Trump Mocks Concerns About Epstein; Trump Continues Biden's Policy of Arming Ukraine; Trump and Lula Exchange Barbs Over Brazil
Trump dismisses any more questions about the Epstein case after his own inner circle obsessed over the files and promised the public answers. Plus: Trump continues Biden's policy of arming Ukraine, continuing to fuel the war. Finally: Trump weighs in on Bolsonaro's prosecution in Brazil, sparking a controversy with Lula. ---------------------------- Watch full episodes on Rumble, streamed LIVE 7pm ET. Become part of our Locals community Follow System Update: Twitter Instagram TikTok Facebook
Welcome to a new episode of System Update, our live nightly show that airs every Monday through Friday.
That's right, I said every Monday through Friday at 7 p.m.
Eastern, exclusively here on Rumble, the free speech.
I'll turn it into YouTube.
Tonight, much of MAGA World was in turmoil, confusion, and anger yesterday, understandably so, after the Trump DOJ announced it was closing the Epstein files and its investigation with no further disclosures of any kind.
As we detailed at length in our report on all of this last night, virtually nothing that MAGA leaders promised over the last several years about these files has been fulfilled.
And key Trump officials have done a complete 180 on everything they spent the last four years authoritatively asserting about this case.
After all this happened, some attempt was made to try and pin the blame or isolate the blame for all of this on Attorney General Pam Bondi, calling even on Trump to fire her as if she were acting as some rogue agent against Trump's will.
Yet Donald Trump himself today, when asked about all of this, went much further than anyone else while he was meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the White House again, where President Trump actually mocked and angrily dismissed any concerns over the Epstein matter and how it was handled.
Then, one of the uniting views of Trump supporters over the last four years has been opposition to the Biden administration's policy of arming, funding, and fueling Ukraine in its war against Russia.
Trump himself repeatedly criticized this policy as well, arguing that it was a profound waste of American resources to use our taxpayer dollars to fund Ukraine in its war with Russia.
Yesterday, however, at the same meeting with Netanyahu, Trump announced that he would continue the Biden policy that he had spent so many years criticizing by now providing defensive arms at least to Ukraine.
And he did so based on the long-standing neocon liberal view that Putin is completely untrustworthy and therefore he must be fought, that Russia must be fought because of Putin.
That's what Trump himself said as well.
Finally, Trump yesterday posted a lengthy tweet attacking Brazil for its ongoing prosecution of former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, comparing that prosecution to the lawfare and the persecution that Trump himself suffered.
All of this is almost certainly a prelude to a series of sanctions that the State Department has prepared for Brazil's notorious chief censor and leading judge.
This is something we were going to cover last night and didn't have time to, but we will tonight.
After that statement by Donald Trump, Brazil's president Lula de Silva quickly responded very defiantly by basically telling Trump to mind his own business, arguing that questions of Brazilian justice are for Brazilians only and that Brazilian legal institutions are both legitimate and independent and therefore need no outside intervention.
Exactly the opposite of what Lula did and said when it came to his own prosecution in 2018, where he not only appealed to foreign countries and foreign institutions, but argued that Brazilian judicial institutions are fundamentally and radically corrupted.
There are several interesting aspects to all of this, especially as Brazil was yesterday hosting the BRICS Summit, and we'll examine the most important ones in just a little bit.
Before we get to all of that, a couple programming notes.
First of all, System Update is available in podcast form as well.
You can listen to every episode 12 hours after they first start broadcast live here on Rumble on Spotify, Apple, and all the major podcasting platforms.
If you rate, review, and follow our program on those platforms, it really does help spread the visibility of our show.
Finally, as independent journalists, and this is independent media, we rely on our viewers and our members for support for the show.
And the way that you can provide that is by joining our locals community where you get a wide range of benefits, including multiple interactive features, exclusive video content and interviews that we publish often throughout the week.
We sometimes stream there exclusively.
It's a place we publish professional written transcripts of every program that we broadcast here.
We publish those there the next day.
And most of all, it's the community on which we really do rely to support the independent journalism that we do here every night.
Simply click the red join button under the Rumble player, or you can scan the QR code on the screen or go to greenwald.locals.com.
And we actually, yesterday, just as you know, we have an exclusive segment with a Q ⁇ A session conducted by Michael Tracy with a video from Staten Island asking Trump supporters who are out on the street what their view is of bombing Iran.
Those are the kinds of things that we often put there as well.
For now, welcome to a new episode of System Update, starting right now.
Last night we covered quite extensively the decision by the Trump Justice Department, not even six months into the administration, to completely shut down and close and stop all investigations into Jeffrey Epstein, as well as announcing that there will be no further disclosures of any documents of any kind, that whatever they've released so far, which has basically been nothing, not basically has been nothing, is all you're going to get.
And this is a very blatant betrayal of multiple promises that were made by key Trump officials over the last four years before they were in the White House, but it was also a complete 180 in terms of what key Trump influencers and pundits had been saying, including several pundits who are now running the FBI, such as Cash Patel and Dan Bongino, as well as the Justice Department, including Pam Bondi.
We even showed you an interview that Alina Chabad, the Trump attorney who now is the U.S. attorney for New Jersey, appointed by Donald Trump, did with Pierce Morgan while she was in the government, just in February, where she claimed they have a whole bunch of lists of people that are very incriminating, shocking names who are on that list.
She said there's video, there's all kinds of documents that are shocking in her words, and she said they're going to be released over Time because we've gone long enough where people who do these sorts of things, including are involved in the Epstein scandal, have no accountability.
And she said that is ending with the Trump administration.
There's going to be accountability.
And yesterday, the Trump Justice Department said, no, there's nothing here.
We looked.
There's no such thing as a client list.
Yeah, we know we've been promising that.
J.D. Vance repeatedly said, where's the client list?
Donald Trump Jr. said, anyone hiding the client list is a scumbag.
Dan Baggino, Cash Patel, Pam Bondi accused Biden officials of basically covering up predatory pedophilia by refusing to release the Jeffrey Epstein client list.
Now they're saying there's no client list.
That thing we've been talking about and accusing Biden officials of hiding and promising to disclose, that doesn't exist, actually.
There's no such thing.
They all said there's no evidence that anybody ever used blackmail as part of any of this.
All these powerful people going to that island, going to his house, video cameras everywhere.
No evidence of any blackmail.
No evidence of anything incriminating, really, other than what's already been publicly disclosed before the Trump administration.
And Jeffrey Epstein absolutely killed himself.
There's no investigation needed.
There's no incriminating evidence otherwise.
They've seen the files, trust them, and he killed himself.
And a lot of people are very, obviously angry about this, as they should be.
They were promised repeatedly, they were led to believe the complete opposite of what the Justice Department is now saying.
And it wasn't speculative.
It wasn't couched in possibilities.
It was stated assertively that this was happening.
And there were promises made of all kinds of releases that are simply not going to happen now with no real attempt at all to reconcile everything they've been saying with what they're now trying to get people to believe.
None, just contempt for their own base.
Now, a lot of people yesterday who couldn't understand what happened here decided that this is probably Pam Bondi's fault, that she was acting as some sort of rogue agent.
