The Irony of John Bolton's Classified Docs Indictment; Prominent Dems Now Stutter When Asked About AIPAC
Glenn breaks down the John Bolton classified docs indictment. Then: Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, and Gavin Newsom all fumble through answering basic questions about AIPAC and Israel, revealing the gap between Democratic voters and elected officials. -------------------------------- Watch full episodes on Rumble, streamed LIVE 7pm ET. Become part of our Locals community Follow System Update: Twitter Instagram TikTok Facebook
Welcome to a new episode of System Update, our live nightly show that airs every Monday through Friday at 7 p.m.
Eastern, exclusively here on Rumble, the free speech alternative to YouTube.
Tonight, former National Security Advisor John Bolton was indicted by a grand jury today in Maryland on 18 felony counts of mishandling classified documents, including top secret information.
According to the indictment, Bolton's reckless mishandling while he was National Security Advisor allowed a foreign adversary to hack and obtain these materials.
The notorious warmonger has long urged either life imprisonment or even the death penalty for others who are responsible for the leaks of classified information, and of course, he's not doing that here.
Instead, he's whining about abuse of power.
Then Democrats are in an increasingly untenable position when it comes to Israel and APAC.
They're torn between their base voters and their views and their massive donors, on the other hand, will show you three recent interviews where leading Democrats can barely speak coherent sentences when asked about Israel and APAC.
And then finally, six of the world's top men's tennis players are this are today currently playing a multi-million dollar exhibition in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, which is hosted by Netflix.
It's the second consecutive such exhibition that they're playing after last year, as is customary such for such events when athletes or celebrities chase Saudi cash, as has happened recently when, for example, many of the nation's most prominent comedians went to the Riyadh Comedian Festival.
Moral indignation erupts over their willingness to help whitewash the regime in exchange for Saudi cash.
Is that moral indignation valid?
We'll take a look.
Before we get to all of that, a quick couple of 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, or all the major podcasting platforms.
And if you rate, review, and follow our program on Spotify or Apple, it really helps spread the visibility of the program.
Finally, as independent media, we do rely on the support of our viewers and members, which you can provide by joining the locals' community where you get a wide array of exclusive benefits.
And most of all, it is the community on which we really do rely to support the independent journalism that we do every night.
Simply click the red join button right below the video player on the Rumble page, and we'll take you directly to that community.
For now, welcome to a new episode of System Update starting right now.
I think I talked before about how I actually really liked law school and studying justice, and one of the reasons is that justice can take so many different forms.
Justice can be righteous, it can be elusive, justice can be blind, justice can be harsh, but justice also can be karmic.
And the indictment that was handed down today by a grand jury in Maryland, arguably is all of those things, but for sure it is karmic.
It is a pure and expressive, representative expression of what karmic justice is.
And that's because the longtime warmonger, sociopath, and high-level government official John Bolton, who served as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations under the Bush Shaney administration as national security advisor before President Trump fired him, was indicted today on 18 felony counts of mishandling classified information.
And what makes this karmic justice, among so many other things, not just the fact that John Bolton long deserves punishment for the pain and suffering and bloodshed he has brought to this world and continues to attempt to bring, but also the fact that he has spent his whole career urging that others who mishandle classified information or cause the leak of sensitive information, which he's accused of doing, either spend life in prison or actually be hanged by an oak tree as traitors.
And he obviously has no intention of applying that same standard to himself.
First of all, here's the news article from the New York Times just a little bit ago, just a couple hours before we went on air.
John Bolton is indicted over his handling of classified information.
Quote, John R. Bolton, the national security hawk and former advisor to President Trump, who became one of his most outspoken critics, was indicted by a federal grand jury in Maryland on Thursday on charges of mishandling classified information.
accused Mr. Bolton of sending diary notes about his day-to-day activities as Mr. Trump's national security advisor in 2018 and 2019.
Many of those notes included, quote, national defense information, including details that were classified as top secret, the indictment charge.
While Mr. Bolton is part of a string of perceived enemies of the president to become prosecutorial targets, and this is the crucial part, the federal investigation into him gained momentum during the Biden administration.
When U.S. intelligence agencies gathered what former officials have described as troubling evidence.
Let me just stop there because John Bolton now has a lot of friends inside the media.
He's particularly beloved at CNN.
He constantly is on Caitlin Collins show where he's treated as some sort of wise statesman of foreign policy.
She absolutely adores him.
She never questions a single utterance of his.
She treats it like foreign policy gospel, and the reason is very obvious the sole reason is because he goes on and constantly bashes Donald Trump.
And so he went from one of the most hated figures in all of the political class to someone who's now utterly beloved, not just on CNN, but by the larger liberal resistance movement as somebody who condemns Donald Trump.
As I've said before, and I don't mean this hyperbolically, I mean this very literally.
If Adolf Hitler were reincarnated, and he started, and he came back and he started bashing Trump, saying that Trump was Russian agent, which Hitler, you know, would be like what to do.
Hitler always had a lot of animosity toward Russia, probably would accuse him of being a Russian agent, accusing of corrupt, not knowing how to handle foreign policy.
I really think that MSNBC would give Hitler his own show.
It'd be called like the Hitler Hour or something like that, very illiterative.
And he'd be on at like 4 p.m., 4 to 5, the four to five hours, and he would have like Democratic party officials, senators and members of Congress and pundits on, who would, you know, treat him very cordially, even affectionately.
Because that's all it takes.
John Bolton is one of the most sociopathic warmogers ever to serve in the highest levels of government.
And he's always on CNN.
And Caitlin Collins already is publishing his denials without any kind of pushback of any kind.
And so, you know, the the narrative is obviously going to emerge that John Bolton is a victim of Donald Trump's administration and his vindictive attempt to prosecute his political enemies.
But note here that the prosecution actually, and even the New York Times is emphasizing this.
It gained momentum during the Biden administration because a lot of Intel officials under the Biden administration had information that they described as very troubling behavior when it came to his mishandling of classified information with which he's now charged.
This isn't something that Trump DOJ concocted.
It's not something they invented.
You can make the case that there have been other prosecutions that seem vindictive in nature, although they could still be true.
But this went through the normal process.
Here's the New York Times.
The emails in question, according to the sources, were sent by Mr. Bolton and including information that appeared to derive from classified documents he had seen while he was the national security advisor under Mr. Trump.
Mr. Bolton apparently sent the messages to people close to him who were helping him gather material that he would use in his 2020 book, his memoir, The Room Where It Happened.
So let me just be clear here.
So John Bolton was sitting inside the White House, and as we now know from many different cases, if you're someone who's authorized to handle top secret documents, and obviously, if you're the national security advisor of the president, you're working in the West Waying right besides the president.
There are few people on the planet who have more unfettered access to top secret information than you as national security advisor.
You obviously need that to advise the president.
And John Bolton, while he was working in the White House, was planning on writing a book about his time in the White House, which national security officials can do, but they have to leave the government.
They can't take classified information with them, and they have to submit their book for pre-publication review to make sure there's no classified material in there.
John Bolton the whole time was pilfering classified information.
He was writing himself notes and writing notes to two people close to him who are described as person one, person two in the indictment, neither of whom have classified clearing, clearance, so they're not authorized to receive classified information.
It's widely speculated that those are his wife and daughter, who he was pilfering top secret documents and other information from the White House, where he was reading top secret documents containing top secret information, sending them these materials over AOL and Google.
In other words, not using the highly secured government channels for top secret information.
