All Episodes
Previous Next
July 16, 2024 - System Update - Glenn Greenwald
01:47:41
Trump Assassination Attempt; J.D. Vance Announced as Trump's Running Mate

TIMESTAMPS:  Intro (0:00) Assassination Attempt (4:34) Trump Picks J.D. Vance (1:06:30) Outro (1:46:39) - - - 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

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Good evening.
It's Monday, July 15th.
Welcome to a new episode of System Update, our live nightly show that airs every Monday through Friday at 7 p.m.
Eastern, exclusively here on Rumble, the free speech alternative to YouTube.
Tonight, The last three days in American politics were not exactly what one might call slow news days.
Among other things, we witnessed an attempted assassination that came extremely close to killing the former president of the United States and consensus frontrunner for the 2024 presidential election.
That same candidate, Donald Trump, today announced his choice for his vice presidential running mate, GOP Senator J.D.
Vance of Ohio.
A federal judge in South Florida today dismissed the entire criminal prosecution brought against Trump by special counsel Jack Smith in the case involving Trump's possession of classified documents.
And the four-night Republican convention is set to begin tonight live on television on primetime.
It is, needless to say, somewhat difficult to choose among all of those events and many others when deciding what to cover tonight.
We will undoubtedly be covering all aspects of these developments and more throughout the week, culminating in Trump's acceptance speech in Milwaukee on Thursday night, the first time we will hear from him since that assassination attempt.
But for tonight, we want to explore the assassination attempt on Trump that took place on Saturday in Pennsylvania and the many lingering questions and implications surrounding it, including the quite bizarre, yet even more revealing response of prominent Democrats and their media allies to that attack, as well as obvious questions involving the Secret Service.
We will look at the relevant aspect of J.D.
Banzer's record in the Senate to see whether he is more of a pro-establishment choice by Trump along the lines of what Marco Rubio would have been or whether he leans more in the populist and anti-establishment direction that Trump so successfully advocated in 2016.
Lots of people can talk a good game about anti-establishment politics and populism and defending the working class, but only their actions and their votes really indicate the authenticity of that.
So that's what we will And then finally, we'll look at the implications of the court's dismissal today of the criminal case brought against Donald Trump in South Florida based on allegations that he criminally removed from the White House and still possesses classified documents.
It's obviously a significant ruling, not just for that one case, but for the other in Washington where Jack Smith, operating under the same legal principle that this court rejected, is also trying to prosecute Trump for acts after January 6, rather.
And then for the entire week, we have Michael Tracy, the independent journalist, on the convention floor covering the Republican National Convention for us, along with other members of the System Update team.
Depending on what's going on there while we get through our show, we may or may not speak to Michael live, but he will have reporting and interviews with us throughout the week from Milwaukee.
And we'll have all of that and more for you tonight.
As I said, it was difficult to have to go the entire weekend with all these events without being able to speak on this show.
But we are thrilled to be here and to have the time to analyze these significant events with you.
Before we get to all of that, a few quick programming notes.
We're encouraging our viewers to download the Rumble app.
If you do so, it works on both your smart TV and telephone.
And if you do that, you can follow the shows you most like to watch here on the platform.
If you activate notifications, that means that you will be notified however you want through text, email, however.
The minute any of those shows begin broadcasting live on this platform, so you can just click on the link and begin watching.
It helps the live viewer numbers for each program and Rumble itself.
As another reminder, System Update is also available in podcast form.
You can listen to every episode 12 hours after the first broadcast live here on Rumble on Spotify, Apple, and all the major podcasting platforms.
If you rate, review, or follow the program there, it really helps spread the visibility of the show.
Finally, every Tuesday and Thursday nights when we're done with our live show here on Rumble, we move to Locals, which is part of the Rumble platform, and we have our live interactive After Show.
That After Show is available only for members of our Locals community, so if you want to join, which gives you access not only to those twice-a-week After Shows, but to a wide variety of other features, simply click the Join button right below the video player on the Rumble page, and it will take you directly to that community.
For now, welcome to a new episode of System Update, starting right now.
Perhaps it's how many other significant events are going on, but it certainly seems to me as though the media is very eager to forget about the fact that 48 hours ago or but it certainly seems to me as though the media is very eager to forget about the fact that 48 hours ago or so at a rally in Pennsylvania, Donald
being assassinated by an assassin's bullet that had he just not moved an inch or so away right at that exact moment would have entered his skull and likely have killed him.
Obviously this is an extremely consequential event for so many reasons and there are all kinds of unanswered questions but I also think a lot of revealing reactions to what happened many of which I hope to cover tonight and obviously throughout the week.
So let's begin First by showing you what happened for those of you who may not have seen it just the most relevant part.
So here is the video that shows Trump speaking at his rally and then you'll hear the shots fired by an assassin who for some reason was Able to climb up a roof very, very close to where this rally was with an open aim right at the place where Donald Trump was speaking without anyone from the Secret Service or other police detecting what he was doing until the very last second.
And you'll see, I think the notable thing right here is right as the shots rang out, Trump instinctively turned away.
And when doing so, he moved his head and his shoulders an inch to his left.
And had he not done that, that bullet wouldn't have grazed his ear, or as Eric Trump said tonight, removed half of his ear.
We still don't have a clear medical analysis of what exactly happened with Trump's ear, but had he not moved, and you'll see this in this video, the bullet absolutely would have entered his head and almost certainly would have either done great damage or killed him.
Holden, if you want to really see something that's said, take a look at what happened.
All right, so that's the event itself.
Now, here's the aftermath of what Trump did.
Well, let me just show it to you first.
First, this is what produced the, obviously, an instantly iconic photo of Trump raising his fist in the air while there's blood splashed on his right cheek and with blood coming out of his right ear as well.
While the Secret Service tried to circle him and basically imprison him, cover him and take him to his car, he insisted instead that they stop so that he could do this.
Now, I'm sure you have all seen the photo that came out of I'm sure you have all seen the photo that came out And honestly, I have to say that what Trump did there really surprised me.
I never thought about Trump as a particularly physically courageous person before.
Like so many politicians, he managed to evade the draft and not fight in any wars, including the war in Vietnam, which his generation was drafted to fight in.
He had a medical excuse.
Trump obviously depends upon an image of great strength.
I've never really seen evidence before of that level of courage.
He's obviously willing to confront and to endure all sorts of extremely serious attacks, everything that the establishment has to muster.
They accused him of being in league with the Kremlin.
When that didn't work, they did everything to sabotage his presidency, including getting him banned from social media.
They impeached him twice.
Republican senators threatened to convict him and ban him from politics through that second impeachment on his way out the door if he did things he promised like pardoning Julian Assange or Edward Snowden or declassifying JFK documents and so much more.
Since then, they obviously have indicted him not once, not twice, not three times, but four times and managed to obtain a felony conviction for him in Manhattan, where obviously it's very easy to do, though in a case that never would have been brought against anyone not named Donald Trump, certainly not as a felony conviction.
They imposed millions and millions of dollars, tens of millions of dollars of jury verdicts against him in this E. Jean Carroll case that basically they had to change the law to allow her to bring because of how many decades ago this incident with Berger-Griffin was alleged to have happened.
They essentially charged the Trump Organization with fraud and were able to shut down the company he spent his entire life building.
And obviously he knew that if he had just walked away in 2020, none of that was going to happen.
But that happened because the establishment cannot and will not tolerate anybody that they perceive, rightly or wrongly, as being a threat to their dogma.
And therefore, look at Donald Trump went through his entire life
In the not exactly gentle world of Manhattan real estate and casino gambling and so many other businesses not exactly known for their law-abiding nature and never once had criminal convictions against him or the bankrupting of his organization all of this has happened obviously coinciding with and I would say due to the fact that he was seeking and obtained major political power while oftentimes
Deliberately violating the protocols imposed by establishment authority and running on a campaign of challenging their dogma.
All that said, that takes a kind of moral courage to be willing to continuously endure all of that and then, again, seek the presidency knowing that that would intensify, which is exactly what has happened.
But I didn't really expect a kind of physical courage of this kind and I think it should be minimized.
I want to just spend a second on this because Obviously he was the target of this assassination attempt.
There were bullets flying while he was completely unprotected on a stage.
In fact, one of the bullets hit him and caused him to bleed And in that situation, he basically was put on the ground by the secret service, but he insisted on getting up and he said to them, wait, wait, wait, and demanded that they give him space to put his fist defiantly in the air, to chant, fight, fight, fight, to have that connection with the crowd, to create that image, not knowing whether or not the shooter had been neutralized, not knowing whether there were other shooters.
I would submit that most people after being shot out that way and being hit by one of the bullets would just, I wouldn't even condemn a person for doing it, I would just think instinctively the automatic impulse would be to seek cover for as long as you had to, to be absolutely guaranteed that you are no longer in danger and yet really maybe 15 seconds
After one of the bullets hit his ear or grazed his ear, whatever the right word is, we'll find out soon, but obviously caused him to be bleeding.
And in that situation, you're going to assume that something serious has happened to you.
He pushed the Secret Service out of the way and basically was telling the crowd, this is not going to stop him.
We're going to fight.
Now, whatever you think of Donald Trump, Not only did that surprise me, but that really did display a sort of instinctive courage that I think would be surprising for anybody to display.
Obviously people in the military who go to war are trained for that sort of thing, but for people who aren't, and even for people who are, I think it's not an easy thing to do.
