The Boyscast with Ryan Long - Glenn Greenwald on Telegram CEO Arrest, Brazil Banning X, Working with Edward Snowden & CIA Mass Surveillance

Episode Date: September 11, 2024

Journalist Glenn Greenwald joins the boys from Brazil to discuss independent journalism today, interactions with shadowy figures, and why Dick Cheney endorses Kamala Harris. SUPPORT OUR SPONSORS! Marek Health - Go to https://marekhealth.com/boyscast and use promo code BOYSCAST for 10% off Ground News - go to https://ground.news/boyscast to get 40% off your subscription SUPPORT THE BOYS PATREON.COM/THEBOYSCAST  RYAN ON TOUR: Fort Wayne: Oct 11/12, Louisville: Oct 13, Phoenix: Feb 14-16, Portland: Feb 25/26, Edmonton: Jan 24-26, Tacoma: Feb 27-March 1, Minneapolis: Jan 17-19 - ryanlongcomedy.com SUPPORT THE BOYSCAST:  https://www.patreon.com/theboyscast http://ryanlongcomedy.com Ryan @ryanlongcomedy Danny @dannyjokes Johnny @chairsforcheap Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The Boys! The Boys Cast! The Lads! The Boys Cast! The Dudes! Prepare yourselves for the Boys Cast! The Bros! The Boys Cast!

The Homies! The Boys Cast! The Dudes! Experience the Boys Cast! The Boys Cast! Glenn Greenwald in the studio. Long time coming. There's so much going on that we kind of didn't completely know what we're talking about

and figured we would talk to an expert. By the way, just going through your stuff, I didn't realize how much stuff you've been involved with, where it's like, you look good as fuck for your age, by the way. That's the best possible way to start a conversation with me so very good choice we're definitely gonna have a good nice time yeah but like honestly yeah yeah we saw some photos from the edward snowden's or even like 20 years ago you just look the same yeah exactly no aging just keep doing a little more of that and then uh we'll definitely have

an excellent time together hey so okay obviously there was like the telegram stuff and then the brazil banning of x there's the russia stuff there's kind of a whole bunch of stuff we want to like ask you about but the first aren't you in brazil i am brazil i've lived in brazil for almost 20 years so how do you use twitter you want me to confess to crimes? Because as you know, not only is X banned now in all of Brazil, it is also a crime invented by

a judge to use a VPN to access Twitter. And the fine for doing so is 9,000 US dollars a day, which is literally more than the medium annual salary of any brazilian citizen so it's uh yeah it's a very strange situation there are hundreds of thousands of people in brazil if not more violating that law on purpose as civil disobedience which is good so it's going

to be very hard to enforce but yeah it's very strange to be in a country where an entire social media platform is just banned do you think they will try and enforce it on just as to make cases out of you know examples out of people just pick random people i i mean the difficulty for them will is going to be i mean on the one hand they really the judge who imposed it is this maniacal tyrant so he really doesn't appreciate when his orders are disregarded and disobeyed so flagrantly so i feel like he's going to have to do something the problem is the more high profile the person that he picks the more punitive it's going to seem i mean if he picks me or if he picks some

member of congress or some other journalist of a high profile platform it's going to seem very repressive it's going to be a vivid illustration of just exactly how censorship driven this whole culture has become so i think they're kind of in a damned if you do damned if you don't situation with this we can't talk to douglas murray and he was sort of saying the same same thing with all the uk stuff he goes they never go after anyone high profile because it's you know then they have to sort of answer for it where they just group if you grab normal people and sort of one by one pick them off they can sort of get away with it yeah exactly i mean about six weeks ago or eight weeks ago i got a hold of this massive archive um of internal communications from the highest level

of the chambers of this judge like what's up audios and documents and text showing what he's actually been doing for the last two years, a lot of naughty stuff. And I've been working with the largest newspaper in the country, Folio of São Paulo, it's sort of like the New York Times in Brazil, to report it all, to reveal it. And in general, I have found that people who wield a lot of power generally dislike and react with a lot of anger when you take their private actions and communications that they've been trying to hide and you instead reveal them all over the front page of, say, a major newspaper or on television or whatever. They tend to react very poorly to that. So he's already taken some steps to try and be menacing and threatening toward me, toward the journalists with whom I've been working. So that's why I say I hope I become the prime test case of being punished as someone using

a vpn but i think precisely for that reason he will choose someone else what is he what what has he said to you well there's the the way in which brazil has been effectuated is that they right after bolsonaro was elected in in, it was a very similar reaction of the Brazilian establishment to the American establishment's election of Trump and their reaction to Brexit as well, which was they saw it as a huge threat to status quo ruling class power. And so one of the things in Brazil that they did was shortly after Bolsonaro's election, he was, you know, a kind of outsider his whole life. He channeled a lot of anti-establishment hatred and won on this wave of

of contempt for not just the left or the right but the whole ruling class they started creating antidotes to this threat to the system and one of the things they did was they created this criminal inquiry called the fake news inquiry where they decided that anything that they consider to be fake news doesn't just deserve to be censored from the Internet, but is actually a criminal offense. If the intent of it is to undermine the legitimacy of Brazilian institutions and therefore weaken Brazilian democracy. And surprise, surprise, the judge who's in charge of this inquiry ends up deciding that any criticism of him is not only fake news, but is designed to weaken the legitimacy of Brazilian institutions because he is the embodiment of Brazilian institutions, Brazilian democracy. So when we began doing the reporting, he immediately took our reporting and the reporters who worked on it and included us as subjects of this criminal fake news probe and classified the reporting as designed to weaken brazilian institutions so you really see the the tyrannical mindset how it grows kind of gets inebriated on its own power especially when

it acts without limits and what was the penalty that they were proposing somewhere there's no penalty what it entitles them to do though is there was a lot of talk about possible use of the federal police which is the kind of fbi equivalent of brazil to do a search and seizure at our house to try and discover who our sources were who gave us this archive um just a little nasty stuff like that so we are part of the criminal investigation which is already kind of shocking to take a major newspaper major journalist who reported on this judge and have him then lead a criminal investigation into the reporting process. You know, you would think that it's, but he does that all the time. He's the, he's the alleged victim. He's the police investigator. He's the judge and the

executioner. He does it all at once. He performs every role. I guess it saves money in some sense to have just one person be everything in the judicial process um but yeah generally like you're supposed to if you're a judge if you have some personal investment in some uh investigation such as being the target or the subject of journalism you're supposed to separate yourself from the process because obviously you're ill-equipped to objectively evaluate things but he sees that as kind of a green light to be even more aggressive. It's almost funny that the punishment for finding this guy's files is like, we're going to go through all yours. Because that's sort of what their argument is, right? They're like, we should be able to have access to all your stuff.

Exactly. We should be able to send the police to pick up your phones and your computers. I mean, that is the threat. And I mean, as you noted, I've done reporting similar to this, including when I was working with Edward Snowden, we did the NSA reporting where we went around the world publishing the most secretive documents from the most sensitive agency within the most powerful government on the planet, which was the NSA, the CIA. They also didn't like it when we were going around the world publishing in multiple countries their top secret documents showing what it was they were actually doing.

There were some kind of threats about things they would do but even they were far more limited than things in brazil are but i think it's important to note it's kind of easy to dismiss brazil like oh that has nothing to do with me it's very far away brazil is a big big country and it's part of the democratic world and a lot of people in the eu and the us are looking at brazil as kind of a laboratory for how far they can go and therefore how far the eu can go in the us and the US are looking at Brazil as kind of a laboratory for how far they can go and therefore how far the EU can go and the US can go, which also wants to control the flow of information over the internet with every bit as much vigor as Brazilians do. And all the architects and implementers and defenders of the censorship system in Brazil spend a lot of time getting

invited to big conferences in Madrid and in Paris and Berlin and Amsterdam where all the EU authorities go and listen to the theories they're invoking to justify this mass censorship system and beyond. They're imprisoning people as well with no trials, things like that, for political dissent. And they're taking notes, not in order to condemn it, but in order to figure out how to replicate it. Or like how much can you push it before people start to go crazy and how slow, like what's the speed that you have to push this stuff? Yeah, I think it's such an important point. Like if you go and look at

how the internet was conceived of, even just 10 years ago, like 2014, 2015, there were no people getting banned from social media because of their opinions. This is something that was unthinkable. The whole idea of the internet,

the reason why it matters, the reason why people are excited over it is because it had a liberatory potential. This was to free information, kind of emancipate us from the need to be mediated by centralized corporate and state control. We can communicate with one another directly, spread information freely, gather information, obtain it, have access to things. It was the whole reason the internet was an exciting technology. And any kind of interference in the internet was considered to be sinister. The Clinton administration tried it back in the 1990s after that bombing at the Oklahoma City courthouse. They tried to exploit the fear of that. And there was all these cover stories in Time magazine about the evils of right-wing militias. And the Clinton administration

argument was we need a backdoor into encryption on the internet because we have to monitor what's going on otherwise these right-wing terrorists are going to be able to be free and it was a massive backlash that gets said no that's not what the internet's for you're not going to be able to monitor and control the internet that's the whole idea of the internet and every time there's kind of a step forward like the one of the first people to be the deep deep person uh by major social media by big big tech was Alex Jones. And at the time, Peter Thiel, who was on the board of Facebook, one of the earliest investors of Facebook was one of the only people who stood up and said, I know no one cares about Alex Jones. No one wants to stand up for Alex Jones, but the minute Alex Jones is banned, they're going to start asking who the next person is, who's going to be banned. It's not going to

stop with, especially once it's like a bunch of people have that job, right? As soon as a bunch of people, you're like, hey, your job is this. They're like, well, you're going to need more people to do this or we're going to not have a job anymore. It's like once you start firing people... Yeah, and you create a precedent where you say, we now have the power to silence and ban people as long as they're sufficiently repellent. And then who is, quote, sufficiently repellent,

that category starts to grow pretty rapidly until it includes basically every person dissenting from any kind of establishment dogma at all that's the history of censorship power any kind of abuse of powers it becomes very intoxicating people who get that taste of it don't want to give it up it's kind of like a crack addict like you smoke crack the first time and love the high you want to keep chasing that and it's very similar how censorship works is there a like a lot of people discussing this expanding in brazil like is it kind of top of mind right now yard is it just kind of like they were they able to sort of do it no one really noticed there or is it a big deal it's a big deal except that there's a lot of support for it first

of all it's very ironic because this judge who kind of ended up being in control of it, he does not come from the left. He was always actually part of the right. But he was kind of like a Mitch McConnell figure, like Paul Ryan, like part of the establishment right, sort of like the way Mitch McConnell and those types hate Trump. These kind of people on the right, these conservatives really hated Bolsonaro. And the people on the left, when he was first appointed to the Supreme Court, you know, called him a racist and a fascist and a white nationalist, all the things the left calls people who they don't like, they called him all those things.

