New Russiagate Disclosures Show Depths of CIA & FBI Guilt; Trump Forcing Universities to Adopt DEI Programs Only for Jewish Students; The "Pogrom" at FSU
New Russiagate disclosures reveal more intelligence communities lies about Trump's "collusion" with Russia during the 2016 election. Plus: the Trump administration demands that universities adopt DEI programs only for Jewish students, while claiming to crusade against wokeness. Finally: a controversy at FSU shows the Trump administration's desperate attempts to shield Israel at every opportunity. ----------------------- 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 at 7 p.m.
Eastern, exclusively here on Rumble, exclusively, the free speech alternative to YouTube.
Tonight, the U.S. has never really remotely digested how gravely corrupt was the behavior of the U.S. intelligence community and the FBI, both in 2016, when they fabricated the Russiate hoax to defeat Donald Trump, and then once that didn't work, to destroy his presidency.
as well as in 2020 when they outright disseminated a blatant lie, namely that the files from Hunter Biden's laptop that were highly incriminating of Joe Biden were in their words, quote, Russian disinformation.
But now new releases of previously hidden documents about RussiaGate by Trump's director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, cast further light on just how deep this rot really went.
And while we certainly don't expect any real journalistic scrutiny from the corporate media, since they were key partners in the fraud and even awarded themselves Pulitzers for disseminating these lies, these releases will make it harder to hide just how abusive and dangerous and severe this behavior really was.
So we'll show you the significance of these new releases as well as their implications.
Then as we documented on Wednesday night, the Trump administration is aggressively expanding exactly that which they long claimed to despise, namely censorship measures and campus hate speech rules with the sole intent to protect Israel and the one minority group they seem to want to protect American Jews from having to hear criticism on college campuses.
They are also doing the same thing with so-called DEI policies.
Though the Trump administration keeps boasting that they are attacking and ending DEI, the reality is that they are now forcing America's leading universities to adopt new DEI programs.
But again, only for the one minority group they apparently think is the truly and solely oppressed one, Jewish students.
We'll look at the new agreement they just forced Brown University to sign, which contains one classic DEI promise after the next.
And we'll also look at the truly bizarre reaction last night from Attorney General Pam Bondi, the Attorney General of the United States, reacting and intervening after a young college woman on a Florida state campus accosted and scolded a male student who was wearing a shirt for the IDF.
Needless to say, top Trump officials, although the Attorney General, would never think about commenting on and arbitrating an ordinary spat between college teenagers where nobody was hurt, unless, as in this case, the so-called victim was a Jewish student defending Israel.
It's impossible to overstate just how devoted this administration is to Israel and devoted to its most vocal loyalists here in the United States.
We want to go over all of that for you as well.
Before we get to that, a couple of quick program notes.
First of all, System Update is also available in podcast form.
You can listen to every episode 12 hours after the first broadcast live here on Rumble on Spotify, Apple, and all the major podcasting platforms.
If you rate, review, and follow our show, it really helps spread the visibility of the program.
Finally, as independent media, we do rely on the support of our viewers and members, which you can provide by joining our locals community.
Click the red join button right below the video player on the Rumble page.
It will take you there.
There's a whole wide array of exclusive benefits, but also it's really the community on which we most rely to support the independent journalism that we do here every night.
Again, simply click the join button right below the video player on the Rumble page.
You can also scan the code on the screen, and it will take you directly to that community.
For now, welcome to a new episode of System Update, starting right now.
The fact that certain issues are discussed frequently or that you hear a lot about them doesn't actually mean that the country has really confronted the true magnitude of what happened.
And it certainly does not mean that the necessary level of accountability has been doled out.
And that is definitely the case with the two absolute frauds perpetrated by the U.S. intelligence community and the FBI in both the 2016 and the 2020 election, where they abused the power of foreign intelligence agencies as well as our domestic law enforcement agency,
the FBI, to abuse those powers to disseminate outright lies about the Trump campaign, the Trump administration, and then also in 2020 about the Hunter Biden laptop with the sole and exclusive purpose of interfering in American elections, trying to manipulate the election outcome that they wanted, namely the defeat of Donald Trump.
And also once Donald Trump won, because the majority of voters voted for him, the majority of Electoral College did, to sabotage his presidency based on the same lie.
Now, I just want to, there's a lot of things to say about RussiaGate that we already know before Tulsi Gabbard, the DNI started to declassify documents as part of the Obama administration in 2016 and release them, which we're now seeing.
But I just want to remind you of the core key fact.
And we're going to see an op-ed written in the New York Times this week by James Clapper and John Brennan trying to defend themselves where they deny this key factor.
So I want to emphasize it before we even get to any specifics.
The only reason there was such a thing as RussiaGate, the only reason it mattered, the only reason it became a scandal, the only reason that it led to the appointment of a special counsel, Robert Mueller, who investigated for the next 18 months, the only reason it dominated American politics for almost two years or even beyond that, was because of a very specific claim.
And that claim was that the Trump administration, or rather the Trump campaign and officials, key officials in the Trump campaign, perhaps even Trump himself, Donald Trump Jr., that they collaborated with,
colluded was the word, conspired with the Kremlin in order to hack into the emails of the DNC And John Podesta's inbox, and then take those documents and hand them over to WikiLeaks to start releasing incriminating information about Hillary Clinton and the Democrats.
That was the claim.
That was the core claim.
The very first time anyone ever heard of this, and I remember like it was yesterday because I wrote an article that very day, the first one I ever wrote about RussiaGate, was when the Hillary Clinton campaign in mid-2016 released this very melodramatic campaign ad with all that sinister music and shadowy figures and the baritone voice saying, What is it that the Russians have on Donald Trump?
And why is this partnership between the Kremlin and the Trump campaign done in secret?
And the first thought I had was, it seems like they just rejuvenated the McCarthyite scripts of the 1950s where they were accusing everybody of being secret Kremlin agents.
I guess they figured enough time had passed, enough generations had come and gone that people wouldn't remember that it was about that, that it was basically an exact replica, almost verbatim in that script.
But the reason I objected from the very beginning, aside from the fact that it was so dangerous to stimulate this hatred against Russia, which I think the effects of which we're still seeing today in our determination to destroy Russia through the war in Ukraine, was the fact that there was never really any evidence for this, any evidence at all for it.
They just kept leaking it, the FBI and CA did, to gullible partisan reporters at the New York Times and the Washington Post, who were just uncritically printed based on anonymous leaks, exactly the way that lies have always taken place before.
And then of course that led to the fraud of the Steele dossier.
And the major theme in the Democratic Party began to be, what is it that Vladimir Putin is holding over Donald Trump?
Basically, Vladimir Putin is running the United States through his blackmail power over Donald Trump.
And people like Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, all of them and their allies in the media would constantly insinuate, if not outright state, that Putin had sexually compromising materials that he was holding over Trump and blackmailing him with in the form of a video that they claimed the Steele dossier claimed Putin had because they bugged the Rich Carlton Hotel in the presidential suite where Trump stayed and claimed that he had called prostitutes over to have them urinate on
each other.
And that was in the ether for the longest time.
But also financial blackmail, supposedly that Trump had borrowed money from Russian interests, from mobsters, and that he just all had all this kind of leverage.
I remember Nancy Pelosi would always say, what is it that Vladimir Putin has over Donald Trump, sexually, personally, or politically, or financially?
This was the conspiracy theory that the CIA and the FBI manufactured under the Obama administration in the middle of the 2016 campaign and then continued with all throughout the Trump administration once he unexpectedly won.
And the promise that was made to the American people, to the Democratic Party, and to the media, was we found the best prosecutor possible and Robert Mueller, the most honest and noble and purest expression of integrity in a public servant that you could possibly find.
Even though he was George W. Bush's FBI director after 9-11 when most Democrats were calling that administration the Gestapo and Nazis and Hitler, suddenly how Robert Mueller, the whole image of him got re-rejuvenated.
There were all sorts of stories about how handsome he was, how he was a fashion icon, and he was stiff upper lip.
He had not just him, but the dream team of prosecutors all around him.
People like Andrew Weissman and Dan Goldman, who parlayed his role in the Mueller team in two MSNBC spots and then to winning the Democratic primary and becoming a member of Congress representing Manhattan.
That was the whole, it was like the superheroes who had, it was like the Avengers, they had all gathered and Robert Mueller was leading them and he was going to put those Trump officials and probably Trump himself in jail for the crime of having colluded with the Russians.
That was the centerpiece of this scandal.
And Robert Mueller was unleashed for 18 months with his dream team of prosecutors, given infinite amounts of resources, unlimited subpoena power.
And he came back and he said he could find no evidence establishing that core conspiracy theory, no evidence proving that Donald Trump or his associates colluded or conspired with the Russians to hack into the DNC or jump it as to emails or to interfere in the election anyway.
And the number of people, the total number of Americans charged with crimes for colluding with Russia was zero.
The whole thing was a flop.
And it's true that they did catch some people in what are called process crimes, like Mueller accused people of lying during the investigation or hiding things.