Now, and I also think it was an important thing to do, Because it could have created an image of Trump sort of scampering away, and instead it created this image, obviously contrasting with Biden's worst political vulnerability as this old, fragile man who's weak and barely knows who he is, of Trump reacting in the moment and engaging with that environment to create that kind of threat, to create one of the most iconic photos in American political history, undoubtedly.
You couldn't have created a better photo to make Trump look better than that photo that was captured of him with the American flag behind him and his fist raised in the air while covered with blood.
Now, there's obviously a very serious question here of how it was possible for a shooting of this kind to happen, given the amount of Secret Service assigned to Trump, not only as a former president of the United States, but obviously as a front runner for the presidency in 2024.
It's virtually unthinkable.
If the would-be assassin had used some sort of very exotic and unexpected means of trying to kill Trump, say the way that the 9-11 hijackers used on that day to hijack planes and fly them into buildings in ways that nobody could have anticipated previously, they didn't sneak guns onto the plane, they didn't sneak knives onto the plane, they trained for months to be able to fly planes,
And then used box cutters to slit the throats of flight attendants and passengers and ultimately the pilots and then took control of the plane.
It's something that nobody really could have anticipated.
Which isn't to say that people didn't have advanced knowledge, it just means that that was a very inventive way of killing people and attacking the United States.
This, by contrast, was the most primitive, the crudest, and most obvious way possible Here is a map published by the New York Times so you can just see how preposterous this all seems.
So there you see the stage where Trump was when he was speaking.
There it is in yellow.
And here was the location of the gunman and where his body ended up lying once the snipers who were here shot him and and killed him.
And then here is the location where one of the participants at this rally ended up being wounded.
So you can pretty much see that there is a direct line of fire, a direct line of sight from this location on the roof right to the stage where somebody who is supposed to be protected at all costs is speaking.
And it's not like he moved around to some unexpected place.
This was the place he was always going to speak.
Don't just let presidents, former presidents and major presidents wander around aimlessly.
This is the place where he goes and that's the place where he was going to speak.
And you can see, as many of the people pointed out, this is in Butler, Pennsylvania.
It's not a big town at all.
It's a small, mostly rural town, a farming town.
You can see there are barns here, and then there's this building here that the shooter climbed on top of.
And there are a few more over here on the right that you can't see.
So that's pretty much it.
So if you were going to look at where potential dangers might emanate from this Trump rally, the building that the shooter climbed on top of, lay down, aimed, and then fired, took all that time to do so, is if not the most obvious place to safeguard, certainly one of them.
Now we've heard almost nothing from the Secret Service by way of explanation.
They have put out through the press the fact that the perimeter for which they're responsible was more limited basically just to this and that anything outside of it was the responsibility of the local police which also makes no sense.
The Secret Service just arbitrarily creates a small square and says we're only going to safeguard the president for threats that emanate from here but not 30 feet over from that obvious building and the roof that gives any kind of a shooter clear sight.
There's been almost no accountability from the Secret Service.
There's been a lot of controversy surrounding the Secret Service.
Prior to this incident, including questions of whether the head of the Secret Service appointed by Biden was actually competent for the job and whether she is a partisan, she was the one who was responsible for the deletion of a lot of January 6 footage.
And certainly there's no evidence to suggest this is true, but in any instance, Where there's a presidential assassination or an attempted presidential assassination, the question immediately rises whether or not the person who actually pulled the trigger was working with other people or other groups or other agencies from the foreign government or in our government.
This is the question that, of course, has to be thoroughly and comprehensively examined.
When JFK was killed, that was the first question that immediately arose was, did somebody in our own government do this?
Or was it a foreign government?
Nobody just said, oh, look, there's Lee Harvey Oswald.
I guess case settled.
In fact, we debate that to this very day.
The same is true with a lot of the political assassinations of the 60s.
Malcolm X and Martin Luther King and RFK Sr. and even George Wallace.
And so when you have a attack of this magnitude politically speaking, we have to understand everything we possibly can as quickly as possible about what happened here in And we know actually very, very little.
The identified shooter is a 20-year-old with almost no online imprint, something very rare for 20-year-olds in the United States growing up in an internet culture.
We hear that he had no apparent political views.
He may have registered as a Republican when he first registered, but donated a small amount of money to a progressive group, none of which is particularly revealing about their motives.
We know nothing about the shooter.
We know nothing about how the Secret Service had what presumably they would call a lapse of this enormity.
They only have one job, the Secret Service, at least these agents assigned there, and that's to protect the people to whom they're assigned, even at the expense of their own lives.
And you, I mean, I'm obviously not a professional in security or law enforcement, but you just look at this.
map and you instantly could identify that roof as a place where you would have to safeguard to prevent somebody who wanted to kill Donald Trump, which is the question you ask everywhere he goes, from having that line of sight.
Now there are all sorts of videos floating around the internet of people saying that they saw the shooter climb up the building And we're talking about it and trying to alert law enforcement for a decent amount of time before the shooting began.
Here's just one of these videos taken by an iPhone video of a participant who was at the Trump rally.
And you can see people pointing to and looking at the shooter on the roof as he climbs up and gets ready to begin shooting.
And there's no attempt apparently by anyone in law enforcement to intervene in any way.
Here's one of those videos.
Look, they're all pointing.
Yeah, someone's on top of the roof, look.
There he is right there.
Look, they're all pointed.
Yeah, someone's on top of the roof.
Look, there he is right there.
Right there, you see him?
He's laying down.
See him?
Yeah, he's laying down.
What's happening?
Yeah, look.
What's happening?
Yeah, look.
There he is.
Because we have millions and millions of people in our country that should be here.
Dangerous people.
Criminals.
We have criminals.
She's on the roof.
She's on the roof.
We have people that should not be here.
Right here.
She's getting up now.
She went on the roof like that.
That video was about 52 seconds long.
Thank you.
These are just ordinary people attending the Trump rally.
These are not law enforcement professionals, let alone secret service agents.
And yet, they were able not only to identify this person, but understand immediately that he was a threat.
He climbed up this building and then laid down with a rifle.
He took aim.
And they were talking about it the entire time.
And yet, no law enforcement observed that, no Secret Service observed, with these ordinary citizens going to the rally, not looking for these sorts of things, obviously, were able to spot with that much time?
From Reuters today, there is a NBC affiliate in, I believe, Pennsylvania, that has this extremely interesting report.
Law enforcement spotted the Trump shooter nearly 30 minutes before shots were fired.
NBC affiliate reports, quote, The man who tried to assassinate former President Donald Trump on Saturday was spotted by law enforcement nearly 30 minutes before shots were fired.
A local NBC affiliate reported on Monday, WPXI reported that a member of a Beaver County, Pennsylvania's emergency services unit noticed a suspicious man on a roof near the rally at 5.45 p.m., called it in and took a picture of the person.
Now, all I mean to say here is exactly what I'm saying, which is that there are obvious, pressing, vital questions about the Secret Service, about the police, about how this was allowed to happen, about whether there was, apparently there was, all kinds of sufficient grounds and notification to believe this happened.
So what happened?
How did this, how was this allowed to happen?
Now, I want to emphasize that I think oftentimes one of the things that people who create conspiracy theories get wrong is that is the level of incompetence that pervades all of our institutions.
We have this idea of the Secret Service, that there are these highly trained, specialized forces, the best of the best.
What we've seen over the last two decades, at least, is a complete collapse in faith and trust in American institutions of authority, ones that had been respected for decades, precisely because, among other things, including corrupt, they're pervaded with incompetence.
You won't want to believe that even law enforcement, let alone the Secret Service, would be capable of missing something of this It's obvious nature when it comes to the danger, but I think it's important not to put incompetence at the end of the list as though that's not a likely explanation, but that's by no means the only explanation.
Conspiracies do happen.
Prisons are filled with people accused of secret conspiracies.
Powerful people plot all the time to make things happen.
I'm not saying that's what happened here, but in either case or whatever case, It's shocking, it's stunning that something of this magnitude took place in the way that it took place.
And so I think what is really worth underscoring is how many questions we need answers to about the shooter, about the person's motives, about any connections they may have had.
We're told that the FBI can't get into his phone yet because of a password put over it.
Talking about the FBI, the NSA, who have the most powerful and sophisticated password breaking weapons of any group in the world.
Back in 2013 and 2014, 10 years ago when I did the Snowden reporting, we reported on technology that was able to guess and enter a billion passwords per minute.
And how they could break any even sophisticated encryption, let alone the basic kind of password that you put on an iPhone.
I think they finally got access to the phone, but they were saying for the last three days that they couldn't.
So we need to understand what contents are on that phone.
But also we need to understand the security failure that happened here.
We know nothing about that.
We've barely heard from the Secret Service and obviously we need to now.
One of the things that I found extremely interesting and important in all of this was the reaction of Democrats and liberals and the left, prominent people on the left, who basically unanimously united to proclaim not only that political violence is wrong, but that they were praying for the president and for his speedy recovery, meaning Donald Trump's speedy recovery.
Joe Biden said that.
Kamala Harris said that.
Chuck Schumer said that.
Here is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, one of the leaders of the Trump is Hitler faction of the Democratic Party, who on the day of the assassination, attempted assassination on Saturday, said the following, quote, there is no place for political violence, including the horrific incident we just witnessed in Pennsylvania.
It is absolutely unacceptable and must be announced in the strongest terms.
My heart goes out to all the victims.
And I wish the former president a speedy recovery.
I wish the former president a speedy recovery.
I mean, Donald Trump.
Now, ordinarily, you wouldn't even take a second look at that.
That's what a psychologically healthy person would say and how they would react to a situation of this kind.
