Israel Bombs Qatar and Trump Reacts; The Hoax to Blame Russia for Jamming EU President's Plane GPS; Mamdani Soars in Polls as he Tries to Moderate on Israel
Israel strikes Doha and the Trump administration reacts. EU officials blame Russia for jamming the EU president's plane GPS in the latest wave of Russia hysteria. Finally: Zohran Mamdani's revealing interview with Al Sharpton. ----------------------------------- Watch full episodes on Rumble, streamed LIVE 7pm ET. Become part of our Locals community Follow System Update: Twitter Instagram TikTok
It's Tuesday, September 9th, two days before the most solemn day in America, which is September 11th.
Welcome to a new episode of System Update, our live nightly show that airs every Monday through Friday at 7 p.m.
Eastern, exclusively here on Rumble, the free speech alternative to YouTube.
Tonight, Israel earlier this morning bombed Doha, the capital of Qatar, by sending 10 Air Force jets with bombs.
A claim that its target was the senior leadership of Hamas, namely the negotiating team that had been trying to negotiate with the United States and Israel and other parties to facilitate an end to the war.
Reports are not definitive, but do suggest that only a few security guards and one family member of a Hamas leader was killed, but no senior Hamas leaders themselves.
The Trump White House admits it was told in advance, but claims that it was only told only once the Israeli jets were in the air.
While Trump himself is strongly suggesting that he is angered by Israel's actions.
A claim which there is ample reason to doubt.
This is now the seventh different country or place in the Middle East that Israel has bombed in the last year alone.
Seven different countries or places, all paid for and supported by the U.S. government.
That number, bombing seven different countries in one year, just so happens to match the record set by President Obama when he bombed seven different countries in 2016.
So congratulations to these two peace-loving countries on your remarkable record.
While all of this is happening, we are constantly told that the real military aggressor in the world is somehow China, which has not fought a war since 1979, 46 years ago.
And that was a one-month border dispute with Vietnam.
Well, look at all of the ramifications of this latest Israeli bombing.
Then, late last month, the unelected president of the European Union, Ursula Vanderleyen, was flying on her official private jet when the plane's GPS was supposedly disrupted and rendered unworkable.
As Europeans virtually always do for every one of their problems, they immediately united to blame Russia, claiming that Putin tried to sabotage the plane of this European stateswoman.
Now, as it turns out, none of that appears to be true.
So we yet again have another hoax from the West trying to blame Russia for things it manifestly did not do, and we'll examine those as well.
Then a new large poll from the New York Times and Siena polling shows that the Democratic Party nominee for the mayor of New York, Zaron Mamdani, has a commanding lead, likely an insurmountable one.
Indeed, absent unexpected events, he is highly likely to become the next mayor of America's largest city, New York.
Much of the polling data contradicts consensus narratives of corporate media, including the fact that a plurality of Jewish voters who were told are so frightened of Mamdani actually support him.
And a majority of voters in the city believes that he is the most trustworthy when it comes to cri issues of crime and safety.
Despite all that, Mamdani sat for an interview for some reason with MSNBC's Al Sharpton, where he walked back several of his prior statements, all in a transparent attempt to moderate his stance with respect to Israel.
We'll examine all of that as well and what it means.
Before we get to all that, a few quick programming 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.
With your 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.
That provides a long litany of exclusive uh benefits that are available only to our locals members, and most of all, it is the community on which we really do rely to support the independent journalism that we're doing here every night.
Simply click the red join button right below the video player on the Rumble page, and it will take you directly to that community.
For now, welcome to a new episode of System Update starting right now.
There used to be a long list of lines or limits that govern how the Middle East operated in terms of what various countries, including Israel, could and could not do without risking serious upheaval and regional, if not broader, conflict.
And Israel has blown past all of those lines without even stopping to consider the ramifications one after the other for more than uh close to two years now.
Another one happened earlier this morning, this morning U.S. time, when 10 Israeli jets were dispatched over Qatar, a close American ally, to drop bombs on its capital, Doha, where a senior team of Hamas negotiators are based,
and they're based there because both Israel and the United States requested that Qatar let them be there in order to negotiate with the United States and other parties whenever the United States needed to negotiate with Hamas.
Israel attempted to kill the senior leadership in Qatar, despite the fact that they are in the middle of what were supposed to be negotiations to bring the hostages back, remember them, and to try and end the war.
Here from the New York Times, Israeli strike targets Hamas leadership in Qatar, a Gaza war mediator.
Hamas said that Israel had failed to kill senior officials in the group without specifying whether they had sustained injuries.
In a statement, the group confirmed that the son of Khalil Al-Hayah, Hamas's chief negotiator, his office manager, and three other people affiliated with Hamas had been killed in the attack.
Now, these three other people affiliated with Hamas were basically security guards.
So they killed an office manager, the son of someone, and three uh people who work in security in the building.
Incredible precision and efficacy.
New York Times goes on.
The strike also killed a member of Qatar's internal security forces and injured a number of civilians, the country's interior minister said.
Wouldn't be an Israeli strike if he didn't kill or injure a bunch of civilians.
And they actually uh killed a member of Qatar's security forces, a Qatari who works for the Qatari government.
A Guatari foreign minister spokesman, Majid Al-Ansari, said the country had not received a U.S. warning ahead of the strike.
Quote, the statements being circulated about Qatar being informed of the attack in advance are baseless, he said.
There was a call from a U.S. official.
It came during the sound of explosions caused by the Israeli attack in Doha.
And Trump himself and the Trump White House confirmed what the Qatari officials said that Trump, when he was notified in advance, ordered the White House to notify the Qataris, but by the time the U.S. notified Qatar, the strikes were the bombs were already falling.
Quote, this criminal assault constitutes a blatant violation of all international laws and norms and poses a serious threat to the security and safety of Qataris and residents in Qatar, he said.
Other countries in the region that are close American allies, the beacons of democracy in Saudi Arabia and in the United Arab Emirates, as well as the US ally in NATO, Turkey, those governments all vehemently condemned what the Israelis did, warning serious reprisals if it ever happens again.
But it's an open question whether or not they actually knew and consented, although I have nothing definitive on that.
Originally I thought it was unlikely this could have happened without at least notifying the UAE and Saudis in advance.
But the more facts emerge, the more evidence uh emerges, the more the less likely it seems that the Saudis and Emirates actually knew.
And obviously, having Israel bomb one of those Persian Gulf dictatorships is necessarily going to create a precedent that in the minds of the Saudis and Emirates, among others, is quite dangerous for them.
So Israel alienated at least three close American allies at once.
And the Trump White House is trying to cast an appearance that not only was it not involved in the strike, but also that it didn't really even know about the strike until very, very shortly before it was executed.
And both the Trump White House and Trump himself are trying to imply, if not outright state, that they're angry about what the Israelis did.
Again, take that with a huge grain of salt for reasons we'll explain in a second.
Here's the White House press secretary, Caroline Levitt, when asked about this.
This is what she said earlier this afternoon.
Well, that for you in a second.
Uh I can't pull it off on my screen.
This morning, the Trump administration was notified by the United States military that as Israel was attacking Hamas, which very unfortunately was located in a section of Doha, the capital of Qatar.
Unilaterally bombing inside Qatar, a sovereign nation and close ally of the United States that is working very hard and bravely taking risks with us to broker peace, does not advance Israel or America's goals.
All right, now that is a pretty strong statement in many different ways.
It is become this sort of reflexive claim on the part of the pro-Israel wing, the neocon pro-Israel wing of the Trump movement, that Qatar is the root of all evil.
Israel supporters even have the audacity to try and claim that, oh, don't worry, it's not Israeli money or pro-Israel money that's flooding American politics and American discourse.
No, it's it's actually the problem is Qatar.
And I've always said, oh, so it's Qatari money that dominates our politics, not Israeli money.
Let me know when the U.S. starts transferring billions and billions of dollars every year to Qatar, if that's the case.
And let me know when every single week the Congress passes a new law or passes it, enacts a new resolution defending the Qatari government.
Let me know when the Trump administration starts expelling and deporting American students because they speak critically of Qatar and its government.
The idea that it's Qatar that has massive influence in the United States rather than Israel is so laughable, and yet Barry Weiss's free press, which will soon be part of CBS for exactly this reason that they are essentially a arm of the Israeli government, like APAC, has run articles trying to pretend that no, no, the foreign influence that you ought to worry about is not Israel.
No, we barely do anything.
It's it's Qatar.
But it is interesting that Qatar has become this boogeyman among pro-Israel Trump supporters, or just Israel supporters generally.
In fact, if you criticize Israel, they use the liberal tactic where liberals spend eight years accusing anybody who said anything positive about Trump or questioning the war in Ukraine.
They'll say, oh, you're a paid agent of Russia.
You're just saying what the Kremlin tells you to say.
Immediately if you criticize Israel or question the US Israeli relationship, you'll have all sorts of people who support Israel coming and saying, you're a whore for Qatar.
You're a Qatari agent.
Qatar pays you.
Laura Loomer tried to claim that the reason Tucker Carlson was criticizing Israel is because he was being paid by Qatar.
It turned out to be a complete fabrication.
She had found the document where there were payments made from the government of Qatar to a PR agency trying to get interviews with the Qatari leader and other Qatari officials, and they tried to get him interviews with many different uh shows, including Tucker Carlson's show, but there was no money transferred from Qatar to Tucker Carlson.
And the idea that Tucker Carlson needs money, or that he would change his views in order to get some is I mean, it's just it's not even worth commenting on.