They caught Paul Manafort on totally unrelated charges of his financial dealings.
But the core conspiracy theory itself that drove the entire scandal, namely that Trump and the Russians were colluding together, were conspiring together to engage in illicit acts like hacking into emails or other election manipulating activities, was completely debunked and disproven by the person who they set up as the arbiter of truth.
It was Robert Mueller, who came back with zero indictment, zero convictions on that central conspiracy theory and admitting in his report that there was no evidence that he found to establish that core crime.
The whole thing was a fraud and a scam, and we've known that since 2018.
The problem is that it was so profitable and so beneficial to so many power factions in the United States, beginning with the corporate media, that to this very day, it's not really acknowledged.
They've moved on, but they don't really ever, they never came to grips with the fact that they sold a narrative that was a complete lie.
There was reporting in the Columbia Journalism Review that on the day Robert Mueller sent his report in and then testified before the Senate and Adam Schiff tried to imply because Adam Schiff had been going around for two years saying, oh, I've seen smoking gun evidence of collusion.
And Mueller got up there and said there wasn't.
They tried to imply he was senile.
They did everything possible.
But on the day that he returned that report in and closed his investigation, the editor-in-chief of the New York Times, who at the time was, we'll find out, but Dean, the name escapes me, but we'll find out in a second.
Gathered the New York Times newsroom together and said, you know what, we have to admit that this is not what we were telling people was going to happen.
This is not what we were selling people on.
They had given themselves Pulitzer, as the Washington Post and the New York Times did, for their reporting on this scandal, and it all turned out to be a flop and a scam.
And the reason why I say we've never come to grips with it and never really gave it any accountability is because it didn't just happen because people got things wrong.
It happened because it was a deliberate fabrication, a politicized partisan fabrication by the CIA and the FBI.
And now, you know, the evidence has been there all along.
I mean, I staked my career on it.
I was writing every day about this.
It was probably the thing that most caused my biggest breach with the left was that I hated Russia Gate and was condemning and denouncing it as a fabrication of the intelligence agencies as part of the attempt to antagonize Russia.
And most of all, to destroy the Trump administration.
And the Trump campaign using the powers of the CIA and FBI.
And a handful of others were doing that.
Some people on the right doing hardcore reporting, like Molly Hemingway and Chuck Ross, and Jerry Dunleavia, a couple others, and then myself and Aaron Mate and Matt Taibbi and Michael Tracy and Jimmy Doerr were also doing it.
But there weren't many other people.
You really got attacked.
You really got seriously affected in your career.
The last time I've ever was ever on MSNBC was in December of 2016 when I went on with Ari Melber to talk about RussiaGate.
And I basically said there's no evidence presented.
Journalists have been completely guilty of abdicating their core duty of being skeptical of government claims.
They're just believing it and endorsing it because they want to, even though there's no evidence for it.
And it's all being done by anonymous sources, leaked from the CIA and the FBI of the New York Times, The Washington Post, exactly the way that all other lies, like the war in Iraq, have been sold as well.
And that was the last time I was on MSNBC.
This was the religion Russia Gate was of American liberalism in the Democratic Party.
It's what turned Rachel Maddow into a gigantic television star and one of the richest people ever to be in media was every night she was pushing this.
And the whole thing turned out to be a flop.
And the reason why we never confronted it is because too many mainstream power factions were too invested in it.
And to admit that it was a scam would be to admit that they are fraudulent.
And so they just, everybody just tried to push it under the rug.
So Tulsi Gabbard has now, as they promised she would.
And by the way, this is a big reason why Tulsi Gabbard's appointment of all the Trump appointments caused the greatest amount of backlash.
Maybe you could put RFK Jr. and Matt Gates in there and maybe Pete Hegseth, but not many others.
It was really Tulsi Gabbard who was the one that had the hardest time getting confirmed.
And the reason was that she didn't come from the intelligence community, so they didn't trust her that she would be an institutionalist and would safeguard the secrets of the CIA and would never try and show the intelligence community engaging in any corruption.
They knew she would do that.
And that's why they fought so hard.
You had Democrats in the Senate voting unanimously to confirm Marco Rubio and Elise Stefanik and John Ratcliffe at CIA, all these hardcore Republican types.
They were fine with all of those.
Tulsi Gabbard was in Congress for eight years as a member of the Democratic Party.
She not only supported Bernie Sanders and was the vice chair of the DNC, but then she endorsed Joe Biden in 2020.
And that was the person the Democrats decided was the bridge too far.
And it's precisely because they knew that she would come in and expose corruption rather than conceal it.
And here's the release of Tulsi Gabbard, the director of National Intelligence, on July 18th.
It's the memorandum and it's for the director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard.
The subject is intelligence community suppression of intelligence showing Russian and criminal actors did not impact the 2016 presidential election via cyber attacks on the infrastructure.
And this is the article that she declassified, the document she declassified, that led to a whole series of documents that we're seeing for the first time when we should have seen them a long time ago, that is not just rejuvenating interest in what the CIA and the FBI did here and the Obama White House as well directing it all, but also reminding people and shedding further light on to exactly what happened.
Part of what was declassified, you may recall there was a special prosecutor appointed after Robert Mueller, John Durham, who was investigating the investigators.
And he discovered things that he believed had been wrong.
There was an FBI agent who pled guilty to lying to the Pfizer court to get warrants to spy on Carter Page.
John Durham indicted a Hillary Clinton lawyer, the one who took this fraudulent story about Trump communicating with the Russian Alpha Bank to the FBI.
He didn't get a conviction on that, but he found some wrongdoing.
But for the most part, he didn't really bring the kind of accountability that conservatives were hoping for, just like Robert Mueller did in the way that liberals were.
But he definitely uncovered a lot of wrongdoing.
And a lot of it had been classified.
And Tulsi Gabbard just declassified it.
And part of what she declassified was an appendix to his report that had previously been kept from the public.
And part of that declassified appendix is dated May 12, 2023.
The title of it is Report on Matters Related to Intelligence Activities and Investigations Arising Out of the 2016 presidential election.
And the image here is a CIA assessment.
And this is what it says, quote, CIA prepared a written assessment of the authenticity and veracity of the above-referenced intelligence.
The CIA stated it did not assess that the above memorandum or hacked U.S. communications to be the product of Russian fabrications.
And then here's the FBI assessment.
The FBI's assessment, according to FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and later memorialized by Anderson in August 12, 2016 memorandum, was based on four factors.
First, the reports reflected multiple levels of hearsay.
Second, someone involved in the communication or in the passing along the communications of someone in that think tank may have engaged in exaggeration.
Third, the person who drafted the reports may have engaged in editorialization or exaggeration.
Fourth, the reports may be unreliable because of translation errors.
So they knew a lot of the key documents on which they were relying, which they were citing internally, had major credibility problems, and yet they used them anyway.
Here is another image of what Tulsi Gabbard released, and it involves the then FBI general counsel, Jim Baker.
This is actually released by Chuck Grassley, who's also doing disclosures as well.
And this was part of the document that was released.
Quote, the office has also interviewed FBI General Counsel Baker, to whom Anderson reported at the time of the defensive briefing.
Baker told the office that based on reports he received of the defensive briefing, he was greatly concerned about Loretta Lynch's reaction.
Moreover, Baker, unlike his FBI colleagues, did not dismiss the credibility reports.
In fact, Baker informed the office that following the defensive briefing of Lynch, he began to have concerns about Loretta Lynch's potential bias due in part to one.
So just to set the scene for this, Russian intelligence had intercepted documents claiming that Loretta Lynch was working to bury the Hillary Clinton investigation, the FBI investigation through the Hillary Clinton email server that she had at her house.
And they briefed Loretta Lynch, the Attorney General under Obama, and they said, we have these documents suggesting that you've been intervening to tap down on Hillary Clinton, the investigation to Hillary Clinton.
And when they showed Loretta Lynch, they were very surprised, James Baker and others, at how she reacted.
And it led them to believe that there might have been something to this story.
And James Baker, the FBI general counsel, said he began to have concerns about Lynch's potential bias due in part to, one, her curious reaction to the sensitive intelligence information.
Number two, her interaction with President Clinton on the tarmac in Phoenix.
And number three, guidance to Director Comey that the Clinton email investigation should only be referred to as a matter.
Obama has no intention to darken the final part of his presidency and legacy by the scandal surrounding the main contender from the DP to solve the problem.
The president puts pressure on FBI Director James Comey through Attorney General Lynch, however, so far without concrete results.
In relation to the consensus reached among the Democratic Party leadership regarding the candidacy of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama sanctioned the use of all administrative levers to remove possibly negative effects from the FBI investigation of cases related to the Clinton Foundation and the correspondence in the State Department.
So in other words, before Russia gave, the big scandal was that Hillary Clinton had put a private server in her home.
And the reason that's so inappropriate is because there's all kinds of laws from Freedom of Information Act and other transparency requirements for what officials like the Secretary of State have to turn over.