There were calls for Donald Trump to fire Pam Bondi as though she did this on her own, as though she's the corrupt one.
She's covering this up.
Trump has no idea what's going on.
He didn't approve of this.
He would never have approved of something like this.
And yet, earlier today, Trump was at the White House and a reporter asked him what I regard, personally, what I regard as the key question.
There are a lot of key questions, but I regard this as one of the most pressing that has never really been addressed, including even yesterday with the Justice Department's announcement, which is did Jeffrey Epstein work with or for any foreign or domestic intelligence agencies?
Did he have ties to a foreign government?
Did he have ties to a foreign intelligence agency?
Many of Jeffrey Epstein's closest and most important associates, the ones who made him very rich, are heavily involved in pro-Israel activism, but could be other countries paying him.
Who knows?
We just never got an answer to that question.
The Justice Department denied all these other things, but didn't address this.
So a journalist, not sure who it was, I'm going to find out, but to his credit, asked what I think is exactly the right question.
And he didn't ask it to Pam, well, he did actually ask it to Pam Bondi, but Trump intervened and said, I'd like to answer.
And here's what Trump had to say.
Seeing Jeffrey Epstein, it left some lingering mysteries.
One of the biggest ones is whether he ever worked for a American or foreign intelligence agency.
The former labor secretary, who was Miami U.S. Attorney Alex Kosvick, he allegedly said that he did work for an intelligence agency.
So could you resolve whether or not he did?
And also, could you say why there was a minute missing from the jailhouse tape on the minute second?
Yeah, sure.
Can I just interrupt for a second?
Are you still talking about Jeffrey Epstein?
This guy's been talked about for years.
You're asking, we have Texas, we have this, we have all of the things.
And are people still talking about this guy, this creep?
That is unbelievable.
Do you want to waste the time?
Do you feel like answering?
I don't mind answering.
I mean, I can't believe you're asking a question on Epstein at a time like this where we're having some of the greatest success and also tragedy with what happened in Texas.
It just seems like a desecration, but you go ahead.
I mean, how anyone who is a Trump supporter can listen to that and not feel completely condescended to and devalued and ignored is something I'll never understand.
It wasn't the media obsessing on the Epstein case.
It was Donald Trump's closest political associates.
In fact, J.D. Bance bashed the media repeatedly for not asking questions about the Epstein case.
He said anyone who's a journalist worthy of that term would be digging into all of this and demanding answers from the Biden administration about why these documents aren't forthcoming, about what information there is, about who's on that client list.
Cash Patel and Dan Bongino went on every podcast they could find, including in Dan Bagino's case, his own, to talk about this repeatedly.
We showed you all the video last night.
By the way, I was on Breaking Points earlier today with Crystal Ball, and I'm sure every show did this, but they compiled their own video montage of huge numbers of Trump officials, Trump supporters, leading Trump influencers over the last four years begging the table in an accusatory way, implying that the Biden administration is in on this predatory pedophile plot because they're hiding all the truth.
And then Trump, when asked about it, a matter that his own movement, his own supporters, that Trump himself was asked about several times during the campaign, and said, yeah, I think that's something that probably should be disclosed.
I'm going to look into this.
That has the audacity to say, how can you ask about something so trivial?
We're dealing with important things like the flood in Texas and this great war victory, this 12-day war, this glorious war victory, this triumph that we bombed for about 30 minutes Iran's nuclear facilities.
And Netanyahu's here, and the two war leaders are expecting this parade in gratitude for this historic victory that they ended up waging.
And Trump is saying, all these great things we're doing and all these tragedies, you're going to talk about something as trivial as the Epstein case, this creep that's dead?
I mean, all the people raising the questions most loudly still are Trump's own supporters.
His vice president, his attorney general, his FBI director, his deputy FBI director, his own attorney, personal attorney who's now the U.S. Attorney for New Jersey.
And he's going to attack a reporter and demean a reporter, and that's as angry as Trump really gets in terms of his visceral behavior.
And I said, oh, he exploded in anger at this reporter.
And a lot of Trump reporters said, no, it wasn't exploding in anger.
Whatever.
That's a semantic thing.
For me, I haven't seen Trump quite that animated in spewing anger toward a reporter, but whatever.
The substance is what matters.
And the substance is him suddenly now pronouncing that the Epstein case is not just trivial, but too trivial to even waste his time asking about.
Now that his administration has said nothing there, nothing to see, move on.
And that's Trump reinforcing that message.
So that's number one.
Number two is to whatever extent people wanted to blame Pam Bondi or Cash Patel or pretend that they were doing something on their own that Trump didn't approve of, that effort should immediately cease because Trump, obviously, at least believes what they believe, but went even further to say it's not even worth talking about.
It's so trivial.
Here's the rest of this video where Pam Bondi goes on to address this question, in my understanding, for the first time.
Sure.
First, to back up on that, in February, I did an interview on Fox, and it's been getting a lot of attention because I said I was asked a question about the client list, and my response was, it's sitting on my desk to be reviewed, meaning the file, along with the JFK MLK files as well.
That's what I meant by that.
Yeah, but that's maybe what you meant by that, but that's not what was asked.
They didn't ask, is the Epstein file going to be released?
The question that we showed last night specifically was, are you going to release the client list?
This is what Donald Trump Jr. and JD Vance and Cash Patel and Dan Bagino and Pam Bondi have been demanding the release of, this specific client list.
And in response to that question, are you going to release the client list?
She said, yes, sitting on my desk for review.
And now we're told there is no client list.
What was sitting on her desk?
She said, no, that's not what I meant.
I meant the entire Epstein file.
But there's so much more to it than this one specific comment.
There's so many comments from all these people like that.
So let's see what the rest of what she had to say.
Also to the tens of thousands of video, they turned out to be child porn downloaded by that disgusting Jeffrey Epstein.
Child porn is what they were.
Never going to be released, never going to see the light of day.
Nobody wants that release.
Nobody asked for that to be released.
She's all acting like all, you know, noble, but she's strong.
She's strong.
She doesn't care how many people demand to watch the videos of Jeffrey Epstein having sex with young kids or the child porn.
Nobody asked for that.
That was never part of what was demanded.
Not by her, not by anyone else interested in this case.
There's a complete straw man.
How dare you demand the release of disgusting child porn?
We're not going to ever show that.
No one wants that.
No one cares about that.
No one's seeking that.
To him being an agent, I have no knowledge about that.
We can get back to you on that.
And the minute missing from the video, we released the video showing definitively the video was not conclusive, but the evidence prior to it was showing he committed suicide.
And what was on that, there was a minute that was off the counter.
And what we learned from Bureau of Prisons was every year, every night, they redo that video.
It's old from like 1999.
So every night the video is reset and every night should have the same minute missing.
So we're looking for that video to release that as well, showing that a minute is missing every night.
And that's it on Epstein.
Okay, that's it on Epstein.
Do you see what they, this decree?
No more on Epstein.
No more question.
Okay.
This is, I just, actually, I only saw the part about Trump, the ex-rimber, I didn't hear Pambandi's answer.
