More Proof of Epstein's Israel Ties: With Murtaza Hussain; ADL Says Anti-Zionist Jews Are "Antisemitic"
Drop Site journalist Murtaza Hussain discusses Epstein's ties to Israel and why the corporate media refuses to cover the story. Plus: Glenn reacts to the CEO of the ADL's claim that anti-Zionist Jews are "antisemitic." ------------------------------------------ Watch full episodes on Rumble, streamed LIVE 7pm ET. Become part of our Locals community Follow System Update: Twitter Instagram TikTok Facebook
Not an old one, but a new episode of System Update, our live nightly show that airs every Monday through Friday, every single Monday through Friday at 7 p.m. Eastern on the dot, exclusively here on Rumble, the free speech alternative to YouTube.
As you can undoubtedly see, and I'm just going to check something and have things to stall for a second while I do.
Okay, I think everything is fine.
We're not in our current studio, nor are we in our temporary studio, the one we've been in the last two weeks.
We've been in the temporary studio one for this week.
However, going to be moving around a little bit more until early next January after the holidays.
And then we'll be back in our studio for those of you who feel disoriented or lost or scared because you don't see the studio.
It's okay.
We're going to be back there very shortly and you'll feel right at home again, safe and secure in the womb like conditions of system update.
All right.
For tonight, the Jeffrey Epstein files, a lot of you may have forgotten what those are.
I don't know if people really remember them.
If you don't, you can Google them.
I'm about to sneeze.
There's a lot going on here tonight before I can even just get into the show.
Let's get into the meat of this show.
Okay.
The Jeffrey Epstein files is something that you would be forgiven for not having remembered what it is because it's been a long time since people really started talking about it, even though for four years in the eyes of many people, including some of the most powerful and senior people at the top of Trump World, it was the key to deciphering everything corrupt and rotted about our globalistic mega elite class.
It was also the way to uncover the world's worst ring of child predatory behavior at the highest levels of our political and economic power centers.
And yet it sort of has been forgotten, but not by everybody.
There is still ongoing reporting on it, including by several former colleagues of mine who worked with me at the intercept, who now are working at Dropsite News.
And they've gotten hold of a giant archive of emails that come largely from the former Israeli prime minister Ed Barak, who was a very close friend of Jeffrey Epstein's.
And they've been doing an amazing amount of reporting, proving what, for me, has always been one of the towering and overarching questions in this Epstein case.
And the reason I believe there's been so little disclosure, at least one of them, which is whether Jeffrey Epstein worked for or with foreign intelligence agencies.
And of course, by that, everybody understood that to mean Israel.
And the evidence that they have uncovered has been really overwhelming that Jeffrey Epstein worked very closely with as an asset of, in some ways, sometimes above the Mossad and the interests of the Israeli government.
And one of those reporters, Murtaza Hussein, has been on my show previously to talk about some of his reporting, which has been bizarrely ignored by most of the media.
I guess not really bizarrely when you think about it, but he has had several new articles co-authored with a prior colleague of mine as well, Ryan Grimm, who which really put the nail in the coffin on this question.
The evidence has been not just overwhelming, but extremely conclusive.
And Murtaza will be with us in a little bit to talk about these new findings.
And then the CEO of the Anti-Defamation League, Jonathan Greenblatt, gave an interview today in which he announced that one of the major drivers of anti-Semitism in the world is not Nick Fuentes, not the neo-Nazi party, not the usual suspects that they blame.
No, it's not any of that.
Instead, the major driver, one of the major drivers of anti-Semitism are Jews, Jews, Jews who criticize the state of Israel, Jews who don't support the state of Israel, Jews who don't believe in the relatively new ideology of Zionism.
These Jews, he said, may not be huge numbers of them, but they're a major problem.
And so we wanted to explore the question of whether or not Jews who oppose the state of Israel, who oppose the ideology of Zionism, which includes, by the way, people like Hannah Arant and Albert Einstein and many others, whether or not it really makes you an anti-Semite if you're a Jew who doesn't support the state of Israel.
And it really reminds me a lot of how liberals would constantly claim that black people who don't support the Democratic Party are self-hating and racist, or gay people who don't support the Democratic Party are self-hating and homophobic.
This idea that somehow, if you're part of a group by virtue of birth, a demographic group, that you're duty bound to adopt a set of geopolitical beliefs and a certain ideology and a loyalty to certain things or ideas, that it's like inbred in you.
And that if you don't, it makes you mentally ill and or malicious, I think is unbelievably toxic.
Conservatives have attacked this idea for a long time when propounded by liberals.
This idea that your identity compels you to adopt a certain set of political or ideological views in order to be considered a healthy person.
And so I think it's really worth delving into how this has now expanded into an idea that a lot of people on the pro-Israel right also support and that was explicitly, very explicitly defended by the head of one of the most influential and pernicious pro-Israel groups in the country that masquerades as an anti-defamation, pro-civil rights organization.
So we're going to take a look at that.
Before we get into all that, a couple of quick programming notes.
First of all, system update is also available in podcast form.
You can listen to every episode.
Not just watch it.
Also listen to it 12 hours after the first broadcast live here on Rumble on Spotify, Apple, and all of the major podcasting platforms.
Where if you rate, review, and follow our show, it really helps spread the visibility of the program.
Also, as independent media, we do rely on the support of our viewers and members, which you can provide by participating in and joining our locals community where you get access to a wide range of exclusive benefits and content.
But most of all is the community on which we most rely to support the independent journalism that we do here every night.
Every Friday night, as we'll do tomorrow night, we take questions submitted throughout the week solely from our locals members.
So that is an additional benefit of joining that community.
And 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.
One last programming note.
I was on the Piers Morgan show earlier this afternoon.
I violated what I typically regard as a steadfast rule of mine, which is I do not appear on panels, panels with like multiple people where you have to like fight and scream over them and demand to be hurt.
I just won't do that.
I made an exception because there was a discussion about the very widely watched, viralized interview that Piers Morgan conducted with Nick Fuentes just a couple of days ago.
I did believe that I was going to bring some perspective and some ideas about that topic to that show that few, if any other person would bring.
So I made an exception to my no panel rule and it was actually reasonably civil.
There wasn't a lot of like the clown show of monkeys throwing poop at each other for the amusement of Piers Morgan's audience.
So if you have any interest in that, you can go and watch it on YouTube.
It was published just a couple of hours ago.
I actually did find at least the parts in which I participated to be worthwhile.
I would not say that about the part where he spent 20 minutes talking to Dr. Phil.
I didn't actually hear it, so I did most of it.
So I don't want to characterize it too much, but it was basically about like psychoanalyzing Nick Funtes and his followers as incel losers.
That part I think you can fast forward through, but the part where we had a kind of back and forth about this movement and his popularity and what accounts for it and things of that nature, I think are worth talking about.
All right.
So with all of that said, welcome to a new episode of System Update starting right now.