But by putting a private server in her house, she immunized those documents from that process.
And she also falsely denied that there were classified informations coming over the private server in her home, which were outside of the security mechanisms of the U.S. government.
It turns out there were classified information there.
And as it turns out, there was a lot of evidence to suggest that both Obama and his attorney general, Loretta Lynch, were working hard to squash that investigation.
And there was evidence suggesting that Loretta Lynch had done so.
Jim Baker, in a classified briefing, said that he started to believe this because of her reaction to these reports.
And that she not only met with Bill Clinton on that notorious meeting on the runway while she was supposedly investigating his wife, Hillary Clinton, who was running for president and supported by Barack Obama, but also Obama himself was eager to make sure that, as that document says, his legacy wasn't affected.
They also got documents from Dutch intelligence.
And Dutch intelligence had apparently found out that the Russians had intercepted certain documents and the Russian intelligence services knew about some of what was happening in the White House.
And here's what the newly classified document says about that.
When asked about the impact of these other factors on the FBI's assessment of the credibility of the information, McCabe told the OIG, we absolutely believe the collection is righteous and we have no reason to question that these are in fact.
There are a few things that mitigate our assessment of their credibility.
One is, of course, we know how the Russians do their analysis.
We know their analysis kind of, their analytical system is not exactly the same as ours.
They typically contain editorialization and spin and hyperbole and all that kind of stuff.
But they knew these documents suggesting that Loretta Lynch had been intervening to protect Hillary Clinton that the Russians had, that the Dutch found out about and showed us, were actually true.
Now, one of the things that was constantly claimed by John Brennan and Jim Comey and James Clapper, especially once the Steele dossier became to be discredited and people understood that it was a complete fraud.
Remember, it was originally paid for by the Washington Free Beacon, a neocon right-wing journal that's funded by Paul Singer, who's an ardent supporter of Israel, a billionaire support of Israel, who did not trust Donald Trump.
And the Washington Free Beacon was the one who originally hired the fusion firm and all of those guys who ended up producing the Steele dossier to investigate Trump.
And then once Trump got the nomination, they stopped because Paul Singer was going to support the Republican nominee, even if it were Trump.
And that's when the Clintons heard about this ongoing investigation and then went and hired Fusion GPS and Glenn Simpson.
And that was when they started to find Christopher Steele, and that's where the whole Steele document came from, the Steele dossier came from.
And of course, that was leaked by CNN.
James Comey purposely went and briefed Donald Trump on the existence of the Steele dossier.
Then CNN found out that they had done so and reported it.
And then BuzzFeed got a hold of the Steele dossier and published the whole thing.
And that was when the Steele dossier not only entered our consciousness, but became the primary framework for the media to explain to the American people what had happened here.
That Trump was under the control of the Russians because of blackmail, that they were conspiring with the Russians all the time.
All lies created by Christopher Seale, paid for by the Clinton campaign, and constantly endorsed on every major media outlet, especially by Rachel Maddow.
And obviously, Republicans in Congress wanted to know whether the Steele dossier played a role in the FBI deciding to open their investigation into Trump and the Russians and what role it played.
And people like Brennan constantly denied that it played any role.
Here, for example, is Brennan in front of the House testifying in May of 2017 when asked questions about the Steele dossier by then Congressman Trey Gowdy.
Steele dossier as part of any court filings?
Applications, petitions, pleadings?
I have no awareness.
Did the CIA rely on it?
No.
Why not?
Because we didn't.
It wasn't part of the corpus of intelligence information that we had.
It was not in any way used as a basis for the intelligence community assessment that was done.
It was not.
No, you see how he's trying to have it both ways.
He's trying to say, no, we didn't use the steel dossier.
He parished the thought.
That wasn't part of the basis for anything we did.
And then when asked why not, he doesn't want to say it, oh, because it was obviously fraudulent, because they were still pushing the steel dossier.
All of John Brennan's allies in the media and in the intelligence community were still maintaining this core conspiracy that not only Trump collaborated with the Russians to hack those emails, but also that Putin had blackmailed control over Russia and Putin was effectively governing the United States.
Putin had blackmailed control over Trump.
So he didn't want to denounce the Steele dossier as fraudulent, even though they knew it was.
But he was also trying to claim that, oh, they didn't use it, because by then it had been called into serious question.
And if they had used the Steele dossier, a fake document, essentially, a fake politically arranged document paid for by the Clinton campaign to investigate Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton's opponent, he knew that would be very embarrassing for the CIA that he led.
So he said, no, we never used the Steele dossier in any way.
It never became part of the corpus of our information.
James Comey was also saying similar things.
In 2020, he testified before the House, before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and he was questioned by Josh Hawley, the senator from Missouri.
And here's that exchange.
Mr. Ratcliffe says, on 7 September 2016, U.S. intelligence officials forwarded an investigative referral to FBI Director James Comey regarding U.S. presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's approval of a plan concerning Donald Trump and Russian hackers as a means of distracting the public from her use of a private mail server.
In quote, did you open an investigation?
I don't know what that refers to.
As I said earlier, that does not ring any bells with me when I read that.
So he's saying, look, I never heard anything like that.
Now, a document suggesting exactly that, namely that the reason the Clinton campaign fabricated this Donald Trump Kremlin conspiracy and then convinced the FBI and the CIA to take it seriously and investigate it to elevate it to an importance and credibility,
this fake conspiracy theory that they manufactured was to distract from the political problem Hillary Clinton had, that she was being investigated by the FBI because of the private email server in her house, even though Loretta Lynch was protecting her as the attorney general to whom the FBI reported, it was still a political problem for her that she was being investigated.
And documents suggested in the FBI files that Tulsi Gabbard just released that the motive for the Trump-Russia investigation, at least part of it, was to distract from that.
James Comey said, no, I don't, I never saw anything like that.
That doesn't ring a bell at all.
Even though it was part of the FBI files that Tulsi ended up releasing.
Here is Tulsi Gabbard on July 23rd, the day after she declassified and released these information, standing at the White House podium and saying this.
The implications of this are far-reaching and have to do with the integrity of our Democratic Republic.
It has to do with an outgoing president taking action to manufacture intelligence to undermine and usurp the will of the American people in that election and launch what would be a years-long coup against the incoming president of the United States, Donald Trump.
Thank you.
That, I couldn't agree more.
I mean, to me, it was very visible at the time I was saying these things in 2016 and 2017.
I read an article in the early 2017 right as Trump was being inaugurated.
I think the title of it was, it was at the intercept, something like the deep state goes to war against the elected president.
Because it was unbelievably obvious that they were at war with him and trying to sabotage the newly elected president.
He had publicly mocked the CIA for the lies and mistakes they made during the Iraq War.
That was when Chuck Schumer went on Rachel Maddow.
We've shown this a hundred times.
It's, I think, one of the most important things ever said on public television in the United States, where Rachel Maddow asked him about, asked Schumer about the criticisms Trump was launching at the CIA.
And Chuck Schumer said, Look, even for a hard-nosed businessman, it's really not smart what he's doing.
Everybody in Washington knows that if you take on the intelligence community, they have six different ways from Sunday to get back at you.
An unbelievable confession.
I mean, everyone knows it, but no one ever says that out loud.
That, oh, you don't mess with the intelligence community.
You don't take them on because they're basically more powerful than anybody, and they will destroy you if you do.
And that's exactly what they set out to do with Trump because he criticized them, because he questioned their findings about Russia, about the Iraq war, and this was their payback.
The New York Times felt compelled to report on these documents, and they framed it as, oh, these documents aren't really that important.
They don't do anything like what Trump and his supporters say they do.
That's how they framed it.
In fact, there's the headline: new reports on Russian interference don't show what Trump says they do.
And the subheadline was: the administration's claims are overblown, but newly declassified information provides some messy details about a January 2017 intelligence assessment of Moscow's election interference.
So isn't this amazing?
They have to admit that the documents that Telsey released about RussiaGate, which the New York Times is not only pushed, but one of Pulitzer for that they admit that there's things in there that disprove what a lot of Obama officials were saying.
Their allies, John Brennan, James Comey, Jim Clapper, JP Clapper.
But instead of leading with that, instead of saying new disclosures call into question claims of Obama officials about RussiaGate, they can't say that because that indicts the New York Times as well.
So they have to frame it as, oh, these new reports, they're not nearly as important as what Trump says they do.
But then they have to, they use these kind of this like scummy phrasing, like these newly released documents provide some messy details, messy, just messy.
Just kind of messes things up.
And on one of the main points, namely that John Brennan, as we just showed you, testified before Congress and stated publicly in many other instances that the Steele dossier played no role whatsoever in the CIA assessment, the CIA finding about Russia or Trump in Russia,
these documents show, in fact, that CIA documents cite the Steele dossier, the exact opposite of what John Brennan had been claiming, that it was part of their body of intelligence, or as he called it, corpus of intelligence, on which they relied.
And listen to how the New York Times having to acknowledge that decides that they're going to, this is the language they use to describe this.