But also I would point out that Tuck Carlson had an extremely lucrative and uh very profitable in all senses of the word position in conservative media.
He was unanimously beloved by all conservatives until he began criticizing Israel.
If anything, that has probably harmed his career and harmed his standing more than anything else ever has, at least in the past decade, you now constantly hear criticism of Tucker Carlson among conservatives, whereas previously you never would have heard any.
But that's what they always do.
They're like, oh, you're you're on the paid payroll Of Qatar, you serve Qatar, just like the Liberals said that about anybody who criticized them that you're on the payroll of the Kremlin.
It's the same stupid tactic.
But it is notable that Donald Trump considers Qatar to be a very important and close ally of the United States.
Carolyn Levitt just said that.
She said Israel bombed a sovereign country that is a close and important ally of the United States.
When Trump went on his little Persian Gulf tour to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates and to Qatar, he heaped praise on the Qataris.
The U.S. is a gigantic military base.
If you ever been to Doha or go to Doha, it's one of the first things you'll notice.
There's a sprawling military base, utterly fortified.
That was the base that the Iranians shot a few fake missiles at in coordination with the United States just for Iran to show they had retaliated against the United States for the United States bombing their territory.
And they were all intercepted.
But there was there's this gigantic important military base, the largest the US has in that region.
It's based in Qatar.
And U.S. generals and military officials have an extremely close working relationship with the Qataris in Doha.
And they are important to Trump.
They are important to the Trump administration and the U.S. government, which is why it's so bizarre to hear Trump supporters, the pro-Israel types, trying to make it seem as though Qatar is the root of all evil or they're the source of terrorism.
Whereas Trump constantly praises Qatar and did so again here, saying this is a sovereign country, a close ally of the United States that has been working very hard with the United States, risking a great deal to try and facilitate a diplomatic resolution to return the hostages and end the war.
Qatar is the basis of that.
Qatar has been serving as the mediator between all the sides.
And yet again, as a deal was close, or Hamas had agreed to a deal that the United States was presenting.
Net Yahu comes in and makes it impossible for there to be a deal by trying to kill the Hamas negotiators in Qatar.
And so Caroline Levitt is saying a lot of different things there.
She's saying this is a sovereign nation.
It was an unfortunate attack.
It was on a U.S. ally, and it does not serve, she said, American or Israeli interests.
That's a pretty negative note of condemnation.
Again, we'll get to whether or not it's sincere in any way, but that is the statement that she made.
Here's the rest of it.
However, eliminating Hamas who have profited off the misery of those living in Gaza is a worthy goal.
President Trump immediately directed Special Envoy Whitcoff to inform the Qataris of the impending attack, which he did.
The president views Qatar as a strong ally and friend of the United States and feels very badly about the location of this attack.
President Trump wants all of the hostages in Gaza and the bodies of the dead released in this war to end now.
President Trump also spoke to Prime Minister Netanyahu after the attack.
The Prime Minister told President Trump that he wants to make peace and quickly.
President Trump believes this unfortunate incident could serve as an opportunity for peace.
The president also spoke to the Emir and Prime Minister of Qatar and thanked them for their support and friendship to our country.
He assured them that such a thing will not happen again on their soil.
Now, I don't think I've ever heard the U.S. government speak so positively and openly about their love of Qatar, the importance of Qatar to the United States, as Caroline Levitested in this statement.
I mean, she was saying, look, Qatar is a sovereign country.
President Trump regards it as a bad thing that they were attacked.
He spoke to Netanyahu after it happened, and he promised the Qatari Prime Minister and Emir that it will never happen again on their soil.
So clearly the White House is trying to leave the impression, at least, that the United States is very unhappy with what it is that Qatar that Israel did.
Here is Trump's own statement on true social, which was similar to what the White House Press Secretary statement was he said this quote This morning the Trump administration was notified by the United States military that Israel was attacking Hamas, which very unfortunately was located in a section of Doha, the capital of Qatar.
It's very strange wording.
He didn't say the Trump administration was notified by Israel.
He said the Trump administration was notified by the United States military that Israel was attacking Hamas and Doha.
And you could read that as saying we weren't told by Israel at all the United States military detected these planes moving there.
There's some reporting that the Trump administration found out shortly before the attack was implemented or during it.
And that was why when Trump says he immediately told Steve Whitkop to notify the Qataris, by then it was too late.
He goes on, "This was a decision made by Prime Minister Netanyahu.
It was not a decision made by me.
Unilaterally bombing inside Qatar, a sovereign nation and close ally of the United States that is working very hard and bravely, taking risks with us to broker peace, does not advance Israel or America's goals.
This is basically the same.
However, eliminating Hamas who have profited up the misery of those living in Gaza is a worthy goal.
I immediately directed Special Envoy Steve Whitkoff to inform the Qataris of the impending attack, which he did.
However, unfortunately, it was too late to stop the attack.
So he's really saying had we had time, had we known about this with more time in advance, either we or the Qataris or the United States and Qatar jointly would have acted to stop the attack.
Qatar has air defenses, the United States air defenses, those are what we use to shoot down the missiles that Iran sent, that Qatar and the United States knew was coming.
But Trump clearly is trying to say there that had we known about it with more time in advance, we would have stopped it.
Quote, I view Qatar as a strong ally and friend of the U.S. and feel very badly about the location of the attack.
I want all of the hostages and bodies of the dead released and this war to end now.
Trump wants the war to end now.
I also, I mean, I think Trump wants the war to end now as long as it's on terms that no one in Gaza will agree to.
Namely that not only all the hostages are returned, but that Hamas surrenders, lets Israel take over Gaza, there's no more Hamas there.
They lay down their arms.
He goes on, quote, I also spoke to Prime Minister Netanyahu after the attack.
The Prime Minister told me that he wants to make peace.
I also spoke to the Emir and Prime Minister of Qatar and thanked them for their support and friendship to our country.
I assured them that such a thing will not happen again on their soil.
I have directed Secretary of State Marco Rubio to finalize the defense cooperation agreement with Qatar.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
So there is no doubt that Trump is trying to leave the impression that this was done without the United States' participation or even knowledge, that they regard it as an unfortunate mistake, something that does not advance the United States and Israel's interest or goals.
And that the United States is going to move closer to Qatar as a result of this.
Promising it'll never happen again, Israel will never bomb Qatar again, and that this defense agreement that the United States and Qatar are working towards, and effectively already have, will be strengthened and formalized.
Here's what Trump said when he met with the Emir of Qatar when he visited Qatar on that Persian goal trip in May of this year.
Well, I have to say that we've been friends for a long time.
Hard to believe, right?
Remember that first meeting very well.
And uh we've liked each other and we worked with each other.
And now we can work in the highest capacity.
And we'll bring peace not only here, but I know you're very much involved in helping us in other regions like what's happening with Russia, Ukraine, et cetera.
And I think we're having some pretty good news coming out of there today and maybe tomorrow, and maybe Friday, frankly.
But we'll uh we'll see about that.
But uh I just want to thank you for everything, and maybe in particular our friendship.
It's been a very loyal, great, beautiful friendship.
And the job you've done a second, and then you look at this as so beautiful.
As a uh construction person, I'm seeing perfect marble.
This is uh what they call perfection.
And uh just a great judge.
What a beautiful place, and we appreciate those camels.
I haven't seen Caleb in a long time.
And uh greeting, we appreciate it very much.
Thank you, Brad.
Thank you very much.
So that's Trump's view of Cotter, that he says publicly and privately, while his supporters say exactly the opposite the pros are ones, that Qatar is the cause of all the problems, that anyone who criticized Israel is on the Qatari payroll.
I mean, the cognitive dissonance is bizarre.
They'll never, ever, ever say that about Trump.
Oh, he's controlled by the Qataris, even though every chance he gets, Trump lavishes Qatar with praise and says what a great friend and ally they are.
One of the things that happened during the Biden administration was that a reporter, an Israeli reporter named Barak Ravid, who works for Axios, who somehow became the most influential reporter on the US Israel relationship and on Israel and Gaza since October 7th.
Like overnight, he just appeared.
He's not only an Israeli, he was in the IDF reserves until 2023.
He worked in the notorious surveillance unit of the IDF, unit 820.
And this is who Americans have been turning to, at least the ones who consume corporate media to learn about what the reality is about Israel.
An Israeli, not even an Israeli American, an Israeli citizen, who was in the IDF until about six seconds ago.
And the way that he reports is the worst possible way of doing journalism, if you can even call it that, but it's a common practice in corporate media, which is he goes to government officials, he would go to Israeli officials and Biden officials, and now to Trump officials, and they whisper to him what they want him to say.
And then he goes and says it unquestioningly, mindlessly.
And so one of the things the Biden administration would constantly do was tell Barack Ravid, oh, we're so angry.
We're infuriated.
The president is enraged by what Israel did.
And you would see all these headlines, you know, every six weeks, Biden said to be enraged by Netanyahu.
And yet the US never used any of its leverage, namely that it was funding and arming the war, ever once to demonstrate this rage.
It was just the Biden administration wanted the people to believe that Biden was enraged by Israel.
And so they would whisper to Barak Ravid, Biden's in rage, and then Barack Ravid would dutifully go and have a headline saying Biden enraged by Israel, officials say.
And he would do the same thing with Israel.
The Israeli officials would whisper things to him that they wanted Americans to believe, and he would go and like a stenographer, a good stenographer, stenographers for people who don't know, are people who sit in court and they have this little stenography machine, and their job is just to take down what it write down what everybody says.
And that's what the worst reporters are stenographers to people in power.
That's what Barack Ravid is.