There hasn't been very much talk lately about the Jeffrey Epstein files.
Donald Trump aggressively spent months trying to block it.
Members of Congress then tried to override that, but with a bill that, although masquerading as a transparency bill, really allowed the government so many exceptions to withhold information that it was really almost more of a deceit.
Our friend Michael Tracy did a good job of showing that, as did several other people.
So there's really no real full transparency of the Epstein files coming, even though that was promised by JD Vance and Donald Trump Jr. and Kash Patel and Dan Bongino and so many other of the most prominent people in Trump world, because Trump has now decided that this is all a hoax and irrelevant, even though it was for four years presented as the most pressing matter.
The questions in which I have always been most interested, and whenever I talked about the Epstein file, this is one of the things I most emphasized is what was the relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and any foreign intelligence agency?
Was he working with them as an arm of them?
Did he provide information to them?
Were they spying on him?
Did they obtain the information about all these people who were visiting him in the middle of these sexually compromising situations?
And of course, the leading suspect was Israel, not because it's what Israel does, even though that is true, but because it was obvious that Jeffrey Epstein had overt ties to Israel.
One of Jeffrey Epstein's best friends is the former defense minister and prime minister of Israel, Ehud Barak.
But he was also in Israel constantly when he was originally charged in 2008 in West Palm Beach with those crimes.
While the investigation was pending, while his charges were pending, he ran off to Israel and spent a good amount of time there.
And there's a lot of reporting in mainstream outlets that Jewish Americans who are charged with crimes of pedophilia are able to seek refuge and find refuge in Israel based on the law of return that says Jews can go from anywhere in the world back to Israel and Israel won't extradite them.
So I think that was one of the pressure points on the prosecutors is like, look, he's not even in the United States.
He's wealthy enough to stay in Israel forever.
There are a lot of ties to Israel, but the extent of the ties of the business ties, of the political ties, the intelligence ties was really more assumed than proven.
And that was true at least until Dropside News and a couple of other select outlets were able to utilize a hacked email database that came from Ehud Barak that the journalists at Dropside News in particular have really gone through and are continuing to report.
And it provides extremely conclusive and persuasive evidence of just how deeply the ties ran between Jeffrey Epstein and the Israeli government, Israeli foreign policy, Israeli intelligence.
One of the journalists who have taken the, who has taken the lead in reporting this is my friend and longtime colleague, Murtaza Hussein.
And we are happy to welcome him back to the show to talk about his reporting since it seems like almost nobody else will.
Maz, good evening.
It's great to see you.
I'm having trouble hearing Maz, by which I mean I can't hear him at all.
So I'm not really sure if the problem is on his end, which it probably is.
He's often pretty incompetent when it comes to technology, even though he's a great reporter.
There you go.
And I'm sure whatever screw-up you were responsible for, you have now fixed.
Yes.
Good evening, Maz.
Nice to see you.
All right.
I'm sorry that this reporting that you're doing, you're doing in such a lonely way.
You're breaking these big stories.
And I think because they're so uncomfortable for so many people in the media, there's just not a lot of coverage to it.
And then at the same time, Donald Trump has instructed his movement to ignore the Jeffrey Epstein files.
So the people who did have a lot of interest in it, many of them now suddenly don't.
I've had this experience before as a journalist where you're breaking stories that you know are important, but for a lot of political reasons, for a lot of other reasons, people just don't want to pay attention to them.
The corporate media is incentivized not to cover them because they didn't break them because of professional jealousy or because it's a topic they are uncomfortable with, as is the case for you.
Before we get into some of the specifics, just talk about what this experience has been like of working on this story that for so long everybody said was the most important story, breaking major parts of it and having almost nobody, certainly in corporate media, even talk about it.
Sure, yeah.
And thanks to you, Glenn, for paying attention to it, because as you mentioned, there's been a like, I won't say calculated, but perhaps calculated attempt to ignore it or to, you know, not pay attention to it in some way that suppresses it.
But, you know, anyways, we started reporting these documents a few months ago.
And, you know, this is not privilege information.
For those who haven't read the stories, they're based on a couple of sets of leaked emails from Epstein himself, but also former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, who Glenn, as you mentioned, he was a very, very close friend and associate of Epstein during his life.
And they're posted on a website called Distributed Denial Secrets, which is kind of like a successor website to WikiLeaks.
And they've been there for some time.
You know, so we've been reporting based on that archive and then corroborating some of that archive with the bits and pieces that the Epstein estate has released through this process with the government, disclosure of the so-called Epstein files.
So that's kind of what we've been reporting on.
So it's not something we have that others don't have.
They could report on it.
They're just choosing not to.
But I did think that after the first few stories we did, where we reported on Epstein's ties or his involvement in negotiating a security deal in Mongolia for Israel, doing another deal like that with Cote d'Ivoire,
including doing talks during the time when Barak was still formerly defense minister, he helped organize a back channel negotiation during the Syrian civil war between the Israeli government and the Russian government to find a negotiate solution to the removal of Syrian President Bashar Assad.
He also had an Israeli spy, a very lifelong Israeli intelligence operative, a senior operative for military intelligence who lived at his house in New York for extended times as per his own schedules and his emails as well too, while watering him money.
So, you know, this huge drumbeat of stories, I figured at some point it would trigger these institutions and force them to look into this and devote resources to this to cover it.
To date, that has not happened.
And, you know, I will say drop site, you know, I think we pump it much above our weight, but it's only like seven or eight of us.
And we operate on Substack with small donations.
You know, we're all professionals.
And, but, you know, we're not a huge team.
It's not the New York Times and the Washington Post.
We can't devote millions of dollars to digging up things and so forth.
We're operating what we have.
And we're the only ones, as he said, doing the reporting.
And it is somewhat complex.
You do need to put together the timelines and the emails and so forth, but certainly not insurmountable for a major institution.
So it's interesting.
And I will say one thing that throughout the time we've been reporting the story, the New York Times and others have been covering Epstein, but they've been covering things that we already know about, you know, his involvement in sex abuse in the early 2000s in Florida, you know, talking about things that are already public knowledge, ad nauseum, and doing these kind of nothing burger stories, effectively.
You know, some of the stories have been okay and the Wall Street Journal or others have revealed some things which are interesting.
But a lot of the reporting has been so inconsequential and it gives an appearance that they're covering this important subject because they're devoting resources to it.
There's almost a daily drumbeat of op-eds or whatever about Epstein.
But no one is going a step further to talk about what I think is at this point more consequential, which is his role in global politics, his ties to foreign countries and foreign intelligence agencies, including, you know, in Israel, Russia, England, and in the U.S. and other parts of the world.
And that's what our reporting has been about and it's going to continue to be about in the weeks and months to come.