Quote, Mr. Brennan has publicly said the Steele dossier material was not incorporated or used in the assessment itself because of the CIA's concerns.
In 2017, he told Congress that the Steele dossier, quote, was not in any way used as a basis for the intelligence community assessment that was done.
The newly disclosed material complicates that narrative.
In other words, these newly disclosed materials showed that what Brennan said was a lie.
Proves that what Brennan was saying was false.
And rather than just say that, just like there's some messy stuff in here, as the sub-headline put it, all they're willing to say, the New York Times, the newly disclosed material complicates Brennan's narrative.
Just complicates the narrative.
Not a big deal.
Lying's a big deal.
But having your narrative complicated, that's, what is that?
Everyone's narrative is a little complicated.
And then they say this, quote, for one, these documents showed that Mr. Brennan internally defended appending a summary of the Steele dossier to the assessment after CIA analysts requested the compromise too.
And there are other documents in there that the CIA were the CIA documents that in their annex reference the documents they're using, one of which is the Steele dossier.
So it proves John Brennan is a liar.
Not that that's news.
John Brennan is one of the most pathological liars to hold high office in the United States, at least in my lifetime, alongside James Clapper.
And it was very appropriate that the two of those pathological liars, Obama CIA Director John Brennan and his director of national intelligence, James Clapper, united to write an op-ed in the New York Times, which is exactly, of course, where it should go, where they basically are here to just dismiss all these new disclosures as meaningless.
And the New York Times headlined their article this way, Brennan and Clapper, let's set the record straight on Russia in 2016.
And these denials say so much about their guilt.
So I just want to go through a couple of these.
First of all, they say this.
Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, and John Ratcliffe, the CIA director, have over the past month claimed that senior officials of the Obama administration manufactured politicized intelligence, silenced intelligence professionals, and engaged in a broad, quote, treasonous conspiracy to undermine the presidency of Donald Trump.
This is patently false.
And making those allegations, they seek to rewrite history.
We want to set the record straight and in doing so, sound a warning.
This is the first thing they say after this.
While some external critiques have noted that parts of the Russian investigation could have been handled better, they're willing to acknowledge that, given that, you know, an FBI director pled guilty to lying to the Pfizer court in order to extract from the Pfizer court utterly baseless and unjustified warrants to spy on officials of the Trump campaign, including Carter Page, after he left the campaign.
The Durham Report also indicted a Hillary Clinton lawyer and found massive flaws in the RussiaGate investigation, as did the Inspector General of the Justice Department as well.
So a lot of these reviews have been very, very harshly critical of the RussiaGate investigation.
And all they're willing to say is, look, some external critiques have noted that parts of it could have been handled better.
Like, yeah, we weren't perfect, but they go on to claim multiple thorough years-long reviews of the assessment had validated its findings and the rigor of its analysis.
The most noteworthy was the unanimous bipartisan five-volume report issued by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, whose Republican members at the time included Marco Rubio, now the Secretary of State, and Senator Tom Cotton, now the committee chairman.
Now, it is true that this Senate Intelligence Committee report on a unanimous bipartisan basis that did include Marco Rubio and Tom Cotton went way further than the Mueller investigation went.
That's why if you point to the Mueller investigation, the Mueller report and say, look, he said there's no evidence to prove any of this.
I don't mean the Russian interference, but the Trump-Russian collusion, the liberals will say, oh, but there was this intelligence committee report that came out that was unanimous that went further.
And we have covered many times that this Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, this was one of the reforms that Washington pretended to implement after the only time the CIA was really meaningfully investigated, the intelligence community was really meaningfully investigated in Congress by Congress.
It was the Church Committee in the mid-1970s, 1977.
Because there was not just Watergate, but a whole bunch of disclosures about some really sinister stuff the CIA and FBI had been doing under J. Edgar Hoover during the Cold War.
Some like inhumane, incredibly immoral investigations that nobody knew about in the government, including not the president nor the Congress, like mind control stuff.
They had infiltrated social movements, all sorts of things that they were never supposed to do.
And so in the wake of Watergate and the downfall of Nixon and the discrediting of all these agencies, that was the first and only time that Congress really had the space to investigate.
And it was led by Senator Frank Church, a liberal from Idaho, but he had a lot of credibility.
He'd served in the military, and fought in World War II.
And they uncovered a lot of incredibly illegal and inappropriate things that not just the CIA and FBI, but the NSA had been doing as well.
And that's where these reforms came from, things like the FISA court.
So from now on, if the government wants to use the NSA to spy on people, they have to go to the FISA court first.
And we talked about why the Pfizer court is a joke.
It's not a real court.
It's in the Justice Department.
Only the government gets to show up.
And that's why 99% of the time or more they ask for a warrant, they get it.
So it had the illusion of reform, but it was a fake reform.
It didn't really put limits on what the government could do.
But the same was true of the creation of these select committees on intelligence.
The idea was, oh, no, you need a permanent committee, an intelligence committee, that is going to oversee and provide serious limits on what the CIA and the intelligence community can do.
But the whole time from the beginning and ever since, it has been purposely staffed with hardcore CIA loyalists.
They don't ever provide any real oversight.
They rubber stamp what the CIA does.
For decades, the leading Democrat in the Senate Intelligence Committee, either the chairwoman or the ranking member, was Diane Feinstein, one of the most vocal supporters of the CIA and the intelligence community.
She voted for the Iraq War.
She was a huge supporter of Israel.
These are all people who get on this committee are only people who love the CIA and who endorse what they do.
And this investigation was nothing.
They basically just endorsed what the CIA had concluded about Russia.
But the real investigations that were done, including the documents that were just released, do the opposite.
Then they go on to say this, Clapper and Brennan.
First, the so-called Steele dossier, a series of memos now largely discredited.
It's amazing.
The Steele dossier was the dominant feature of American politics from late 2016, early 2017 when CNN reported it and Ben Smith of BuzzFeed published it, all the way up until the end of the Mueller investigation.
And to this very day, people believe in the Steele dossier.
And only now are they willing to say, oh, no, that's largely discredited.
But even back in 2017, Brennan wanted to distance himself from the Steele dossier, saying, oh, it wasn't part of our, of anything we did.
Because all the way back in 2017, they knew it was fake, even in 2016.
And they just allowed the media and everybody else to circulate it, believe in it.
So now here's what they're trying to say.
The so-called Steele dossier, a series of memos now largely discredited about purported Trump-Russia links, written by a former British intelligence agent.
Ms. Gabbard and Mr. Ratcliffe have claimed it played an integral role in formulating the assessment.
We have testified under oath and the reviews of the assessment have confirmed that the dossier was not used as a source or taken into account for any of its analysis or conclusions.
Now, I just showed you that that's a lie.
That CIA's documents cite the Steele dossier as part of what they relied upon.
Even the New York Times article, the news article that I read you, trying to say, oh, these are exaggerated, that it doesn't really, it complicates the narrative.
Even they admitted that these newly released documents negate John Brennan's claim that the CIA didn't use the Steele dossier.
They absolutely did.
And then here's their last paragraph that I find so amazing.
This is what Brennan and Clapper write.
Finally, and contrary to the Trump administration's wild and baseless claims, there was no mention of, quote, collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians in the assessment, nor any reference to the publicly acknowledged contacts that had taken place.
The sole focus of the assessment was on Russia's actions, not on whom they might have been interacting with in the United States.
So they're saying, look, we had nothing to do with collusion.
That wasn't part of our assessment.
All we were saying was the Russians interfered.
We had nothing to do with this claim that Trump and Russia were together in this.
Does anyone believe this?
As I said at the start, had it just been that the Russians tried to interfere in our election, it wouldn't have been even a news story, let alone a major two-year scandal with Robert Mueller investigating because, of course, the Russians interfere in our elections.
We interfere in theirs.
We interfere in everybody else's great powers, interfere in their internal politics all the time.
They did wildly exaggerate what the Russians tried to do.
They also claimed that Putin was doing it because he wanted Trump to win, even though there was never any evidence of that.
Like everybody else in the world, the Russians thought Hillary Clinton was going to win, and that most what they were trying to do was to weaken her or discredit her before she assumed the presidency.
This claim that, oh, Trump was rooting for Trump, he knew Trump would do his bidding.
This all came from the CIA FBI.
And the fact that Clapper and Brennan are now trying to distance themselves from it as though they had nothing to do with pushing these collusion claims is an insult to everybody's intelligence.
And just to give you one piece of proof, remember when John Brennan left the CIA, he became a NBC news analyst.
They made the director of the CIA a person known for lying as part of his job.
They turned him into a news person.
He became somebody who NBC News and MSNBC used to interpret and report the news to the American public.
And in 2019, as it became clear that Mueller was winding up his investigation, even though he had not yet indicted anyone in the Trump family or Trump or anybody else for collusion, which John Brennan is now saying, oh, we had nothing to do with pushing.
John Brennan went on Lawrence O'Donnell's show and he basically said, look, I don't believe Mueller is going to close his investigation yet because there's still one thing, very important thing for him to do before he closes his investigation, and that is namely indict people for Americans for colluding with the Russians on the hacking of the emails and interference in the 2016 campaign.
