Jimmy Dore Show - 20211217_TJDS_20211217_Podcast_-_121621_1.01_PM

All Episodes

Previous Next

Dec. 17, 2021 - Jimmy Dore Show

01:09:00

20211217_TJDS_20211217_Podcast_-_121621_1.01_PM

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hey, come see a live stand-up show.
	We're doing New Year's Eve in Studio City.
	In January, we'll be in Raleigh, North Carolina.
	In February, we're going to be in Philadelphia.
	Go to jimmydoorcomedy.com for a link for all our tickets.
	Hey, this is Jimmy.
	Who's this?
	This is Bernard Bernie Sanders, pragmatic, progressive, and gruff for lovable former leader of the now non-existent left-wing division of the former left-wing.
	Weighing a goddamn ding-ding.
	Bernie, have you been drinking?
	I wouldn't call a gin fizz drinking, but I would call it a modest thought.
	Bernie, what's happening?
	Not much, really.
	Just taking it one day at a time, doing that all a revolution thing.
	You know, the usual.
	Anyway, so what's the weather like in Los Angeles right now?
	What's the point of asking?
	It's like 70 degrees there all day long every day and week, isn't it?
	No wonder you're all a bunch of insufferable twits.
	Not here in Vermont.
	In Vermont, the sun disappears in October.
	Bernstein mid-flighted clock up all the leaf cutters.
	The only thing we have to look forward to is eating away our pain at Ben and Jerry's and standing nude 10 minutes a day in front of a vitamin D lamp.
	By January, we've all looked like two-legged translucent pupis in search of donuts and coffee.
	It's fucking horrific.
	Bernie, did you want to say something?
	Yeah, remember during the primaries when I said I would personally bond storm states like Virginia against senators like Joe Manchin and have my vice president overrule the Senate parliamentarian in order to rally public opinion and pass Medicare for all.
	Yes, I do, Bernie.
	Well, I was completely full of bullshit.
	It was literally coming out of my ears.
	But why, Bernie?
	But why, Bernie?
	What do you mean, but why, Bernie?
	All those campaign stops, all those times I'd ask people, those big huge gargagen audiences to tell me personally how Medicare for all would help their lives.
	Listening to all their horrible tear jokes, jerking stories of deedless debt and physical terror, spending hours, days on the phone arguing, pleading with insurance companies and call centers to fill their insulin prescriptions and thyroid pills.
	It was invigorating, inspiring, moving.
	We connected.
	We trusted each other.
	I never felt so alive.
	I had them in the palm of my hands.
	I know.
	What happened?
	I was completely full of bullshit.
	It was literally coming out of my ears.
	You just said that.
	Now the party won't even let me be part of the reconciliation negotiations.
	It goes on and on and on with all kinds of talking and nothing happening.
	What did you expect from Democrats, Bernie?
	I at least thought we'd get another task force out of this.
	I'll admit, I'm very depressed.
	But I have a way of coping now.
	What's that?
	We have a drinking game at my house called This Is Unacceptable.
	I watch clips of my 20-year-old speeches, and every time I use the word unacceptable, I take a drink.
	The corporate-controlled media has never addresses the needs of the people, and this is unacceptable.
	I'm working 60 hours a week, got no health care for my family, and Tom Roquar is telling me the economy is booming.
	This is unacceptable.
	Low-rise sweatpants, shredded turtlenecks have aggressively chilled frosted tips.
	This is an acceptable drink.
	Get my drink.
	I agree.
	Those were ugly times, but what about now?
	I'm seriously considering a sternly worded note or even a letter.
	Wow.
	I'll have to take it up with a task force of sternly worded letters for more guidelines regarding this.
	But rest assured, I will continue to put my foot down on stuff I should have put my foot down for 10 years ago.
	Because what's happened now is simply unacceptable.
	Drink.
	Yeah.
	Establishment media sets of farm and sliding so good luck the bullshit we can't afford.
	Watch and see as a jack off the medium speeds and jumps the medium and hits them head on.
	It's the chimney tour show.
	So here is the story we're going to talk about.
	Here's all the awards that have been won by Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, right?
	So unbelievably decorated, award-winning journalism outlet, and the government pretends to back this up, right?
	So that's this is Secretary of State Anthony Blinkton.
	And he says media freedom plays an indispensable role in informing the media, holding governments accountable and telling stories that otherwise would not be told.
	The U.S. will continue to stand up for the brave and necessary work of journalists around the world.
	And he's saying this at the Summit for Democracy.
	And why is that ironic?
	Because simultaneously, they are trying to kill Julian Assange, the decorated award-winning journalist for doing journalism and exposing crimes inside the governments, the warring governments, and their war crimes.
	So there it is.
	The U.K. court rules Julian Assange can be extradited to the United States.
	And what Glenn tweeted out was the U.S. extradition request will now be sent to the U.K. Home Secretary, Preeti Patel, expected to rubber stamp it.
	Assange says he'll appeal regardless.
	His freedom, if it ever comes, is now years away, and he remains silenced exactly as the Biden administration wants.
	And what Max Blumenthal said was we're witnessing the slow-motion assassination of a journalist laundered through a transatlantic legal masquerade.
	A state security marionette in judicial robes has handed Assange over to his would-be killers.
	Now, why is this so crazy is because when they tried to prosecute him before, they decided they couldn't.
	When Joe Biden and Barack Obama tried to prosecute Julian Assange before, they decided they couldn't.
	And why?
	Because justice officials said they looked hard at Assange, but realize that they have what they described as the New York Times problem.
	What is the New York Times problem, Jimmy?
	Well, if the Justice Department indicted Assange, it would also have to prosecute the New York Times and other news organizations and writers who publish classified material, including the Washington Post and Britain's The Guardian newspaper, according to the officials who spoke on a condition of albinism.
	And if you are not going to prosecute journalists for publishing classified information, which the Department of Justice is not going to do, then there is no way to prosecute.
	That's what they were concluding under Barack Obama and Joe Biden's administration.
	But what has changed?
	What changed since then?
	Well, what changed since then is that WikiLeaks revealed information on the Democratic Party, and a lot of people had to resign over it.
	So he revealed the malfeasance Inside the Hillary Clinton campaign in the DNC, three more top DNC officials out after WikiLeaks email release.
	So the real crime.
	So what they're actually trying to punish Julian Assange for is when he revealed crimes, war crimes of the United States government.
	But the real reason why they're going back to try to prosecute him now is because of this.
	Because he actually revealed malfeasance inside the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton's campaign, and people had to step down.
	And that's why they're going after him.
	And if you don't think so, watch this.
	This is one of the big YouTube hosts talking about Julian Assange.
	Very big.
	Very, very big.
	Here we go.
	Well, obviously, it's hard to tell who's telling the truth here.
	But lately, I have to confess that Wikileaks has not had an astounding record.
	You know, the way that Assange seems to be backing Donald Trump over and over and over again, it makes me very seriously question Assange's efforts to actually be a journalist and not to be a partisan.
