Mark Zuckerberg On How FBI Lies Caused Facebook to Suppress 2020 Biden Reporting; Ongoing, Worsening Threats to Free Speech Over Israel
TIMESTAMPS:
Intro (0:00)
FBI Pressured Facebook to Censor (12:05)
Speech Crackdown Over Israel (48:29)
Outro (1:04:47)
- - -
Watch full episodes on Rumble, streamed LIVE 7pm ET.
Become part of our Locals community
- - -
Follow Glenn:
Twitter
Instagram
Follow System Update:
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Facebook
LinkedIn
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Welcome to a new episode of System Update, our live nightly show that airs every Monday through Friday at 7 p.m.
Eastern, exclusively here on Rumble, the free speech alternative to YouTube.
As you can see, tonight, as was true of last night, we are not currently in our normal System Update Studio.
Unlike last night, however, we are actually in a studio tonight.
It's just not our normal studio.
I'm on the road traveling for some issues relating to some reporting I'm working on, as well as some family matters in Miami.
We are using the locals studio, which is very nice.
It's just not the format we typically use, but last night I actually did it from an undisclosed hotel room, and the show went off, I think, without many technical hitches.
So hopefully we can, being in the studio, make tonight's even a bit more smoother.
I think we have a lot of important topics to cover, and I want to begin with the story that we're most following tonight, which is that when it comes to new and severe threats to online speech, the 2020 presidential campaign and everything that happened in the lead up to it might seem like it's a long, long time ago.
And in some senses, it is.
There's a lot that has happened since then that has escalated that censorship board even further.
But it is imperative that we never let go and forget about What it is that happened in the run-up to that 2020 election because that was really, in my view, the first signal for how limitless Powers of Factions intended to be.
In never allowing what in their mind was the debacle of 2016 to happen again.
In other words, they were never going to allow the internet to be a place of free and unfettered information because they saw when you let that happen, the results that you get are things like Trump defeating Hillary Clinton and the UK pulling out of EU through Brexit and they created immediately an infrastructure, invented it overnight, Expertise called disinformation experts got massive amounts of money to finance that.
It was an entire system designed to lay the theoretical and legal foundation for how these states could start to do it.
But 2020 was the first real egregious trespass
Because what had happened was that you probably recall just a couple of weeks before the election, the New York Post had obtained a large archive of documents that came from Hunter Biden's laptop, a laptop that he had left in a repair store in Rhode Island and never picked up because oftentimes addicts of the, who are in active use like he was, do things like drop off a laptop and don't pick them up for 90 days and then end up being in the hands of the repair stop.
They realized what it was and they turned it over to People that they thought could get into the media and as a result it made its way into the hands of the New York Post which began authenticating those documents and then published one document and then a second starting on the 14th of October of 2022 and then the 15th that revealed not information about Hunter Biden's private life but extremely substantive information about how the Biden family and Joe Biden himself
We're trading on the power and influence that Joe Biden himself had assembled as the Vice President, and then as somebody who might be President one day, in order to have his family pursue highly lucrative business deals in Ukraine, in China, and elsewhere that traded on his name with his involvement.
And yet, none of that reporting made its way into the hands of the American people.
In fact, the exact opposite happened.
Twitter announced that there was a brute censorship ban on any reporting on that story.
If you even tried to link to that story using Twitter, Twitter would instantly detect the link and would block it and say, this is not a permissible link.
Even if you tried to just send it by a private message over Twitter, Twitter would block that as well.
There was no way to use Twitter to promote or show people the evidence on which that story was based.
On the day that Twitter censored major reporting about the presidential frontrunner Joe Biden in the 2020 race, Facebook popped up and announced, and they chose bizarrely to announce this through a lifelong DNC operative of their company named Andy Stone, That Facebook would also be suppressing the spread of the story, not necessarily doing a brute ban what Twitter did, but doing something much more insidious, which is tinkering with their algorithms to make sure it couldn't spread.
So you'd be allowed to post it on your little Facebook page, but they would make sure that nobody saw it, that it never spread, that it never got into anybody's hands.
At the time they did this, the justification they used was the one that came from the U.S.
intelligence community, namely that these documents are not reliable, this reporting is not credible, because it is based on what the security state, the CIA, the FBI, the DHS, the DNI, the NSA, all these officials from all these agencies that are built to all these officials from all these agencies that are built to never interfere in our domestic politics doing exactly that by claiming that all of this had the hallmarks of Russian
Now, even if it had been Russian disinformation, we all know that that was an outright lie.
The idea that tech companies are competent to assess that or to just blindly follow what the FBI tells them and censor whatever the FBI tells them to censor in the middle of an election is obviously alarming in the extreme.
And yet that's exactly what both Twitter and Facebook did.
Now, at the time, Twitter was run by its founder and CEO, Jack Dorsey, and he quickly apologized for the mistake that he said he allowed Twitter to make and just censoring all of those documents and He said it was a big mistake that Twitter did that.
Facebook has never said that, despite all sorts of efforts by myself and others to get them to account for what they did in 2020, which they've ignored.
Up until now, Mark Zuckerberg was sent A detailed list of questions by the GOP Judiciary Committee subcommittee that is investigating this, and in the letter that Mark Zuckerberg sent back on behalf of Meta, the company that owns Facebook, which we will show you, he made this extraordinary confession.
He said, yes, we did actively and aggressively suppress the spread of the reporting that came from Hunter Biden's laptop, but we didn't do so on our own accord.
We did so because the FBI told us, falsely as it turns out, That information was Russian disinformation.
He said, oh, we realized we made a mistake.
We're never going to do it again.
But it's amazing how so many of these mistakes only get acknowledged way after it's too late.
But what we now know, based on the media zone findings, based on the admissions that we got today and before from Facebook and from Twitter, is that the agencies of the U.S.
security state, the part of the government that is unaccountable and unelected, the permanent part of the Security State that was built never to aim at American citizens, only at foreign adversaries, only at foreign countries, is now an extremely active player in trying to manipulate our elections by demanding or encouraging or cajoling big tech platforms to censor information that might help
The Donald Trump campaign win and the censoring will help Joe Biden or whoever is running against Trump ensure that they can win.
That is so clearly on the historical record what has happened and it's hard to overstate the consequences of that to that democracy.
If we're going to look at that Facebook admission, this extraordinary confession, That contains some other confessions as well that have come from Mark Zuckerberg before about admissions that the U.S.
government was successfully forcing them to censor dissent on COVID that ended up being either debatable or even true that we've gone over before.