And for that work, he got the highest award, I don't know what it is, like the best reporter of the year award or whatever from the White House press corps, because they think that's what good reporting is, that you write down what powerful people in government say and then just print it without any investigation or verification or confirmation or questioning.
Just serve as the spokesman for the Israeli-American governments.
That's what Barack Ravid is good for.
That's what he does.
And so every six weeks in Axios, or whatever, you would see Biden enraged, Biden angry.
And now the Trump administration is using this uh Israeli and former IDF uh soldier for that as well.
Here is Axios today.
Israel's attack on Qatar infuriated Trump advisors, officials say.
Quote, the news stunned the White House and infuriated some of Trump's advisors because it came as the U.S. was waiting for Hamas to respond to President Trump's new proposal for peace in Gaza.
In fact, the Hamas officials were meeting to discuss that proposal.
The White House expected to receive Hamas's response by the end of the week.
Once President Trump was briefed on the imminent strike, he instructed White House envoy Steve Whitkop to notify the Qataris, a U.S. official said by the time Whitkoff reached them, oh gosh, just a little late.
The bombs had already hit their target on Monday.
Prime Minister Benjamin, who's top advisor, Ron Dermer met in Miami with Whitkop and Trump's son in law Jared Kushner.
So just to be clear, this meeting was the Israeli top advisor to Netanyahu, Ron Dermer, Steve Whitkoff, who is long time supporter of Israel, and Jared Kushner, also a very longtime supporter of Israel.
This is the brain trust between the United States and the Israel.
Wow, they must have been enraged.
They sent Jared Kushner to meet Ron Dermer.
The article goes on quote although Dermer was in the no, he didn't say anything about the plans to strike Qatar, according to a source of direct knowledge.
Oh, this is a meeting right before.
And they didn't tell Jared Kushner about it.
On Tuesday, Trump called Netanyahu, expressed concern about the attack and stressed the need to move toward peace in the region.
Press Secretary Caroline Levitt said.
She added that Netanyahu responded that he wants peace and that he thinks the attack could help achieve it.
Now, one of the reasons to be extremely skeptical about the claims from the Trump administration.
No, we didn't know, we're angry about it.
Is because this is the ruse that they constantly pulled with Iran.
The Trump administration was constantly leaking.
The Israelis were constantly leaking, that there was this big rift between Trump and Netanyahu.
They were constantly fighting.
And they were particularly fighting over the fact that they were particularly fighting over the fact that the Iran the Israelis wanted to bomb Iran, and Trump was vehemently opposed to this.
And Trump kept saying, no, what we want are negotiations.
We're negotiating.
We're going to resolve this diplomatically with Iran.
And then suddenly the Israelis go and bomb the U.S. At first the U.S. says, oh, we had nothing to do with that.
Then of course it turns out the U.S. had everything to do with that.
And these negotiations, these this leaking, we want to negotiate with Iran.
We're going to reach a diplomatic resolution with Iran.
Trump and Netanyahu are at loggerheads over bombing Iran.
Trump won't let Netanyahu do it.
This is all a ruse to lure the Iranians into a sense of a sense of comfort that there was no attack possible, there was no attack pending.
And the reason there are Hamas negotiators in Qatar is because, as I said, the United States government insisted that Qatar let Hamas negotiator stay because the Obama administration and every administration since has used Qatar as the mediator to negotiate with Hamas when they've needed to about a whole variety of topics.
They're not there because Qatar is harboring terrorists.
They're there because the Israelis and the Americans want them to be there.
And so now you have a situation where again Israel attacks.
Trump says, Oh, I had nothing to do with that.
In fact, I'm kind of angry about it.
And yet the reason these Hamas negotiators were meeting in that building that the Israelis bombed, was because the Trump administration was sending them peace deals and saying, oh, we want you to meet and discuss whether or not you're going to accept these.
So it's very possible this is the same ruse that they use with Iran.
Trump and Israel are woggerheads.
They don't want the Qataris to think Trump approved this.
But they were negotiating with Hamas, as Trump said, we were hoping to get this done so that they would meet and give the Israelis a target.
Here's what Trump said on September 7th.
So this was on Sunday.
Everyone wants the hostages home.
Everyone wants this war to end.
The Israelis have accepted my terms.
It is time for Hamas to accept as well.
I have warned Hamas about the consequences of not accepting.
This is my last warning.
There will not be another one.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
So he was threatening Hamas, but at the same time showing, encouraging Hamas to meet and negotiate and give an answer.
Here from CNN yesterday, this was a story about how these people that Israeli tried to kill were in Doha to negotiate.
The headline was Qatar presses Hamas to quote respond positively to U.S. ceasefire proposal, officials said.
Qatar's prime minister pressed Hamas to quote respond positively to the New York to the new U.S. ceasefire proposal in a meeting in Doha, according to an official familiar with the meeting.
Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdel Rahman bin Jassim Al Tani met with Khalil Haya, Hamas's chief negotiator on Monday to discuss the deal.
By the way, Khalil Al Haya, who is Hamas's chief negotiator, he negotiates a deal with the Israelis and the Americans and the Turks and the Coptaris and others to try and get a deal done.
That's what they tried to kill today.
And according to reports, they only managed to kill his son.
Hamas confirmed late Sunday that it had received the proposal from the United States that included, quote, some ideas toward reaching a comprehensive ceasefire.
Israel said it was giving serious consideration to the proposal.
So they lured Hamas into these buildings to negotiate.
The US did.
And that was when Israel went and attacked.
In case you still think that Israel cares in the slightest about getting these hostages back or wants a deal of any kind.
They just went and tried to murder the negotiators with whom they were negotiating.
Just like they did in Iran, by the way.
The first thing the Israelis did was murder the lead negotiators that Trump was negotiating with and claiming he was making progress with and getting close to a deal that would avert a war.
Here's the Times of Israel, a pretty right-wing Israeli newspaper earlier today.
Israel informed the U.S. of Qatar's strike only when the jets were in the air.
Trump gave order to tell Qatari.
This is the Israeli press aligned with the Trump administration's version of events, doesn't make it true at all.
But this is the Israeli media reporting the same thing.
Quote Israel informed the US of its intention to strike Hamas leaders in Qatar when the Jets were already in the air, Channel 12 reports, quoting several U.S. officials.
The report says that the US, which is a large military base in Qatar, identified Israeli jets heading toward the east and demanded an explanation from Israel.
Israel informed the U.S. that it was carrying out an attack on Hamas leaders in Qatar.
The information was sent to Trump, who gave an order to inform Qatar.
However, the report says the information was sent when the missiles were already in the air.
So there you see just one added detail.
This is all coming from Trump officials, so the fact that it's aligned with the Trump administration version doesn't tell us much.
The whole article and report is based on what Trump administration officials are claiming.
But that is, it's as I noted in the Trump statement.
And in Caroline Levitt statement as well, the wording was very strange there.
It was essentially saying we were notified by the US military that Israel was going to Qatar to bomb locations there.
And that's what I suggested was.
Sounds like what they're saying is Israel didn't even tell the United States.
It was the US military picked up on the radar, whatever tracking system they have, Israeli planes heading to Qatar, told the White House, and the White House called up Israel and said, What's going on?
And then Israel said, Oh, but by the way, we're bombing Qatar.
That's the version that the US wants everyone to believe that they had nothing to do with the strike.
Maybe it's true.
It's the same exact thing that Trump did when Israel bombed Iran that first night, Marco Rubio issued a statement saying, Oh, this is total unilateral by the Israelis.
We have absolutely nothing to do with it, and only once the world got impressed, because Israel had done this precision striking, killing scientists and the like.
This was our plan, and it worked well.
Here is uh Sheikh Mohammed bin Jassim Al Tani, uh the Qatari leader, uh the for the foreign minister, who gave a very similar version of events about how he was notified.
Uh Rasus from uh Al Jazeera English.
Sir, has there been any communication between Qatar and the US prior to the attacks, or has there been any warning from the U.S. conveyed to Qatar officials?
Or based on your information, has there been any involvement of the United States, whether with the approval or with the knowledge?
We had we had a very uh first of all, the first part of your question I have just answered it.
Uh uh the attack happened uh 346.
The first call we had from an American official was at 356, which is 10 minutes after the attack.
And uh after that, President Trump has spoken with his highness the Emir.
He condemned the attack.
And uh the US government position that they have no knowledge about the attack nor any uh uh coordination about it until it started to happen.
Now, when they got the alerts, when the alert has reached us, that's uh an information that I don't know right now.
What I know that the official channels that we have with the US uh got US after the attack by with 10 minutes.
So the Qataris knew only after the bombs were dropped, great notification.
Trump is saying we did it immediately.
I told Whitcoff to tell them, but oh, we just have found out, and unfortunately the news got to the Qataris only after the bombs are dropped.
Now, my former Intercept colleague, uh Jeremy Scahill has a lot of sources in Hamas, particularly in Qatar, but also in in Gaza.
And yesterday, or rather, yes, yesterday, uh, Jeremy was reporting on this deal that Trump sent to Hamas, that he was saying you need to accept this and or unless you're gonna have dire consequences.
And Jeremy was suggesting that this was a ludicrous proposal in the sense that it seemed fake.
It was a hundred words long, and that adds to the possibility that this is all a ruse to get the Hamas to get Hamas negotiators together to make a nice juicy target for the Israelis to be able to kill them.
Exclusive, the 100-word ceasefire proposal Trump sent Hamas.
Quote, Hamas struck a diplomatic tone in acknowledging receipt of the U.S. concept on Sunday.
