financially.
What is happening in terms of the debate in Congress over what to do with gain-of-function research?
You know, I think there's going to be, I think nobody's saying any longer that we should do nothing.
So I think everybody's acknowledging something needs to be done.
The Biden administration has put forward some self-regulations, self-guidances from the administration.
This is sort of like, you know, the foxes, you know, guarding the henhouse, you know, letting the people who've been committing the errors make the regulatory changes.
What we found out in the committee hearing is that even despite the new guidances from Biden's administration to try to prevent this from happening, three scientists from MIT decided to discover whether the guidance would work.
And so they went online and ordered the fragments of DNA and RNA to construct the Spanish flu, and they were able to order it online.
Despite the attempt by the Biden administration to stop this from happening, they went to different companies, ordered different fragments, put it together in a lab, And then they warned the FBI they were doing this so they wouldn't go to jail for creating a biological weapon, and they didn't create the actual infectious portion.
There's two strands of RNA and DNA.
One can lead to the infectious, the other one doesn't.
They created the non-infectious part of the DNA or RNA for this, and just to prove it can be done.
I think that's enough evidence that just letting the administration do this isn't enough.
So we have legislation to create an independent committee.
It'll still be appointed by the president because someone's got to appoint these people to be scientists, but they will not be scientists who either receive grants for this or dispense grants.
They can't be in the grant making process because I think that Once the money touches your hands, it gives you such a conflict that it makes it hard, you know, if you're receiving nine million dollars, can you really be trusted to be objective?
Even if you're trying to be objective, but you get money from these people, you tend to want to please the people giving the money, and so it needs to be outside of NIH.
NIH has also resisted giving us information over the deliberations over what is gain-of-function, so they just really have proven themselves not to be trusted, and this power needs to be taken away from them.
We also are concerned about classified research.
They've been so resistant to giving us non-classified.
All the COVID stuff is non-classified.
It's supposedly not a weapon or developed as a weapon in our country.
And so that stuff, they're not giving it to us.
We wonder what they're doing in the classified world, which is a world in which Our intel agencies routinely ignore our requests.
So if I write a request, like I want to meet with the scientists at the CIA who looked at the evidence to discover whether COVID's from a lab or from nature, and I want to meet with them, they just say no.
So that essentially means there is no oversight.
Now, we have a whistleblower from the CIA that says that the scientists at the CIA voted six to one to say that the virus came from the lab, but then they were overruled by two superiors.
I want to see the arguments.
That's not... I don't want to see who the people are if they have intelligence came from a specific operative that would be endangered.
I don't need to see any of that.
I want to see the scientific arguments that were presented before the committee.
I want to know why if they voted 6-1 to say it came from the lab they were overruled by superiors.
Did it have something to do with, oh, we don't want to disrupt relations with China?
And look, I don't want to divorce ourselves from China.
I think trade with China is still good, and we need to still have trade with China.
It would be crazy to have an embargo on China.
But at the same time, I don't worry about the trade so much that I'm willing to obscure the truth.
I really want to know what happened here so we can fix it.
That's the level of things.
But our committee will be that we're forming will be independent.
We'll be able to look at all unclassified research but also classified as well.
And I think this will provide oversight like we've never had before.
Yeah I mean we talked a little bit about the amazing.
Historical truth that when the anthrax attacks happened in 2001, October 2001, we were told, wow, this is some of the most sophisticated and weaponized and manipulated anthrax strains we have ever seen.
The way in which they spread and are so fatal means that some evil people like Saddam Hussein manipulated them in a lab and of course it turned out that it in fact according to the FBI itself, came from our own labs, our own military facilities in Fort Detrick under our classified program.
So it's hard to believe that, at least some of that isn't still taking place.
Now, let me ask you just about the debate over gain of function research, because the dangers of gain of function research are obvious.
Last time when you were here, we talked about the arguments in favor of them.
So I can understand how reasonable people, including scientists, might think that gain-of-function research in very limited and safe environments might be justifiable.
At the same time, I'm not saying that.
That's my view.
I'm saying I can understand how someone might see it.
At the same time, there was this issue of dog experiments that Congresswoman Audrey Taylor Greene raised when Anthony Fauci was before the House.
And because it was her who raised it, media outlets were ready to say, oh, this is insane.
This is disinformation.
And even the Washington Post fact checker went and said, I assumed when I went to go fact check this that, of course, it would be crazy because it came from her.
But as it turns out, it's a lot more complicated.
There are actual hideous and seemingly unnecessary dog experiments taking place.
And then we did some of our own reporting.
