Lab Leak Revelations Prove Corrupt Suppression of COVID Dissent; CNN Boots Jim Acosta: Who & What is a "Journalist"?
The latest lab leak revelations demonstrate the total suppression of COVID dissent well into the pandemic from both the government and corporate media. Plus: the intrepid reporter Jim Acosta dramatically leaves CNN, vowing to stand up to tyrants and defend press freedom...even though he has never advocated for journalists like Julian Assange who have suffered for reporting the truth.
------
Watch full episodes on Rumble, streamed LIVE 7pm ET.
Become part of our Locals community
Follow System Update:
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Facebook
LinkedIn
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Welcome to a new episode of System Update, our live nightly show that airs every Monday through Friday at 7 p.m.
Eastern, exclusively here on Rumble, the free speech alternative to YouTube.
Tonight, it has long been forgotten by many, but it was completely prohibited during the first year of the COVID pandemic, at least, even to question the origins of the virus.
That's because Anthony Fauci had his various minions issue a decree in the Lancet.
In a now notorious proclamation at the very start of the pandemic announcing falsely that it was already scientifically proven that COVID began with an organic, natural, genotic leap from animal species to humans.
As a result, they proclaimed any discussion of the possibility that the virus leaked from the coronavirus lab in Wuhan, China, was deceitful disinformation, racist, and an attack on science.
Since then, the FBI, as well as the elite scientific unit of the Department of Energy under Joe Biden, not only rejected that certainty, but concluded the opposite, that it is more likely than not that the virus came from a lab leak, not from a zoonotic animal-to-human leap.
The CIA this week announced findings of an investigation conducted under the Biden administration that concluded the same thing.
It is the agency's official position now that COVID came from a leak in the Wuhan lab.
Now, it goes without saying that the mere fact that these agencies believe this to be true does not prove that it is in fact true.
They often err and they often lie.
But what is undoubtedly true is the extent to which our leading scientific organizations, health entities, corporate media outlets, and big tech, along with the government, all conspired to censor key debates on one of the most consequential debates of the last century, namely what our response should be to COVID. And they did so based on a claimed certainty that, yet again, they simply did not possess.
And in doing so, labeled as disinformation beliefs that turned out to be Then CNN's Jim Acosta was told that he could stay at the network only if he agreed to host a show in the middle of the night.
Nobody even watches CNN in primetime.
Imagine how lonely it would be to host a show at 1 a.m.
As a result, today he announced on the network that he was leaving CNN, making clear he was doing so because he did not want to be relegated to the bewitching hours.
He took the opportunity, needless to say, to once again depict himself as a singularly and shockingly brave reporter who has become the conscience of the nation through his relentless and noble bravery in standing up to power, whatever the cost.
Liberals and other assorted Democratic partisans are, for totally understandable reasons, lamenting Acosta's departure.
In fact, they're indignant about it.
If you were them, wouldn't you be?
He was a 24-hour-a-day propaganda machine for the Democratic Party masquerading as a journalist.
But given that he has, in fact, been held up by some, including his own colleagues as some sort of model of American journalism, it is well worth using his portrayal.
And now his forced resignation to examine the vital questions of what has been meant by the words journalist and journalism inside these corporate news outlets and to see how they are possibly changing.
Before we get to all of that, we have a few programming notes.
First of all, we are encouraging our viewers to download the Rumble app.
If you do so, it works on your smart TV, your telephone, your Xbox, and many other devices.
Once you do that, you can follow the programs you most like to watch on this platform.
And then...
If you do that and activate notifications, which we hope you will, it means the minute any of those programs you follow begin broadcasting live on the platform, you'll be immediately notified by link or text or email, however you want.
You can just click on the link, begin watching the shows only once they're actually broadcasting live.
It really helps the live viewing numbers rumble and therefore the free speech cause of rumble itself.
As another reminder, System Update is also available in podcast form.
You can listen to every episode 12 hours after they first are broadcast live here on Rumble on Spotify, Apple, and all the major podcasting platforms where if you rate, review, and follow our program, it really does help spread the visibility of the show.
Finally, every Tuesday and Thursday night, once we're done with our live show here on Rumble, we move to Locals where we have our live interactive after show.
Although tonight is Tuesday, we won't be having an after show simply because we're retooling some aspects of what we're going to do in this after show.
We will be back on Thursday to share with you some of the ideas, implement some of the changes.
We're just kind of figuring out what that after show should be, how best to serve Our locals members.
If you want to have access to those aftershows, it gives you access not just to those.
It's for our members of our locals community only.
And if you join, you get the aftershows as well as a whole variety of interactive features that we have on that platform.
It's the place we put a lot of original, exclusive video content.
We don't have time to publish here.
We put written, professionalized transcripts of every show we broadcast here.
We publish them.
On that platform the next day.
And most of all, it is the community, Locals is, on which we rely to support the independent journalism that we do here every night.
Simply click the Join button right below the video player on the Rumble page, and it will take you directly to that community.
For now, welcome to a new episode of System Update, starting right now.
One of the things that we have covered most often is the development in the wake of the 2016 defeat by Donald Trump of Hillary Clinton, as well as the decision by the British
people to leave the EU of this censorship industrial complex that has been designed to impose on the Internet wide-ranging censorship frameworks to prevent debate on the most consequential issues of the day.
And we've obviously covered both that industry as well as censorship in the abstract and the evils of it.
The importance of free speech and specific instances of censorship, but undoubtedly one of the most extreme events that ushered in a new round, a whole new universe, in fact, of systemic Internet censorship was the COVID pandemic.
And at the time, it seemed evident exactly what was taking place, but because censorship was so aggressively imposed throughout the West, but also in the United States, on any attempt to question, let alone deviate from, The pronouncements of Dr. Anthony Fauci and the entire Western scientific establishment.
It was extremely difficult even to protest the censorship because the censorship meant that very few people were hearing any dissent.
That's the whole purpose of censorship after all.
And as a result, huge numbers of people believed that what they were being told was not just true, but so unquestionably true that we shouldn't even allow any dissent to it.
That dissent to it was dangerous.
And we've seen a lot of evidence over the last couple of years emerge, as it so often does, that so many of those original claims that were made by Fauci and his associates inside the scientific community that they decreed and proclaimed with absolute scientific certainty the point that they said nobody should be allowed to question us and he dissent to our pronouncements is an attack on science and will kill people.
And it succeeded in persuading large institutions throughout the West to simply bar any dissent from COVID. We're now seeing enormous amounts of evidence that demonstrates that not only were most of the views that were censored viable and reasonable with ample basis to believe, but in many cases, especially on the core question that was most censored, which is what was the origin of COVID. The censorship was directed at views that, as it turned out, were true.