Hamas officials have told DropSight that they recognize that the only way to end Israel's genocidal war is through a formal agreement, is if Trump effectually effectively orders Netanyahu to make a deal.
Quote, Hamas welcomes any initiative that helps in the efforts to stop the aggression against our people.
We affirm our immediate readiness to sit at the negotiating table to discuss the release of all prisoners in exchange for a clear declaration to end the war, the full withdrawal from Gaza, and the formation of a committee to manage Gaza from Palestinian independence, who will immediately begin their work, the Hamas statement said.
And here's the text of the 100-word agreement Jeremy obtained.
The main proposal, quote, all hostages alive and dead will be released within 48 hours of signing.
Number two, numbers consistent with previous releases, Palestinian prisoners sentenced to life and detainees from Gaza will be released within 48 hours.
Three, a ceasefire will go into effect upon implementation for a period of 60 days or until negotiations are concluded.
President Trump will guarantee that the parties negotiate it in good faith until an agreement is reached.
Four, the issues to be negotiated include the definition of Hamas, the definition of disarmament, the formation of a new government, the withdrawal of Israeli forces upon the formation of the government or upon successful conclusion of negotiations, and the amnesty for Hamas members.
Five, open flow of aid into Gaza upon implementation of the agreement.
comment.
Which is odd because Israel supporters constantly say they're not blocking aid entering Gaza.
But Trump's saying, hey, look, if you get a deal with the Israelis, then they'll let aid in.
They'll let aid flow into to Gaza, which obviously means by inference that they're currently blocking aid from entering, which has been well documented in multiple ways.
So that's the deal that Trump sent.
It would mean Hamas gives up all their leverage and in what they call their prisoners, what the Americans and Israelis call their hostages.
What Hamas and others call hostages, what the Israeli calls call prisoners, even though they've never been charged or convicted.
And you would then begin a process of trying to agree to a government, and only then would the ceasefire remain permanent if some agreement were reached.
Other ex uh examples like that, where Hamas gave up hostages back in exchange for a ceasefire that they were told would be permanent.
Netanyahu immediately said, we're gonna go back to bombing them, obviously.
So, whether Hamas is willing to trust the Americans, trust the Israelis, I don't know.
But clearly they were being urged to meet in Doha and to go over this proposal at the time the Israelis tried to kill the negotiators.
Here from the Israeli outlet Kippah, this was on September 7th.
The title was Amit Siegel's Revelation, the new deal is not what you think.
Amit Siegel revealed that the proposal presented as American for the release of hostages was in fact born in Jerusalem.
According to him, Trump merely repackaged it and presented it as part of his policy.
Quote, this is not an American proposal, but an Israeli one, wrapped nicely in cellophane and given the title made in the USA, he wrote.
So basically, the Israelis said, here's what you should give to Hamas to create the illusion of negotiation, and Trump said, okay.
And then Trump said, hey, here's our proposal.
We'll see if Israel agrees, but you guys should get together and meet and see if you do.
Now, again, this is exactly what happened in Iran here from ABC News, June 22nd, which was uh two days before uh.
Or rather, the title was Trump said he was giving Iran a window to come to the table.
He struck two days later.
So they were constantly saying Trump was that we're getting very close to a deal.
Uh, and he believed that there was going to be progress, there'd be no need for a war.
And then that was when the Israelis struck.
Here was Caroline Levitt on June 19th, where Trump said, and this was just a couple days before the attack, that he's giving Iran two weeks to see if they can reach a deal, and then for Trump to decide uh what the negotiations will be.
Regarding the ongoing situation in Iran, I know there has been a lot of speculation amongst all of you in the media regarding the president's decision making and whether or not the United States will be directly involved.
In light of that news, I have a message directly from the president, and I quote Based on the fact that there's a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future.
I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks.
That's a quote directly from the president for all of you today.
So that was once the Israelis have attacked, and they were constantly uh claiming Trump was that they were making great progress toward uh deal, that they were very confident they were constantly leaking that Trump and Netanyahu had this rift to lure the Iranians to this false sense of security that allowed Israel to strike.
Here was the White House uh June 21st, taking credit for the bombing of Iran that it did.
And then one of the most bizarre parts of this is that a lot of uh pro-Israel Trump supporters claim that the reason Qatar should be considered evil, even though Trump keeps heralding them as a great and an important friend and ally, is because they're harboring Hamas as though Hamas just came to Doha and the Qataris said, Welcome to Doha.
Here are all your wonderful suites and expensive apartments, and you're gonna stay in Doha because we love Hamas.
Here is the German newspaper dear Spiegel in November of 2023, so just like a month, a little less than two months after the October 7th attack, with the headline, what is the Hamas chief doing in Qatar?
Which is a question a lot of people had wait, why are Hamas negotiators and Hamas operatives in Doha?
Why aren't they in Gaza?
What are they doing in Doha?
And their Spiegel recounted the history that everyone familiar with this region knows.
Quote, Qatar is an important, not as an important uh, this is an important.
Oh, Qatar is an important NATO partner, but it also plays host to Hamas's political leader to mediate the country, says Doha's role has come under renewed scrutiny in Germany to the annoyance of many officials in the Gulf Nation.
Quote, speaking of this Hamas leader, why is he using Doha as a base from which to speak with the man who started this war?
Is Cotter, which just welcomed the rest of the globe as the host of the World Cup, ultimately part of the terror network itself, as some German media claim and politicians have suggested?
Or does it play an important role as an intermediary?
Quote, how quickly do you Germans forget?
asked one Qatari government official in Doha.
Clearly ERC, the man in his 40s, is sitting in his office on the 34th fourth floor of one of the Qatari capital's glassed in skyscrapers.
In 2011, then United States President Barack Obama personally requested that the Emir of Qatar take the leadership of Hamas into his country.
Let me say that again, because I think it's extremely worth noting.
In 2011, the United States, then United States President Barack Obama personally requested that the Emir of Qatar take the leadership of Hamas into his country.
They were there because the U.S. requested they let them stay.
And the reason was this: quote, at the time, Washington was seeking to establish a communications channel to the Iranian-backed terrorist group.
The Americans believe that a Hamas office in Doha would be easier to access than a Hamas bureau in Tehran.
And then they go on to talk about the Israeli role and why Hamas is in Qatar.
Quote, Qatar does, the official allows, transfers 30 million dollars to the Hamas administration in Gaza, but those payments are performed in consultation with Washington and Israel and with their approval, he says.
And we've gone over many times all of the ample reporting, including from inside Israel, that Netanyahu and his government funded Hamas, had a policy of propping Hamas up, wanted Hamas to be the face of Palestinian resistance, because they knew that if there were some more moderate face, the world would have even more pressure for the Israelis to reach a two-state solution with the Palestinians.
But with God with Hamas there, the Israeli could say, how are we going to negotiate with Hamas?
So Netanyahu adopted a policy to prop up Hamas to fund Hamas, to keep Hamas in power.
And a lot of the money from the administration was coming from Qatar with not only US and Israeli knowledge, but approval.
And let's recall as well that Netanyahu is facing corruption charges.
This war has helped him a great deal avoid those.
And a major part of those allegations are that bribery reached up to the highest level of Netanyahu's office and maybe even Netanyahu himself, and that bribery came from Qatar.
So as all these Israel supporters constantly accuse Israel critics of being on the payroll of Qatar, it's the Israeli officials in Tel Aviv who actually are, who were financing Hamas and wanting Qatar to keep Hamas negotiators inside Doha as the United States did.
And the reason that the Israelis decided to murder the negotiators, just like they did with the Iranian negotiators, is because they don't actually want to deal.
Netanyahu needs this war to continue.
They don't want to deal.
They want to take over Gaza.
They want to drive out all Palestinians.
That is the obvious and often explicit goal of the Israeli government.
The last thing they want is negotiations.
And so if you're the U.S. claiming you want to facilitate negotiations, whether they really want that or not, and you're the Israelis who don't want negotiators, one way to derail negotiations is to try and go murder the negotiators.
Enraging the government that was supposed to be part of these Abraham Accords and this broader regional peace deal, angering the Saudis and the Emirates in the process as well.
Alienating American allies, according to Trump, taking steps that were neither in American America's or Israeli's Israel's interest.
I have a lot of doubt about the true extent of the knowledge that the Trump administration had.
I have a lot of doubts about Trump's claim that he had played no role in approving the attack or participating in it, that he only knew at the last second, that Israel didn't even tell him.
He wants the Qataris to believe that if Trump had known, he would have stopped it, that he's angry about it.
So all of this deserves massive skepticism, these claims.
But no doubt this is a massive escalation to go and bomb a Persian Gulf dictatorship, the alliances with which the United States has based much of its Middle East policy.
But at the end of the day, whenever American interests conflict with Israeli interests, Israeli interest always went out.
and that's one of the main problems of our politics.
I don't think it's controversial for me to note that most people drink coffee just to wake up.
But what if your coffee could actually fight aging from the inside out?
Rejuvenate coffee isn't just caffeine in a cup.
No, it's not.
It's premium Arabic coffee infused with KaKG, a compound naturally found in your body that plays a key role in energy production, cellular repair, and longevity.
Scientists have studied it for years for its ability to keep your cells powered and support healthier aging.
That means you're not just getting clean, crash-free energy, you're giving your body the fuel it needs at the deepest levels.
More focus, better mornings, long-term benefits without changing a single habit, other than the coffee you already drink every day.
So if you're going to start your day with coffee, make it one that's weaponized against aging.
Go to 1775coffee.com slash code and order rejuvenate coffee today.