But this whole new admission gives crucial new light to what the story is.
And I don't want to just go back and make sure we have the right history on it.
I want to make sure that we can take a look at one of the most vivid and extreme cases, at least as of that date, To understand how far down the path we really are, why I keep talking about this and focusing on it as the grave threat it is to American democracy.
It's not just the free speech angle, it's also the interference of the security state in our domestic politics as aggressively as anything could be imagined.
We want to talk as well about the ongoing escalation on the attacks of free speech that have been taking place since October 7th, not by censoring conservative speech or silencing people who question gender ideology, that has been going on, that continues to go on, but the far more frequent and significant strain of censorship in the United States since October 7th, I'm talking here about people being fired from their jobs in journalism and academia,
People and groups being summarily closed and kicked out of school or banned from participating online?
Actual bills that have been passed and executive orders that have been implemented to severely restrict the range of views that Americans are permitted to express about not just Jews, but about Israel and the war in Israel in particular, to try and clamp down on having that range of views that were always considered free speech should now be free and no longer be considered free speech.
And there are some recent examples that are highly disturbing that none of these trends that for a while were justified on the shocking severity of October 11th, October 10th, just like a bunch of civil liberties erosions were justified in the wake of 9-11.
As we get even up almost a year away now from October 7th, none of these Attacks on the free speech rights of American citizens and the name protecting Israel are slowing down.
In fact, many of them are accelerating with a somewhat deafening silence from the people who have done very well for themselves over the past decade in branding themselves free speech warriors and people who are deeply offended by censorship.
So we want to tell you about some of those recent development as well.
Before we get to that, we have a few quick programming notes.
First of all, we are encouraging our viewers to download the Rumble app.
Once we do so, once you do so, it will work both on your smart TV and your telephone.
And then that means you can begin to follow the programs you most like to watch on the Rumble platform.
That obviously includes our show, but there can be other shows, as many as you want, that you, I hope, watch as well.
And once you do that, follow those shows, you can activate notifications, which we hope you will.
And that means the minute any of those shows go live on the platform, if they're a little late, if they're a little early, if they're going on at a time that they don't usually go on for breaking news, you will be notified by link to your email or your text, however you choose.
And you can just click on the link, begin watching the shows that you like to watch on this platform.
The minute they go live, you don't have to wait around, figure out who goes on when, try and keep track of everybody's new times.
You'll just be automatically notified by notifications right to your box.
That really does help the live viewing numbers of every show and therefore the Rumble platform 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, and follow our show on those platforms, it really helps spread the visibility of the show.
Finally, every Tuesday and Thursday night, once we're done with our live show here on Rumble, we move to Locals, which is part of the Rumble platform.
And as we said, we are in the studio in Locals here in Miami.
That platform is very important to our show.
It is the place where once we're done with our live show here every night, on Tuesday and Thursday night, we move to Locals, where we have our live interactive after show.
That after show is available only for members of our local community.
So if you want to join, Which gives you access to a whole wide range of interactive features.
It's the place we put a lot of original journalism that we can't make it onto the show.
It's where we publish written, professionalized transcripts of every program that we broadcast, that we publish transcripts there.
It is where the original written journalism that we do is first published before anyone else sees it.
And most of all, it is the community on which we really do rely to support the independent journalism that we're doing here every night.
Simply click the join button right below the video player on the Rumble page, and it will take you directly to that community.
For now, welcome to a new episode of System Update, starting right now.
So we have spent a great deal of time talking about the pre-2020 election that happened in the way that I just described it.
And the reason I have spent so much time on it is in part because I really do think it was a huge jump up the escalation ladder in terms of the way in which big tech censorship would be used to constrain the amount of information that American citizens could obtain for blatantly partisan reasons.
And by doing so, they were able to take stories, reporting, true reporting, That would have and should have been derogatory to the Joe Biden campaign and instead converted it into a weapon against the Trump campaign.
Because anytime Donald Trump or anyone else, including in media, tried to bring up any of this reporting and to ask Joe Biden about it, they would immediately be accused of promoting the Kremlin's propaganda.
That's Kremlin propaganda.
Our security agencies told us that.
Trump tried asking Biden about a debate and that's all Biden would say.
He said, that's Russian!
That's Russian!
Anytime you complain that media outlets aren't covering it, they would say you're trying to do Putin's work.
I remember a CBS reporter, Bo Erickson, one time Biden got off a plane and he confronted Joe Biden with questions like he should have done about some of this reporting.
And even his own colleagues started saying, what are you doing?
You're finishing Russian information for them.
You're acting as a tool of Russian information.
The most unjournalistic way possible to think.
All that matters when you're asking a question is, is it based in fact, not who else benefits from it?
That's what journalists do.
You demand of candidates, at least in theory, this is what you do if you're a journalist, a good journalist, is accountability for them to explain their views.
But the media did the opposite.
They shielded any of this information, any of this reporting, by claiming that it was Russian disinformation, which in turn was based on an absolute fabrication, a complete and utter lie.
That was first circulated in Political Magazine, published by the ultimate CIA stenographer and spokeswoman, Natasha Bertrand, who got promoted to CNN as a result of doing that.
And that was that first article that said the archive had all the Hallmarks of Russian disinformation.
The political turned it into 51 intelligence agencies say the Hunter Biden laptop is quote Russian disinformation and from there every media outlet repeated that over and over and used it as an excuse for not covering the substance of the reporting which was actually extremely relevant to Joe Biden's claim to be a person of integrity in pursuing the presidency.
That election was decided, the official results were by 80,000 votes in about four states.
Who knows The effect on that race had this reporting actually gotten to American voters instead being blocked by Mark Zuckerberg and Twitter because the FBI told them to based on what turned out to be an utter and complete lie.
Now, this incident has a lot of personal experience and personal importance for me because at the time, this is when I was still at the Intercept writing articles and doing reporting.
And although I had been very unhappy with the turn that that publication had taken into a partisan rag, I was still mostly able to write things I wanted.
And this was the first time when it would turn out that I wouldn't be able to write what I want, even though the contract I had said nobody can interfere in what I want since I founded the media outlet with two of my colleagues.
And they just ignored that because I wanted to write about the substantive revelations that these archives presented.
And I was told you can't do that, that the Content is unreliable because the FBI had said and the CIA had said that it was of questionable province and Russian disinformation.
And in fact, The Intercept Who I was told has very high editorial standards, and that's why we can't allow you to publish there.