But the reason it strikes me as so bizarre, and I mean this sincerely, is that the entire Left liberal narrative about Donald Trump since he escalated, descended down that escalator in 2015 to announce his candidacy, but especially over the last four years, especially over the last four years.
Intensifying even more over the last year as the election approaches, as Democrats get more desperate because of the polls showing they're likely to lose to Trump.
The narrative about Donald Trump is that he's not just any ordinary political adversary of the kind that, say, Mitt Romney or John McCain or George W. Bush were.
And you should go back and look at what Democrats are saying about George W. Bush and Mitt Romney and John McCain.
They weren't saying, oh, that's an ordinary adversary at the time.
But the idea that Democrats push now is that, actually, Donald Trump is not just an ordinary adversary.
He is a fascist.
He intends to implement fascist dictatorship in the United States.
That if Trump wins, this will be the last election we ever enjoy as Americans.
That Trump intends to create concentration camps where he will put his domestic political enemies and political critics.
AOC herself has warned that she believes she may get into one of those camps.
Rachel Maddow has said she believes she will go to one of those camps.
Joe Scarborough has implied or alluded to the same thing.
Joy Behar on The View, when she had Rachel Maddow on, said she thinks she may go to that camp or that Trump may just take The View off the air entirely.
They're talking about Trump often explicitly like a figure that is the equivalent of Adolf Hitler.
So if you really believe that, if you really believe that Trump is an existential threat to American democracy, a fascist dictator, and a Hitler-type figure, Why would you say that you wished him a speedy recovery?
It's like saying, oh, in 1939, I just learned that there was an assassination attempt against Adolf Hitler, which there was.
By an anarchist who hated Hitler.
And he was a leftist, more so than an anarchist.
And he almost succeeded in murdering Adolf Hitler.
He planted a bomb and Hitler was able to leave just before the bomb detonated.
And history looks back on him and views him as a hero.
And imagine someone in 1940 saying, Oh, Hitler just got wounded in a attack.
I'm praying for the Fuhrer's speedy recovery.
I'm praying for the Nazi leader's family and for his health.
And my solidarity goes out to him and to his Nazi followers.
It's not something anybody who was against Hitler would ever say for obvious reasons, nor would they say it after World War II.
And yet that has been the narrative of the Democratic Party.
And I say that not for some kind of cheap gotcha, but because the maximalist fear mongering that they have been disseminating about what would happen if Donald Trump got elected again, They've never really explained why he didn't build domestic concentration camps and kill and murder his critics in the first four years when he was president.
They claim that he will do so now.
But if you really believe that, you either stay silent when someone tries to murder him or you cheer it.
You follow your views to their logical conclusion.
The day after AOC said she's praying or whatever for a speedy recovery, one day after, she was responding to growing reports, as we're about to show you, that many Democrats in Washington are now saying that they're resigned to a Donald Trump victory.
And that not only are they resigned to it, but they can actually live with it because they're willing to say anonymously, but not in public.
That Democratic leaders of course don't believe that Trump is an existential threat to American democracy.
He's got a fascist dictator.
This is just the propaganda that's fed to idiot cable hosts and to the horde of Democrats, the Very gullible dupes that they want to go vote for them and they're admitting we don't really actually think that.
And AOC was responding to these reports and this is what she said, quote, if you're a, quote, senior Democrat that feels this way, you should absolutely retire and make space for true leadership that refuses to resign themselves to fascism.
So it's not even one day later, 24 hours later, that she's accusing Donald Trump and his movement of trying to impose fascism in the United States.
So if you actually believe that, why a day earlier were you saying, I'm praying for, hoping for his speedy recovery?
That really makes no sense.
If you really believe that that's true about Donald Trump and what you're saying he's planning on doing, that he doesn't just have bad policies or bad ideologies, that he's actually going to bring fascist dictatorship It's not an issue of hypocrisy.
What it does is it reveals the fact that these people do not believe what they're saying.
going to say, oh, my heart goes out to the former president.
It doesn't, it's not an issue of hypocrisy.
What it does is it reveals the fact that these people do not believe what they're saying.
Now, just to kind of underscore the point, I want to just make clear how pervasive this narrative has been that Trump isn't just another adversary, but he's actually Adolf Hitler.
Here is Jake Tapper, who...
He gave a little sermon about the importance of turning down the temperature, of making sure that our rhetoric is restrained and sober and peaceful.
Here's the kind of thing that he said on the day of the assassination.
You can see the graphic there.
We are living in an age of political violence.
Jake Topper is starting to envision himself as like an Edward R. Murrow figure.
You can see he has the posture like he was addressing the nation as some kind of Cronkite figure who everyone trusts.
And he was here to urge us to tone down the political rhetoric.
Listen to what he said.
Including CNN in 2018.
Last year, the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security warned of a high threat of violence from radicalized individuals, lone offenders, or small group attacks that occur with little warning, and said that the 2024 election cycle will be, quote, a key event for possible violence.
"...officials, voters, and elections-related personnel and infrastructure, including polling places, ballot dropbox locations, voter registration sites, campaign events, political party offices, and vote counting sites." There is something troubling the American soul right now.
Too many Americans see those with whom they disagree as the enemy, to be shunned, to be banned, to be ostracized, to be threatened with violence, or even to have that violence carried out.
Okay, so the problem that we face as a nation, says Jake Topper, is that there are too many people who see their political adversaries as their enemy, as someone to be denounced and condemned and regarded as evil.
Those are such beautiful words.
I feel so inspired.
I feel more peaceful hearing Jake Tapper say that.
The problem is that Jake Tapper has been calling Trump or comparing Trump or equating Trump to Adolf Hitler and to the Nazi movement for many years.
This is what surfaced when Jake Tapper was chosen to moderate the first presidential debate.
And here is Jack Prosebitch, who created a kind of compilation of just some of the times in that very same Jake Tapper, who was sermonizing the public about the evils and dangers of demonizing our political enemies.
All the times that this neutral, objective, nonpartisan journalist went on to CNN airwave, thankfully nobody was listening because it's CNN, but still, And he repeatedly, and in many different contexts, suggested that Trump was the equivalent of Adolf Hitler.
The dehumanizing rhetoric of Adolf Hitler is once again alive and well on a national political stage.
This time, of course, in the United States.
Donald Trump, a couple times over the weekend, referred to immigrants from South America, Africa, and Asia.
He did not mention Europe.
South America, Africa and Asia as, quote, poisoning the blood of our country, which it's not hyperbole.
That does very directly echo Adolf Hitler's language before World War Two.
If you were to open up a copy of Hitler's Mein Kampf, you would find the Nazi leader describing the mixing of non-Germans with Germans as poisoning.
There's really no other way to say it.
Donald Trump's language mirrors this directly.
Alright, so if you spend years going on the air and suggesting that the former president and the current frontrunner for the presidency, representing a party that is the opposite of your own, is the equivalent of Adolf Hitler, don't come with a sermon after that person that you've been claiming is Adolf Hitler ends up being the target of assassination, telling people that their fault
The great evil of others in the United States is that they use reckless rhetoric and treat their political opponents not as adversaries to be argued with or debated with or defeated at the ballot box with, but as people who should be demonized, as people who are pure evil.
Just last week, the liberal outlet The New Republic published a cover story.
And on that cover, there you see Donald Trump compared in every single conceivable way to Adolf Hitler, including, as you may not be able to see, but right there is the Hitler mustache.
And then this here is the font that was used by the Nazi party and much of their propaganda.
And it's called American Fascism, What It Would Look Like.
And they convened a panel of some of the world's most renowned and respected scholars on fascism, such as Brian Stelter and Jason Stanley and a bunch of other Democratic operatives.
And obviously they are, the whole point of this is to suggest that Donald Trump is the equivalent of Adolf Hitler.
And this has been the narrative, not only of Democrats, but also of the corporate media for a long time.
We have a short compilation of just some of the times where this has been done in the very recent past.
Arrangement, terror and horror.
I mean, just one more quote so people know exactly what Carl and Dan are talking about here.
General Milley on the big lie and what Trump was saying about the election, the lies.
He says, this is a Reichstag moment, Milley told aides, the gospel of the Fuhrer.
The Reichstag moment refers to Adolf Hitler using the burning of the German parliament basically to seize all power in Germany, suspend habeas corpus, suspend civil rights.
A coup, more or less, of sorts there.
The point of the book is that these things really happened over and over again, and that intelligent people, no less intelligent than us, experienced them and left a record for us to learn from.
So what I'm trying to do in the book is to help us to learn from that record, so we don't have events like Germany in 1933 or Czechoslovakia in 1948.
Just saying, Hitler's not like Trump, or Trump is not like Hitler, isn't going to save us.
Learning from the past, though, could.
So that's Yale professor Timothy Snyder who's been going around saying this forever.
A lot of people have tried to draw similarities between Mussolini and Hitler and the use of the terminology like vermin and the drive that those men had towards autocracy and dictatorship.
The difference, though, I think makes Donald Trump even more dangerous, and that is he has no philosophy he believes in.
He is not trying to expand.
What, in your view, would happen if he were to be re-elected?
Oh, I can't even think that, because I think it would be the end of our country as we know it.
You know, when I was Secretary of State, I used to talk about one and done.
And what I meant by that is that people would get legitimately elected, And then they would try to do away with elections, and do away with opposition, and do away with a free press.
And you could see it in countries where, well, Hitler was duly elected, right?
And so, all of a sudden, somebody with those tendencies, those dictatorial, authoritarian tendencies, would be like, okay, we're going to shut this down, we're going to throw these people in jail.
And they didn't usually telegraph that.
Trump is telling us what he intends to do.