Fuel your body, protect your future, rejuvenate.
Thank you.
The United States and our political discourse became completely drunk, utterly inebriated and suffocated with this bizarre obsessive attempt to blame Russia for everything that happened that, in the view of the American establishment or American elites, was bad beginning with the 2016 election, which wasn't blamed on Hillary's utter lack of charisma as a candidate, or the perception that she was incredibly corrupt, or her laziness and refusing to visit key swing states.
Or even the things we found out from uh about Hillary throughout the course of the campaign from media outlets and others.
No, the attempt was to say it was Russia.
Russia was responsible for Trump's election.
And the Europeans, in many ways, are even more fanatical and unhinged when it comes to blaming Russia for their problems.
The Europe, the British decided that Brexit was passed only because the Russians interfered.
Whenever there's an election outcome they dislike, they blame the Russians, they blame the Russians for Marie Le Pen's lead in the polls, and then that helped justify her conviction on very dubious charges that led to her being barred from running in 2028.
So that problem was solved, that problem of democracy.
They actually nullified the election results in Romania when the candidate opposed to the war in Ukraine, a more populist right-wing candidate, not very friendly to the EU when that candidate won.
They nullified the election.
They're like, yeah, this election doesn't count.
And the whole theory was Russia interfered.
And then when they redid the election and saw that that candidate was likely to win again, they just barred him from running on the grounds that Russia had supported him.
So they blame Russia for everything.
Even more reflexively and compulsively than the United States does.
And one of the absolute worst people, I was going to say one of the worst people who blames Russia for everything, but I could just leave it at one of the worst people on the planet, is the unelected German president of the EU, Ursula von der Leyen, who craves war so much.
She just loves it so much.
She's an extremist supporter of Ukraine and wants to have the Europeans send more and more money to Ukraine to get glorious victory against Russia, something that Germans say every generation.
They find some reason to want to send tanks, German tanks eastward toward toward the Russian border and talk about the glories of victory over Russia.
She does that constantly.
Also a very vocal and vehement supporter of Israel, arming Israel, financing Israel.
So she was on her plane, a little, not little, her big private plane that the EU gives her as the unelected president, flying around, and her GPS system supposedly failed.
And the pilots were forced to fly and land without the use of GPS.
And you'll never guess who they blame.
From the Financial Times, September 1st, Ursula von der Leyen's plane is hit by suspected Russian GPS interference.
Quote, a suspected Russian interference attack targeting Ursula von der Leyen disabled the GPS navigation services at a Bulgarian airport and forced the European Commission president's plane to land using pet paper maps.
A jet carrying Vanderleen to Plovdib on Sunday afternoon was deprived of GPS navigational aids while it approached the city's airport.
And what three officials briefed on the incident said was being treated as a Russian interference operation.
Quote, the whole airport area, GPS went dark, said one of the officials.
After circling the airport for an hour, the plane's pilot took the decision to land the plane using alternative electronic aids and paper maps, they added.
Quote, it was undeniable interference.
Subsequently, flight recordings showed the pilots reported a GPS issue at 1710 local time as they approached the airport.
The plane then made several terms and landed 23 minutes later.
The European Commission later confirmed the report, quote, there was GPS jamming, but the plan landed safely in Bulgaria, spokesperson said.
Quote, we have received info from the Bulgarian authorities that they suspect that this was due to blatant interference by Russia.
You may remember as well as we'll show you that when the Nord Stream 2 pipeline was blown up.
One of the worst acts of industrial terrorism in history, one of the worst environmental disasters in history.
Totally not caused by the United States working with Ukraine.
Totally not.
The Europeans actually had the audacity to try and blame Russia.
And the Western media all reported that.
Oh, there's lots of suspicion that maybe Russia blew up its own pipeline, the pipeline on which its future economic prosperity prosperity depends.
Maybe they blew it up.
Maybe Putin blew it up.
That's how limitless this compulsivity is when it comes to blaming Russia.
Here is a EU spokes commission spokesperson.
Her name is Adriana Podesta.
And she's speaking to the German media outlet Deutsche Well.
And here's what she had to say on September 1st, the day that the event happened.
We have received uh uh information from the Bulgarian authorities that uh they suspect uh uh that this was due to blatant interference by uh Russia.
We are uh of course aware and used to somehow to the threats and intimidations that are regular uh that are a regular component of Russia's hostile behavior.
Uh of course, this will only uh reinforce even further our unshakable commitment to ramp up defense capabilities and support for Ukraine.
This incident actually underlines the urgency of the mission that the president is carrying out in the frontline member states uh these days.
There she has seen uh firsthand the everyday challenges of uh threats coming from Russia and uh its proxies.
And of course, uh the EU will continue to invest into defense spending and in Europe's readiness even more after this incident.
So that's one of the big benefits of blaming Russia is you scare the population.
Oh, like yeah, we need to spend billions more on defense spending.
I mean, the British are insane.
They just talk openly about the need to be prepared to pay to finance their military to go to war with Russia.
Now, the Europeans aren't gonna go to war with anybody.
They're Europeans.
They can't fight, they don't fight, but they like to talk about game, they want to spend a lot on buying things from big arms dealers in Europe.
And so this is one what you need an enemy, obviously, for the public to be scared of, and this is one way you get them scared.
Oh Russia.
They're interfering in our elections, they cause the British to move out of Brexit, they control the who wins elections.
They're supporting Marine Le Pen and right wing, right-wing extremists.
And now they're jamming the GPS at the airport where the European EU president is trying to land, endangering her plane.
Now, there's been a lot of talk about this sort of thing for a while.
Here's from the Council of the European Union in June of this year.
So essentially three months ago.
The title was Call for Common Actions in Response to Global Satellite Navigation Systems, jamming and spoofing threats.
Quote, GNSS interference cases are not random incidents, but a systematic deliberate action by Russia and Belarus, which can be used as a hybrid attack on strategic radio spectrum, which is essential for modern technology and regional safety and security.
So far, causing significant damage has been cheap and simple without taking any responsibility.
Therefore, this activity is most likely to continue unless proportional countermeasures are taken.
GNS interference as a growing safety and security concern requires immediate coordinated action.
So far, the attempts by several member states to address the problem have not brought any any more tangible results.
That's the EU in a nutshell.
They have meetings, they do like all this alarmist rhetoric, but it never brings, quote, any tan any more tangible results.
Therefore, it is necessary to increase diplomatic efforts to address the interference and put the pressure on the responsible parties.
They were already building this narrative that their planes are at risk from GPS jamming at the hands of the Russians.
Now, here is flight radar, which I believe is the agency that is the EU.
Yeah, it's a it's a website tracker for flights.
And here's what they were able to confirm based on what they saw on September 1st.
Quote, we are seeing media reports of GPS interference affecting the plane carrying Ursula von der Leyen to Plovdiv from Bulgaria.
Some reports claim that the aircraft was in a holding pattern for one hour.
This is what we can use from our data.
The flight was scheduled to take one hour and 48 minutes.
It took one hour and 57 minutes.
So by that reasoning, it only was nine minutes longer than planned.
And then they were also able to confirm this.
The aircraft's transponder reported good GPS signal quality from takeoff to landing.
And they had a flight, uh a path of the flight, which was enabled by the GPS system having good signal quality from the time it took off to the time it landed.
Both points obviously contradicting the EU version of events.
But this claim that Russia blocked the GPS of the airport as Vanderlein was trying to land, and that Russia was doing so as part of this sinister plot to endanger EU officials and EU aircraft.
In the words of Politico, not exactly a pro-Russian now to put that mildly, political EU started to quote, unravel.
Here's the headline: Vanderlein's GPS scare gripped Europe.
The Russian allegations are starting to unravel.
Quote, public data also showed the same aircraft that experienced GPS jamming the day before over the Baltics, but not in Bulgaria.
On Tuesday, Bulgarian Prime Minister Rosin Zelaskov toned down claims of direct Russian interference, calling the incident a routine glitch tied to broader fallout from the war in Ukraine.
Quote, there is no need to investigate the situation, he said, because these disturbances are neither hybrid nor cyber threats.
A Bulgarian government statement shared with Politico said that, quote, air traffic services immediately proposed an alternative landing approach under ground-based navigation aids, independent of GPS systems.
SKAI data services, a tech startup focused on aviation database in Switzerland, said in a post on LinkedIn that, quote, regional jamming was present at high altitudes in the region, quote, but the flight data does not indicate GPS loss on Vanderlein's aircraft.
Like the whole story was made up.
About how long it circled, about the lack of GPS, about the need to land with paper maps.
And about claims that they knew indisputably Russia was involved.
Quote, responding to questions about the flight dat on Tuesday, European commissioner Commission chief spokesperson Paula Pino said, quote, there was GPS jamming, but the plane still managed to land safely.
Now, this is, I'm sure all of you know, but uh our good friend uh Matar Failia, who's brilliant at uh doing video journalism, he's done uh original videos for our program before.
He did a compilation of officials blaming Russia on all sorts of things, and we'll just play some of this.
There will be no longer a Nord Stream 2.
We we will bring it into it.
But how would you how will you do that?
I promise you we'll be able to do it.
Someone blew up Russia's Nord Stream pipeline.
I mean, we'd have to conclude without the evidence that it's most likely Russia Russian sabotage on its own infrastructure.
The common sense matters.
I think it's Putin's way of sending a message.
What Putin is saying to us by blowing up his pipeline is look, I can blow up a pipeline.
Everyone knows that Putin did this himself.
It's closest thing to a smoking gun without the direct proof.
Yeah, I think logic and common sense will tell you that without the evidence.