And within about four years, once he started imprisoning their political opponents and censoring their political opponents, abandoning them from the internet, he became a national hero, like the target of great adoration from the left. So the Brazilian left is completely behind him. And then you sort of have that establishment middle that is kind of uncomfortable with the idea that their prerogatives and status quo establishment power might be destabilized. And although they think he's going a little bit too far, prefer that he go too far rather than not far enough to make sure that these threats to their prerogatives are suppressed, however you have to do it. So basically, you just have the targets of this arbitrary power, which is the Brazilian right, going out into the street in mass numbers, protesting, advocating for his impeachment.

And you know, it's at the point now, I've always been considered part of the Brazilian left or admired by them. The work that I did in 2019 and 2020 allowed their former president, Lula da Silva, to be released from prison because we showed that his prosecution was corrupt. And just by advocating free speech now or posing the idea that a judge should be able to just with a stroke of a pen, no due process, no accusations, nothing, ban people from the internet, force tech platforms to pay a lot of money if they don't or even close them you immediately they've associated free speech it almost codes now as like a far right or fascist value which is pretty ironic since there aren't many fascist regimes in history that have actually defended or offered free speech they generally tend to prefer censorship but somehow the banner free speech

has been translated into a a far right or or fasc banner to wave, and it's been demonized very successfully that way. So it's a huge story. Obviously, everyone's talking about it. But there's a good amount of people who say, okay, it might be extreme, but we still want to make sure that this political movement that we regard as threatening remains silenced and neutered and incapable of exercising their rights. Why do you think that, because it always does seem like the free speech sort of gets tossed around in terms of which one uses it, it can be like a sexy issue, I guess. But do you think it's, do you think it really is just because they have more power and that's why whoever has less power, free speech is going to be their issue as far as like a political thing?

Yeah, nobody ever walks around and says, I'm opposed to free speech. I want to censor political dissent. No one ever says that. I mean, even in China or Iran or North Korea, that's not the argument. They don't say, oh, we're censoring because we hate dissent. They're saying there are certain ideas that are too dangerous, too hateful, too destabilizing to the security of our society that we cannot permit those for the safety of our citizens, for the sovereignty of our country. And in the West, I think we're inculcated a little bit more, especially in the US, with this idea that we're all, of course, supposed to support free speech. And generally, people will support free speech as long as the speech is impotent. So you have some guy like

standing on a cardboard box, renting and raving against the deep state or the government, or whatever. A lot of that in New York. No one cares. The police don't come. What's that? A lot of that in New York. Yeah, you see that in New York and then, you know, nobody comes and arrests them, puts them in a gulag. So you're like, hey, look, we're a free society. You can stand on a cardboard box and then you can start to like rant against the government and no one will come in and put you in a gulag. That's because we have free speech. The minute though free speech starts to actually have an impact, the minute the

free flow of ideas starts to threaten establishment power, that's when you'll immediately see the crackdown. And I think it's a very, it's a very universal temptation to want to ban and suppress ideas that one dislikes. I mean, I had found myself in alliance with the American right over the last eight years because of their, you know, very passionate commitment to free speech because they were the target of censorship on campuses and big tech. And I was objecting to that vehemently. And then after October 7th, we began seeing a lot of censorship of people who are critics of Israel or support of the pro-Palestinian cause. And I watched a lot of those same people on the right start inventing theories about why those people don't have a

right to be heard. I'm not talking about campus protesters using violence. I'm just talking about people online, people who have jobs. And it was always very similar to the left-wing theories. You know, they would say, oh, this speech is hateful. It's bigoted. It's anti-Semitic. It's inciting terrorism. terrorism and therefore it can't be heard and so i think we all have this tendency to defend free speech when it comes to the ideas that we have some sympathy towards or that we agree with and we're very kind of easily manipulated to start agreeing that speech that really offends us or threatens our values the most is somehow a different kind of speech that in some way deserves to be managed and controlled if not fully suppressed feels like

you almost have to the people that don't do that it was because you're like it's like a part of your identity that you're that you know what i mean so then like if you're just like no i'm it's my identity that i'm okay with things that i don't like and I understand the trade-offs maybe if you like have that as part of your uh like essence then you don't flip-flop all over the place and you're just not using it as a political tool or something yeah I think it's a good point like you know I grew up I like one of my the heroes of mine like in childhood were like the Jewish leftist lawyers at the ACLU who defended the right of the neo-nazi of the Nazi party to march through Skokie Illinois which was a town filled with Holocaust survivors. And the government denied a permit to the Nazi party that purposely wanted to march through this town full of Holocaust

survivors in the 70s, just 30 years after the Holocaust. And the ACLU went and defended it and said the government has no right to deny parade protests based on their dislike for the ideology or viewpoints of a certain party, knowing that if you allow that, it would then expand to, you know, all sorts of views that maybe in a different town would target left-wing speech or speech that people who are approving that censorship were. So I think kind of embracing it as a principle is, I think you're right, necessarily consciously embracing it as a principle. But the other thing I would say is, I do think in the United States, we had always been inculcated to think of our country and the reason our country is free and better than a lot of other countries is primarily because of this idea that

you can say what you want. The government can't tell you what you can say, doesn't decide truth and falsity. You're free. You're free to speak your mind, to express your views and not be punished for it. It's very, I think, in the DNA, or at least was, of American citizens. One of the very first articles I wrote after, once I stopped practicing law and became a journalist, there was this British historian who was notorious for being a Holocaust denialist, which is pretty much what he was, Holocaust revisionist slash denialist. And he got a position to teach at some college in, I think, France or Austria, I don't remember which. And during the course of his lectures, he would call into question what is considered proven orthodoxy about the Holocaust.

And obviously, such a person deserves all sorts of villainy and criticism and ostracization. That's all fine. That's what the person deserves. But he was actually criminally charged. He was criminally indicted, found guilty, and sentenced to prison. And I remember writing an article saying, you know, we have a very politically polarized country, left and right, hate each other, think there's nothing in common. But it's like, I think almost every American, at least that I know, and this is 20 years ago, so I do think it's changed, but every American I know would recoil at the idea that you can actually be sent to prison by the state because of views that you express about history or ideas. Yeah, you can be hated, you can be outcast, but every American would be like, how do you put people in prison for the things they say?

And I think it's a very universal american value that has been deliberately eroded and weakened over the last say decade or so yeah i mean we're from canada and they do that there too oh yeah that's a few of those way worse yeah because they always use sort of edge cases and which is i guess it is like even if you take like just normal people in your life you know for example the telegram guy right now they're just like well yeah there's child porn on there and you it's very you can most normal people are going to be like well you got to get rid of that you know what i mean so it is kind of uh hard to square can you tell me what's going on with him right now and also whether or not did macron uh invite

him to france saying that they were going to do a meeting and then put him in jail. Is that how it shook down? Yeah. Macron absolutely invited him to have lunch and lured him into French soil with the obvious intent of having him arrested. Once he got there, he would never have traveled to France. He understands the risks. So he sort of fell for the ruse. Yeah. Well, he's a French citizen.

Well, it's really interesting. Like his history, it's him and his brother, Pavel Durov and his brother. Before they found a telegram, which was intended to be an encrypted communication service that the government couldn't invade, where you could speak freely and privately, it launched after the Snowden reporting when we were showing the world kind of how the U.S. government and other governments were turning the Internet into this universal, limitless spying regime. Before that, he created created this is where his wealth primarily come from the kind of russian equivalent of facebook he's a russian-born citizen he was living in russia and in 2014 when there were these protests against the ukrainian government and other kind of unrest and inside russia the russian government came to that company and said you need to turn over all of this data to us about your users because we need to find who these

people are who are saying these things and organizing these things. And they refused and they were forced to flee Russia. So they have this history of defying governments and saying, fuck you, even your own government, even our own government, Russia, we're not going to give you private data about our users so that you can censor them or punish them for the things that we're saying. It's antithetical to everything we believe the internet is for. So then they create a telegram, they move to Dubai and create a telegram with the same idea. And now it's not Russia, but Western governments who are telling them this. And the fact that the French government created this theory, where multi-billionaire tech executives, even they are now vulnerable to this theory that if somebody

commits a crime on your platform, you become a conspirator in that crime. You become criminally liable for whatever crime they're committing on your platform is number one, intended to scare the shit out of everybody, including Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk to make sure that they're censoring more so because now they understand that it popped up in like a Jack Ma situation. Yeah, yeah. I mean, you know, you're a billionaire, multi-billionaire tech executive. The idea of flying around the world to places like France and not getting arrested is something that is very important to you.