Yeah, I don't think there's any doubt that one of the reasons why the corporate media is avoiding this part, and you're right, they've done a lot of reporting on things people already know about, almost designed to almost obfuscate how deep this really went in the sense that, you know, it'll go into extreme detail about all the different victims of Jeffrey Epstein, you know,
really nailing down the fact that he himself was a serial sex abuser, which A, everybody already knows, and B, really doesn't matter since he's dead.
And the implications of the story that made it important have always been who else was involved and to what extent and where did he get his money from and things like that.
There's been some reporting on that.
But I do think a big part of it is the fact that ties to Israeli intelligence or involvement in U.S. foreign policy always are kind of the third rail for American corporate media.
Like that is just too explosive to talk about Jeffrey Epstein and his ties to Israeli foreign policy apparatus.
But I do want to, before we get into the specifics of the most recent stories, I just want to drill down a little bit more on this media angle.
A lot of people don't remember this.
You know, I was, I was, but I report, I was reporting on WikiLeaks like almost from the very beginning.
You know, I remember the first time I ever read about WikiLeaks.
It was like one of their very first leaks, like way before the Iraq and Afghanistan war logs that put them on the map.
And at the time, the method they would use was they would receive information from some source inside an institution that would give it to them or someone who hacked information and would give it to them.
And they would put it on their website.
You know, a very different model than they ended up using once everybody knew who WikiLeaks was, where they would partner with media outlets that they chose or they would publish it themselves in like a very dramatic way.
At the beginning, they were doing what this other site was doing that you've been using, which is they would get something and they would just put it up on the internet for everybody.
Anyone could see it.
It wasn't a scoop.
It was just there for journalists to go and look at and report on.
And one of the things they quickly discovered, and it's the reason why they abandoned this, is there's this kind of mindset in journalism that if something's not exclusive to you, if you're not the only one who has a story, if anybody can just go to this website and see these materials, then it's really not worth your time to report it because you're not really going to get credit for it.
You're not going to be the one who breaks the story.
And that was the reason why WikiLeaks realized that no matter how important the materials are that they just throw up on the internet, they're not going to have any attention paid to them unless they give media outlets this material, access to it on an exclusive basis, or Wikileaks itself treats it that way.
Do you think that, I mean, the materials that you're using, as you say, are not secret.
It's not like only you have them.
I think you have some that might be exclusive to you, but the bulk of the material you've been using to do this reporting is right there on the site.
I've gone there to that site.
Everyone can go on that site.
That's where the dump is of the hack emails they got from Barack.
Is that part of why you think the corporate media just isn't interested because it's just not theirs?
I think that's part of it.
I think that there's a sense that it does have that dynamic you're referring to, whereby if one were to single out a particular reporter and give them a scoop and sell them on it a little bit, it can pique their interest a bit more.
And Glenn, as you know, there's like this weird clubby sort of culture in journalism, which you also experienced during the Snowden times and I witnessed as well too, that they have like a certain cultural characteristics that they'll ignore certain things which are newsworthy because of personalistic reasons like this or careeristic reasons.
That is a thing which exists.
Having said that, I think in this case, it's a little weird because we've been told for so long, and they actually got the public to buy into this, that the Epstein files and Epstein's activities were an issue of primary and overriding public interest.
And I think there's good reason to feel that as well too.
So in such a circumstance, you know, one would imagine that that would override, you know, any sort of sense that it should have given me as a leak first or it's already out there and so forth, because there's a great hunger for this information.
Even the federal government shutdown was seemingly prolonged to prevent people from learning more about this.
So I do kind of suspect that a lot of the reason in this case is actually political.
Because even if this information were publicly on a site like DDOS, and if you change some variables here and you said that, you know, it wasn't an Israeli intelligence officer living at Epstein's house.
It was actually an FSB officer.
I can't, I have to imagine that a lot of political figures would be pushing for more scrutiny of that.
The press would feel more enthusiastic or more willing to cover it in that angle.
And it seems to be for some reason this particular variable has changed their willingness or it's narrowed down the Venn diagram of people who have the willingness and the ability to report on it because their stories are a little bit complicated.
You have to put together this chain of correspondence.
You have to download these huge files.
So I get it.
Some people may be deterred by that, but an institution certainly should not be.
But I do think that there's this political angle.
And I will say one last thing, though.
At the deal book summits, the NYT summit that happened recently, Ehud Barak was present.
And Nicholas Christoph, who's a columnist at the New York Times, he actually brought up and referenced our story about Yoni Korin, the Israeli military intelligence officer who's staying at Epstein's house, Epstein's apartment, I should say, because he was a, Korn was actually Barack's chief of staff.
So Christoph referenced the story, clearly read it, and he thought it was credible enough to bring up to Barack.
But instead of asking him, which I would have asked him about, you know, does this indicate that Epstein had intelligence size, he asked Barack another question, which is also important, but, you know, kind of the answer is predictable, whether he had been involved in Epstein's sex trafficking.
So that seems to me that, you know, people are reading the story.
Oh my God, Maz, I'm dying to know.
I'm so in suspense.
What did Barack say in response to that pressing question by Nicholas Kristoff?
Did he say, yes, I absolutely was heavily involved in Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking?
Or did he say, no, no, I had no idea that it was taking place?
Well, I'm so in suspense from this, from the, to know what he said to this really probing question.
Well, of course, he treated it like he was in the Catholic Confession.
He usually came clean.
And yeah, it was a very big moment.
It's hard to lie to Nick Christoph.
All right.
Let me ask you about a couple of these stories.
So here's one from actually, this is from yesterday at Dropsite News.
And if we can put that on the screen, the headline is Ask Jeffrey.
Epstein ran Les Wexner's pro-Israel philanthropy machine.
Emails reveal the Wexner Foundation has long claimed Epstein, quote, did not make decisions regarding the use of the foundation's funds.
New emails show that is flagrantly false.
Now, just to give a little background to that for people who don't know, one of the big mysteries of Jeffrey Epstein's life was how is it that he accumulated the vast wealth that he clearly possessed?
I mean, he wasn't just, you know, a wealthy guy.
He was either kind of, he was like not quite, maybe not a billionaire, but living life like a billionaire, you know, like hundreds of millions of dollars of net worth, multiple huge mansions, the private island, the private jet.
This is, you know, a kind of wealth that exceptionally few people have on the planet.
It was unclear where he got that from.
And it turns out one of the people who was his primary benefactor was Les Wechner, who's a billionaire who I think created Victoria's Secrets and a couple others.
The other big benefactor was Leon Black.
And when this question of Israel would arise and his connection to it, I would always look at Les Wechner's Wexner's and Leon Black's, but let's focus on Les Wechner's charitable or philanthropic activities because almost all of it was about Israel.
And almost like his entire life cause, like so many Jewish billionaires in the United States, was Israel.
And so here Jeffrey Epstein is right at his side, being enriched from him.
And so, you know, it was just another kind of piece of evidence suggesting strongly that Jeffrey Epstein's ties to Israel were quite substantial.