We had Leighton Woodhouse who does a lot of reporting on this.
And one of the things he said was not only are these dog experiments that are incredibly torturous for dogs unnecessary medically, a lot of times what they'll do is say, let's see what happens if we put bleach or other viruses inside dogs.
And then we'll just monitor them for eight weeks.
And then they do it and they want more funding.
And the next year they say, let's just put a little bit more bleach or viruses inside the dogs.
They change it just a little bit.
I wonder if you think that there's something in science Where there's this sort of instinct to want to understand or discover things simply for their own sake while disregarding any ethical considerations or pragmatic dangers that that research might entail.
Do you think science has kind of gotten out of whack in terms of weighing the, not just the benefits of research, but also the costs and dangers of it?
We know there's money changing hands.
They get paid each time, and it's not a small amount of money.
I mean, these aren't disinterested people, you know, living like Mother Teresa and helping the poor.
These are people that are very wealthy, making hundreds of thousands of dollars individually and having labs that have millions of dollars.
But I will tell you, people's sensibilities change over time.
So, for example, when I was in medical school, we watched old video, black and white, and it was gruesome what they would do to chimpanzees in simulated car accidents and brain injuries.
And nobody believes in that.
I mean, we all have decided that primates are close enough to us that we have really decided... Plus, we have enough humans crashing their heads into brick walls that we can study the humans who die from these things, that we don't need to do this to chimpanzees and we don't do it anymore.
Same with dogs, too, and we've decided some of this stuff is too heinous.
But some of it goes on, and this is consistent with Fauci's theory that the knowledge is worth the risk of a pandemic, but it's also worth, you know, if we have to torture a few animals, the knowledge is worth it.
So there was a research project in Tunisia.
And in this research project, they were sewing the eyelids open and infesting their eyes with sand fleas.
And in some of these experiments, it was annoying to the researchers that the dogs would cry so much, so they removed their larynx so you couldn't hear them.
Now, the paper was produced, and this is without question produced, and it has an NIAID number.
This is from Anthony Fauci's thing.
It has the number where they get the money.
As soon as the hue and cry came out, they looked at it and they said, lo and behold, oh, our lab got money from NID, but we didn't use any of that money on this research.
We all used it on this other benign research where we didn't torture the dogs.
And so, do I think those people are lying?
Without question, they're lying.
They're lying to absolve themselves.
They still did the research.
They say, no, no, we got the money from Egypt for that, or we got the money from Tunisia for that.
And then the U.S.
money we only use for wholesome purposes.
And no, you know, I've never really been involved in the animal rights stuff before, but I'm appalled by some of this stuff and have become a little bit involved in the sense that we shouldn't do needless things.
And we were actually able to pass legislation that some animal wellness groups brought me and said, That it was a requirement from the 30s that every drug had to have animal testing.
And we simply changed the rule to say that it's not mandatory.
That if you can find a way of doing the test, it's equivalent.
And really, sometimes it turns out that animal testing is completely different than humans.
That you test something in animals that looks very dangerous, that's different than humans, and vice versa.
And this doesn't ban animal testing, but the companies try to approve some of the drugs without Yeah, I think that's what people's ethical sense are, is if it's absolutely necessary, you can do it ethically, but not if it doesn't have necessity.
Just a couple more questions.
I want to focus in on the financial incentives that you mentioned in connection with this kind of dog research, but in another context, which is I think that at the beginning of the COVID pandemic, there was a lot of license given to help policy professionals like Dr. Fauci and others, because the idea was, oh, it's a novel coronavirus.
People don't know much about it.
They're entitled to make mistakes, to shift their science.
I think most people thought that was reasonable, but in retrospect, A lot of what was done that has become most controversial, including attempting to ban discussion of the lab leak, wasn't just this kind of good faith, earnest mistakes that were being made about this new science, but had all kinds of financial and political incentives, specifically with regard to banning people from raising the question of whether this might have escaped from the Wuhan lab.
Can you talk about the financial motives that We're obviously a part of and likely motivated this attempt by Fauci and his associates to ban any questioning of whether it came from the Wuhan lab.
Well, for years, there's been no way to get more money.
So there's been a lot of scare talk about warnings of pandemic coming.
And so a lot of money has been spent, hundreds of millions of dollars, probably in themselves.
But in the wake of this, when the paper Anderson and Bob Gary wrote, Christian Anderson got a $9 million personal contract with the NIH two months after he wrote the letter saying, no way this could have come from the lab.
So on the one hand, I think there's an enhancement and a scariness that is promoted.
But on the other hand, they want to make sure that the scariness is coming from nature, not from their research.