The claims that were being protected with censorship from dissent were the claims that turned out to be false.
We have the latest part of the government that today, or this week rather, came out and made clear that they now believe as well that the most likely origin of COVID was not as Fauci and his associates insisted they knew.
to be a animal to human leap that occurs in nature, but rather a lab leak from the Wuhan lab in Wuhan, the place where coincidentally the COVID virus and pandemic began.
Here from the New York Times on January 25th, the CIA now favors the lab leak theory to explain COVID's origin.
A new analysis that began under the Biden administration is released by the CIA's new director, John Ratcliffe, who wants the agency to get, quote, off the sidelines in the debate.
Quote, there is no new intelligence behind the agency's shift, officials said.
Rather, it is based on the same evidence it has been chewing over for months.
The analysis, however, is based in part on a closer look at the conditions in the high security lab in Wuhan province before the pandemic outbreak, according to people familiar with the agency's work.
Intelligence officials interviewed in recent weeks say it is possible that such a piece of evidence exists in a lab in China, at least in theory, but they said it is still more likely that the answers to questions surrounding the virus's origin will come through a scientific breakthrough, not a intelligence revelation.
Under the Biden administration, the intelligence community leaned toward the theory that the virus came from the market, but officials readily admitted it was hardly a sure thing.
This is what is so offensive about it.
I know there are still people who believe that it was more likely than not that it came from a wet market or because the Chinese ate bats and that transmitted the virus and enabled it to sleep into the human species.
And I don't even really have that much of an interest in trying to insist that you're wrong.
The issue here is that that debate was foreclosed from the beginning based on absolutely false, knowingly false assertions of scientific certainty that Fauci and his associates simply never had.
They misled and deceived the public about the level of their knowledge about COVID's origin.
And they did so not with any benevolent or noble intentions to protect the public, but to protect themselves, because it turns out that so many of them We're invested in or had funded or approved of or knew about or worked on exactly the kind of work in Wuhan that made a lab leak and made a coronavirus highly contagious to humans,
much likelier than the naturally occurring virus by manipulating what the virus was, engaging in gain-of-function research and then lying about it.
And they were petrified that if the world knew, That the reason that this pandemic had been unleashed, that had terrified the entire world, that they helped terrify the world, came not from some natural occurrence that they were the saviors, but rather from their own work.
And people began blaming these scientists.
They knew that would be very dangerous for them, and so they used their scientific credentials.
They exploited them and manipulated them right at the start before almost anything was known to lie and claim that they had already determined.
That it was a naturally occurring zoonotic leap and that there was no basis for believing that it came from the lab and anyone claiming that was guilty of racist disinformation.
Now, as I said, throughout the Biden years, agencies within the government started to slowly acknowledge that there was ample evidence for a lab leak and that they believed that it was the likelier Origin of the pandemic.
Here from BBC in March of 2023, FBI Chief Christopher Wray says China lab leak is most likely.
FBI Director Christopher Wray has said that the Bureau believes COVID-19 most likely originated in a Chinese government-controlled lab.
Quote, the FBI has for quite some time now assessed that the origins of the pandemic are most likely a potential lab leak, he told Fox News.
It is the first public confirmation of the FBI's classified judgment of how the pandemic virus emerged.
A few days before that, CNN reported, this is February of 2023, the U.S. Energy Department assesses that the COVID-19 pandemic likely resulted from a lab leak, furthering U.S. intelligence divide over the virus origin.
Quote, the U.S. Department of Energy has assessed that the COVID-19 pandemic most likely came from a laboratory leak in China, according to a newly updated classified intelligence report.
Two sources said the Department of Energy assessed in the intelligence report that it had, quote, low confidence the COVID-19 virus accidentally escaped from a lab in Wuhan.
Some of them have said, but with a low level of certainty, that the virus did not start in a lab, but instead jumped from animals to humans.
The White House has said there is no consensus across the U.S. government on the origins.
A joint China-World Health Organization investigation in 2021 called the lab leak theory, quote, extremely unlikely.
However, the WHO investigation was deeply criticized, and its director general has since called for a new inquiry, saying, quote, all hypotheses remain open and require further study.
This is not just an issue of the past.
This is so important to understand what happened here, especially with this new evidence from the CIA, because this is the sort of thing that happens continuously to this day, is these people step forward, they cite their credentials, they claim they have superior knowledge to you.
And they do that not with the intention of saying to you that you should listen to what they have to say and be open-minded and perhaps be persuaded by them.
That would be reasonable.
Instead, they say that they possess alone the absolute truth, so much so that any attempt to question them or dissent from anything they're saying is so dangerous that it has to be...
That is the foundational premise of the censorship regime with which we are living, still living, even if this COVID pandemic seems like ancient history, it is not.
In February of 2020, right as the pandemic was emerging, it was still situated in China.
It had spread to Iran and then to Spain and Italy, where we were hearing all kinds of terrifying reports and bracing for its arrival in the United States.
This is how the New York Times reacted when Tom Cotton, a Republican from Arkansas, speculated that perhaps the virus originated not from the zoonotic leap of animals to humans, but instead from a leak from the Wuhan lab.
Quote, Senator Tom Cotton repeats fringe theory of coronavirus origins.
Remember, this was February of 2020. No one had heard of the coronavirus until about two months previously.
And the New York Times pretended that it was so obviously true, so scientifically demonstrated, that you had this natural leap and it wasn't from a leak from scientists' own work in the Wuhan lab that they were calling people who suggested otherwise guilty of spreading fringe theories.
Here's how they talked about it.
Quote, scientists have dismissed suggestions that the Chinese government was behind the outbreak, but it's the kind of tale.
The rumor appeared shortly after the new coronavirus struck China and spread almost as quickly that the outbreak now affecting people around the world had been manufactured by the Chinese government.
The conspiracy theory lacks evidence and has been dismissed by scientists, but it has gained an audience with the help of well-connected critics of the Chinese government, such as Steve Bannon, President Trump's former chief strategist.
And on Sunday, it got its biggest public boost yet.
Speaking on Fox News, Senator Tom Cotton raised the possibility that the virus had originated in a high-security biochemical lab in Wuhan, this Chinese city, at the center of the outbreak.
Quote, we don't have evidence that this disease originated there, the senator said.
But because of China's duplicity and dishonesty from the beginning, we need to at least ask the questions to see what the evidence says.
And China right now is not giving evidence on that question at all.