But you were able to take that further and actually prove that Jeffrey Epstein was heavily involved in those pro-Israel philanthropic activities.
What is it that you discovered?
Yeah, so first thing I'll say is that these emails are actually based on a different archive.
They are posted on DDOS now, but they come from an archive that a hacker gave to Bloomberg News some months ago.
And Bloomberg is reporting on other aspects of the archive, but they haven't reported on this particular subject that we reported on.
So these emails show between roughly 2005, 2008, they show that contrary to what the foundation had claimed, the Wexner Foundation, which is, as you mentioned, this very prolific donor to pro-Israel causes in the U.S.
They had claimed that Epstein, who was the trustee of the foundation, was like an absentee trustee and he had no meaningful role in foundation's operations or its finances.
They commissioned an internal review by outside lawyers to sort of commission a review to confirm that.
So the emails show that that is not true.
And I don't know if they were deceived themselves or they deceived somebody else, but the emails show that he was not only involved, he was treated as the final authority in many cases for major financial transactions, transfers of funds, decisions to transfer grants and so forth, tax issues, management of the finances of the funds themselves, stock trades and things like that.
So, you know, the idea he was not involved, it seems like it's the opposite.
In fact, it seems like he was so heavily involved that everyone was treating him as a last word.
And this is kind of what our story is about.
But one thing that we also talked about is the history of the Wexner Foundation and the Wexner family, because it's not even that this is just this individual who was interested in Israel.
Wexner's wife is actually his father-in-law, his wife's father, was one of the founding members of the commanders of the Haganah, which actually created the state of Israel many decades ago.
And when he died, he actually asked that people would give money not to any other cause or to him or his family, but to the friends of the Israeli defense forces.
So it was a very particularly hyper-political family focused on Israel specifically.
And that was kind of what the foundation is for.
And the foundation, you know, I'll say very briefly, did a lot of things.
They gave $128 million just in the 15-year period to Israeli causes in America.
They would fund these very lucrative scholarships for Israeli public officials to come stay at Harvard and study at Harvard and be immersed in Harvard.
And that went on for a very long time until the October 7, 2003 terrorist attacks of Hamas and the subsequent Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip.
Then they pulled it out because they thought that Harvard had not cracked down hard enough on people protesting the subsequent genocide in Gaza.
So what that continued for a long time, though, they really shaped Harvard and really shaped a lot of American institutions.
It also made Epstein himself very powerful at Harvard because he had an office there.
He had a lot of power at Harvard.
And it was through his stewardship of not just Wexner fortune, but the Wexner Foundation itself.
So that's kind of what our story is talking about.
And it's something which no one else has really discussed, but it's really as clear as day in his own private communications.
All right, let me ask you about one other story before we have to let you go, which is one involving Alan Dershowitz.
And specifically, you have people know that Alan Dershowitz was Jeffrey Epstein's lawyer.
And one of the guests that we have most frequently on our show and is among the most popular guests we have is the University of Chicago international relations professor John Mearsheimer.
And as everybody knows who watches this show, Mearsheimer wrote a book in 2007.
It was part of a 2006 essay he originally published, co-authored with Harvard presser Stephen Wald, called The Israel Lobby.
And it was really the first serious scholarly effort to document the completely outsized power that the pro-Israel lobby has in the United States.
It broke down all of its component parts, its tactics.
It analyzed why our captivity to Israel is not only not in our interest, but undermines our interest.
And you can imagine, if you don't remember, for people who didn't live through it, but I remember it very well.
It was right at the start of my journalism career.
The smear campaign unleashed against John Mearsheimer and Stephen Wald, neither of whom is Jewish.
Obviously, they were widely branded as anti-Semitic, was unlike anything I had seen up until that point.
And I remember writing a defense of them, but it was still very beginning of my journalism career.
I didn't have, I had an okay platform, but not a huge platform.
And you discovered that actually Jeffrey Epstein played a role in that campaign, just as a way of kind of illustrating yet again, how heavily enmeshed he was in the pro-Israel lobby and Israel's management and global affairs of its reputation.
What is it that you found about this?
Yeah, so in that same cache of emails from his Yahoo account, you can see that Epstein was not only communicating with people connected to Harvard, he had a very close relationship with someone who was a lawyer, of course, Alan Dershowitz.
And in between discussions, really at the same time as discussions that they were having about how to impugn the reputations of the underage accusers against Epstein for his sex crimes, they were discussing this, at the time was a paper published by Walton Mearsheimer about the Israel lobby.
And that paper was the basis of a subsequent book.
But they were discussing a paper that Dershowitz was writing to attack Mearsheimer and Walt.
And the paper that Dershowitz wrote, the rebuttal, you know, it made a lot of really incendiary claims about them.
It referred to them as anti-Semitic, but not just that.
Like they were reviving the modern version of the protocols of the Elder of Zion.
You know, really extremely, you know, intense and damaging things to them were written in this paper.
And several early drafts of that paper were sent to Jeffrey Epstein for his review and his first comments.
And after its publication, Dershowitz's assistant, according to correspondence, also asked Epstein to help share the paper more broadly in the social networks.
Now, it's a few communications, but the thing is, you have to understand the context of who Epstein was at Harvard at this time.
Because due to his stewardship of the Wexner Foundation funds and the tremendous millions of dollars that they brought into Harvard, he was someone who was extremely important inside the Harvard community.
He was a shot caller in Harvard.
He was funding all these academic enterprises.
He was very interested in corralling academics to focus on various subjects, funding their research and so forth, developing close relationships.
He was someone extremely important.
So having him on your side in the subject, helping you craft your arguments and also helping spread those arguments, which again include very serious and damaging personal accusations of anti-Semitism, was a tremendous asset to Dershowitz.
And, you know, one could then imagine how much more Epstein did during the many, many years he was ensconced at Harvard in that role.
And I'll say one thing very quickly as well, too, that in the Ehud Barak emails, Ehud Barak at one point, we wrote about this in our story about his negotiations between Syria and Russia, or sorry, Israel and Russia.
Ehud Barak actually had Epstein edited an op-ed that he wrote, and that op-ed was subsequently published in the UK publication, The Telegraph.
But Epstein was the one who sort of like crafted it and gave feedback.
And Epstein's own edits were actually much more hawkish than anything that Barak wrote.
He was actually calling for escalation of the conflict and U.S. involvement and all these things.
It kind of gives you a window into the kind of views Epstein had.
He was a very, very fanatical pro-Israel partisan.
And I don't think that that aspect of his political views, let alone his political activities, has really seeped in to understanding him.
While we've had this other deluge of information of things we already know about him, including his sexual abuses and other personal characteristics.
But he was very, very committed in a very intimate and natural way to the defense and promotion of the state of Israel and its interests.
And that shines through in his personal communications.
By the way, I know you have to go, but the last time you were on, I just wanted to say we were talking to Ehud Barak for about 10 minutes.