But I want you to note something here.
She was asked a very specific question, which as I keep saying is a key question, if not the key question.
For me, it's the key question because it's never been answered, including in their statements yesterday, which is did Jeffrey Epstein work for with a foreigner or domestic intelligence agency?
And you notice they're not answering that.
She said, I don't have any knowledge of that.
We'll have to get back to you as though that wasn't even something that they looked at.
But we're never going to get an answer on that because Trump is saying, how dare you even ask about it?
Pam Bondi is saying that's it on Epstein.
There's evidence to connect Jeffrey Epstein to Israel.
And we went over it last night.
I don't not saying I believe or know that he was working in some way with the Israeli government or intelligence agencies in that government or with the CIA or with intelligence agencies within the U.S. government, but that's certainly something we ought to know.
And do you see they're still not saying it?
There's no answer on that.
Trump last night, just to make sure that no one thought that he had any different view or different position than Cash Patel and Dan Bongino, went to Truth Social and said the FBI under the direction of Director Cash Patel and Deputy Director Dan Bongino is back to the basics.
Again, like, ah, they did a little detour of this irrelevant EPSEM stuff because you wanted that.
No, they wanted it.
Cash Patel and Dan Bongino were the leading voices in the MAGA movement, pounding the table on this.
They're back to basics, though, now, locking up criminals and cleaning up America's streets.
We have the greatest law enforcement professionals in the world, but, quote, politics and corrupt leadership often prevented them from doing their job.
That is no longer the case, and now they have been unleashed, doing their jobs, and they are doing just that.
Keep it up, make America safe again.
So, in case anybody was wondering, did Dan Bongino and Cash Patel or Pam Bonnie do this?
Because without Trump's direction, without his approval, without his knowledge against his will, the answer is no.
The answer is no.
Donald Trump is fully on board with decreeing that you get no more documents, no more answers, nothing on the Epstein file, notwithstanding how many times you are promised it.
Notwithstanding how many times his key cabinet officials accuse other people of corruptly hiding it.
Trump himself, we showed you this last night, but just now that he's commented on it himself, he was on with Lex Friedman, the highly charismatic and intellectually provocative, unique thinker.
That's why he appeared out of nowhere, because of just how what a alluring draw he is.
And Donald Trump went to Lex Friedman two months before the election, and Lex Friedman, in his characteristically charismatic way, asked Trump about this, and here's the exchange.
But a lot of big people went to that island.
But fortunately, I was not one of them.
It's just very strange for a lot of people that the list of clients that went to the island has not been made public.
Yeah, it's very interesting, isn't it?
probably will be as if you're able to you'll be Now, Kennedy's interesting because it's so many years ago.
They do that for danger, too, because, you know, it endangers certain people, et cetera, et cetera.
So Kennedy is very different from the Epstein thing.
But yeah, I'd be inclined to do the Epstein.
I'd have no problem with it.
No, I guess you probably would have a big problem with it since you didn't do it, and now you're yelling at everybody who asked you about it for raising such an incredibly trivial and unimportant issue.
As I said last night, we delved very deeply into these matters, examining the entire record of all of these people and what they've said.
And I'll just repeat one point there.
You see it on the screen if you want to go watch that and haven't, that all of these people, Pam Bondi, Dan Boggino, Cash Patel, J.D. Vance, Donald Trump Jr., all of them spent the last four years claiming the Biden administration was corruptly hiding the client list and other incriminating information because they're basically accessories to or trying to protect predators and pedophiles.
Cash Patel and Dan Boggino said that Bill Gates was strongly lobbying Congress not to release the client list, implying that he was on that client list.
In other words, that he was a pedophile as a pedophile.
And all these people who they smeared for saying what they themselves are now saying, how do they not apologize to all those people?
How do they spend four years accusing Biden officials of corruptly covering up the client list when they're now saying there has never been a client list to disclose in the first place?
How do they say that Bill Gate is on the client list and therefore desperately working to keep the client list suppressed when there is no client list?
How do you not apologize if you really, if this really is the truth and you really know it's the truth?
How do you not publicly apologize to the people that you spent all those years maligning and defaming and trying to destroy their reputation over what apparently you're at least what you're saying now was completely false?
Isn't it ironic that they're talking about how we need accountability, people to have accountability?
Where's the accountability for what they've done?
Trump is basically telling the media, no more questions about Epstein, Pam Bondi.
That's it on Epstein.
Move along, is what they're now saying.
And I would strongly suggest that you not do so.
You are entitled to these answers that you are promised.
You're entitled to this information about whether Jeffrey Epstein was working with an allied foreign intelligence agency, a domestic foreign intelligence agency.
If they learned anything, the Death Department said there's no evidence Jeffrey Epstein ever blackmailed anybody.
What about people who had access to that information, including intel agencies?
Did they?
And the fact that Pam Bonnie can't even address the question of whether he worked with foreign intelligence agencies wasn't even a question that they looked at, according to her.
Oh, we'll get back to you.
Oh, I'm sure.
I wouldn't recommend holding your breath, waiting for Pam Bonnie to get back to you on that.
She can struggle back, as Jen Sackey used to so notoriously say.
But whatever is going on here, whatever you think the right explanation is, they're hiding stuff like Biden did, or there never was anything there, it's incredibly sleazy.
And they owe a lot more explanation and a lot more disclosure than, for whatever reason, they're willing to give.
One of the other main issues that had united and defined and shaped the Trump movement over the last four years was a very strong, close to unified and unanimous opposition among MA populists to the Biden administration's policy of arming and financing Ukraine in its war against Russia.
I had many MAGA influencers and pundit.
I had members of Congress who are MA on my show.
And one after the next, they all vehemently denounce U.S. funding and arming of the war in Ukraine, arguing it was feudal.
It's not our war.
It's not our business.
We have to use our resources to take care of our own people at home.
That's what America First was.
And President Trump was highly critical of that Biden policy, on top of which he repeatedly promised he Would get a deal done.
Not, I'm going to try and get a deal done.
He said, I'll solve it in 24 hours, even if that was a little hyperbolic, as he now claims he's had four months, five months, he's not even close to getting it done.
And a lot of people were saying, when he kept saying, I'm going to get it done in 24 hours, they kept saying, Putin's not going to just sign whatever deal you tell him to.
He's winning the war.
They've spent enormous amounts of money, lost tens of thousands, if not more, Russian lives in pursuit of a war that they believe is in their existential interest to win.
They're going to just give up because you tell them to.
And he was like, no, no, they will.
Now, just at the beginning of this month, we were told that the Trump administration was going to pause sending munitions and other missiles to Ukraine because the U.S. doesn't have them to give.
We're low in our own stockpiles.
In part because we've sent so much to Ukraine, we've sent so much to Israel.
We use them to protect Israel from ballistic missiles sent by Iran.
We've used them to bomb Yemen for whatever reason for a full month.
We just don't have it to give, we were told.
And as a result, Politico July 1st, this is last week, U.S. pauses some munition shipments to Ukraine, including air defense missiles.