Take him at his word.
The man means to throw people in jail who disagree with him, shut down legitimate press outlets, do what he can to literally undermine the rule of law and our country's values.
Okay, so I could literally show you.
Many, many more minutes of that.
In fact, this is about a third of the video compilation that we had.
Part of the irony here is what Hillary Clinton was warning that Trump would do.
Imprison his political opponents, shut down dissent.
Obviously, it was what the Democratic Party has done.
They've done everything they could to imprison Donald Trump.
They even have explicitly said that what's most urgent about the goal of imprisoning Trump is that it be done before the votes start for the 2024 election because they look at polling data and see that it's one of their only chances to actually soften Trump's support is if they are able to convict him and imprison him before the election.
They have implemented a systemic regime of censorship where they're able to coerce big tech companies to remove dissent online and all other kinds of weaponization of the legal system against their political opponents, But if you go around saying that Trump is Hitler, that he's going to end American democracy, then the minute you start saying, oh, my heart goes out to Donald Trump, this should never have happened.
It obviously means that you don't believe anything that you've said.
Now, I guess we can have one more clip here.
This is from Liz Cheney, who, by the way, whose father did more than any individual in the last 50 years to actually reduce any limitations on the office of the presidency, to turn it into a monarchy through his theory of going back all the way to the Iran-Contra scandal in the 1980s, to turn it into a monarchy through his theory of going back all the way to the Iran-Contra scandal in the 1980s, that presidents are unbound by any limits of any kind in exercising their
The reason I began writing about politics is because of these radical executive power theories being implemented by Liz Cheney's dad as she cheered.
She's such a strange figure to be warning of the authoritarianism of the presidency that Trump intends to implement given how she comes from a family whose entire Career has been about doing nothing but.
But of course, because of these warnings of Donald Trump, she's considered a hero in liberal circles, some kind of wise statesperson by corporate media, even though she was booted out of office by a record 37 points by her own voters in her own primary.
She went on a CBS morning show with John Dickerson, I believe this is Face of the Nation, in December of 2023.
And here's the warning she issued about Trump.
You say Donald Trump, if he is re-elected, it will be the end of the republic.
What do you mean?
He's told us what he will do.
It's very easy to see the steps that he will take.
People who say, well, if he's elected, it's not that dangerous because we have all of these checks and balances, don't fully understand the extent to which the Republicans in Congress today have been co-opted.
One of the things that we see happening today is a sort of a sleepwalking into a dictatorship in the United States.
Now, I just want to say one thing, that I am not a person who has ever liked or believed in this attempt to suggest that when somebody goes and carries out violence against a political figure or anyone else, That we should blame whoever we say expressed ideas that might have inspired the attacker, the violent shooter, to go and do it.
Because, and I've devoted many shows to this, anytime you express a political view, it's possible that someone who hears you might go and carry out violence.
If you say that you think abortion is murder, someone might hear you and go and kill an abortion doctor.
If you say you think the CIA is evil and abuses its power against American citizens or the NSA is spying on us illegally, someone might go attack the CIA and the NSA.
Any political view that you ever express might end up actually inspiring people to go and carry out violence.
So I don't think that the fact that Democrats have been running around accusing Trump of being Hitler means they're responsible for the assassination attempt.
I like that theory when it's used against the right, as it always is, and I don't like it when it's used to support the right.
But the reality is that this is the theory that Democrats and liberals have been perpetrating for a long time.
They constantly blame their political enemies, conservatives, for being responsible for and even having blood on their hand whenever some maniac goes and kills a bunch of people.
I actually wrote about exactly this in In 2022, the title of that article was The Demented and Selective Game of Instantly Blaming Political Opponents for Mass Shootings.
And this was in the context of a racist white supremacist had gone and purposely attacked a grocery store in Buffalo, where That was situated in an overwhelmingly African American community and he murdered 10 people, he left a manifesto about the white replacement theory, and the entire media immediately
said that Tucker Carlson was to blame for that murder, that he has that blood on his hands.
In fact, so much so that anytime Twitter discussed it, as you see there, the name Tucker Carlson was trending with that Buffalo attack.
There was really an overwhelming effort to blame Tucker Carlson for that attack, claiming that his rhetoric against non-white people, which by the way, doesn't exist.
Tucker Carlson has never railed against Non-white Americans.
He believes that all Americans, regardless of race, have the same rights and believes that Uncontrolled immigration is a threat to Americans of all races, especially the working class of all races, so it was a false attempt to characterize his views.
But even if it were the case that he was saying those things, it still wouldn't make him morally or ethically or legally responsible for people who hear him and go and carry out violence in his name, since he himself is not advocating violence.
Obviously I said the same thing about Donald Trump's speech on January 6th when actually not only did he not encourage people to use violence, he explicitly said march down to the Capitol and peacefully protest.
One of the most bizarre cases was when the Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was shot and almost killed in the head.
By a person who turned out not even to be politically motivated, but basically who was just an insane person.
The corporate media overwhelmingly said that Sarah Palin was to blame by virtue of the fact that she had put out an ad identifying vulnerable districts where Democratic incumbents were that she believed should be turned red in the midterm election.
And one of those districts where she put this crosshairs image to say, these are the places we want to target.
And here you see, it's at the top, we have diagnosed the problem, help us prescribe the solution.
And then at the bottom right here, it says, click here for a list of the candidates.
And here in Arizona was Gabby Gifford's district because it was a swing district.
And the entire media decided that she was somehow encouraging people to go and carry out murder in these districts.
And therefore, when Gabrielle Giffords was shot, Sarah Palin was to blame.
Here you see from ABC News, Sarah Palin's quote, crosshair ads dominates the Gabrielle Giffords debate.
And the article says quote in the stunned aftermath of the Tucson massacre Sarah Palin has found herself in the crosshairs of the ensuing political debate with opponents suggesting she may have fueled the gunman's rage.
And her supporters saying it is, quote, grotesque to blame her and to politicize the tragedy.
Crosshairs is a political phrase that emerged from Palin's political action committee, Sarah Pack, that targeted congressional districts for the Tea Party campaign in the last election, including the district of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords.
Although Palin later denied she meant the graphic over the district's look like a gun site, it is part of the hunting lexicon that critics say she prefers.
So obviously if Tucker Carlson is responsible for the Buffalo massacre of black people with his rhetoric and Sarah Palin was guilty of the attack on Gabrielle Giffords and Donald Trump was responsible for the violence on January 6th and running around calling Donald Trump a Nazi and insisting trying to convince people
That he will end American democracy and put critics in camps and end free press and end the American democracy obviously has the potential by the same theory, which I do not support.
But if you're going to use it, Democrats have to be guilty for an attempted assassination on Donald Trump.
Now, the Wall Street Journal pointed out that Biden's rhetoric in recent days has escalated.
This is on July 14th, the day of the shooting, and they reported, quote, quote, it's time to put Trump in the bullseye.
In the bullseye, Biden said in a January 8th, July 8th call with donors to the campaign.
The quote was sent around by the Biden campaign to journalists after the call, a sign that the Biden team viewed the comment as part of their message rather than just a gaffe.
So they accused Sarah Palin of being guilty of, responsible for the attack on Gabrielle Giffords because she used a hunting target, a crosshair, to identify vulnerable districts.
Yet here's Joe Biden, shortly before the attempted assassination of Donald Trump, urging that a bullseye be placed on him.
Now, he did a interview today as part of his ongoing campaign to prove that he's not a senile old man suffering from dementia with the NBC anchor Lester Holt.
And Holt, to his credit, I guess, pressed Biden on this, saying, just like Republicans have been accused of being guilty for inciting violence in their rhetoric, what about your rhetoric?
And listen to what Biden said.
I mean, if you think this helps in any way, With the idea that somehow he's proven that he's not demented, I think this video suggests the opposite.
But listen to the substance of how he defends himself.
You called your opponent an existential threat on a call a week ago.
You said it's time to put Trump in the bullseye.
There's some dispute about the context, but I think you appreciate that word.
I didn't say crosshairs.
I was talking about focus on.
Look, the truth of the matter was, what I guess I was talking about at the time was, there's very little focus on Trump's agenda.
Yeah, the term is bullseye.
It was a mistake to use the word.
I didn't say crosshairs.
I meant bullseye.
I meant focus on him.
Focus on what he's doing.
Nobody asked him about the word crosshairs.
The reason that's in his brain is because that was the thing used to accuse Sarah Palin of being guilty for inciting the attempted assassination of Gabrielle Giffords.
So he's answering a question that no one's asking, but then he kind of admitted, oh, it was a mistake to say I want to put a bullseye on Trump.
So Democrats are so confused about what to say, and this is all going to get more desperate as we start seeing polls in the aftermath of the assassination attempt on Trump, the way in which he reacted, the obvious reality that everyone knows that Democrats have been running around for a year or more calling him Adolf Hitler, and in the most incendiary way, accusing him of planning to do the worst things possible to the country.
Rhetoric that if you could ever accuse someone of inciting violence would be this kind of rhetoric.
And just to give you a little taste of how desperate Democrats are, here is polling numbers that came out today from the YouGov polling that is considered one of the best polling In fact, it has an A plus rating in terms of its predictive accuracy over past elections.
And these are general election polling numbers in the key swing states.
And there you see Donald Trump is leading every single swing state.
By a fairly significant margin, including states that Joe Biden won in 2020, including Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
I believe Trump won every single one of them.
Biden won every single one of these states in 2020.
This is from July 12th, not July 14th.
Well, the poll was released today, but the polling was done on July 12th, which was prior to the attempted assassination of Trump.
