Glenn Takes Your Questions: Iraq War Lies, Judge Rebukes Trump, Ilham Omar Curses Reporter, & More
Glenn Greenwald answers questions submitted by our supporters on Locals. We received questions covering a wide range of issues, including the bizarre story told by former Senator Pat Leahy of Vermont about how he was secretly accosted by shadowy members of the Deep State who directed him to proof that the Bush administration was lying about the proposed war in Iraq, and he still failed to do anything about it; the significant ruling yesterday by a Trump-appointed federal judge who concluded that the Trump administration lacks the authority to invoke the war-time Alien Enemies Act to deport people to El Salvador; and Ilhan Omar's naughty words to a journalist from the Daily Caller. ----- Watch full episodes on Rumble, streamed LIVE 7pm ET. Become part of our Locals community Follow System Update: Twitter Instagram TikTok Facebook LinkedIn
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...
As most of you know, Friday night is our Q&A show where we take questions that have been submitted throughout the week by members of our local community.
This week we received questions covering a very wide range of issues, including the bizarre story told by former Senator Pat Leahy of Vermont about how he was secretly accosted by shadowing members of the deep state while jogging in 2003.
2003, and they directed him to proof that the Bush administration was lying about the proposed war in Iraq.
Leahy cast a meaningless vote against the war because of what he saw, but never let the public know about the proof he was showing.
We also have questions about the very significant ruling yesterday by another Trump-appointed federal judge who ruled against the Trump administration, this one who concluded that the administration lacks the authority even to invoke The Wartime Alien Enemies Act, which is what the administration has been using to justify removing people from the U.S. and sending them to an El Salvadoran prison without so much as a trial.
Despite the narrative from many Trump supporters that it's left-wing activist judges illegitimately ruling against Trump and invalidating his policies, the reality is that many of the most consequential rulings against the administration Are coming from right-wing and even Trump-appointed judges, including those on the Supreme Court.
And we'll show you what this decision said and what its implications are.
Finally, Congresswoman Ilion Omar of Minnesota uttered very naughty words to a journalist from the Daily Caller, a journalist, who walked up to her on the street, began filming her and asking her adversarial questions, a perfectly legitimate journalistic activity.
Upon seeing the video and— Omar's reaction, many conservatives, including many who have spent a decade calling journalists the enemy of the people and cheering right-wing politicians who have scorned journalists, often aggressively and with verbal abuse, have now decided that Omar had failed to show journalists the respect and deference.
That they deserve as journalists.
We'll examine this and several other questions as well, as many as we can get to, time permitting.
Before we get to all of that, a few programming notes.
We are encouraging our viewers, I don't know if you heard this or not yet, to download the Rumble app.
If you do so, it works on both your telephone and your smart TV and many other game devices and who knows what else, probably so many other different things that we haven't even yet discovered.
Once you download it, you can follow the programs you most like to watch here on Rumble.
And if you activate notifications, which we hope you will, it means the minute any of those
shows you follow begin broadcasting live on the platform you'll be notified by email text however you want you just click on the link begin watching the show when it starts it really helps the live viewing numbers of every audience of every show and therefore the free speech caused of rumble as well 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 podcast platforms where if you rate review and follow our show it really helps spread the visibility of the program.
Finally, as independent journalists, we do rely on the support The way to do that is to join our locals community, which if you do, you get access to a wide array of benefits, interactive features where we communicate with you throughout the week.
Every Friday night we do this Q&A session where we take questions exclusively from our local members.
We put exclusive video.
Content and interviews that we don't have time to put on this show, we put them there.
Most of all, it is the community on which we really do 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 after this short message from our sponsor.
I want to ask you something.
Just a very serious question.
Have you ever drank a cup of coffee that makes you feel younger?
I know it seems impossible, but just hear me out.
1775's rejuvenative coffee rejuvenates.
That's why it's called rejuvenative coffee.
It's a dark, bold roast that's infused with C-A-A-K-G, the same compound studied to reverse biological age by up to eight years.
It fuels your cells, sharpens your mind, and supports long-term strength, all without popping a cabinet full of supplements or drinking swamp water in a bottle.
This isn't lab junk.
There are no mystery blends, just real single-origin small-batch coffee roasted weekly with one powerful proven ingredient.
And here's the best part.
Not just the age reduction, but when you buy from 1775 Coffee, you're backing Rumble's free speech and freedom of choice and a company that backs the same creators and values that you do.
There are no corporate overloads, just great products made for people who still believe in something real.
Go to 1775coffee.com, grab their anti-aging longevity roast.
And use code GLEN for 15% off.
sharper, stronger, younger, and know you're fueling the companies that actually give a damn about your health and freedom.
All right, so as I said, and as you probably know, Friday night is the night that we devote to taking questions and answers from our local members that people submit throughout the week, including today when they know we're going to do that.
And it's always tied to news events.
Sometimes it takes a step back and asks for some deeper analysis.
The questions are always high.
We have a lot of questions that cover topics that I would have wanted to cover anyway and was hoping to cover, and so it's great to have questions submitted on such interesting topics.
Topics that are a bit perhaps far afield of what we would just cover in the course of the news cycle, which is what makes it so great.
So here's the first one from The Far Side, who wrote the following quote, I have a question for Glenn.
Oh, you're in the right place.
I have a question for Glenn.
I saw a post about Patrick Leahy's new memoir, where he recounts, and just by the way, Patrick Leahy is a former senator from Vermont, Democratic senator, a longtime senator, just like one of those people who've stayed around for 30 years.
And he has a new memoir where he recounts that in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq, so 2002-2003, some shadowy figures directing him to request certain top-secret intelligence documents showed that Bush and Cheney were lying to the country about the Iraq War.
He acknowledges that he was therefore able to get a hold of the information and that although perhaps as a result he was one of the few senators to vote against the war, for reasons unknown he kept the information to himself.
rather than for example disclosing it on the Senate floor we would have had immunity for doing so that strikes me as quite an amazing admission would love to hear your thoughts on this Yeah, I totally agree with that point of view.
And I've seen this happen many times before when senators and Congress members access classified material and They're too scared to show it to the public, even though they could do so on the floor of the Senate or the House, and they enjoy absolute, complete immunity.
You cannot be prosecuted or criminalized or arrested for anything you say on the floor of the Congress.
It's just written into the Constitution.
It's legislative immunity.
And they could just go and do it.
They could just go and reveal it.
But they almost never do.