The examples of things leaking are just plentiful.
So, for example, SARS 1 came from animals.
We discovered it was civet cats, and it died out because it wasn't very contagious.
It was contagious in animals, but not humans.
But as it died out, it actually came back into being six more times from the lab.
They traced six more outbreaks from the lab.
Allison Young has written a book on this, and she lists thousands of accidents.
Ralph Baric at UNC, who is said to be one of the more careful researchers and has one of the safest labs, has had a mouse escape his lab.
And so, Throughout, I mean, there are accidents happening.
I mean, I think Robert Redfield closed down Fort Detrick for a couple of months because there was something going on there that he was worried about.
I don't think it was ever exactly revealed what was going on, but they were worried about safety.
And so, yeah, money is a big deal in this.
Money, that's why even the hysteria, you have to base that on, you know, how much money is coming to these people, the more hysteria they create.
And then also how much of the risk is actually from nature and how much is from a lab.
The good thing about nature that everybody needs to know, and this is why I try not to scare people about avian flu, is that avian flu is very deadly, but not very infectious in humans.
So occasionally we're getting a human that gets this, but there's almost no reports of human-to-human transmission.
Now, one way it could be adapted is in the lab.
If you take avian flu and you keep running it through a human cell line, like a humanized mouse, you can run an avian flu 20 times and all of a sudden you've got a virus coming out the other end that is actually a virus that now could infect humans.
That is a real danger if we modify it in the lab.
Much more And with animals, there's not a lot we can do other than monitor the animals, which I think is a reasonable thing.
Surveillance, you monitor the animals, and you could also check what you find.
As long as you're not changing that virus, you could take that virus and then see if it infects mammals, you know, to see how it's doing and see what the dangers are, but I wouldn't change that virus or try to mutate it to make it more transmissible among humans.
Yeah, and of course, I think the scandal of the Lancet article was that so many people who likely had a connection to the Wuhan lab ended up being the arbiters about whether that Wuhan lab and the funding in which they were involved was what led to the COVID pandemic.
And shockingly, they concluded, oh, no, that what we did had nothing to do with the COVID pandemic.
The Wuhan lab had nothing to do with it.
It came from nature, just a standard conflict of interest that to this day has never really been held accountable.
Let me, as a final question, ask you this.
There was a Reuters investigation, quite good journalism I would say, that uncovered and revealed this online clandestine Pentagon campaign using very similar tactics that we claim the Russians used in 2016, fake Facebook pages and online fake Twitter accounts and bots and the like, in order to spread disinformation about the Chinese vaccine, trying to convince very poor countries who couldn't get the vaccine except from China that was giving it to free,
That they should have doubts about the vaccine, about its efficacy, about its safety.
Now, obviously, a lot of people have doubts like that about all vaccines, the Pfizer vaccine, all Merit, Moderna, etc.
But the position of the US government at the time was That it's essentially criminal to foster doubts or hesitancy, let alone anti-vax messaging about the vaccine, because people who do that are killing people, are causing the deaths of other people.
People in the United States were forced to take the vaccine upon pain of losing their jobs or freedom of movement.
Obviously, people who questioned the vaccine were censored from big tech for a long time.
And yet at the exact same time, the US government was in the poorest countries in the world, like the Philippines and places in the Middle East, scaring people about taking the only vaccine they could get, which was the Chinese vaccine.
Not because they were really concerned about the China vaccine, but because they wanted to prevent China from gaining a sort of PR victory in these countries by being the ones to offer The vaccine to these people who couldn't get it elsewhere.
What do you make of this sort of obvious conflict between the public posture of the U.S.
government and what they were doing in secret to spread what you could only really call anti-vax messaging?
I guess it doesn't surprise me that the government is dishonest.
You know, when they start talking about misinformation and they're worried about politicians or people on the right or left spreading misinformation, I remind people that the greatest purveyor of misinformation in the history of time has been governments.
And so it doesn't surprise me.
But when it's recounted that they're casting doubt on a Chinese vaccine versus ours, my first question is, who benefits?
Well, it sounds like Moderna and Pfizer might benefit if people use less Chinese vaccine.
Maybe they'll use more American pharmaceutical vaccine.
And so it worries me that billions of dollars are being made here.
And I remember the manufacturers coming here and whining as the virus was getting less dangerous and nobody was paying attention to vaccinating their kids for COVID because no kids were dying from this.
And it's like, What can we do?
What can we do?
And everybody's wringing their hands that profit's going down.
And look, I'm all for profit.
I'm for capitalism.
But I'm not for the government mandating someone's profit.