And I think once or twice I referred to him as Ehud Baruch, just because that happens sometimes, you misspeak.
And a woman wrote to me claiming she was a clinical psychologist and was like very angry.
She was like, you really need to stop thinking about winding down your work because that is a clear sign of dementia, the fact that you know his name and yet mispronounced it.
And I really think you need to go get a brain scan and treatment.
So I just want to thank you whoever that is for your generosity of spirit.
And Maz, I want to also thank you for your work.
I hope you keep up this investigation, even though nobody or very few people on corporate media will give you a platform or talk about your reporting.
We, of course, will continue to follow it.
And you're always have.
You're always welcome here to come on and talk about the latest revelations because I do actually think Jeffrey Epstein's extremely deep, multifaceted connections to Israel matters a great deal.
So thanks for coming on in and talking to us.
Thanks, Bob.
Thanks for having me.
Let me start with a simple idea that is rarely acknowledged out loud because you have to be very brave to acknowledge this out loud.
And a lot of people just simply aren't.
Your financial life is only as stable as the institutions you're told to trust.
And these institutions have a long record of getting the big things wrong.
People are told the system is sound.
The evidence tells a different story.
Inflation has eaten savings for years.
Debt keeps hiding levels that were once unthinkable.
And gold and silver have shattered record after record because investors are no longer willing to bet their future on political promises.
These are not speculative spikes.
They are signals.
Signals that confidence in the system is fading, signals that many analysts believe carry straight into 2026.
So the question becomes obvious: if the institutions with the most access and the most information are diversifying into real assets that cannot be printed or controlled, why should ordinary savers be the only ones left exposed?
Golden Crest Metals created a clear, straightforward guide that shows how to add physical gold and silver to an IRA or 401k tax and penalty-free, no fear, no hype, just information that puts the choice back in your hands instead of the hands of centralized financial power.
You can request it by calling 888-614-7120 or visit goldencrestmedals.com.
Again, 888-614-7120.
In times like this, the independent decision-making is not optimal.
It is essential.
One last time, 888-614-7120 or visit goldencrestmetals.com to get your free no-obligation info guide.
The Anti-Defamation League is one of the oldest and most known political organizations in the United States.
It's also one of the most sinister, noxious, and deceitful and destructive.
It masquerades as a civil rights organization.
And at one time, maybe it even had a reasonably plausible claim to be that.
But certainly over the last 30 years and especially in the last five years, it has become nothing more than a very obvious, blatant pro-Israel organization that doesn't care at all about anti-Semitism, not in the slightest.
It only pretends to care about anti-Semitism.
It weaponizes it in order to generate support for the foreign country to which they're most loyal.
And that is Israel.
Jonathan Greenbot, who's the CEO, frequently goes and speaks with his effective operational bosses in Israel, talks all the time, not about the United States, but about how best to secure public opinion to keep it favorable for Israel, the tactics that they have to use and the like.
He has done things like, and this is very weird for a civil rights organization, demanded that TikTok be closed because it was allowing too much information that was critical of Israel.
Seems very odd to me for like a civil liberties and civil rights organization that it claims to be to advocate for the shutting of one of the largest social media apps on the planet, one of the most popular ones in the United States, because it allows too much criticism of this foreign country.
But that is what the ADL is.
And Jonathan Greenblatt was on a podcast today called In These Times.
He was speaking with Rabbi Ami Hirsch, and they were talking about anti-Semitism and the growing problem of it, because we all know race, anti-Semitism is an epidemic in the United States.
It's one of the gravest problems we face.
American Jews can't even go outside without being immediately mauled and killed.
They're being systemically excluded from basically every societal sector: Hollywood, Wall Street, Silicon Valley, politics, the media, finance.
Just it, it, it, it's really dark and dangerous.
And the Anti-Defamation League is fighting tooth and nail to make sure that American Jews can once again participate in the halls of power and in powerful factions and the like.
And as part of this discussion, uh, Jonathan Greenbot said that one of the biggest problems for anti-Semitism, driving anti-Semitism, are Jews, Jews with the wrong ideas.
Here's what he said: We have people on the far left justifying like a biblical catastrophe or cataclysm, like October the 7th, literally justifying it, literally describing some of the perpetrators who were caught and captured as hostages, which is so profane.
I hesitate to even say it out loud.
It's just so disgraceful and amoral.
But the reality is there are segments of the far left which have been consumed by this anti-Zionist ideology.
And we've talked on your show before, and I'm pretty out there saying anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism because it is.
I also think the sky is blue.
You know, I also think that the world is not flat.
I mean, anti-Zionism is simply the latest way that anti-Jewish hate is normalized and legitimized with a pseudo-scientific or pseudo-political veneer.
But if you look at the tropes and if you listen to the words and you see them for who they are, like the rabid anti-Zionist is just an anti-Semite by any other name.
By the way, even if they come from our Jewish community, we need to recognize that as well.
It's always the tropes, the tropes.
It's not what people are saying.
It's not about whether it's true or false.
It's the trope, the trope.
I also found it very odd that he emphasized this anti-Semitism coming from what he calls the far left when there's a huge amount of anti-Zionism and anti-Israel sentiment on the right as well.
In fact, it's always kind of been on the left, but it seems to be more on surging more, increasing more on the right.
But I guess that's either here or there.
Perhaps the Jewish critics of Israel tend to be more on the left.
And one of the things that, first of all, there's a lot to say here, but one of the points he made was that, and this was one of the only specifics he gave, was that he said there are people who call the terrorists that Israel captured quote unquote hostages.
And this is evil and satanic and anti-Semitic.
Now, I'm one of the people who has questioned the use of the word hostages and the selective way that it's been used in this Israel-Gaza conflict.
I find it absolutely deceitful and propagandistic that Israeli soldiers who were wearing the IDF uniform in active combat on October 7th, who were captured by the enemy, which was Hamas, are called hostages.
Since when do we call captured soldiers on a battlefield in active duty fighting hostages?
I've never heard that term be applied to soldiers at war before, except if they're Israeli, apparently.
That remember, there was so much pullabaloo made about the fact that Trump rescued the last American hostage who was alive in Hamas.
His name was Eden Alexander.
As it turned out, it's not actually just American.
He's Israeli American.
And the reason why he was in Israel was because he moved to Israel and he enlisted not in the American army, but in the Israeli army.
And the way he became a hostage in Gaza was that he was in a tank of the IDF fighting that day on October 7th against the enemy forces.
And in one of the most bizarre and amazing propagandistic terms I think I've ever seen, when Eden Alexander was released, the New York Times said he was kidnapped from his tank, kidnapped from his tank.
Usually people are kidnapped from like civilian places, you know, like musical festivals or their homes.
But when it's an Israeli soldier, they can be kidnapped anywhere, including from their tank.
He was in a tank fighting and the tank got captured and they took him.