	And I get it.
	I get why he hates the Democrats.
	They're trying to put him in prison.
	Okay.
	But at the same time.
	So Republicans, let's be clear about that.
	And now the Republicans are too, and they have been in the past.
	But it seems like Assange has picked a side.
	And he picked the side of the guy currently trying to kill him, according to Jenk Uger and his logic brain.
	And look, it makes me question his reporting.
	And so that's the situation we're in now.
	So now is he just leaking things that he gets?
	And no matter what, in which case I would respect that, or is he selectively leaking based on his political motives?
	Now that that suspicion is out there and it's real and it's possible, well, now I'm concerned that he can't be trusted.
	So there you go.
	He can't be trusted because they've now framed Julian Assange as being a Trumper and a partisan.
	And that comes from a guy who formed an organization called the Justice Democrats, political party inside the Democratic Party and tells you to only vote for Democrats.
	He's saying another journalist is picked a side and that's why he can't be trusted.
	The irony of there is not lost on me.
	So let's bring in Glenn Greenwald.
	Now, Glenn, that is the case, correct?
	That the reason why they are now deciding to prosecute Julian Assange for revealing war crimes of our government, the reason why is because he crossed the Democratic Party and the establishment, right?
	Right.
	So, I mean, obviously, you know, we all find stupid people irritating, but one of the benefits of stupidity is that sometimes comes with candor.
	And one of the clips that you played of one of the world's dumbest people, Jane Geiger, he's essentially admitting that the reason he no longer regards Julian Assange as a journalist was because his reporting was designed to help one side.
	In other words, the minute you start doing things that help the Republican Party or undermine the Democratic Party, it's not that you're a bad journalist, that you now actually ought to go to prison.
	The context of that discussion was the attempt to prosecute, extradite, and ultimately imprison Julian Assange.
	So unless you think that helping the Republican Party is a crime, there's no reason to raise the issue of the fact that his reporting seems to have reflected poorly on the Democrats and better on the Republicans.
	But that is what they think.
	They really do believe that the Republican Party is so extreme, so dangerous, so fascist that to oppose the Democrats at this point is tantamount to being a criminal.
	They believe that anybody who deviates from Democratic Party dogma ought to be censored off the internet.
	They believe that as in January 6th, anybody who protests against the Democratic Party or their agenda or their interests ought to be in prison for very long periods of time.
	And here you have what is clearly a partisan-driven prosecution.
	It is absolutely the case, Jimmy, that not one thing has changed from the time that the Obama administration in 2013 concluded that even though they wanted to prosecute Assange, there'd be no way for them constitutionally to do so because of that New York Times problem.
	Namely, how do you single out Assange and prosecute him, but not prosecute the New York Times, The Guardian, L Pais, and all the other major media outlets with whom he partnered that published the same documents.
	So the Obama administration, and let's remember the vice president in that administration was someone named Joe Biden.
	He was part of this effort, spent three years convening a grand jury and investigating, and they leaked to the press that what they were looking for was something that would show that Assange did something that removed him from the category of journalist, that he didn't just receive this information the way the New York Times, The Guardian, and many other newspapers did, but that he collaborated or conspired in a criminal way with Chelsea Manning such that he became part of that criminal conspiracy.
	And they concluded that even after looking everywhere, the powers of a grand jury are extremely invasive.
	They subpoena people, they subpoena records, they read emails, they can do everything.
	They find everything.
	They looked everywhere under every nook and cranny.
	They found nothing to suggest that Julian Assange did anything beyond what journalists always do and therefore concluded that despite how badly the CIA wanted his head on a pike, they were urging the Obama White House to do it anyway.
	Remember, we just had three or two months ago a report from Yahoo News that right at the same time in 2013, when the Obama administration was actively considering prosecuting Assange, the CIA was actively plotting to figure out how to kidnap him or even assassinate him.
	That's what Yahoo News reported just two months ago.
	That's how eager they were to destroy Julian.
	So obviously, if they could have found anything or even concocted anything, they would have done so.
	They didn't because they couldn't.
	The only thing that changed between 2013 when they decided that the Democrats and now when they're not only so eager to prosecute and extradite Assange, they had a chance in January when the court ruled in his favor and rejected the extradition request on the grounds that the U.S. prison system is too harsh and would likely lead him to suicide.
	Civil Liberties Group said, now's your chance, Joe Biden and the Biden DOJ, to drop this prosecution, to say, look, we tried.
	You could tell the CIA you tried, but you lost.
	They ignored those pleas.
	The Biden DOJ did.
	And not only did they appeal that decision, the court's decision to reject the extradition request, not only did they appeal it, they demanded that Assange be kept in prison pending the appeal.
	So he's already been detained in a tiny one-bedroom apartment with no outdoor space for seven years when he had asylum in Ecuador in central London, followed by two years in this high-security supermax, basically prison in the UK where terrorist suspects are put.
	It's the Belmarsh prison in 2004.
	The BBC called it Britain's Guantanamo Bay.
	He's now been there for two years, so nine years in detention.
	And the Biden DOJ demands that the court keep him in prison, even though he just won, pending appeal.
	So now he's spent the entire one more year in prison.
	And the court now comes and says that extradition is permissible.
	As you say, the only thing that has changed is that it was politically untenable in 2013 to prosecute him because so many people were saying it would go on Obama's legacy that he was the first person ever to prosecute a journalist under the Espionage Act.
	Joe Biden has no qualms, obviously, about that.
	Why?
	Because the Democrats have completely turned against Julian Assange, not because of any damage to national security, not because of what he did in 2010, but because of what he did in 2016.
	Even though that's not part of the indictment, he reported authentic documents that reflected poorly on Hillary Clinton, caused the top five officials of the DNC to resign in disgrace.
	It showed the DNC was cheating in order to help Hillary Clinton stave off Bernie Sanders' primary challenge.
	Remember, Tulsi Gabbard was the vice chair of the DNC at that time.
	She resigned alleging that they were doing that.
	These documents vindicated that.
	And in March of 2017, so three months after Hillary lost, she said the only reason she lost, she was like, I was on my way to my entitled victory.
	And the only reason I lost was because Jim Comey opened, reopened a criminal investigation, and WikiLeaks published these documents.
	So the Democrats blame Julian Assange for causing Hillary Clinton to lose.
	And that is why they want to see him in prison for the rest of his life.
	So just think about what that means.
	Their motives are not legal.
	They're not national security.
	They're political.
	He's really like a political prisoner.
	He's being prosecuted.
	He's currently in prison for the crime of doing reporting, just as Zheng said, that helped the Republican Party defeat the Democratic Party in 2016.
	It's as tyrannical and authoritarian as it gets, punishing and imprisoning a journalist because he did reporting that reflected poorly on your political party.
	So I thought the big threat to journalism and freedom of speech in the First Amendment was Donald Trump being mean to Jim Acosta.
	That's what I thought.
	In fact, Jim Acosta was asked about this very case when he was doing the rounds for his book, his book, which was patting himself on the back for speaking truth to power, which Jim Acosta will never do.