But I would worry that some of this might have been done at the behest of American pharmaceutical companies, and it should be investigated.
It also could just be nationalism.
There's a lot of, I think, crazy, overzealous nationalism But you think your nationalism wouldn't be, if the vaccine really is effective and that's what it's showing, that you'd like, you know, wish that the elderly in Indonesia or the Philippines would die with no vaccine?
So let's hope it wasn't that, but it seems like a really less than moral or less than an American, hopefully an American standard, would be to actually be against a vaccine that might be saving lives.
And the Chinese vaccine, I think a lot of them are Sort of killed vaccines the way we have made vaccines traditionally in this country.
And like all the coronavirus vaccines, they have deficiencies because the virus evolves and they aren't as effective over time.
But I think they're about the same as ours.
There was some reduction in severe disease and death in the very vulnerable.
Well, I wish I could say I was shocked, and I guess I can't, but I definitely am outraged at how little interest there is in digging into all these things that happened with respect to the COVID vaccine, the restrictions on our discourse, the banning of questions about the origin.
I'm very glad that you're there being sober about trying to uncover this.
I think that should be the role of journalists as well, even though in the United States these days, less and less it seems to be.
But I have no doubt that you'll continue to do that work.
I'm very appreciative of that, as well as the time you took to talk to us about that this evening.
Thanks so much, and have a good day.
Thanks for having me.
All right, good to see you.
The current President of the United States, Joe Biden, is 81 years old.
If he were re-elected, as he is attempting to convince Americans to allow him to do, he will be 85.
At the conclusion of his second term, presuming that he serves the entire second term.
And the fact that Joe Biden is not merely old, obviously by a good amount the oldest president, but also is suffering from serious cognitive decline is something that more and more Americans are coming to believe.
And this has been a claim that has been made for many years now about Joe Biden going all the way back to 2019, which is the first time I heard it raised.
And it was raised not by supporters of Donald Trump, Nor by supporters of Bernie Sanders or other candidates who are running against Joe Biden in the 2020 Democratic presidential primary campaign to see who would be the Democratic nominee.
It was actually first raised by some of the hardest, core, most partisan DNC operatives and loyalists in Washington and also in the media.
And the reason they were raising it and they were raising it explicitly, it was often referred to in debates by Democratic Party candidates, is because these DNC operatives were extremely concerned That Joe Biden would end up almost automatically being the Democratic nominee because he had been vice president standing by Barack Obama's side for eight years.
People were more familiar with him, probably more comfortable with him, Democratic voters I mean, than any of the other candidates and they were concerned that he would almost get the nomination.
Through accident, just because he happened to be around the longest amount of time.
And so they began trying to warn Democratic voters.
I'm talking about DNC operatives, the hardest core Democratic partisan in the media, about the fact that Joe Biden of today, meaning in 2019, was not the same Joe Biden that people saw while he was in the Senate or even when he was serving as Vice President under the Obama administration going to the end of 2016.
They would say things like, There are a lot of questions about whether Joe Biden has lost his fastball, whether he has the ability to sustain the rigors of a campaign.
There were members of the Democratic Party who are running against him, including Cory Booker and Joaquin Castro, who would explicitly mock him for what they claim was obvious confusion or an inability to follow the line of thought, that he was forgetting what he said just moments ago.
And it was only once Joe Biden actually won the nomination in 2020 did those very same people turn around and say, oh, it's so immoral to raise questions about Joe Biden's cognitive abilities.
He's obviously extremely capable.
To the extent that you think that you see that he's having trouble expressing himself, it's only because of a stutter that he has since childhood.
And it's discriminatory and immoral to mock people because of a stutter.
And trying to claim that their stutter means that they're cognitively impaired?
I mean, they just began lying in the most blatant way since they were the ones before he got the nomination who were the first ones to raise it.
And the problem since then, of course, is that even people who aren't particularly politically engaged do know the president.
They pay attention to the president.
They see videos of the president.
They see speeches by the president.
Even people unengaged politically have a good conception and perception of who the president is.
And in this case, many, many voters, including Democratic voters, as polls constantly show, have come to the conclusion that, at the very least, they have serious concerns about Biden's cognitive capabilities, whether he's capable or competent to perform the job required by the presidency.
And obviously this is a big threat to Biden's re-election, to put it mildly.
I mean, even if people prefer Joe Biden's ideology, nobody wants a president making major decisions about war and peace, the economy, delicate diplomatic relations, controlling the nuclear arsenal.
It basically is often unaware of where he is or what he's saying, just constantly in a state of confusion or disorientation.
Not always.