And if that gets taken away, and believe me, I know for a fact those people I mentioned and others were very alarmed by this arrest, which was the point of it. But the other part of it is, you know, we have this law called Section 230 that was enacted very early in the advent of the internet, which says that a tech platform or social media company cannot be held liable for things that their users say or do on the platform. So if I go into Facebook and I post that so-and-so is a pedophile, that person can sue me, but they can't sue Facebook for what I use Facebook to do. And it was always considered to be this crucial protection because the minute you take it away, which is what this arrest of Pavel Durov is intended to do,

and the Democrats have been threatening to take away this protection from social media companies for years, saying, if you don't start censoring, we're going to take away your 230 protection. What it's going to do is it's going to mean that social media companies for years saying if you don't start censoring we're going to take away your 230 protection what it's going to do is it's going to mean that social media companies are going to have to censor everything other than like the most banal and they become tv networks it'll become threads yeah it's just an indirect way for governments to control these social media companies by saying if you allow any sort of dissent or activity that we consider criminal, we're going to put you in a jail cell, not just fine your company. The other thing I wanted to say, you mentioned pedophilia and sex trafficking as kind of the

pretext. Obviously, everybody thinks child pornography and sex trafficking and all of that, pedophilia should be criminal. And whoever does that and engages in that should be put in prison for a long time. No one disputes that. but i think it's very important to be careful that anytime governments use some sort of boogeyman some sort of like threat and say you either need to give us these powers that we never had before and that generally you'd be afraid for us to yield such as censoring the internet otherwise you're going to have sex traffickers and child pornographers and pedophiles be able to get away with doing what they're doing. They're going to harm and exploit your children. You have to be very careful because this is always the authoritarian formula. When we started

revealing the espionage system, the mass surveillance system of the NSA over the internet in 2013, 2014, the US government's defense under the Obama administration was, oh, we need these systems because it's how we chase down pedophiles and child pornographers and drug traffickers. I was like, I just spent the last year of my life reading through millions of your top secret documents and if like one quarter of 1% of your surveillance activities

are devoted to drug traffickers and ability and chopper, that's a lot. That's a good point. They're very effective boogeymen to use. Right. Fellas, Merrick Health represents a paradigm shift in how we approach medicine, empowering those who want the most out of their health care and wish to maximize their potential.

So you go get your panel. Me and Danny have both done it. They go through everything. You can start to optimize the way you feel, and especially you know i'll tell you get into your 30s as a dude you start to the energy is the energy's down a little bit yep and you're not sure why no sometimes you know but yeah me and danny both you know i figured out that i was like low on iron just like a bunch of like random stuff that you don't do

and then you can do it you know you can do it again so you actually have something to compare to and if you're in the gym they have stuff to help you with that. Exactly, right? So insurance companies also regularly deny progressive treatment options. I'm sure RFK has talked about this, but that's where they want you sick. They want you sick. They want you sick. And so primary care physicians refuse to order comprehensive lab work,

and the standards of care lag years behind the leading research. That's because they want a customer for life. You know what I'm saying? Oh, yeah. Whereas Merrick Health, you can do it. It's the premier health optimization platform, empowering you to maximize the longevity of your performance with the confidence that comes with having experts in your back pocket,

offers cutting-edge diagnostic labs, concierge health, coaching, and clinical oversight. We support clients in achieving their health fitness goals by leveraging data-driven lifestyle and nutrition recommendations along with supplement and prescription treatment options. So you're not on the internet doing your panel, then looking at yourself. They can look at the whole thing. Then they tell you, this is the recommendation. Here's where you buy it. So they make the whole thing very simple. The team maintains clinical, rigorous clinical standards. Only hire physicians who reflect a standard of

excellence and are hungry to continue their education in the years to come as science evolves so you're not getting a fat doctor no they're all jacked all the guys are all jacked fitness guys yeah it's as opposed to you know someubby. Yeah. You know, I'm not going to describe what a doctor might look like. Doctor Hooters. So me and Danny are both big fans of Merrick. Expedited onboarding for those interested in working with Merrick Health provider and personalized treatment options ranging from hormone optimization, which some people might be looking for just that.

So you can go cognitive enhancement, hair loss prevention, body recomposition, all from the comfort of the home. Basically anything you need to do. And it works. I mean, I can tell you with actual personal experience, like when I went with them six months ago, like I had my blood pressure was like a little on the high side. Yeah. And then I got it down.

Okay. So the optimization package includes the same elaborate panel we both get. And with those test results, the Merrick health clinical team optimizes their personal protocol to get the exact same panel and medical oversight click the link in the video description below or go to merrickhealth.com slash boys cast m-a-r-e-k health.com slash boys cast use the code boys cast to save 10 at checkout and with durov too i read read on his telegram, he actually said that they have a, not a policy, but because certain countries have asked them the same thing

where they're like, you need to censor. And they're like, we'll just leave the country. That's fine. Like, we'll just like, I believe he did it in Turkey where it's like, okay, it's like, we'll just leave. But France didn't even give him that option. They're like, we're actually just going to charge you criminally when he's happy to just leave the country of France.

So it seems like very heavy but the the platform where i have my show where i do a show every night a live show is is rumble and i purposely went there because rumble is genuinely committed to this cause of preserving places of free speech on the internet even willing to defy government and rumble is currently unavailable both in brazil and france the reason they're unavailable in brazil so i like i'm in brazil and want to watch my own show or even broadcast my own show we have to use a vpn is because rumble was getting so many censorship requests daily i don't mean from like random citizens i mean from like elected officials and the senate the congress in brazil some of the people who have like the greatest votes the biggest vote totals so these people are saying we have to censor them to protect brazilian officials in the Senate, the Congress in Brazil, some of the people who have the greatest votes, the biggest vote totals. So these people are saying we have to censor them to protect Brazilian democracy, even though the people they're censoring are the people who have the most

democratic support from the people of Brazil who actually want them to represent them. And Rumble finally said, we're not willing to do this anymore. And Brazil said, we're going to cut you off at the IP level the way they just did with Twitter. And so Rumble just said, okay, we're leaving Brazil. It's not worth it to us to have to comply. The reason they're not available in France, Rumble, is because of the start of the war in Ukraine, when Russia invaded Ukraine in early 2022, the EU passed a law, the EU, the entire EU, that it's a crime for any social media platform or any tech company to allow RT or Sputnik or any Russian state media even to be heard on that platform. So if you're like an adult citizen of Europe and you want to hear the other

side, like the views of the Russian government about this war that your country has involved you in, you just want to hear it. You're an adult. You know that you can critically evaluate it. You can't find it. It's not available to you. Google removed it immediately to comply with the EU law. It just got censored off the internet. And Rumble said, fuck you, France. We're not going to take dictates from unelected French officials about what we can and can't have on our platform. They refused to remove RT and Sputnik on free speech grounds and said, people want to hear it. They should be able to hear it. They're adults. And France said, we're going to cut you off the IP level if you don't remove them immediately. So this is becoming the trend where companies are becoming either forced or are

forcibly excluded to either leave or get cut off. And this is not coming from the bad countries that we're taught to think of as tyrannies like Russia and Iran, North Korea and China. It is coming from them, but it's also increasingly coming even more so from the good countries. The countries we're told are free, like in Western Europe and Canada and the UK and the United States and in Brazil. And each country is looking at what every other country does and how far they go. And every time one goes further, that country can then think to themselves, well, we can do that too. And I don't think it's a coincidence that Brazil's banning of X happened three days after the arrest by France of Pavel Durov. It was sort of like a signal, a green light.

Kind of like when they all do Alex Jones at once sort of thing. Yeah, they all kick Trump off. Exactly. Yeah. And why didn't they just block Telegram at the IP level then? Like, any idea on that if that's they already use that for rumble why lure him there and arrest well it sounds like they don't want it blocked they want him to go they want him to give them the info yeah yeah i understand that

but i guess this seems like a different you know because i know chris pavlovsky who wrote who's started uh rumble when pavlo rumble yeah the ceo rumble when pavlo got arrested he like tweeted he's like i'm on he was in france i believe or he was somewhere in europe i believe he was in france but he hopped on a flight and he's like i'm out of here and like he said it with kind of like a concern like i got out of europe safely just think about that yeah yeah like it's world war two citizen yeah it's like hey i evaded arrest by western europe for the crime of allowing free speech on my platform. And I think this is what the whole Pavel Durov thing is. I think a lot of it was aimed at Elon.

It's really important to understand what a threat Elon is to Western centers of power because he's just not any billionaire. He's by far the richest billionaire. He has extraordinary power. He has more satellites that he controls than any other single government. extraordinary power he has more satellites that he controls than any other single government um he has a major car manufacturer and now he controls what had been the public square of journalism and politics in much of the West and the fact that he's saying I am not going to use this to censor at the command of Western government is a gigantic genuine menace to their main agenda which is to control the flow of information and so i think a

lot of this was a way of trying to intimidate elon and saying i know you think you're protected because you're the world's richest person but we don't give a shit who you are we will put you not just find you we will put you in prison in a jail cell we will take your passport and prevent you from leaving the country while you're awaiting trial to go into prison if you don't immediately comply with everything we want done over the internet that was the message that was sent believe me that was the message that was received as well yeah dude there was this guy robert reich and he writes these articles we saw recently and it's like like basically just quiet part out loud where the whole article was just like this is what we need to do to elon like threaten to put him in jail but

exactly what you're saying like just out loud not even, not even coded in any way. Yeah. So, yeah, yeah, sorry, continue. No, no, I think, I mean, it is amazing to me, because I do think I kind of consider myself more associated with left-wing ideology, like growing up, just because of where I grew up, the climate in which I grew up. And one of the causes that the left really did kind of pioneer in the u.s in terms of this absolutist free speech theory was just that like it was the left-wing supreme court justices that wrote some of the most important free speech precedents in the united states the free speech movement came out of berkeley in the early 1960s as a response to the protest and the crackdown on protest about the Vietnam War.