Just five days earlier, had a former New York Times reporter, James Risen, publish an article in The Intercept, blindly repeating the CIA lie that those documents were Russian disinformation, so we didn't need any editorial proof if we were mouthing the orthodoxy of the intelligence community and the intelligence state.
And it was only if you wanted to question the intelligence state did you need some sort of high level of editorial scrutiny.
Ironic for a site that in 2014 said it was being created to be an adversary to the U.S.
security state, not a servant of it.
And of course I ended up leaving as a result of their refusal because I wasn't going to stay at a magazine that or a news site that tried to block my reporting for partisan ends.
No journalist of any good conscience can do that.
Now, we have very new information that comes from one of the main Players, one of the main perpetrators of the censorship regime, and that is Mark Zuckerberg, who is the CEO of Meta, which owns Facebook, and announced a decision at the time to censor a multitude of information.
First, information about COVID, whether questioning the efficacy of masks, questioning the efficacy of social distancing, remember that?
When everyone had to stand six feet apart, just like randomly stand six feet apart and wear paper masks.
and get fired if you didn't question the efficacy and safety of this vaccine that had come to the market so, so quickly.
When Trump said, I'm going to have it by the end of 2020, everyone laughed at him and said, no vaccine could possibly be safe by then.
And once it got announced that it was ready, as soon as it was out of Trump's hands, it became immoral to even You got kicked off the internet for all of that.
And Mark Zuckerberg has previously said, and again says in this letter, that he erroneously had Facebook censoring that, even though much of that debate and much of that content was not just false, but debatable or even true.
But then he also makes this confession about what Facebook did with regard to the 2020 election pre-reporting.
So he says the following, and here's from the House Judiciary Committee, which posted the letter.
Yesterday, and they summarize it this way, quote, Mark Zuckerberg just admitted three things.
Number one, the Biden-Harris administration, quote, pressured Facebook to censor Americans.
Two, Facebook censored Americans.
Three, Facebook throttled the Hunter Biden laptop story.
Big win for free speech.
Let's put that letter up, this new letter that Mark Zuckerberg sent.
Under compulsion to the House Judiciary Committee providing them information about the very significant censorship decisions they undertook right as they connect to our most consequential national debates, policy debates about COVID or especially about the 2000 election, 2020 election.
Here's what he said, quote, In 2021, senior officials from the Biden administration, including the White House, repeatedly pressured our teams for months to censor certain COVID-19 content, including humor and satire, and expressed a lot of frustration with our teams when we didn't agree.
Ultimately, it was our decision whether or not to take content down, and we own our decisions, including COVID-19-related changes we made to enforcement in the wake of this pressure, I believe the government pressure was wrong, and I regret that we were not more outspoken about it.
No, let's stop there.
It is theoretically true that if the FBI and the CIA come knocking on your door, and the White House too, and say, hey, this information that you're allowing on your platform, these debates that you're permitting, are spreading falsehoods and disinformation and will end up killing people.
Of course, if you have no principles, you're going to stand on the side of what's safe for your company and just take down whatever they tell you to take down.
I've watched editors of major newspapers do exactly that when they had a big story and the White House hears about it and the White House says, look, you shouldn't publish that story.
If you do, you're going to have blood on your hands.
And the editors will say, give us specifics, like how specifically would this reporting endanger anybody?
And they can't give the information.
They'll just keep repeating.
You'll have blood on your hands.
And these stories many times don't get published based on these very vague appeals to national security.
They've used that to try to stop the Snowden reporting all the time.
We said we're never going to listen to these cliched appeals about, oh, how it's going to harm national security.
You need to tell us specifically what revelation, how is it going to harm a specific system that is legitimate, that's protecting innocent people, and they could never do that.
I think one time they convinced us to remove one name of one country based on what some of us believed was a credible argument about why it might endanger innocent people if we published it.
But other than that, in every instance, we said no.
So while Mark Zuckerberg is technically right that, excuse me, that, excuse me, that they don't have to, There's no legal requirement if the government tells you to censor something that you do so.
Obviously, Facebook has immense and widely profitable relationships, all kinds of contracts with the U.S.
security state.
They're in bed together in so many ways.
But no company is going to be excited about rejecting a government's request to take down information if the government tells them, as the government does, that you'll have blood on your hands if you refuse our censorship orders.
And so Facebook obeyed, and now after the fact, they're saying, look, we were wrong about that.
Zuckerberg says, quote, I believe the government pressure was wrong, and I regret that we were not more outspoken about it.
I also think we made some choices that, with the benefit of hindsight and new information, we wouldn't make today.
Like I said to our teams at the time, I feel strongly that we should not compromise our content standards due to any pressure from the administration in any direction, and we're ready to push back if something like that happens again.
Again, it's very easy to confess things after they happen.
This is the history of the U.S.
security state.
There's been coups all over the world for decades.
And the people in those countries say, this was the CIA that interviewed in our country in order to facilitate this coup.
And the CIA says, we didn't have anything to do with your coup.
That's a conspiracy theory.
Prove it.
And nobody can prove it because all the evidence is top secret and you'll be a criminal.
You'll go to jail if you show it.
Like Edward Snowden.
And only years later, eight years, ten years later, does the evidence emerge that, of course, the CIA went to generals in that country and worked with them and financed them and directed them and planned it with them to overthrow the government that had been elected in that country that the United States disliked and imposed a tyranny instead.
But it only becomes known after the fact when people admit the truth, when they apologize for it, and then it gives people the impression, oh, all these abuses are a thing of the past.
They're not going to happen anymore.
People have said, oh, we're not going to lie again.
We're going to have more transparency.
And of course 10 years later goes by and people realize that everything has been happening exactly the same.
So while I do think this apology from Mark Zuckerberg is valuable, I guess, to eliminate any doubt about what actually happened here.
One should be very skeptical about this company's willingness or any company's willingness to stand up to the U.S.
government in pursuit of some principle like free speech or being nonpartisan in elections when doing so could actually harm their interests in so many ways.
Now, This is what the letter also goes to warn about.
In a separate situation, the FBI warned us about a potential Russian disinformation operation about the Biden family and Burisma in the lead up to the 2020 election.
That fall, when we saw a New York Post story reporting on corruption allegations involving then Joe Biden's presidential nominee, the Democratic presidential nominee, Joe Biden's family, we sent that story to fact checkers for review and temporarily demoted it while we were waiting for applied.
It has since been made clear that, in retrospect, the reporting was not Russian disinformation.