And as a result, according to not just the indictment, but to the U.S. government under Biden, the Iranians, the Iranian intelligence agencies, Iranian hackers were able to obtain these materials not for hacking into the U.S. government servers, which are highly secured, but instead hacking into John Bolton's home email server or home email address where they found top secret material because John Bolton illegally and recklessly put it there.
That's the case against him.
Now, in a separate part of the reporting, the New York Times is from the reporter Glenn Thrush, and I can't stress enough how significant it is that it's coming from the New York Times, which obviously always wants to claim that Donald Trump's prosecution is violating norms and it's driven by vindictive motives.
But in this case, listen to what they're saying.
What makes the John Bolton indictment so unusual in the Trump era is that it is so usual.
The prosecution followed normal departmental channels without firing strong arm orders from the White House or forced transfers.
It just went through the standard DOJ prosecutorial machinery without any pressure from the White House.
Kelly O'Haines, the U.S. attorney of Maryland, signed off on the charges in conjunction with the department's National Security Division.
In the cases of Jim Comey and Letitia James, who were indicted, where Trump had to install a hand-picked prosecutor to get the charges he demanded, said the New York Times.
In this case, that didn't happen.
It was just the U.S. attorney confirmed by the Senate for Maryland, as well as National Security Division of the New York of the DOJ that prosecutes cases like this all the time.
And that's where this case emerged from the normal process.
And again, it picked up momentum in the Joe Biden era.
Let's go back to this indictment, please.
So here's the indictment itself.
And I think that allegations here are extremely important.
So it's filed there, you see it in the district of Maryland in the U.S. district court.
And I believe it's just been assigned to, I'm not sure if the judge has been assigned yet.
We'll check that.
But this is the indictment that the indictment was handed down by a grand jury, so it's a grand jury of his peers.
They returned an indictment on all 18 felony counts that were sought against John Bolton.
It's the cases called now United States of America versus John Robert Bolton II.
And here are a crucial, a couple of crucial passages from the indictment.
After John Bolton, and remember, an indictment is an allegation, it's a document that is a set of uh allegations, prosecutorial allegations, that were presented by a prosecutor without any defense lawyer present to question it or to refute it, which is why it's considered easy to get a grandton, but it's not automatic.
Grand jury indictments are rejected often, not often, but they do happen.
And they should be taken as allegations, but the fact that it went through so many different levels of prosecutorial scrutiny and then got approved by the grand jury, gives it some level of credence.
And here's, and again, the fact that it was out there for years, that it went through the Biden machinery where it picked up a lot of momentum, even though John Bolton was a vociferous critic of Donald Trump, they had no reason to look at John Bolton as a political enemy of the Biden administration, quite the contrary.
They saw him as a political ally, and yet that's where this investigation was being so aggressively pursued.
And here's part of the indictment.
Maybe we could put that on the screen.
After John Bolton's time as national security advisor ended on September 10th, 2019, Bolton's personal residence was not authorized to store classified information in physical or electronic format.
And yet here's what he did while he was in the White House.
On or about April 8th, 2018, the day before John Bolton officially began his duties as an National Security Advisor, individual one, which I believe is his wife, created a group chat with Bolton, an individual two, which I believe is his daughter, on a non-governmental messaging app.
Individual two asked the group, what are we using now?
The encryption, to which individual one responded, yep, why not?
Bolton then responded for diary in the future.
So they created a family group chat for John Bolton to send His daily diary to while he was working at the highest levels of national security apparatus inside the government advising Donald Trump working with the most sensitive secrets.
The indictment goes on.
On or about April 22nd, 2018, Bolton sent individuals one and two, people who do not have authorized clearance, via the non-governmental messaging app, a 25-page document which Bolton described, which described information that Bolton Lord while national security advisor on or about April 22nd, 2018, individual two sent Bolton and individual one a message that stated, quote, diary finished.
Individual one also asked individual two whether individual two was quote going to call tonight, to which individual two responded, Am I supposed to?
Individual one then wrote, Diaries take time to write, but phone conversations take less time.
On or about July 15, 2018, individual two sent Bolton and individual one a message that stated, quote, do we get a diary today?
Individual one responded, don't think he can do it on this trip.
Bolton later added, too much going on.
I've done much on uh done much of Friday in London because I didn't take many notes and wanted to get it down before I forgot.
On or about July 23rd, 2018, Bolton sent individuals one and two a message that stated, more stuff coming.
A few minutes later, Bolton sent individuals one and two a 24-page document which described information that Bolton learned while National Security Advisor.
Less than three hours later, Bolton sent individuals one and two a follow-up message that stated, none of what we none of which we talk about.
In response, individual one sent a message that stated, shh.
They're like, you know, playing games like shh, this is top secret, which it was.
Individual two then sent the message that stated, quote, the only interesting thing is what a certain senior U.S. government official might have said from a foreign language interpreter, which you didn't tell us.
Approximately two minutes later, individual one sent a message in response and stated, more to come with cloak or dagger or something.
So he says.
Then on or about September 23rd, 2018, Bolton sent individuals one and two a 10-page document which contained information that Bolton learned while National Security Advisor, including information up to the top-secret SCI level.
Now, that isn't just classified information.
That is the highest level, the most sensitive classified information.
There's a little bit, there's one higher level of classified information, things for like the nuclear codes, but top-secret SCI for these purposes for a leak case is about as serious as it gets, and he's just sending it over non-governmental apps to his wife and daughter for purposes of compiling a book.
And they know it's wrong.
They're joking amongst themselves about how it's secret and cloak and dagger.
And then the indictment says this.
At some point between when Bolton left government service in September 19, September 2019, and July 2021, a cyber actor believed to be associated with the Islamic Republic of Iran, hacked Bolton's personal email account and gained unauthorized access to the classified and national defense information in that account, which Bolton had previously emailed to individuals one and two while he was the National Security Advisor.
A representative for Bolton then notified the U.S. government of the hack, but did not tell the U.S. government that the account contained national defense information, including classified information, that Bolton had placed in the account from his time as National Security Advisor, nor did Bolton's representative tell the government that Bolton had shared some of that national security information, including classified information, with individuals one and two via personal email and a non-governmental messaging app.
So this is the basic gist of the indictment, which is that it isn't just that he recklessly handled classified information.
It's not just that he sent classified information on purpose, top-secret information, to people not authorized to receive it.
It's that his reckless mishandling of classified information, his illegal mishandling of classified information, resulted in the acquisition of that information by intelligence agencies and hackers associated with Iran.
Now, I personally would not consider this case to be all that serious, but I just wanted to be clear that John Bolton has looked at cases like this, and even cases more mild, and said, people who do this are the most despicable people.
They deserve life in prison, if not the death penalty, as we're about to show you in just a few minutes.
He said that repeatedly about numerous cases.
And obviously, you can just imagine that if John Bolton went on CNN or whenever network that has him, it's usually CNN, and he was there to talk about somebody who leaked classified information to the top-secret level, and that caused Iran to obtain it.
Imagine the level of imprisonment, if not worse, be demanding that such people receive.
And yet now that John Bolton himself is being charged with the crimes that he has spent his entire life casting getting other people in the most extreme ways.
Now that he's charged with exactly those crimes, do you think he's saying I deserve life imprisonment?
I'm a traitor, I should be hanged from an oak tree the way he did for other people who leaked for much more benevolent purposes, not for compiling books and writing books to make them look good or for self-aggrandizement or for profit, but to inform the public.
No, he's not.
He's now whining that he's the victim.
This is a statement that was given to his colleague Caitlin Collins at CNN.