But here you see Trump with a significant lead over Biden in every single one of the swing states, including every one of which Joe Biden won in 2020.
So this is why Democrats are so desperate.
They obviously can't.
say what they should be saying if they really believe what they were saying about Trump, which is, yeah, we don't mind that he was attacked or we don't condone violence, but given that he's basically enough Hitler, it's to be expected.
Now, you probably have seen that a lot of people, including some top Democratic strategists and funders, were running around suggesting that the attack was staged and even the corporate were running around suggesting that the attack was staged and even the corporate media has had to start acknowledging that Democrats are as deranged and unhinged and drowning in conspiracy theories as the worst elements of QAnon or whoever they like to
And that shouldn't be a surprise given that Democrats accused Donald Trump of clandestinely conspiring with the Kremlin to hack DNC emails in 2016.
claimed in 2020 that the reporting based on the Hunter Biden attack was Russian disinformation.
Of course, they're drowning in conspiracy theories.
It's pretty much all that they do.
But it's been so extreme with leading Democrats, such as Reid Hoffman, the billionaire mega donor to the DNC, and his top advisor encouraged journalists to believe that Either the shooting was staged and fake, and even, he said, it may be likely that Putin was involved, given that this is the sort of thing that the Russians do.
This is the level of where they're at.
That was reported by CEMA4.
You can see the article on the screen.
Top Democratic strategist pushed reporters to consider, quote, a staged shooting.
So there's a lot of that going on, but I think the, again, most important point here is the fact that Democrats are actually coming to terms with the fact that Trump is almost certain to win.
And the reason they're saying, look, we have to accept it and we can accept it is because, of course, we don't really believe all the things we've been saying about him over the last year, that he's Hitler, that he's going to end democracy.
The whole narrative has been both dangerous, but also fraudulent.
Just a desperate attempt to know that they can only try and win the election not by defending Joe Biden or exciting people about Joe Biden.
But scaring people into believing that Trump, who was just the president from 2016 to 2020, is actually a Hitlerian fascist.
Here from Axios on July 14th, which was yesterday, the Trump rally shooting upends the Democrats' Biden crisis.
Quote, a senior House Democrat suggested the post-shooting atmosphere in the party is too, quote, chaotic for internal battles over leadership.
Most lawmakers who spoke to Axios said it is too early to say whether the cessation intentions will last until the DNC next month.
But the second senior House Democrat offered one reason for why it might.
Quote, we've all resigned ourselves to a Trump presidency.
They're basically saying that we've given up on the attempt to oust Joe Biden, even though all polls show he's highly likely to lose.
And that was before the attempted assassination.
And they're starting to say, we've resigned ourselves to it.
You wouldn't resign yourself to it if you really believe Trump is Adolf Hitler.
But of course, Democrats are now admitting that they don't really believe that at all.
Here in the Bangor Daily News, Congressman Jared Golden, the Democratic from Maine, writing in the Maine newspaper, on July 2nd, he wrote this.
The headline there is, Donald Trump is going to win the election and democracy will be just fine.
This is after the debate.
This is what Congressman Golden said, quote, Biden's poor performance in the debate was not a surprise.
It also didn't rattle me, as it has others, because the outcome of this election has been clear to me for months.
While I don't plan to vote for him, Donald Trump is going to win, and I'm OK with that.
Then he goes on to say that the idea that Trump is sort of grave threat to democracy Is lunacy that of course American democracy is going to be fine with Donald Trump as president as it was the first time around?
And there are a lot of Democrats apparently saying that in Washington.
Just most of them are too cowardly to say it in public because they know the Democratic base will turn on them if they admit that Trump's not Hitler.
Here is a tweet from Tim Miller, who used to work for Jeb Bush, was a Republican operative, one of those people who converted into a Never Trump fanatic and now is basically a Democratic Party propagandist.
He spoke with Ezra Klein, the New York Times columnist, who's also a partisan loyalist.
And he says, here's the galling exchange with Ezra Klein about his conversations with top Democrats who are resigned to Trump.
And then here you see some of the things that Ezra Klein is saying, which here he says, people are weighing this set of things, like it would be quite unpleasant for me personally to come out against the president, weighing what will happen if Donald Trump wins and saying in a reveal preference way, I can live with Donald Trump.
And I've had people say that to me off the record.
And then Tim Miller says, really?
I mean, he's shocked.
He lives in that never Trump world where Donald Trump is Hitler.
And he's going to destroy American democracy.
He shocked the top Democrats who resigned to Hitler being elected.
November and then inaugurated in January and so he says really and then Ezra Klein says I've had top Democrats say to me basically something like I don't know why all these Democrats think Donald Trump is an existential threat to democracy and are acting the way they are but the reason I'm acting the way I am meaning being resigned to Trump's victory is because I don't think that.
And then Tim Miller gets very agitated, to put it mildly, very sad, very confused.
And he says, who the F is that?
Out your sources, Ezra.
That's crazy.
It's maddening.
But that's the reality, is Democrats are finally realizing that they can't go around calling Trump Hitler any longer, that he's going to destroy American democracy, especially after this assassination attempt.
It wasn't working in the polls.
There's no way to get Joe Biden out, and so Democrats are now simply comfortable with the fact that Trump is almost certain to win.
All of this lays bare the utterly fraudulent nature of the main narrative Democrats have been trying to push to scare the American population in a not normal way for politics, of fear where mongering is done, but to believe that they're about to be living under a Nazi dictator, literally.
To the point where magazines and leading Democratic officials and pundits are constantly comparing Trump to Hitler.
And yet, all of this, the fact that they're resigned to losing to him, that they know they can't really do anything to stop it, that they're praying for him and his speedy recovery, are all things that show you that, other than a few fanatics, the vast majority of Democratic leaders, and obviously American voters,
do not remotely believe that because they know that it's a fictitious fairy tale by an increasingly desperate political party eager to stay in power.
We are happy to have CB Distillery as one of our sponsors.
And I've talked before about the fact that in this modern age, I think it is extremely difficult to avoid problems like anxiety or insomnia or even for some people depression.
And typically, because of insurance companies and just how fast-paced and kind of pressurized modern society is, if you do suffer from any of those problems and you go to speak with a health professional, they're immediately going to write you a prescription and try and medicate you, which means for a lot of people, their medicine cabinet is crammed full of narcotics and pharmaceutical products that just don't work, that often make the problem worse.
You're still sleeping.
You still have pain.
You're still stressed out.
And I certainly am somebody who does not like to medicate myself unless I absolutely need to.
And so one of the things I heard from friends about and then began using was CBD.
It is basically an organic substance.
It is not a drug.
It uses the ingredient of marijuana, except without the THC, the part that actually makes marijuana.
a narcotic.
It is designed to help you with any of these problems, to make you a little bit relaxed, to help you sleep, to help you fight anxiety or insomnia, all without having to use medication or drugs.
It is a formulation that is made from the highest quality of clean There's no fluff there or fillers.
It's just pure, effective CBD solutions that are designed to help support your health.
In two non-clinical surveys, 81% of customers experienced more calm, 80% said CBD helped with pain after physical activity, and an impressive 90% they slept better with CBD.
If you struggle with a health concern and haven't found relief from doctors and medications, You can make the change.
Choose CBD Distillery, a product that I have used myself, and with over 2 million customers and a solid 100% back guarantee.
That's how much they stand behind their product.
CBD Distillery is the source to trust.
I have a 20% discount that I can offer you to get you started.
If you visit cbdistillery.com and use the promo code Glenn, you will get 20% off.
That's cbdistillery.com, promo code GLEN.
And if you go there, you will get 20% off and a 100% money-back guarantee on your first offer.
It is kind of extraordinary that Donald Trump's election and announcement of his vice presidential running mate is not the top story for today.
But that's what happens when you have a convention about to start, especially when 48 hours earlier there was an assassination attempt on him.
But the announcement of his vice presidential running mate is extremely important because I've always believed that Donald Trump is always teetering between two contradictory impulses.
On the one hand, you have the Donald Trump of 2016.
Who aggressively and purely ran his campaign on a vow not just to subvert and overturn the dogma of the Democratic establishment, but also the Republican Party's establishment in both economic policy and foreign policy and in general of how those parties operate.
And all the populist promises that were made about no more wars, needless wars that have nothing to do with the United States.
Promising to save Medicare and Social Security.
Making corporations pay higher taxes.
Especially these big corporate conglomerates who are shipping jobs overseas.
But then you have the Donald Trump, whose presidency was filled with traditional Republican operatives who were extremely pro-establishment in their terms of ideology, including Mike Pence, his vice presidential choice in 2016, his State Department, Secretary of State and CIA Director Mike Pompeo, his ambassador to the UN, who is Nikki Haley, his foreign policy advisor, who is John Bolton, and so many more.
And oftentimes the Trump administration veered in one direction, oftentimes it veered in the other, and of course the question that should be on most people's minds, especially as Trump looks increasingly likely to be elected if he's not killed between now and the election, is in what direction ideologically does Donald Trump intend to go with the new administration that he's likely to inaugurate on the 20th of January in the year to come?
And I always thought that the vice presidential choice was going to be Illustrative, or suggestive at least, of that direction.
Not dispositive, but definitely important for understanding Trump's current mindset in that regard.
And I was very concerned about a lot of the names that were clearly at the top of Trump's list, such as Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, or Tim Scott.
The Republican Senator from South Carolina.
All these people who have been around Washington who don't have a heterodox or anti-establishment bone in their body.