And we shouldn't have demoted this story.
We've changed our policies and processes to make sure this doesn't happen again.
For instance, we will no longer temporarily demote things in the U.S.
while waiting for fact-checkers.
Now, I just want to show you here, again, why, although I appreciate this confession, I think it's a positive contribution to the discourse for understanding what happened here, why I don't trust it as far as I can throw it.
I want to show you who it is that announced This decision by Facebook to suppress the reporting and exactly what happened.
So on October 14, 2020, which was the day of or the day after Twitter began blocking any attempts to link to or to discuss the New York Post story, a Facebook executive named Andy Stone went on to Twitter and Facebook to announce that Facebook was going to follow suit.
And one of the things that made this so notable And you can go and look at the biography of Andy Stone that's still online on Twitter and see what he did before joining Facebook.
He was a lifelong career Democratic Party operative.
He had worked for Nancy Pelosi.
He had worked for the former liberal Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer from California.
He had worked at the DCCC, the entity that is designed to maintain and ensure majorities of Democrats in Congress.
He worked within the Democratic Party in Washington.
He was a Democratic Party operative.
His whole life, not for a year or two.
That was what he was dedicated to.
The first job he ever got out of Washington was with Facebook.
So of all people for Facebook to pick and say, you go announce this policy that we are going to suppress, reporting about Joe Biden and his family, right before the election, we're not going to let Americans see it, because the FBI told us that it's Russian disinformation.
They picked the absolute worst person.
And I remember this like it was yesterday, because I wrote about it immediately.
I understood this was a major historical advance of censorship.
And this is what the tweet read.
He said, quote, This Democratic Party operative's term Facebook is just too above even linking to that dirty, sleazy New York Post story that shall not be named.
I want to be clear that this story is eligible to be fact-checked by Facebook's third-party fact-checking partners.
In the meantime, we are reducing its distribution on our platform.
Now, notice what it says.
This is 20 years ago now.
Sorry, four years ago now.
It says, We're not censoring this material because we have concluded that it's false.
We're censoring it because it is eligible for our fact-checking program.
And so we need it to be fact-checked.
But pending the fact-check, before the fact-check process is done, we're going to be suppressing its spread online.
Why would you do that?
As Mark Zuckerberg himself said yesterday, we should have waited to get a fact-check report back.
And if it was false, we could suppress it.
Now of course the reason I've been hammering this point in every venue I can, I've sent probably 8 emails to Andy Stone, multiple DMs to Andy Stone, every year I send multiple ones to him saying, hey you said you were gonna And of course we get no answer.
about this material that you ended up blocking right before the election on the Russian disinformation.
Everyone now knows that it wasn't Russian disinformation, that the material was true.
Where is Facebook's fact-checking?
What did the fact-checking process reveal?
Why hasn't Facebook shown it?
How long did Facebook suppress the sport?
Did they ever stop suppressing the story?
And of course, we get no answer.
And even in this market, I never got an answer from that.
I did everything I could.
I did videos about it.
I went on shows to talk about it.
I published the DMs of my questions to Andy Stone and to Facebook.
And here you now have the first explanation by Mark Zuckerberg.
And he's very kind of slimy about what it is that he actually admits, because he says, oh, well, the problem that we did was that we suppressed it pending a Facebook answer, waiting for a reply.
And the mistake simply was that we shouldn't have suppressed it until we got the Facebook, the fact-checking report back.
And he says, from now on, we're no longer going to temporarily demote things in the US while waiting for fact-checkers.
He says, we did send that story to fact-checkers for review and temporarily demoted it while waiting for a reply.
How long was it temporarily demoted?
He says, it's since been clear that in retrospect, the reporting was not Russian disinformation and we shouldn't have demoted When did you find that out?
Did you just find that out because every other media outlet with Biden safely elected was able to admit, yeah, of course the archive is 100% certain, and they even began using it themselves to report on the things they wanted to?
Did Facebook's fact-checkers, I'm sure they're incredibly apolitical and nonpartisan, these apolitical, nonpartisan fact-checkers, did they come back at any point?
And if they did, when did they come back and what did they say?
Did they say, no, actually these documents, this archive is fully truthful and it's the FBI that was lying to you and telling you what it is?
Zero transparency, zero clarity for a mega corporation that obviously has extreme amounts of influence on our discourse.
And that's why I say, this is PR transparency.
Apologizing for things that happened way in the past, pretending they're never going to do them again, But if faced with the same dynamic of the U.S.
government telling them they have to or they should for these reasons, I can guarantee you Facebook will make those same decisions again.
Now, as I said, this is not the first time Mark Zuckerberg has confessed to us that The Biden administration was in constant contact with Facebook, cajoling it and demanding it and complaining that they didn't obey on command.
And that many times Facebook ended up just censoring what was legitimate dissent on COVID policy.
We had a once in a generation epidemic.
And some of the measures that were proposed were draconian, even if you favor them.
Things like shutting down schools, firing people for Not opting to take an experimental vaccine, not allowing them to ask questions about its dangers or its efficacy, not letting your kids go to school or get on a plane or public transportation unless they can prove that you've had them vaccinated too.
I'm talking about small kids, 8, 10, where you think, well, I know COVID is extremely low risk for my 8-year-old and my 10-year-old, What I don't know is what is the risk of the COVID vaccine?
I mean, millions of people are taking them all over the world.
It seems like whatever risk there is is small, but could very well be the case that the risk of the vaccine is higher than the risk of the virus when it comes certainly to younger, healthier people who were dying in almost no numbers.
But that choice was destroyed.
That choice was removed from everybody because societies imposed mandates and lockdowns.
Where you couldn't function in society if you didn't have proof that you had vaccinated your children.
And nobody could debate this.
If you tried to debate it, you were kicked offline.
If you even tried to ask, wait, this explanation for the origin of the COVID vaccine does not seem like it's proven, what we were told in the first week was, no, we know exactly how this COVID virus reached humanity.
It simply jumped from the bat species to human species.
It was zoonic in nature.
It was part of the natural evolution of viruses skipping from animals to humans.
And all along, in the city where it originated, Was the Wuhan Institute of Virology that everybody knew was doing extremely manipulating experiments on exactly the type of virus, the family of viruses that had infected the world, the coronavirus.
And of course, the possibility that there was a lab leak right from ground zero of the coronavirus by the people who researched the coronavirus was an extremely obvious question.
And the people who told us they already knew for sure were lying.