She passed it along without even a hint of disagreement or noting what is in the statement that is tenuous at best, if not false.
This is part of what he said, quote, for four decades, I have devoted my life to America's foreign policy and national security.
He's actually devoted his life to demanding that other people go fight in wars so that he can feel strong and powerful.
He's never gotten near war, never fought in a war.
He just wants to send other Americans to fight and die in as many as he can think of.
And then he says I would never compromise these goals.
In four years of the prior administration, after three reviews, no charges were ever filed.
Then came Trump too, who embodies what Joseph Joseph Stalin's head of secret police once said.
You show me the man and I'll show you the crime.
So of course he's whining, he's the victim.
But as even the New York Times says, it's very difficult to maintain that this is some kind of politicized witch hunt against a government critic, given that the Biden administration thought that this case was very serious.
So did the intelligencies under Joe Biden.
And this isn't a case where Donald Trump went to true social and said, Pam, indict John Bolton, the way he did with Jim Comey and Letitia James.
This went through the normal standard DOJ process that everybody always feigns such respect for.
Oh, the prosecutor brought it.
It's a serious national security leak case.
In every other instance, that's what you would be hearing.
Here, though, you're gonna see the media rising in defense of John Bolton for no reason other than the fact that he is a critic of Donald Trump.
And like I said, that is enough and nothing else, no matter what else is true about you, to get you into good standing inside Washington establishment, media, and politics circles.
Needless to say, ground zero for defending John Bolton is found at that blue sky app, which is where all the liberals and leftists went once they realized that Twitter would no longer be a venue that would censor all their political enemies, and they went to that other place that's dying for that reason.
But you go there and they're all like John Brennan is the victim of government prosecution.
John Brennan, that's who they're defending.
Here's what John Brennan had to say in the past when other people were charged.
I don't know why I keep saying John Brennan, I mean John Bolton.
We're gonna get John Brennan in a second.
He's also uh been indicted.
But here's uh what John Bolton had to say in other cases where people were charged with causing the leak of classified information.
Here from December here on December 18th, 2013, I remember this actually.
Former U.S. envoy, which is John Bolton, says Edward Snowden should be hanged as a traitor.
Quote, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton has said what whistleblower, Edward Snowden should be hanged as hanged for treason.
Quote, my view is that Snowden committed treason, he ought to be convicted of that.
And then he went on Fox News right around the same time, and he was asked about Edward Snowden and people arguing that Sodon was a noble whistleblower, that unlike Bolton who came who leaked classified information for profit or write a book for his own self-aggrandisement, Snowden did it simply because he wanted other people to know about the crimes the government was committing and how they were spying on Americans with no warrants.
And unlike Bolton, who just sent it over reckless apps like AOL to his wife and daughter.
Snowden used the most sophisticated encryption devices, demanded that the journalists whom he chose to work with, including myself, install and master these extreme multi-level encryption devices that he learned at the NSA and at the CIA to protect the sanctity of that information.
To this date, nobody has ever suggested that Snowden's handling of that information enabled any other government or any other intelligence agency to hack it or to obtain it, unlike with what happened with John Bolton.
John Bolton's case was way worse, both in terms of the motive, which is purely selfish and self-interested.
But also Snowden only the only materials that saw the light of day that Edward Snowden took were materials that not just the journalists, but the editors, the editors we work with around the world, newspapers and magazines deemed to be in the public interest.
It went through huge amounts of multi-level vetting.
And he kept it all secure, whereas John Bolton just caused it to leak to Iran because he was so desperate to get his book deal done, where he could bash Trump and make money and rejuvenate or rehabilitate his reputation in the eyes of the CNN and Caitlin's Collins of the world.
So here's what he said about Edward Snowden, infinitely his superior in terms of his actions.
when he went on Fox News.
I think it's a big mistake.
I have no idea.
I mean, my view is that Snowden committed treason.
He ought to be convicted of that, and then he ought to swing from a tall oak tree.
He ought to swing from a tall oak tree.
Said John Bolton about Edward Snowden.
Now, Edward Snowden was never charged with treason.
He was charged under the Espionage Act.
Of course, he hasn't been prosecuted for it because he sought and obtained asylum in Russia.
But John Bolton didn't just want Edward Snowden in prison.
He wanted him murdered.
He wanted him executed to hang from an oak tree.
Here's what John Bolton had to say about Julian Assange.
Let me just say about Julian Assange.
Unlike John Bolton, who, as a high-level government official, took an oath to protect classified information, to handle classified information only in accordance with the law, not to hand it to his wife or daughter, not to put it in books, not to send it over AOL apps.
John Bolton actually had a legal and personal and ethical duty, an oath to protect this classified information.
Unlike John Bolton, Julian Assange wasn't even an American citizen.
He didn't owe any duties to the American government, let alone work inside the U.S. government and swear any oath to maintain the sanctity of classified information.
Julian Assange had no Julian Assange had no ethical duty, had no legal duty to maintain the sanctity of classified information.
Julian Assange was somebody who to whom was in the role of a journalist, somebody to whom sources inside the government leaked.
Now you can say people inside the government who leaked to him.
They broke the law and they should have been punished, and people who were caught and accused of being the sources for WikiLeaks, like Chelsea Manning, were convicted and did spend many years in prison.
That's the John Bolton rule.
Though again, Chelsea Manning leaked that information because she found evidence of grave war crimes.
The U.S. gunning down journalists and civilians in Iraq, the video of it, huge amounts of documents on tens of thousands of unreported deaths that the United States oversaw in Afghanistan and Iraq and so much more.
She didn't make any money from it.
She wasn't looking to write a book from it.
She thought that this information, she was a private in the Army, something John Bolton never was, deployed to Iraq, volunteered to fight for her country, and she saw this information, and she thought it was incredibly incriminating.
The American people should know, and she sent it to WikiLeaks, and WikiLakes published it.
He wasn't on U.S. soil, Julian Assange.
He wasn't American citizen, had no loyalty to the U.S. government, no oath to protect classified information the way John Bolton did.
And here's what John Bolton said should happen to Julian Assange.
This was John Bolton in 2023 when he went on Pierce Morgan prison.
Well, I think that's a small amount of the sentence he actually deserves.
He's committed clear criminal activity.
He's no more a journalist than the chair I'm sitting on.
The information that he divulged did in fact put many people in jeopardy.
It undercut the ability of the United States to have confidential diplomatic communications, not just with other foreign governments, but in many countries with dissidents, people who even speaking to American diplomats could find themselves in trouble.
And so, you know, he uh he's been complaining about his treatment uh over the past period of time.
He's the one who sought asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy.
Uh now he faces extradition to the United States.
I I presume he will get due process in the United Kingdom to determine whether extradition should go forward and what he gets to the United States, he'll get due process here.
And I hope he gets at least 176 years in jail for what he did.
All right, so that was unlike Edward Snowden, whom he wanted to see hanged from a tree, an oak tree specifically.
And look at what a twisted, warped mind John Bolton has.
He was envisioning Edward Snowden being hanged so continuously, so intensively that he even conjured up the kind of tree by which he wanted them hanged.
And in the case of Julian Assange, he said he should be in prison for 176 years.
Even though, again, John Bolton's case is much worse.
That's why I say this is the sweetest karmic justice.
You can't imagine anything better happening to a person more deserving than this.
I mean, in a way, it's like getting Al Capone on tax evasion.
John Bolton deserves to be hanged himself at the Hague a hundred times over.
But that's not going to happen.