Russia was high in the incident.
We can say it for sure.
Who sabotaged the Nord Stream 2 pipeline?
The Russians.
I love the certainty and I appreciate the insight.
Yeah, there's exactly uh one country on that list of suspects, Brad.
Um, and Russia would Russia would be in.
It's hard to imagine others with a significant motive, but uh we will bring it in.
Nord Stream 2 will not move forward.
Who did it?
What a mystery.
One way or another, Nord Stream 2 will not move forward.
What it remains.
I mean that's just part of it.
I mean, the I mean Biden and Victoria Newland openly said, we're gonna blow up Nord Stream 2, we're gonna take it out.
And then when it was blown up, Victoria Newland went to Congress and she and Ted Cruz giggled about it.
And she said, Senator Cruz, we are happy to report that Nord Stream 2 is now a bundle of metal lying at the bottom of the ocean.
And these EU officials and American officials and then these idiots and media were like, oh, who did it?
Probably Russia.
Probably Russia blew up their own Nord Stream 2 pipeline, even though we heard the US repeatedly promise to blow it up.
And Applebaum's husband, who is an official in the Polish government, put a picture of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline being blown up and he sh and said, thank you, US.
And then he deleted it afterwards when he realized that wasn't what they were trying to sell.
Uh here is uh from the Washington Post, September 27, 2022.
European leaders blame Russian sabotage after Nord Stream explosions.
I mean, look at how how far they're willing to go and just fabricating and lying.
Oh, we think Russia blew up Nord Stream 2.
Biden kept saying he was gonna do it.
Victoria Newland said they were gonna do it.
They giggled about it afterwards, but it was probably Russia that did it.
Here from the New York Times, uh August of this year, just a couple weeks ago, suspect is arrested in the sabotage of pipelines between Russia and Germany.
Guess what the nationality is of the person that they arrested?
It wasn't Russian, it was Ukrainian.
And the German prosecutor issued an order for his arrest, he was found in Italy.
I mean, it's just it's just mind-blowing how they just keep doing this.
And in this case, they were like, this was Russia, and one of those EU officials, those random women who who run the EU was like, we need to build up our military more now than ever because of this event.
And it was like, yeah, the GPS system actually never failed.
The plane was only nine minutes late in landing from its planned one.
There's absolutely no evidence that Russia did it.
There's lots of reasons to believe Russia didn't do it.
The story unraveled quickly.
But the next time the EU has a problem or the US has a problem.
You saw Mark Arubio repeatedly saying, Yeah, I think the Russians probably were the leading suspect to blow up Nord Stream too.
You think Marco Rubio believed that?
But this will just continue.
It's a very effective propaganda technique.
It works on the public.
Not so much in the United States anymore because of how debunked and disgraced the Mueller investigation made the Russia Gate scandal, but in the EU it still works completely.
And they just were like, hey, Ursula Vandalin had a nine minute delay in landing.
The Russians tried to blow up her plane.
They just all come out and say it with no evidence at all, with lots of evidence to believe it's untrue.
Zoran Mamdani shocked a lot of people when he prevailed and prevailed quite easily in the Democratic Party nomination to become that party's candidate for the mayor of New York in a general election, which will be held later this year.
It was shocking for so many reasons.
Barely anybody had even heard of Zoran Mondani less than a year ago, in January, February, March.
He was running against one of the most recognizable and powerful dynasties in the Democratic Party, which is the Cuomo family, especially in New York.
Cuomo was backed by countless billionaires and big money and the developers who run the city.
And Mamdanny wasn't, to put that mildly.
And yet he dispatched Cuomo pretty quickly and became, and easily became the nominee of the party.
And now he's running against three major candidates, major in the sense that their names are known, Andrew Cuomo, who I guess wants another night of humiliation.
The incumbent mayor Eric Adams, who was under indictment and dead to rights until the Trump administration dismissed the case in exchange for his promise to cooperate with Bais inside New York City, and the Republican nominee Curtis Sleewa.
So the New York Times and Siena conducted a pretty significant poll, and the headline tells most of the story.
Mandani holds a huge lead in mayor's race.
Times Sienna poll fines.
Zaron Mandani has opened a commanding lead in the race for mayor of New York City, buoyed by support for his affordability platform and by the splintered opposition, according to a new survey by the New York Times and Siena University.
I think we have the poll here in the headline.
There you see if the New York Times, if the 2025 New York City mayoral election were held today, who would you vote for?
46% said Zoran, so close to a majority.
24% said Andrew Cuomo, 15% said Curtis Slewa, 9% said Eric Adams.
There's been a lot of reporting that the Trump administration desperate to stop Zoran from winning, is trying to offer a very plump and lucrative job for Eric Adams, namely being U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia.
Honestly, I couldn't think of a better job to offer Eric Adams, one that he would probably like more than that, to lure him out of the race, and then they're going to try and pressure Curtis Leewa out, so only Andrew Cuomo remains.
But as of the moment, all three of these candidates are insisting they're going to stay in the race.
So it's a gigantic lead.
And obviously, Curtis and I mean Andrew Cuomo and Eric Adams are both scandal plagued.
Zorron is a new face.
Whatever you want to say about his substance of his of his policy, he's a very likable.
He's a very politically talented candidate, the way he speaks, the way he expresses himself, the kind of positive energy that he brings to the campaign trail.
And you set him aside next to this old decaying, ossified Andrew Cuomo, who was governor forever, had a scandals involving his mismanagement of COVID, and then also the multiple credible allegations of sexual harassment that drove him out of office.
And then Eric Adams, who's been presiding over the city in a way no one is really happy with with his own corruption problems.
it's not hard to understand, especially given that Zoran's campaign was laser focused, not on cultural issues, but on the issue of affordability.
Which, for people who have a New York, other than people like Bill Ackman, who's doing everything possible to try and derail uh Zoran, and it's not hard to guess why.
It's not because Bill Ackman cares so much about rent control policies.
It has to do with this one foreign country that Zoran has been critical of and that Eric Adams and Andrew Cuomo are both vehement devotees of.
But they say here they break down the issues where each of them is winning with the public.
And the question was, which of the following mayoral candidates do you think would do the best job on each of the following issues?
Unsurprisingly, on the issue of affordability, which most New Yorkers have said is their number one issue.
49% say Mandani would do the best job on issues of affordability, which isn't surprising given that he made that the centerpiece of his campaign.
Even on the issue of crime, which you would think would be a weakness for Mandani.
Remember, they elected Eric Adams, a former New York City police officer who was always very pro-police.
Of course, Andrew Cuomo is posturing that as well.
Even there, a plurality say they think Mandani would do the best job, 30%, though that's clearly his most vulnerable issue.
29% say Cuomo, 23% say Sliwa, and 15% say Adams.
So it's just a one-point difference, basically margin of error with Cuomo on the issue of crime.
Dealing with the Trump administration, Zaron wins with 36%, Cuomo 31%.
On housing, which is definitely a huge issue in New York, 46% say that they think Mandani would do the best job.
24% say Cuomo.
So just like with affordability, which is a 26-point gap between Mandani and Cuomo.
Housing, there's a 22% gap.
Taxes and spending, 41% say they trust Mandani the most.
And then the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, 43% say they think Mandani would do the best job.
And then look at these anemic numbers for Cuomo, Sliwa, and Adams, all of whom are very pro-Israel.
16, 8%, and 11%.
And then 20% say they don't know, 21%.
So a lot of this, you know, we kept hearing that uh New York City Jews feel very threatened by Zorrons.
Canada see that he has a problem with his soft on crime position, that he's too radical in his views on Israel or Palestine for a city like New York.
All of these numbers negate that.
And what especially negates it is this.
This is from the Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
This is from a poll in July, late July, July 30th.
Zoran Mandani holds a wide edge among Jewish voters as he dominates in New York City mayoral race.
And we're being told here that Zoran Mandani is a threat to the security of Jewish New Yorkers.
I don't know what they think that he's going to like order bombings on synagogues, or like ordering the police not to keep the residents safe and overwhelmingly Jewish communities in Brooklyn.
And yet he has a large lead with those Jewish voters that the media purports to speak with for the poll found that 43% of Jewish voters said they would vote for Mandani compared to 26% for Andrew Cuomo.
Now, the one thing I should note before we go on to this interview he just gave to Al Sharpton is he clearly is benefiting greatly, Mandani is from the split anti-Zoran vote.
And the New York Times polled these voters on what would happen if the only two candidates were Zoran Mandani and Andrew Cuomo.
That there was no Curtis Sleewa, there was no Eric Adams.
And pretty much all of the support of Curtis Lewa and Eric Adams would go to Andrew Cuomo.
And the Times found that the gap between Zoran and Andrew Cuomo in a two-person race is pretty small, 48 to 44%.
Now, I personally think the fact that Zoran is so close to a majority, no matter how many candidates are in there, is a very good sign for him.
A lot of it has to do with turnout, and I just don't see Andrew Cuomo motivating a big turnout, whereas I can see huge numbers of diehard Zoran fans turning out.
This is an off-year presidential election.
There's a presidential election, so turnout really matters.
There's no congressional election, even it's not a midterm election.
So I think polling can be misleading in that regard, but it definitely becomes a closer race, obviously, if Eric Adams and Curtis Leewa are not there, which is why Israel supporters are devoting themselves so aggressively to trying to get those two out.
But there's all articles in the Wall Street Journal even saying that the real estate and developers that were so afraid of Zoran have uh accepted the fact that his victory is essentially inevitable.
They're not meeting with him, trying to make sure that they have a good working relationship with him.