Because Tony Fauci and Many of those top policy advisors in the first two weeks were getting letters from the leading epidemiologists telling them the exact opposite, that everything about this virus strongly suggests that it was made in a lab or that it had escaped from a lab, not that it occurred naturally from species jumping because the DNA made it clear that it had been manipulated in a lab.
But because that was a threat to scientists, because they felt like we're going to get blamed for it, because we've been doing these very dangerous gain-of-function research in China.
Remember, the U.S.
had funded a lot of that research, and they didn't want to be blamed for a worldwide pandemic.
They basically pronounced, even though they had no idea whether it was true, that they knew for certain that it had jumped from Animals to humans.
They decreed it in that Lancet article, one of the most scandalous medical journal scandals in decades.
There were people who had economic investments in claiming that, whose conflicts of interest weren't disclosed, and everybody now admits that they don't have anywhere near the evidence and never did of that level of certainty that they purported to have.
That caused all kinds of censorship online.
You could not, for the longest time, question that.
And Mark Zuckerberg, in an interview in June of 2023, for the first time, gave what was a pretty clear picture of not only the type of pressure the government was applying on big tech companies to censor COVID dissent, but also the types of dissent that was targeted.
Here's that interview.
So misinformation, I think is, um, has been a really tricky one because there are things that are Kind of obviously false, right?
That it may be factual, but may not be harmful.
So it's like, all right, are you gonna censor someone for just being wrong?
It's, you know, if there's no kind of harm implication of what they're doing, I think that that's, there's a bunch of real kind of issues and challenges there.
But then, I think that there are other places where it is, you know, just take some of the stuff around COVID earlier on in the pandemic, where there were You know, real health implications, but there hadn't been time to fully vet a bunch of the scientific assumptions.
And, you know, unfortunately, I think a lot of the kind of establishment on that, you know, kind of waffled on a bunch of facts and, you know, asked for a bunch of things to be censored that in retrospect ended up being, you know, more debatable or true.
And that stuff is really tough, right?
And really undermines trust in that.
Now, just to remind you of the key context, here is that political article that was written by Natasha Bertrand, who was heavily promoted in her career, who thrived in her career as a result of publishing this absolute lie.
On October 19, 2020, there was the headline of the story, Hunter Biden's Story is Russian Disinformation.
Dozens of former Intel officials say, And then the sub-headline was, more than 50 intelligence officials signed a letter casting doubt on the provenance of a New York Post story on the former vice president's son.
And then any time you looked at CNN or any of the network shows on Sunday, the graphic on the screen would have nothing about the content of the revelations.
They would simply have statements that it appeared that the Hunter Biden documents were nothing more than Russian disinformation, an attempt by Russia, once again, to interfere in our election to be able to help get Donald Trump elected.
A complete conspiracy theory, a fiction, a lie that bound our media outlets to this lie that persuaded or cajoled or incentivized big tech to then censor in a way that protected the Democrats.
This is a massive, multi-institutional, deliberate cover-up To protect Joe Biden from negative reporting in order to manipulate Americans into voting by controlling and censoring what it is that they could see and hear about the candidate that they want, all those institutions wanted them to go vote for.
It was so obvious at the time, the gravity of it, and the more that has come out, the more we see how grave it is.
Here was NPR on October 22nd, so just a couple days after that CNN story that kicked off the concerted lie, they were asked, the ombudsman was, of NPR, why haven't you seen any stories from NPR about the New York Post Hunter Biden story?
And then here's what the ombudsman of NPR replied, quote, we don't want to waste our time on stories that are not really stories.
And we don't want to waste the listeners and the readers time on stories that are just pure distractions.
This was a story about how Joe Biden used his massive influence in Ukraine, a country that he was basically running, and that he had used his influence already to put his son on the board of an energy company, Burisma,
Hunter Biden knew nothing about, and he was paid $50,000 a month to do it, and there were all of these other similar efforts to essentially profiteer off of and trade on Joe Biden's influence and power in those countries in a way that showed he was willing to use his political power to benefit and profiteer for his family.
And there were deal memos suggesting that Joe Biden himself would get 10% of some of these deal memos, and there were people who participated in those discussions who came forward and said that's exactly what it was.
You couldn't have had less of a distraction.
NPR didn't ignore the story because they thought it was a distraction.
NPR ignored the story because they knew it was not a distraction.
They knew that it was something that would reflect poorly on Joe Biden, and that was really the mindset.
I was inside a media outlet at the time that absolutely had this mentality, which is that they said we weren't going to make the same mistake that we made in 2016.
In 2016, we assumed that Hillary Clinton would win, so we published some negative stories about Hillary Clinton.
And once she actually ended up losing and Trump won, we felt guilty about it.
We felt like we didn't do our job, even though that is the job.
And in their minds, they decided that from now on, we're never going to do that.
We went through the other week about how they changed their editorial standards.
To say, even from now on, if we get information in our hands before an election, we're going to change radically what the interrogation of journalists had always been, which is, is the information authentic?
Is it relevant to the public interest?
And the answer to those two questions is yes.
You publish it.
There is no other inquiry.
And they said, no, from now on, we're going to ask a separate question, which is, did this material come from a foreign source?
Is the intention to interfere in our elections?
And even if the answer to the first two questions, yes, it's authentic, and yes, it's very much in the public interest to know about the candidates, they created this third option for themselves to conceal authentic, publicly relevant information because that was how they wanted to make sure that there wasn't another leak.
Like the one in 2016 that might undermine the Democratic candidate.
And as soon as they saw this leak, they decided to invoke those brand new standards that they had created to change journalism for the sole intention of defeating Donald Trump.
Now, just to give you a couple examples of how media outlets began once Biden was safely elected, admitting that the laptop was authentic, which you could tell all along.
Here was CBS News in November of 2022.
Quote, copy of what's believed to be in Hunter Biden's laptop data turned over to repair shop to FBI showed no tampering.
Analysis showed.
So there was no changing of these documents.
There was no tampering of it.
That was Hunter Biden's laptop.
It was given to Rudy Giuliani and others that made its way to the New York Post, and there was no tampering.
The Washington Post in March of 2022, about a year and a half after the election, said, here's how the Washington Post analyzed Hunter Biden's laptop.
Quote, two experts confirmed the veracity of thousands of emails Let's say a thorough examination was stymied by missing data.
So they not only authenticated thousands of documents from the email as fully real, they actually used them for their own reporting.
Here's what the New York Times did.
They were the first one in March of 2022.