They leave it up to people like Edward Snowden or Julian Assange or other courageous whistleblowers to do it even though they don't have immunity.
But these senators do and just conceal this information.
So here's what he wrote in his memoir, The Road Taken by Patrick Leahy.
And by the way, it's not a new memoir.
It's from 2022.
It's just a couple years ago.
It just got resurfaced and started viralizing on X. I think a lot of people didn't know about it.
Who would sit down and read Pat Leahy's book?
I certainly didn't.
But here's part of what he wrote in telling this story.
Quote, my conclusion was caution.
I simply did when talking about the— Run up to the war in Iraq.
I simply didn't see proof of an imminent threat or a new rush by a madman to obtain weapons of mass destruction.
I saw the status quo as it had been for a long time.
Quote, looks like the Middle East, I said to the intelligence officer sitting at the desk.
The following Sunday, my wife, Marcel, and I went for our usual early morning walk in the neighborhood.
It was a warm September day, and we walked hand in hand.
Two fit joggers trailed behind us.
They stopped and asked what I thought of the intelligence briefings I'd been getting.
Marcel, his wife, realized this was a conversation that normally she would not have been involved in and kept on walking ahead.
I went through a requisite disclaimer that if I was in a briefing and if they were classified, I could not acknowledge that even occurred and could not talk about them if they had.
They told me they understood that, but asked me whether the briefers had shown me vial 8. So imagine you're just walking on the street with your wife, just like an old couple walking on the street, and out of nowhere there's like very fit joggers behind you, and they are obviously following you, and they stop and they say, hey, we hear we're getting briefings.
How have those been going?
And you say, fine, but I can't talk about them.
They're like, no, no worries.
We don't want you to talk about them.
Just take a look at file 8. Have you seen that?
And he writes, quote, it was obvious from the look on my face that I had not seen such a file.
They suggested I should.
And that I might find it interesting.
So that's it.
They were like, hey, go see File 8. And it contradicted much of what I had heard from the Bush administration.
It was the eeriest conversation I'd experienced in Washington.
I felt like a senatorial version of Bob Woodward meeting Deep Throat, only in broad daylight.
I went through the usual disclaimers that I could not talk about any file and if such a file was available and so on.
They said, of course they understood.
But they wondered if I had also been shown file 12 using a co-word.
They're like, hey, remember when we mentioned file 8?
We're glad you took a look at that.
No, no, don't worry.
We don't need to hear your opinion.
We just want to know.
YOU SHOULD LOOK AT FILE 12, TOO.
HE SAYS, "AGAIN, I GAVE THEM I THINK THE LOOK ON MY FACE GAVE THEM THE ANSWER.
THEY APOLOGIZED FOR INTERRUPTING OUR WALK AND JOGGED OFF.
THE NEXT DAY I WAS BACK IN THE SECURE ROOM IN THE CAPITAL TO READ FILE 12, AND IT AGAIN CONTRADICTED THE STATEMENTS THAT THE ADMINISTRATION AND ESPECIALLY VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY SEEMED TO BE RELYING ON.
AND I TOLD MY STAFF AND OTHERS THAT FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS I ABSOLUTELY INTENDED TO VOTE AGAINST THE WAR IN IRAQ." NOW, ACCORDING TO He says, Pat Leahy, he had been directed to by mysterious deep state operatives, obviously, two files, classified files that had not been shown by the people briefing Congress on the Iraq War, both of which, he says, proved that the government was lying to the American people.
Now, you would think, I would think, That somebody in that position would be like, hey, I need to show the American people this.
I need to alert the American people to the fact that there are documents inside the government's own files that prove that what Dick Cheney and George Bush were saying about the war in Iraq are lying.
I should let the American people know that they're being deceived and tricked yet again into supporting a war.
But no, he didn't do that.
He was like, yeah, I let people know around me.
I'm going to vote against it.
Yeah, great, great job, Senator Leahy.
The vote was 77 to 23. In favor of the Iraq war.
Congratulations on your super consequential no vote.
Who knows what would have happened had he come forward the way any minimally courageous or ethical person would have.
And again, he had legal immunity to do it.
He could have read the whole file on the Senate floor and nothing would have happened.
Even if he didn't have immunity, I would think he would be duty-bound when the government is selling a war to the population.
A very serious...
Like, invasion on the other side of the world, not a few bombs being dropped.
And you have proof that what the government is saying is lying, but that's not what Pat Leahy did and even admitted that in his book.
Like, not even realizing there's anything wrong with it.
There's a woman on X who I find to be genuinely one of the smartest and most interesting X accounts to follow.
Her X name is Village Crazy Lady, but her name is Mel, and she— She is very upfront.
She does a podcast.
She's a MAGA woman, self-identified MAGA woman from the South.
And yet she really actually believes the MAGA principle.
She is vehemently opposed to all kinds of intervention.
She's opposed to funding the war in Ukraine, funding Israel's war in Gaza, going to war with Iran, bombing Yemen, all the things that we were promised that Trump would do in foreign policy.
She actually Believes in it, insists on it, and complains when it doesn't happen, as she should.
And she's just very smart.
She's just always plugged into what I think are the right things, thinking about things in a really interesting way.
I actually learned a lot from following her.
I'm going to have her on the show soon.
And she was the one who alerted me to this.
I think she was probably the one who alerted a lot of people to this.
She said, quote, I think about this thread all the time.
A sitting U.S. senator admitting that days before Congress voted to invade Iraq, he was contacted by two shadowy figures jogging in the park who directed him to view the contents of, quote, file 8 in the intelligence briefing prepared for Congress.
The next day, Leahy goes to the SCIF, which is the room for classified information in Washington, and pulls file 8, and lo and behold, it contains information directly disputing public statements made by the Bush administration about Iraq's WMDs.
A few days later, Leahy is in the same park, and the same joggers come up to him and tell him to request a viewing of, quote, file 12. Leahy goes back to the SCIF and again views intel that directly contradicts public statements being made by Dick Cheney at the time.
The info convinces Leahy to vote against the invasion, but we all know it doesn't matter.
The final Senate vote was 77 yeas to 23 nays.
Just imagine if Leahy or any of the other senators who presumably saw the same thing cared more about the country and the Constitution than they did about respecting the rules of classified documents.
Imagine if they had gone public with what they saw, evidence that Bush and Cheney were lying to the American people.
They could have prevented the whole catastrophe that was the Iraq War.
Once again, we hear the war drums in the distance.
This time it's Iran.