Do you see how these newspapers, these news outlets like the New York Times speak so authoritatively, so smugly, so derisively about anybody who expresses a view different than the one they've decreed to be the true one, even though they had no basis whatsoever in February of 2020?
For being so certain or smug about anything, but because they had obedience to Tony Fauci and to that entire public health establishment, this is what they do all the time.
They publish things in their newspaper, pretend that they have certainty over them, and so often they're at best debatable and more often than not false.
Do you see the tone that they use?
So if you were reading in 2020...
And you were scared of what this COVID pandemic was, and you trusted the New York Times, you would really believe that it was already determined by all scientists who all agree that it lead from human to animal, and that anybody even questioning the possibility that it came from a Wuhan lab were doing so because they're conspiracy theorists who hate China.
Here's what Tom Cotton said when he went on Fox News.
Remember, this is February 2020, before the virus even got to the United States.
We have to get to the bottom of that.
We also know that just a few miles away from that food market is China's only biosafety level 4 super laboratory that researches human infectious diseases.
Now, we don't have evidence that this disease originated there, but because of China's duplicity and dishonesty from the beginning, we need to at least ask the question to see what the evidence says.
And China right now is not giving any evidence on that question at all.
So this super lab that you refer to, this super lab is the only one of its kind in this area, in Wuhan, in the province, that area.
And what do they do with this super lab?
It's unclear, Maria.
We have such laboratories ourselves in the United States run by our military in large part done for preventative purposes.
We're trying to discover vaccines or to protect our own soldiers.
Of course, China is obviously very secretive about what happens at the Wuhan laboratory.
We don't know, again, where this virus originated.
That's why it's so important that we at least ask the questions and get the evidence.
But China continues to block our ability to ask those questions and get that evidence.
Now, just one thing about what he said there, which is like, oh, by the way, we also do this research, meaning we also manufacture and create and weaponize biologists.
Biological weapons, and you recall we've reported on this before.
I've reported a lot on the anthrax attacks in 2001. That came very shortly after the 9-11 attacks, and it really elevated the fear levels inside the United States.
They were falsely blamed on Iraq.
John McCain went on David Letterman, the first show that David Letterman had back after 9-11, and he said the telltale signs in this anthrax that was released inside the United States suggest strongly that Saddam Hussein's...
Biological weapons program is behind it, already laying the groundwork for the war propaganda and the lies that would come.
And of course, as it turned out, according to the FBI at least, the perpetrator of those anthrax attacks was actually somebody who worked inside a U.S. military research facility at Fort Detrick, meaning that the United States government was itself weaponizing that anthrax.
And when they got caught, no one really knew that they were weaponizing biological agents.
Their excuse was exactly what Tom Cotton said.
Oh, we just do it because we need to study these kinds of things in case China or Russia or Iran or the bad countries that do work on this attack us.
We just need to figure out what a cure would be, not because we ourselves are weaponizing it, perish the thought, even though the worst biological attack in the United States, in the United States history, came from a U.S. Army facility, according to the FBI. But what he was saying there was simply like, look, the coronavirus Originated in Wuhan and very close to the point where it originated,
like a couple miles, is a research facility that works with coronaviruses.
So perhaps we ought to consider the possibility that it originated in Wuhan because it came from the coronavirus lab.
And the reason we were told that, and by the way, I should say, That inside liberal circles, it was absolutely forbidden to even entertain that possibility.
Tony Fauci had said that China had nothing to do with it.
The lab had nothing to do with it.
We know how it originated.
Nobody was allowed to even question it on the Internet.
And the only time that any dissent really broke into liberal discourse...
Was when Jon Stewart went on Stephen Colbert's program in June of 2021 and basically laid it all out in the most aggressive way possible while Stephen Colbert almost had a panic attack.
Because what Jon Stewart was saying was prohibited to be said, especially inside places of good liberal standing such as Colbert.
Let's remind ourselves what it is that Jon Stewart said when he went on Stephen Colbert's show.
About a year into the pandemic only.
Debt of gratitude to science.
science has in many ways helped ease uh the suffering of this pandemic which was more than likely caused by science so and that's kind of hold on a second No, no, no, no, no.
Listen, listen.
It's coffee.
I wouldn't do that to you.
I wouldn't do that to you.
What do you mean by that?
Do you mean like there's a chance that this was created in a lab?
There's an investigation.
A chance?
If there's evidence, I'd love to hear it.
There's a novel respiratory coronavirus overtaking Wuhan, China.
What do we do?
Oh, you know who we could ask?
The Wuhan novel respiratory coronavirus lab.
The disease is the same name as the lab.
That's just a little too weird, don't you think?
And then they ask those scientists, they're like, how did this...
So wait a minute, you work at the Wuhan respiratory coronavirus lab.
How did this happen?
And they're like, a pangolin kissed a turtle.
And you're like, no.
The name of your lab.
Can you look at the name?
Look at the name.
Can I... Let me see your business card.
Show me your business card.
Oh, I work at the coronavirus lab in Wuhan.
Oh, because there's a coronavirus loose in Wuhan.
How did that happen?
Maybe a bat flew into the cloaca of a turkey and...
Then it sneezed into my chili, and now we all have coronavirus.
Okay, okay.
Wait a second.
What about this?
What about this?
Listen to this.
Wait a second.
All right.
Oh, my God.
Oh, my God.
There's been an outbreak of chocolatey goodness near Hershey, Pennsylvania.
What do you think happened?
Like, oh, I don't know.
Maybe a steam shovel made it with a cocoa bean.
or it's the chocolate factory.
Maybe that's it. - That could be.
That could be.
I mean, that was something that we were told was not permitted to be said.
And in fact, it was constantly barred from being expressed.
It's amazing to think about, especially given what Jon Stewart just laid out there.
And you saw how upset and nervous Stephen Colbert was constantly trying to stop him from saying what he was saying, knowing that.
Among his liberal audience, this was heresy.
Dr. Fauci had spoken, and that was that.
The reason this all happened, the reason why the world was convinced that the answer was known, even though it wasn't, was because Dr. Fauci, he spent the last week in January and the first several weeks of February getting emails from epidemiologists around the world,
the leading epidemiologists, many of whom were saying, I've analyzed this coronavirus and it seems likely that it was manipulated in a lab and came from a lab and that it was not naturally occurring.
They were telling him that in emails that he hid.
And instead he coordinated this letter using his immense power over the research budget of the United States at the National Institute of Health along with Francis Collins, his colleague who did the same.