So a year or so after the 2020 election, when all media was saying that this was Russian disinformation, the New York Times came out with this headline, Hunter Biden paid his tax bill, but broad federal investigation continues.
In the story, the New York Times wrote, again with Biden safely elected, the Justice Department inquiry into the business dealings of the President's son has remained active, with the grand jury seeking information about payments from around the world.
People familiar with the investigation said prosecutors had examined emails between Mr. Biden, Mr. Archer, and others about Burisma and other foreign business activity.
These emails were obtained by the New York Times from a cache of files that appears to have come from a laptop In other words, they did exactly what they could have done right before the election.
It's what I did.
and others in the cache were authenticated by people familiar with them and with the investigation.
In other words, they did exactly what they could have done right before the election.
It's what I did.
Let me explain to you how a journalist, when you get a big archive of information, of course you're excited about it.
Oh, this is a big archive from this place, about this person, about this person.
You're excited about it, but you know the first thing you have to do is make sure it's authentic and genuine, because if it's not authentic and it's manipulated and you publish it, it's going to ruin your career and credibility forever.
So the one thing you would never do is publish it or put your name on it unless you can confirm it's verified.
And even though it's a complex process, there are some easy ways to do it.
For example, if there's email chains in the archive, or chat chains in the archive, text chains, you can go to the people Who weren't involved in giving you the archive, but who were involved in a lot of those conversations.
And you can ask them, look, I have this archive.
I'm trying to authenticate it.
I have a lot of your emails.
Can you check on your phone and see if they match what's in the archive?
And then people who are your sources will come and say, yeah, look, here's my phone.
Here's my phone in real time.
You can see these discussions and then you compare them to what's in the archive and they match word for word.
You can analyze the metadata to make sure nothing was changed.
These were all the ways that we verified the Snowden reporting, that we verified WikiLeaks archives, that we verified the Brazil archive that we did that had so much consequence here in Brazil.
This is how it's done all the time.
I had gone through that many, many times and sort of watched the Intercept pretend that they didn't know how to verify this document because they were afraid of publishing anything about it in 2020.
And not just the Intercept, but every other major outlet was disgusting.
It was such an obvious lie.
And it was only once they had no need anymore to protect Joe Biden since he was safely elected that they go and do all those things that we did, I did, before the election that anyone could have done before the election but that nobody wanted to do.
The real concern here is that there has become a very big partisan gap in the type of people who actually want the internet to be censored by both the government and the big tech platforms and those who don't.
And I think that's what I'm saying.
And we can put you, we can put this document on the screen.
This is a Pew poll from August of 2021.
We've shown you this before.
There's been similar polling taken since that first question there.
that you see is, do you favor having the U.S.
government be able to censor information from the internet based on the attempt to word out or to clean the internet of disinformation?
And you see this.
It used to be a pretty close split among Democrats, which is the blue line, and Republicans, which is the red line.
They were pretty much 50-50 on that question.
I had very similar views back in, say, 2018.
But by 2020-21, the year of the Trump, the Democrats' support for this explodes and the Republicans go down.
And so, Large pluralities of Democrats now favor having the state, the government, and big tech censor the internet in the name of stopping disinformation.
And while it's still an unhealthily high number of Republicans, it's still a minority.
You see this partisan split because they realize that the way in which censorship is being undertaken by the U.S.
security state is being done not adversely to the Democratic Party, but as an ally of it.
And of course, therefore, they support it.
And that was one of the things Mark Zuckerberg essentially admitted today, which is why I found this letter so crucial, as he was basically saying what we were turned into was a weapon of partisan warfare by the way that the government was censoring.
We believed the FBI and CIA when they came to us and told us what ultimately wasn't true, that we should take this information down because it was Russian disinformation.
And you can analyze how much you want to blame to assign to Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook.
He thinks they deserve some.
I think they do too.
The really menacing part of all this is the role that our security state agencies, the people who don't move, no matter when there's an election, they stay right there.
Democrats come and go.
Republicans come and go.
Those people stay there.
They don't move.
They know Washington far better than any of the new presidents.
They have weapons that they can use in every way.
Remember when Rachel Baddow had Chuck Schumer on her show in 2017 and they were talking about Trump's confrontation with the CIA and Chuck Schumer said, well, leave ethics aside.
Everyone, Trump thinks he's a smart businessman.
Everyone in Washington knows you don't take on the CIA.
If you take on the CIA, they have six different ways to Sunday to get back at you.
I mean, such an extraordinary true admission of what an illusion and farce our democracy is.
And the more those security agencies, the more those intelligence agencies intervene directly in our elections to manipulate outcomes by encouraging or cajoling or demanding or forcing The censoring of so-called disinformation from the internet, the weaker and weaker our democracy is going to get.
And that's why I continually warn every time there's a new line that gets pushed forward, a new legal mechanism that allows governments to do this through their courts and through their government, they're taking this, what had been this sort of ad hoc system that they used in 2020 and are now systematizing it and implementing it legally under the courts and the judges.
And the governments that control them to say, oh no, we're abiding by the rule of law.
And people who speak in a certain way on the internet are now guilty of various crimes that we deem to be disinformation or fake news or hate speech.
And we've made it a crime in our country to spread disinformation.
And so if you go online and say something that we think is wrong, That can be a crime, and it can even be a crime, which is the Pavlodurov story that we covered last night.
if you are allowing people to use a platform to speak in a way that does not comport with the censorship requirements of the state.
You can see in such a vivid historical example, the very grave dangers that are posed by allowing things of this kind to continue to take root.
All right, so we have been spending a lot of time reporting on the abridgment of free speech in the name of restricting the free speech rights of those who criticize Israel, who those are activists against the Israeli war in Gaza, which, remember, is a U.S. fight.
funded and U.S.
armed war.
So people in the United States have every right to protest against their own government's policy, certainly their own government's war policy.
This is not just an Israeli war.
This is American war as well.
We're paying for the war.
We're arming the war.
And whatever your views are on Israel, the war in Israel, I would hope you strongly believe that those principles of protest and dissent against our government's war policies have every right to be protected.
And yet that's not what's been happening since October 7th.
So many people who think they believe and who say they believe in the cause of free speech Have a much greater and more intense loyalty, which is to this foreign country called Israel.
So much so that if you tell people you're censoring in the name of protecting them or silencing or even punishing the harshest critics, the most vocal critics of this foreign country, they will find a way in their brain to justify it.
They'll be like, no, I'm a big free speech guy.