	He was at the New in Washington, D.C., and Matt Orfila confronted him and asked him this question.
	My understanding about the Julian Assange.
	So he asked him about the Julian Assange case, and what do you think about them using the Espionage Act to prosecute journalists for publishing classified documents?
	That was the question.
	He never answers it, but watch what he does say.
	Assange's situation is that, you know, he is being charged not just for trying to speak truth to power and trying to reveal things, he is in trouble for other things.
	And, you know, what we've seen during the 2016 campaign, where there were contacts between WikiLeaks and Russian operatives.
	So there he is.
	He jumped.
	Now, that's supposed to be America's number one newsman who's speaking truth to power.
	And there he is completely lying about what's going on.
	They're not prosecuting Julian Assange because what he did in 2016.
	That's not what he's being prosecuted for, technically.
	I mean, or even in the documents.
	He's being prosecuted for the war crimes he revealed, not for the stuff he revealed about the Democratic Party, the DNC, and the Hillary Clinton campaign, or his work with Russia, or any of that, which is all made up.
	Which he's just making this up.
	So now he's going to 2016.
	He says where there were contacts between WikiLeaks and Russian operatives.
	Okay, here we go.
	That, I think, takes Wikimedia Julian Assange into sort of a different category than just a straight news organization, straight publisher of news around the world.
	Now, I'm not saying that I'm not rendering a verdict on Julian Assange.
	I think he should have his day in court.
	I think we should see what the facts are, see what they're presented, and let a court.
	So what Jim Acosta is saying there, it doesn't seem obvious at first.
	What he's saying is, yes, we should prosecute journalists for doing journalism and then have him have his day in court.
	Instead of being up in arms, he was never ever prosecuted by Donald Trump.
	He wrote a whole book about his persecution from Donald Trump.
	But he's never been prosecuted.
	Guess who is?
	Julian Assange is actually being prosecuted for doing journalism.
	And he thinks that's acceptable.
	I'll play a little bit more of this to not throw it to Glimp.
	I'll let that process play out.
	I do think that there is a value in whistleblowers.
	No question about it.
	And I do think that there is a value in people inside the government dealing with journalists to shine a light on government secrets.
	No question about it.
	I mean, during the writing of this book, you can imagine how there are Trump folks who are deeply fearful of speaking on the record with me.
	I only got a couple of folks to speak on the record with me.
	Most of them wanted to speak on background.
	I talked to a national security official with the Trump administration who told me that he didn't know whether or not President Trump was pursuing U.S. interests and was concerned about some of the things that he was doing in terms of his dealings with Vladimir Putin.
	This official obviously would not be able to talk about those kinds of things on the record.
	He would be in a lot of trouble.
	But we need that kind of information.
	And so I do understand what Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, what the spirit of what they're trying to do, but I can't sit here and endorse everything that they've done and the tactics that they've used to go about presenting the information that they gather to the world.
	And I hope you appreciate where I'm coming from on that.
	That's really all I have to say on the topic.
	But I'm specifically asking.
	Thank you.
	Thank you for your response.
	But specifically, I asked about the indictments under the Espionage Act.
	Not allegations of Russian pollution, which the Mueller report said should not be used to punish journalists and punish publishers of information.
	But I can't, I can't, on the fly here, interpret what is going on in the Julian Assange case and give you a satisfactory answer that's going to make you feel as though I'm citing him.
	So there you go.
	He claims ignorance about the case, although he does throw around the accusation that Julian Assange was working with Russia, which has nothing to do with the case.
	And so again, there's the number one newsman misinforming people and also playing ignorant while he cheers on the prosecution of a journalist.
	Anything you'd like to say about that?
	I have a lot to say about that.
	You know, it's amazing.
	I hadn't seen this clip before.
	So I'm going to have a little bit of trouble containing my revulsion and contempt and disgust and nausea for Jim Acosta and especially for those piece of shit liberals in the audience clapping.
	You hear those people clapping when he essentially was obviously justifying the idea that Julian Assange should be prosecuted.
	I mean, the minute you say, well, let's see what he has to say in the courtroom.
	You're essentially saying you believe the U.S. government should extradite him and put Him on trial to stand trial.
	That's an extraordinarily repugnant thing for a journalist to say.
	And it reminds me, you know, during the Snowden reporting, that's the stuff they were saying about myself and about Edward Snowden all the time.
	And this is, you know, I think such an important point.
	I've been talking about Jim Acosta for the last two days and bringing up that book that he wrote in 2018, which idiot liberals consumed that was designed to herald him as this kind of like brave, imperiled, dissident journalist.
	It was called The Enemy of the People: A Dangerous Time to Tell the Truth in America by Jim Acosta.
	As though, like Jim Acosta, this completely banal, cliched, empty, pointless, harmless, manicured, blown-dry, blowhard, is like ever fucking a threat to anybody.
	Like, whatever happened to Jim Acosta during the Trump years, absolutely nothing.
	Like, Trump would occasionally mock him with a mean tweet, and they would act as though the First Amendment were on fire because of that, while Julian Assange was sitting in prison, and that was something they never cared about because they don't care about press freedom.
	They care about their little clique.
	And I think, you know, this really gets to the heart of it, the fact that, I mean, so much of what he said reveals journalistic rot.
	Like the idea that if you get relevant information from the Russians, that that somehow means that what you've done can be prosecuted.
	Journalists get information from all kinds of sources all the time.
	The foundation of modern journalism is that even if your source commits a crime to get information to you that the public has the right to know, as a journalist, not only are you not a criminal by publishing it, it's your duty to do that.
	Daniel Ellsberg was prosecuted for leaking the Pentagon papers, which showed that the U.S. government had been lying systematically about the Vietnam War to the American people for more than a decade.
	But the New York Times was praised for having published it.
	Edward Snowden is being prosecuted for giving me documents that, according to the government, he had no right to take, but are reporting on it, won the Pulitzer.
	This distinction is critical.
	That's what you do when you're a journalist is you get information wherever you can find it.
	And, you know, here in Brazil, the reason Lula is free and able to run for president next year is because a courageous and heroic source broke the law to get information by hacking telephones, according to the government, and gave it to me and enabled me to do that reporting.
	So even if Julian Assange got his information from the Russians, it's still not his right, just his right, but his duty to go and report that.
	But what he's implicitly saying is that if you don't get your information as a journalist from the credentialed approved sources, you heard what he said.
	I talked to intelligence officials.
	Those are the people that you're supposed to go and get your information from.
	But the minute you go and get your information from an outside source, from a disapproved source, you turn into a potential criminal, someone who then has to go into court and have lawyers and defend yourself against the Justice Department, which has infinite resources under an extremely repressive law, which is the Espionage Act of 1917 that was enacted by Woodrow Wilson to criminalize dissent over whether the U.S. should get involved in World War I. It's one of the most repressive statutes.
	It's the same one that they're using to prosecute Edward Snowden.