And they got this letter in The Lancet in February of 2020. Before the coronavirus even got here, obviously they had no idea what they were talking about.
And it was designed to pretend that they did and to condemn everybody who was questioning whether it might have come from the lab in the way Jon Stewart just explained.
This is just 10 days after Tom Cotton expressed his speculation, so it was already in the air, including from epidemiologists.
Statement in support of the scientists, public health professionals, and medical professionals of China combating COVID-19.
You see how they framed it?
Oh, we're in solidarity with these...
Chinese scientists who are combating COVID because they're being attacked.
Quote, the rapid, open and transparent sharing of data on this outbreak is now being threatened by rumors and misinformation around its origins.
We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin.
Conspiracy theories do nothing but create fear, rumors and prejudice that jeopardize our global collaboration in the fight against the virus.
We support the call from the Director General of World Health Organization to promote scientific evidence and unity over misinformation and conjecture.
And from that point forward, everybody said they knew that the scientists told us it began in a naturally occurring setting and that any attempt to question the lab leak theory would be to unfairly attack the Chinese scientists.
One of the people who Sign that paper.
In fact, one of the people who helped organize the signatures on it was Peter Daszak, who was part of the EcoHealth Alliance, and we've gone over this before, actually participated aggressively in the funding of the work that was done in the Wuhan lab to manipulate this virus.
And he got funding from Anthony Fauci to do it.
So he had an immense conflict of interest.
It was obviously in his strong professional and reputational interest.
To say what he said in this letter, namely that, oh, don't worry about the work we were doing in Wuhan.
That had nothing to do with it.
That's a racist line of disinformation.
We already know how it would spread.
It was from an animal to a human leap, and nobody should ever be questioning that because that's a racist attack on Chinese scientists and never disclosed the immense conflict of interest that he had in getting that consensus implanted, even though they had no knowledge of it, for it, no basis for it.
And it was only a year and three months later, here in June of 2021, that the Lancet finally posted what it called an addendum, competing interest in the origins of SARS-CoV-2.
And it read,
and there were other papers as well on the proximal origins of COVID, all designed to bolter the same consensus.
As late as November 2021, almost two years into the pandemic, Dr. Fauci was still insisting that they knew for certain the origin of this pandemic and then started going around saying that any attempt to question what they've said is an attack on science because he, Dr. Fauci, is science.
So you question Dr. Fauci or any of us pronounce him, it means that you are questioning science itself.
Here's what he said on Face the Nation.
Anybody who's looking at this carefully realizes that there's a distinct anti-science flavor to this.
So if they get up and criticize science, nobody's going to know what they're talking about.
But if they get up and really aim their bullets at Tony Fauci, well, people could recognize there's a person there.
So it's easy to criticize.
But they're really criticizing science because I represent science.
That's dangerous.
To me, that's more dangerous than the slings and the arrows that get thrown at me.
And if you damage science, you are doing something very detrimental to society long after I leave.
It's incredibly ironic that he's warning of the dangers of damaging science.
I don't think anything in the history of science has damaged science more than what they did here.
Feign a certainty they plainly did not have in order to shield themselves from questioning and criticism and then censoring debate over One of the most significant public health crises in centuries.
The only thing I can think of that was as damaging to science is when public health officials unanimously demanded that nobody leave their house for months.
Your relative died of COVID. Your relative died of natural causes.
You want to go to the funeral outside, the burial?
No, that's too dangerous.
Stay at home.
CNN turned into a celebrity.
That idiot who dressed up as the Grim Reaper.
And he went to the beach where families were with their kids, spread apart in the sun, warning them that they were going to die, that they were basically the Grim Reaper.
They were going to die, they were going to kill people by virtue of going outside, even just to the beach, in the outdoors.
And then in the summer when the Black Lives Matter protest started, And tens of thousands of people poured out into the streets in extremely close connection with one another, chanting and screaming and marching.
Those same public health officials said it's not only justifiable to go outside, but it's actually morally obligatory to do so.
So they had exploited their public health credentials to say stay at home, stay at home, and stay at home until there was a protest that they liked.
And then they finally said, no, you can go outside.
In fact, you should go outside.
Other protests that they disliked, including protests against the repressive lockdowns, they condemned the people going to those protests as irresponsible because they disliked ideologically those protests.
As soon as there was a protest movement that they liked ideologically, they felt compelled to endorse it.
Think of a way to politicize and exploit and destroy the credibility of science more clearly than that.
I'd love to hear it because I don't think you can come up with one, and that's exactly what they did in 2020, along with this hardcore deceit by Tony Fauci.
Ian Applebaum and all these other people who proclaim to be the guardians of disinformation were the ones spreading it so aggressively as usual in response to Senator Cotton's questioning of whether maybe we should look into that Wuhan lab.
She retweeted his video and said, wow, just like the Soviet propagandists who tried to convince the world that the CIA invented AIDS. Here is Joe Scarborough on MSNBC in February 2020, also talking about Tom Cotton's questioning of the lab leak.
Here's what he said.
A guy that, didn't Tom go to Harvard?
I think so.
I think Tom's a Harvard guy, very well educated.
Tom Cotton a couple of days ago.
Spouting a conspiracy theory that the Chinese made this virus up.
In a lab, you have Rush Limbaugh every day, Presidential Medal, Freedom of Honor.
It's hard to say this is the most reckless thing he's ever done, but saying that basically this was just a conspiracy and this was just made up to hurt Donald Trump.
He said something yesterday.
I can't even keep up with it, but every day is a new, dangerous conspiracy theory.
I mean, this is serious stuff, folks.
Don't worry about your ratings for one week.
Don't try to spool up whoever was wearing tinfoil hats in your audience, but that's what's happening.
These conspiracy theorists are still saying things.
Do you see the group think that drives these people?
They all say the same thing.
They believe the same thing.
They talk in the same way, with the same goal.
They use the same language, disinformation, misinformation about whatever view they don't want to hear.
They just proclaim it as false, even though they have no basis for doing so.
ABC News, March 27, 2020, quote, sorry, conspiracy theorists.
Study concludes COVID-19, quote, is not a laboratory construct.
Some have suggested the virus is actually an engineered biological attack.
Sorry, conspiracists, conspiracy theorists.
There's a study that says it was not built in a laboratory, something that our intelligence agencies now all believe was true.
Here from Wired in May of 2021, The COVID-19 lab leak theory is a tale of weaponized uncertainty.
Scientists almost never say they're sure, and it could take years to pin down the pandemic's origin.
Until then, people are trying to scare you.
In 2020, the New York Times had a COVID reporter who is widely respected.