I just like, in this case, think we can't allow this kind of hate speech.
This is hate speech.
These are people who hate Jews.
We can't allow them to speak.
And you make exactly the same argument about suppressing right-wing speech.
Oh, I believe in free speech.
I'm a leftist.
I love free speech, but we can't allow racism, like homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
These are dangerous things.
These can incite violence.
We can't allow that.
That's not speech.
That's hate speech.
It's the same exact mentality.
The same exact mentality.
Oh, those are insurrectionists.
You can't allow them to speak.
Oh, these are terrorists.
You can't allow them to speak.
And we've been hearing from the right forever that words are not violent.
So these are not people planting bombs and killing innocent people.
These are people who are expressing views about Israel, and especially the Israeli war in Gaza.
And that doesn't make them terrorists, but even if it did, the goal is to, if they do a terrorist act, is to go and convict them, not to silence them from free speech.
And yet there's been this growing, never-ending, continuing Escalation, enlargement of an attempt to suffocate the free speech rights of Americans in defense of the people of Israel.
And I want to hope that you can focus on these principles and the consequences of them independent of your views of the Israeli state.
Here today is from the student group at Columbia, Students for Justice for Palestine.
They have actually had been closed at some point during October 7th.
And they made this announcement, quote, as the school year is just about to begin, Columbia SJP has been permanently banned from Instagram.
Our account was permanently deleted at 124,000 followers at the same time as our backup account.
And when we made a new page, it was deleted within two days.
Now let's recall that the justification for banning President Trump from Twitter and Facebook and other platforms was that he was using those platforms to organize violent protests.
That was the rationale used.
And the reason, one of the reasons why I was so fanatically opposed to that and raised my voice so loudly against it was because you couldn't classify Donald Trump's speech about the integrity of the election as advocacy of the use of violence.
And even if he had been, as the First Amendment protects, you even have the right to advocate violence.
You have every right.
Excuse me.
You have every right to say that, I mean, it's very hard to sneeze elegantly live on the air, but I feel like I'm managing to do that with each sneeze that comes by.
I think I'm handling it better.
Please leave your comments about that.
The reason why this is so dangerous is because the broadness of free speech is very important.
It even includes The right to defend the theoretical justification of violence.
So you're allowed to stand up in a speech and say, I've been studying Israeli repression of Palestinians and the brutal suppression of Palestinians for decades.
I believe that it's justified morally, legally, ethically justified for the Palestinians to use violence as a means of resistance.
The way that it was for the Americans being repressed by the British Crown were justified in using violence as a way of earning their rights and gaining their rights.
You may not like that view.
You may not agree with it.
You may be horrified by it, but it's absolutely undoubtedly well within the range of protected speech by the First Amendment.
One of the things that happened at the very beginning of October 7th is that Ron DeSantis and then other red state governors issued an executive order banning pro-Palestinian groups from campus.
And when people said, how can you just ban student groups from campus based on their ideology that you dislike?
Their argument was, oh no, this speech provides material support for terrorist groups.
Because by criticizing Israel or the Israeli war, it benefits terrorist groups and free speech groups like FIRE and others said.
You can't create a material support for terrorism crimes simply based on someone's views and vehemently condemn Ron DeSantis and other red state governors for doing so even though FIRE has become a popular group among conservatives because they've also defended conservative speech.
If you think for one second if you're on the right that this kind of rationale is only going to be confined to the people you hate most, the people who criticize Israel, you're being extremely naive.
It is unbelievably easy to see how the same theory could, has been, and will continue to be weaponized against you for your own speech as well based on this theory that you seem to be Hearing because now it's Palestinian groups that are being silenced instead of Federalist Society or more extreme right-wing groups.
We've seen Wall Street firms screening for people who exercise their constitutional right to participate in protests against the Israeli war.
Imagine if you wanted to go out and protest Biden's policy of arming and funding the war in Ukraine, or if your son went to, or daughter went to, a protest on college campus to protest against the Biden administration's fueling of the war in Ukraine, saying it's killing a lot of people, it's risking a nuclear escalation that is very dangerous to our country, and then a bunch of really rich hedge fund billionaires on Wall Street got up as firms got together and said,
Anyone who participated in this constitutionally protected protest against our government's war policies relating to Ukraine will now be unhirable.
We're going to screen people who participated in any way and not hire people who have done that.
That is what many Wall Street law firms have done, as you see here from Fox Business in July 10, 2024.
Top Wall Street law firms are screening job applicants for participation in anti-Israel protests.
Here from the New York Times in August of 2024, they report new training and tougher rules how colleges are trying to tame Gaza protests.
Quote, university officials are spelling out strict codes around protests.
They say they are trying to be clear.
Others say they are trying to suppress speech.
On Monday, the University of California's president, Michael Drake, told campus chancellors to ensure that the policies including bans on unapproved encampments and quote masking to conceal identity.
Columbia University where contentious protests helped drive Nemet Shaflik from her 13-month presidency on August 14th is limiting campus accent.
Northwestern University said the students would receive quote mandatory training on anti-semitism and other forms of hate with more policy changes.
And there's a lot of other schools who are now changing their policies in particular because of this executive order issued by Greg Abbott that requires school to monitor political speech to determine whether any of it is, quote, anti-Semitic in speech.
He also issued an executive order saying anti-Semitism will no longer now be legal in Texas.
There has been that law, the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act, that had a long list of commonly expressed views about Israel and American Jews and Zionists that are now deemed, under this bill that passed the House, illegal in the education context.
You can be sued, you can be sanctioned as a student if you, say, compare the Israeli siege of Gaza to the Nazi siege of Warsaw.
You can debate that idea.
That's what colleges are for.
You engage in ideas and you debate them and you contest them and you find out the truth through free debate.
But to punish people as bigots for drawing that historical comparison and all in an attempt to protect israel while maligning and undermining and weakening the free speech rights of americans for anyone who believes in free speech that should not take much effort to understand why they're also including at facebook these new policies now that are not only aimed at people who are criticizing jews but also criticizing zionists
here from the a statement from meta the parent company of facebook on july 9th quote update from the policy forum on our approach to the quote word use of zionist as a proxy for hate speech after hearing input and looking at research from different perspectives we will now remove speech targeting quote zionist in several areas which Where our process showed that the speech tends to be used to refer to Jews and Israelis with dehumanizing comparison, calls for harm, or denial of existence.