And once Vivek Ramaswamy sort of started fading as a potential or Tulsi Gabbard, people that were long shots and then clearly not part of the list, the person on the list that I thought would be the best, both from Trump's electoral perspective, but also in terms of suggesting that that was going to go in the right direction, was J.D.
Vance.
And that's exactly who Donald Trump chose today.
And by that, I don't mean that J.D.
Vance is by any means a perfect politician.
There are a lot of views he holds.
That I vehemently oppose, although most of those are views that anyone in mainstream Washington life and mainstream US politics holds and almost has to hold in order to have any kind of career at the top of Washington power.
But there are a lot of views JD Vance holds that I find genuinely wrong, misguided, or even destructive.
But there is no question, not based on his rhetoric, but based on his actions in the Senate, That he believes far more in this populist, anti-establishment sentiment and ideology that Donald Trump ran on in 2016 than any of the other viable alternatives, and certainly more than, say, someone like Kamala Harris, who also doesn't have a populist or anti-establishment bone in her body.
Here was Trump's announcement, published on his social media site True Social, quote, After lengthy deliberation and thought, and considering the tremendous talents of many others, I have decided that the person best suited to assume the position of Vice President of the United States is Senator J.D.
Vance of the great state of Ohio.
J.D.
honorably served our country in the Marine Corps, graduated from Ohio State University in two years summa cum laude, and is a Yale Law School graduate, where he was editor of the Yale Law Review, of the Yale Law Journal, and president of the Yale Law Veterans Association.
J.D.' 's book, The Hillbilly Elegy, became a major bestseller and movie as it championed the hardworking men and women of our country.
J.D.
has been a very successful business career in technology and finance and now during the campaign will be strongly focused on the people he fought so brilliantly for, the American workers and farmers in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Minnesota, and far beyond.
Now, I think this is a good choice, again, from the perspective of the other genuinely plausible running mate possibilities at the top of the list that we've been hearing about.
Because he's very young.
He's 39 years old, which gives this kind of rejuvenation to this obvious sense that we're being ruled by all 80-year-olds and 85-year-olds.
He is obviously very smart.
I've seen him in interviews many times.
I've I believe I have had exchanges with him.
He is obviously very smart.
He's also very articulate and very effective in terms of presenting himself and his ideas and interviews and the like.
But he also has a genuine record of defending the working class and populism in a way that will obviously be crucial in those swing states that Trump just named.
Now, I know there are a lot of people in the Democratic Party, and even on the better part of the left that hates the Democratic Party, that just cannot conceive that anybody with an R after their name could possibly have any authentic desire To pursue policies that help the working class.
Even leftists who hate the Democratic Party, I think, sometimes assume that the only possibility for being authentic in that desire to help the working class is if you have a D after your name.
Which isn't to say that the left thinks every Democrat is a working class champion, but that's the only possible way someone might be.
Like an AOC or Bernie Sanders, people who still buy into their schtick.
So, for the moment, don't listen to anything that I have to say.
Don't listen to anything J.D.
Vance has to say.
Listen to the president of the Teamsters Union, Sean O'Brien, who went on Fox News today to be interviewed about the choice of J.D.
Vance and the reason why the Teamsters regards him in so many ways as an important ally to the working class.
And it wasn't just his rhetoric, the Teamsters president's rhetoric, it was the specific acts that J.D.
Vance has undertaken as a senator I mean, J.D.
Vance, the short time that we've worked together, I mean, he's been great on Teamster issues.
He has supported, co-sponsored an airline manufacturing bill that addresses outsourcing of critical airline maintenance to China.
He's also supported He's paid sick leave for our railroad workers.
You remember that situation a couple of years ago.
When they weren't getting sick time, he stepped right up.
He's also been very vocal and supportive of holding employers accountable who try and skirt their obligation under an independent contractor model known as DSP.
So he's been right there on all our issues.
We've publicly stated it.
And look, at this day and age, there's nothing better than having a U.S.
Marine No, I've seen a lot of Democratic pundits instantly say, oh, this is a terrible pick for Trump.
He only appeals to the MAGA base.
He's not going to expand Trump's appeal.
They all start claiming, oh, thank God he didn't choose Marco Rubio, who would have been a much better choice for Trump.
Obviously, if Trump had chosen Rubio, they'd be saying exactly the opposite.
But let them convince themselves of that.
That a very smart, highly accomplished 39-year-old Marine who grew up to some extent, certainly, with a working class and blue-collar background and who has a record sufficient to make the Teamsters Union president gush about his commitment to the working class, let them try and convince themselves that that's some politically poor choice.
Now, on the question of foreign policy, Obviously, the platform that Trump ran on of America First means to Trump that the U.S.
shouldn't get itself involved in other wars, that we shouldn't be financing other countries' wars, that we should be focused only on policies that actually affect the United States and our own country, and the only wars we should fight are ones that directly threaten our border.
Now, J.D.
Vance hasn't been in the Senate very long, only since 2022 when he won, so the beginning of 2023 when he was inaugurated.
He's talking about a year and a few months, year and a half, basically.
But he does have some record, even when it comes to foreign policy.
And I think one of the most revealing things was that in April of this year, there was a vote in the Senate on a package that Joe Biden wanted of $95 billion.
to fuel the military and wars of other countries, which would primarily go to Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan, $95 billion.
This was also the bill that had inserted into it the provision to ban TikTok.
And JDP, Vance voted no on this bill, one of only 15 Republican senators to vote no.
It passed overwhelmingly in the Senate.
Only two Democrats voted no, 15 Republicans.
The rest Republican Democrats voted yes on this $95 billion package to fuel these various wars, and he made clear J.D.
Vance did.
That he supports is the Israeli war in Gaza, and he also supports having the U.S.
fund the Israeli military and the Israeli war in whole or in part.
So I don't want to in any way suggest that J.D.
Vance is different than Joe Biden or Kamala Harris or Donald Trump when it comes to the Israeli war in Gaza.
He is not.
But when it comes to the war in Ukraine, although he's occasionally sent some mixed signals talking about the moral justification of sending Ukraine defensive weapons, what he has mostly done is argue that against having the U.S.
pay for that war, basically saying if anyone should pay for that war, it should be Europe, whose interests are far more direct in terms of who governs Ukraine and not the United States.
And when he voted no on this $95 billion foreign aid package and then had to explain why, the reason he gave was that essentially it was written with the intention of constraining the next president, meaning Donald Trump, from reducing or eliminating entirely The amount that the U.S.
is giving to Ukraine to continue that war.
He wanted, he said, to leave that option open for Trump to end the funding of the war in Ukraine.
So here's CNN, says how each senator voted on the $95 billion foreign aid package.
Quote, the U.S.
Senate on Tuesday passed a $95 billion foreign aid package aimed at bolstering support for Ukraine, Iran, Israel, and Taiwan, ending months of legislative wrangling among lawmakers over extending help to the American allies.
The package, which passed on a 79-18 bipartisan vote, combined four bills approved by the U.S.
House on Saturday and allotted nearly $61 billion for Ukraine, more than $26 billion for the Israel-Hamas conflict, including $15 billion in Israeli military aid and $9 billion in humanitarian aid for Gaza.
and $2.4 billion for regional U.S. military operations, and more than $8 billion for country in the Indo-Pacific region.
The measure also includes a provision that could result in TikTok being banned from the American app stores unless its Chinese parent, ByteDance, sells the video sharing platform within nine months.
Now, we've covered that bill a lot.
Donald Trump now opposes that bill, but that also passed by an overwhelming majority.
Now here you see part of the roll call vote, and there you see J.D.
Vance.
And here is his no vote, and you can see here how rare that was.
Just right down the list of Republicans and Democrats, all yes votes.
Here was the Democrat from Vermont, Peter Welch, who voted no, one of only two Democrats, but overwhelmingly both parties lined up behind this, and J.D.
Vance was one of the only senators in the Senate to vote no, and he explained that his reason was his concern over the war in Ukraine.
Here is an exchange that J.D.
Vance had when he talked to Tucker Carlson earlier this year.
Tucker Carlson has become a big fan of J.D.
Vance's.
And this exchange, I think, gives a lot of insight as well into what J.D.
Vance thinks about Washington politics, establishment ideology, and the Uniparty's view of war and economic policy.
I thought this exchange was very telling.
So the most striking thing about that exchange you had was the number that you put, the price tag that you threw out there.
Can you just slowly explain what you think this war will cost the United States all in?
Yeah, so of course, Tucker, it's impossible to say because every single day this goes on, we spend more money.
Not just the money that's obvious and meets the headlines, but also the stuff that we're putting ourselves all in for, for rebuilding costs and so forth.
So let me just give you a sense of what I mean here.
The headline number of what we spent on Ukraine is $120 billion.
The Biden administration is asking for another $61 billion, and a lot of Senate, even Republicans, seem hell-bent on giving him that money.
That's $180 billion just right there.
Now, what that doesn't include is if this thing goes on for a year or two beyond that.
It also doesn't include what's called presidential drawdown authority, where let's say Joe Biden gives weapons that were manufactured in the United States or somewhere else, gives them to Zelensky.
They can use weird accounting gimmicks to understate how many resources have actually been given.
So if we've given $120 billion at a headline number thus far, it's probably closer to $150 or even $160 billion.
That is partially a guess, but it's an informed guess.
The other thing, Tucker, is that we've already told people and know in certain terms that we're going to rebuild this country.
You hear things like a Marshall Plan for Ukraine, whether it's implemented by BlackRock or overseen by BlackRock.
We're talking about an additional $200, $300, maybe $400 billion to rebuild this country already, Tucker.
The Ukrainians are unable to pay their pensioners.