Americans don't go to the Hague, Americans don't get prosecuted for war crimes.
And so this is the next best thing.
And this has always been the issue with classified information cases to me is that, and this was my argument when it came time to prosecute President Trump for taking classified information and keeping it in a sloppy manner in Mar-Lago, and nobody ever suggested that resulted in anyone, let alone foreign adversaries, obtaining that information.
It was just an allegation that he handled it sloppily.
Unlike Bolton, Donald Trump actually had the power to declassify documents.
But my argument with these classified prosecution cases has always been that it's so hypocritical is not even the right word.
It's so weaponized, it's so selective.
All of Washington runs on classified leaks.
Every day, people wake up and leak classified information to the media.
The media encourages it, they receive it.
The people inside the government use classified information leaks to manipulate the public.
It's what Rochinton runs on.
It's just usually it's done at the very high level, and so people defend those who do it.
Oh, it's a general who did it, or oh, it's this high-level White House official who did it.
That's the laws aren't for them.
The laws are for low-level people, like Edward Snowden or Thomas Drake or any of the other war on terror, Chelsea Manning, just an army private, who is she to leak?
Leaking is for the important people.
And that's why I hate it when any time you want to weaponize these laws, and everybody goes on TV and expresses such indignation and outrage that somebody leaked classified information when they leak classified information constantly and all the time.
And John Bolton is now seeing the ramifications of the system that he spent his entire adult life cheering.
I want to just remind you of one case because to me this really gets to the core of the matter.
This was the case of David Petraeus, who, as you might recall, was President Obama's favorite general.
He had a PhD from Princeton.
He has a PhD from Princeton.
He was elevated to lead the special uh special operations.
He was the top general in Afghanistan.
Obama loved him.
And in 2015, as NPR reports, David Petraeus pled guilty to improperly handle handling classified information.
Only he was given a slap on the wrist.
He never went to prison.
He was allowed to plead guilty to two misdemeanors.
Even though David Petraeus, this case, here's the text of the article.
In 2011, retired General David Petraeus allegedly gave several books with classified information to his biographer Paula Broadwell, with whom he was having an affair.
He later was forced to resign as CIA director.
Now let me just put that in plainer English.
David Petraeus was the CIA director.
And if as I said before, there are very few people on Earth with access to more sensitive top secret information than the National Security Advisor, which John Bolton was.
One of the very few people who does is the CI director.
And the documents that David Petraeus took and handed to his mistress, mistress Paula Broadwell, were more sensitive than top secret information.
It was called the crown jewels of the American intelligence community.
She was not authorized to receive classified information.
She was not a government employee.
She was a woman with whom he was having an extramarital affair and who was writing a biography about him.
And the reason he gave her these documents was very similar to the motive that John Bolton had, which is to enable her to write a book about David Petraeus, that would be extremely flattering.
And the documents that he gave her were infinitely more sensitive than anything Julian Assange published, anything Edward Snowden furnish a journalist, let alone that he calls to be published.
And yet, because it was David Petraeus, the CIA director, he was given a little slap on the wrist.
He did resign as CIA director, but he served on the boards of all kinds of uh military industrial complex corporations to this day, enriches himself off all of this.
And this is the game that has been played with classified information leaks for so long.
If you're important enough, you get away with it.
And if you're not the people who leak all the time call for you to be put into prison forever, like Julian Assange or hang from an oak tree like Edward Snow did, and this is finally which is why I called it at the beginning karmic justice.
Let John Bolton live under the standards he has been demanding for his entire adult life for decades, other people be subjected to you, have less power.
Let him live under the standards that he has been propounding, the idea that if you mishandle classified information, if you cause classified information to be leak, or even worse, to fall into the hands of an adversary like Iran, then it means that you should go to prison for a very long time.
You have damaged American national security, you're likely even a traitor, and you ought to be treated like that.
And while I'm open to other cases where people are saying the motive behind prosecutions with Jim Comey or Letitia James might be retribution, and even there, I don't think the fact that a lawsuit is a prosecution is motivated by retribution means that it's invalid.
In this case, it went through the normal processes.
Even the New York Times says so.
There's no basis for objecting to John Bolton's prosecution.
And I hope he gets what he has long said he believes people like him deserve.
*music*
Let me ask you something, please.
How much time do you spend every day on a web browser?
Just think about it.
How much time really do you spend on the web browser?
Like clicking around, searching, scrolling through endless tabs.
It's a lot, right?
A lot.
Like it's a lot of your day.
Well, there's a new AI-powered browser from Perplexity called Comet, and it completely changes how you interact with the web.
Using comet feels like having a personal assistant living right inside your browser, one that can actually do things for you, not just give you answers, but literally click, type, scroll, and search, just like you would.
Getting tasks done in the background while you focus on other more important things.
I've been trying it out.
One of the first things I did was had Comet find a restaurant that fit my schedule, it booked the reservation for me, and even sent me a calendar invite to remind me all while I worked on other more important things like this show.
All I had to do is mention a few things to it that I was craving in terms of the food I wanted, how far I was willing to drive, and just figured out all the rest in the background without my even noticing.
It can also shop for you, summarize articles, book travel, or even bulk unsubscribe you from spam.
All you have to do is download Perplexity's new AI web browser, Comet today by heading to PPLX.ai slash Glenn.
And when you download, you'll get a free month of Rumble Premium.
That's PPLX.ai slash Glenn.
back your time online with Comet.
It's not news to viewers of this show that there's a major sea change in public opinion when it comes both to Israel as well as to the U.S. financing and arming of Israel.
Huge numbers of people who previously either were supportive of it or indifferent to it, have now turned vehemently against it, not just liberals or the left or Democrats, but people across pretty much the entire political spectrum and every demographic group, the only one who maintains fairly steadfast support for Israel are old conservatives who have watched Fox News for 30 years and sat in front of the TV while Sean Hannity talks.
But even there, there's some weakening, but everybody else is in a precipitous uh unraveling.
And the problem for the Democratic Party in particular is that their base is now adamant that they will not accept political leaders who continue to support Israel and continue to take money from APAC.
But these people have embedded in their brains that you cannot be a successful politician in the United States unless you are reflexively fundamentally pro-Israel.
And you don't question APAC.
APAC is the organization that destroys you, obey APAC.
And as a result, you have all these examples just in the last week.
It's not like we're handpicking.
These are major Democratic Party leaders who are being asked about APAC or being asked about the Israeli war in Gaza, and they just they don't know what to do.
They can't answer.
If they answer in a way that pleases their voters, they enrage their donors and the people they fear most in Washington.
If they answer in a way that pleases their donors and the people they fear most in Washington, they enrage their voters.
And for people like we're about to show you Gavin Newsom and Kamala Harris and Corey Booker, they're petrified of enraging their voter base because they all want to be president.
And nobody is going to be able to win a primary if they're pro-Israel in 20 and 28.
It's just like trying to be a supporter of the Iraq war in 2008 in the Democratic Party like Hillary Clinton was, and that's why, despite having the entire Clinton machine behind her that had never been defeated, someone named Barack Obama, a huge newcomer to the political scene, the first ever black president, just ended up beating her, primarily because of that reason, or at least that was a proxy for other things.
And Democratic Party voters know that being on the wrong side of the Israel issue can really destroy their future prospects within the party.
At the same time, they're petrified of enraging large donors who they also need just as much.
Here's Kamala Harris, she went on MSNBC as part of that endless book tour, which I don't want to complain about because it does provide a lot of very entertaining moments, enlightening moments, including the one we talked about yesterday, where she pronounced herself the most single qualified presidential candidate in all of American history, and she meant it.