Let's pray that if we get to that point again, there will be at least one American senator who will have the courage to do what Leahy did not.
I think what's really notable, too, is imagine that you're those two guys who obviously are risking your career, probably risking your liberty to try to make sure that Pat Leahy sees not just circumstantial evidence, but proof that the Bush and Cheney administration are lying about the key arguments they're trying to sell to the public to justify the invasion of Iraq.
And they put themselves on the line.
Put themselves at risk because they apparently thought it was important for the truth to be known.
And they get Leahy to go read both of those files, and he just does nothing, nothing to tell the public.
He's just like, yeah, I'm going to vote no.
He didn't even tell his fellow senators.
He didn't say a word.
How pathetic is that?
How cowardly is that?
You know, like, you run for the Senate.
You're a career politician.
You're, like, old.
You're in, like, your 23rd term or whatever.
Who cares?
Don't you have any sense of, like, duty at all?
Like, I don't want to be naive.
I get that these are scummy politicians, very conniving.
The more they stay around Washington, probably the less principled, the fewer principles they believe they can operate on, the more kind of just pragmatic and cunning or whatever they become.
But you're talking here about the most serious war that the United States has fought since at least Vietnam.
And you have the evidence in your hands that the government is lying, yet again, like they did with the Vietnam War and the Gulf of Tonkin.
And you just sit and say nothing?
Now, I've seen this many times before, and I'm going to get to that, but there's a counterexample.
When Daniel Ellsberg discovered the Pentagon Papers in the 1960s, the late 1960s, the Pentagon Papers were a multi-volume, tens of thousands of pages account compiled by the Pentagon and the Ram Corporation to give policymakers in the Pentagon and the White House a true picture of the war in Vietnam.
And the Pentagon Papers concluded And members of the highest levels of the government also knew, under Lyndon Johnson and then Richard Nixon, that there was no way the U.S. could win the war in Vietnam.
At most, they could fight to a standstill.
And yet they were constantly telling the public that it was growing tired of this war, like, hey, we're losing all our young people, our young men who are being drafted.
We're killing huge numbers of people.
We're spending tons of money.
There's social unrest.
What is going on?
So the Pentagon would say, oh, don't worry, we're close to winning.
We're like six months away from winning.
We're making immense progress.
Inside, though, in the Pentagon Papers, they were saying the exact opposite.
They knew they couldn't win.
So it's the same thing.
Daniel Ellsberg had proof in his hands that the American government was lying to the people about the Vietnam War.
And Ellsberg had a very high position in the government.
He had a PhD from Harvard in nuclear policy.
He worked at the highest levels of the RAND Corporation, had some of the most...
Some of the access to the most sensitive documents inside the government.
And he did what Patrick Leahy wouldn't do, which is he's like, I've got to get this to the public, even though I'm probably going to go to jail for life.
He wasn't a senator.
He didn't have any sort of parliamentary immunity.
And he tried to get members of Congress to read it on the floor.
And when he couldn't, he went to the New York Times, the Washington Post, and they published parts of it.
But then finally he found Senator Mike Gravel, a Republican from Alaska, who was like, no, you know what?
I have parliamentary immunity, and this is what it's for.
The public has a right to know that the American people are lying to the public.
Now, by the way, Daniel Ellsberg was charged with espionage.
They tried to imprison him for life.
And the only reason why his case was dismissed was because the Nixon administration was discovered to have burglarized the office of his psychoanalyst to try and find dirt on the private life of Daniel Alsberg.
And the judge, because of that misconduct, dismissed the case.
But had the judge not done so, Daniel Alsberg probably would have been in prison for the I had the honor of working with him when we created the Freedom of the Press Foundation together.
He was unbelievably smart.
One of the smartest people I ever met.
And even at, like, 91 or 92, he would attend these board meetings we had at the Freedom of Press Foundation.
He would just present, like, the most complex arguments possible.
So he got Senator Gravel to read it from the floor of the Senate, and this is what that kind of bravery looks like.
Mr. President, Mr. Congressman, there is no...
The people must know the full story of what has occurred over the past 20 years within their government.
The story is a terrible one.
It is replete with duplicity, connivance against the public and public officials.
I know of nothing in our history to equal it for extent of failure, An extent of loss in all aspects of the term.
We can people, human beings, are being killed as I speak to you tonight.
Killed as a direct result of policy decisions we as a body have made.
Armed.
Arms are being servered.
Metal is crashing through human bodies.
Because of a public policy, this government...
...the government...
One may respond that we made such a sacrifice to preserve freedom and liberty in Southeast Asia.
One may respond that we sacrifice ourselves on the continent of Asia so that we will not have to fight a similar war on the shores of America.
One can make these arguments only if he has failed to read the Pentagon Papers.
So that was the prelude to him then reading the Pentagon Papers into the record.
And you can be uncomfortable with or even mock, if you want, the very emotional display of Senator Gravel there.
He was crying in the middle of that.
Statement, but I would suggest that that is a far more admirable and noble and understandable reaction than what Senator Leahy did.
I mean, every day, if you're a senator in the late 1960s, early 1970s, you're getting intelligence briefings on how unbelievably horrific the Vietnam War is.
58,000 Americans killed.
2 million Vietnamese, at least, killed.
I mean, just the use of biological agents like Agent Orange.
It was a brutal, savage, barbaric war.
And the people who were in there in the middle of the jungles and rivers of Vietnam had no idea why they were fighting there, why they were being killed on the other side of the world.
And so, if you're aware of information that the public can perhaps use to understand they're being lied to and I think it's absolutely commendable to think about what's happening to human beings.
That's a humanistic response.
But he didn't just cry about it, he actually tried to do something about it.
Even though they have parliamentary immunity, reading top-secret Pentagon documents about a war in the middle of Washington, D.C., you would never know for certain that that's going to be honored.
In fact, here in Brazil, just quickly, there's a— Very similar parliamentary immunity privilege that people in Congress and the Senate enjoy.
And a couple of months ago, a member of Congress went to the microphone, speak of the tribunal, where he heavily criticized the authoritarian chief judge of the Supreme Court, even though he's not technically the chief judge.
He, in fact, acts that way, Alexander de Moraes.
And then shortly after, Alexander de Moraes ordered the police to investigate him and to try and...
CONVICT HIM FOR HAVING SPOKEN THERE, AND THEIR ARGUMENT WAS, YEAH, THEY HAVE PARLIAMENTARY IMMUNITY, BUT IT'S NOT ABSOLUTE.