	And I don't know if you remember this, Jimmy, but like in 2013, 2014, 2015, all these Democrats like Hillary Clinton and John Kerry and Joe Biden would say, oh, if Edward Snowden is such a patriot, he should man up and come back and, you know, make his case to a jury and let them decide whether he did was justifiable.
	They were lying the entire time because under the Espionage Act, you're barred from raising the defense that, yes, you revealed classified information, but you were justified in doing so because it revealed crimes on the part of the government.
	That was when Daniel Ellsberg went into court and tried to make that defense.
	He said, yes, of course I leaked the top secret Pentagon papers to the New York Times.
	I did it because I was justified as a citizen.
	It was my duty as a citizen because the government had been lying to the public about the war.
	And I felt I had an obligation.
	And the court ruled and it was upheld that under the Espionage Act, that's not a defense.
	You're not even allowed to raise that defense.
	So they're prosecuting Julian under a law, the same one they're using for Snowden and Ellsberg, where you basically have no chance.
	Your conviction is guaranteed.
	So when Jim Acosta says, well, let's see what he has to say in court, he's obviously endorsing it.
	And this is what I really think is the heart of the matter, Jimmy, is we all have this conception of what journalists are supposed to do.
	It's what Jim Acosta dressed up in a costume and pretended to be doing on the cover of his book, which is that you speak truth to power, you risk your liberty in order to take on power centers by revealing the hidden, dangerous truths that they don't want known.
	Obviously, the Jim Acostas of the world never do that.
	Julian Assange is what they all pretend to be.
	He's an actual dissident.
	He's an actual journalist.
	He's actually somebody who has repeatedly risked his liberty in order to reveal the truth to the public that actual power centers don't want revealed.
	Not somebody like Jim Acosta, who's a good little boy who goes and tells the public what the CIA tells him to go tell the public.
	And the reason they hate Julian Assange so much, in part, it's because he's never been part of their little club.
	The same reason they hate Joe Rogan or they hate you or they hate me that we're able to build a large audience.
	We're able to do real journalism without submitting to their little clique and all the repressive rules of their corporate world that they have to submit to.
	They hate the fact that they can't control us.
	So part of it is that they hate him for that reason.
	But the real reason they hate him is because he's like a mirror constantly being held up, showing them the truth of what they are, not the mythology that they like to pretend that they are.
	And the truth that they see in that mirror that he holds up is repulsive.
	They feel shame and emptiness inside because they know that the reason he's in prison and the reason they're, you know, in a hair salon with a multi-million dollar contract from a big media corporation is because they're obedient little girls and boys who do the bidding of the U.S. government and don't fucking threaten anybody.
	It's just a costume.
	It's LARPing.
	They're playing a role.
	That real dissidents end up where Julian Assange is.
	And that's why they hate him.
	And that's why they want to get rid of him and silence him and make him disappear because he's a reminder to the public of what journalists are supposed to do that they would never do, that they're too cowardly to do, that they're incapable of doing.
	And this is where this hatred is coming from.
	So the government wants him silenced because they don't want him telling the truth anymore.
	The Democrats want him disappeared because he reported negatively on Hillary Clinton.
	And these employees of media corporations who have the job title of journalist hate him and want him destroyed because they remind the public of what they're supposed to be but aren't.
	So it's this kind of perfect storm of all the establishment lackeys who are uniting together to either remain silent or cheer as the U.S. and UK governments launch what is clearly the gravest press freedom attack in the West in many, many years.
	Hey, come see one of our live stand-up shows, December 10th or 17th, or New Year's Eve at the Two Roads Theater in Studio City, California.
	See you there.
	Go to jimmydoorcomedy.com for a link for all tickets.
	Hey, you know, here's another great way you can help support the show: you become a premium member.
	We give you a couple of hours of premium bonus content every week, and it's a great way to help support the show.
	You can do it by going to jimmydoorcomedy.com, clicking on join premium.
	It's the most affordable premium program in the business, and it's a great way to help put your thumb back in the eye of the bastards.
	Thanks for everybody who was already a premium member.
	And if you haven't, you're missing out.
	We give you lots of bonus content.
	Thanks for your support.
	Now, I just want to remind people that Daniel Ellsberg, who was the person who revealed the Pentagon Papers and is a hero, tweeted out in support of Julian Assange.
	And let me just read you some of the stuff that he tweeted out.
	He said, How dare Biden lecture anybody today while refusing to pardon Daniel Hale and Julian Assange, thereby killing freedom of the press for national security.
	He says, every attack now made on Julian Assange and WikiLeaks was made against me and release of Pentagon Papers.
	I'll let me see.
	I tell Colbert that Assange is not a criminal under the U.S. law and Manning is a hero.
	Why I support WikiLeaks and Julian Assange here, and he gives a link.
	So that's Daniel Ellsberg, right?
	So now he gets it and he gets all the same attacks that are coming at that are coming at Julian Assange were launched at him too.
	So now I want to show you.
	This is Joe Scarborough, hosts the MSNBC show, former congressman.
	And here's what he had to say about Julian Assange.
	Claire McCaskill, there is a lot of smoke surrounding Julian Assange.
	Of course, there were the charges in Sweden that were subsequently dropped.
	There is the hacking and his vendetta against Hillary Clinton.
	There's information that was released that showed military malfeasance by the United States.
	But, you know, it's so interesting that it used to be the far left who opposed George W. Bush's wars in Afghanistan and Iraq who made this guy a hero under the guise of the First Amendment.
	And then when he started leaking information against Hillary Clinton, it became the Trump Reich that suddenly held Julian Assange.
	So, but let's just forget the politics of this.
	As a prosecutor, you're given this case, and you've got a guy who's stolen thousands of documents, page of.
	So, I'm just going to stop it there briefly just to let you know, everything he said pretty much is bullshit.
	It's a lie.
	It's that last, that core statement that Julian stole documents is a complete and utter lie.
	Unless you're willing to say the New York Times stole the Pentagon papers, that I stole the NSA archive.
	You know, it's just a complete and total lie.
	But of course, that's permissible on MSNBC.
	100% lie, right?
	Now, if I did that kind of a lie on YouTube, they'd take my channel down.
	But you could do that stuff on NBC all the time, MSNBC, CNN, the New York Times, Washington Post.
	They do it on the regular, and they'll never get taken down by YouTube.
	Okay, here we go.
	Of highly classified national security documents, release them to the world, and in so doing, put the lives of U.S. troops, of people who were working with the United States, allies, collaborators in war zones in the gravest of danger.
	Okay, that's also a lie.
	There's no, Glenn, do you know of any evidence that would back up that Julian?
	Jimmy, not only is there no evidence of that, but the military itself acknowledged it was a lie.
	When they first published these documents, the military said WikiLeaks is going to have blood on their hands.
	Three months later, the senior official at the Pentagon said that's hysterical.
	There's no evidence that anybody was.
	Oh, yeah.
	So I was saying that, you know, not only did the Pentagon official admit that this was a hysterical narrative, that the WikiLeaks had blood on their hands because of these publications, that no one had ever been harmed.