Senior White House official says, quote, the Pentagon has halted shipments of some air defense missiles and other precision munitions to Ukraine due to worries the U.S. weapons stockpiles have fallen too low.
The decision was driven by the Pentagon's policy chief, Elbridge Colby, and was made after a review of Pentagon munitions stockpiles, leading to concerns that the total number of artillery rounds, air defense missiles, and precision missile munitions was shrinking.
According to three people familiar with the issue, White House Deputy Press Secretary Anna Kelly said in a statement, the decision was, quote, made to put America's interests first following a DOD to review of our nation's military support and assistance to other countries across the globe.
The strength of the United States Armed Forces remains unquestioned.
Just ask Iran.
Just ask Iran if you have any doubts.
They do, she went on, they do want to have the anti-missile missiles, as they call them, and we're going to see if we can make some available, Trump said at a news conference at the end of the NATO summit in The Hague on Wednesday, quote, they are very hard to get.
So this is what we were told.
And remember, we did reporting on this as well during, right after Trump negotiated the ceasefire between Iran and Israel, that basically Israel needed this war to end.
Israel's own air defense system was going down to zero.
Iran's missiles were getting through at a much higher rate.
They were not even sending that many missiles, and yet there was all kinds of contact and impact and destruction.
Trump himself said Israel was getting pounded, especially in the last several days.
And the U.S. didn't have any to give them.
They didn't have any to replenish.
The U.S. was running out of its own missiles to protect Israel, and so Israel needed an end to this war.
I know we all believe that it was a great triumph.
The United States and Iran and Israel kicked Iran's ass.
We pounded them.
We won.
You know, that's always war propaganda.
I remember growing up, I was told the U.S. never lost a war, never lost a war in its history.
And I was hearing this after the Vietnam War.
So this stockpile depletion is very real.
NBC News July 4th, just four days ago, Pete Hegseth halted weapons for Ukraine despite a military analysis that the aid wouldn't jeopardize U.S. readiness.
Quote, the Defense Department held up a shipment of U.S. weapons for Ukraine this week over what officials said were concerns about its low stockpiles.
But an analysis by senior military officers found that the aid package would not jeopardize the American military's own ammunition supplies, according to three U.S. officials.
The move to halt the weapon shipment blindsided the State Department, members of Congress, officials in Kiev, and European allies, according to multiple sources with knowledge of the matter.
Suspending the shipment of a military aid to Ukraine was a unilateral step by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, according to three congressional aides and a former U.S. official familiar with the matter.
All anonymous sources just backbiting one another.
Elbridge Colby said, we did a review of our stockpile.
It's way too low to be able to risk sending more to Ukraine.
We don't have it.
Pete Hegseth made that same decision.
The White House confirmed it.
And then a bunch of anonymous cowards inside the Pentagon, who obviously want the U.S. to continue its bipartisan Biden-Trump policy of arming Ukraine, ran to NBC and was like, yeah, that's not true.
We can send them all the missiles at one.
It doesn't threaten our stockpile.
Everyone's anonymous in this article.
Quote, it was the third time Hegseth on his own has stopped shipments of aid to Ukraine, the sources said.
In the two previous cases in February and May, his actions were reversed days later.
Here is Trump at the White House yesterday, again with Netanyahu.
As always, third time five months that Netanyahu has visited the U.S. No other world leader has visited twice as Netanyahu's third trip.
And here is what Trump said when asked about Ukraine.
Are you planning to send more weapons to Ukraine?
We're going to send some more weapons.
We have to.
They have to be able to defend themselves.
They're getting hit very hard now.
They're getting hit very hard.
We're going to have to send more weapons.
You have defensive weapons primarily, but they're getting hit very, very hard.
So many people are dying in that mess.
Now, so ironically, revealing what Fox News is, let's go back to that please.
The graphic, the on-screen graphic, the whole time of Trump was speaking was Netanyahu nominates Trump for Nobel Peace Prize.
And it just stays up the whole time.
So you have one leader, an Israeli leader who has completely destroyed civilian life in Gaza, killing tens of thousands of children and other innocent people by huge amounts with the goal of ethnically cleansing Gaza as they're now being explicit.
And you have another president, the one in the United States, who, like his predecessor, Joe Biden, has been paying for what the overwhelming consensus of human rights groups around the world say is a genocide.
And Fox News has the audacity to say he's been nominated, Trump has, for a Nobel Peace Prize.
There's no such thing as a nomination for a Nobel Peace Prize.
I think, I believe it was a national review writer.
I think it might have even been Joel Nicoldberg, who used to put in his bio, nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize or something like that.
Anyone can nominate anyone.
It's completely meaningless.
That's not a thing.
It's not like being nominated for an Academy Award where the Academy picks the five top actors, but you don't win.
So you're like, oh, I was nominated.
That's not how this works.
But Nanyahoo knows he can flatter Trump and get whatever he wants.
So he comes with the letter saying, Mr. President, I've nominated you for the Nobel Peace Prize.
And Trump is like, oh, it's so important.
And then Fox News acts like it's some huge accomplishment.
It's just, it's like state TV to an insane level.
But also, the whole time that's on there, Trump is talking about arming Ukraine so they can continue this war.
And yeah, defensive weapons is what he's saying, although not only defensive weapons, but that was the Biden administration policy as well.
Here's the next part of this where Trump is again asked about Ukraine, and this is what he says.
Mr. President, we want to send more weapons to Ukraine, as you said last night.
Last week the Pentagon paused some shipments of weapons to Ukraine.
Did you approve of that pause?
We want to put defensive weapons because Putin is not treating human beings right.
He's killing too many people.
So we're sending some defensive weapons to Ukraine and I've approved that.
So who ordered the pause last week?
I don't know.
What don't you tell me?
So Trump's basically saying, I didn't know anything about this pause.
I didn't do it.
I just want to pause for a second on the dark and sick irony that Donald Trump is accusing Putin of killing too many civilians while he's sitting across the table from his extremely good friend and close ally whom he loves, Benjamin Netanyahu, who has killed infinitely more innocent people in Gaza with the U.S. paying for it and the U.S. arming it and the U.S. protecting it under two consecutive presidents, one a Democrat, one a Republican.
And Putin isn't treating human life well?
And that's why Putin is this bad person who means that Trump has to now continue the Biden policy that he said for so long he opposed of arming Ukraine.
Did he just discover this?
That people in Ukraine are getting killed as a result of this war?
Is that like a new thing he just found out in the last few days that made him do a 180 and now want to send weapons and arm the Ukrainians?
Here's more of Trump explaining this policy reversal.
War that, but that was a war that, that was a war that should have happened, and a lot of people are dying, and it should end, and I don't know, we get a lot of bullshit thrown at us by Putin for you want to know the truth.
He's very nice all the time, but it turns out to be meaningless.
Do you want to say something then?
Lindsay Griff has a sanctions bill on what do you want them to do?
I'm looking at it.
Yeah, I'm looking at it.
The Senate is passing and passed a very tough sanctions bill.
Yeah, I'm looking at it.
Can you sign that?
It's an optional bill.
It's totally at my option.
They pass it totally at my option and to terminate totally at my option.