There are critical parts of the Ukrainian state.
You know, things like fixing the roads, ambulance services, pension provisions that the Ukrainians can't provide for themselves at this point.
So, when you take this all in, Tucker, I really think that even if the war ended, let's say, six months from now, the all-in cost to the American taxpayer is going to be about a half a trillion dollars.
Again, that is a guess, but it's an informed guess based on What we've already spent and what we might be expected to spend in the future.
It's a catastrophic sum of money.
When you think about, Tucker, what it's accomplished, which is that we've basically turned Ukraine into a rump state, and this can't be overstated.
The goal here was always to turn Ukraine into an independent ally that could stand against the Russians.
Now, set to the side whether this is a goal worth spending $500 billion for, I don't think that it is.
But even if you assume that goal as the policy of the United States of America, we have not accomplished anything close to it.
The country has gone from about 40 million people to 28 million people.
A ton of prime age men, I mean men in the prime of their lives here, have been killed or wounded or maimed.
They'll never be functional people ever again.
And that is what we have accomplished here.
It has become a rump state that will become a permanent welfare client of the United States of America and of NATO.
But I joke almost when I say that NATO is going to pick up the tab here because we all know they won't.
All right, now, again, you can find quotes of his saying Putin's invasion was outrageous and immoral, something every American politician says, essentially, even that it's morally justified to send them defensive weapons.
But not only his most frequent explanations you saw there, but also his vote, the thing that matters even more.
makes clear that he opposes ongoing, endless funding by the United States.
And he always says, which is a good political answer, but it's also true that, look, if people in the West want to fund this war, it should be funded by those countries, the very rich countries in Western Europe closest to that war, not by us.
And one of the things I think is so notable is in his rationale, and he often does this, he speaks about the evils of centralized corporate power and global capital institutions like BlackRock and JPMorgan.
He is very well aware that once we end up destroying Ukraine with all the weapons we're sending, it will then will pay BlackRock and JPMorgan and all of those vultures waiting to come in and Rebuild Ukraine at a great profit to themselves and at the expense of the American taxpayer And I think this is one of the most important thing is that when he sits down for a debate with Kamala Harris And this is not true of any of the other potential choices Trump had that he was actively considering Again not talking here about Vivek Ramaswamy or Tulsi Gabbard.
I don't consider them and haven't considered them actual viable choices of Trump for a long time.
It was clear they got eliminated early in the process that they were ever in it.
Talking about the reported choices Trump was actively considering in the last several weeks.
What J.D. Vance was able to do in a debate with Kamala Harris, credibly, is he's not going to use this standard Reagan-esque Republican rhetoric about how Kamala Harris is some fanatic of redistribution financial policies because she wants to is he's not going to use this standard Reagan-esque Republican rhetoric about how Kamala Harris is some fanatic He's not going to accuse her of that.
it.
In part because those things are popular, but also because that's not what she is.
He'll be able to accuse her, and I think of the vice presidential candidates Trump could have chosen, only he will be able to accuse her credibly of being what she actually is.
Which is an instrument of corporatism and the large centralized global corporations that fund the Democratic Party, that have funded her career, and that the Democratic Party typically serves.
And you have a long record from Jay-Z Vance of this kind of language that posits that you have global institutions of capital on the one hand and on the other you have the working class and that the working class is typically the victims of this large centralized corporate power.
And there's lots of other things beyond what the Teamster Union's president identified as instances in which JD Vance has not only spoken that talk but actually pursued it.
Now, This is a speech that I saw only today, and I just want to show you one clip of it.
It was when he gave an address at the Quincy Institute in May of 2024.
It was only about a 20 minute speech.
You can find this speech on YouTube.
If you want to understand J.D.
Vance's thinking, I really encourage you to go watch this.
It is a well thought through speech intended to express his ideology about the Republican establishment and the Democratic establishment.
But here is one passage that I found very telling and very interesting.
Senator Mitch McConnell was elected literally the year that I was born.
And Mitch McConnell is extremely confident about nearly every single foreign policy view that he holds, despite the fact that he's been a senator since I was born, and nearly every foreign policy position he's held has actually been wrong.
Okay?
So whatever your views, if I can impart something really, really important to you or to anybody else who's listening on social media or otherwise, it's that we have to be open to new arguments.
When people say something that challenges our preconceived notions, if your response is to sort of think about it, that's good.
Whatever conclusion you ultimately come to.
If your response is to kind of seize up and immediately repeat the slogans that we've all heard for the last 40 years, you are part of the problem.
And we have to we have to beat back the problem for to fix what's going on in the country.
So, let me sort of articulate to and this is not to minute to be a full scale or fulsome explanation of my foreign policy, but there are 2 principles that I really care about.
And I think are really important because they bear on this question of the middle class.
The first is that we, the first is like a weird feedback there, but the first is that we have to really understand that we're, I think most of us are realists, right?
The 1st.
In other words, we think that our foreign policy should pursue America's interests and pursue it ruthlessly.
But that doesn't mean, even though we can criticize the moralisms of the past, that we can have a That's principle number one, and I'll talk about that in a second.
would say is we should have a foreign policy that recognizes that the moral intuitions that should most matter are the moral intuitions of American citizens.
Okay.
That's principle number one, and I'll talk about that in a second.
Principle number two is that the most important part of American, got it?
Thank you.
Principle number two is that the most important part of American foreign policy is actually the strength of our domestic economy and the strength of our domestic population.
And if there is something that should worry all of us, I think it's it's not that China is showing more belligerence.
In East Asia, that certainly should worry us.
It's not that China is sort of expanding its scope into South America and to Africa as part of the Belt and Road Initiative.
Though, again, I do think that should worry us.
It's that China, based and because of the stupidity of Washington leaders over the past generation, is now arguably the most powerful industrial economy in the world.
Okay, if we're going to lose a war, it will be because we have allowed our primary rival to become arguably our most powerful industrial competitor.
And God forbid, I worry that in 10 years, it will become obvious that China is not our primary industrial competitor, but that we're theirs, that they are now the preeminent industrial power in the world.
And if we get there, Yes, it will be because all of these bad things about China, and we can criticize China, but if we get there, the primary reason will be because our leaders led us down a very stupid path to very predictable consequences.
I'm angry about the rise of China, and certainly I don't think that the Chinese are our friends, but I'm most angry that American leadership led All right, he's cut off there in the middle, but he's basically saying, and again, I don't want to overstate the case when it comes to his heterodox foreign policy views, this kind of talk about China is very standard in Washington.
But he's not advocating a war with China, either a cold war or a hot war.
He's recognizing the fact that China is, in fact, as strong as or maybe soon to become stronger than the United States economically.
That's in large part because of the mistakes that the political class has made.
And he begins by being pretty scathing about Mitch McConnell's worldview and the way in which the bipartisan class, not just the Democratic Party, have pursued all these words that have not been in American interests.
And so I think the fact that this is the kind of thing that JD Vance is going around saying should give some further encouragement about Which side of that divide he is on, the anti-establishment populist divide or the Republican establishment?
Not to any pure or great extent.
You can find lots of examples of J.D.
Vance reciting standard Washington policy, especially when it comes to foreign policy.
He made a lot of his money in the kind of global capital hedge funds and venture capital funds of the kind that he rails against, which oftentimes happens.
People enter a certain sector, see the evils of it, and become its enemies.
And there's certainly a lot of evidence that he actually does think that way, but he's not some revolutionary who's going to come in and overturn all of Washington.
So I don't want to exaggerate that at all.
But I certainly think he's far more in that direction than any of Trump's alternatives.
Now, just to underscore the point, I personally think that one of the best Appointees of the Biden administration has been Lena Khan at the Federal Trade Commission.
And one of the reasons is, is that we've had Matt Stoller on several times, we've covered this issue many times, is that the larger corporate power becomes, the more concentrated it becomes, the more uncompetitive the market becomes, the more the consumer suffers.
And we've had a lot of that in our economy.
The disappearance of small business, while things like Amazon and Google just grow and dominate multiple fields.
Even in media, we've seen the collapse of small liberal outlets with everything going essentially to the New York Times.
That's the pattern of our economy, is that the giants are eating up everyone else, leaving no competition for the consumer.
That's why there are antitrust laws that were enforced going back to Teddy Roosevelt.
And why antitrust law matters, and it's basically been neglected.
Antitrust issues have for decades under Reagan, under Bush, under certainly Bill Clinton, under Bush and Cheney, under Obama, all of whom were constantly aggrandizing large corporate power.
And one of the few good appointments, in my view, and a lot of people may not agree with this, is Lena Kahn because she has actually been pursuing Pretty aggressively, the enforcement of antitrust laws trying to combat the centralized control of corporate power in the tiny number of hands, which not only can leave the consumer with no options financially, but it's also very bad for a democracy where you have these massive tycoons and then everybody else sort of lingering.
And there are some Republicans who hate Lena Kahn, who think she's some sort of communist or whatever.
It's been kind of weird because she goes after big tech more than anybody.
Republicans claim to be opposed to big tech, concerned about its centralized power, and yet they talk a good game, but they get a lot of money from Google lobbyists, people like Jim Jordan, and then they block any reform of big tech.
But there are a lot of Republicans who have been praising Lena Kahn for standing up to centralized corporate power, which I would suggest, again, is one of the authentic common strains of JD Vance's worldview.
And JD Vance is one of the people who says That she's doing a good job.
Here from The Hill in February of 2024, the headline, J.D.
Vance, the Biden Federal Trade Commission chief, is quote, doing a pretty good job.