He was called a hostage, not like a prisoner of war.
So there was that part of it.
Obviously, the hostages, the Israeli civilians who were taken, those were hostages.
I don't have any problem with that word at all.
But it was always bizarre that there was no distinction made between the civilians and the soldiers in Gaza who were Israeli.
They were all victimized hostages, innocent hostages.
Meanwhile, on the other side, Israel does hold thousands of Palestinian hostages.
And this is a point I've made as well.
Nobody says that if you were part of Hamas and you breached the Israeli border as part of the attack on October 7th and you were captured, that you're a hostage.
That's a complete straw man.
Nobody has ever said that.
Jonathan Greenbutt has to lie about that as a way of saying, oh, look at how crazy and hateful these anti-Semitic Jews are, that they even call Hamas fighters hostages.
It's a total lie.
It's a total invention.
The hostages that people like me refer to in Israel's custody are Palestinians who are just swept off the street from the West Bank and Gaza, primarily the West Bank, actually, but over the last two years, Gaza as well.
They're not charged with any crimes.
They don't go before a judge.
There's no evidence presented of their guilt because they're not even charged with the crime.
And they're just imprisoned in what's called administrative detention, technically for six months, but really indefinitely, because at the end of the six months, you just take them before a judge.
You ask the military, ask the judge to extend it.
The judge always does.
And these people are kept in the most horrific conditions.
Some of them die of hunger.
Like, oh, Israel would never starve anyone to death.
Israel is starving to death.
People who are in their prisons, they die of mount dehydration.
If you compare how the Israeli hostages or Israeli soldiers released from Gaza looked upon their release, with the exception of a couple of them who did suffer starvation because Israel cut off all food in Gaza.
But for the most part, if you compare how they look to the skeletons and the completely psychologically broken, scabies-ridden people coming out of these Israeli dungeons, it tells the whole story.
So yes, there are Palestinian hostages in Israeli custody.
There are thousands of them.
They're raped.
They're abused in every conceivable way.
And often they die in Israeli custody, even teenagers.
But I think the bigger point here is that there's this sense that people like the ADL are trying to propagate that if you are born Jewish, if you're Jewish, and under Talmudic law, you're Jewish automatically if you're born to a Jewish mother, no matter what your religion.
This is what makes Judaism different from other religions.
Christianity is not an ethnicity.
Christianity denotes someone who believes in the defining tenets of Christianity.
You accept Jesus Christ as the son of God, that he was, that he died on the cross to absolve your sins, that he was resurrected, these kind of beliefs.
If you don't believe in any of that, you're not Christian.
If you do believe in any of that, you are Christian.
Judaism is different.
You're considered a Jew if you're born to a Jewish mother.
It doesn't matter what you believe.
You can be an atheist.
That's why you would never have the term Christian atheist or Muslim atheist.
Doesn't make any sense.
But Jewish atheists, everyone understands what that means.
If it were just a religion, how could you be a Jewish atheist?
That would make no sense.
In fact, there are Jews for Jesus, Jews who believe in the divinity of Jesus.
If it were just a religion, by definition, you wouldn't have Jews for Jesus.
But because it's an ethnicity as well, you can have this, you can have this religious belief of any kind and still be a Jew.
And what is so offensive to me, and it's not just about Jews, but every ethnic group, every demographic group, every racial group, is the attempt to suggest that by virtue of being born into a particular demographic group,
you are duty bound to embrace a set of political beliefs or ideological dogma that you're not free to analyze and critically evaluate a geopolitical question like Israel's fault or Palestinian fault or U.S. financing of Israel.
That if you're a Jew, you're duty bound to love Israel, defend Israel, support Israel, want American tax dollars to go to Israel.
You're duty bound to believe in the ideology that didn't even exist until the very end of the 19th century, early 20th century called Zionism.
And if you don't believe in these things, if you don't support Israel, if you don't support Zionism, this new ideology, it means you're an anti-Semite by definition because anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism, even though the Jewish people have been around for thousands of years and Zionism was invented relatively recently.
And it reminds me a lot of one of the defining features of woke excess, excess wokeism.
You know, in the 2018, 2019, 2020, 21, that period of Me Too and George Floyd and all that, where wokeism really ascended to its most extreme and preposterous peak or zenith, depending on how you see it.
And it was this idea that if you're black, you can still be a racist and a white supremacist because being black is not just an ethnicity, it's a set of beliefs.
And for as long as I can remember, liberals would accuse black conservatives, Clarence Thomas or Thomas Sowell, or they would have Ben Carson, Herman Kane, any black person who didn't accept the Democratic Party or who embrace the American conservative movement of being racist, of being self-haters, of having a psychological problem.
Because white liberals believe, and this is like, and a lot of black liberals believe too, this is just pure race essentialism, that by virtue of being born black, you are duty bound to love the Democratic Party and hate the Republican Party.
And if you're black and you're entering political consciousness, you're not free to exercise your own agency, your own intellectual capacity, and decide which party is better, whether one of the parties is better at all.
You're told that by virtue of being black, you have a particular special obligation to embrace and support and vote for the Democratic Party.
And if you don't, there's something wrong with you.
You're racist.
You're self-hating.
And it's pretty much true for every minority group.
Gay conservatives are constantly told that if they support conservatism or the Republican Party, it means they are homophobic and with internalized homophobia.
They're self-hating.
And you ask any member of a minority group who supports the Republican Party where they have heard the most virulent racism or bigotry or whatever, and they'll always tell you it's from white liberals who are enraged if they don't support the Democratic Party and think there's something wrong with them because of it.
And one of the reasons why I always found that so offensive is because the thing we have as human beings that I think is most valuable is our capacity and our freedom to critically evaluate ideas and arrive at our own conclusions.
And I always found the notion that if you're Jewish or black or female or gay or whatever, that other people have already predetermined for you what your mandated belief system is.
And so because I'm Jewish or someone is Jewish, we don't have the same right as everybody else to look at the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians and make up our own minds about whether it's appropriate or justified or criminal and atrocious.
Or if we're Jewish, we have to elevate Judaism as our principal overarching identity, even above our Americanism or anything else, and decide that we think American taxpayers, including ones who aren't Jewish, should be forced to subsidize this country on the other side of the world.
And if you don't think that, you're going to stand accused of being anti-Semitic, that you hate Jews because you don't support Israel.
You know, and I, like, all of this wokeism has spread to other countries.
It spread to Europe.
It spread to Brazil, largely because of social media.
I always wonder, by the way, you know, when the Iraq war was being debated, France and Germany were overwhelmingly opposed to the invasion of Iraq.
And they would constantly get mocked and ridiculed by Fox News and conservatives because of it, but they had a completely different idea of the invasion of Iraq.
They thought it was stupid.
They thought it was going to destroy the Middle East and stability.
They thought Iraq didn't have WMDs.
They were right about all that.