They can, or whatever they're doing, get him ready for a kind of State of the Union speech where he's able to read a teleprompter without stopping and falling on the ground or drooling.
And they can get them, again, whatever they do, ready to appear sufficiently focused for 90 minutes in a debate.
But so often when we hear Joe Biden or see Joe Biden, people recognize what they have seen many times with their own family, with their own loved ones, which is as people age, they begin to become less cognitively focused, less cognitively capable.
They forget things.
They don't often understand what they're being told or the part of conversations they're with.
You have to remind them of things.
You treat them delicately.
They're less physically mobile, but also much less mentally adept.
And people understand that all you have to do is look at the Joe Biden that they've seen for the last four decades and compare them to the Joe Biden that they see now.
And Americans understand that there's an obvious problem.
But because it's such a threat to his re-election, and what the corporate media has demonstrated over and over, is that they will do anything
To prevent Donald Trump's victory and return to power, you now have a situation where the media is required to try and convince Americans not to trust what they're seeing with their own eyes, that in fact there's nothing wrong with Joe Biden, and that every time there's some video or some clip that shows Biden obviously confused about where he is, having no idea where to go, having no idea what to say,
There's been a lot of reporting from credible outlets like the Wall Street Journal about how in private, it's sometimes deeply uncomfortable to be in a meeting with Joe Biden because it's so obvious that he doesn't know what he's saying.
He often checks out of these meetings.
When he speaks, you can barely hear him.
If you read transcripts of interviews, he just kind of stops mid-sentence.
And it's one of the reasons why Democrats are fighting so hard to keep the video That is available of Joe Biden being questioned by the special counsel who was appointed to investigate whether he committed crimes by having classified information in his home and his office and a bunch of other places where he shouldn't have had it.
They released a transcript and even that is alarming and raised a lot of concerns.
In fact, when the special counsel announced that they wouldn't prosecute Biden for having all kinds of classified documents in places where he wasn't authorized to have them, one of the arguments the special counsel made was that during the questioning it became very obvious that Joe Biden is confused about things, he doesn't remember things, and that it'd be very hard to convince the jury that he had the requisite criminal intent because they would likely see a very old man who
Fairly has the ability to formulate an intent that would be enough to convict him of a crime.
And so they're fighting to keep this video out of the public's hands.
And the only argument the White House has made is that they're worried that if the video was released, it would enable operatives in the Republican Party or others to use artificial intelligence to create a deep fake.
It makes no sense at all.
Everyone knows they're trying to hide the video because it's extremely alarming about Joe Biden's ability to even answer basic questions or remember recent events.
And so they're doing everything to try and convince Americans that what they're seeing in these clips aren't real, that they're being manipulated, that they're fake, that everyone knows that if you talk to Joe Biden in private, he's a strong, bold, focused, engaged leader.
here.
So here's just one of the videos that has been circulating.
There was one from last week where he was in Italy to commemorate D-Day, and you saw him kind of wandering off, and the Prime Minister of Italy, Giorno Maloney, had to kind of Delicately walk over to him and guide him back with their hand to the place where he was supposed to be where the other G7 leaders were to watch a parachute landing in front of them and take a picture while Biden was sort of wandering off just aimlessly speaking to other people who were there.
And then one of the other videos that emerged that a lot of people concluded showed him being confused was one where he appeared at a fundraising event.
Where with a whole bunch of Hollywood luminaries like Julia Roberts and George Clooney and Barack Obama was there and they were questioned by Jimmy Kimmel and they raised almost 30 million dollars for the Biden re-election campaign and yet there was this moment when they were supposed to walk off stage where Biden seemed to have frozen And President Obama had to go over to him, just like you saw George Maloney doing, and kind of gently guide him the way you do an old grandparent when you're out in public with them.
They don't know where you're going.
You make sure that you hold them, that they don't fall down, that they're not hit by a car, because you know they're not capable of mending that themselves.
And that's how everybody around Joe Biden so visibly treats him, as this like very, you know, for them, Beloved old grandfather, but someone not capable of even being able to move to the place that he's supposed to go.
So here's one of the videos that happened at this fundraiser that shows how President Obama had to guide him off the stage.
Let's take a look at this video.
There you see the three of them, Jimmy Kimmel, President Biden, President Obama.
They're kind of waving to the crowd and then Biden sort of stops and just stares ahead and stops waving as President Obama is waving and then Obama takes his right hand, grabs Joe Biden's arm, puts his hand on his back and gently guides him off the stage because it was clear that Biden has just sort of frozen up.