	McClatchy in 2011, you can go Google it, did a long, deep expose to prove that the Pentagon, no one inside the Pentagon, could point to a single person who was ever endangered, let alone put in grave harm's way as a result of the publications because Wikileaks was very careful to redact numerous documents, to not publish others.
	They are trying to imply, like they always do.
	They did it in the Stony case too, like that they were just publishing willy-nilly the identity of undercover agents or people who in various countries were working with you know it's a complete fabrication no one was ever but i it's amazing to watch one lie after the next by these networks who constantly claim to care so much about disinformation that they want to center the inter censor the internet in the name of combating it these aren't misleading statements or tententious opinions they're outright lies so let's go back to more of
	his outright I mean this is just non-stop lying by MSNBC by a guy who again indignant I love how they do it so indignantly here we go under under any scenario you take politics out of it and and this is an open and shut case this is not the Pentagon Papers this wasn't Times editors rifling through now if you remember I just showed you Daniel Ellsberg who is the guy source for the Pentagon Papers said this is exactly like
	the Pentagon Papers so again Joe Joe Ball is just wrong here we go documents figuring out what could be released and what couldn't be released and explaining it this was a guy that got stolen documents and gave it to the world and so now he just contradicted his own lie so at first he said that he had that Julian Assange stole the documents and now he said this guy got a hold of stolen documents those are two totally different things one is illegal one totally legal do you
	see what Joe Scarborough is doing here also Jimmy before you go on I'm sorry it's driving me crazy also what he's saying is a complete lie again in that when WikiLeaks got these documents in 2010 they partnered with the New York Times that's right published the Pentagon Papers and the Guardian and they carefully did exactly what Joe Scarborough was falsely saying they didn't do which is curated the documents explained them reported them withheld some redacted others exactly what the New York Times did with
	the Pentagon exactly so and again it's just nonstop i mean this is the stuff they accuse people on youtube of doing being misinformation this is 100 this isn't only misinformation these are lies and if joe scarborough i'm going to go ahead and say he knows they're lies And he doesn't care because if he doesn't know their lies, he should be in a coma.
	He hosts a goddamn news show.
	Of course, he knows what the story is.
	Of course, he's lying and pushing propaganda because that's what gets rewarded in corporate news.
	So let's go to there's more.
	This is a pretty simple case.
	It's very straightforward.
	And the beauty of a trial, Joe, is that you narrow-it is a simple case.
	It is pretty straightforward.
	It's First Amendment freedom of the press.
	That's the case, and there shouldn't be one at all.
	It is straightforward.
	This guy's doing journalism, and you guys are now assaulting the First Amendment and journalism and freedom of the press.
	And you're doing it all, you're doing it as if you're Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts when these people are fascists and liars.
	Okay.
	All of the extraneous stuff to the charges that are there against the defendant.
	And the charges in this case are that he was trying to hack into our military information that protects not just our country, but all the men and women in uniform around the world.
	This is really serious stuff.
	Forget about the politics.
	The fact that both the right and the left don't like Julia Assange or love Julia Assange, and depending on the circumstances, is being talked about.
	That should tell you all you need to know.
	This is really a guy who just violated the law.
	And you know, I kind of laugh.
	If their fight against extradition is that they're worried about his safety in prison, they really have, don't have perspective on this.
	There are lots and lots of people who go to federal prison who have done really worse things than Julia Assange, and they are protected in prison.
	I don't think he needs to worry about whether or not he'll be safe in prison.
	This is really just a smokescreen to try to keep him from ever being accountable for the rule of law.
	You know, he started talking about Trump being accountable.
	This is a really important piece for the American rule of law to get him back to the United States and face these charges.
	He couldn't, Jimmy.
	I'm sorry.
	I just can't take it.
	You go ahead.
	I'm sorry.
	No, no, go ahead.
	You jumped in.
	No.
	Okay.
	I seriously, I fucking hate Democrats.
	Like, they are the ultimate authoritarians.
	It's very clear beyond everything else that they have no fucking clue what they're talking about.
	They didn't prepare for that segment.
	They have no idea what's going on in this case.
	Even that last thing she said, the argument that he doesn't feel he's going to be safe in prison, that wasn't the argument at all.
	The argument was raised by his lawyers that the U.S. prison system is so harsh and repressive to people who are accused of national security crimes that he is likely, given his mental health deterioration from having been in detention and imprisonment for the last 10 years, he's likely to commit suicide, which under Brazil, British law, means they can't extradite him to the United States.
	There was no suggestion that he wasn't going to be safe in prison.
	They have no idea what they're talking about.
	Furthermore, there's no accusation that he was trying to hack into military systems.
	Chelsea Manning is the one who took the documents.
	The only accusation is that he tried to help her evade detection by cracking a password so that they wouldn't be able to tie it to her.
	So I can't even analyze the kind of say this argument is invalid.
	This logical string is unconvincing because everything they're saying about the case is factually false.
	Everything Joe Scarborough and Claire McCaskill just said about the case is a complete and under lie.
	And this is why I have no problem admitting that I really do hate Democrats.
	I hate them.
	They're everything that they claim Trump is.
	They sit there and they do these segments that are filled with disinformation and lies, all geared toward justifying the government imprisoning a journalist.
	That's really all they want to do.
	So how is it that Donald Trump could ever be worse than what it is that we just saw in that segment?
	They are everything they accuse Donald Trump of being.
	And that's the message that I've been putting forth at this show.
	And of course, you know, how it's been received on the left.
	Well, here's how it's been received.
	Here's a Twitch star, right?
	Who I love.
	He's from a great genetic pool because he's extradited.
	He's like, Jake Huger's nephew.
	And they're having a dumb off.
	They're trying to see who could be dumber.
	And I think Assange does it just because he has the black fingernail polish on and calls other people creepy.
	Here we go.
	Bro, why are you not mentioning hero Julian Assange being extradited?
	What the fuck is wrong with you?
	Assange stands on the internet are some of the most psychotic weirdos that it's just like, just stop.
	Okay.
	Psychotic weirdos, he says as he flashes his black fingernail polish.
	Okay.
	And he says, just stop.
	Just be normal.
	Just stop.
	Be normal.
	Do your fucking weird thing at the Jimmy Door stream.
	Okay.
	This is not the Jimmy Door stream.
	We do a bunch of different content here.
	Go hang out with like weirdo fucking fascists.
	Okay.
	So that's kind of remarkable.
	That's kind of remarkable.
	It runs into the family.
	They stand for the Democratic Party and shit on journalists and encourage fascists while calling other people fascists.
	It's kind of, it's, it's funny.
	The funniest thing is the black nail polish, but go ahead, Glenn.
	Yeah, no, I mean, he did.
	He, I actually pointed that out and I, you know, basically said these pseudo-socialists who know that they never actually do anything threatening.
	He's basically Jim Acosta with nail polish.
	Yes.
	Hassan.
	Yes.