So for me, free speech has always been this movement associated with the left far more than the right. I grew up in the 80s, and that was the moral majority wanting to censor music and films and all sorts of things. So that was the framework that I always looked at censorship and free speech through. And so now to watch the left, and it's especially true in Brazil, but Robert Reich was always supposedly on the left flank of the Democratic Party. He was the Secretary of Labor under the Clinton administration, somebody who could never get reappointed because of how left wing he is, to come out now and explicitly urge the arrest of Elon Musk for the crime of allowing people to say freely what they think without censoring on command is just, it's such a bizarre irony to me to watch people who identify as leftists explicitly advocate this, the imprisonment

of people for crimes of free speech. Yeah, and you were obviously a big, you know, opponent of the war in Iraq. What do you make of Dick Cheney endorsing Kamala Harris? Is that like... How do you even explain that? I find it to be one of the most bizarre things ever because... Part of me thought that maybe he's doing it, he actually wants Trump to win and he goes, yeah, I'm going to do it. It's opposite day.

No, no. I do think there's some really actually important and interesting trends that are reflected by that. I mean, when I started writing about politics in 2005, my main motive was what I considered to be the attack on basic civil liberties in the Constitutional Order by George Bush and Dick Cheney in the name of the war on terror under the pretext of fighting terrorism. Like due process was eliminated. Torture was instituted. Warrantless surveillance on American citizens, all those sorts of things. was instituted, warrantless surveillance on American citizens, all those sorts of things.

And at the time, every liberal and every Democrat I knew considered Dick Cheney, like, not a bad person, but like the modern day equivalent of Hitler. Like everything that they say about Trump, they were saying about Dick Cheney just 20 years ago. I remember that. It's not like Dick Cheney. What's that? I remember that. Yeah. Green Day wasn't a fan. Yeah. Oh, yeah. But they're voting for the candidate he endorsed. Right. And so it's not just a Cheney. It's all those neocons from that time, like Bill Kristol and David Frum, Nicole Wallace, like the most beloved liberal personality in MSNBC, was the actual official spokesperson of the Bush-Cheney White House and the Bush-Cheney re-election campaign in 2004. All those Bush-Cheney operatives that were called racist and Nazis and fascists and warmongers by the left, now are vocal enthusiasts of the Democratic Party, not just against Trump. And this is what I think is so important. Liz Cheney went on ABC over the

weekend after she announced her endorsement and then Dick Cheney announced his of Kamala. And she was asked, like, a lot of people think it's kind of weird, like, you're the Cheneys, you have nothing in common with the Democrats, why would you endorse Kamala? Is it just because you hate Donald Trump? And she said, No, that's not the reason. She said, in fact, if you look at the foreign policy of Kamala and Democrats, or Democrats under Obama, and then Biden, we have so much more in common in terms of our foreign policy ideology in terms of our domestic policy with the modern iteration of the Democratic Party than we do with the Trump-led Republican Party. There has been this radical realignment of the identity of the parties in the age of Trump, of who they represent, what interests

they represent. Liz Cheney was very candidly saying, we covered this on my show last night in that interview, I'm not endorsing Kamala just because I hate Donald Trump or think he's a unique threat. I'm endorsing Kamala Harris also because her foreign policy views are closer to my family's foreign policy views, which is like neoconservatism and starting wars for all sorts of, you know, reasons that are unrelated to national security United States. That was what made Dick Cheney like the prime villain of American politics for as long. We think that the modern day Democratic Party is closer to our worldview and will better advance our interests than a Trump led Republican Party will will that's crazy do you agree with the thing that uh republicans are the dumber party and uh democrats are the eviler party like do

you think that's true right now or like do you think that you know kind of like the more like establishment of the republicans i guess wouldn't want to do all this stuff if they could. They just can't pull it off. Whereas like some of these capers, maybe the Democrats have more, you know, maybe more powerful people that they're sort of tuned in with where they can sort of pull this stuff off. There's no question that Democrats, especially with the emergence of Trump, even started happening before certainly Hillary Clinton was very much represented in this. The Clintons were really the ones who transformed the Democratic Party into this party that used to represent labor, the worker, the working class against big corporate interests. And the Clintons very consciously in the early 1990s, realigned the Democratic Party with massive Wall Street wealth, with the military industrial

complex, and they became much better financed. I mean, if you look at how Wall Street funded every election, except for Obama and Romney, where it was sort of equal because they saw Romney as one of them, Wall Street has been funding the Democratic Party candidate infinitely more than the Republican Party candidate, especially Trump-Hillary, Trump-Biden, and now Trump-Kamala. All Silicon Valley money goes to the Democrats. So they have realigned themselves and sort of made themselves the party of like the affluent suburbanite and the centers of financial power. And then you see this massive migration of the working class and not just the white working class, but increasingly the multiracial working class, black workers and Latino workers and Asian workers migrating to the Republican Party under Trump, which is kind of

weird since the media has been calling Trump a white supremacist for nine years, and increasingly all he does is build more and more non-white support among voters, which is kind of an odd thing for a white supremacist to do. But in that, you see this realignment. What I think is important to note is that the establishment lines of both parties, say like the Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan types who are just standard Mitt Romney, when John McCain was alive, those kind of Republicans, those like standard mainstream pro-establishment Republicans have infinitely more in common, infinitely more in

common, as Liz Cheney said this weekend, with the establishment wing of the Democratic Party than they do with either the populist wing of the, the left wing of the democratic party than they do with either the populist wing of the left wing of the democratic party or the populist trump-led right and that union of establishment public and establishment democrats you know they have like some theatrical differences on culture war stuff that nobody really cares about but on the stuff that matters in terms of like the disbursement of power they are very much on the same page far more so than the populist wings of either parties are and that's the real realignment in politics. Do you think if, so if you think if the Kamala Harris was the

administration, do you think that would be like a free-for-all for the deep state? Yeah, I mean, Kamala Harris is nothing. That's barely a person that exists. She has a name. I guess that's like a breathing human organism, but like,

no one, polls are now saying you know people were excited at first because paul's are just saying like we're sick of two 80 year old guys both of whom have been president like wanting another term it's just like boring it's stale it feels old we just want someone fresh and then like descending from this mountaintop is kamala harris she's not like a very young woman she's 60 but you know she looks very good like like me as you guys pointed out she looks a lot younger than her age right she's very vibrant very energetic especially compared to those two and so there was an original excitement and then people started saying wait a minute like who the is she like what does she believe

in what is what is she going to do if she wins and no one knows and they purposely are running a campaign to keep her from having to answer those questions like in any sort of unscripted way. And the reason is because there is no Kamala Harris. It's just pure opportunist, pure careerist. She serves whoever she needs to serve in order to advance herself, her donor class, her rich California financiers. So, of course, the last thing she's going to do is get into the Oval Office if she wins and start confronting power centers that's like the opposite of the way she's in glitter and tie light she's going to start serving them and that's why the deep state hates Trump so much because of this tension between them and he and they're fully behind Kamala same reason with you know with the latest trainees and Bill Kristols because they know that

Kamala is is nobody and nothing it's just an empty vessel who will be an instrument of of status quo power and and they trust her much more to do that than they do trump who's far more unpredictable and they're kind of running her as a populist right now do you think that and it was weird because when trump was in power they were like he's a populist that's bad now she's a populist and that's good but then also do you think that she's just if she's elected she's like screw the populism stuff i'm not doing that i mean obama ran as a populist too populist outsider too that was his big appeal he'd been in the senate for like seven seconds so he got to run as though he were some grand opponent of washington i think that's why both obama and trump won they kind of channeled this anti-DC, anti-status quo sentiment. And then

Obama got into the presidency and was the ultimate servant of establishment power. I mean, he was beloved by every power center for good reason. I mean, he got into office during the Wall Street crisis. And the first thing he did was save the Wall Street tycoons who caused the crisis and let the entire middle class have their houses foreclosed, even though there was a gigantic fund to prevent that from happening that he never actually used because he knew who he had to serve, whose interests he had to serve in order to become more powerful, which is his only interest. I think Kamala Harris is very similar in terms of her trajectory, her mentality. And yeah, of course, they're going to try and have her say stuff. But the problem for her is that when she ran for president

in 2019 in the democratic primary she had to run to the left of joe biden because joe biden had this sort of centrist mainstream you know vote wrapped up because he's joe biden he's been around for 50 years he was obama's vice president you weren't going to out mainstream joe biden so she had to run to biden's left but not so far to his left that she looked like Bernie Sanders. She had to kind of occupy this middle ground. So she said she ran her whole campaign based on all these left wing policies like banning fracking, banning plastic straws, funding child transition therapies, even for illegal immigrants and prisoners, a whole bunch of things like the single payer health care system. And so now she's had to come out and she hasn't even said it herself. She just had her campaign say, oh, all those things that I was running on that were the

core of my campaign, not 100 years ago or 30 years ago, just four years ago, the last election cycle are things I no longer believe. And that's going to be the thing that I think is going to plague her more than anything is like Americans don't pay a lot of attention to politics. But one thing they do better than elites who pay a lot of attention to politics is they smell that stench of like condescension and authenticity and really good politicians can mask it i think that was obama's talent bill clinton's talent trump is able to convey an authenticity that i think he has more than those two but bad politicians can't hide their inauthenticity and she's a bad politician and that's the thing people

hate the most you're saying she's not even good at the softest whatauthenticity. And she's a bad politician. And that's the thing people hate the most. You're saying she's not even good at the sophistry. What's that? You're saying she's not even that good at the sophistry component of politics? She sucks. This is the thing. In 2019, she had every advantage. She had, I mean, California is a huge source of Democratic Party funding.