Now, the fact that Zerron has such a huge lead in these polls makes what I'm about to show you quite mystifying to me.
So, first of all, Zoran would an interview on MSNBC, and the host is Al Sharpton.
Now, this is a show on the weekends.
Other than Rachel Maddow show, M SNBC shows are basically not watched by anybody under 75 or 70.
And the weekend shows, I mean mid-level YouTube programs get bigger audiences live than these weekend shows.
But Al Sharpton still has some influence in the black community in New York, so I guess Zoran wants to kind of placate him.
Zoran has appeared at Al Sharpton events.
And what's so interesting about this new personality that Al Sharpton has, this new role that he plays.
A lot of people don't remember this, may not be old enough to remember, but in the 1980s and 1990s, Al Sharpton was representative of the hardcore left wing of the Democratic Party.
He was aggressively critical of Democrats from the left throughout the 1990s and into the 2000s.
In fact, in 2004, he ran for the nomination, and he was just bashing the entire Democratic establishment from the left.
He was a left-wing figure.
And he was also a figure who was particularly controversial because in the late 80s and throughout the 1990s, there was a lot of tension between the black community and the Jewish communities in Brooklyn.
And Al Sharpton was probably the most incendiary figure in speaking of Jewish residents of New York in a way that they found not just quite threatening, but deeply anti-Semitic.
There were a bunch of incidents, including a Orthodox Jew who was living in New York, as Dame was uh Yonko Rosenbaum, I believe, who was murdered by black people who were motivated by anti-Semitism.
Al Sharpton notoriously sponsored a woman who had claimed that she had been raped in a racially motivated way.
Tawana Brawley, it turns out she was lying and had fabricated those allegations.
So Al Sharpton was both a left-wing figure and widely considered anti-Semitic by Jewish residents.
He was way out there.
I'm talking about Israel and Jews.
And over the last 10 to 15 years, what has happened to Al Sharpton is pretty much what has happened to the black congressional caucus.
The black congressional caucus in the House, the Democratic House, is not a left-wing caucus.
It is not a radical caucus.
They're very pro-corporation.
They're very pro-establishment.
Their campaign coffers are filled with corporate lobbyist money.
They take money, and are most of them do, by all kinds of corporations.
And Al Sharpton has become very wealthy being paid by corporations, paid off by corporations.
And a lot of times he, when there was legislation pending before Congress, that affected These corporations, they would pay Al Sharpton, and he would oppose any bill that was harmful to corporate interest, and he would put it through a racial framework like this bill against that would harm this industry is racist.
And so he became a tool of corporatist America, Al Sharpton.
And along the way, he became extremely pro-establishment on the side of people like Kamala Harris and Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton, and wanting nothing to do with Bernie Sanders and AOC or Zoran Mandani, Mamdani.
So why Zoran Mandani's felt compelled to go speak to Al Sharpton, who's so obviously hostile to his candidacy, despite his massive lead, is somewhat mystifying.
And what happened during this interview is even more bizarre.
Now I just want to give the setup to this, which was one of the things that impressed me about Zoran early on, was that he refused to say things that he didn't believe because he thought that the media wanted to hear it.
He refused to jump through these hoops.
And one example was that he was on Dani himself, has never chanted globalize the intifada, or said globalize the intifada, or used the word intifada in his support for the Palestinian cause.
But this is something that has been used in a lot of pro-Palestinian protests.
And so Zoran went on Meet the Press.
This was before the primary, when he really had a motive to denounce this phrase when asked, but he didn't.
This is June 29th, he went on Meet the Press with Kristen Walker, the host, and this is how he responded when she basically demanded that he denounce this phrase.
...
asked about the term "globalize the intifada." if it makes you uncomfortable.
In that moment, you did not condemn the phrase.
Now, just so folks understand, it's a phrase that many people hear as a call to violence against Jews.
There's been a lot of attention on this issue.
So I want to give you an opportunity to respond here and now.
Do you condemn that phrase, globalize the intifada?
That's not language that I use.
The language that I use and the language that I will continue to use to lead the city is that which speaks clearly to my intent, which is an intent grounded in a belief in universal human rights.
And ultimately, that's what is the foundation of so much of my politics the belief that freedom and justice and safety are things that to have meaning have to be applied to all people, and that includes Israelis and Palestinians in his life.
But do you actually and he she basically asked him again in this next question whether he will denounce it, and he he basically said no, and his argument was that the intifada is just an Arabic word for struggle.
And he pointed things out like in the Holocaust Museum, they have signs and various exhibits in multiple languages, and he pointed out that the Arabic word that the Holocaust Museum uses for the resistance that Jews showed in the Warsaw ghetto is intifada.
They called it the the Jews uh waged an intifada against the Nazis.
And intifada basically means struggle or movement.
And it does it there, there have been intifadas, the first intifada, the second intifada that got associated with things like attacks on pizzeria or but uh civilian buses as part of violence against uh Israeli civilians against the occupation, but it's not inherently a violent phrase at all.
And globalize the intifada just means let's have the whole world fight or struggle for Palestinian freedom, Palestinian sovereignty and statehood.
And I independent of what you think of that term, and again, he didn't use the term, he was being asked, like I want you to denounce your supporters who use it, and he refused.
And I thought, you know, it's so easy for him to just denounce it.
But that's a mistake that always gets made.
Jeremy Corbin, when he was subjected to this extremely bad faith accusation that he was anti-Semite, would constantly try and placate those who were accusing him, constantly trying to make rhetorical concessions, as though these people were asking in faith.
And every time he would make a rhetorical concession, they would use it against him and they would then demand another one.
And he was just a very weak candidate, weak politician that way.
He just kind of craves being liked.
Or at least craves being perceived as somebody who wants to unify and not alienate.
And so he would just constantly make those kind of concessions.
And the fact that Zoran didn't, again, regardless of your view of globalizing intifada.
The fact that you're saying I'm not going to condemn it because I don't think it's wrong, was something that made me think, you know, that's a good sign in terms of someone who is not a career as politician, someone who's not craven, someone who's not going to just give up all their views in order to be elected, which is what most people hate in politicians.
But Zoran went on Al Sharpton's show, and part of Al Sharpton's new incarnation is that he's a supporter of Israel, deeply concerned about anti-Semitism.
Al Sharpton is deeply concerned, very, very sensitive to the sensibilities of Jewish people, very concerned about language that might upset Jewish people.
This is Al Sharpton's new.
You know, it even like even in appearance, he used to be quite overweight, almost obese.
He would walk around in track shoots, track suits with like big uh gold medallions around his neck.
Now he's traded it for the slim body and these tailored suit and this MSNBC corporate news job, but also all of his politics have completely shifted.
So here he is spending about two minutes, which is like a big preface, talking about how important it is that you're not hurt the feelings of Jewish people and the things you say, and he demands that Zoran denounced the term globalize the intifada, AND THIS IS WHAT JORAN SAID.
THROUGH THE YEARS, SAID AND BEEN INVOLVED IN THINGS THAT I'VE LATER SAID WAS MISUNDERSTOOD.
And some things that I regret it.
Mrs. Coretta Scott King told me, you gotta watch language, you gotta like uh watch what you say.
Now, let's talk about anti-Semitism.
New York City is the home of the largest Jewish population outside of Israel.
The mayor must build a relationship, whoever the mayor becomes, trust in all communities of the city.
The term globalized the infratata infrotada.
Okay, I I just I can't tell you how unbelievable it is to watch Al Sharpton pose as the defender of the concerns of Israel or Israel supporters and the Jewish people.
You know, I lived in New York in the 1990s, I went to law school in the 1990s, I lived throughout the 1990s in New York and into the 2000s.
And, you know, it'd be like uh if Trump, you know, like five years from now became the leading proponent of restorative justice and denounce the excesses of the prison state and said we need fewer police, we punish criminals too harshly.
I mean, it would be as remarkable as that.
And Al Sharpton is so deeply concerned about the phrase globalize the intifada, even though he has no idea what it means and cannot pronounce it.
I think he tried like seven times and finally just gave up and just started spitting out some word that phrase that sounded kind of remotely like it.
I mean, if you're really that deeply concerned about the term globalized the intifada, and you want to ask, pretty much demand that the leading candidate for mayor of New York City denounce the phrase, shouldn't you at least learn how to pronounce it before you do that?
But in any event, let's just play this part.
Whoever the mayor becomes, trust in all communities of the city.
The term globalize the infatata in fatada is become a flashport for uh Jewish New Yorkers who say they're concerned about how your views on the Israeli-Gaza conflict will influence how you govern the city.
You said on Meet the Press in July, that's not language you would use.
But you don't want to police the speech of others.
But we both know words matter.
The Department of Defense means something different than the Department of War.
I've experienced this throughout my own civil rights career, and I've had to correct myself uh to deal with what people receive may not be what I meant.
Uh and words have consequences, and sometimes we need to examine our own positions to build unity.
Has your personal views on the phrase of global infratada changed since you've been running for mayor?
Do you understand those that see it in a more threatening way than saying I'm just not gonna please other people's language?
You know, the the whole one of the amazing things about that, aside from the fact that it was such a long, it wasn't even a question, it was like a statement.
He Al Sharpton was rising as the spokesperson for the views of Jewish residents of New York.
Remember, a plurality of Jewish voters support Zaron Mandani.
But Al Sharpton's their spokesman, and he's saying, look, the Jewish voters in New York City are deeply upset by this.
I don't know if you've ever seen Al Sharpton speak on his show without a teleprompter when he's not reading from a teleprompter when he's speaking extemporaneously.