She was speaking seriously and earnestly.
She went on the MSNBC to talk about that book, and she was asked a question about Gaza, and she just could not respond.
A lot of folks in your party have called what's happening in Gaza a genocide.
Do you agree with that?
I think that listen, it's a it is a term of law that a court will decide.
But I will tell you that when you look at the number of children that have been killed, the number of innocent civilians that have been killed, the refusal to give aid and support.
Um we should all step back and ask this question and be honest about it.
Yeah.
So the question was is what Israel is doing in Gaza genocide?
Now, there are huge numbers of human rights organizations, many, many leading scholars of genocide, including Jewish and Israeli scholars of genocide, including many who rejected the idea that genocide was a word that applied to what Israel was doing in Gaza for months until they concluded look, there's no other term for it.
And we'll talk about that on another show before I think sometimes people think genocide means you try and kill everybody as quickly as possible.
And as long as Israel didn't try and kill anybody as quickly as possible, the word clearly doesn't apply.
That's not what genocide means.
Genocide includes the attempt to eliminate a group of people, eliminate the Palestinian population.
For example, by driving them all into Egypt and Jordan, no more Palestinians, which was the plan, cleansing, ethnically cleansing that land through killing them, through starving them.
But in any event, that was the question for her.
She could have said no.
She could have said, No, I don't think a genocide applies.
There are people who say that.
Instead, she said, So, my view of this is like Kamala Harris, Ms. Vice President, Madam Vice President, do you think there's a genocide in that Israel committed in Gaza?
And she said, My view on this is that this is a legal matter for a court to decide.
Oh my god, that's so courageous.
I love how she said it, like she was really gonna go down a land.
Like she's very frank, she's a frank politician, like plain speaking, tough talking.
It's like my view of that question is a genocide, like yes, would that happen in Gaza or no?
Is a legal term for a court to decide.
And then she's like, and given everything we've seen, she never mentioned Israel.
She's like, given everything we've seen, the people who are killed, the aid, this is absolutely something we have to step back from.
We have to step back from it.
And look at it.
And yeah, like ask the question for sure.
Let's ask that question.
That was her answer.
Completely vapid and vacuous, afraid of expressing a single view, which pretty much characterized her entire campaign and the reason that it failed, and who she is as a person, the politician.
And then here she was at an event that I guess essentially was about climate, and she was interrupted by protesters accusing her of supporting the genocide in Gaza, which of course she did.
She was part of the administration that fed the arms and money through that administration, never once called for anything like that to stop, defended it many times in many interviews.
And here's how she she really did not appreciate these accusations.
Look at the rage and anger.
Like she's not a person who loses control often, except when she cackles at her own jokes.
But other than that, she's pretty much self-possessed, like pretty much, you know, a controlled professional.
This was real rage.
I don't figure it out who you are sinner.
Pamela Harris, you are a right wing why criminal!
You're a right wing!
Look at her pop-up.
There that anger on her face, her pointing to get that woman out of there.
During your administration, you lost the election!
You lost it's your fault!
Oh, and I just noticed there's that journalist that MSNBC journalist right there, Eugene Daniels, who's who's right there, uh following her out.
So, in event, you can see the frustration these people have.
I mean, they don't, this is gonna plague them for the rest of their life as it should, and they really don't know how to respond to it because it's so inconsistent with how they think of themselves.
They think of themselves as the benevolent people, the people who love the marginalized, who care about people suffering, and yet they, and there's no revising it, there's no getting the blood off their hand, no matter how much they scrub.
They not only supported it in theory as a pundit, but Kamla Harris was part of a government that armed that genocide, that funded it, that diplomatically protected it, that advocated for it, and ran for president on the basis of not changing any of it.
And that's never gonna leave who she is or who her legacy is, and she and how she's perceived, and she knows that, and that's where that rage and frustration came from.
That was real rage.
Gavin Newsom was on a podcast uh called The Ringer, and he was asked about APAC and his view of APAC, and Gavin Newsom pretty much acted like he didn't even know what APAC was.
Like he was like, APAC, it kind of rings a bell.
Is it like a I don't know why you're asked?
Here, here's what he said.
It's bizarre.
APAC.
I will not vote for a candidate that takes one dollar from APAC.
Interesting.
I mean, it's interesting.
I haven't thought about APAC.
And it's interesting, you're like the first to bring up APAC in yours, which is interesting.
Why did I say that?
Not relevant to the my day-to-day life.
Okay, which is just interesting.
Listen, it's interesting you say that.
JPAC, perhaps more, but APAC less and less.
Okay.
Fair enough.
Which is just interesting.
What's interesting about it?
That it's just interesting as you bring up APAC that it hasn't been part of.
I'm just reflecting quite openly and honestly, hasn't been part of the day to day.
Yeah.
Um, the only reason the only reason why that was a 39-second clip.
I think Gavin Newsom said the word interesting nine times.
I'm not hype, I'm not speaking up per hyperbolically.
I think that's really the number of times that he said it.
He was like, huh, APAC kind of like rings a bell.
You know, I haven't thought about it in years.
Like it's been years since I heard anybody mention APAC to me.
And it's just so odd that you would ask about what is it?
APAC?
Is that what it's called?
APAC.
There's this uh Democratic Party YouTube host named David Pacman, who was in the news uh recently because Taylor Lorenz, uh, we had her on a show about this, actually, reported that they're all he's part of this program to coordinate Democratic Party talking points.
They're paid secretly as part of this messaging coordination campaign while they pose as independent media, not a surprise to anybody who has ever heard of him or watched what he said, he's just Democratic Party cheerleader.
And he's a hardcore supporter of Israel.
And one of the things that most of these paid influencers had in common is they don't ever mention Israel or Gaza.
They can't defend Biden Harris on Gaza because they'll lose all credibility instantly, but they also don't want to feed into the criticism.
So part of what they're there to do is just to ignore it, to silence it, to suppress it as an issue, and to lure people into the Democratic Party without ever mentioning it.
Although before that, he was always very, very pro-Israel to the point where, although his name is David Pacman, I think he's more aptly called David A. Pac-Man with that middle initial A. And he's talked about APAC before.
He's mocked people who raised the specter of APAC as some evil influence.
And yet, when all this happened and the story came out, and people were like, hey, you seem like you're beholden to APAC.
He really, I see I swear he's like, what is it called?
IPAC, APAC, and he pretended he had never heard of it before.
He like it was just uh such a remote organization, so irrelevant to his life that he barely could, he didn't even know how to pronounce it.
He like asked his producer off camera, what is IPAC?
What is it called?
APAC?
And that's very much what Gavin Newsom did.
He's like, huh, APAC.
Well, that's a weird, weird thing.
I haven't heard that name in years.
God, it's so relevant to my life.
It's like interesting, interesting.
Here's another question about Israel that he was uh asked about.
Likely Democratic primary voters favor restricting U.S. military assistance to Israel until civilian concerns and the rights and self-determination, the rights and humanity of the Palestinian people are sufficiently addressed.
Are you in favor of halting military assistance to Israel?
I mean, the timing's a curious one when the precipice of a phase one deal that was announced today in a ceasefire.
Oh, the this is over, but I get it.
Yeah.
So look, uh no, I'm not prepared to say that I would support uh a blanket uh exemption uh for military support of Israel.
Um that said, I've been very vocal in my opposition to Bibi Netanyahu.
Oh, very vocal to the Bibi Netanyahu.
Um again, he's like, that timing is really curious.