Hollywood, Silicon Valley. She was the senator from California. She also was a black woman. So the idea that the Democratic Party could have a black woman obviously made the media swoon in adoration. She had every single advantage you could possibly have as a presidential candidate, the best possible press. She had to drop out of the race before the first vote was cast because she was such a debacle, such an embarrassment as a candidate, that although she started at like 15%, before the first primary, she was at like 1%. And her donations dried up. She was a total failure. And then when Biden said, I'm going to

pick a black woman as vice president, he only had like three choices, and she ended up being the choice. Until like eight seconds ago, she was widely considered, not just by Republicans, but by Democrats, by the left, by liberals, to be a national embarrassment. You know, like the only thing you ever saw of her is speaking in these like insanely vapid cliches, or even more annoyingly, like those kind of people who tell a joke that's not funny, but then they start laughing eternally at their own joke until basically they force you to laugh along with them. Otherwise, you know, it's never going to move on. Like a super annoying personality, a completely vapid way of talking about pretty much anything

other than what she knows, which is law and prosecution. She knows a lot about that, but nothing else. And somehow the media has turned her overnight. It's really a testament to the potency of propaganda into this like pioneering historic figure of great personal charisma and political inspiration and i think americans were kind of all along with the ride for a little while until they stopped and started asking like who is this person really we just don't know and i think that has been her downfall

over the last few weeks yeah it's not a lot a lot of those kind of hollywood california donors too like they basically said they weren't going to give any money to joe biden until he like they were kind of pulling the strings and they were like the month there's no money until you you step down or whatever don't run but then i guess they're happy to give it to her uh you know i guess she's the only option but it is bizarre when they cut her off think about how amazing that is like look what people have to do usually to become the nominee of their party they have to like declare their presidency president's candidate, two years in advance. They have to go around to Iowa

and go to all those fairs and smell all the cow shit that you know they fucking hate and pretend how happy they are to be eating corn dogs or whatever. Then they go to New Hampshire in the freezing weather and troll for votes there.

They participate in debates and interviews and they have to constantly get... She's done none of that. She didn't campaign for a single vote. She didn't participate in a single debate. She never sought the nomination. She was chosen by like eight democratic elites in a back room in secret and then imposed on the party and on the public. And it is, you know, it's so ironic how Democrats say, you know, we're the only party that can save American democracy. If you don't vote for us, American democracy is going to fall. They basically cooed the sitting president out of the race. He didn't want to leave. And Nancy Pelosi and others were saying, like, if you don't

leave, we're going to destroy you and your reputation and your legacy and force you out. And then they finally forced him out against his will and then imposed the candidate that they wanted. And as well as using billionaire donors to say, we're not going to give you any money, Joe Biden, so you can run, but we're not going to give you any money joe biden so you can run but we're not going to fund you you're not going to have any commercials or campaign staff because we're going to cut off all funding to you until you leave the race like how anti-democratic this has been like how extremely anti-democratic it's been i think it's been underappreciated and kind of the day-to-day excitement of what's been going is there any part of you that from just like a sheer politics standpoint respects

the move like what these guys can pull off i guess you kind of have to respect the the power like like you were watching this in a movie yeah yeah like nancy pelosi whatever else you want to say about her even at 84 good at politics she's got a real power. Yeah. And Barack Obama does too. But also just remember, in 2016, Bernie would have beaten Hillary Clinton, which, you know, was considered impossible. Nobody ran against Hillary Clinton except Bernie Sanders, because the idea that you could defeat the Clintons in the Democratic Party was impossible. He would have won had the DNC not cheated. And that's not me saying that, like Elizabeth Warren said that, Donna Brazile said that, that the DNC rigged the election to make sure Hillary won. And then in 2020, it looked

like Bernie was going to get the nomination again. He won the first three primaries, including Nevada by this massive amount. And then Barack Obama intervened, forced everyone out of the race who might divide the vote with Joe Biden, like Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar and Beto O'Rourke. And he just left in Elizabeth Warren to divide the vote with Bernie and that's how Joe Biden got the nomination so yeah I guess on some level if you like the exercise of secret anti-democratic power they deserve some respect and admiration for how skillfully they they wield that fellas this is the perfect episode to tell you about ground news so ground news is an app and a website that gathers related articles from across the world into one place but they give you the context about each source's political

leanings their reporting practices their reliability and their ownership i mean this is kind of a thing that we've been saying as a joke forever that they should actually when you watch a guy talking about a story is like well i want to know what that yeah they should have it in the corner in that guy yeah they should almost like have it in the corner and that guy's record and stuff like that and we've been like i mean a lot of people have said that it was like a joke but it actually exists in ground news and i use it for a lot of things especially when we're doing the podcast i'm always looking at ground news they always have like a little bs meter kind of it's almost like yeah so here'd be an example you know u.s economic growth for the last quarter is revised down for uh to a 2.1

annual rate so you look at it they go this is mainly from right-leaning sources high in factuality uh private equity allen global capital so it tells you all these different things there's a meter context yeah and also there's a big thing where the stories is if you see a story and they go what percentage of the outlets that um that uh uh cover this or you know release this story so you go okay so this is a story and you go 99 of the places they release this yeah this is just a right or left wing talking point yeah you can find out if it's a talking point you can find out that uh the history of the publications that actually produced it and what the motivations are so the blind spot feed is actually what we were talking about,

where they have the news stories that are disproportionately covered by one side of the political spectrum. So by doing this, you can access different viewpoints, not just across the political spectrum, but around the world. So that's another thing is a lot of times these stories you go, you know,

if it's about your country, you're like, well, how is it actually being talked about other places and vice versa? You can see discrepancies in how certain topics are covered practice critical thinking find common ground between perspectives practice empathy and understanding share good information and so try it out go to groundnews.com slash boys cast to give it a try if you sign up through our link you're going to get 40 off the vantage plan which this is more than a good deal and what we use going to get 40% off the Vantage plan, which this is more than a good deal. And what we use to get all the unlimited access and features.

I think Ground News is doing super cool work. And it's honestly a pretty cool site that I've been saying should exist for a while. And now it does. So that is groundnews.com slash boyscast. See through the media narratives. Subscribe to our link for 40% off unlimited access to ground news this month have you ever so this is kind of a turn but when you're dealing with like all the snowed and stuff and you know we're talking about like the you know the cia obviously in the patriot act and all that

stuff like when you were involved in this stuff did you people always talk about the idea of you know they're these people kind of shadowy figures what in like reality did you have to deal with like i know you said people are coming to your house uh you know were you threatened with law like do people like to what extent do you actually like interact with the you know what would be like the shadowy figures of the government that you say or that we people say are like censoring and stuff like what does it actually look like in reality examples like concrete examples yeah so when i first went to meet with snowden he was in hong kong because he had decided he needed to be in a secure place but he didn't want to be like in a tyrannical

place so hong kong is kind of controlled by china but they're a symbol of resistance and freedom against china so that's why he chose her so i went went to Hong Kong with him. We worked with him for like 13 days. That's when we started publishing the articles. And then he had to flee because he was about to get captured by the American government and went into hiding. And so my plan was that I was going to fly from Hong Kong to New York because I'd been doing a bunch of media in the middle of the night in Hong Kong. And there was a lot of media I needed to do. I needed to explain things to people about what we were doing and why, what Snowden did and why. And then at the last minute, my lawyers, who had been hired by The Guardian, and they're kind of lawyers who know Eric Holder personally, who pick up the phone and call the highest level of the DOJ, said to me, you can't come to New

York. It's not safe for you to go into the United States. We've been speaking to the government, the DOJ. They're saying that there's a good chance not only will you be subpoenaed, but you could even be arrested. There's theories being created about why what you did is a crime. So instead, I had to fly back. Find me the man, find the crime after. Like, yeah, find the crime. We'll figure out whatever you did. But what did I do? You're like, we'll figure it out. Exactly, exactly. And then about so I flew back to Brazil, and the Brazilian government, like the the reporting because we were also reporting how the NSA was spying on Brazil. So the Brazilian government said, well, we'll give you all the protection you need. But I didn't feel like it was safe for me to leave the U.S. for almost a full year.

The only time I went finally back was when we won the Pulitzer and the Polk. And we figured it was going to be kind of hard to arrest me at the Pulitzer ceremony while we're holding our hands to go to prison. So we kind of calculated that they couldn't do that. But three months after we started the reporting, The Guardian, which is based in the UK and was doing some of the reporting from that archive that's known and gave us, British agents physically entered, armed agents entered The Guardian's newsroom in the UK and threatened them and forced them to physically destroy the computers on which they were keeping the archive. What?