And I'm looking at it very strongly.
I mean, again, this idea that, oh, Putin spouts a lot of bullshit in Trump's words.
He's very nice to me, but it's meaningless.
He can't be trusted.
This is what all the people who favored arming Ukraine all these years were telling Trump.
Putin's a bad guy.
He can't be trusted.
He wants this war.
He doesn't value human life.
We have to protect the Ukrainians.
All of Magla is against this.
And then Trump gets into office and he starts talking like Michael McFaul or Ann Applebaum or David Frum.
You could give Trump an Atlantic article, an Atlanta column, with him saying this stuff about Ukraine.
He would fit right in.
Here, in addition to Trump talking about sanctions, which might just be a stick he's holding up to get Putin back to the negotiating table, the New York Times last week said this, quote, lack of new U.S. sanctions allows restricted goods and funds into Russia.
So the New York Times is complaining that there are no new U.S. sanctions on Russia, and that's somehow helping them.
Now, just to give you a sense, Trump is acting like he alone sees what Putin really is.
He just discovered that Putin's not trustworthy.
Listen to all what these neocons have been saying.
All these people who are fanatical supporters of the war in Ukraine, who have been accusing Trump of being on a Putin asset or Russian asset because he won't support the Ukrainians.
Here's Michael McFaul, Obama's former ambassador to Russia.
February 19, 2025, quote, when it comes to Putin, Trump is out of step with the American people.
An overwhelming majority of voters, 81%, think the United States should not trust Vladimir Putin, while 9% think the United States should trust him.
Gary Kasparov, the anti-Putin fanatic, who's a Russian chess player, said, quote, Trump said yesterday that he trusts Putin.
Making that fallacy clear now is important for all future decisions by the Trump administration, whatever strange hold Putin has on him.
Trump doesn't like to be laughed at as a sucker.
Musk won't be blamed.
Trump will.
Elizabeth Warren, showing how bipartisan this is, March 3rd, first Donald Trump blames Zelensky for Putin's invasion of Ukraine.
Then he says he, quote, trusts Putin.
Now he's frozen bipartisan military aid.
It's clear that Donald Trump is putting his fragile ego before our national security, siding with Putin over U.S. allies in Europe.
So Trump now sounds exactly like all of those people.
Liz Warren, Michael McFall, the whole gang.
Not just continuing their policy of arming Ukraine, but also talking about the rationale in exactly the same manner.
Here is Trump at just one of his countless campaign rallies where he talked about the war in Ukraine.
This was September 24th, 2024, so barely a month before the election.
And here is what he said.
He was in Savannah, Georgia.
Biden and Kamala got us into this War in Ukraine, and now they can't get us out.
They can't get us out.
I watched him.
We will, win, we will.
He's been saying that for three years.
Every time Zelensky comes to the United States, he walks away with $100 billion.
I think he's the greatest salesman on earth.
But we're stuck.
Everybody booing.
Ooh, boo.
We don't want to give money to Zelensky.
No more arms to Ukraine.
Not like Joe Biden wants to do.
This is the MAGA faithful in Savannah, Georgia, and Trump is telling them that's how he thinks, too.
In that war, unless I'm president, I'll get it done.
I'll get it negotiated.
I'll get out.
We've got to get out.
Biden says, we will not leave until we win.
What happens if they win?
That's what they do, is they fight wars.
As somebody told me the other day, they beat Hitler, they beat Napoleon.
That's what they do.
They fight.
And it's not pleasant, but we've given them close to $300 billion.
And you know what?
Europe has given them, which is approximately our size when you add up the countries together, their economy.
It's very close to our size.
They've given them like a small fraction of that number, just a small, very small fraction.
That wasn't true.
Europe hadn't given a very small fraction.
They may have given about half.
And I do think that's a valid complaint.
The Europeans should have paid more.
But the critique was, you're not going to beat the Russians.
Russia's going to win eventually anyway.
We're draining our own citizenry to fund this war in Ukraine with no end in sight.
And Trump said, I'm going to get out.
And the audience booed when he mentioned that Biden wants to keep funding them and arming them.
And now that's Trump's policy.
Just like bombing Yemen was something that Trump criticized Biden for doing during the campaign, and then he did it and escalated it.
He continuously warned that Obama was going to bomb Iran because he doesn't know how to negotiate, can't get a deal done.
Trump then decides he can't get a deal done, bombs Iran, exactly what he mocked Obama for doing.
The Epstein files, obviously.
There's a lot going around that they're going to do an amnesty for a lot of people who are in the country illegally but work for interests that Donald Trump considers important.
And now here's Trump saying, yeah, we've got to keep arming Ukraine because you can't trust Putin.
One of the leading critics of the war in Ukraine and the U.S. arming of it was J.D. Vance.
Here in the New York Times, April 12th, 2024, last year, J.D. Vance says the math on Ukraine doesn't add up.
Meaning that there's no way that the U.S. can keep funding the war in Ukraine.
And J.D. Vance then said, in June, at this point, we are actively endangering our national security by focusing on Ukraine to the exclusion of other priorities, a slow-running disaster from the Biden administration.
Meaning the policy that is now the Trump administration's policy.
J.D. Vance then went on Fox News.
He talked to Sean Hannity.
This was just last March, two months ago, three months ago.
And here's what he said when asked about Ukraine.
Here's the thing.
You know, when you would talk to the Biden administration officials in private, this is another example of a terrible situation that Biden admin left the Trump administration.
When you ask them, what's the plan?
Okay, we're going to spend tens of billions of dollars, hundreds of billions of dollars in Ukraine.
What is your plan?
And they would honestly tell you, well, we're just going to send them weapons for as long as we can and hope eventually they can turn the tide.
Hope is not a strategy.
Throwing money and ammunition at a terrible conflict, that is not a strategy.
The only guy in town with a strategy is the President of the United States, and everybody needs to follow his lead.
Everyone needs to follow his lead.
He's the only one with a strategy.
And you know what a strategy is?
Throw munitions and throw missiles in Iran, into Ukraine, and I don't know, I guess, hope one day that does something.
Exactly what J.D. Vance is mocking Joe Biden and the Biden administration for having done.
Mike Johnson, the Speaker of the House, always on script ever since he's become Speaker, here was what he said after Trump won the election, this December 4th, about the U.S. arming Ukraine.
Yes?
Somehow a little date scrolled onto the screen.
That is not the right date.
So we took that off.
This is December 4th.
Last week, the Biden administration requested to attach the upcoming CR additional aid to Ukraine to $24 billion.
Do you plan to do that?
What is your position?
I'm not planning to do that.
There are developments by the hour in Ukraine.
I think, as we predicted, and as I said to all of you, weeks before the election, if Donald Trump is elected, it will change the dynamic of the Russian war on Ukraine.
And we're seeing that happen.
So it is not the place of Joe Biden to make that decision now.
We have a newly elected president, and we're going to wait and take the new commander-in-chief's direction on all of that.
So I don't expect any Ukraine funding to come up now.
All right.
Here was Marjorie Teller-Green, I think, very aptly, as she so often does, expressing the overwhelming MAGA sentiment about all this.