Like, why are you asking about Israel?
Everyone knows Gavin Newsman's gonna run for president.
I mean, that's not even a a mystery.
And he did the same thing there.
He's like, huh, Israel?
Um, it's really weird that you would ask me about that, whether I would support cutting off aid to Israel.
It's not really anything I think about much.
I mean, it's it's pathetic.
It's it's like what Kamala Harris did when she was asked about genocide, she's like, genocide is a legal concept.
I'm that is absolutely true.
And yes, a court will decide this.
We have to step back.
And Gavin Newsom took this different time, just like, ah, I gotta back Israel, I don't know.
What do you ask me about?
Here's Corey Booker who went on this podcast, I've had it, the I've had it podcast.
Not very familiar with this podcast or the two women who host it, but the woman who's asking the question here did a great job.
I've seen her do a great job like this pressing.
She's a Democrat for sure, she's a liberal for sure.
She mostly liked presses the Democratic Party leaders on not being, you know, combative enough or whatever.
Like she's complaining that they don't vote no on everything Trump wants, that sort of posture.
But when she questions them on Israel, and you really see the difference between the kind of DC journalists like the Caitlin Collins, and last uh two days ago or three days ago, it was actually last week when the ceasefire deal was announced between Israel and Gaza.
Andrea Mitchell, the long-term MSNBC journalist, who's been the denizen of Washington forever.
Her husband is Alan Greenspan, who was the chairman of the Federal Reserve.
They're just part of the royal court, denizens of Washington, and she poses as a journalist on MSNBC, even though you know she's best friends with all the people in government whom she's supposed to be adversarily scrutinizing.
And she went on to Twitter, and Anthony Blinken wrote this long 12 tweet self-justification for why he presided over the war in Gaza without for 14 months without ever coming close to what happened in the end, and then having to congratulate President Trump, but it was all very self-serving.
And she went, she said, uh, Mr. Secretary, congratulations.
You were really the one who did all the work for all those months to lay the foundation for allowing these hostages to come back and thank you and congratulations.
And it was just like, what?
Anthony Blinken is the one who deserves gratitude for the end of the war in Gaza.
But because, you know, they're both lifelong Israel supporters, they both have been in Washington forever, they're friends forever.
I wouldn't be surprised if they go to the same synagogue.
This is incestuous Washington.
And so sometimes it takes an outsider, someone who's not a journalist in Washington, not an Andrea Mitchell.
This is this Jennifer Walsh, Welch, I believe her name is.
I think she came to prominence as part of a reality show on like real estate or cooking or something.
She built up a kind of, you know, mini celebrity that way.
And now she's using it to talk about politics on this podcast.
And the couple of times I've seen her, her questioning has been great.
Here she is asking Corey Booker a couple of questions about Israel, and he's at least as uncomfortable as Gavin Newsom and Kamala Harris.
Do you think he's a war criminal, Benjamin Netanyahu?
Do you think he's a war criminal?
I I I again, these are these are questions that a lot of people think are the important litmus tests that are loaded and hot.
My urgency is to be an effective leader in bringing an end to this crisis.
And I get these questions all the time that to me undermine my urgency.
I think the thing that Democrats get so frustrated with, where we are right now, where you see like the Zoran Mamdanis and the Grand Platinums rise up, because you we can they can go on podcasting, you can say, Do you think Benjamin Netanyahu is a war criminal?
And they just say, Yes.
And that's the end of it.
It's not all of the rhetoric answering.
It's like what happens to democratic politicians, they go through this like prism, and then we can't ever get like the answer to yes or no conversations.
Like either burner and others and no, you're not.
That's the frustration for the democracy.
Why think Antony's worse than Trump?
Yes.
He like just changed the question.
He's like, Do I think Netanyahu is worse than Trump?
Yes.
That wasn't the question.
And she's right.
They this is the big difference to me between Trump on the one hand and Democratic Party politician on the other.
Have you ever seen Trump afraid to say what's on his mind?
Give an answer about what he thinks.
I've never seen it.
I've never seen it.
He gives answers that horrify people, including supporters.
But he never has this politician's posture.
And if he does, it's it he he he's very adept at doing it.
He always seems like he's speaking transparently and usually is speaking transparently.
You know, he went to just one example, like he went to that summit of multiple world leaders in Egypt where they all went to commemorate the ceasefire deal.
And he was standing there and he's like, Yeah, you know, all my Western European league allies, all these leaders of foreign countries.
Like, I really love all of you.
He's like, well, not all of you.
There's a couple of you I really dislike.
And he's like, but you'll never know which ones.
He's like, actually, you know what?
You probably will know.
You probably already do know.
And he was clearly referring to Macron.
I mean, he's just very, he can't, there's no filter, basically.
He says what he thinks, and people appreciate that, even if they don't agree with it.
These people cannot give an answer.
And it's like I'm not handpicking, these are just all in the last week, these are major democratic candidates, leading Democratic presidential candidates for 2028, governor of California, the senator from New Jersey, and the former vice president and last Democratic presidential nominee.
They just can't, they can't speak.
They can't speak clearly, they can't speak in a straightforward manner.
Here's another question she asked him, also pertaining to Israel and and Netanyahu, and watch the same thing happens.
I'm one of a handful of people that don't take corporate PAC money.
I don't understand my democratic.
What about APAC money?
You take APAC money, don't you?
A minuscule percentage of my resources come from.
I read it's like 800,000.
Yeah, but well, that's a lifetime number of raising tens of millions of power.
Let me give you the rights that the majority of my money comes from small dollar contributions.
My last report, I think 76% of it came from people that gave $25 or less.
Again, we could pick at each other, or we could do what we need to be doing right now, is joining in a chorus of conviction to condemn it.
And again, I'm a child of civil rights activists.
You think Malcolm X and Martin Luther King agreed on everything?
No.
But when it came to the fight, they joined together and created a movement that was successful.
And that and that's really my focus is.
And as the only, hold on, as the only person in the caucus that lives in a low-income black and brown neighborhood below the poverty line.
I still remember when some progressives from the suburbs.
Can you look?
Do you see how pathetic Corey Booker is?
The question was you keep saying you don't take corporate PAC money, but what about AIPAC money?
You take that, right?
And he's like, yeah, tiny goals like no, like $800,000.
And again, this is how interviews with politicians should be conducted.
Let me know the next time you see an interview conducted like this on a major cable network or Sunday news show.
You don't.
Because she just wants a basic answer to a question that she has every right to ask, that we all have every task.
So the question is, why do you take APAC money?
What about APAC money?
And first he started talking about Martin Luther King and Malcolm X to remind these two white women that he's black and they're not.
That was the purpose of that.
And now he's talking about how he's one of the very few members of a uh in the Congress who lives in a low-income, predominantly black and brown community.
What does it have to do with APAC?
This is all him saying, you don't understand.
I'm Corey Booker, I'm one of the good ones.
I'm one of the good people.
Why are you nitpicking me about Netanyahu and Israel and APAC?
Leave that alone.
I'm one of the good ones.
Low-income black and brown neighborhood below the poverty line.
I still remember when some progressives from the suburbs came down to protest me.
And they were literally chased away by my neighbors because we are in an urgency.
Every day I see it.
We are in an urgency where people real people are getting hurt.
When I go up and down in New Jersey, they don't care about it.
Do you see the subtext here?
He's saying, look, a bunch of white progressives like you ladies came to my neighborhood to protest me.
And the black and brown people in my neighborhood drove them out because we understand what the real issues are.