So every time there's one of these videos you have MSNBC and CNN insisting that somehow these videos were manipulatively edited to make Biden seem confused when in fact he was not.
Here we have the video that was from France as well as the questioning about it by the media to White House Press Secretary... Just one second.
There seems to be a sort of rash of videos that have been edited to make the President appear especially frail or mentally confused.
I'm wondering if the White House is especially worried about the fact that this appears to be a pattern that we're seeing more often.
Yeah, and I think you all have called this the cheap fakes video, and that's exactly what they are.
They are cheap fakes video.
They are done in bad faith.
And some of your news organization have been very clear, have stressed that these right wing, the right wing critics of the president have a credibility problem because of the fact checkers have repeatedly caught them pushing misinformation, disinformation.
Now by the way, just note the question.
Look at how subservient the White House press corps is to the administration.
Notice the question was not, there are videos that are emerging that are provoking concerns among Americans, as polls show.
That President Biden is cognitively declining.
Instead, the question was, there are concerns that these bad right-wing disinformation agents are manipulating and editing these videos in such a way as to falsely create the appearance that Joe Biden is confused and concerned.
So the whole question already adopts the premise of the White House.
This is a media that's supposed to be adversarial to the White House, and yet they are often More effective propagandists for the White House and the Democratic Party than the White House Press Secretary herself, who is supposed to have the job of being a propagandist.
So you heard what she said.
These are cheap fakes, even though nobody can test that the videos are actually false or doctored in any way.
And here she is talking about the right-wing disinformation agents.
And so we see this, and this is something coming from your part of the world, calling them cheap fakes and misinformation.
And I'll quote the Washington Post where they wrote about this and they said, how Republican used misleading videos to attack Biden in a 24-hour period.
And to their credit, we have a conservative Washington examiner did call them out as well, calling out the New York Post.
Ironically, several recent cheat fakes actually attacked the President for thanking troops.
For thanking troops.
That is what they're attacking the President for.
Both in Normandy this happened, and again in Italy.
And I think that it tells you everything that we need to know about how desperate, how desperate Republicans are here.
And instead of talking about the president's performance.
So she's basically saying what's really going on here is that Republicans hate the troops.
They're angry that President Biden was thinking Members of the military or NATO soldiers and celebrating D-Day.
Now, it is true that if you micro-analyze every one of these videos, for example, the one in Europe, there was a clip that did seem to show Biden just sort of waving off to the distance with nobody there.
And then another clip showed that there was another paratrooper there who he was waving to and chatting with.
But nonetheless, The whole point was they were supposed to be in this one place watching this paratrooper land and then clapping and doing a photo shoot and it was only President Biden who wandered off to this place that nobody else was going.
And then you have the same thing with him on the stage with President Obama.
We have seen so many times when Joe Biden gives a press conference or gives a speech, he sort of turns around and frees.
He has nowhere, no idea where to leave the stage, where he's supposed to go.
There's a politician who's been in the Senate and then the Vice President and now the President for going on six decades, seven decades.
And yet he has no idea so often what he's doing.
So it is true that you can quibble with How to interpret every one of these individual videos.
The problem is, is that it's not these individual videos, like just one that was from last week or the week before, that has caused the perception among voters that Biden is cognitively incapable of performing the job, nor is it right-wing outlets convincing him of that.
What's convincing them of that is everything they see from him, everything they hear from him.
This perception has been growing for a long time.
And so of course they're going to try and say both the media and the White House, because again the media has proven both in 2016 and 2020 that they're willing literally to lie continuously, claiming that Trump colluded with the Russians to hack The emails of the DNC and John Podesta and then 2020 lie and say you shouldn't pay attention to reporting about Joe Biden's business activities in China and Ukraine or his family's because those are fake documents that are Russian disinformation.
They've proven how many times did they show you they're willing to lie to stop Trump and all the lies they told through the Trump presidency as well.
And so of course they're gonna lie about this as well.
Here is One of the most beloved TV personalities among American Democrats and American liberals, and the fact that the person, Nicole Wallace, who they love, happens to be the very same person who was the official spokeswoman
of the Bush-Cheney White House and then the Bush-Cheney re-election campaign and that job of course required her constantly to lie on behalf of the Bush administration and both George Bush and Dick Cheney and liberals 20 years ago constantly were saying that they had never seen a person less connected to the truth than Nicole Wallace.
That she was some kind of North Korean propagandist and the things that she was willing to say and do Here she is, 20 years later, doing exactly the same thing, only this time in service of the Democratic Party.
We once produced a video that over a million people have seen on Rumble, many hundreds of thousands more on YouTube, that was a compilation of just showing how many times she's at the center of every one of these fake stories that come from the U.S.
intelligence community.
