Jimmy Dore on McCarthy’s Speakership Bid, Squad Hypocrisy, Ukraine, & More
Read the full show transcript below!
Watch System Update #14 here on Rumble.
Note From Glenn Greenwald: The following is the full show transcript, for subscribers only, of a recent episode of our System Update program, broadcast live on Rumble on Tuesday, January 3, 2023. We have now returned to our normal programming, Monday through Friday live on Rumble at 7:00pm ET and will produce full transcripts within 24 hours of all the live shows we do for our subscribers here and on our Locals page, where all of our written journalism will now be published.
If you’re a paid subscriber here on Substack, you already have full-access to our Locals page, where you can catch exclusive after-show Q&As and read our written journalism going forward. All you need to do is activate your account. To do so, simply go to my Locals page — by clicking this link — click “forgot password” — enter whatever email address you use to receive my Substack newsletter, and a link will be sent to your email for you to change your password and gain access to your Locals account as a fully paid member with no additional cost.
In this episode, we examine the latest drama in the Capitol, Kevin McCarthy's ongoing inability to get the 218 votes he needs to be Speaker, and what it reveals about both political parties and our politics in Washington generally.
Then for our interview segment, we speak to one of the most independent-minded, insightful, hilarious, and successful independent political commentators on the Internet, Jimmy Dore, who has built a large and loyal audience by closely critiquing the establishment wings of both parties, the U.S. National Security State, and the Swamp that continues to preside over all of it.
On this show, and in my journalism generally, we rarely talk about politics through the prism of the two political parties. That's true for so many reasons, starting with the fact that the establishment wings of each party have so much more in common than they do differences that anyone who sees the world through a primarily partisan lens is destined to wander very far astray, very quickly, from the dynamics and insights that truly matter.
That's the cable news way of seeing the world for a good reason: it's far more obfuscating than illuminating. The Democrat v. Republican theater is designed to hide and distract your attention away from the real power dynamic in Washington, where both parties are generally on board.
But on last night's show, we decided to make an exception. That's because there is one difference between the parties right now worth acknowledging. Democrats — from their so-called right-wing and centrists to their so-called left-wing and everything in between — have become extremely adept at marching in lockstep, following the decrees of their Party leaders, liberating themselves of any internal dissent, and uniting as one hive-minded herd of like-minded consensus.
Most of this was due to the emergence of Trump…
…if you really believe that you're now in a historic battle to vanquish the new Hitler and his Nazi party I suppose it makes sense that you would reject any attempts to argue amongst yourselves or defy orders from the army you imagine yourself part of. Though I also think it has much to do with the modern-day, laughable mentality in the U.S., it has become an authoritarian movement in terms of what it believes and supports — a union of state and corporate power to censor the Internet, a belief that the CIA, FBI and Homeland Security are benevolent institutions and eager to use American political power to interfere in multiple countries around the world, based on the neocon fairy tale that the U.S. Foreign Policy Community seeks to spread democracy and human rights and vanquish tyranny — and authoritarianism at its core disdains disorder and defiance and venerates instead subservience to one's leaders.
Although they love to think of themselves in the exact opposite vein — as sophisticates who are far too intelligent and intellectual and educated and individualistic to be led like some cult — that's exactly what they have become. Democratic politicians, including those who branded themselves anti-establishment, left-wing radicals, and dissidents — not only do what they're told with remarkably unyielding obedience, but they seem to take pride in this fact as if it's an accomplishment to be celebrated. They're proud of their subservience and of their relinquishment and submission of any individual thoughts at the altar of the will of their leaders. The Democratic Party is a well-oiled machine whose primary characteristic that its members think exactly alike and do what and think what they're told.
By contrast, as we're seeing today yet again, Republicans and conservatives are constantly arguing with one another, debating and fighting, sometimes bitterly, not over ancillary ideological differences, but fundamental ones. Their standard bearer in the last two presidential elections, Donald Trump, after all, became their nominee by vehemently denouncing the establishment wings of both parties, but especially his own. And he and his movement, at least in rhetoric and professed beliefs, became profoundly hostile to the longstanding orthodoxies of their party on both foreign and economic policy. When Trump vowed to drain the Swamp, he didn't just mean Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, but he also meant Mitch McConnell, the hordes of neo-cons long-running Republican Foreign Policy, the Bushies and the Cheneys, the U.S. security state itself. And they knew that — those institutions did — which is why they became so strongly opposed to Trump and so determined to subvert his campaign and then his presidency.
Given that theme of last night's show, we owe real thanks to House Democrats and for that matter, to House Republicans for so vividly illustrating the core truth of this perspective we advanced last night. As we suggested, House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy failed today on three separate ballots to get the 218 votes needed to become House Speaker. Between the five or six anti-establishment populists in his caucus, who seem determined never to vote for him no matter what -- led by Florida's Matt Gaetz -- and a group of roughly ten others who are still attempting to extract concessions in exchange for their support, McCarthy's path to the speakership, though I'd rate it, I guess, as still likely, is genuinely imperiled and definitely far from certain.