	He like there's a reason why Julian Assange is targeted by the CIA and the Justice Department and the British security services and governments around the world and is in Belmarsh prison.
	And he's in his, you know, house on Twitch.
	And he thinks he's so radical because he has like a hammer and sickle flag that he hangs on his wall and he calls himself a socialist.
	And then at the end of the day, like when it comes down to it, he tells everybody to go vote for Gavin Newsome, like the good little DNC boy that he is.
	So again, I think the reason why he doesn't want to talk about Julian Assange and gets angry at people who demand that he does and suggests that if you care about the Assange case, it basically means you're a fascist that you belong in the Jimmy Dore show is because he, again, knows that Julian Assange is what he pretends to be.
	Now, when I said that, he objected and he pointed to a few places where he had in the past said he thinks it's wrong for the government to try and imprison Julian Assange for life under the Espionage Act, which is true.
	He has kind of in a throwaway way, you know, said that.
	Of course, none of them want to admit that they're on the side of the CIA.
	None of them want to admit that they want to see Julian Assange.
	If they're forced to talk about it, they'll say, yeah, look, as he put it, I'm against putting him in forever jail.
	But you can see from that clip that even if he says if you force him to take a position that he's not in favor of putting Julian Assange in prison for life under the Espionage Act, that he really doesn't give a shit.
	It doesn't bother him at all.
	It's not a priority for him.
	He thinks people who want to talk about it are fascist weirdos because they don't, Jimmy, this is the reality is left-wing politics since the end of World War II has been about opposing the deep state, the security state, the CIA, the FBI.
	This is fundamental to left-wing politics is the idea that these are pernicious agencies.
	And that's why real leftists, like not this kind, who have like leftism as a marketing brand, but like real leftists, like Daniel Galsberg and Noam Chomsky and fucking Lula Da Silva in Brazil and Jeremy Corbyn in the UK have all come out and said Julian Assange is a hero and the attempt to imprison him is outrageous.
	Like you don't need to force them or drag them into commenting on it.
	They don't call people who are interested in it fascist weirdos.
	They come out and manifest on their own because this is central to what left-wing politics has been about, what Julian Assange has been doing for the last 12 to 15 years, bringing transparency and real resistance and opposition to the belly of American imperialism.
	But they don't really give a shit about that.
	If anything, they see the CIA and the FBI as allies of theirs.
	Of course, they'll never admit that.
	They're never going to go on a stream and be like, hey, I'm a radical leftist.
	I'm here to say I love the CIA and the FBI.
	But the reality is they knew that the CIA and the FBI were on their side when it came to Trump.
	They don't really care about people who oppose the CIA or the FBI.
	It's way down on their priority list, if it even makes it at all.
	You never see Antifa, for example, protesting in front of Langley or the J. Edgar Hoover headquarters and the FBI.
	They think that like real fascist power doesn't emanate from those Washington agencies, but like emanates from loser, proud boy guys of hanging out in groups of 15 and 20 people that the FBI also wants to prosecute.
	And then half of them are FBI informants anyway.
	That's what left-wing politics is about.
	It's performative.
	It's petty.
	It's trivial.
	Everything that Julian Assange isn't.
	And that's what explains that reaction.
	That's exactly.
	Well, I'll show you the people you were mentioning.
	So here's all the people who are supporting Julian Assange.
	So press freedom.
	So there's all these civil liberty groups asked the Biden department to drop the Julian Assange case.
	Press freedom groups reacted.
	This is Reporters Without Borders are supporting him.
	And here's Lula, who you spoke about.
	Of course, here's Daniel Ellsberg.
	Here's another.
	The Committee to Protect Journalists issued a statement over it.
	And here is Noam Chomsky.
	Here's also even Tucker Carlson.
	So, and here I'll show you what Noam Chomsky had to say.
	Assange has performed an enormous service to all the people in the world who treasure the values of freedom and democracy and who therefore demand the right to know what their elected representatives are doing.
	And for that very reason, he's one of the most dangerous criminals on the face of the earth, pursued with savagery by the rulers of the free and democratic societies.
	And there's a reason.
	There is a basic principle of government that's well understood by serious analysts.
	Actually, it was explained quite clearly by the professor of the science of government at Harvard University, the distinguished liberal political scientist and government advisor, Samuel Huntington.
	He observed, I'll quote him, that the architects of power in the United States must create a force that can be felt but not seen.
	Power remains strong when it remains in the dark.
	Exposed to the sunlight, it begins to evaporate.
	And he gave some telling examples concerning the real nature of the Cold War.
	He was discussing U.S. military intervention abroad, and he observed, I'll quote him again, that you may have to sell intervention or other military action in such a way as to create the misimpression that it is the Soviet Union that you're fighting.
	That's what the United States has been doing ever since the Truman Doctrine.
	And there are many illustrations of that leading principle.
	Well, Julian Assange has committed the grave crime of exposing power to sunlight, which may cause power to evaporate if the population grasps the opportunity.
	So that's what Noam Chomsky had to say.
	And that was fun.
	I mean, that's just amazing and fantastic.
	Anything else you'd like to add, Glenn?
	Because I know, well, here's what you tweeted.
	You said Democrats want Assange imprisoned for life because his 2016 reported reflected poorly on Hillary and the DNC, and they think it helped Trump.
	I showed you those examples.
	Democrats are complete authoritarians, craving the imprisonment of journalists who oppose them.
	They're everything they claimed that Trump was.
	I mean, we could just keep making this point.
	Can I show you one more video, which is one of my favorites?
	You tweeted this out.
	I've showed this on the show before.
	It's the president of the Azerbaijan.
	Now, he is an authoritarian, but he's also right that no Western journalist has any right or credibility to assume a position of moral superior about press freedom attacks, given what the U.S. and the U.K. are doing to Assange.
	So here is a Western journalist asking him about why don't you have press freedom in Azerbaijan?
	And here's what he says back.
	You raised this question.
	Can I ask you also one?
	How do you assess what happened to Mr. Assange?
	Is it a reflection of free media in your country?
	We're not here to discuss.
	No likes.
	No president.
	You're not going to accuse me, saying that Armenians will not have free media here.
	Let's talk about Assange.
	How many years, sorry, how many years he spent in Ecuadorian embassy?
	And for what?
	And where is he now?
	For journalistic activity.
	You kept that person hostage, actually killing him, morally and physically.
	You did it, not us.
	And now he's in prison.
	So you have no moral right to talk about free media when you do these things.
	Returning to the conflict.
	Better return to the conflict because this is not what you like.
	You like only to accuse, only to attack.
	But look at the mirror.
	Look, I tell many times before coming and lecturing us.
	And in your question, accusing me, it's not a question.
	It's accusation.
	You talk like a prosecutor.
	Why?
	If you're so democratic and so objective, why you keep Assange in prison?
	For what?
	You keep him in prison because of his journalistic activity.
	I'm not keeping him in prison, President Ania.
	You don't like this.
	So anyway, so you get the, you get the drift of what was happening.