I remember when I went to France as part of the Snowden reporting, the hatred and contempt on the part of the French national security officials whom I met was so palpable for American foreign policy officials because of all these decisions they made about war that were so obviously wrong and the arrogance with which they made it.
And I often wonder if we had had social media at the time, if everybody was plugged into the same hive mind, whether that kind of divergence would have been possible.
I mean, you see with the war in Ukraine, how everybody just in Europe and the United States just instantly merged.
Nobody questioned the need to finance and prolong the war in Ukraine.
And I think a lot of that was because of social media.
And so there's a lot of this wokeism that has spread that comes from the United States and the movement in the United States to Europe and Brazil.
And in Brazil, there's the same race essentialism.
There are black people who support Bolsonaro.
They're all accused of being racist.
There are gay people who support Bolsonaro or who hate Lua.
They're all accused of being self-hatred, self-hating, sick people.
And I think about it for myself, but I also have always thought about for my kids.
Like one of the things I try and teach my kids more than anything is not particular political opinions.
I never try to instill in them any particular belief.
If they come home and start espousing an idea, whether I agree with it or not, I'm going to automatically interrogate it Socratically, like offer arguments against it because I want them to learn how to really think critically.
That's all I care about.
Whatever, that wherever that takes them is where it takes them.
But the idea that people are going to tell them in advance they don't have the right to engage in critical thinking, that because of their skin color, their race, they're duty bound to embrace an ideology that has been laid out for them and that they don't have a choice.
And if they don't agree with those ideas, if they're told they have to by virtue of their race, that that means they're sick and they're racist, this is so offensive to the whole idea of human autonomy and our capacity to think critically.
And yet it was at the center of so much woke liberal discourse and it's at the center and long has been at the center of pro-Israel discourse as well.
And it sickens me.
And one of the reasons it sickens me is because it's so blatantly deceitful.
And this has become part of the orthodoxy that if you don't believe in Zionism as ideology, which again is about 110 years old, Jews live for thousands of years without Zionism.
And as a result, there are huge numbers of Jews who don't support Zionism.
I mean, religious Jews, Orthodox Jews.
We've had rabbis, Orthodox rabbis on our show who think Zionism is heretical, that it's an affront to Judaism, because Judaism is about the Jewish people, not the idea of a nation state.
These are debatable ideas like anyone else.
And calling people anti-Semitic because they don't accept the prescribed view is just the same tactic as a lot of leftists used to use or still do use by screaming racists or misogynists or whatever at anybody who doesn't agree with them as a way of bullying them into accepted ideas.
And the ADL is now the leader of this.
Here is Jonathan Greenblatt on MSNBC.
This is October of 2023, where he's basically saying that Zionism is the obligation of every Jew.
But anti-Zionism, I've long said, is anti-Semitism.
I was wrong.
Anti-Zionism is genocide.
And what I mean is if you so dehumanize Zionists, by the way, every Jewish person is a Zionist.
Every Jewish person is a Zionist.
It's so weird because I interviewed Orthodox Jews.
I hear from them all the time, by the way.
They want to come back on the show.
I think we're going to put them on because they don't get enough hearing of a hearing.
And these are like Jews.
These are Jews.
These aren't atheist Jews.
These are religious Jews with all the trappings of being an Orthodox Jew, the hat and the hair curls and the whole, the whole, the whole package.
And they despise Zionism.
And here's this seemingly secular Jonathan Greenblatt saying that you can't be a Jew if you're not a Zionist.
Anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism.
The reason they're pushing this so hard is because it's not just that public support among Americans for Israel is unraveling, but public support for Israel among Jews is unraveling as well, especially younger Jews.
Hear from the Washington Post, October 6, 2005, quote, many American Jews sharply critical of Israel on Gaza poll finds.
Quote, a significant minority of American Jews agree with the UN's panel's conclusion.
In the poll, respondents were told that the UN defines genocide as, quote, acts committed with the intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnic, religious, or racial group asked whether they thought Israel had committed genocide in Gaza.
39% of Jews said yes, 51% no, and 10% had no opinion.
If almost 40% of American Jews are saying that Israel committed genocide, it's not that hard to see why people like Jonathan Grieba and the ADL are in a panic mode.
Hear from Pew Research in April of 2024, and all of these trends have gotten much worse over the last year.
U.S. Jews 18 to 34 are divided over whether Israel's response to Hamas October 7th attack is acceptable.
42% of Jews between the ages of 18 and 34 believe Israel's response to October 7th is, quote, unacceptable.
And this is just six months after the October 7th attack, not like two years later when huge numbers of people are horrified by what Israel has done, including huge numbers of Jews.
As we've pointed out many times, the student protest encampments that were widely vilified as being anti-Semitic were often organized by Jews, led by Jews, composed of Jews.
We interviewed some of the Jewish leaders and Muslim leaders of these camps.
The one in Colombia, which was among the most controversial, had so many Jewish shootings in the encampment that every Friday night they had Shabbat dinner, which everybody attended inside the encampment.
All the Jew haters were having Shabbat dinner.
Here's one of the anti-Zionist Orthodox rabbis we interviewed.
His name is Israel David Weiss.
We had him on the show in June of 2024.
And here's what he said about Jews in Zionism.
The ones who are the personification of anti-Semitism is Zionism and their state.
In fact, the new edition of the dictionaries should have the definition of anti-Semitism, Zionism, and the state of Israel.
They've caused a hate of Jews, an exacerbation of anti-Semitism, a view of Jews as inhumane, committing genocide.
And it is all purely the diametric opposite of what Judaism is and what Jews around the world who are hurting and feeling and crying with the people of Palestine and our voices are not heard.
And when the students who get up on the campuses throughout the United States and in Europe, who many thousands and thousands of them are Jews and a lot of them are being led by Jews, they're simply removed from their positions.
They're thrown out of schools.
And there's laws, new laws with ingenuity being developed that there's such a concept of democracy and they skirt the issue of democracy and accuse anybody who speaks up against the Zionist onslaught against Zionism as being anti-Semitic.
Again, it's an insult to intelligence and it should not be accepted.
And we plead with the world leaders that they should please respect as you would respect the Pope and the priests when it comes to Christianity and the Imams and Ayatollahs when it comes to the issues of Islam.
You should respect the voice of our rabbis who stood from day one in Palestine and those communities and pleaded with the leadership of the United Nations and who are living throughout the world, the very religious communities like we are in New York, the very religious ones who give their lives for the religion.
We have our private schooling, it costs us fortunes.
We give our lives to our religion.
These are the ones invariably who are opposed to this occupation.
We are opposed to what's happening in Gaza.
Respect that and they should stop and desist.
What is the assistance to the Zionists in their murder, mass murder, and the torture of the people of Gaza?
We plead with them.
Respect our voice.
Respect the voice of humanity around the world who are pleading.
And do not be ensnared in the Zionist intimidation that you will be accused of being anti-Semitic.