She was very simple.
July 2024, no more American tax dollars for Ukraine, period.
Marjorie Teller-Greene was on my show.
She said the same thing, had very long arguments.
That was her view for a long time.
Still is, by the way, she's one of the people who does not change her view, even if Trump changes his, to her great credit.
But that was what I was hearing from pretty much every MAGA person by definition.
Obviously, the establishment wing of the Republican Party, the Tom Cottons, the Mark Rubios, the Lindsey Grahams, they were all fully in favor of arming Ukraine.
In fact, criticized Biden for not arming them enough.
Now, I think it's worth noting that in his first term, Donald Trump, although he was constantly being accused pathetically and absurdly by the Democratic Party and its media allies of being a Russian agent, actually sent lethal arms to Ukraine, poured lethal arms into Ukraine, one of the acts that Russia considered to be highly provocative.
Here from the Washington Post, December of 2017, Trump administration approves lethal arms to Ukraine.
Now, if you were a Russian agent being blackmailed and controlled by Putin, as they were all alleging back then, this is the Mueller time, Russia gave the Steele dossier, Trump is a Russian NASA, they have blackmail control over him.
This should have put an end to that immediately, because what Trump did here was completely directly threatening to Russia's most central vital interest, which is keeping weapons out of Ukraine.
And yet the Trump administration flooded Ukraine with lethal arms, even though the Obama administration had refused to do so.
Quote, the Trump administration has approved the largest U.S. commercial sale of lethal defensive weapons to Ukraine since 2014.
The move was heavily supported by Trump national security cabinet officials and Congress, but may complicate President Trump's stated ambition to work with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Administration officials confirmed that the State Department this month approved a commercial license authorizing the export of Model M107A1 sniper systems, ammunition, and associated parts and accessories to Ukraine, a sale valued at $41.5 million.
These weapons address a specific vulnerability of Ukrainian forces fighting a Russian-backed separatist movement in two eastern provinces.
There has been no approval to export the heavier weapons the Ukrainian government is asking for, such as javelin anti-tank missiles.
Now that wasn't just giving arms to Ukraine, that was selling them, but obviously very provocative to the Russians.
And it stood in contrast to what Obama's view was, which was we're not going to provoke Russia by sending arms to Ukraine, despite both parties aggressively pressuring Obama to do so.
Here from Politico, March 11, 2015, Obama is pressed on many fronts to arm Ukraine.
Quote, the Obama administration is at war with itself over the question of arming Ukraine, with Defense Secretary Ashton Carter and key military leaders suggesting they would support a change of course.
The Obama administration tried to up the ante on Wednesday by promising non-lethal military aid to Ukraine, but it did little to satisfy the rising congressional demands to send weapons and other heavy military equipment.
Both Carter and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Martin Dempsey have broken with the president and could support arms to Ukraine.
The Speaker wrote the President last week urging Obama to approve, quote, the transfer of lethal defensive weapons systems to the Ukrainian military.
The letter from the Ohio Republican, that was John Boehner, who was the Speaker of the House, was notable not just because it had senior Republican leaders and committee chairmen signed on, but also the Democrats on the Foreign Affairs Committee, armed services, and the intelligence committees.
So you had bipartisan pressure on Obama to arm Ukraine.
He wouldn't.
He didn't.
And then Trump, even though he was accused of being a Kremlin asset, actually sent them.
So it's really a continuation of Trump, Biden, and Trump.
Although, obviously, the Biden policy was much more significant since they weren't just selling arms to Ukraine, but giving them, transferring them, funding it.
And now this is what Trump is doing as well.
Meanwhile, the war continues to just drag on, huge numbers of people dying, as Trump said.
And Russia continues to make more and more gains.
Hear from AP, this is last week, July 3rd, Russia ramps up its offensive, putting pressure on Ukraine's reserve troops.
Quote, Kremlin forces are steadily gaining ground in the strategic eastern logistic hob of Pokhrovsk, the capture of which would hand them a major battlefield victory and bring them closer to acquiring the entire Donetsk region.
The fighting there has brought combat to the border.
Ukraine faces relentless assaults in Sumi.
In the Sumy region, Ukrainian forces faced a constant barrage of aerial guide bombs, drones, and relentless assaults by small groups of Russian infantrymen.
They endured the attacks to prevent Russian forces from being moved to other battlegrounds in the eastern Donetsk region.
Russian forces have penetrated up to seven kilometers into the northern Sumy region from different directions along the border.
Russia seeks maximum gains in Donetsk.
The war's largest battle is being waged there as Russia inches toward its stated goal of capturing all of the Donetsk and Luansk regions.
Sabotage groups have crossed the border only to be eliminated by Ukrainian forces, but in time commanders fear that Russia will advance as Ukraine continues to grapple with severe shortages.
There's been news reports as well about the Russians being on the verge of capturing a major strategic city, the last one that Ukraine controls in this region.
JD Vance said pouring weapons into Ukraine is not a strategy.
And this is something they pounded Biden on and that Trump promised to end when he was campaigning.
And now Trump, five months into office, is like, you know what, Putin's not really trustworthy, I've discovered.
And we're going to keep arming Ukraine.
We have to.
And the slight pause that the Pentagon announced on the grounds that we're running out of our own weapons.
We can't keep arming Ukraine and Israel because we're running out of our own.
Trump said, that's not me who did that.
I don't agree with that.
I think we have to keep sending weapons to Ukraine.
And that's yet another policy of the Biden administration, which the Trump administration is continuing.
And as Michael Tracy once observed recently, a couple months ago, maybe, I think it was when Trump announced that he was restarting Biden's bombing campaign in Hammond.
Michael Tracy said, you can never go broke betting on the continuity of bipartisan U.S. foreign policy no matter what the election outcomes are.
And I think this Trump second term is proving that more and more.
All right, so we were going to talk about this last night, but I really think it's worth talking about.
We didn't have time last night, but I do actually want to return to it.
So in Brazil, there have been several presidents who have been charged with crimes and imprisoned.
One of them was ula de Silva, the current president of Brazil.
He was imprisoned in 2018.
He was convicted of corruption charges.
Those corruption charges were upheld throughout the Brazilian appellate system all the way to the Supreme Court twice.
And then we did reporting that we were able to do because a hacker who hacked into the telephones of those prosecutors and judges overseeing that conviction handed us a huge archive and within the archive we found evidence of how corrupt the prosecution had been of Ula.
And the Supreme Court reversed it and allowed Ula out, but they didn't exonerate him.
They didn't find that he was innocent.
They just said the prosecution and the trial were corrupted by the judge's behavior with the prosecutors and essentially he would have to go back and be tried again, although that's not happening now, but he's president.
But now the successor or the predecessor to Lula, Jair Bolsonaro, is facing all sorts of criminal charges, including the most serious ones that he plotted or participated in the plotting of a coup, one that never happened, but one that they were, according to the courts, eager to effectuate, a coup against Lua once he won.
And the trial happened.
The verdict is likely to come by the end of the year.
A lot of people think Bolsonaro is going to be in prison.