Brennan said, nobody has been indicted yet on that, and there's no way Mueller will conclude his investigation.
Of course, he's going to have to indict people on that.
He was speaking as a former CIA director implying that he had intelligence that showed that Trump and the Russians colluded.
Exactly what he's denying now he ever had anything to do with.
Listen to what he said on MSNBC.
This was March 5th, 2019, just a week before Mueller closed his investigation and sent in his report.
For example, this week on Friday, not knowing anything about it.
But Friday is the day that the grand jury indictments come down.
And also, this Friday is better than next Friday because next Friday is the 15th of March, which is the Ides of March.
And I don't think Robert Mueller will want to have that dramatic flair of the Ides of March when he is going to be delivering what I think are going to be his indictments, the final indictments, as well as the report that he gives to the Attorney General.
All right, now, just look at how Robert Mueller was always talked about.
Brennan was saying, look, we're going to get final indictments, the collusion indictments, finally, the indictments of Donald Trump Jr. and Donald Trump Sr., perhaps, and all the people who colluded with the Russians.
And there's two possibilities.
We can get it this Friday or next Friday.
Next Friday, though, is March 15th, and Robert Mueller is too much of a serious professional to want to have a dramatic flair doing it on the IDES of March.
Like, who cares?
But that was how Robert Mueller was talked about.
He's such an integrity-driven professional law enforcement official that everything is by the book.
So don't expect indictments two weeks from now because that's too much of a dramatic flair for Robert Mueller.
He doesn't like drama.
But this Friday coming up, said, Brennan, this is when the real indictments are coming down.
And Lawrence O'Donnell was like, how do you know that?
And this is what happened.
Makes you believe that he has more indictments.
Because he hasn't addressed the issues related to criminal conspiracy as well as any individual.
Criminal conspiracy involving the Russian Russians.
Yes, yeah.
I think it was very that's an area you know something about.
So do you see here he's saying, look, I know this investigation can't close because we have to still indict the Trump family for criminally colluding with the Russians.
Something in this opinion, he's saying, we had nothing to do with that.
That wasn't part of what we were doing.
That wasn't part of our assessment.
That is exactly who pushed this bullshit collusion claim from the start was John Brennan.
And of course he and James Clapper are now trying to deny that they did it because the whole thing has been proven to be a hoax by these new releases and all other evidence before it.
But here's John Brennan on MSNBC assuring everybody there's more indictments coming before Robert Mookoza's investigation because he hasn't yet indicted any Americans on the core conspiracy.
And that was the core conspiracy claim that gave rise to Russia, which are Russia gate.
In the interest of the American person, a U.S. person.
That's an area you know something about.
That investigation was developing while you were still on the job.
Well, it was in terms of looking at what was going on with the Russians and whether or not U.S. persons were actively collaborating, colluding, cooperating, and involved in a conspiracy with them or not.
So Lawrence O'Donnell is trying to say, look, you're not just an MSNBC pundit predicting investigations and indictments for collusion.
You're actually someone who has inside knowledge on it.
Well, you were the CI director, and that's when this investigation started.
That's when these beliefs began that Trump and the Russians colluded.
And Brennan said, yeah, I was CIA director.
That's part of what we were investigating.
That was a crucial part was the collusion between Trump and Russia.
This is where it came from from John Brennan and Jim Comey and the liars at the FBI and the CIA.
I'm going to play you the rest of this, but here's John Brennan saying that came from us.
We were the ones investigating that.
Now he's here on MSNBC saying, I know these indictments have to come because things that I saw on the inside, as Lawrence O'Donnell provoked him to say, showed me that there was collusion.
This is what they were all going around saying.
But also, if there's going to be any member of the USAID, at that stage to believe that there would now, that that would result in indictments once investigated?
I thought at the time that there was going to be individuals who were going to have issues with the Department of Justice.
Yes, and I think we've already seen a number of individuals who have been indicted, either have pled guilty or have been convicted now.
So again, I don't have any inside knowledge.
I'm not talking with anybody in the special counsel.
You do.
You have the inside knowledge.
It's not about the staff of the investigation right now.
But I do think also if anybody from the Trump family, an extended family, is going to be indicted, it would be in the final act of Mueller's investigation because Bob Mueller and I think his team knows that if he were to do something, indicting a Trump family member, or if he were to go forward with indictment on criminal conspiracy involving U.S. persons,
that would basically be the death knell of the special counsel's office because I don't believe that Donald Trump would allow Bob Mueller to continue in the aftermath of those types of actions.
John Brennan, thank you very much.
You have to listen to every word in the John Brennan answer.
Thank you very much for joining us.
I really appreciate it.
Look at that smuggler at Lawrence O'Donnell.
Like, we know these indictments are coming.
John Brennan, this guy is on the inside.
He knows everything, so you've got to listen to every word he's saying.
It all contains secret code.
And what John Brennan was saying clear as day in that two-minute appearance on MSNBC was that he had inside information.
He was investigating.
He had knowledge while CIA director that proved there was collusion between American citizens, probably in the Trump family, and the Russian government.
And that's why he was saying it can't possibly be the case that Robert Mueller will close the investigation without indicting those people.
John Brennan and Jim Comey were the ones, and of course James Clapper, who pushed out that collusion lie during the 2016 campaign to prevent Donald Trump from winning, and then in 2017 and 2018 and 2019 to undermine his presidency.
And now in 2025, the New York Times has the audacity to publish an op-ed from them saying, we weren't even interested in collusion.
That's not anything we were looking at.
We just were interested in whether the Russians were involved.
Now, Michael Schellenberger, there were some newly released documents yesterday.
I was actually on Megan Kelly's show for about two hours.
They came out maybe a few minutes, like 30 minutes before we started that show.
So she did the best she could in going over these new documents, and I did the best I could in analyzing them.
But before they came out, they were obviously given to Michael Schellenberger by somebody because he was able to publish a report that contained some of the key documents, the headline of which is: FBI helped the Clinton campaign orchestrate the Russian collusion hoax, distract from email investigation.
Newly declassified documents show an appendix to the During report reveals that intelligence on the Clinton plan to frame Trump was controlled as controlled by Russia, was deemed credible by the CIA.
And that's what these documents show is exactly what I just showed you: that John Brennan and the CIA were the ones pushing this lie.
John Brennan worked with Hillary Clinton.
Hillary Clinton was the Secretary of State for the Obama administration from 2008 to 2012.
That was when John Brennan was Obama's national security advisor in that iconic picture where they so inspirationally killed this aging, decrepit Osama bin Laden, like the crowning jewel of the Obama administration.
In that now famous photo in the situation room, you see John Brennan and Hillary Clinton sitting at the table.
They worked together.
Obviously, John Brennan wanted Hillary Clinton to win.
Obviously, John Brennan hated Donald Trump.
He was attacking the CIA, mocking the CIA, as Chuck Schumer said, if you do that, they'll get back at you.
And this was the attempt to get back at them.
This complete abuse of power to interfere in our domestic politics, something the CIA was never intended to do, purely to interfere in an election and then sabotage an elected president.
Now, one of the reasons why I haven't spent so much time on this show going over these new documents is because I spent so much time over the past seven years explaining why this was so obvious from the start.
To me, the evidence was so clear.
And before I, I just want to end by pointing this one point out.
This claim that Donald Trump was blackmailed by Vladimir Putin, that he was doing Putin's bidding, that Putin had sexual and financial and personal blackmail material over him.
This was the conspiracy theory that dominated our politics for three years.
Virtually everyone in the media pushed it in every media outlet, corporate media outlet.
You can see articles.
What does Trump have over Putin?
What does Putin have over Trump?
Remember, he went to that summit with Putin and they called it the treason summit.
And the Washington Post hired body posture analysts, body language analysts to say that Trump just seemed unusually submissive around Putin.
I mean, they were constantly pushing this, that like, oh, Trump's scared of Putin.
Putin has control over him.
This was insane stuff.
It's like hiring psychics and saying, I feel like I see, I see a video at the Rich Carlton that Putin has, like body language experts.
And this was the claim for three years.
They talk about Other people who have in traffic and conspiracy theories.
This is one of the sickest and most deranged and obviously fake conspiracy theories I've ever heard.
And just to underscore the point, there were two primary policies the Trump administration had in its first term, 2017 to 2020, regarding Russia.
And both of those two policies were designed to attack as aggressively as possible the two most vital interests that Russia has.
Number one, Trump flooded Ukraine with offensive weapons when the Obama administration wouldn't.
They did that in 2017.
As we now know, flooding Ukraine with offensive weapons is a major threat to Russia in the eyes of the Kremlin.
If Putin were blackmailing Trump and had control over Trump, how is it possible that Trump flooded Ukraine with offensive weapons?
That's the first thing.
The second thing is the key to future Russian economic prosperity was Nord Stream II, the pipeline build underground that the Americans and Ukrainians ended up destroying that was designed to enable Russia to sell very cheap natural gas to Germany and then the rest of Europe.