But he can barely get out a coherent sentence.
This whole thing was written.
He was reading it from the teleprompter.
That's the only reason why it was even coherent.
And even when he's looking at the word into fada, the centerpiece of his concern, he still can't pronounce the term.
He can't even read it from the teleprompter.
He has no idea what any of this means.
I don't know who wrote this for him or told him to demand that Zoran denounce this term, a term that he's repeatedly refused to denounce.
But maybe Al Sharpton wrote it himself.
Maybe.
But anyway, he read it from the teleprompter.
That's why it took so long, that's why it was so relatively coherent, even though he couldn't read the word from the teleprompter into Fada.
He tried though, a for effort.
And here's what Zoran's answer is.
Father, since you've been running for mayor, do you understand those that see it in a more threatening way than saying I'm just not going to please other people's language?
Yes, they have.
And, you know, when we won the primary election, I said on that stage that I know that millions of New Yorkers care deeply about what happens in Israel and Palestine, and I'm one of those New Yorkers.
And I commit to reaching even further to understand disagreement, to wrestle with the complexities of those differing viewpoints.
Because what this city deserves is a mayor that looks not only to represent the close to 600,000 New Yorkers that voted for me, but rather the eight and a half million people that call this city home.
And in the meetings that I have had since that moment, I've met with Jewish elected officials, with rabbis, with community leaders, and there was one rabbi that spoke to me about how that phrase for her brought back memories of bus bombings and hypha, of restaurant attacks in Jerusalem.
And I knew that from what she was sharing with me that she had a fear as she said that that could come home to New York City.
And so in having that conversation with her, I knew that the gap between the intent that I have heard some New Yorkers share with the use of that language of calling for the end of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land was disconnected from the impact it was having in that same conversation I was having with that rabbi.
And so I have said, after having that conversation that this is language I would discourage.
Now he's not only saying this isn't language that I would use, but he's saying I discourage this phrase.
I mean, it is kind of bizarre that while the Israelis are destroying all of Gaza, carrying out what genocide experts around the world and human rights organizations and many governments recognize as a genocide.
Here he is saying, "I want to police the way people opposed to Israeli aggression express themselves because it might offend the sensibilities of people who support Israel." You can make exactly that argument for the term free Palestine or from the river to the sea, Palestinians will be free.
This is also a these are also phrases that Jewish supporters of Israel claim frightens them, offends their sensibilities.
So it that was is that next?
Because if this is going to be the pattern, like I the minute there's a little bit too much political pressure, I have to like please Al Sharpton, I'm gonna reverse what I have insisted was my FedRo belief.
Now, look, I'm not opposed to people, politicians who really do go talk to people and have a change of heart.
It's just that this one is very unconvincing.
And I'm not ready to write him off or whatever.
It's one concession, but I've seen many times once you start making these, you turn into Pete Buttigieg.
And you basically are just a very scripted articulate but vacant and vapid politician.
I've seen my husband was a politician, elected official.
I've seen how these compromises work up close.
People who get there and they're ready to, you know, fight for things, fight for the people who elected them, and then there's suddenly all kinds of temptations to have this advancement, to have this support, to have this prize and award, and all you have to do is kind of sacrifice one thing.
And you tell yourself, well, I'm just compromising for the good of the world, so I can get into power so I can do more.
And then before you know it, those compromises become the way that you function because that is a rationale that just justifies any number of abandonment of all sorts of issues.
Beyond the fact that I find it unconvincing for that reason, I also find it unconvincing for this one.
Bernie Sanders has been campaigning actively for Zoran in New York City.
And CNN reported in July under this headline: what Bernie Sanders told Zoran Mandani about anti-Semitism and pushing back on democratic leaders.
Quote, the 33-year-old assemblyman and democratic socialists had breakfast Wednesday with Democratic members of Congress before a private strategy session with Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, a key endorser before his stunning primary victory.
But party leaders and many swing district lawmakers kept their distance from Mandani, worried about his policy ideas and Republican plans to make him a national foil.
Sanders urged his now protege to be firm in calling for democratic leaders to rally behind him, but also to be more careful, to more carefully address what he said about Israel.
Sanders, who is Jewish, urged Mandani to be cautious about how he approaches talking about Israel.
Both our critics of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israel's handling of its war in Gaza.
Ahead of the trip, Mandani told business leaders in New York that he would discourage the use of the phrase globalize the intifada.
Mandani who has not used the phrase himself, has said he believes the phrase to be a rallying cry for Palestinian human rights and refused to condemn its use when asked during his primary campaign.
But then Bernie Sanders told him to.
He wanted to meet the press, Al Sharp didn't all but demanded it with this written prepared speech about the sensibilities of Jewish voters.
Now he's like, yes, you know what, actually, I have changed my mind.
Spoke with a rabbi, she told me she hates the phrase.
So now I don't think we should use it.
There were a lot of reactions from people who are Zoran supporters.
And I think they make some compelling arguments.
You don't have to agree with them or not, but this is reflective of the kind of concern that this sort of retreat provokes in a lot of political leaders, not just Zoran.
Here's Mohammed El-Khurd who responded this way, Zoran.
I have told you this on the phone in person, and I will reiterate it publicly.
What you think of the phrase globalize the intifada, our beautiful uprising against occupation is irrelevant.
What matters is that it's a slogan adopted by a movement that is partly responsible for your success, and you mustn't throw them under the bus.
We are facing unprecedented levels of state repression and institutional censorship.
Both our political organiz our political organizing and speech are criminalized, and we are confronting genocide for God's sake.
That you choose to elevate or to continue elevating Jewish feelings over the lives of Palestinians over the fact of genocide is nothing more than punching down on those who have helped to elevate you.
And not to mention it is a bad electoral strategy, considering you are quite literally winning and need not bow down to Zionist pressure.
The tens of thousands of volunteers who have canvas for you in the scorching hot sun, they are not to be taken for granted.
Their support is an unconditional.
Remember that.
So I can see both arguments for sure.
I can see this argument that says you're winning.
You don't need to make these kind of concessions.
You don't need to start appearing to be a politician who has no fixed convictions, who's willing to abandon supporters, who's willing to reverse positions the minute it seems politically advantageous for your career to do so.
I can also see the argument that says, oh, he needs to be a little practical.
He wants to win.
We want him to win.
And if this is one of the things weighing him down, then why not just make a consess uh concession and the gesture to these group of people who may vote for him whose concerns they feel are being ignored.
But when someone has a 25-point lead and has the support of a large plurality of Jewish voters already, it is a troubling sign that you talk to Bernie Sanders in secret.
He's like, Yeah, you need to be more careful about how you talk about Israel.
And Al Sharpton gives him a lecture on the need to avoid offending the sensibilities of Jewish people.
And he's like, You're absolutely right.
I've changed my mind on this.
Because I really, I mean, try to imagine Trump doing that.
When has Trump done that?
And I say that only to say that I believe one of the major superpowers of Trump politically is that people sense his authenticity.
It doesn't mean he's always being authentic.
He never is deceitful, he quite often is.
But he seems like he's presenting himself as the kind of person that people perceive he really is.
And I think for the most part, that is true.
And people crave that because they don't want to feel deceived.
And much more than agreement on every issue.
I think people want to know that this person that is proposing to lead them, who are asking for their votes, is someone who's not just a political careerist.
And that was one of the things that I think was Zoan's strength.
And that's what I praised him for on this very issue.
It is so much easier, of course, politically, to say, not just I don't use the phrase globalize the intifada, but that's a phrase that I would discourage others to use.
And the same thing for Free Palestine and From the River to the Sea.
Just throw it all overboard.
But he didn't.
And I think people see that, okay, the media is demanding that.
A lot of democratic establishment members are demanding that, but you're not there to please the Democratic Party establishment.
You're not there to jump through the hoops the media sets up for you.
You're there to tell voters what you really believe and think.
And while they may not always agree with you, they can trust that what you're telling them is what you actually think.
And then when he starts doing things like this, like I said, he starts to look like Pete Buttigieg.
Now, I'm not willing to declare the whole Zoran effort a failure or worthless or purposeless for this one incident.
But I do think it's very troubling.
I could never imagine doing that myself.
maybe that's why i don't run for political office and have no need to but i would think that a lot of people who run from political office especially seeing that it's politically advantageous to be authentic would have the courage of their convictions and wouldn't just abandon them the minute some people you think you need decide that you should And that's at least in this case, what he did, there's no denying that.
And I think it's a troubling sign, even if it's not yet a dispositive one.
All right, so that concludes our show for this evening.
As a reminder, system update is also available in podcast form.
You can listen to every episode 12 hours after the first broadcast live here on Rumble on Spotify, Apple, and all of the major podcasting platforms.
So if you rate and review our program, it really does help spread the visibility of the show.
Finally, as an independent media, independent journalists, we do rely on the support of our viewers, which you can provide by joining our locals community where you have access to a whole wide range of exclusive benefits, including video content and video segments that we often stream exclusively or publish exclusively on our locals' platforms for our members every Friday.
We take a do a QA session on this show where we take questions exclusively from our members as well.
There's transcripts that we publish every day of the show that we broadcast here, and there's a lot of other interactive benefits as well.
But most of all, it's the community on which we rely to support enable the show that we do here every night, the independent journalism that we do here every night.
All you have to do is click the red join button right below the video player on the Rumble page, and it will take you directly to that community.
For those who've been watching this show, we are needless to say, very appreciative.
And we hope to see you back tomorrow night and every night at 7 p.m. Eastern Live, exclusively here on Rumble.