BUT YOU CAN HAVE IT AS LONG AS YOU DON'T CRITICIZE THIS AUTHORITARIAN JUDGE.
SO I WOULDN'T BE 100% SURE AT ALL THAT IF I READ TOP SECRET MILITARY DOCUMENTS IN THE MIDDLE OF A WAR, TO BE CONCIDED TREASON, BUT MIKE RAVELE WENT AND DID IT ANYWAY.
THAT'S WHAT COURAGE IS.
In contrast to Pat Leahy.
And there's another case that I'm very familiar with, that I've had personal dealings with, that to this day sickens me, that I just want to tell you about.
So, for about two or three years before the Snowden reporting started, before Edward Snowden risked his liberty to come forward and show his fellow citizens the truth about how the government was spying on them with no limits and no warrants, and risking his life, life in prison to do it, He didn't go to prison, but that's only because he's in exile, an asylum in Russia for the last 12 years with no end in sight.
So he paid a price, but it was a courageous thing to do.
But two different senators, Ron Wyden and Mark Udall, Ron Wyden of Oregon, Mark Udall of Utah, went around hinting that, oh, the NSA is doing some really bad stuff that the American public, if they knew about, WOULD BE ANGERED BY, WOULD BE ENRAGED BY, BUT THEY NEVER SAID WHAT IT WAS.
THEY COULD HAVE DONE WHAT SENATOR GRAVEL DID AND GONE TO THE FLOOR, BUT THEY JUST KEPT HINTING.
THEY WOULD WRITE EMAILS, IN INTERVIEWS, THEY WOULD WRITE OP-EDS SAYING, IF YOU ONLY KNEW HOW THEY WERE INTERPRETING THE PATRIOT ACT AND WHAT THEY WERE ALLOWING And it was only once Snowden came forward and we started publishing reporting about what the NSA was doing based on his courageous act.
Did they start coming forward and say things like this from the Washington Post July 28, 2013?
The headline in the Post.
With NSA revelations, meaning the Snowden reporting, Senator Ron Wyden's vague privacy warnings finally become clear.
Exactly.
He was dropping little hints.
And he could have just said it on the Senate floor with immunity, but he waited for Snowden to come forward and do it even though he had no immunity.
Think about how cowardly that is.
Here's Leiden in 2011, May of 2011, so basically two years before we started the Snowden reporting, on the Senate floor, dropping his little hints.
You go into the Intelligence Committee several times a week, as Senator Udall and I do, you come away with the indisputable judgment.
That there are threats to the well-being of this country.
That there are people who do not wish our citizens well.
So in these dangerous times, the sources and methods of our anti-terror operations absolutely must be kept secret.
That is fundamental to the work of the intelligence community.
Sources and methods of those who serve us so gallantly secret and ensure that they are as safe as possible.
But while we protect those sources and methods, the laws that authorize them should not be kept secret from the American people.
Yes, we need secret operations, but secret law is bad for our democracy.
It will undermine the confidence that the American people have in our intelligence operations.
God, that is so inspiring.
You have no idea how much that makes me well up with pride on our leaders.
He's like, secret laws, meaning like the way they interpreted the Patriot Act to allow the NSA to spy on all Americans without warrants, like, secret laws are dangerous.
We can't have these.
We have secret laws.
And you know who knew what those secret laws were?
Ron Wyden.
He's like, it's so dangerous to have secret laws.
Why don't you disclose what was being done?
He's saying sources and methods have to be protected.
You don't disclose the names of people in foreign countries who collaborate with the United States government because that could get them killed.
Fine.
And methods, okay, you don't disclose the blueprints of the technology used to surveil because other countries might copy them or learn how to evade them.
Fine.
But he's saying, What you can't have is secret law where the government is spying on American citizens based on radical interpretations of the law, because that's very dangerous.
But you know who helped keep those secret laws a secret?
Juan Biden, because he was too afraid to do what Mike Gravel did.
He was like Pat Leahy.
He was in possession of extremely relevant, important information that the American people had the right to have, but he was too afraid, even though he's speaking on the Senate floor right there with immunity, to actually say what it is.
March 15, 2012, about nine months before Snowden first contacted me, about a year before we went to Hong Kong to meet with him, both Senator Wyden and Senator Udall wrote a joint letter to then Attorney General Eric Holder.
And you see there's a new U.S. Senate letterhead.
Very, very official.
Very official.
Very elegant.
Very historic calligraphy.
And they said, quote, we have discussed the dangers of relying on secret interpretations of public law with you on multiple occasions, but through correspondence and in person.
While we know that you are generally aware of our views on the subject, we feel obliged to comment specifically on the Justice Department's recent attempt to seek dismissal of two lawsuits that have been filed under the Freedom of Information Act, and that specifically pertains to this problem of secret law.
We believe most Americans would be stunned to learn We believe that we believe most Americans would be stunned to learn, stunned.
They would be stunned if they knew the details of how these secret court opinions have interpreted Section 215 of the Patriot Act.
As we see it, there is now a significant gap between what most Americans believe the law allows and what the government secretly claims the law allows.
This is a problem because it is impossible to have an informed public debate about what the law should say and what the public doesn't know what its government thinks the law says.
Do you see this posturing, this cowardly, disgusting posturing?
PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW WHAT OUR GOVERNMENT IS DOING WHEN INTERPRETING THE PATRIOT ACT AND WHAT THEY ARE ARGUING IT ALLOWS THEM TO DO WHEN SPYING ON AMERICAN CITIZENS, BUT THEY NEVER HAVE THE COURAGE, DESPITE HOW DANGEROUS THEY SAID IT WAS, DESPITE HOW TOXIC TO DEMOCRACY THEY SAID IT WAS, DESPITE HOW IT ROBS PEOPLE OF THE RIGHT OF CONSENT IN A DEMOCRACY.
Americans never learned about this and never would have had it not been for the fact that Edward Snowden, seeing that senators, were too scared to reveal it.
Seeing that when James Clapper, the senior intelligence official, the director of national intelligence for Obama, went before the Senate and Ron Wyden asked him, trying to get Clapper to have to admit it, are you collecting huge dossiers on American citizens?
And seeing that James Clapper lied and said, no, sir, not wittingly, and Ron Wyden didn't say anything, didn't say you're lying, and Snowden had the proof in his hand that he was lying.
It was like, if I don't come forward, no one's going to know.