The judge who's presiding over that trial is Alexander de Maraj, the very controversial, notorious authoritarian censor who's been on the side of destroying the Bolsonaro movement as some sort of criminalized movement that gets censored and imprisoned.
And he's on a mission to destroy Bolsonaro.
It's actually a five-judge court that's deciding this trial.
So you have Marais, and then two of the other judges, which form a three-judge majority, are Lula's personal lawyer, who Lula put on the Supreme Court, and Lula's former justice minister, who's also now on the Supreme Court.
And Bolsonaro's conviction is essentially guaranteed.
And there's been an effort to get Trump to pay attention to Brazil, to condemn the current government and the court to sanction the people who banned acts from Brazil for over a month because of their failure to comply with censorship orders.
Edward Bolsonaro, who's Zaire Bolsonaro's son, is a member of the Brazilian Congress.
He's taken a leave.
He's in the U.S. to put pressure to convince American lawmakers and State Department officials to sanction various Brazilian officials.
And I just don't think Trump's had the bandwidth to pay attention to Brazil yet.
But yesterday he issued a long, reasonably long statement about the prosecution of Bolsonaro, which he depicted as persecution.
I think one of the reasons why it happened now is because Trump has made clear that he regards BRICS, this alternative alliance, an economic and potentially military alliance.
That's an alternative to the G7, G20, to NATO potentially.
And the founding members, BRICS, Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa.
They talk openly about de-dollarization, overthrowing the dollars, the reserve currency.
Trump regards them, rightly so I guess, as a serious competitor to U.S. hegemony.
And he hates BRICS.
He threatened any country that has anything to do with BRICS, not just the five founding members I just listed, six, five rather, but also a dozen, half dozen dozen or so other countries that are now joining in the process of joining.
He said, anyone who has anything to do with BRICS is going to be sanctioned with tariffs and other forms of punishment.
And Brazil just happens to be the host this year of BRICS.
Actually, it happened here in Rio de Janeiro over the weekend and then also yesterday on Monday.
And I think that's presumably, one can presume rationally that that's a reason Trump decided to pay attention to Brazil.
And he posted this on True Social yesterday, quote, Brazil is doing a terrible thing on their treatment of former President Jair Bolsonaro.
I have watched, as has the world, as they have done nothing but come after him day after day, night after night, month after month, year after year.
He is not guilty of anything except having fought for the people.
I've gotten to know Jair Bolsonaro, and he was a strong leader who truly loved his country.
Also a very tough negotiator on trade.
His election was very close, and now he's leading in the polls.
This is nothing more or less than an attack on a political opponent, something I know much about.
It happened to me times 10, and now our country is, quote, the hottest in the world.
The great people of Brazil will not stand for what they are doing to their former president.
I'll be watching the, quote, in all caps witch hunt of Jair Bolsonaro, his family, and thousands of his supporters very closely.
The only trial that should be happening is a trial by the voters of Brazil.
It's called an election.
Leave Bolsonaro alone.
Now, it is true that Bolsonaro remains, I don't know if I want to say a popular figure, but certainly someone with a very good chance of defeating Lula.
Lula will seek election, re-election in 2026, which would be his fourth term as president.
He was president from 2002 to 2006, got re-elected 2006 to 2010.
His successor, who he picked, Dielmo Rousseff, of his party, ran Brazil for the next six years.
So that was a total of 14 years.
And then after a two-year interim, Bolsonaro won for four years, and now Lua is back in his third term and wants to run again in 2026.
And Bolsonaro is easily the strongest opponent.
That poll show could beat Lua, but they have made Bolsonaro ineligible to run.
He's barred from running for the next eight years, and obviously putting him in prison would put an absolute end to his political career.
And Trump is saying, let the people decide if they want him as president.
Now, that was often what was said about Lua.
When Lua was imprisoned in 2018, he had wanted to run for president.
He intended to run for president in 2018.
Instead, they imprisoned him.
They took away his political rights.
He couldn't run.
And with Lua out of the way, Bolsonaro won fairly easily.
And the argument of Lua and his party at the time is exactly what Bolsonaro is saying now.
This is persecution.
It's politicized.
They're doing it to prevent me from running because they're afraid that I'll win.
And the response of Lua to Trump's statement is, I guess, what you might expect, which was he basically told Trump to mind his own business.
This is not Trump's place to dictate Brazilian justice to Brazilians.
Here he is at the BRICS summit yesterday in Rio Janeiro.
Brazil's the host country.
There you see in the background BRICS, Brazil 2025.
And he was asked about this, and this is what Lewis said.
I don't even think I should comment because I don't think it's very responsible or serious for the president of a country as big as the United States to be threatening the world through the internet.
So this was not actually Trump's response to the tweet we just showed you, where Trump said, stop persecuting Bolsonaro.
This was Lula's response to Trump saying what I mentioned earlier, that he was going to impose tariffs and punishments on any country having to do with BRICS.
And so Lula was asked about it, and he said, I don't think that's serious.
It doesn't even merit a comment.
A president of a serious country doesn't threaten other countries.
On social media, he went on to say this.
It's not right.
He needs to understand that the world has changed.
We don't want an emperor.
We are sovereign nations.
If he thinks he can impose tariffs, countries have the right to impose tariffs too.
This is the law of reciprocity.
I think it's very misguided and very irresponsible for a president to be threatening others on digital platforms.
So that was his response to Trump's earlier threat before he posted that about Bolsonaro to impose sanctions on other countries having to do with BRICS.
And then in response to that true social tweet about Bolsonaro, this is what Lula said, quote, the defense of democracy in Brazil is a matter for Brazilians.
We are a sovereign country.
We do not accept interference or guardianship from anyone.
We have solid and independent institutions.
No one is above the law.
Above all, those who attack freedom and the rule of law.
Now, it's not an unreasonable statement in theory to say, like, who is Donald Trump to dictate to our courts how they should function, who they can prosecute.
We're a sovereign country.
We have a real democracy, a real court system, and we're not going to take orders from outsiders.
And there's a political appeal to that as well, obviously.
But the irony of that is that when Lua himself was being prosecuted, he did exactly the things that he is now saying are completely inappropriate.
He and his party constantly sought outside approval, outside interference from other countries, from other institutions, and did so on the basis of the exact opposite argument that Lua is now making, which is that Brazil's judicial system cannot be trusted, that it's fundamentally corrupted, even though at the time it was run by the same people who run it now.
Alejandro Marais, despite being a hero of the Brazilian Luft now, was one of the judges on the Supreme Court that constantly voted to uphold Ulua's conviction.
Here from The Guardian, July 28, 2016, Brazil's ex-president appeals to the UN over abuse of power in his corruption case.
Quote, Lulu is bringing his case at the UN because he cannot get justice in Brazil under its inquisitorial system, said high-profile British human rights lawyer Jeffrey Robertson.
Quote, this is a serious fault in the inquisitorial system as it operates in Brazil.
The petition invites the UN committee to find that Brazilian justice system should be changed so that a judge investigating a case should not also be the trial judge.
This is exactly what's happening in Bolsonaro's case.