Going forward, we will move content attacking, quote, Zionists, when it is not particularly explicitly about the political movement, but instead uses anti-Semitic stereotypes or threatens other types of harm through intimidation or violence directed against Jews or Israelis under the guise of attacking Zionists, including, quote, claims about running the world or controlling the media.
Dehumanizing comparisons such as comparisons to pigs, filth, or vermin, calls for physical harm, denial of existence, mocking for having a disease.
Now, it is unbelievable because Zionism is not the defining religious approach of Judaism that goes back thousands of years, the way the Koran is for Muslims or the Christian Bible is for Christians.
Zionism is a brand new ideology that basically didn't exist until the early part of the 20th century.
And when it was introduced, the idea being that we should have a state reserved for Jews, it should be a Jewish in character, should be guaranteed a majority of Jews, basically should be an ethno-state for Jews, it was an incredibly controversial new ideological view.
Controversial not only around the world, but among Jews themselves.
Many Jews thought that the concept of Zionism and a Jewish state was contrary to Jewish religious values.
We had on our program several Jewish religious scholars who explained in great, with great calmness, with great sober analysis, obviously why they're deeply felt, genuinely held religious convictions as Jews, make Zionism as a concept, in their view, a violation of what God wants for Jews.
There are obviously an enormous number of Jews who oppose Zionism for other reasons, including believing that the Zionist state has become aggressively an occupier force, has been engaging in all sorts of brutality in Gaza.
The idea that you cannot not engage in debate about Zionists without being assumed to be speaking about Jews, even though it's a political ideology that many non-Jews adopt.
Joe Biden has said, I'm a Zionist.
And he pointed out correctly, you don't have to be a Jew to be a Zionist.
It's a set of beliefs about the world, not confined to any one group.
And there are millions of Jews.
I don't know about millions, but certainly a non-trivial number, hundreds of thousands at least.
Who are harshly critical of Zionists or who do not identify with it.
It would be like saying you're no longer allowed to debate critical race theory because that's used as a proxy for spreading hate speech about black people.
You're no longer allowed to debate gender ideology because that's a proxy for spreading hate about trans people.
You're no longer allowed to debate immigration numbers and immigration restrictions because that can be perceived as hatred for immigrants who are already in the country.
Again, it might sound appealing as a theory when it's applied in your favor, but you should think not about what will happen when it's applied in your favor, but when someone wants to take the principle that you're gratifying and supporting and apply it in a way that you would feel a lot more threatened by, and that's always what is going to happen.
Lee Fong, who is a good friend of our show, and Jack Paulson, his co-writer, published a substack in July of 2024.
We had them on the show that said, quote, TikTok to ban some criticisms of Zionism following pressure from an NGO backed by former Israeli intelligence officials.
Actually, we haven't had them on yet to talk about this story, but you should definitely check that story out.
You put all these things together, One of the ways TikTok is trying to save itself from losing access to the extremely lucrative American market is by proving, as harshly as they can, that they will censor pro-anti-Israel speech or pro-Palestinian speech with the same aggression as Republicans have pressured colleges and universities to do so, other tech platforms to do so, That's one of the ways TikTok is trying to save itself.
As we've shown you before, the TikTok ban has been lurking around Washington for years and couldn't get anywhere near majority.
And it was only able to get passed after October 7th because the Democrats who weren't willing to sign on in the name of China became convinced, they said so, this is not my theory, that they started to believe there was too much free speech permitted on TikTok specifically about Israel and Palestine.
And that was why younger people were turning against Israel.
It wasn't because of fears of China.
It was to protect Israel that that TikTok bill finally got banned, passed.
And one of the ways TikTok is trying to avoid this ban now is by showing that they will censor whatever American officials want.
And that, of course, includes censoring all sorts of content that is critical of the Israeli government and the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians in West Bank, but also in the war in Gaza.
And in free speech, it should never matter what your view of the substance is.
Who do you agree with?
Who do you not?
Except to the extent that I think when you see people being censored, fired from their jobs for expressing a view, having laws passed designed to prevent them from existing, having all sorts of new structures and barriers to prevent them from organizing, In the event that you see that and see that the people who are being targeted are people with whom you vehemently disagree, that's the time when it's most important to stand up and say, I'm not going to cheer for this.
I'm not going to permit this because I know if I do that, aside from being just wrong on its own merits, we're in the United States.
We allow free speech.
People can say whatever they want.
They can have whatever opinions they want of Israel or the war in Gaza.
If they, whatever they want, they're allowed to have.
That's free speech.
But even if you don't care about the principle, the fact that you're going to cheer a theory or a framework that can easily then be used against you, and likely will, is just self-defeating.
It's extremely easy to stand up for free speech.
Extremely easy.
It's almost automatic when the views that are being targeted are ones you like or ones that you share.
It's only meaningful in those cases where the people who are being censored are people who hold views that you find most offensive.
And that is where your free speech advocacy not only matters, but it's the only place to test its actual authenticity.
All right, so that concludes our show for this evening.
As a reminder, System Update is also available in podcast form.
You can listen to every program 12 hours after their first broadcast live here on Rumble on Spotify, Apple, and all the major podcasting platforms.
If you rate, review, and follow our show there, it really helps spread the visibility of the show.
Finally, as a reminder, every Tuesday and Thursday night, once we're done with our live show here at Rumble, we move to Local, where we have our live interactive aftershow, where we take your questions, comment on your feedback and critiques, hear your suggestions for future shows and guests.
Those aftershows are available only for members of our Locals community, so if you want to join, you can get access to those aftershows, a bunch of multi-interactive features we have on the site to maintain communication with you throughout the week, It's the place we publish written, professionalized transcripts of every show that we do here.
It's where we first publish our original content, original journalism that we can't put on the show, including interviews and the like.
And most of all, it is the community on which we most rely to support the independent journalism that we're doing here every night.
Simply click the join button right below the video player on the Rumble page and we'll take you directly to that community.
Just as a reminder because we are in a new studio where we basically right up until the last minute we're tying together a bunch of shoelaces and wires and kind of connect fuses just to make sure that the show worked we weren't really able to figure out how to do this after show the right way so assuming that we have this figured out better tomorrow we could Take the Tuesday night after show that we were planning on doing tonight and do it instead on Wednesday and then have our one on Thursday.
We can move it to Wednesday and Friday.
We'll see what works best.
Probably not having two right in a row, but we'll definitely let you know.
But that's the reason we sort of figured all this out at the last second.
I think it all ended up working well, but we don't have the ability to then, on top of that, remotely try and do