And he came forward knowing he'd probably go to prison for life, and that's what led to this article, which was the first one we published in the SOTAN file on June 6, 2013, the headline which says, NSA collecting phone records of millions of Verizon customers.
An exclusive top-secret court order requiring Verizon to hand over all call data shows the scale of domestic surveillance under Obama.
And for those who don't recall, that was a court order issued in secret by a secret FISA court ordering all telephone carriers.
We had the Verizon one, but it was all telephone carriers to just turn over to the government in mass all the call records of every American citizen, who you call, where you were when you called, how long the call was, and who you called.
You can put together a massive dossier of someone's life by knowing that information.
That's what the secret law, the secret court...
Claim the Patriot Act.
Allowed.
Now, get this.
On the day that we published the first article, June 6th, Mark Udall went to the Washington Post and said, look at this headline, Mark Udall, I tried to expose this NSA program.
What was stopping him?
It was Snowden came forward and he was like, yeah, that was what I meant, that I tried to expose it too.
What did you do to expose it?
You were too afraid to do anything.
Quote, Senator Mark Newhall, Democrat of Colorado, that's right, I said Utah earlier, it's Colorado, said he, quote, did everything short of leaking classified information to bring attention to the NSA's seizure of American phone records.
Quote, I did everything in my power to bring attention to the program, he told the Denver Post.
He had it in his power to do what Snowden did, to do what we reported.
He was too much of a coward to do it.
Here's Mark Udall, also in 2011, posturing as being so enraged and indignant about what the government was doing in secret, how they were interpreting the Patriot Act to go way beyond what even the author of the Patriot Act said anyone imagined it would be used for.
And he too dropped these little crumbs, these little hints, you know, like you're kind of playing like charades.
You give, like, little hints, but you're not allowed to say the answer because you get disqualified.
You just kind of try and provoke someone to figure it out.
Little, like, puzzle pieces.
Listen to this.
Terrorism tools to achieve these important goals.
And indeed, many of the Patriot Act's provisions, which I support, have made our nation safer since those devastating attacks on that day we'll always remember on 9-11.
We know that for a fact.
But the problem we confront today is that there are three provisions that we're debating that fail to strike the right balance between keeping us safe while protecting the privacy rights of Coloradans and all Americans.
Instead, these three provisions are far too susceptible to abuse by the federal government, even in the name of keeping us safe from terrorism.
I don't say this lightly, but my concerns about some of these provisions have only grown since I've been briefed.
on their interpretation and their implementation as a member of the Intelligence Committee.
Let me share some examples.
Currently, the Intelligence Community can place wide-ranging wiretaps on Americans without even identifying the target or the location of such surveillance.
That's one concern.
The second concern: The Intelligence Community can target individuals who have no connection to terrorist organizations.
And a third concern that I have is they can collect business records on law-abiding Americans who have no connection to terrorism.
We ought to be able to at least agree that the source of an investigation under the Patriot Act should have a terrorist-related focus.
If we can't limit investigations to terrorism, my concern is where do they end?
Is there no amount of information?
That our government can collect that should be off limits.
I know Coloradans are demanding that we at least place common-sense limits on government investigations and link data collection to terrorist-related activities.
If we pass this bill, Mr. President, to extend the Patriot Act until 2015, it would mean that for four more years, the federal government will continue to have unrestrained access to private information about Americans who have no connection to terrorism, with little to no accountability as to how these powers are used.
I mean, you know what?
I reported on this topic for three years.
It was a very important part of my career.
I still pay very close attention to this surveillance debate.
I could barely get through that.
It was so ambiguous, so bereft of anything substantive that you could really, like, understand what the government was doing.
Because he, too, was just a coward.
And then the minute we came out with that report, he's like, I tried everything.
Yeah, everything except disclosing what you could have disclosed to let the American people know way before Edward Snowden came forward so that he didn't have to spend his life in prison or in Russia.
So I think that's, I mean, it is very fascinating the way the intelligence community works.
They just jog up behind Leahy with his wife.
They're like, hey, look at File 8. Bye.
And then they come back a few days later, like, hey, we already looked at File 8. That's great.
Look at File 12. That's very interesting.
People in the intelligence community were trying to alert the public through Leahy that this proof existed, but he was too much of a coward to do anything about it, and so were Senators Wyden in Udall, whereas Senator Gravel wasn't.
I just want to say the final thing.
When Edward Snowden did their jobs for them, when he said, I'm not too afraid to come forward, I'd rather someone in the Senate do it, but they clearly won't.
So I guess I have to.
And he comes forward and doesn't dump it all on the Internet, is as careful as he can be.
He gives it to journalists with very conservative instructions about only use this very carefully, don't put anybody in danger, only use it to...
To reveal to the public what they should know.
And then he, of course, gets immediately indicted on multiple felony charges, including the Espionage Act that would send him to prison for the rest of his life.
They would ask Senator Wyden and Senator Udall, well, he revealed what you said should have been revealed.
What do you think of him?
Are you defending him?
Do you think the prosecution would be dropped?
And they'd be like, I'm not really going to talk about Snowden.
I mean, he disclosed classified information.
You can't have that.
Basically, Not only unwilling to defend him, but basically calling him a criminal for doing what he did only because they were too afraid to.
These people are repellent.
They'll let wars happen rather than step forward and confront any sort of risk.
Or warrantless, unconstitutional eavesdropping, as the courts ruled on American citizens with no warrants.
That's the kind of people that, unfortunately, with some exceptions, but very few, Get to Washington and sit in both houses of Congress.
All right.
Here's the next question from Andante423.
Thanks, Glenn.
Will the rule, I don't know what, thank you.
Will the ruling blocking the AEA in South Texas do anything to help the people who were already sent to El Salvador, the CESA prison in El Salvador?
So just to fill you in on what that person is asking about, it's a great question.
Thank you.
Just to give you the context, because it's so important.
All of you, of course, remember when Trump just picked up, ICE picked up, 238 Venezuelans, and then just in the middle of the night shipped them out of the United States on a plane to El Salvador prison, and they filmed these people being dehumanized, being humiliated, having their heads shaved, kneeling on the floor.
And it's almost certainly the case that at least some of them Weren't actually guilty of being gang members, but they're in this prison that's designed to be permanent.
It runs on slave labor.
It's one of the most abusive ones.
But when this got to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court said by a 9-0 ruling, so that includes Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, Justice Gorsuch, Justice Kavanaugh, all of the conservatives' favorite judges, by a 9-0 ruling, it said, Even if you want to use the Yelling Enemies Act, you still have to give these people a due process.