There's almost no one comparable to Nicole Wallace when it comes to lying.
And yet she's beloved by liberals because now she does it on behalf of the Democratic Party.
So here she is in full denial mode, insisting that there's absolutely nothing wrong with Joe Biden, that the only reason people think he, that there is, is because Republicans and right-wing activists are liars and constantly produce fake evidence to try and Create this untrue perception that he's anything other than a strong, bold, focused, engaged leader.
Listen to her do that.
There's a growing and insidious trend in right-wing media, broadcast, print, and social media.
It is to take highly misleading and selectively edited videos of President Biden directly from Republican National Committee social media accounts.
And then use those videos to spread messages virally to cast doubt on President Biden's fitness for office.
Here is this headline from the New York Post quote, Biden appears to freeze up, has to be led off stage by Obama at Megabucks LA fundraiser.
The full video posted by Biden finance chair on Twitter shows something entirely different.
Biden reacting to applause and then walking off stage with former President Obama.
It comes less than one week after the New York Post made a No, what was so notable about what she just said is that she was insisting that the video did not actually depict what the New York Post and others were claiming it depicted.
And you'll notice that MSNBC did not actually show the video at all.
They had the video in the background while she spoke, and then they kind of panned out at exactly the moment that President Obama walked over to President Biden and took him by the arm gently and then guided him off the stage.
But again, the far bigger point here is that It's not an individual video or a couple of videos that has created this perception even among Democrats and all kinds of independent voters.
It's what people have been seeing for the last four years when Biden began running and then when he became president.
Now the other irony of all of this besides the fact that it was DNC operatives who first raised the concerns about Biden's what they said what everyone in Washington knows it's an open secret that he's in cognitive decline.
It's the fact that back in the 2008 election, when President Obama ran against John McCain, one of the main attacks from the Democratic Party on John McCain, what they were attacking him for and attempting to raise doubts about him with, was that he was too old to become president.
And at the time, John McCain was 71 years old.
Which is a full decade younger than Biden's age and there was, I have all kinds of reasons to vehemently disagree with and condemn John McCain, but he had not shown any sort of Incapacity to reason or think.
If you compare John McCain at 71 to what he was at 51, there was almost no difference.
Obviously, he looks older, but there was never a moment where John McCain had these kind of senior moments, as they're called very politely, let alone the kind of continuous inability to even express himself or know where he is.
And yet, Democrats insisted that 71 was too old to be president.
Here from Politico, In May of 2008, so just a few months before the 2008 election, the headline is, McCain's age is a legitimate issue.
And the article reads, quote, this is not bad, quote, I'm not a doctor, but common sense instructs us that risks associated with aging increases the odds of a serious health or mental impairment, or even worse, the deaths of a president while in office.
The potential disruption of leadership caused by such an event is a worthy factor to weigh when considering whom to vote for in a presidential election.
Medical records of presidential candidates have been routinely released to the public because we already acknowledge that their health is a legitimate concern.
Even Mr. McCain acknowledges that his health is a legitimate issue, which is why he is expected to release his medical records in the very near future.
You can't escape the fact that age is an important component of anybody's health.
If elected, McCain would be inaugurated as our president at the age of 72.
Making him the oldest person ever elected.
At his age, he's too old to legally pilot a commercial airplane, but not too old to sign orders sending military planes into combat.
72 was too old to be a president when it was John McCain who had exhibited nothing but complete mental acuity.
And now the same Democrats who said that in 2008 are insisting that you are being guilty of disinformation or immoral by saying that Joe Biden's age of 81, 10 years older, but also what obviously is his impaired behavior, is a genuine cause of concern.
Now, the real problem for this effort, for this effort to convince Americans that they shouldn't believe what they're seeing, Is that a lot of times Americans don't really trust their own ability to decide what to think about issues that they feel like require certain political expertise.
They're willing to listen to experts tell them how to interpret data or to how to understand complicated geopolitical events.
But when it comes to judging whether or not an elderly person is suffering from mental decline, that is absolutely something Americans trust their own judgment on and should trust their own judgment on, simply because most of us have had that personal experience of some beloved person in our family, a grandparent or a parent, who once they get to a certain age, obviously shows signs of various forms of dementia or just general confusion or an inability to focus.
And so I think it's going to be extremely difficult to convince Americans not to trust their own judgment about what they are seeing with their own eyes.
And there are huge numbers of voters, including Democratic voters, who absolutely already believe this.
this from the New York Times in March of two of two 20, 24, quote, majority of Biden's own 2020 voters.