It's not Israel.
I'm gonna keep sending billions to Israel.
It's not APAC, I'm gonna keep taking huge amounts of money from APAC.
It's not wars, it's whatever racism or immigration or or whatever he's trying to imply is the real issue that they should be asking about, so they don't ask him about APAC and Netanyahu.
So incredibly manipulative, so transparently manipulative, what he's up to.
And it just doesn't work.
People just want answers.
And if you are a politician and you're not willing to just give answers on basic questions, especially in the era of Trump, you're not gonna succeed.
The fact that I took one percent of my money from some group they care about.
What are you doing to restore my health care?
I think the Democratic base feels like there is a disconnect.
We hear you, like when you did your 25 hour speech, I was like, go, Corey, I love this.
That is amazing.
And then there's a photo shoot with you with Benjamin Netanyahu.
And I was just like, what in the actual fuck?
Like, how can he do that?
It was heartbreaking.
I felt betrayed.
And that is what hang on.
And that doesn't just happen in the echo chamber.
Democrats like you, where the base, we should make each other better.
It's not a purity test.
We want credible messengers because when we are down the middle, beholden to corporate interests, we leave this vacuum, and that's how fascism has flourished.
For myself and a lot of our listeners, when I saw the picture with Benjamin Netanyahu, I felt like it diminished your 25 hours.
That's how it felt to me.
Now, this is also dumb and naive because she thinks that Corey Booker standing up and giving a totally meaningless, self-serving, attention-grabbing 25-minute, 25-hour filibuster is somehow sort of some meaningful thing that she's inspired by.
Then she's like, I'm shocked, it's like a gut punch.
I feel so betrayed that then Netanyahu comes to town and you hug him and you stake a picture of him.
Well, that's the real Corey Booker.
That's the real Democratic Party.
I guess like 20 years ago when I first started writing about politics, paying attention to politics, I also thought, like, oh, the Democrats are gonna like really stop George Bush's war on terror.
And every time there'd be a vote, I'd be like, this time they're gonna like make it illegal to put people in Gontanama without habeas corpus, they're gonna stop torture, they're gonna stop military commissions, they're gonna overturn the Patriot Act, like they keep saying.
And every time there'd be a vote, I'd be like, yeah, it's really gonna happen this time.
And then, like, gosh darn it, we would just miss by like three votes.
And then I just realized that's what the Democratic Party is.
It's not the Democratic Party is not the thing they want you to think it is, and they just like don't have quite enough spunk to this is who the Democratic Party is.
This is this is who they're beholden to, it's who pays them, it's who funds them, it's it's the ideology they they recruit.
Look in in Maine right now, there's Susan Collins, who's been in Congress since like 1932.
She's like 171 years old.
She's like in her 15th term of the Senate.
She's seeking re-election, of course.
These people do not like let go of that clutch on power.
Mitch McConnell, who's 83, actually just fell down today, was walking, no, didn't trip or anything, just fell.
You're gonna have to, you know, like Diane Feinstein, he's gonna be carted out dead from the Senate.
These people don't give up power.
And so here you have Susan Collins.
She always wins in Maine.
Like, you know, she's that kind of like, yeah, I'm a Republican, but like one of the reasonable ones, everyone like Maine is like, yeah, that's what we need, more of whatever.
And she has this opponent who's running for the Democratic primary named Grant Grant Plantner, and he's like utterly working class, not just in, he's not like theatrically working class, he's like genuinely working class.
He's a uh Marine who fought in combat.
And he is very plain spoken, very organic, like is who he is.
There's no pretense to it.
And he's running on a very populist message of the kind that Democratic Party uh establishment elites hate, you know, a very anti-corporate, pro-worker message.
And they are petrified that he is going to be able to become the face of the party like Zeran Madani is.
And so they just recruited the 77-year-old woman who I I think she's her name is Janet Bills or something.
She's the governor of Maine.
She's 77.
She's like the most boring standard democratic establishment candidate possible.
They want it to be a race between you know 118-year-old Susan Collins running for her 13th term versus like 80-year-old Janet Mills, who's gonna be the oldest ever first-time senator if she wins, how exciting.
When they have this like very exciting candidate, because that the Democratic Party is has to rip maintain this establishment corporatist, militaristic personality and ethos because that's who their donor base is.
That's what they've constructed themselves for decades to be ever since Bill Clinton emerged.
And if you don't know that about the Democratic Party, your understanding of politics is very unsophisticated, even if it's well-intentioned.
But there is a real pressure on these Democrats, which is why they're just so torn now.
To the point where here's Seth Moulton, he's a very kind of center right part of the Democratic Party, conservative from a pretty conservative Massachusetts district.
He's always one of those types who's just always, you know, castigating the Democratic Party for being too far to the left and cultural issues, economic issues.
And he wants to challenge Ed Markey, the the incumbent senator from Massachusetts.
I believe he's seeking his third term.
He's definitely in a 70s, maybe even close to closer to 80.
Seth Moulton is is young.
But Ed Markey is more to the left, more popular, Seth Moulton is much more centrist.
I really don't care who wins.
Um, but in any event, Seth Moulton came out today and said this, and the reason this is so surprising is because he's never been a politician who would say something like this.
Quote, I am returning APAC donations and I'm refusing to accept any donations or support from them.
The FEC filing I made yesterday reflects that we are returning donations.
And then here's uh part of the statement that he issued as well.
I'm cautiously optimistic that the recent breakthrough in Gaza will move us closer to ending the horrific violence in the region.
A political resolution that allows Israelis and Palestinians to live side by side in peace is exactly the kind of framework I've been calling for from the beginning.
I support Israel's right to exist, but I've also never been afraid to disagree openly with AIPAC when they believe they're wrong.
In recent years, they've aligned themselves too closely with Netanyahu.
Now, why is Seth Moulton doing that?
Obviously, it's completely uncharacteristic of him, but he wants to run in the Democratic Party primary.
And he knows, as I said earlier, that you cannot run in the Democratic Party primary and win if you're closely aligned with Israel.
So this is him paying some attention to voter pressure.
And this is what I had John Meersheimer, Professor John Meershammer on my show earlier this week, who said, look, the elites are never going to change the bipartisan political class in Washington.
But at some point, this public opinion, the more it grows, the more it intensifies is going to put pressure on them, real pressure on them to change.
And that's the only reason you're seeing this.
Speaking of leading Democratic politicians and capable of answering questions when it comes to Israel, here, and again, these are all from this month.
And this is Pete Buttig, again, not some mid-level Democrat, I'm just cherry-picking.
Definitely a leading candidate to run for president, if you can believe it, in two 2028.
Democrats love Pete Buttigieg, love him.
And he was recently on uh uh YouTuber show.
Uh, I believe his name is Andrew Callahan, uh, on Channel 5, which is a become very popular YouTube show.
But again, he's not a political journalist.
You can see him, he's sitting there in a kind of uh wall hat, and this is who he is, and he's pressing Pete Buttigieg on Israel.
If you can understand what people have said here, let me know.
...people, and it sounds like a huge thing is Israel-Palestine.
Yeah.
Where do you stand on that stuff?
Well, I'm gonna put my coffee down.
Um there's so many things That have to be said.
And what I've learned is if you don't say all of them, people think you're abandoning them.
So here's some things in no particular order that I know.
I know that there are unspeakable horrors taking place in Gaza.
I know that those unspeakable horrors are something that was unleashed by a war that started with unspeakable horrors being perpetrated by Hamas on October 7th.
Well, I mean, that wasn't the beginning of the conflict.