You have to give them a hearing, advance notice of their intent to be removed and then their opportunity to go into court and present evidence that, no, I'm not a gay member.
This is a tattoo they use.
This is an autism tattoo or this is a tattoo celebrating my family or whatever.
So they already said you have to give them a court hearing.
And in this court hearing, the judges should Decide two things.
Number one, does Trump have the right to invoke the Alien Enemies Act?
It's supposed to be a wartime statue.
It's only for wartime.
The only three times it was invoked previously was the War of 1812, World War I, World War II.
And just to give you a feel for how extremist this power is, that's what FDR used to order all Japanese Americans interned in concentration camps on the grounds that They were suspect to be loyal to Japan, generally considered one of the most shameful acts of the 20th century.
But at least there was a real war going on in World War II.
Trump's theory is that we're at war with Trenderagua, where it constitutes like an invasion, which is not what any war has ever looked like previously.
And so the Supreme Court said it's dubious if Trump can...
Invoke it at all, and the court should decide that.
But then even if he can, you have to have a hearing on whether these people are really alien enemies, whether they're members of violent gangs.
They need to have an opportunity to contest it.
So they sent it away from Judge Boesberg.
They said it can't be in D.C. It has to be where the prisoners are held.
And they're purposely keeping the prisoners in Texas, believing that, which is true, most of the judges in Texas are.
Right-wing Republican conservatives and believing that they would get better judges.
And they did.
When the lawyers for the Venezuelan detainees sued in federal court to argue that this law was invalidly invoked and they weren't gang members, they got the best judge they could have gotten.
They got a judge appointed by Donald Trump in his first term.
So he's a Trump-appointed judge.
And you can imagine how conservatives are, how conservative judges are who trample points from Texas.
Whole states are red, governors are red, two senators are Republicans.
And yet that's the judge that yesterday said that there's no legal foundation for adopting and invoking the LNA Enemies Act because we're not actually in war.
Here's the New York Times article on the ruling.
Federal judge strikes down Trump's use of Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelans.
Quote, a federal judge on Thursday permanently barred the Trump administration from invoking the Alien Enemies Act, an 18th century wartime law to deport Venezuelans that has deemed to be criminals from the Southern District of Texas, saying that the White House's use of the statute was illegal.
So...
The decision by the judge, Fernando Rodriguez Jr., was the most expansive ruling yet by any of the numerous jurists who are currently hearing challenges to the White House's efforts to employ the powerful but rarely invoked law as part of the wide-ranging deportation plans.
A 36-page ruling by Judge Rodriguez, a President Trump appointee, amounted to a philosophical rejection of the White House's attempts to transpose the Alien Enemies Act.
In the LA Antimax, it says this statute can be evoked when we're at war.
So the Trump administration had to concoct a theory.
How are we at war?
Who are we at war with?
And their argument was we're at war basically with these international drug gangs that are invading our country.
They're like an invading army.
We're not at war with any specific country, just like a group of criminals.
And here's the ruling from this Trump-appointed judge issued yesterday.
There you see the caption.
It is JAV, which is one of the Venezuelan detainees that they want to deport versus Donald Trump.
I'm going to read you some of this case just so you can get a feel for the ruling.
Probably not as much as we planned because it's quite long, but it's not actually a long opinion.
You can read it.
We'll put the link in the notes.
But it says this, quote, Neither the court nor the parties question the executive branch's authority.
and responsibility to enforce federal laws and along with local law enforcement agencies to protect the nation's population.
Neither the court nor the parties question that the executive branch can direct the detention and removal of aliens who engage in criminal activity in the United States.
The executive branch has and will continue to rely on the Immigration and Nationality Act to remove aliens found to represent a danger to the country.
The question that this lawsuit presents is whether the president can utilize a different statute, a specific statute, the Alien Enemies Act, to detain and remove Venezuelan aliens who are members of Trenderagua.
As to that question, the historical record renders clear that the president's invocation of the AEA through the proclamation that he issued exceeds the scope of the statute.
And is contrary to the plain, ordinary meaning of the statute's terms.
As a result, the court concludes that as a matter of law, the executive branch cannot rely on the AEA based on the proclamation Trump issued to detain the named petitioners in the certified class or to remove them from the country.
The AEA grants broad powers to the president who may invoke the statute when, quote, a declared war exists.
A declared war.
The only body that has the power to declare war is the United States Congress.
I need to say they didn't declare war here.
The statute says when a, quote, declared war exists between the United States and a, quote, foreign nation or government, or when, quote, any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the United States by any foreign nation or government.
Under either condition, the president must, quote, make public proclamation of the event before exercising his statutory authority under the statute.
Once properly invoked, the AEA renders, quote, all native citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation of the government and who are at least 14 years of aid within the United States and not actually naturalized, quote, liable to be apprehended, retained, secured, and removed as alien enemies.
And again, that's what allowed FDR to say I'm using the Alien Enemies Act to...
TAKE ALL JAPANESE AMERICANS AND JUST DETAIN THEM UNTIL THE WAR IS OVER.
NO DUE PROCESS, NONE OF THAT.
ON MARCH 15, 2025, PRESIDENT TRUMP ISSUED THE PROCLAMATION THAT ISSUED IN THE SAWSUIT.
No president has invoked the AA other than during a time of war, including the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II.
The proclamation makes no reference to and in no manner suggests that a threat exists of an organized armed group of individuals entering the United States with the direction of Venezuela to conquer the country or assume control over a portion of the nation.
Thus, the proclamation's language cannot be read as describing conduct that falls within the meaning of, quote, invasion for purposes of the AA.
As for, quote, predatory incursion, the proclamation does not describe an armed group of individuals entering that in states as an organized unit to attack a city, coastal town, or any other defined geographical area with the purpose of plundering or destroying property and lives.
THE COURT CONCLUDES THAT WHILE IT MAY NOT ADJUDICATE THE VERACITY OF THE FACTUAL STATEMENTS OF THE PROCLAMATION OR THE PRIORITY OF THE STEPS TAKEN BY THE PRESIDENT TO ADD VENEZUELAN ALIENS AND TURNDEL OUAGRA MEMBERS, THIS COURT RETAINS THE AUTHORITY TO CONSTRUE THE AEA'S TERMS AND DETERMINE WHETHER THE ANNOUNCE BASIS FOR THE PROCLAMATION
And it goes on with language, explaining why, based on the history and the language of the statute, the president cannot...