His name is Robert O'Neill.
They required him, though, to take a field trip to Central America with a bunch of extremely wealthy Manhattan teenagers.
And while there, they were talking about race, and he said things that offended these very wealthy teenagers, and they fired him over it, because obviously the people inside the paper started accusing him of being a racist.
They fired their COVID reporter in the middle of the most consequential health crisis in a century, and as a result, they didn't have any real COVID reporters, and they put this woman in place whose name is Aporva Mondavali.
And in May of 2021...
She went on to Twitter and said this, quote, Someday we will stop talking about the lab leak theory and maybe even admit its racist roots.
But alas, that day is not here yet.
I always, this is what amazed me so much, is the theory that these people were pushing, like her, if anything was racist, that was the racist theory.
theory they're basically saying look the Chinese are so disgusting and so filthy in their food markets and their eating habits that they even eat diseased bats and when they do so because they're so disgusting and so unsanitary these Chinese they risk having viruses like this enter the human species That was their theory.
The theory they wanted to censor was one that said, hey look, there's this sophisticated research lab filled with scientists in Wuhan.
That Dr. Fauci funds and support and American scientists like Peter Daszak work with as well.
And perhaps the protocols there weren't sufficient and part of the virus they were manipulating leaked and infected humanity.
They were calling that the racist.
When their theory was the Chinese are so primitive and disgusting that their eating habits endanger humanity.
But ultimately, at the end of the day, especially the New York Times COVID reporter, the issue is not which theory is racist.
The issue is which theory is true.
And they used every single weapon that they have that we've seen over and over in every major debate and continue to see to this day, not just to deceive people, but to prevent any questioning or dissent from it.
For the first year and a half, Facebook changed its policies right at the beginning when that Lancelot letter was issued to say we will not allow any questioning of the origins of COVID, the efficacy of masks, or the safety and efficacy of vaccines.
Only a year and a half into the pandemic did the Biden administration finally admit that it actually didn't know what the origin was, that it could be a lab leak, it could be zoonotic.
And only then, once Facebook got the clearance from the U.S. government, did it make this announcement.
From Politico, Facebook will no longer treat, quote, man-made COVID as a crackpot idea.
Facebook's policy tweak arrives as support surges in Washington for a fuller investigation of the origins of COVID-19.
Quote, shifting definitions on social media, Facebook announced in February it had expanded the list of misleading health claims that it would remove from its platforms.
To include those asserting that, quote, COVID-19 is man-made or manufactured.
Think about that.
Anybody who said that it came from the lab, that it was manipulated in that lab, had their posts taken down.
And often, if they continued, were banned from the Internet because they were dissenting from the proclamation of Tony Fauci.
For a year and a half, that debate was barred.
Quote, the tech giant has updated its policies against false and misleading coronavirus information, including its running list of debunked claimed over the course of the pandemic in consultation with global health officials.
But a Facebook spokesperson said Wednesday that the origin language had been stricken from the list due to the renewed debate about the virus's roots.
Quote, in light of ongoing investigations into the origin of COVID-19 and in consultation with public health experts, we will no longer remove the claim that COVID-19 is man-made from our apps.
The spokesman said in an emailed statement, quote, we're continuing to work with health experts to keep pace with the evolving nature of the pandemic and regularly update our policies as new facts and trends emerge.
This was such.
an immense scandal.
It is such an immense scandal.
Because it wasn't just that these scientists were wrong.
They lied about the certainty that they had.
Fauci had in his hand emails from leading epidemiologists saying that they analyzed the DNA structure of the virus and they believed clearly that it was manipulated in a lab, that those were not naturally occurring.
And they had their own interests at stake in trying to repress any suggestion that it came from scientific work.
And they did it.
They perpetrated a gigantic fraud on the public.
Particularly from in terms of trying to prevent any debate over it.
Here's the Washington Post in June of 2021. You see it up on the screen.
The media called the, quote, lab leak story a, quote, conspiracy theory.
Now it's prompted corrections and serious new reporting.
Do you see what they do?
They just use this power that they no longer really have because of things like this to proclaim things to be disinformation.
Everybody in media who's mindless and part of this group thing starts attacking anybody who says it.
It's now the prohibited idea.
You're not allowed to say it on the Internet.
And then it just over and over turns out to be true.
So many people got banned from the Internet.
When Russia invaded Ukraine for questioning the NATO policy and Ukraine for saying that Ukraine could never win the war, that Russia would win the war, and now it turns out that that's the consensus as well.
This is what happens with censorship.
The certainty and the hubris it requires is never justified.
The Wall Street Journal reported in July of 2023, Facebook bowed to White House pressure to remove COVID posts.
Quote, internal meta email say pressures from Washington was behind a decision to take down posts attributing pandemic to man-made virus.
Quote, the email show Facebook executives discussing how they manage user posts about the origins of the pandemic that the administration was seeking to control.
Quote, can somebody quickly remind me why we are removing?
Rather than demoting or labeling, claims that COVID is man-made, asked Nick Clegg, the company's president of global affairs, in a July 2021 email to colleagues.
Quote, we were under pressure from the administration and others to do more, responded a Facebook vice president in charge of content policy.
The discussion took place three months after Facebook, which is owned by Meta, decided to stop banning posts asserting that COVID-19 was man-made or manufactured in light of increasing debate about the virus's origins.
The U.S. government aggressively censored the Internet to repress the truth, or at least a very viable theory that...
It petrified them for people to believe and they fed people lies that the science had settled the question in a way that science never had.
And then they all wonder why faith and trust in institutions of authority have collapsed.
Congressman Jim Jordan in May of 2024 published what he called the Facebook Files when the House Judiciary Committee subpoenaed documents and he was able to post more about this relationship between How the Biden White House forced Facebook to censor.
There were all these documents proving that that's exactly what they did.
And of course, we covered the lawsuits where the government was sued for violating the First Amendment.
And the first two courts said it was a grave assault on free speech.
They were clearly designed to censor dissent.
The Supreme Court overturned it on technical rounds, basically.
Someone on our team found this today.
Zainab Tufekki was a New York Times columnist who was actually, to her credit, writing columns questioning the COVID consensus.
And in July 2023, she said, Ben Collins, who at the time...
Was the misinformation reporter at NBC News responded to her by saying this, quote, the answer about COVID's origins is, quote, we don't know, but the evidence points more towards zoonotic than lab leak.
You can say, quote, China is covering this up, of course, but you're going down a sketchy Greenwaldian path claiming this is some sort of media censorship thing.
If anything, it's the opposite.