And said, if you don't, we're going to arrest you and go to prison. Yeah, this is all very public, very documented. And the Guardian tried saying, above everything else, like, it's pointless what you're doing. Like, Glenn Greenwald has copies hidden around the world of the whole archive. Like, we can destroy our computers, but we're still going to have the archive. You're not accomplishing anything. But they needed to show this, like like display of force against the journalism. And then a week after that, my husband, who was a member of the Brazilian Congress, went to Germany to meet with my colleague who was doing the Snowden reporting, Laura Poitras.

She's the one who directed the film Citizen Four about the work we did with Snowden that won the Oscar. Yeah, I watched that. Yeah, so she was the director of that. She's a brilliant journalist and filmmaker. There was a small part of the archive that was corrupted, and she figured out how to gain access. And the only one she trusted to give it to was David. I couldn't leave Brazil. I obviously couldn't go fly to Germany to meet with Laura.

Every intelligence agency in the world would watch that, would want every government, every terrorist group wanted access to that archive that was full of the most secretive documents. We had to safeguard it. So I couldn't go. So David went and he flew back to Brazil through Heathrow, through London. And at London, he was detained under a terrorism law for 12 hours. And the whole time they were threatening to put him in prison, to charge him with terrorism until the Brazilian government aggressively intervened. And they only let him go after 12 hours. When he sued the British government saying it was a violation of his rights as a journalist to put him in a detention for 12 hours under terrorism law, the court said to the British police, like, why did you do that?

And what they said was, oh, we knew exactly what he was doing because we had been successfully spying on their conversations. Like, they knew he was going to Germany to pick up this part of the archive and travel back to give it to me to let me do the reporting. Even though we were using the hardest core encryption, like every single form of communication security, they still were able to surveil his communication, mine, and Laura's, and they had to admit that in court to justify why they did what they did.

So you're talking about illegal surveillance of journalists. You're talking about threatening to arrest journalists. You're talking about threatening my spouse with prosecution under terrorism law of armed agents entering the Guardian newsroom. And then years later, there's been reports about the theories they were playing with the CIA to try and reclassify us not as journalists, but information brokers in order to prosecute us as Snowden's conspirators. So they don't play games, especially when, as I said, you're going around the world revealing their most sensitive secrets.

Are you able to travel to the U.S. now? Yeah. Once I went back to the U.S. that one time, Laura and I went together. We landed at JFK together. We passed through customs with no problem. Now I'm pretty good at travel back and forth. Okay. I have a buddy who's, he told me something.

He was like a journalist and he told me a while ago. He was like, a lot of people that say they're journalists, there's sort of actual levels where there's like the first one you're actually sort of like finding, you know, doing research, breaking stories. And then there's kind of reporting of that.

And then there's sort of commentary on top of that. And it feels like all of those things call themselves journalists, but the only, the real, the one underneath is, and it feels like the government's, what they want is just the first level they want the people that report on the stories and they want the comments on the

stories but they don't want people that actually find the stories like those are the guys who seems like always end up actually in like legal problems yeah like julian assange who broke more stories than every single one of these you know tv combined. And he didn't get a big contract and bunch of green rooms for it. He ended up in prison for 10 years. And I think that's the key is like all these things, like the idea of a free press or a free speech or whatever, they weren't just invented as some like arbitrary freedom. They all had a reason. And the whole reason why freedom of the press was included in the constitution was not because you were going to have this like special segregated priesthood of special citizens called journalists. The idea was citizens use the press like the literal printing press.

That's what, you know, the colonialists used against the crown printing, you know, dissent against the crown, riling people up against the crown. So they wanted to protect that freedom for any citizen to do. And the idea was it would be a counterweight against state power. It'd be one of the things that would limit state power. Obviously, the founders of the country were most worried about replicating a British monarch who had no limits. So one of the limits was this idea of a fourth estate, freedom of the press, and they were going to challenge and be adversarial to the government. And that's what they talked about. Most of corporate media now is not in any way adversarial to the government.

They are servants of the government or partners with the government. Most reporting, and once you start seeing this, you'll see how common it is. Every article in the New York Times, CNN, whatever, begins with X, Y, and Z happened, comma, U.S. officials said. So they're constantly being told what to print by the U.S. security state, by the U.S. government, where they get most of their stories, and then they go and print it as true. That's how we get lies like the Hunter Biden laptop is Russian disinformation or the whole Russia Gates scam itself. All that came from the FBI and the CIA, The Washington Post, The New York Times, CNN would just print it unquestionably. Real journalists are people who want to act against and provide limits on state power, you know, by finding out what they don't

want the public to hear or know and telling the public those things. And those are the people, it's kind of like free speech we're talking about. Everyone loves free speech as long as it's impotent, like you just stand on a cardboard box and say what you want and no one arrests you. Free press is the same way. If you're just doing reporting that serves the government's interest or isn't a threat to it, you'll have no problem. Your problems will only start once your reporting actually poses a threat to someone who wields a lot of power. And to me, that's the only real kind of journalism. Yeah.

And that's probably much easier because, you know, you get these tips from your government pals. You probably get invited to stuff fun things whereas oh yeah big enemies oh yeah every door opens if you're a propagandist for the cia or for the you know the white every door opens they go to they they go to these you know every year they have this this disgusting nauseating spectacle that they call the white house press gala where they like the journalists all dress up and pretend they're like at the oscars but it's like the dc version of the osc press gala where they like the journalists all dress up and pretend they're like at the Oscars, but it's like DC version of the Oscars. And they like,

they wear designer gowns and they like, they invite like B-list celebrities and it's a huge deal. And like the president goes like Trump to one of the best things he did was he refused to attend that sickening spectacle, but every other president before him and after him, Biden and, and, and, and Obama, Biden and Obama and Bush, they would all go and they would like hug each other and they give out awards and they would

make jokes about each other. It reflects this sort of the real ethos of giving a dog a treat. They are all. Yeah, they're all like members of a royal court. They're all kind of hidden behind Versailles. They all have the like angry peasants at the gates who can't get in. And they're completely, they completely identify with each other. There's zero adversarial energy between most journalists on the one hand and government officials on the other. And it feels like war is always the like third rail where even though all the other stuff's adversarialarial when you have sort of a different opinion on a war is when it really they start to crack down oh yeah i mean i think like one of the things people forget like you think about the iraq war and you know we're talking about it earlier like you think about dick cheney and the republicans the bush administration that

started it it had huge support from liberal institutions as well probably the most important media outlet that sold the iraq war to the public was the New York Times. They had all those notorious, now notorious stories where they would put on, you know, anonymous leaks every day about Saddam Hussein was on the market to try and get certain aluminum tubes that only had one use, which was to build nuclear weapons, all sorts of stuff about the location of his chemical weapons. The New York Times was crucial to selling to liberal America the idea of invading Iraq to the point where more than half of the Democrats in the Senate also voted for the war in Iraq, including people like John Kerry and Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden. So, you know, a lot of times we like to think about the New York Times as far left newspaper. The media is this far left thing. They are on culture war issues, which, again, like creates the theater that people are at each other's throats. But on the stuff that really matters, like foreign policy, war, the disbursement of economic power, these institutions are completely aligned. And that's why they find so much harmony between them.

they find so much harmony between them and that's why they also united in fear of and hatred toward trump because he his unpredictability became a singular threat to that harmony so okay so when it when uh as far as like the story that just happened with russia today like funding podcasters and stuff like that i'm sure you know like the tenant media stuff or whatever right i was a little confused because i'm just like is is RT like real like China state media? Or is it kind of more like the BBC where it's like, here's your budget, but also, you know, here's your directive. And then what actually happened? And to what extent do you think that it's like the people involved actually knew what

they were talking about? Like Lauren Chen, for example. So I think RT, I think maybe seven or eight years ago they were closer to the bbc than they were say the state media of china or iran there's been a erosion of civil liberties in russia certainly after the war uh as well and now rt is a good model of a propagandistic outlet of state television. I think there's a lot of state TV in the United States, too. But RT is a little bit beyond that.

And the Russian government now uses it in an arm of their propaganda efforts externally, which Russia is by far not the only country to do that. So this whole thing, like the indictment depicts the influencers in question, like Dave Rubin and Tim Pool johnson as as dupes no the indictment doesn't allege that they knew they were getting russian money and acting on behalf of the russian government it does kind of leave the impression that they were quite indifferent to the source of the money like if someone came to you and said hey brian i'm gonna give you a hundred thousand dollars for every video you produce about the

war in ukraine you're gonna be like oh that oh, that sounds good. But like, who are you? And where is this money coming from? And why do you want to do that? And you're going to want to know like what this is. You're not just going to say, oh, sure. Where do I sign? At least if you're like at all diligent about your integrity or your reputation or whatever. I can actually tell you, I think that eight years ago, maybe five years ago, I think RT, remember when they had that

comedian on Lee camp, Lee camp, they, they had a bunch of comedians and they were just like making a bunch of stuff. And I did get an email once being like, I actually didn't like know what RT was or whatever, but we were talking about making a movie. And I think one of the things was I got some person being like, Hey, we want to make a big offer. And I was just like, yeah, I just like kind of didn't even like message them back or whatever but uh yeah well like a decade ago like larry king when he left cnn had a show on rt there was this guy ed schultz who had a who was on msnbc for a long time at a show on msnbc he also went to rt it was a more respectable as i said quasi-independent outlet 10 years ago but now it's kind of a full-fledged state TV propaganda outlet.

Okay, so for example— Money laundering was the charge. The charge is money laundering. Because I'm like, if someone from a different country wanted to give you money and they wanted you to say something, like, I get why people don't like it, but what's the illegal part? why people don't like it, but what's the illegal part? So the only legal aspect of this is that if you are getting money from a foreign government with the explicit intention of advancing the interests of that government by propagandizing for them or lobbying for them, you are required to register what's called a fair form where you declare the fact that, okay, the Saudi government has paid me $50,000 a month to lobby for.