Invoke this law.
Because it's only for wartime and we're not at wartime.
It's as simple as that.
I've seen a lot of conservatives kind of questioning, like, why did the courts get to decide this?
In part, it's because that's been how the Supreme Court and the judicial power have been interpreted for more than 200 years, going back to Marbury v.
Madison.
And if you think about it, it has to be this way.
The purpose of the Constitution is to limit The powers of the federal government.
To limit the powers of the president and Congress.
Like the government can't do this, it can't do that, it can't do the other thing.
So if the president ignores the Constitution, let's say Joe Biden orders that all Trump supporters be rounded up and imprisoned with no trial, obviously a violation of the Constitution.
If you can't go to the courts and seek relief and ask the courts to declare that unconstitutional, who does that then?
Where do you go?
Where do you get relief?
If the president just starts ordering his political enemies imprisoned with no trial, no due process, of course it's the courts who have to say this is unconstitutional and therefore it can't be done.
Or if the government invokes some sort of statute that Congress passed, like the AA, And the statute says the government can do A, B, and C as long as conditions 1, 2, and 3 prevail.
But instead of only doing A, B, and C, the government also does D, E, and F. Even though the conditions, the three conditions that Congress required, don't actually exist.
They're just totally misusing a law.
Who do you go to and to say this is illegal based on the law Congress passed?
Of course, you go to the courts.
That's how our system works.
And it's all balanced.
It's not like the courts are the supreme branches sometimes people try and claim.
It's the president who appoints the judges who are on the courts.
Congress or the Senate has to confirm them.
And then if they start abusing their power, they can be impeached.
And federal court judges have been impeached before.
Not often, but they can be, and they have been.
And then on top of that, the Courts really have no way to execute their decisions.
They don't have an army.
They don't have guns.
They don't have any way to force a president.
The president or a Congress basically respects the credibility of the courts, and that's why court decisions are abided by.
There's no way to argue the Supreme Court or the courts in general are supreme.
The president has all kinds of powers.
The Congress has all kinds of powers.
But if you're going to have a constitution and a set of laws, you need to have somebody who interprets what those are and who decrees what they are.
And you can't ask the president to rule in his own case like, hey, Mr. President, are you violating the law?
Are you violating the constitution?
And obviously tons of conservatives, many times, under Clinton, under Obama, under Biden, ran into court and asked federal court judges to put a stop to what those administrations were doing.
Now, It is true that there are a lot more of those rulings coming under Trump, and you could make the argument that that's because he has so many different new policies that have tested and pushed the limits of law.
But that's how our system works.
It works that way under every president.
And I do think picking people up in our country and sending them for life in prison in a country they have nothing to do with and have never been to, where they'll never get out.
Is an absolutely extremist power, and we definitely need judicial review.
And as the court said, the president, even despite not being able to use the Alien Enemies Act, has all the legal authority in the world to deport people who are illegally in the country.
That's the other set of laws, the Immigration Nationality Act and others.
That's how President Obama deported millions of people.
He didn't use the Alien Enemies Act.
He used the set of laws that are normally used for that.
And that's what the court is saying.
Doesn't mean you can't deport people in the country illegally.
It's your obligation and your right and your duty to do that.
You just can't use this wartime power to do so because we're not at war, as the statute describes it.
All right.
Last question is from MarkJohnson125, who says, "What do you think about Representative Omar cursing that reporter?
I'm not a fan of it, but it seems like people are overreacting a bit." All right.
So just to set the stage for this.
So you can see what happened, for those of you who haven't.
Congresswoman Omar was walking on the street toward the Capitol.
And it's very common for journalists to lurk there.
That's one of the places you can ask members of Congress questions, even if they don't invite you into their office or agree to an interview.
It's very often done.
So the reporter's not doing anything wrong here at all, I don't think.
But this is how Congresswoman Omar reacted.
Congresswoman Omar, I'm Miles Morrell with the Daily Caller News Foundation.
Do you think more of your Democratic colleagues should be traveling to El Salvador to advocate on behalf of Abednego Garcia?
I think you should fuck off.
I'm sorry, what?
Congresswoman?
You should fuck off.
Who should?
You.
Why me?
I'm not taking any questions right now, but here you go.
Yeah, thanks.
Thank you.
Okay, it was a little bit of a snarky question.
Hey, hey, should more of you Democrats go to El Salvador and advocate for Abrigo Garcia?
You know, that's okay.
Reporters can be snarky.
They don't have to be super deferential, super respectful.
He didn't assault her.
He didn't do anything.
But in return, yes, she used a naughty word.
It's like a word you tell your nine-year-old kid not to use, but adults use that word.
And she wasn't aggressive about it.
She wasn't violent.
She didn't attack him.
She didn't threaten him.
He asked this question.
She was bothered by it.
Probably doesn't like the deli caller either.
And he said, do you think they should go visit El Salvador?
And she said, I think you should fuck off.
And then he said, excuse me, what?
She didn't backtrack at all?
She didn't get embarrassed and try and pretend she didn't say it?
She said, yeah, I think you should fuck off.
And he said, who should?
And she said, you should.
And that was it.
Maybe not the best way to handle a journalist.
I'll certainly accept that.
Maybe a member of Congress should conduct themselves with more, I don't know, whatever, decorum, if you want to say that.
I mean, Trump campaigned all throughout 2024 using every curse word he could think of in his rallies.
So let's not invoke decorum unless the politicians you most admire are actually adhering to it as well.
Here is Nancy Mace, who was questioned by a constituent, not a journalist even, but a constituent in her home district when she was at some sort of drugstore, and here's what happened.
I do them every year.
You want to keep going?
So the question that he asked before this started was, oh, hi, Congresswoman, are you going to hold any town halls for your constituents like me to come and ask you a question?
I do them every year.
Do you want to keep going?
Do you want to keep going and keep harassing me?
You could have gone to a dozen town halls last year.
I've already done one.
I'll do plenty more.
You're always invited.
And by the way, I voted for gay marriage twice.
What does that have to do with me?
Do you think everything about me has to do with gay marriage?
I do, absolutely.
If you want to get in my face about town halls, you should have shown it to them last year.
I have town halls every year.
I have over a dozen every year.
That was my entire question.
You could have come to any of them last year.
I had over a dozen.
Where were you the year before that?
Because you know what?
Because you people on the left are crazy.
You're absolutely fucking crazy.
I'm absolutely fucking crazy.