	When a Western journalist actually gets pushback from somebody, they got nothing to say.
	They don't know what to say about Julian Assange because they don't want to lose their job at their corporate news place.
	Because if they tell the truth about Julian Assange, they will lose their job at their corporate news place.
	And there's a guy, a corrupt authoritarian, is able to call out a Western journalist correctly and dress them down.
	That's how shitty the Western media is about this and the Western governments.
	Anything you'd like to say about that, Glenn?
	You know, everyone, first of all, that video is like pornographic to me, but everyone knows that the mythology that the United States and the UK are these grave, these bold, intrepid defenders of democracy and freedom.
	There's only a tiny group of people who know that's not bullshit.
	Everywhere in the world, that provokes that kind of scorn, that kind of laughter.
	The only people who actually believe that are the idiots who work for media corporations inside the United States and the UK.
	They're the ones who actually believe that it's places like Russia and Iran and China and North Korea and Venezuela and Cuba or whatever that imprison journalists.
	And We in the United States would never do that unless Trump is president.
	So it is like a shock to the system when they actually hear that the things that they're accusing the rest of the world of doing, they have no more credibility to actually accuse because in their own countries, she's right.
	Maybe she's not like the actual jailer turning the key to lock Assange in the cage, but it's people like her and Jim Macausta who either don't give a shit, acquiesce to it, or in many cases, support it.
	But let me just make one other point.
	You know, I know that you've received the criticism about going on Tucker Carlson's show.
	I certainly have as well.
	And the reason why I have, I will never make any apologies at all and why I harbor nothing but contempt and scorn for that criticism is because while NBC is filled with people like Joe Scarborough and Claire McCaskill justifying the imprisonment of a journalist based on lies, and while CNN, if they ever cover the Assange story, is basically designed to do the same to justify it.
	Tucker Carlson went on a fucking crusade, a crusade to try and free Julian Assange while Donald Trump was president.
	Night after night after night, knowing that Trump was watching, he would do monologues saying, why is Donald, why is Julian Assange in prison?
	He did nothing wrong.
	He put on celebrities like Roger Waters and Pamela Anderson, knowing that Trump loves celebrities and loves to hear from them, who advocated for Assange.
	He put on Julian Assange's fiancé and his brother and father to advocate for Assange.
	I know you went on and advocated for him.
	I went on dozens of times and was able to speak directly to Trump, asking for a pardon and advocating for a pardon for Edward Snowden and Julian Assange.
	Why would I confine myself to the media outlets that are these authoritarian liberals who lie for the CIA and refuse to go on the one actual place on television that is defending press freedoms?
	You know, when the Brazilian government tried to prosecute me for the reporting I was doing in Brazil, when Jair Bolsonaro was threatening to imprison me, Tucker Carlson recorded a video privately and then sent it to Brazil, which was made a huge impact because the Brazilian right obviously listens to Fox News.
	And they were saying, why is Tucker Carlson defending Glenn Greenwald, who we've been told is like this leftist enemy, the root of all evil.
	And he covered the story that when I was finally indicted, he condemned the Bolsonaro government for doing that vehemently.
	And he was probably the single most vocal defender of Julian Assange's press freedom rights.
	So if you ask me why I go on Fox News, it's because on the critical issues of the day, like Russia Gate, which Fox News got right and the rest of the media got wrong, or imprisoning journalists, or the question of whether we should have free speech on the internet or let big tech control and police and censor our discourse, Fox News is infinitely more correct and honest and has way more integrity in the reporting they do than NBC and CNN and the New York Times and the Washington Post.
	That's the reason I go on thought.
	Not because I've changed my views.
	I've been advocating for Julian Assange since 2010, since before they even did the big story about the Iraq and Afghanistan warlogs.
	The problem is that it is now American liberalism in which real authoritarianism resides.
	The face of authoritarianism is Jim Acosta and Joe Scarborough and Jenk Geiger, whatever the fuck his name is, and Claire McCaskill implicitly justifying the imprisonment of Julian Assange.
	If you want to go and advocate for anti-establishment politics and to really challenge real institutions of power, the places you go are the Joe Rogan show or Tucker Carlson show or this show or Rumble or Substack or places that aren't controlled by these institutional corporate centers of power.
	And the reason why establishment liberals hate us for going on Tucker is not because they think Tucker's ideology is bad or that our ideology has changed.
	They know it hasn't.
	It's because they know that that's where real anti-establishment politics takes place while they're captive to Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Party and Chuck Schumer and the Biden DOJ and Claire McCaskill and Joe Scarborough and Gavin Newsome.
	That's the reason they're angry.
	That's exactly the reason.
	And yeah, I make no apologies ever for going on to talk to half the country and bring my politics to half the country.
	Tucker Carlson himself said on the air with me that he changed his mind on Julian Assange based partly on the strength of my arguments.
	So that's a big, that used to be what is considered the left a victory.
	You know, I saw a tweet the other day.
	Someone said, hey, what are we supposed to do when Trumpers want to join our union?
	And the response was, you declare victory, you idiot.
	That's what you do.
	They don't want to win, Jimmy.
	They don't want to win.
	They love the narrative of persecution.
	They love saying that they have no support, that nobody, that their politics are too radical or too edgy or too scary in order for people to support.
	They love the narrative of self-victimization and persecution.
	The reason they don't want to win is because they would have to give that up.
	That's exactly right.
	Yeah, they could no longer be professional victims.
	And you get a higher, you get a higher social status in America by the amount of victimization that you can claim.
	And that's a fact.
	And I can't claim any, so I'm pretty low down in the stratus.
	You know what was interesting?
	We should probably go, but you did, you talked about how in 2019, you wrote an op-ed and you warned about them prosecuting Julian Assange and how they're going to use this investigate, this kind of tactics on other journalists.
	And son of a bitch, if they didn't use it to you, Brazil's attack on Greenwald mirrors the U.S. case against Assange.
	So you want, can you speak to that briefly?
	Yeah.
	So when the indictment against Julian Assange was released and I read it, it was immediately obvious to me that it was an attempt to criminalize journalism itself.
	You know, you know, the tactic that censors use is when they want to institute a regime of censorship, they pick people in the first instance that they know are so unpopular that nobody will care.
	So the first people to be banned from the internet were people like Alex Jones and Milo Yiannopoulos.
	Nobody stood up and objected because if you did, people would say, why are you defending Alex Jones and Milo Yiannopoulos?
	And you'd be like, I'm not defending Milo and Alex Jones, you fucking imbecile.
	I'm defending freedom of speech and the fact that this precedent is soon going to, once it's implanted, expand and start restricting all of our speech, but they couldn't get past the personalities.
	So the same thing they want to do here, they want to create a precedent that will criminalize journalism itself and hope that and know that and expect that the hatred that people have for Julian Assange is so intense that they'll just say, we want to see him in prison and we don't care about the precedent.