I just showed you the Washington Post article.
This is 2023, where they finally were forced to admit that, okay, maybe...
There's evidence for the lab leak as well, where the entire media was proclaiming this to be conspiracy theories, fringe ideas, malicious attacks on the science.
That was the reality of what the media was doing.
And of course they were ashamed of it once it all got revealed, and then pretended, oh no, we never did that at all long, and screened Walden to suggest it was a media cover-up.
Just to give you a sense for how far this censorship went.
Here's the New York Times in August of 2021. YouTube suspends Senator Rand Paul for a week over a video disputing the effectiveness of masks.
Remember, Rand Paul is a medical doctor.
He's an ophthalmologist.
On Twitter, Mr. Paul called his suspension, quote, a badge of honor and blame, quote, left-wing cretins at YouTube.
YouTube on Tuesday removed a video by Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky for the second time and suspended him from publishing for a week after he posted a video that disputed the effectiveness of wearing masks to limit the spread of the coronavirus.
A YouTube representative said the Republican senator's claims in three-minute video had violated the company's policies on COVID-19 medical misinformation.
The company policy bans videos that spread a wide rate of misinformation, including, quote, claims that masks do not play a role in preventing the contraction or transmission of COVID-19.
YouTube had also removed a Senate hearing that he participated in about the possibility that ivermectin could play a role in treating COVID. Google just banned the public, the American public, from seeing Senate hearings where medical experts and scientists and doctors testified about something they didn't want the public to hear.
This is why I'm so fanatical in combating any type of censorship regime.
That lingers based on this mindset.
It is the key to authoritarianism.
It's the way that governments can impose falsehoods and deceit and then forcibly prevent any questioning or dissent.
And this case is so important to look at now with even the CIA of all agencies saying that they're with the FBI and the Energy Department and other governments and other agencies and saying that they too believe now that COVID came from a lab leak to remember how repressed that idea was for so long.
And it was repressed, not in good faith.
It was repressed because they were petrified that people might believe it, and so they just declared it to be false, even though they had no basis for doing so, and then censored its expression.
there is nothing more dangerous than permitting that to happen free speech is I believe that is right.
Has something to do with what I was just talking about, but Rumble refuses to back down.
We've always believed in empowering voices, no matter how unpopular, and now we're taking that fight to the next level.
When major advertisers conspired to pull their dollars, even brands like Dunkin' Donuts turned their backs, claiming Rumble had a, quote, right-wing culture.
But we're not here to fit a mold.
We're here to defend free expression.
To strengthen this mission, we're excited to offer Rumble Premium, a completely ad-free experience with exclusive benefits for viewers and creators.
It's more than a subscription.
It's a stand for free speech.
Your voice matters.
Join Rumble Premium for a limited time.
You can also get $10 off an annual plan using the promo code GLEN. Visit rumble.com slash premium slash Glenn and claim your discount today.
Together, we can turn the tide on all of this.
or simply keep watching.
Your support really does help keep free speech alive.
Go to rumble.com slash premium slash Glenn.
Use promo code Glenn to save $10 on your annual subscription.
Jim Acosta of CNN is probably the most preposterous embodiment of everything rotted and pathetic about the corporate media in the United States.
So much so that even CNN realizes that they could no longer have him be associated with their network if they have any hope of gaining back an audience.
Or reestablishing any credibility at all as a news organization rather than a Democratic Party activist group.
And as a result, they humiliated him by telling him, look, you're free to stay at our network, but you're going to have to have a show that airs in the middle of the night.
And rather than accept that humiliation, here from the New York Times today, CNN anchor Jim Acosta announces he is going to step down.
Quote, the network wanted to make Mr. Acosta, move Mr. Acosta to the midnight time slot, a backwater in cable television news.
Like I said, everything in CNN is a backwater, even prime time.
How lonely and desolate the middle of the night is on that network.
Being Jim Acosta, he had to go on to television today and turn himself into a martyr but also praise his own heroism and his own bravery and his own courage and his own principled stance in defense of freedom while announcing that he's leaving a network nobody watches.
And here is, in very Jim Acosta style, how Jim Acosta today announced that he was leaving CNN. I just wanted to end today's show by thanking all of the wonderful people who work behind the scenes at this network.
You may have seen some reports about me and this show.
And after giving all of this some careful consideration and weighing an alternative time slot CNN offered me, I've decided to move on.
I am grateful to CNN for the nearly 18 years I've spent here doing the news.
People often ask me if the highlight of my career at CNN was at the White House covering Donald Trump.
Actually, no.
That moment came here.
Do you think it's true that people often ask Jim Acosta, hey, Jim Acosta, is it the highlight of your career to have covered the White House when Donald Trump was president?
Why wouldn't they ask him if it was the highlight of his career to accomplish the White House when Joe Biden was president or Barack Obama?
No, they say, hey, Jim Acosta.
You've had such an incredibly prestigious career full of incredible journalistic accomplishments, but I presume the most important accomplishment, journalistically, that you have achieved is when you covered the White House during the Trump years, right?
And here he is basically saying, like, look, people ask me, like, I'm Jim Acosta.
They're like, hey, Jim.
Like, what is the most courageous thing?
Like, what is the most, the bravest and most important journalism expression you've ever reached?
Like, what is the highest moment?
Is it that time that you covered the White House and actually questioned Donald Trump and somehow survived?
And today he was like, look, I know that's what a lot of people think.
Yes, that was very scary.
That was very, very dangerous what I did there.
I covered the White House in the Trump years and I came out unscathed.
But I want you to know that's not the bravest thing I've ever done.
There are braver things I've done.
And he's going to tell us what that thing is that was even braver than covering the White House or CNN during the Trump years.
No.
That moment came...
Here, when I covered former President Barack Obama's trip to Cuba in 2016 and had the chance to question the dictator there, Raul Castro, about the island's political prisoners.
As the son of a Cuban refugee, I took home this lesson.
It is never a good time to bow down to a tyrant.
I've always believed it's the job of the press to hold power to account.
I've always tried to do that here at CNN, and I plan on doing all of that in the future.
One final message.
Don't give in to the lies.
Don't give in to the fear.
Hold on to the truth and to hope.
Even if you have to get out your phone, record that message.
I will not give in to the lies.
I will not give in to the fear.
Post it on your social media so people can hear from you too.
I'll have more to say about my plans in the coming days, but until then, I want to thank all of you for tuning in.
It has been an honor to be welcomed into your home for all these years.
That's the news.
Reporting from Washington, I'm Jim Acosta.
He's such a pompous douchebag.