Muraish, the judge, was overseeing the investigation, ordered people imprisoned, forced them to sign plea deals where they affirmed all sorts of things about Bolsonaro that may or may not be true.
There's a lot of doubt about them.
And now he's also the one sitting in judgment.
Exactly what Ula said in 2016 made Brazilian judicial systems untrustworthy and broken to provide justice, namely this inquisitorial system, is exactly what Bolsonaro now faces.
And there has been multiple other times that Lula and his party appealed to outside forces.
In fact, the head of Lula's party, when he was being prosecuted, went to Arab countries and she said, Lula has always been a friend to Arab countries and now he needs you.
We need you to unite and condemn this prosecution to help make the world see that they need to act to intervene and prevent this political prosecution.
It wasn't, Brazilian justice wasn't just for Brazilians then, and the idea that Brazil's justice system is fine, it works independently, their institutions are great, was the opposite of what Ulo was saying when he himself was being prosecuted.
Now, this isn't the first time that Trump has done this, and I do think there's a question about what is Trump's basis for just going around dictating to other countries how they should run their justice system.
Like, how is that the place of the U.S. president?
Benjamin Netanyahu has been facing corruption charges and a trial and bribery charges, ironically involving money from Qatar, for two years now.
In fact, the only thing that really saved Netanyahu from having to face the courtroom was the fact that October 7th happened.
They kind of put it off, but it's still ongoing.
Trump didn't know about any of this, even though it's been going on for two years.
He just learned about it at the end of June, and he posted on Truth Social.
Breaking news.
I was shocked to hear that the state of Israel, which has just had one of its greatest moments in its history and is strongly led by B.B. Detanyahu, is continuing its ridiculous witch hunt against their great wartime prime minister.
All right, to be generous, maybe the breaking news that Trump just heard was that they're going to continue.
Why wouldn't they continue?
And you see, Trump, it's very important to him to be viewed as a great war president, a wartime president, along with Ben Yahoo.
He's saying, Ben Betanyahu just scored this spectacular victory, vanquishing Iran with me.
We're war leaders, triumphant ones.
How can you allow this prosecution to go on?
Trump continued, quote, I just learned that Bibi has been summoned to court on Monday for the continuation of this long-running.
He has been going through this horror show since May of 2020, unheard of.
This is the first time his sitting Israeli prime minister has ever been on trial.
Politically motivated case, so that whole parenthetical, this is going on, this politically motivated case, quote, concerning cigars, a bug's bunny doll, and numerous other unfair charges in order to do him great harm.
Such a witch hunt, same term he used for himself, for Bolsonaro as we just showed you, and also for Netanyahu, for a man who has given so much is unthinkable to me.
He deserves much better than this, and so does the state of Israel.
Bibi Netanyahu's trial should be uppercase canceled immediately, or a pardon given to a great hero who has done so much for the state.
It was the United States of America that saved Israel.
I thought we were told this war wasn't for Israel, but I guess Trump's now saying we saved Israel, and now it is going to be the United States of America that saves Bibi Netanyahu.
Let me go, just read, I need to read that again.
Just keep in mind that this is the America first movement, the America first president.
It was the United States of America that saved Israel, and now it is going to be the United States of America that saves Bibi Netanyahu.
This travesty of justice cannot be allowed.
So I do think it's worth asking, and I don't think Brazil has an unreasonable argument in saying, stay out of our justice system.
We're a sovereign country.
At the same time, as I said, it's kind of rich for Lua to make that argument, given that everything he's saying now was the opposite of what he was saying when he himself was being prosecuted.
Here is Trump's true social statement that threatened all BRICS countries.
This is July 6th, right as the BRICS summit was starting.
Quote, any country aligning themselves with anti-American policies of BRICS will be charged an additional 10% tariff.
There will be no exceptions to this policy.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
And there you see the BRICS summit.
It was July 6th and 7th in 2025.
So essentially, Trump issued that first statement about punishing BRICS members on July 6th, the first day of the BRICS summit here in Brazil and Rio Janeiro.
And then the tweet about Bolsonaro and his persecution came on the second day.
So I think they've succeeded in getting Trump to pay attention to Brazil.
I can tell you that the decision to issue sanctions personally against Judge Maraj and other Brazilian officials, but at least for sure Judge Maraj has been gone through the Congress, approved by Secretary of State, Marco Rubio.
Everything is just waiting for Trump's approval to sanction him.
I don't know if Trump is doing this in lieu of approving sanctions as a step toward approving them, laying the foundation for why these sanctions are going to be imposed.
But there's a lot of people who are in the United States who are Brazilian or who are allies of the Brazilian right who have been working very hard to keep this issue at the center of the Trump White House and the Trump administration.
They, I think, have been making a lot of progress on that.
My expectation is these sanctions will come soon.
This seems to be a prelude to it, especially with Lua now being so defiant, mocking Trump, obviously trying to extract political benefit from saying, look, this foreign leader wants to dictate to us Brazilians our internal affairs, which always produces some national unity behind the government.
My guess is this tension is going to grow.
But I can't really express to you how authoritarian and tyrannical and just drunk on the abuses of power Brazil's Supreme Court is with the support of its government.
I've done reporting on it.
I've been threatened by it.
I've been very outspoken about it.
But I do still have a question about what role the United States is supposed to play in all of this.
Why is it Donald Trump's business to opine on this, to adjudicate it?
I'd be willing to bet he knows very little about the details, either of the Netanyahu case or the Bolsonaro case.
And there are laws in the United States to sanction foreign officials if they're violating human rights.
It was actually done to justify sanctions against Russia.
So it is, I'm not saying there's no legal basis for it.
There actually is.
But the question is, why is this the proper role of the United States?
Why is it the proper role of the U.S. government to function on what's happening in the Israeli courts or the Brazilian courts?
And I think that's a legitimate question to ask, though I also do think that there's a lot going on inside Brazil's justice system that is extremely politicized, massive abuses of power, and lots of political persecution taking place.
We've gone over that many times.
So it is just interesting at the very least that the United States got Trump to now start focusing on Brazil, and I expect more to come of that.
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 their first 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 helps spread the visibility of the show.
Finally, as independent journalists and media, we do rely on the support of our viewers and members.
You can do that by joining our locals community.
You click the red join button right below the video player on the Rumble page where you're watching.
Or you can scan that code that is on the screen, go to greenwall.locals.com as well.
If you join, you get access to a wide variety of benefits, including a lot of exclusive content that we publish there.
We do a Q ⁇ A every Friday night where we take questions exclusively from our locals members and try and address as many as we can in the most in-depth way possible, as well as criticisms or challenges or questions as well to some of the things we've analyzed or reported.
There are a lot of other benefits as well, interactive benefits.
We put transcripts there, exclusive video interviews, but most of all, it is the community on which we rely to support the independent journalism that we do here every night.
All you have to do is click the red join button right below the video player on the Rumble page, and it will take you directly to that community.
For those of you who've been watching this show, we are, of course, very appreciative, and we hope to see you back tomorrow night and every night at 7 p.m. Eastern Live, exclusively here on Rumble.