That was a key part of future Russian economic prosperity.
And Trump hated Nord Stream II.
He went around threatening Europe, saying, look, we pay for your defense in NATO.
And you are not going to be buying cheap natural gas from Russia when you can buy our natural gas.
We have huge amounts of natural gas.
You have to buy it from us, not from Russia, because we're the ones, not Russia, who defends you.
We pay for you to keep you safe.
So Trump was trying to destroy Nord Stream 2 and the Europeans' willingness to buy Russian gas.
Again, if Putin had blackmailed control over Trump, both of those policies would have instantly ended it in the eyes of any rational person, but the media wasn't interested in being rational.
They were obsessed with this conspiracy theory.
It was central to their worldview, to their political agenda, to everything they had done.
They invested in it.
And all the evidence, including Trump's actions, made it not just false, but absurd, ridiculous, laughable that Trump was somehow controlled by Putin and the Kremlin.
And yet, they stuck with it and they pushed it.
And of course, that's why Brennan and Clapper are now trying to say, well, we never had anything to do with any of that, even though it came from the bowels of the CIA and the FBI.
And that is one of the gravest scandals in modern political history that these intelligence agencies cooked up lies on behalf of the candidate that they worked with that came from their administration that they wanted to win, not only to defeat the candidate that was attacking them and criticizing them and they hated Donald Trump, but even once he won, they used it to undermine and destroy his presidency.
And it was all a fabrication.
It was all a lie.
And these new documents released by Tulsi Gabbard bolster that even more in case any of their people out there ever doubted it.
new documents just are the final nails in the coffin.
Let's be honest, please, just can we be honest for a second?
Most coffee gives you a quick hit and then leaves you jittery and foggy and reaching for another cup before lunch.
But what if someone actually had a coffee that did something for your health?
Rejuvenative coffee is science-backed coffee.
Real Arabia beans infused with C-A-A-K-G, a compound shown to support cellular energy, metabolism, and even healthy aging.
It's not a gimmick.
It's not trendy.
It's built for people who take their health seriously, who want to show up with focus and strength every single day.
If you care about how you feel now and how you'll feel from 10 years from now, this is your coffee.
Go to 1775coffee.com/slash Glenn and order rejuvenative coffee today.
fuel your body protect your future and rejuvenate Wednesday night, we documented at some length how the Trump administration was expanding and spreading exactly that which they most claim to hate, namely censorship, campus censorship, and hate speech codes on college campuses.
And we showed you how.
We have documented this over time.
A couple of our tweets on this this week spread throughout conservative influencer land and it caused Stephen Miller, arguably the most important and influential person in the Trump administration and the Trump White House certainly, to call our reporting patently false.
And so I took about 45 minutes to an hour to go through all the documents and the proof showing that the Trump administration is in fact imposing on our leading universities censorship policies and hate speech codes designed to outlaw, to prevent, to ban a wide variety of criticisms of Israel and of individual Jewish people as well.
Namely, exactly the censorship that they claim to combat.
They're actually now spreading on behalf of Israel and Jewish students.
They're also doing exactly the same thing with the comes to so-called DEI.
And DEI policies have become a shorthand for all the diversity and equity measures that conservatives hate.
The idea that you're supposed to have awareness programs for every individual minority group, for black people, for Latinos, for women, for trans people, LGBTs, Muslims.
The argument has been, why are we dividing people up and treating them differently based on their demographic characteristics?
Just treat people as individuals.
Stop giving special privileges and special rights for individual minority groups based on the argument that, oh, these minority groups are oppressed.
They face a lot of bigotry.
They've had a lot of historical repression.
None of that justifies in the argument of pretty much conservatives unanimously, DEI policies designed to give a boost to or to benefit or treat differently certain minority groups.
And they vowed to destroy DEI.
And on the one hand, the Trump administration has been making good on that promise by going to these universities and demanding the dismantling of DEI programs for black people, for Latinos, for LGBTs, for Muslims, for immigrants, for women, no more.
But on the other hand, the Trump administration is also demanding the creation of new DEI programs for the one minority group the Trump administration seems to think is the only minority group that ever has faced real oppression, that is actually currently marginalized and repressed.
And somehow they think that the one group that actually needs DEI protection and special rights and privileges at every college are American Jews.
I guess they're up to the United States and they said, it's not black people who are repressed or facing discriminatory hurdles or a history of oppression.
It's not Muslims.
It's not LGBT people.
It's not Latinos.
No, no, it's American Jews.
American Jews are just, they're prevented from thriving and succeeding inside the United States.
They're excluded from participation in our leading factions of power, like the Jews aren't allowed at Wall Street, Jews aren't allowed in Hollywood, Jews aren't allowed in Silicon Valley, no Jews anywhere.
They're all just kind of excluded.
It's not black people who are the target of hate crimes or immigrants, no, no, or Muslims, nope.
American Jews.
You go out on the street, you're an American Jew, you're likely to get attacked simply for being Jewish.
And as a result, the Trump administration view clearly is we need to institute special censorship codes at college campuses to protect them from hearing ideas about Israel or about Jewish people that they find offensive or upsetting and make them unsafe, feel unsafe.
And also we have to create DEI programs to make sure these universities are required to offer special protection, special privileges, special rights, only for Jewish students that are not available for any other group.
Ryan Enos is a associate professor at Harvard.
He's a political scientist at Harvard.
And yesterday, Brown University became the latest school after Columbia and many others to be forced to sign a deal with the federal government where they agreed to a whole wide range of demands the federal government, the Trump administration insisted they agree to,
or else face rescission of all their public funding for research programs, as well as in the case of Harvard, they're punishing Harvard by trying to deny them the ability to have foreign students.
Basically saying, look, we're going to punish you, we're going to attack you as an institution unless you agree to our demands.
And one of the demands the Trump administration is imposing, aside from the censorship and hate speech codes we showed you the other night, are DEI programs for Jewish students.
So Professor Annis at Harvard reviewed the agreement that was signed by the federal government and Brown University, which we're going to show you in a minute.
And this is what he had to say about them.
He said, quote, I encourage people to read the ransom contract between the Trump regime and Brown University and to consider the sheer madness we have reached whereby private institutions are being extorted to cut off program for disfavored groups, DEI, and start new DEI program for favored groups, meaning Jews.
He went on, a person could certainly have different opinions about the merits of DEI to support different groups, but the fact that institutions are being extorted into promising not to, quote, promote unlawful DEI goals while at the same time being forced to promise to quote support a thriving Jewish community is insane.
He says it is the exploitation of minority identities both negatively and positively for cynical political gain that undermines the fabric of institutions in our country.
I can't imagine being a university administrator and putting my name on something so icky.
Here's the agreement that Brown University under all sorts of threats and duress signed with the Trump administration that Professor Ennis was just describing and by no means is the first one.
You see this in Columbia, the agreement with Columbia and Princeton.
I don't think Princeton has signed one yet, but several others as well.
Here's paragraph 13 of the agreement between Brown University and the federal government.
Part of the other part of the agreement before this requires them to dismantle DEI, not to treat minorities differently for admissions, not to allow special curriculum or groups or privileges for any other minority group.
And then at the same time, paragraph 13 creates a new DEI program, but for American Jews.
This is what it says.
The university will take the following steps to ensure compliance with Title VI and Section 1557, and they're implementing regulations by providing Jewish students an equal opportunity to participate and enjoy the benefits of its education program and activities as required by this agreement and law.
So they're framing it as, oh, we just want equal rights for Jews.
And yet, this is part of what Brown is going to do.
Brown is committed to taking significant, proactive, effective steps to combat anti-Semitism and ensure a campus free from harassment and discrimination.
These shall include actions to support a thriving Jewish community.
So Princeton has to commit, Brown has to commit to implementing programs to support and make sure that the Jewish community is thriving.
They also agree to implement research and education programs about Israel and a robust program in Judaic studies through outreach to Jewish day school students to provide information about applying to Brown,
resources for religiously observant Jewish community members, renewed partnership with Israeli academics and national Jewish organizations, support for enhanced security at the Brown Hill group, which is a group of Jewish students, and a convening of alumni, students, and faculty to celebrate 130 years of Jewish life at Brown in the 2025-2026 academic year.
Do you understand the government is forcing Brown University to specifically have outreach programs to encourage Jews to come to Brown as though you think Jews are unrepresented in the Ivy League?
Do any of you think that?
Do any of you think that Jews are unrepresented in the student body, on the faculty, in the administrative officials, or in the level of donors?
You think Jews are disproportionately underrepresented in Ivy League schools or other American universities or in power centers generally?
The answer is no, no, they are not.
There was just an outstanding interview that Tucker Carlson conducted with Professor John Mearsheimer, one of our favorite guests, and Mearsheimer is saying, Look, I've been in academia my whole life, been at the University of Chicago for the last 44 years.
I never, ever, ever heard anyone even suggest that America's leading universities are anti-Semitic.