Are you going to take out your phone and record yourself saying the message he told you to?
Record, I won't give into the lies.
I won't give into the lies.
I won't give into the despair.
But the funniest part of that video is how he tried to portray himself as so courageous because he traveled in a presidential party with Barack Obama standing right up at the podium next to Raul Castro when he stood up.
And he questioned the Cuban dictator, and that was scary because, of course, when you travel with an American president as part of a huge White House press corps, and you go to Havana and you ask a question, there's every chance in the world, in fact, it's extremely likely that they're going to come and kill you right there on the spot if not throw you into a gulag.
He didn't care.
He's Jim Acosta.
He stood up and asked the question anyway to this dictator, this island dictator.
Here is what he says is his proudest moment.
THE PRESIDENT IS GOING TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE PRESIDENT.
LOOK AT HIM GO.
WHAT DID THE PRESIDENT POR THE PRESIDENT?
WHAT DID THE PRESIDENT POR THE PRESIDENT POR THE PRESIDENT?
YES.
IF THERE ARE PRESIDENT POR THE PRESIDENT, POR THE PRESIDENT.
WHY DOES THE PRESIDENT POR THE PRESIDENT POR THE PRESIDENT?
WHY DOES THE PRESIDENT POR THE PRESIDENT POR THE PRESIDENT?
Well, give me a list of the political prisoners and I will release them.
Just mention the list.
What political prisoners?
Give me a name or names.
Or when this meeting concludes, you can give me a list of political prisoners.
And if there are those political prisoners before the night arrives, they will be released.
Wow, that was...
How did he get himself?
To be able to do something that incredibly risky.
Because he's Jim Acosta, there's never a good time to not stand up to tyrants.
The purpose of journalism, he said, is to constantly hold power to account.
Was he doing that the last four years?
I think he's been on vacation for four years.
And now he wants to go back to his gory years of just constantly prattling on about Trump, and that's exactly what has alienated the viewers of CNN, driven them away.
No one wants to watch that.
And so they said you can stay on as long as you just appear at 1 in the morning or midnight.
And so instead he quits.
Now, during the...
Trump hears so many of the journalists inside corporate media, the people who work for media corporations who have the job title, journalists held Jim Acosta up as some sort of martyr for the free press because he was constantly doing things like this.
From NPR in November of 2018, the White House revokes the press pass of CNN's Jim Acosta.
Ooh, it's like being put in a gulag.
And then here was...
Acosta picking a fight with Donald Trump in a way that he never would with Barack Obama or Joe Biden, never did with any of those, only with Donald Trump.
Here's the sort of thing that he constantly did to draw attention to himself in the White House briefing room with Donald Trump.
America towards the border with the U.S. Thank you for telling me that I appreciate it.
Why did you characterize it as such?
Because I consider it an invasion.
You and I have a difference of opinion.
But do you think that you demonized immigrants in this election to try to keep...
I want them to come into the country, but they have to come in legally.
You know, they have to come in, Jim, through a process.
I want it to be a process.
And I want people to come in.
And we need the people.
Wait.
You know why we need the people, don't you?
Because we have hundreds of companies moving in.
We need the people.
But your campaign had an ad showing migrants climbing over walls and so on.
Well, that's true.
But they weren't actors.
They're not going to be doing that.
They weren't actors.
Well, no, it's true.
Do you think they were actors?
They weren't actors.
They didn't come from Hollywood.
These were people.
This was an actual, you know, it happened a few days ago.
They're hundreds of miles away, though.
They're hundreds and hundreds of miles away.
That's not an invasion.
Honestly, I think you should let me run the country.
You run CNN. And if you did it well, your ratings would be much better.
If I may ask one other question, are you worried?
That's enough.
He's fighting with the woman's staffer over the microphone.
He thinks he just can stand there in grandstand.
Nobody else is allowed to ask questions.
All right, so that's what he was doing the whole time.
And then he wrote a book heralding his own bravery.
And to this very day, I will admit, with no sarcasm, no irony, that it makes me sick.
This is a book that he wrote, and it went on the New York Times bestseller list because dumb liberals bought it.
The name of the book was The Enemy of the People, A Dangerous Time to Tell the Truth in America.
And it had a picture of Jim Acosta on Jim Acosta's book.
Sitting there...
Asking Trump a question that Trump answered.
Trump never had him arrested.
Trump never sent the military to his house.
Trump never tried to kill him.
Occasionally Trump would mock him for his low ratings when he wouldn't shut up and let his colleagues ask questions.
And he wrote an entire book acting as though he was the bravest journalist in the world going around challenging power.
And being put in severe danger because of it when he was spending all of his time having his hair blown dry and his pedicures and his manicures in his studio.
And this is what the rest of the press tried to suggest when Trump would insult one of them, like Chuck Todd or Wolf Butcher, like, oh, wow, there's a press freedom crisis in the United States.
And in the meantime, there was actual...
And have been actual attacks on journalists, like real attacks on journalists going on that people like Jim Acosta or those who tried to depict him as some sort of courageous crusader of journalistic values would never, ever mention.
Here from the Middle East Monitor in January of 2025, there were 205 journalists killed by Israel and Gaza.
Jim Acosta has never uttered a peep of that.
In October 2024, the American journalist Jeremy Lafredo, who we had on our show, was arrested by Israel after he reported on the damage done by Iranian missiles that the Israelis were denying.
He was arrested.
He was mistreated.
Jim Acosta has never spoken a word about that.
These are actual journalists who are risking their liberty and risking their lives to report.
Yesterday, we reported on how...
Ali Abdel Nima was arrested in Switzerland for the crime of criticizing Israel.
Nothing like that has ever happened to Jim Acosta.
Needless to say, Jim Acosta did not speak up in his defense.
There have been journalists all throughout the West who have been subject to those things, like Aza Wynne Stanley, who had his home raided and his devices seized by the U.K. police.
Obviously, Jim Acosta never mentioned any of that.
And, of course, you have the case of Julian Assange.
Somebody who did actual reporting that alarmed and challenged the most powerful faction on earth, something that Jim Acosta pretends to do but would never, ever get near.
And not only did Jim Acosta never once stand up and defend Julian Assange, talk about a dangerous time to tell the truth, that's the motto of Julian Assange's life, not Jim Acosta's.
But the one time Jim Acosta that I know spoke on Julian Assange was when he was asked about it, and it was the one time he defended the Trump administration by defending Julian Assange's prosecution.
Here he was speaking at the Newseum in Washington in July of 2019. So he already knows that he's going to be questioned adversarily because the person is with his video camera, and this is the exchange.