Amen, brother.
Now, there are a lot of things you can say about that guy.
Questioning the authenticity of whether he's a Jew is not among them.
And I'm not saying this is the majority of Jews, but it's also not some like bizarre apparition or some tiny trivial minority.
Jewish anti-Zionism is substantial and growing.
It's not the majority, but it is far from trivial.
And if the ADL wants to go around saying that Jews are duty-bound for some reason to embrace this ideology called Zionism, I think they're going to have a really hard time.
Just to underscore the point, Albert Einstein, whose Judaism I think was also extremely difficult to question, was a vocal anti-Zionist in the mid to late 1940s after World War II and the Holocaust, when the question of Israel and Zionism was being debated.
He was outspoken in his opposition to what a Zionist state in the Middle East would entail.
This is part of a letter he wrote.
I believe this was to the New York Times.
We'll check on that, but it's dated January 21st, 1946.
He wrote, I am in favor of Palestine being developed as a Jewish homeland, but not as a separate state.
It seems to me a matter of simple common sense that we cannot ask to be given the political rule over Palestine, where two-thirds of the population are not Jewish.
What we can and should ask is a secured bi-national status in Palestine with free immigration.
If we ask more, we are damaging our own cause.
And it is difficult for me to grasp that our Zionists are taking such an intransigent position, which can only impair our cause.
Hannah Arendt was a German Jewish philosopher, very highly regarded, especially in the mid-20th century.
And in May 1984, here's what she said about Zionism: she wrote, Palestine Jewry would eventually separate itself from the larger body of world Jewry and in its isolation develop into an entirely new people.
Thus, it becomes plain that at this moment and under present circumstances, a Jewish state can only be erected at the price of a Jewish homeland.
And then here is Rav Yuel Teitelbaum in 1961, who is a Satma Rebbe.
He said, Zionism is the greatest form of spiritual impurity.
They have polluted the Jewish people with their heresy.
If we place all the immodesty and promiscuity of the generation and the many sins of the world on one side of the scale and the Zionist state on the other side of the scale by itself, it would outweigh them all.
He hated Zionism.
And there was no questioning his authentic Jewishness.
Joe Biden gave a speech in 2020 during the 2020 campaign when he's running against Donald Trump.
And it followed his interview with Charlemagne the God, the black radio host, who's often critical of the Democratic Party, though very well of the Democratic Party.
And he was explaining to Joe Biden what his concerns were about Biden's political history and ideology and said he wasn't convinced that black people should be willing to commit their vote to Joe Biden.
And Joe Biden gave a speech the next day.
Actually, this was during his interview with the Breakfast Club.
And this is what he said.
Okay.
Oh, uh-oh, I'm in trouble.
Listen, you got to come see us when you come to New York, VP Biden.
I will.
It's a long way until November.
We got more questions.
You got more questions.
I tell you, if you have a problem figuring out whether you're for Mayor Trump and you ain't black.
I mean, the reason people found that so reprehensible is because being black does not dictate which political candidate you have to support.
Why would it?
Why would the race, your race, or the melanin of your skin or the color of your skin eliminate your right, your God-given right, the capacities with which we're bestowed to think critically for ourselves and evaluate for ourselves which is the better ideology, which is the better candidate?
Who is Joe Biden to say if you're in doubt, you ain't black, meaning if the only way to be black is to vote Democrat.
The only way to be a good Jew is to embrace Zionism.
F you, Joe Biden, and F you Jonathan Greenblatt.
These are totally manipulative tactics that nobody should even think about accepting.
Just one last clip.
This was when, this was before Joy Reid got fired from MSNBC.
She would constantly launch racist attacks on black conservatives for being race traitors or self-hating or whatever.
Here's what she said about Clarence Thomas.
Buy him.
So we'll see.
And the Supreme Court.
And he mentioned the Supreme Court and was very specific about that.
He did telegram.
If he can just take the election, call it over.
Right.
Announce that there won't be any more voting and that the Supreme Court will take over.
That's not how it works.
It's not exactly clear that we can trust Amy Coney Barrett and Kavanaugh and these others not to be just like Bill Barr.
And so I think what scares people is that if he decides to do something that it legally makes no sense, and you're right, but Mr. Bauer is ready for him.
But if somehow they manage to stumble into the Supreme Court, do any of you guys trust Uncle Clarence and Amy Coney Barrett and those guys to actually follow the letter of the law?
No.
I mean, it is a completely politicized Supreme Court.
Uncle Clarence, meaning Uncle Tom, of course.
But by the way, this was very much in the liberal discourse of the time, 2020, when Trump nominated Amy Coney Barrett.
Very common in liberal discourse to assert that the price for nominating her was that she would agree to overturn the 2020 election if Trump lost and then challenged it in the court.
And that was Joy Reid and Rachel Maddo talking about how if Trump lost the election and but then got into the Supreme Court, they would likely just give the election to Trump.
Absolutely none of that happened.
None of those people did that.
Amy Coney Barrett has been proven to be, often to the chagrin of a lot of conservatives, one of the most independent-minded and unpredictable votes on the court.
Do you think a single one of those liberals who called her a religious fanatic there to vote for her religious views, to serve Donald Trump?
Do you think a single one of them went back and re-examined that or apologized?
No, of course not.
That's a different issue, but that's Joy Reed.
And yes, the lowest of the low, but also very kind of reflective of the discourse.
Same thing as Joe Biden.
Clarence Thomas is a house Negro or a Uncle Tom because he doesn't vote for Democrats.
He doesn't like liberals.
He believes in a conservative judicial ideology, not a liberal one.
Just the most anti-intellectual, bullying, manipulative, race reductionist mentality possible.
And Jonathan Greenblatt is spouting it because he's watching huge numbers of Jews migrate from support to Israel to contempt for Israel.
And I guess they think one of their ways to reverse that is by calling the Jews who are exercising their own autonomy and moral judgment anti-Semites and not real Jews.
Good luck with that tactic.
I don't think it's going to work even a little bit.
But on the other hand, I kind of empathize because there's not much else after everybody watch what Israel did over the last two years and what the U.S. does to stay captive to it.
There's not many other tactics available to them.
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 at Rumble.
And you can listen on Spotify, Apple, and all their major podcasting platforms.
And really, if you like the show, and I always say this every night, so maybe it just like becomes something you don't even internalize anywhere.
But if you go to Spotify or Apple, you look for our show, you rate it, review it, and then just follow it as a podcast, it really is beneficial for promoting the visibility of our show.
Finally, as independent media, we do rely on the support of our viewers.
That's you and our members, which you can help provide by joining our locals community.
All you have to do is click the red join button right below the video player of the Rumble page, and it will take you directly to that community.
For those of you who've been watching this show, we are needless to say very appreciative.
We hope to see you back tomorrow night and every night at 7 p.m. Eastern Live, exclusively here on Rumble.