You are.
And get out of my face.
Goodbye.
You're insane.
Fuck you.
You're going to fuck me?
You're going to be voted out so fast this year.
I'm not.
I'm not.
I won by so much.
You're a disgrace to this state.
That's what you are.
You're a disgrace.
I asked you a simple question and you just to go on this tirade and tell me fuck you.
Yeah, fuck you.
Disgusting.
Get out of my face.
Fuck you.
Get out of my face.
Try it again.
What's your name?
Yep, I sure did.
The first thing you're gonna say to me is fuck me for asking you a question?
Absolutely.
Get the fuck out of my face.
Fuck you.
Now.
Fuck you.
You couldn't take me on, baby.
Say the fuck away from me.
All right, so that seems unhinged to me, to be honest.
He was very polite.
He kept his distance.
He didn't get up on her face at all.
She was in the middle of the row.
He entered the row a tiny bit.
He wasn't the slightest bit aggressive.
And he's like, hey, Congresswoman, are you going to have a town hall this year?
Like a super legitimate question for a constituent to ask.
And it's like part of the duty of members of Congress.
And she's like very aggressive right from the beginning, very hostile, and then out of nowhere she just brings up, she's like, and by the way, I voted for gay marriage twice.
Why would you say that?
I mean, yeah, he is pretty clearly gay, but like, why would you bring that up?
Like, why does that?
Even enter your brain.
She's always like, okay, he's gay.
I want to tell him that I voted for gay marriage twice.
I'll probably love that.
And he was like, who cares?
Everything I think about and care about isn't just about being gay or gay marriage.
And then by the end of it, she used the F word, I don't know, 10 times maybe, probably, and said other things as well.
So if you're going to Be very upset by Ilhan Omar using an F-word with a journalist.
We all know journalists deserve the greatest eference, the highest amount of respect.
Then, if that's the sort of thing that you really want to hold politicians to, like no naughty words, then you ought to be complaining about Trump, who curses more than any politician I've ever seen.
And it doesn't bother me, by the way.
Or what Nancy Mace did, which is...
Of all those things, like the most unhinged.
Here's Charlie Kirk.
Yesterday, after he saw the video, Ilhan Omar just told a Daily Caller video reporter to F off when he attempted to ask her a simple question about Kilmar Abrego Garcia.
The woman has no class, no gratitude to America, and no honor.
Truly a disgrace to the U.S. Congress.
Piers Morgan.
The British subject who loves to spend his time commenting on American politics.
Reminder, Democrats say Donald Trump has lowered the tone of political rhetoric.
And then links to that video.
Here's Libs of TikTok.
Always the beacon of perfect politeness and civility and respect for others.
She says, wow, in all caps, Democratic Representative Ilhan Omar tells journalists to F off when asked if more of her colleagues would travel to visit a deported MS-13 gang member.
That wasn't the question, whether they're going to.
He said, should they?
Do you think that more should go?
As I said, it was a snippy question, but who cares?
But please, please stop that.
These are the people...
The Trump movement, the American right, Trump himself, who spent 10 years calling journalists the enemy of the people, the enemy of the people, which I don't disagree with and never bothered me.
And in fact, I can make an argument about why that's legitimate, but still, that's some very aggressive, hostile rhetoric to use about journalists.
And Republican politicians of the last 10 years were frequently Scorning and insulting journalists.
Trump insults every journalist who asks him a question.
Every one.
And now Trump is going to turn around and be like, "A politician should not speak to a journalist in this manner.
Journalists deserve the highest respect.
She has no class." How about Nancy Mayes?
Does she have class?
Does Donald Trump have class?
This is the kind of thing I really can't stand.
I really can't stand it.
I just have some consistent standards, especially on these kind of trivial issues, and to act like Ilhan Omar is some kind of heathen, some kind of threat to society.
She doesn't have gratitude toward America.
She's an American citizen.
Yeah, she was born in another country and became an American citizen.
The same is true of Elon Musk and Melania Trump and a lot of other people.
She's still a full citizen like anybody else is.
And to be honest, I thought what Ilhan Omar did was funny.
I mean, I kind of thought that whole thing with Nancy Mace was sort of funny.
I think Trump is funny.
You know, like, loosen up.
The rectum doesn't always have to be, like, so tightly closed when you're pretending to be offended by things.
I think we want our politicians to be more human.
And this is how people speak.
ONE LAST QUESTION THAT WE WILL TAKE FROM SAMBISTA.
YOUR LOCALS COMMUNITY WANTS TO KNOW HOW ARE TOBY, ZEUSH, AND So, as you may know, our locals community, we used to do just an after show.
When the program ended, we would wait about ten minutes, sit over in a different part of the studio.
I would co-host it with my show's director, Victor Puji.
And generally, I take two or three dogs to the studio every night, and they have to be put back.
In the dressing room when the show is being done because they wouldn't leave me alone.
But during the after show we would let them out so the local members really got to know all the dogs.
I have 25 at home.
I would take maybe 8 or 10 of them.
So yeah, they're all doing great actually.
All the ones you named and all the other dogs that you've gotten to know, they're all doing very well.
I appreciate your asking.
Yeah, I actually wish I could find a way to integrate the dogs into the show more or just let them wander around.
Maybe Friday night is a good night to do it.
We'll think about it.
But yeah, appreciate your asking.
All right.
That concludes our show for this evening.
I love when we have confusion with the cameras.
As a reminder, System Update is also available in podcast form.
You can listen to every episode 12 hours after they first broadcast live here in Rumble on Spotify, Apple, and all the major podcasting platforms where if you rate, review, and follow our program, it really helps provide the visibility of the show.
As a final reminder, we are independent journalists doing independent media.
And as a result, we really do rely on our viewers and members to support the program and enable us to do the independent journalism that we do here every night.
To do that, simply click the Join button right below the video page on the Rumble page, and it will take you directly to that community.
Those who join get access to a wide array of benefits, including we spend Friday night taking your questions and answering them.
We put a lot of exclusive content there.
We put professional transcripts of every show we broadcast here.
We put them there.
There are lots of other features.
But most of all, it is the community on which we really do rely to support the independent journalism that we do here every night.
Like I said, simply click the Join button right below the video player on the Rumble page, and it will take you right there.
For those who have been watching this show, we are, of course, very appreciative, and we hope to see you back on Monday night and every night at 7 p.m. Eastern, live exclusively here on Rumble.
Have a great evening and a great weekend, everybody.