The audio is a little bit poor, so I'm just going to read that for people listening to the show.
Okay, just before your book came out, something happened that the Washington Post, the New York Times, and many Pulitzer Prize-winning journalists have recognized as an existential threat to the free press.
What are your thoughts on the Trump administration's use of the controversial Espionage Act to indict the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for publishing classified information in the early 2010s that exposed war crimes, informed the public, and didn't harm anyone?
I appreciate that question.
I'm probably not going to give you a satisfactory answer, but I'm going to do the best that I can.
I've been asked this question before.
I take it from your question and your enthusiasm that you may be a Julian Assange supporter or WikiLeaks supporter.
Perhaps that's not the case.
Maybe you're just asking the question.
I don't know.
In general, I support anybody speaking truth to power.
I appreciate that.
Thank you very much.
I do think, and forgive me if you don't agree with me on this, I do think what happened with us in my press pass case is slightly different than what happened with Julian Assange and WikiLeaks.
Can you believe the audacity of this marionette to compare his temporary denial of a press pass at the Trump White House to Julian Assange's years-long imprisonment in a high-security British prison that the BBC called the British Guantanamo?
For the crime of actual reporting information that power senators didn't want to be heard.
Can you imagine him sitting on this stage with his legs crossed and his hair coiffed and speaking as though he is the dean of American journalism?
Saying, look, I think these are different cases.
Yeah, they're absolutely different cases.
In one case, absolutely nothing happened to you other than you got denied a press pass for a few days.
Julian Assange was imprisoned for five years and prosecuted under espionage laws by the Trump administration that you claimed to confront.
And there he goes on.
And I can try to talk about that for a few moments, but I don't want to drag it on and out forever and ever again and everybody else doesn't get a chance to get their questions asked, but I'll do the best that I can.
My understanding about the Julian Assange situation...
Is that, you know, he is being charged not just for trying to speak truth to power and trying to reveal things.
He is in trouble for other things.
And, you know, what we've seen during the 2016 campaign, where there were contacts between WikiLeaks and Russian operatives, that, I think, takes weakness and Julian Assange into sort of a different category than just a straight news organization, straight publisher of news around the world.
Now, I'm not saying that I'm not rendering a verdict on Julian Assange.
I think he should have his day in court.
I think we should see what the facts are, see what they're presented, and let a court, let that process play out.
First of all, Julian Assange's prosecution had nothing to do with anything that happened in 2016. So he's sitting there pontificating on this case.
He obviously knows absolutely nothing about it.
He doesn't care in the slightest.
Because to these people, the only real journalists are people who work in news organizations that work for major corporations and are protected as a result.
And actually people doing journalism and anger in the government, unlike Jim Acosta would ever do, aren't real journalists.
He also says that because Julian Assange was engaged in some sort of political operation that takes him out of being a journalist, everything about Jim Acosta is nothing but a political operation.
And then he endorses the idea that, yeah, Julian Assange should be charged.
Let him go to court.
Let's see if he comes to American soil.
He can try and defend himself from a law, the Espionage Act, that was written to ensure convictions.
And if he gets off, he gets off and he goes to prison.
Then that means it's deserved.
This is the liberals' favorite defender of press freedoms.
This is what they conceive of as journalism.
When you work for large media corporations, when you bother nobody in power, when you put on dumb theater.
That bothers nobody, that results in nothing, and you write a book claiming that you're the one who's been endangered, and you have all these other actual journalists out in the world who don't work for media corporations like this because they don't want to be subject to the constraints or because they do reporting that these media corporations won't be associated with because it actually bothers people in power, and they get killed, they get put in prison, they get prosecuted, they get arrested, unlike anything that's happened to Jim Acosta.
And nobody in media talks about it.
There hasn't been a single person who works at corporate media who has even mentioned the arrest of Ali Abu Nima yesterday in Switzerland, over the weekend in Switzerland, for the crime of reporting on what's happening in Gaza.
Because he's just invisible to them.
He doesn't serve the interests of the U.S. security state.
He's a radical critic of foreign policy, and therefore he doesn't count.
He's invisible in their world.
These people think they're journalists.
They are the exact opposite of them.
And Jim Acosta is just a particularly preposterous expression of this mindset, which is why I think he's worth focusing on.
Just his self-love and his self-glorification and his preposity and his cowardice.
It just loses out of every pore of his being.
The good news, both in terms of the first segment we did on the lies that were told about COVID and the repression of any dissent from it, and in terms of the complete collapse of these media outlets, is that they have...
Lied and deceived and manipulated for so long and so flagrantly that they don't have any credibility left.
They have no poll left.
Even the White House today, the Trump White House, to its great credit, announced we're no longer creating and honoring the system where all the big media corporations sit in front and get all the questions.
We're going to purposely go out of our way to credential bloggers and podcast hosts.
Who often have a much bigger audience, who reach a much larger group of people who are much more trusted.
We want them to participate as well in this process because you, the media, have lost the faith of the public and no one watches you anymore and no one trusts you anymore.
So Jim Acosta is being banished not because he's any different, just because he's so blatant about it.
He's such a laughable clown show.
But he's really worth looking at, which is why I just did, because that is really how they all think.
And to watch him sit there and act as though he's some kind of courageous, brave journalist when he does nothing but serve orthodoxies and serve power centers in Washington, and then applaud while Julian Assange is put on trial under felony charges for doing actual real journalism, tells you all you need to know about the Washington corporate press corps and the reasons why they so deservedly have lost their influence and their relevance.
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 episode 12 hours after the first broadcast live here on Rumble on Spotify, Apple, and all the major podcasting platforms where if you rate, review, and follow our show, it really helps spread the visibility of the program.
Every Tuesday and Thursday night, once we're done with our live show here on Rumble, we move to Locals where we have our live interactive after show.
As I said at the start of the show, despite the fact that tonight is Tuesday and we would ordinarily do that, we're actually retooling what we're going to do.
So if you'd like to join...
It gives you access to whatever that content will be, as well as a whole variety of other interactive features.
It's the place we publish a lot of original, exclusive video content that we don't have time to include in our main show here.
It's the place we publish written, professionalized transcripts of every show we broadcast here.
We publish those the next day there.
And most of all, it is the community on which we rely to support the independent journalism that we do here every night.
Simply click the Join button right below the video player on the Rumble page, and it will take you directly to that community.
For now, thank you.
Thanks so much for those who have been watching this show.
We are, needless to say, very appreciative.
And we hope to see you back tomorrow night in every night at 7 p.m.