Yeah. And if you fail to file this form, it's considered a crime. This never used to be enforced. It really started to be enforced as a way of getting to Trump people during Russiagate. But I think the key context here is like this whole Russia thing, this whole idea, this narrative that Russia is contaminating our political discourse, influencing our elections, controlling people. I think this indictment has to be read with a lot of skepticism in this regard, because look at the amounts even. It sounds like a lot of money, $10 million. Oh, RT paid, spread out $10 million to a bunch of podcasters or whatever. In the scheme of an American election, where each party, the campaigns, officially spend close to a billion dollars to say nothing of all the billions of dollars of free corporate media coverage and just the amount of money.

$10 million is indetectable. It's a trivial amount. Nobody would suggest that that could have any influence on the election. And then you compare it to what the United States spends to interfere in the elections and internal affairs of other countries, including Russia. And it also dwarfs, believe me, the United States spends a lot more than $10 million to interfere in and incite dissent in Russia and other countries that they want to destabilize. This is something that all great powers do. What this has been really used for is two things. Number one, it emerged in 2016, this whole Russiagate thing. I remember the first time I ever heard this Hillary Clinton ad, it was that use of this baritone suspicion voice, like, what does Donald Trump have to do with the Kremlin? And why is he so in bed with the Russians? I was like, you've resuscitated McCarthy scripts from the 1950s.

Like, oh, your political enemies are, you know, beholden to in some disloyal and unpatriotic way Russia. Like that was the thing that resonated for me immediately. And of course, it turned out to have almost no evidentiary foundation. Robert Mueller investigated for 18 months that he could find no evidence that there was any collaboration between the Russians and the Trump campaign. And then in 2020, it was also used to discredit the reporting that was being done about Hunter Biden's laptop about what the Biden family was doing in Russia and Ukraine by lying and calling it Russian disinformation. And now right before the election, we have a new Russia story. So a lot of this is about trying to convince people two things. One, anytime you're hearing

dissent from the US government about the war in Ukraine, about, you know, criticizing the US government, you should assume that it's really just an attempt by the Russians to destabilize our country and divide us. It kind of is intended to discredit any sort of actual dissent, organic dissent, from our government's policies. And the other thing it's intended to do is to constantly try and create a link between Trump and Putin to try and suggest that if you elect Donald Trump, the real president of our country is going to be Vladimir Putin. Even though Trump did so many things in that four years that was directly adverse to the most vital interest of the Russians, that narrative still has a lot of hold and a lot of sway on people. I just think you have to be

very careful about an indictment as well. It's just a set of assertions by the prosecutors. Oftentimes they're proven to be exaggerated or debunked or false or without evidence. There's a lot of detail here. I'm willing to believe that RT did this. I just question the significance of it, given how much attention is being given to it. We've been kind of talking about that here, but because especially since so many governments have access to, you know, the social media platforms, let's say china with tiktok doesn't it seem like the easiest way to start a world war would be to release everyone's group chats like just to really but like even to release like if you right now were just like okay

tiktok every person's dms you'd be like okay here's people talking shit about their boss you know companies falling apart families would be falling apart like just the amount of it feels like when people talk about a nuclear threat it'd be like that would be a way to create like pandemonium it's worse than a nuke i mean seriously though it so it kind of feels like that's that's why privacy is so crucial i remember when we began the center reporting a lot of people were like oh what do i care if the government's reading my emails? I'm not a terrorist. I'm not a pedophile. I'm a boring person. I'm a law-abiding, boring person. They have no interest in my emails. And what we always tried to explain was that

everybody has a huge interest in privacy. Everybody uses privacy. There's things you're willing to say to, say, your spouse, your best friend, or your psychiatrist that you would be mortified for the public to learn you know you put locks on your bedroom and bathroom doors like you put you know locks on your social media accounts there's always we have things to hide there's information we're willing to share with some people some things we're not willing to share with anyone the ability to know everything you're saying and doing and then publish it is an incredible power in fact whenever i people say to me, I don't really care about privacy. You know, I don't

need privacy. I would always say, okay, I want you to do the following. Like email me the passwords to all your social media accounts. Like not just the good, nice, clean ones that you use under your regular name for work, but like all of them under the agreement that I can just freely troll whatever it is that you're doing and saying, and then publish it. If you don't care about your privacy, you think it has no value, just let me invade it and let me publish everything you're doing and saying. And obviously not one person has ever emailed me their social media passwords. I think with normal people, it's almost... What's that? Sorry, sorry. I've interrupted. It's hard with this. No, it's fine. I mean, of course, and exactly what you're just saying, imagine the pandemonium that could be released.

But I do, I want to just latch on to one thing you said, which I think is so important, that Russia is the country with the largest nuclear stockpile on the planet. They have more nuclear missiles, more nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles than even the United States has, the United States second. tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles than even the United States has. The United States is second. So you're talking about the two largest nuclear powers on the planet that within the last 70 years have at least twice come extremely close to nuclear Armageddon, to like an extinction level exchange of nuclear weapons. Those Cold War systems are still in place. We still have thousands of nuclear weapons aimed at their cities and they are aimed at ours. To do this sort of scandal of Russiagate, where you basically make it almost inherently suspicious, if not criminal, for American officials to pick up the phone and call Russians, or for Russians to meet with Americans and to

create this kind of climate where the Americans can't speak to the Russians anymore, which is basically what this Russiagate scandal has created. Even while we have planes buzzing around each other in all sorts of war zones around the world, including in Ukraine, including in the South China Sea, including in the Middle East. That is the most dangerous thing you can ever do. And that's the thing I always hated most about this use of these Russiagate narratives throughout these elections. It's not just that they're false scandals, which they are, but way more so the last thing you should want is to be toying with tensions between the u.s and russia because that is an extremely dangerous thing to do yeah it does feel like they're toying with it too yeah yeah they're trying to

they trifle with it for fun it's like yeah let's just villainize russia do you think do you think that china part of the game do you think china is like a bigger actual threat i don't think china is a threat in the sense that they want some sort of direct war with with the united states i don't it's like i don't think russia i don't even think this i mean so the united states did everything possible to avoid that because they're a nuclear power and so is the United States. David Gardner Think what China is intending to do and is starting to do very well is displacing the

United States as the main influencer in Africa, in Asia, in South America. I think it is notable that the last time China fought a war with any other country was 1979. They had a one-month border dispute that ended about in a month. Very low grade war. That's 45 years ago. Think of how many wars the United States has fought over the last 45 years in so many different places around the world. I think China is a competitor of the United States. I think we obviously have an adverse ideology, but I don't think we need to think about China as an enemy. I think there's an attempt to do that because having a Cold War is really good for business, for the military-industrial complex. It justifies these massive—you always need a big enemy. But I don't think China

needs to be an enemy of the United States as much as a competitor or an adversary. We have a couple of questions here. There's just a couple more questions that came from our Patreon. So this someone says, As a journalist, how do you feel about X being the news rather than media publications? Because it does seem like a lot of these independent media people have way bigger audiences

now than actual media for the most part right um does it like uh is that like a healthy place where it is right now where you know kind of twitter sort of everyone almost has to decide for themselves you know you have to listen to lots of different people and try to figure it out or do you think that this is sort of the end of an era and then it kind of you know however they say everything's like unpackaging then repackaging like do you think that that was sort of like the end of an era and it kind of repackages into more mainstream places again does that make sense yeah i mean independent media definitely has weakened the ability of corporate media to control the flow of information and propagandize i think it's an

incredibly important bulwark there definitely are problems with independent media um control the flow of information and propagandize. I think it's an incredibly important bulwark. There definitely are problems with independent media, including the fact that a lot of people rely on subscriptions or Patreon accounts. And a lot of times, if you're appealing to a group of people who have the same partisan allegiance or ideology, like there are shows that just say, we're MAGA, we're pro-Trump, or we're anti-Trump, we're anti-MAGA, you're kind of imprisoned in the sense that you can never say anything outside of that messaging because it will jeopardize your livelihood. And it's kind of audience capture that I think is unhealthy, especially for journalists.

But on the whole, any model of journalism that human beings create is going to have problems with it. Public journalism has problems because it's funded by the state, billionaire-funded journalism, and NGOs are problematic for different reasons. What I think is so important that the internet has done is it has given a form of accountability, inescapable accountability to these journalists. You know, 20 years ago, if someone wrote some shitty bullshit article in the New York Times or broadcast some piece of obvious propaganda in ABC, they never heard from anybody who was angry about it. Like you could write a letter to the New York Times, like the letter to the editor, and like they would laugh at it and rip it up and throw it in the garbage can. And now these journalists are hounded wherever

they go. You know, they're confronted constantly with these complaints about what they're doing. They know they're being watched. They know they're being scrutinized. They know if they try and get away with too much, there are going to be repercussions, not from their bosses, but from the public at large. And the more they lose trust and faith on the part of the public, the more the public migrates to independent media. So I think that's been a crucial instrument for diffusing power over information, which I think is a good thing. And I also think, I just want to underscore one more time, that because it's been so effective, that's why there's this new attempt to regain control over the internet, because it is a threat to establishment power in so many ways. Without the internet, without a free internet, we live in a closed information system where no dissent can

really be heard or found or can be effective. And that's exactly why it's become one of the primary priorities of Western states to regain control of the internet. Yeah, it's sort of a status thing too. Like it used to be like cool if you said I'm a journalist at New York Times. Now you say that and people are like, oh. Oh my God, imagine how embarrassing that would be.