	So the article I wrote in the Washington Post, when it was unveiled, was saying, look, the things that they're trying to criminalize him for doing, working with his source, encouraging her to give more documents, helping her evade detection, are things that investigative journalists do all the time with their sources.
	In fact, again, it's not only the due, the right of an investigative journalist to try and get more from your source and encourage your source not to get caught and to tell them how not to.
	It's your duty of source protection.
	It's something investigative journalists do all the time.
	And so what I was saying was: look, you idiots in the media, even if you hate Julian Assange, you should still be outraged by this indictment because if this is allowed to take hold, this theory of criminalization, it can criminalize any journalist, including you.
	And it was two weeks later, in June of 2019, that we began our year-long expose that led to the freeing of former President Lua de Silva in Brazil based on these hacked telephone logs and chats and conversations that my source obtained and gave to me.
	And it destabilized the Brazilian government.
	It resulted in the annulment of numerous convictions of politicians because the people who were corrupt was the judge and the prosecutors.
	And Bolsonaro had been threatening to prosecute me, kept saying he may spend some time in prison, Glenn Greenwald might.
	And so finally, in January 2020, they actually not only indicted my sources, my alleged sources, and added me to the indictment.
	And their theory was exactly the same theory that the U.S. is currently using to try and criminalize what Assange did, namely claiming that I didn't just passively receive information, that when I was talking to my source, I was helping my source evade detection.
	And when I did that, I became guilty of obstruction of justice and became part of the conspiracy.
	And the Brazilian judge was wanted to accept that charge.
	The Brazilian judge said, I think Glenn Greenwald, when he did this with the source, did become part of the criminal conspiracy.
	I wish I could accept these charges, but the Brazilian Supreme Court had issued a ruling saying that any retaliation against me for my reporting would be a violation of the Constitution.
	And the judge said, I'm barred by the Supreme Court from accepting these charges.
	So he dismissed them.
	But he said he would have accepted them had it not been for that Supreme Court ruling.
	So the irony was I was warning everybody else.
	Look, this theory is going to be copied by the U.S. government and people around the world to criminalize journalism.
	If you want to go and publish, say, secret documents of Russia or China or Iran, maybe they're going to now indict you and seek your extradition.
	So when you're traveling internationally, there'll be an interpol red alert warning for you that requires your arrest and extradition to those countries.
	And it was just so happened the first person that was victimized by that precedent almost was me in Brazil when they try and prosecuted me using that precedent.
	But so many of these, the reason that argument doesn't get through, Jimmy, to so many of these media figures is because they know they don't actually do journalism.
	Like, obviously, Joe Scarborough, what he's doing is it's not journalism.
	No one's going to try and arrest or prosecute Joe Scarborough.
	They don't do anything dangerous or threatening to power centers.
	So they don't feel, and they're probably right that this is actually threatening to them.
	It's only threatening to people who do real investigative journalism, which they know doesn't include them.
	100%.
	Okay, so I have some bad news to share.
	I've been informed.
	Several contacts have just texted me to let me know that it's been reported that Julian Assange has suffered a stroke.
	So that's horrible.
	That's horrible news, but I can't believe he's been able to stand up this long without a major health thing like that.
	So thoughts and prayers and whatever, if that's the kind of thing you do, do it for Julian Assange.
	But, you know, keep your outrage over the establishment that's stealing your First Amendment rights.
	The establishment is stealing your freedom of the press.
	The establishment is stealing your right to know.
	That's who you should remain upset at.
	And don't listen to the assholes at MSNBC and CNN and the New York Times and the Washington Post and 90% of YouTube.
	Do not listen to them when they want you to get angry at your neighbor.
	They want us to turn on each other and it's working.
	So I'm pushing back on that.
	And your enemy is not a school bus driver.
	It is not a nurse or a nurse's aide or a teacher who won't get vaccinated.
	That is not your enemy.
	Your enemy is the oligarchy in the establishment.
	Because let's remember, 200,000 people would still be alive in this country if we had Medicare for all.
	And they're refusing to give you that.
	And they pretend to care about this COVID virus and they pretend to care about your health.
	And they don't give a shit about either.
	They only give a shit about their political career and their donors' money.
	That's all they care about.
	So don't fall for the bait.
	Keep your eye on the establishment, Joe Biden, the Justice Department, the media.
	Keep your eye on them as they persecute Julian Assange and let him rot and die.
	So don't turn on your neighbor.
	Other Americans aren't your enemy.
	Your enemy is the oligarchy.
	Bell rings
	Hello, Dr. Fauci.
	Hello, my son.
	Oh, what the F. So Dr. Fauci, do you really think it's anti-science to criticize you?
	Because that's what I heard you say.
	God, Jimmy, all this theater with the nonsense and the randbulls and the puppies and the heads and the boxes is just the deflecting of the Trumps.
	And it's anti-science.
	So criticizing you is anti-science, right?
	That's what you say?
	Anyone who is looking can see there is a distinct anti-Semitic flavor to this.
	I'm half-science on my mother's side.
	And even though my flaw that's Italian, I still face constant anti-Simatism.
	So you never diverted funds to a gain of function research in Wuhan?
	Jimmy, you sound like an anti-Simite.
	There's a scientific nuance to this.
	We hired the Wu-Tan lab to do a gain of Fauci research.
	It was absolutely scientifically necessary to advance the gains of Fauci.
	And it was very successful.
	Calling it a gain of function is a common misconception by people who love Trump and hate science and eat the pace of the horse.
	I don't know if that's fair.
	Well, that's because you're an unvaccinated animal who drinks the pace of the horses with the high-fives and the Joe Rogans and the Boogle.
	No, I am vaccinated.
	I had a bad reaction to the Moderna jab.
	Well, that just means it's working.
	Look, instead of the nonsense with the research and the asking of the questions and the whistleblowing, why not pick up a nice Fauci prayer candle with my face where the Virgin Mary's face would be?
	Yeah, I saw those online.
	And I got to say, Dr. Fauci, prayer candles with your face on them don't seem very science-y.
	Please call me Father Fauci as befitting a man of the science.
	I'm not doing that.
	Well, at least try a reliable source of science before you spread your misinformations.
	My sources are the FDA, the CDC, Pfizer's own website, and published scientific studies, and the inventor of the mRNA vaccines.
	Those are my sources.
	Well, that's the problem right there.
	You're not qualified to understand the sciences.
	You should only be getting your information from Disney Plus.
	Really?
	Disney Plus?
	Yes, they have a wonderful scientific documentary on it right now called Fauci.
	Ah.
	About the man and his greatness and the science and the candles and the pillows with my face on.
	Hey, you know there's a lot more to that phone call, but we don't have time in today's podcast.
	How do you hear the entire phone call?
	You got to become a premium member.
	Go to JimmyDoorComedy.com, sign up.
	It's the most affordable premium program in the business.
	Today's show was written by Ron Placone, Def Zamorano.
	All the voices performed today by the one and the only the inimitable Mike McRae, who can be found at MikeMcRae.com.
	That's it for this week.
	You be the best you can be, and I'll keep being me.

▲