Quote, a lot of my Republican colleagues look at Lena Kahn and they say, well, Lena Kahn is some sort of engaged in a fundamental evil thing.
And I guess I look at Lena Khan as one of the few people in the Biden administration that I think is doing a pretty good job, Vance said Tuesday at Bloomberg's RemedyFest technology forum.
Vance acknowledged that supporting Khan's aggressive antitrust enforcement, especially against tech firms, sets him apart from, quote, most of his Republican colleagues.
Khan was confirmed to the FTC in 2021 with support from some Republicans.
She was named to be chair of the commission shortly after her confirmation.
Since then, she's faced fierce pushback and criticism from a wide swath of Republicans who have questioned how she is using the commission's authority.
But Vance, one of a few vocal Republican supporters of antitrust reform, said he appreciates that Khan's approach embraces, quote, a broader understanding of how we think about competition in the marketplace.
Together with the Teamster unions gushing over J.D.
Vance's pro-working class policies, the fact that he steps out that way and defends Lena Kahn and her antitrust aggression, whereas most Republicans still are stuck in the 1980s view of large corporations as being the paragon of virtue and we should just want those large corporations to grow and get more powerful.
Something that the working class of the United States actually suffers from, given that these people, these large corporations, have no allegiance to the United States, put jobs outside of the country, and the minute there's a financial benefit from doing so, I think is pretty telling.
And it's also telling that Matt Stoller, who again, for me, is one of the nation's leading antitrust experts, who has done more to actually try and combat large corporate conglomerates and the financial and political power they wield, Has often praised J.D.
Vance like he has Josh Hawley, who's I think similar to J.D.
Vance in this regard.
Here you see him on June 22nd of last year, quote, Senator J.D.
Vance just brokered a bipartisan deal to restrict bank mega mergers and bank CEO compensation after a bank fails.
And all day Matt Stoller was celebrating the choice of J.D.
Vance because in the area of concern that Matt Stoller focuses on most, Such as massive mega corporations and the power and the elimination of competition for the consumers.
He believes JD Bounce is one of the best people in the Senate when it comes to those issues when a lot of Republicans are not.
We'll have Matt Stoller on at some point this week, maybe tomorrow on Wednesday to talk about all of that.
Here from the Wall Street Journal in March of 2024 is this headline, quote, big corporate mergers get fresh tax scrutiny in Washington.
And two of the senators behind it are Senator Whitehouse, the Rhode Island Democrat, and J.D.
Vance of Ohio.
And the Wall Street Journal says they disagree on tax policy, but they pair up to propose a century-old piece of corporate tax law.
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and J.D.
Vance want to eliminate companies' ability to do tax-free mergers, like the pending Capital One Discover deal.
Under their bill, shareholders who receive stock through such deals would owe capital gains tax immediately instead of deferring those taxes until they sell their shares.
The bill is a sign of political sentiment against corporate power that unites some Republicans and Democrats who are otherwise far apart on tax policy, and it is a rare attempt to address competition policy through the tax code.
Now, as I said, it's oftentimes very difficult for Democrats or liberals and the left to believe that anyone who's a Republican has any real concern for the working class.
But it's worth remembering that in 2020, when the Congress was passing a COVID relief bill that was only transferring billions of dollars to the largest corporations, giving nothing to American citizens,
It was Bernie Sanders who stood with one Republican Senator, Josh Hawley, to filibuster that COVID relief bill unless it provided direct payments to American citizens, not just to big corporations.
And they succeeded, those two did, Josh Hawley and Bernie Sanders, in getting into that bill, inserted a $600 direct payment to workers and to American citizens, and it was sent to the Trump White House and Donald Trump vetoed it.
This was after the 2020 election.
Arguing that the $600 was insufficient and that it should be a $2,000 direct payment.
And that was what the Georgia race was supposedly about with Raphael Warnock and John Ossoff.
And so that was an example of two self-proclaimed populist Republicans, Josh Hawley and Donald Trump, working with Bernie Sanders or with Donald Trump.
To obtain more direct payments for ordinary Americans and not just for corporations.
Here is what my former colleague at the Intercept, Jed Zalani, said today.
Quote, the Club for Growth, which is one of the Republican Party's main corporate enforcers, strongly opposed Vance's election to the Senate, warning that he is, quote, for government control of businesses and even higher taxes.
They spent millions to block him.
Here Fox News in October of 2023 reported this, Republican Senators introduce a stand-alone bill to aid Israel without more funding to Ukraine.
Quote, Republican lawmakers oppose combining Ukraine and Israel aid.
Republican Senators Rasha Marshall, Ted Cruz, J.D.
Vance, and Mike Lee introduced a stand-alone bill to funnel aid to Israel without tying it to Ukraine aid on Thursday.
The bill called the Supplemental Appropriations Act is an alternative to President Biden's $106 billion emergency supplemental bill he requested from Congress last week.
That was the bill that we covered.
Now, obviously, J.D.
Spence is a supporter of financing Israel's military and its wars.
I would say you probably can't survive in Republican politics without taking that view.
Certainly, Trump has that view.
Joe Biden has that view.
Kamala Harris has that view.
And I've made my views of that very, very clear.
That's obviously a place where I vehemently disagree with J.D.
Benz, to put it mildly.
But given the alternatives that Trump had to choose from in the Republican Party, he could have obviously gone with some hardcore Trump follower like Matt Gaetz or Marjorie Taylor Greene or Carrie Lake.
And I think there, from a political perspective, That would not have been wise because that really would not have expanded the appeal of the Republican Party.
J.D.
Vance not only will, for obvious reasons, but also there is a genuine record of him defending the kind of anti-establishment populist politics that Donald Trump elected in 2016.
We'll see throughout the campaign exactly how he articulates that.
He's obviously going to be constrained by what Trump supports.
And then obviously, in a lot of ways, his vice presidential pick is even more important than usual, given that Trump's age makes it highly unlikely that he could go beyond four years.
And beyond that, the He would be term limited, but there's also a chance, given Trump's age, that he wouldn't make it through the 40 years.
And symbolically, certainly, this is Trump taking this movement that, more or less, he has single-handedly brought into the mainstream.
It was bubbling in Republican politics for a long time, but he was able to articulate and sell it.
And he's essentially naming his successor.
That's the significance of J.D.
Vance being so much younger from that next or even two generations removed from Trump.
And so I do think J.D.
Vance's selection is more important than the usual vice presidential selection.
And I think deconstructing his actual ideology as reflected in his actions and votes and bills, not just in his rhetoric, is more important than ever.
All right, we had this next segment that we wanted to cover tonight that we're going to, just because of time, we've gone for almost two hours, we're going to postpone until tomorrow or Wednesday, which is I do really want to delve into the federal district court's dismissal of the entire criminal Case brought by the special counsel, Jack Smith, against Donald Trump.
That's the case in Florida that involves the alleged possession and pilfering of classified documents by Donald Trump.
They were charging him under the Espionage Act.
And the court just dismissed the entire case.
Not on the substance of the claims, but more interestingly and more importantly on the grounds That there's no constitutional or legal basis for having the Justice Department appoint a special counsel.
We used to have a statute in the 80s and 90s called the Independent Counsel Statute that Congress enacted that led to things like a special independent counsel, Lawrence Walsh, investigating the Iran-Contra affair, and then Ken Starr investigating all the various Clinton scandals of Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky and Paula Jones and all of that.
And because both Republicans and Democrats had lived through an independent council that had unlimited funding, they let that law lapse on purpose in 1999, understanding, and you can go back to contemporary articles as we'll show you at the time, that they understood that there would be no more independent council.
And so the Justice Department just invented this idea that the Attorney General can appoint a special counsel, even though there's no more congressional authority for it, And the judge in Florida ruled today that the entire office of the special counsel is unconstitutional because the only way you can appoint somebody under the appointment clause is with an act of Congress, which is lacking here, and therefore Jack Smith has no authority.
In fact, his appointment is unconstitutional and by logical reasoning, therefore any cases that he brings, including the one against Trump, In South Florida is automatically unconstitutional and compels dismissal.
Now obviously it could have implications beyond that since Jack Smith's having another case that he has brought against Donald Trump in Washington alleging various criminal acts after the January 6th in connection with the January 6th riot at the Capitol and the 2020 election issues with Trump.
That case was already gutted in large part by the Supreme Court's immunity ruling as we covered And while this Florida District Court's judge isn't binding on the D.C.
federal court where that case is pending, The rationale of the ruling, if applied there, would compel dismissal of that case as well.
So it's an important ruling.
It's a really interesting controversy about how Washington works, how they just exert power, even though there's no congressional authorization for it, which is why the courts have so often invalidated actions on the part of the executive branch, because there's no congressional authorization for it as required by the Constitution.
So we want to delve into that whole area, what the rationale here was, the reaction to it.
But given the time constraints, I'll just give you that summary that I just gave you and we will delve more deeply into this when we have time tomorrow or on Wednesday.
All right, that concludes the 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 live here on Rumble on Spotify, Apple, and all the major podcasting platforms.
If you rate, review, and follow our program there, it really helps spread the visibility of our show.
Finally, every Tuesday and Thursday night, once we're done with our live show here on We moved to Rumble, we moved to Locals, which is part of the Rumble community and platform, where we have our live interactive aftershow, where we take your questions and respond to your critiques and feedback, hear your suggestions for future shows and future guests.
Those aftershows are available only for members of our Locals community, so if you want to join that, which gives you access not only to those twice a week aftershows, but to multiple interactive features we have there that allow us to communicate with you throughout the week.
It's the place where we publish every day
▲
Export Selection