Yeah, you're like at a party in New York City. You're like, oh, I work for the New York Times. You're like, oh, okay. Do you think it gets better? Do you think it gets better? Do you think in like York City, you're like, oh, I work for the New York Times. You're like, oh, okay. Do you think it gets better? Do you think in five years it goes more decentralized, or do you think that it kind of is, maybe certain

countries kind of retain internet, and then more places like the Candas, the Finlands, and kind of those smaller Western democracies all start to be more closed in? What do you think it looks like in five years are you optimistic or do you think it gets more the government sort of win and start to go more brazil and close it down on places yeah i think it's going to be an arms race you know like after our sunday reporting you had this huge drive for better

encryption tools that make encryption encrypting communication, a lot more user-friendly. You don't have to know about the computer. It forced big tech companies to make end-to-end encryption that protected communications that you have over big tech where governments can't intervene. And as a result, the NSA started developing tools to break down that encryption, to invade that encryption, which they were able to do. Then programmers and privacy activists developed more tools. So it's this constant back and forth

of let's try and make the internet more free. Let's try and make it less free. I think the same thing is going to happen here. Like, okay, they closed X in Brazil. You know, there are still hundreds of thousands, if not a couple million people in Brazil who have defied that and said, fuck you, I'm going to use these VPNs. If the government gets to the point where they can detect VPNs or control VPNs, someone else will try and create a tool that makes it indetectable, that makes it unprovable that you're using that. So there's never been a time in history ever where you've had some center of political power or financial power that got threatened and didn't attack in order to defend itself. That's what establishments do. That's why they exist. So if you're going to

threaten establishment power, you have to expect a conflict and a war that just, you know, give up the minute it starts. But you also have to be ready for that war and kind of commit to building up your own side too. And every time they take a step, you have to take a step as well to keep, you know, kind of being able to circumvent what they're doing. I thought this was a, that makes sense. And I thought this was a pretty good question. Someone said, so they've been essentially like watching the DNC and there's obviously like a lot of corruption rigging the primary sort of thing. And they go, when you're having arguments at Thanksgiving or talking to someone in your family, how do you explain that you're not even

Republican? You're just anti-Democrat because they're corrupt. And I'm sure that like, especially the trajectory you've had, I'm sure people, you've had a lot of people being like, oh, you're just anti-Democrat because they're corrupt. And I'm sure that, like, especially the trajectory you've had, I'm sure people, you've had a lot of people being like, oh, you're like this right-wing guy because of that or whatever. So what would you say when people, when you're exposing corruption and they're like labeling you, how do you respond to that? It's really funny because the first 10 years of my journalism, I mean, the overall perception was that I was on the left, both in the United States and in Brazil. I think that you still have these kind of like cliched ideologues and partisans

who totally identify as like Republican or Democrat or right, left. I really think for most people that has become archaic, that's not how they think about politics. I kind of feel like that too. You said you're independent. Yeah, or just, yeah, how they think i kind of feel like that too independent yeah yeah or just yeah how they feel about the system in general in 2016 you would hear constant reports from

reporters on the ground they would go like to labor unions or like community groups or whatever and people would they'd be like who's your favorite candidate people would say oh i have two favorite candidates donald trump and bernie sand. And like to somebody who is a professional political analyst who still sees the world through this left right matrix, like this 1980s style conservative versus liberal matrix, that makes no fucking sense. Like, how do you explain that? You can't. But that's not how people who are saying those things are looking at political figures anymore. They're looking at like, who's authentic? Who seems to be on my side? Who wants to fight the people that I perceive as threatening? And like I said, when I would advocate absolutist free speech in the 1990s or the 2000s, people would be like, oh, you're a far leftist. And now

I advocate exactly the same thing. And it's like, oh, you're a fascist. So I think these labels change and that's what makes them increasingly meaningless. And I think a lot of people are seeing that more and more. Yeah, it's kind of just an eye roll. You're just like, yeah, if you want to be part of the puppet show, that's fine. But I'm not really like... I mean, there's barely any difference between their platforms at this point. She just copies most of the stuff he does anyways.

They have like three things that they're probably separated on. That was the funniest thing. I mean, you can find it when he announced he wants to exempt tips of service workers and waiters from taxation there were all these economists coming out and condemning it and saying why it's totally regressive and unfair whatever and then she announces that as though nobody had ever thought about this before until she did even though it was exactly the same policy that he did and you had all the same people coming out oh applauding it,

she's on the side of the workers. There's so many examples of where it's so vivid. I think we covered it, but when he did it, they said this is why it's going to be bad for the IRS, because there's going to be a huge tax shortfall now. Yeah, and government programs will have to be cut.

Yeah, and when she did it, here's why this is good. I have one more from our patreon that's kind of funny and i don't know if danny has anything else but said why do you have so many dogs who doesn't like dogs i have uh we have 26 dogs i always forget how weird that sounds and then i used to have this whole we used to have this whole cycle where like i would pick up dogs in the street and bring them back because they were suffering or sick. And my husband would be like, if you bring one more dog back, I'm divorcing you.

And then like a month later, he would find a dog in the street and he would bring it back. And so there was all this hypocrisy constantly. But once we got to 26, we were like, you know what? That's probably the limit. Yeah. But I mean, what's another? Like when you have 19. Now we put them in our dog shelter. Okay. Because like when you have 19 dogs at that point, you're like, what's another like when you have 19 where we have like now i put now we put

them in our dog okay because like when you have 19 dogs at that point you're like what's another dog let's it's not you know it's funny i used to not that much more work whenever i would hear of some like couple that had like 12 kids i would always wonder like how do they even remember their names and like do they have know anything about their personalities there's like 12 of them how do you focus on any of them and so sometimes people come and know that we have 26 dogs and they're like do you even know their names i'm like what how dare you i have a very individualistic relationship with each of them i understand them completely um so yeah i kind of get that that question that's amazing dude i always just on the phone thing like it is uh hard to deal with as a normal

person sometimes where you're just like they're tracking everything everything you have like do you do you do anything where you have you're like okay i'm not gonna use uh like an iphone or i'm like do you make changes based on on your personal life to be like uh kind of escape the matrix you know what i mean do you do do you do anything personally it's almost it would almost be impossible to do it for everything so you just have to accept that you're vulnerable to that and try to find it on a grand scale various forms of encryption i really only go to the maximum degree if i'm working with a source whose needs to remain anonymous whose identity can't be discovered or i'm working with sensitive source who needs to remain anonymous whose identity can't be discovered

or I'm working with sensitive journalism that I don't want anyone to know about before it's published then I'll use pretty extreme steps of the kind we used in the Snowden story but sort of updated modern ones but going through your life who can avoid an iPhone or like a Mac and with that comes all kinds of vulnerabilities you just have to kind of

pick and choose I think when you get more extreme with it. I have one more thing too because things move so quick now because of the internet like the story you know like trump shooting feels like it was 10 years ago you know what i mean is it hard is that one of the reasons why it's potentially harder for people to do real journalism because before you used to work on this thing for six months and now everything's like moves so quick do you think that's one of the one of the reasons why the like incentives are there's like less of people probably doing what you're doing and more people that are just kind of like commenting for sure i mean if you're an independent journalist you need to feed people content like you can't just pop up once every six months with some

investigation that used to be the luxury of working like at the new york times or the new yorker or whatever is you they would give people that space, which is very valuable. Because if you need to conduct a big investigation that requires a lot of work and research and confirmation and work with archives, you need to be able to disappear and not work.

Being independent media, one of the things I do is I write articles and then also we do this live nightly show every night on rumble um it has decreased my ability to do this and like this part of this story i just did in brazil they were still doing i had to rely on a lot of colleagues to help me with the work just because there's not as much time so yeah that is a drawback for sure that definitely is a reason why you don't see as much investigative journalism especially from

independent media as you might if it weren't for this constant pressure to produce. It kind of feels like it affects everything, too, just in general. I mean, even in comedy, it's like people that put out jokes where you're like, if that guy actually worked on that for two more months, it'd be way better. And it seems like everything kind of is being affected by that,

where it's almost like the meat is being disintegrated and the surface level is growing or just attention spans are so short right now you know the kind of and there's just yeah like like the when cnn showed up and there's like we're doing this 24-hour news it was the craziest thing and now it's you know 10x of that essentially what's going on so yeah i mean i don't know if you guys have kids but like i see it with my kids like i just watch them like scroll constantly they can't like pay attention to anything for more than six seconds and so sometimes i just take their phones and like force them to sit down and watch like a two-hour film or documentary or whatever just to train their brains that like

you don't need to like every three seconds um but yeah i know it affects me too you know i used to write a lot of books i haven't written a book in like four years because i just don't have the time and patience to sit down i always feel like if i want to produce something quickly that's going to have more effect than like disappearing for four years and writing some book where where people just read less because of their attention span and just like the what the difference in how people consume information now yeah it's kind of interesting but, we really appreciate you coming on here. Thank you so much for coming on.

Yeah, because honestly, there's a- Yeah, it was great talking to you guys. As I told you, I'm a big fan of your work. I've seen a lot of stuff that you do that I think is hilarious. So yeah, I hope you keep it up. Hell yeah, man. And you do though, it looks like right now you're doing the five days a week on Rumble, right?

Yeah, yeah, every night at 7 p.m. And that's just rumble.com slash glenn greenwald yeah hell yeah alright you're the best dude thanks for coming thanks guys

thank you appreciate it good talking to you see you soon bye peace brother