Of course.
I mean, this goes back to 47 and it goes back before 47.
But this is exactly my point.
The moment you say anything about the moment I talk about disgust at babies being put in ovens and people being flayed by Hamas on October 7th, somebody's none of that happened.
Can you believe it?
I mean, like the fact that that's a hoax, that there weren't babies put into ovens or beheaded on October 7th.
Everyone believed that for a couple days because the Israeli government on purpose manufactured those lies in the crucial days that would define how the world thought of Hamas on October 7th.
They knew that.
They knew claiming babies were put into ovens or beheaded, beheaded babies would evoke ISIS, babies in ovens would evoke the Holocaust, cutting babies out of their rooms, or just, you know, these are the most subhuman people imaginable.
They were all lies.
I understand people felt for them for a while.
They've been debunked by media outlets all over the world, not even the Israeli government pretent.
Here's Pete Buttig who wants to be president, presumably he he pays attention to just like current events.
Did how does he not know?
How does he still go around claiming that babies were put in ovens and flayed on October 7th when that never happened?
As part of his answer about Israel and Gaza.
The moment you say anything about the moment I talk about disgust at babies being put in ovens and people being flayed by Hamas on October 7th, somebody says And right as he said that they put up the Wikipedia entry that the dead baby in the oven claim and it uh traces its trajectory from how it began by a pro-Israel fanatic who just posted the lie on internet and went all over the world and now it's been debunked.
October 7th.
Somebody says, Well, you're not talking about the history of the Nakba and what happened with the displacement of Palestinians.
And the moment I express disgust at watching people in Gaza being starved, somebody says, we must be excusing what happened with Hamas.
No.
Yeah.
Now there is nothing intrinsically anti-Semitic about speaking up for the rights of Palestinians.
At the same time, a lot of people I know who lie awake at night worried about their kids going to college or walking the streets, you know, hear expressions of support for Palestinian civilian life.
And think about the fact that even though nothing about that makes you soft on anti-Semitism.
Yeah.
The experience has been that those two things, expressions of support for Palestinian civilian life and expressions of anti-Semitism, have sometimes traveled together because there is, in fact, an explosion of anti-Semitism going on in this country.
Just so calculated, feeding little crumbs to every single person without having a view about anything at all.
Just like uh psych watching a tennis match or the ball going from one side to the other, just back and forth endlessly, but it's people just playing with themselves.
Same thing happened when he went on crooked media uh with John Favreau and he was asked about Israel-Palestine.
Here's what he said.
Do you think it's time to recognize a Palestinian state?
I think that that's uh that's a profound question that uh arouses a lot of the biggest problems that have happened with uh Israel's survival or Israel's right to survive.
Do you see the tactic they all use?
Kamala Harris was asked, do you think Israel committed genocide?
And she's like, that is a question.
That is definitely a question.
That's a question for court to answer.
That's a question for sure.
And then they ask uh Corey Booker whether or rather Gavin Newsom, whether we should cut off arms digital.
And he's like, Yeah, that's a question we that a lot of people are debating.
And they ask Pete Buttig, do you think it's time to recognize apologies?
And you say, Oh, for sure.
I'm Pete Buttigieg, I'm gonna be really plain-spoken with you.
I'm a courageous guy, I'm not a calculated politician from McKinsey.
I'm here to tell you that.
That is a question.
That is definitely a question.
A lot of people are asking.
Very important question.
Survival in the diplomatic scene, and many of the people who have taken that step historically have done so for different reasons than what we see happening with European countries.
Uh, I think we need to step back, and we need to do whatever it takes to ensure that there is a real two-state solution, and that no one, uh, not even the likes of Netanyahu can veto the international community's commitment to a two-state solution where you have Palestinians and Israelis living with safety, with security, with rights.
I believe.
Now, obviously, this reflects a lot about Israel and the issue of AIPAC and support for Israel and the uproar within the Democratic Party and among the Democratic Party voting base and the Republican Party as well.
I absolutely think there's going to be a lot of room for a candidate in 2028.
Who knows who it is?
Who's going to be arguing what Tuck Carlson has been arguing, or Thomas Massey or Marjorie Taylor Green.
Of I thought the whole point of America First is we're not going to keep financing these foreign wars.
Why are we paying for Israel's army when our communities are falling apart?
Why are we getting involved in their wars?
Why are we still funding the war in Ukraine?
Why are we so beholden to Israel?
Why are we sacrificing our free speech for them?
It has transformed the Republican Party as well, especially the conservative basis issue as.
So it says a lot about what's happening with the Democratic Party, but also just says about the Democratic Party as an entity, as it itself.
I mean, Gavin Newsom is trying to like rebrand as sort of the Donald Trump of the Democratic Party, someone capable of being very bold on social media of speaking as mine, let the chips fall where they might.
And yet you see, just he he he he pretended right to your face that he barely knew what APAC was.
Rather than that's how scared he was.
They're afraid of their own shadow, the Democratic Party is.
And unless they get over that, and you see the politicians who aren't afraid of their own shadow, who are having success, like Ozarron Mandani, who whatever you think of him, at least before the Obama and Clinton people got a hold of him, which is now who's running his campaign, or at least and before Bernie and AOC kind of put the Bernie and AOC chip in his head.
He was somebody who created so much excitement because he said the things that he thought.
And that's the same thing with Grant Plantner in Maine and other candidates who are provoking this kind of excitement as well.
And that's who the Democratic Party is seeking to destroy and suppress.
They're petrified of them.
And until the Democratic Party is loses this type of person who's just so is like right from the professional managerial class.
It looks like they came out of the HR department, who's extremely careful.
Like everything's a landmine.
You're totally afraid to walk anywhere to say anything.
They're going to continue to turn people off, not just people who aren't Democrats, but Democrats as well.
No one's excited by that.
People are disgusted by it, and rightfully so.
And I think the Israel issue is a very strong proxy, an important issue unto itself, but it's also a really clear way to understand the failures of this party and pretty much all of its leaders that uh who are discussed for possible presidential runs in in three years.
All right, so that concludes our show for this evening.
Reminder that tomorrow we have a QA session.
We had a third segment plan for tonight about the tennis players who are currently in Saudi Arabia grabbing millions of dollars in Saudi cash and the moral indignation that's typically provoked by that, as well as when comedians just did it a couple weeks ago.
And I want to talk a little bit about that, whether that indignation is justified and valid given the policy of our government, the UK government towards Saudi Arabia.
Well, postpone that for tomorrow night.
We actually had a couple questions on the RE-AD Comedy Festival from last week that we'll probably uh address tomorrow night.
Tomorrow night is the QA session we do every Friday night where we take questions exclusively from our local members and we answer them on the live show here.
So look out for that.
Um but that concludes our show for this evening.
As a couple of reminders, system update is also available in podcast form.
You can listen to every episode 12 hours after the first broadcast live here on Rumble on Spotify, Apple, and all the major podcasting platforms.
If you rate and review or follow our program on those podcasting platforms like Spotify and Apple, it really does help spread the visibility of our show.
Finally, as independent journalists, we do rely on the support of our viewers and members, which you can participate in by joining our locals community.
You just click the red join button right below the video player on the Rumble page.
It takes you directly to that platform.
You get a wide variety of a wide array of exclusive benefits, exclusive content.
Every Friday night we do a QA session with questions exclusive from our locals members.
Most of all, it's the community on which we really do rely to support the independent journalism that we do every night.
Just click the join button.
It takes you right there.
For those of you who are 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.