Every major elite university has huge numbers of Jewish students, huge numbers of Jewish faculty members, huge numbers of Jewish deans and presidents.
Five out of the last seven presidents of Harvard have been Jewish.
And he said only after October 7th, in order to demonize criticism of Israel and protesting Israel's war in Gaza, did suddenly it get declared that somehow America's leading universities now have an epidemic of anti-Semitism.
Just like liberals claim there's an epidemic of racism against black people and Latinos and LGBT phobia and misogyny and xenophobia, all of which led to the DEI programs conservatives said they hated for every other group.
That's exactly what conservatives now say that justify this DEI program.
Brown universities now required to go to Jewish day camps, like Jewish kids, and find them.
Go look for Jewish kids.
You don't have to go look for black people.
You don't have to go look for black kids or Latino kids or Muslim kids or white kids or Christian.
None of those, just Jewish kids.
They have to go look for Jewish kids and say, like, Brown loves you, Brown wants you, please come to Brown.
The federal government is forcing Brown to celebrate 130 years of Jewish life.
You want to tell me this is not DEI 2AT, the conservatives are actually, the Trump administration is actively dismantling and attacking for every other group while imposing it for the one group they favor.
Here's the next paragraph: Brown will engage an external party to conduct a survey in 2025 to evaluate the campus climate for Brown students, including the climate, for students with shared Jewish ancestry, and to evaluate social media harassment.
The United States and Brown shall jointly choose the external party, so the government gets to choose which external party conducts this.
These surveys shall be developed by October 25th.
The survey shall, among other questions deemed appropriate by Brown, among other questions deemed appropriate by Brown, ask students whether they feel welcome at Brown, whether they feel safe reporting anti-Semitism at Brown, whether they believe Brown has responded appropriately to reports of alleged anti-Semitic conduct, whether they believe the changes Brown has made since October of 2023, including the changes to policies and standard operating procedures, changes to non-discrimination training, and previous climate surveys have benefited the Brown community.
Whether they have experienced harassment on social media by Brown students, faculty, or staff while at Brown based on their national origin, including shared Jewish ancestry and how any social media harassment has affected their experience at Brown, how the Brown University online and social media harassment webpage has affected them.
And whether they believe Brown could take any further measures to reduce any social media harassment.
This is all for Jewish students.
An unbelievable array of guarantees and promises and programs, not only to ensure Jewish students feel happy and safe on campus so they don't hear things they dislike or they hear criticism of Israel they think are anti-Semitic, which is basically every criticism of Israel, but also to make sure that they're not criticized on Twitter or TikTok or Facebook for their views about Israel.
This is all things that university is forcing Brown to do only for Jewish students, but for no one else.
And then within 45 days of the conclusion of each survey, Brown will provide to the Health and Human Services Department and the Education Department a report to them.
So you have to report to the government that includes at a minimum the results of the survey, Brown's analysis of the survey, and any appropriate action Brown intends to take to improve campus climate and to improve Brown's response to social media harassment.
Within 50 days, the government has to approve those proposed reactions, and then Brown will provide documentation sufficient to show its implementation of any action, including a description of each action and how it was implemented.
I'm sorry, but any conservative who has ever said over the last 10 years that they think DEI is racist or wrong or divisive or immoral and who supports this is a complete and utter fraud.
This is DEI in its classic form, in its purest form.
And it's not the universities doing it on their own.
It's the U.S. government forcing these universities to say, you have to go to your Jewish students, give them service.
Are you okay?
Is anything bothering you?
Are you being criticized online?
Like, are you hearing things that make you feel unsafe?
And then Brown is required to accommodate those feelings and grievances and make sure that these adult students feel safe, not physically safe, just safe in terms of safetyism.
What conservative have been mocking forever when done for every other group?
It's being eliminated for every other group except for Jewish students.
And I'm sorry, you could definitely make the argument that if you took every so-called minority group, the ones I've mentioned for which DEI had been provided, and list them according to who faces the greatest amount of oppression and discrimination, of Jews would rank last on the list.
The one group the administration seems to think is a minority group that actually faces discrimination and merits special privileges and treatments.
But regardless of that, even if they were first on the list, I thought the whole idea was we're not going to be treating minority groups differently.
And yet, every one of the agreements contains endless special privileges for the one group that they obviously favor.
Just to underscore the absurdity of where this administration is on this, I want to show you something that happened last night at Florida State University.
So the stop anti-Semitism account has basically become popular among a lot of people.
They're like, if there's some waitress at some restaurant who's wearing a Palestine flag pin or some flight attendant who's wearing a Kafiya or anything like that, they put their names on their faces all over the internet, demand that they get fired.
It's like a cancel culture site for the right, for the pro-Israel right.
And last night, they sounded the red alarm because five fire alarm.
And they framed it as a female student attacks a Jewish peer at the gym wearing an IDF shirt, screaming, fuck Israel, free Palestine, and physically shoves him.
This assault warrants immediate expulsion, President McCullough.
Okay, so I'm going to show you this now.
These are college undergraduates.
There's like a big guy, big college student, and he's wearing an IDF shirt.
This woman has no way to know if he's Jewish or not.
She just knows he's wearing a shirt of the military that a lot of people believe are starving human beings to death and committing genocide.
You don't have to believe that, but a lot of people believe that.
So if they see an IDF shirt, it's something they dislike.
She's not reacting to his Judaism.
She has no way of knowing if he's Jewish.
He's not wearing a yarmulke.
There's no other indicia that he's Jewish.
He just has an IDF shirt.
That's what she's focused on.
And so here's what happened between these two teenage undergraduate students at Florida State University.
Fuck Israel, Free Palestine, put it on fucking Barshaw FSU.
I really don't give a fuck.
You're an ignorant fucking son of a bitch.
All right, so that was it.
And just to try and see if we can get a screen capture of him, he doesn't seem particularly physically threatened.
I mean, he's like a big college kid.
This is like a thin woman.
And yeah, she seems to have hit his phone because he was filming her.
You shouldn't do that.
I'm against that.
And, you know, I personally wouldn't see somebody in an IDF shirt and go up to them and say that fuck Israel, Free Palestine, scream in their face, but I'm also not 19 years old.
Like when you're 19, you do a lot of more passionate activism.
And okay, you might think she was, what she did was wrong.
He wasn't injured.
He didn't go to the hospital.
He didn't even get any medical services.
She didn't hit him.
She didn't stab him.
She didn't shoot a fire a gun at him.
She just like slapped his phone away.
And look at what this caused.
First of all, Randy Fine, the senator for Israel, the congressman from Israel, who ostensibly represents a district in Florida, but is a congressman for Israel, went immediately onto X and said, under the Florida law that I authored and passed in 2019, this Muslim terrorist must be immediately expelled.
This Muslim terrorist, first of all, she's not Muslim.
She's a white girl from a white family.
Her mother or grandparent works at FSU.
She's an American citizen, board of the United States.
She's not Muslim.
And is this enough now to call someone a terrorist saying, fuck the IDF, Free Palestine?
Now you're a terrorist.
So he says, this Muslim terrorist must be immediately expelled.
As a member of the U.S. House Education and Workforce Committee, I am personally calling on Florida State to ensure it is done.
He wants her expelled for that.
It wasn't only Randy Fine, though, who decided that this required federal attention.
It was also the Attorney General of the United States, Pam Bondi.
She felt compelled to weigh in on this.
So she did so after Florida State issued, knowing that this is going to be depicted as some pogrom against Jews, like basically the rejuvenation of the Warsaw Ghetto and the re-emergence of Nazis.
FSU and the administration understood that because the victim here was someone supporting Israel, it was going to be taken infinitely more seriously than if any other student had been actually physically assaulted by this government that prioritizes this above everything else.
So here's, I swear this is the real statement issued by the administration of Florida State University.
Not weeks later, not days later, they didn't investigate.
They immediately did it knowing that they were in a lot of trouble because a girl on their campus yelled at a guy wearing an IDF shirt and slapped his phone while he was filming her.
Florida State University is actively addressing an altercation between two students that have been widely shared on social media.
The FSU police department has interviewed the students shown in the video.
The matter is being reviewed for potential criminal charges and for charges under the FSU student code of conduct.
While this process is underway, the student shown prominently in the video has been prohibited from returning to campus, just like Randy Fine demanded, although he demanded our expulsion.
I'll be shocked if that doesn't happen.
And then they go on to say this.
Our commitment to swiftly and effectively responding to incidents of hate is unwavering.
We appreciate the prompt report of this incident, which allowed us to address this instance of anti-Semitism without delay.
Florida State University strongly condemns anti-Semitism in all forms and follows Florida law, which protects Jewish students and employees from discrimination motivated by anti-Semitism, harassment, intimidation, and violence.
She said, fuck the IDF in free Palestine.
Is that an anti-Semitic assault?
Okay, this is my favorite part.
I want to savor this with you.
Support services have been offered to the victim on an immediate and ongoing basis.
I'm sure he's like deeply traumatized, has PDSD.