Now say he's too old to be effective, quote, A New York Times Siena College poll revealed how much even Biden supporters worry about his age, intensifying what has become a grave threat to his re-election bid.
And here you see the polling data.
Biden is just too old to be an effective president.
They asked it about President Trump as well.
And here you see President Biden Here you see President Biden, and this is the bar showing people who either strongly agree or somewhat agree with the statement that he's just too old to be an effective president.
And almost half of people, 46%, 47% say that they either strongly agree or somewhat agree that he's too old to be an effective president.
Only 14% strongly disagree.
You know what?
Actually, it's much worse than I even said.
It's 47% is not the people who strongly agree or somewhat agree.
47%, almost half, are the people who strongly agree with the view that he's just too old to be president.
And then another 26% somewhat agree.
So you're talking there about 73% of the American voters, three out of every four, Who agree that he's too old to be president and then only 14% somewhat disagree and only 11% even imagine how many hardcore Democratic partisans there are who hate to criticize their leader.
There's only 11% of people who strongly disagree that President Biden is too old to be an effective president.
Now, one of the attempts that's being made, besides getting people to deny believing what they're seeing, is that they want to claim that Trump is just as bad.
He's 77 years old, which is four years younger than Biden, but obviously that is an advanced age, especially for a president.
And yet, nowhere near as many people believe that about Trump, because you just look at Trump and you can see that he's just much more mentally aware and focused and engaged and energetic than Biden is.
And so, asking that about Trump, is he too old to be an effective president?
Only 21% strongly agree, 21% somewhat agree.
So a total of 42% are willing to say they either strongly agree or somewhat agree, but that number, 43%, is less than the number of Americans who say that they strongly agree that Biden is too old.
And then you have a very substantial chunk who say they disagree.
In fact, over 50%, 56% of Americans either somewhat disagree or strongly disagree that Trump is too old to be president.
So here is How the New York Times interprets these numbers, which are very, very stark.
Quote, the survey pointed to a fundamental shift in how voters who backed Mr. Biden four years ago have come to see him today.
A striking 61% said they thought he was, quote, just too old to be an effective president.
A sizable share was even more worried.
19% of those who voted for Biden in 2020, 19% of Biden voters in 2020, and 13% of those who said they would back him in November, said the 81-year-old president's aide was such a problem that he was no longer capable said the 81-year-old president's aide was such a problem that he was no longer
The misgivings about Mr. Biden's age cut across generations, gender, race, and education, underscoring the president's failure to dispel both concerns within his own party and Republican attacks painting him as senile.
73% of all registered voters said he was too old to be effective. 73%.
And 45% expressed a belief that he could not do the job.
But just look at the utter contempt that the media has for the views of ordinary people.
They really do believe that these people can't make judgments on their own, that they have to be guided into doing the right thing, even if it means deceiving them and misleading them into voting the way the media wants.
And so they're running into this brick wall where they're willing to sacrifice their own credibility To say, don't believe what you're seeing.
Don't trust your own judgment.
We're here to tell you that President Biden is fine.
He's as good as ever.
He's as sharp as ever.
And the only reason you think that he's too old to be president is because right-wing disinformation agents are lying to you by putting up fake videos and manipulating videos of the things that you're seeing.
And then they're going to, of course, turn around and wonder why nobody trusts them anymore.
And again, it's because their willingness to lie.
So transparently and so blatantly for nothing other than partisan ends is what very deservedly and very validly have made Americans in huge numbers decide that the corporate media cannot be trusted, that they deliberately lie, and they do so for partisan ends.
And there's example after example after example that prove this, and this might be one of the most blatant and glaring ones yet because they're actually asking Americans to distrust and disbelieve what they are seeing themselves.
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 the first broadcast here on live here on Rumble on Spotify, Apple, and all the major podcasting platforms.
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 will move to Locals, which is part of the Rumble platform, where we have our live interactive aftershow.
Even though tonight is Thursday, we won't be having it tonight, because we taped our show a little bit earlier, and therefore we weren't able to do the live aftershow.
But generally, every Tuesday and Thursday night, that live aftershow is where we take your questions, respond to your critiques and your feedback, hear your suggestions for future guests and for future shows.
It is available only for members of our Locals community, and if you want to join that community, which gives you access not only to those aftershows, but also to the multiple interactive features we have there that allow us to communicate with you through the week, It's the place where we publish transcripts, written, professionalized transcripts of every show we broadcast.
It's where we first publish our written, original journalism.
And most of all, it is the community on which we 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 platform.
For those who 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 o'clock p.m.