I mean, he's the victim of a hate crime here, a hate crime against the Jewish people.
He suffered a pogrom while doing nothing other than wearing a shirt for a foreign military.
And FSU, understanding the gravity of what he has endured, is offering services to him immediately and on an ongoing basis.
Whatever he needs.
Therapy dogs, psychologists, special pillows, whatever he wants, he has to get it.
He's the victim of an anti-Semitic attack.
And not just him, but other students who need supportive resources.
Like maybe there are other Israel supporters on campus who, even though they weren't there for this horrific attempted murder, might actually feel themselves very traumatized as well.
Other students who need supportive resources are encouraged to reach out to the university's counseling and psychological services department, counseling.fsu.edu, or to the Department of Student Support and Transitions, DSST, F-S-U-E-D-U.
Are they allowed to use the word transitions in that?
Probably take care of that at some point.
But do you remember the whole conservative mockery of minority groups on campuses?
They were snowflakes.
They were little babies.
And this girl walks up to this guy and screams, fuck the IDF and free Palestine and slap his phone the whole thing took eight seconds.
This like big guy menaced by this girl, this thin girl.
And now we're all supposed to come together as a nation in solidarity with the victim.
The Attorney General of the United States, Pam Bondi, felt compelled, again, not days later, not weeks later, barely hours later, immediately, last night, to weigh in on this.
She said, thank you, President McCullough, for your leadership and prompt action.
Anti-Semitism will not be tolerated in Florida or anywhere else.
Assistant Attorney General Dylan, the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department, Leo Terrell of the Justice Department, and my U.S. Attorney of Florida, Jack Keekin, are all investigating this.
A major task force has been assembled inside the Justice Department to investigate this unparalleled pogrom that broke out last night at the library of Florida State University that lasted eight seconds from this teenage girl who did what she did in that video.
Not like the Justice Department, the top level of the federal, of the Justice Department, not weeks later, immediately jumped into action and publicly denounced it and vowed to combat this.
Do you think a black person had been wearing a t-shirt of some like black radical like Malcolm X or Marcus Garvey or whoever is a very strong black student, male student, and a white conservative girl went up to him and said, fuck Marcus Garvey, he was a communist.
Get communists out of our country and slap this phone.
Do you think the entire top level of the Trump Justice Department would immediately spring into action to denounce this hate crime and demand that she be okay, please.
The entire Trump just, the Trump administration is constructed to give special favors to Israel on foreign policy and financial policy, to do everything they can for Israel.
Israel wants war with Iran.
We're going to be there to protect Israel.
We're going to join in that war.
Israel wants to do genocide in Gaza.
We're going to pay for it.
We're going to give Israel the arms deal.
We're going to diplomatically protect it.
Whatever Israel wants, it gets.
The first foreign leader to visit Donald Trump in his first term was Benjamin Netanyahu.
The first foreign leader to visit Donald Trump in his second term was Benjamin Netanyahu.
In the first five months, Netanyahu has been to the White House three times.
No other leader has been there twice.
Trump's biggest donor to his presidential campaign, both in 2016 and again this year, after Elon Musk was Miriam Adelson, who was born in Israel, spent most of her life as an Israeli citizen, fought in the IDF, married Sheldon Adelson, the multi-multi-billionaire mogul who's passed away.
She's now inherited as well.
She became an American citizen.
And Trump himself says the only thing she cares about is Israel.
She's always in the White House demanding things for Israel and he's always giving it to her.
Just to underscore how extreme this is, how much this devotion and loyalty to Israel drives the entire Trump administration.
Two weeks ago, President Emmanuel Macron of France announced that France was recognizing the Palestinian state.
Last week, British Prime Minister Kier Starmer, in characteristic fashion, took this very meek middle ground step where he said, we're going to recognize Palestine as a state unless you start feeding them.
And now there's reports that Canada is going to do the same.
Prime Minister of Canada, Mark Carney, announced that Canada is preparing to recognize statehood as well.
And Donald Trump went on to social media, to True Social yesterday, and this is what he said.
Wow, Canada has just announced that it is backing statehood for Palestine.
That makes it very hard for us to make a trade deal with them.
Oh, Canada.
I thought these trade deals were about helping the American worker, protecting American industry.
Why would Canada's recognition of a Palestinian state.
I understand why it angers Israel, but why would Trump say that that would make it harder for us to reach a trade deal with Canada?
It's an economic deal.
What does that have to do with Israel?
In the Trump administration, everything has to do with Israel.
One of my favorite MAGA supporters, what her name is Village Crazy Lady.
Her name is Mel.
She's a southern Christian white woman who believes in MAGA, like Marjorie Taylor Green, believes in MAGA.
And she has a podcast with Jen Eunice, who's the lawyer who represented Missouri and I believe it was Arkansas.
They sued the Biden administration for the Biden administration's censorship program, forcing big tech to remove COVID dissent and other dissent.
She's a big free speech advocate.
She became very popular among conservatives.
But now the Trump's in pop fish, she's one of the few people who's not willing to allow and endorse Trump's censorship.
She's saying, no, censorship isn't good when the Biden administration does it on COVID.
It's also not good when you do it on Israel.
And she has a podcast with Mel, Village Crazy Leader, Crazy Lady, who if you don't follow along next, you really should.
She's one of the most honest and the smartest critics of MAGA from the MAGA perspective, critics of the Trump administration.
She's hardcore MAGA.
We're going to have her on our show soon.
And this is what she said in response to Trump's announcement.
Sorry, friends, we're going to have to pay more for gas and groceries because Canada is doing something Israel doesn't like and we all know who actually runs this country.
I mean, there's Trump's announcement.
Whoa, Canada has just announced that it is backing statehood for Palestine.
That will make it very hard for us, the U.S., to make a trade deal with them.
I mean, unless you believe that the role of the key role of the Trump administration and the federal government should be to protect Israeli interests, why would Canada's recognition of Palestine endanger us from doing a trade deal that is in the interest of the American worker, the person that Trump said he wants to represent, an American industry?
That's what these trade deals are about, I thought.
Not punishing countries with tariffs if they anger Israel, but Trump's admitting, no, actually, a big part of our trade policy is about punishing countries that do things that anger Israel, like recognizing a Palestinian state.
That's how far this has gone.
And it's not hard to understand why.
The whole Trump administration is filled with people who are Israel loyalists.
I mean, Stephen Miller is leading the way in these censorship policies on American campus to prevent criticism of Israel and Jews.
That's why he was the one who stepped up and claimed our reporting was patently false, because he knows that that's what he's doing.
That's the whole administration, funded by people who demand this agenda, run from the inside by people who manage this agenda from the outside as well.
And I don't mean Jewish Americans exclusively at all.
A big component of it, as Mir Sheimer has explained in his book with Stephen Walt, the Israel lobby, as he explained in his interview with Tucker, as he said on our show many times before, are Christian Zionists.
Mike Huckabee, the U.S. Ambassador to Israel, posted a video today saying, yeah, you know, a lot of my Jewish friends asked, like, you're an evangelical Christian.
Why are you so obsessed with Jews in Israel?
Even they think it's kind of weird.
And Huckabee said, look, I explained to them, it's very simple.
If you're a Jew, you don't have to care about Christians at all.
It's totally understandable.
You're Jewish.
Why would you care about Christians?
But as a Christian, my religion commands me to support Jews and to support Israel.
I have no choice.
It's very unequal, he says.
Jews don't care about Christians, nor should they.
They don't have to.
I mean, that's why Israel can shoot at a Christian church, kill Christians all the time in Gaza, in Syria, in Lebanon.
And the Mike Huckabees of the world don't care.
They're saying, no, we don't expect Jews to care for Christians.
They don't have to.
But Christians, people who, with my belief, we care mostly about Jews in Israel.
That's one of our main goals because God commands it.
And so you have this confluence of influences that are turning the Trump administration, not just in foreign policy, which is expected.
Every president has been dedicated and loyal to Israel, but even in domestic policy, when it comes to censorship, when it comes to DEI, when it comes to trade policy, prioritizing this foreign country above the interests of our own people.
And it's a very ironic, to put it generously, truth for a movement that defined its outlook and ideology as America first.
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 in Rumble on Spotify, Apple, and all other major podcasting platforms.
If you rate, review, and follow our show, it really does help spread the visibility of the program.
Finally, as independent journalists, we do rely on the support of our viewers and members, which you can provide by joining our locals community.
You just click the join button, the red join button right below the video player on the Rumble page.
You get a wide variety of special benefits, including exclusive video interviews and segments that we don't have, that we don't publish on this show.
We do a Q ⁇ A every Friday night where we take questions exclusively from our local members.
We didn't get to the Q ⁇ A session this week, but pretty much every Friday night we do that.
It comes exclusively from our local members.
We have interactive features where we communicate with you throughout the week.
We publish special written journalism there, transcripts of every show.
But most of all, it's the community on which we really do rely as independent journalists to support the independent show 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 those who have been watching this show, we are needless to say 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.