On the third vote today, he only received 202 of the 218 votes needed with the other 16 going to Ohio's Jim Jordan, whom himself is supporting McCarthy. Now, whatever you think of their incentives and arguments, what these holdout Republican House members are doing is called politics. Politics is the art of determining what power and leverage you wield and then using it to advance the policy agenda in your own personal positioning that you believe will produce positive outcomes. Rather than obediently falling into line and marching behind the decrees of party leaders which strip you of all your power, these dissident Republican members, for better or worse, are instead following their own will and their own conscience, and in many cases, the clearly expressed wishes of their voters -- imagine that --who want not another establishment crony like Kevin McCarthy in charge of the House, but more revolutionary swamp-draining change.
Other House Republicans who are clearly popular, such as Marjorie Taylor Greene, already became yes votes for McCarthy because in her view, I think quite validly, no matter who the Republicans choose, ultimately to settle on as Speaker, won't really be that much different or better than McCarthy, including Jim Jordan. And that's really not worth fighting over in her view, especially since McCarthy gave Greene what she really wanted: the recognition that as one of the most trusted and respected representatives of MAGA and anti-establishment, right-wing populist voters, she deserves the committee assignments she wants, particularly those that will empower her to lead probing and aggressive investigations that so far have been hidden or ignored by the Democratic Party and their corporate media allies. So, her argument is, let's get on with that, the stuff that actually matters.
So those some end up in different places. Most of these House Republicans are not obeying party dictates but are doing the opposite, defying party leadership to stay true to the values their voters sent them to Washington to defend. But amazingly, when House Democrats look at all of this, they do not see an impressive display of independence or of will or defiance of party leadership. What they see, seemingly all of them, including the vaunted Squad who got elected by promising to aggressively challenge and subvert Democratic Party leadership — what they look at and see is an embarrassing mess, some disorderly refusal to submit to authority, and a kind of distasteful and gauche failure to snap into line and march in lockstep behind party bosses as they so willingly and successfully do.
House Democrats spent the day to day openly mocking Republicans for what they apparently regard as their shameful internal divisions. One of the most embarrassing displays came, unsurprisingly, from New York Democrat and Squad member Jamaal Bowman. On his Twitter feed, he posed self-consciously with other members of the far more orderly and obedient Democratic caucus as they all sat ingrained in apparent pride over how they, unlike these conservative ruffians, did what they were told to do without making any fuss when choosing their leader. Bowman proudly exclaimed: “Kevin McCarthy doesn't have the votes. We're in a good mood”.
Why? At some point, the House Republicans will use their slim majority to elect a Republican, not a Democrat, who ends up as Speaker. Do Americans really care? Will they even remember by next week if they take note at all that it took a few ballots or a couple of days for the House Republicans to decide on the Speaker? The reason Bowman is grinning with such pride seems very obvious at this point. Like all authoritarians, he and his Democratic colleagues venerate order and subservience to leaders as the highest value to him.
Watching a couple of dozen Congress members wrangle for power and leverage is a source of shame because it is the result of what he regards as an irreverent and insubordinate refusal to snap into line and command an attribute he evidently regards as noble. And the reason I know that he thinks this way isn't just because of this cloying grin he donned today. It's because the politics he and his fellow Squad members practice, is driven by little other than subservience to Party leaders, and obsequiously falling into line behind those leaders, even when doing so, is a complete negation of everything they claim to believe in.
Maybe you missed it because it happened so quickly, but House Democrats, two weeks ago, chose their own leader. Not only was there nothing contentious about it, but there was also no debate about it, no dissent or competition of any kind. They didn't even need a roll call vote. It was unanimous by acclamation. And the person they chose to be their leader, Hakeem Jeffries, is the living and breathing embodiment of everything the Squad got elected claiming to oppose and despise and determined to fight against.
As we documented on one of the pre-launch shows we aired here on Rumble before our debut, this new House Democratic leader, Hakeem Jeffries, is the pure essence of K Street lobbyist politics. He is the ultimate guardian of the status quo and the DC swamp power structure. The primary talent Jeffries has displayed that has enabled him to rise into the ranks of the senior level of Democratic Party leadership is an ability to raise vast sums of money from Wall Street and serve and protect the interests of every corporate donor and lobbyist he can find.
Beyond all of that, Jeffries not only hates the left-wing faction that AOC, Bowman and the rest of the Squad claim to represent. He is open about his hatred for them. He revels in it. He raised money for and endorsed every Democratic incumbent challenged by these Squad insurgents and then worked to defeat each of them. He reveals them and their politics, and he apparently derives more joy from expressing his contempt of the Squad than anyone I know other than our next guest, Jimmy Dore.
That's why in 2018, AOC made no secret of her intent to support a primary challenger to defeat Hakeem Jeffries. Back when people still regarded her radical costume as credible -- before she replaced it with the more glamorous one she wore for the Met gala – AOC’s closest aides told Politico that defeating Jeffries is, “Her highest priority” and that she plans to “Take him down”. She's going to take Hakeem Jeffries down. The reason AOC, her allies, “feel Jeffries takes too much money from corporate interest, a key litmus test, and is overly friendly with banking and pro-charter school interest” -- all of which is true always has been true and still is true. And that's what made it such a humiliation to see this Squad, just four years later stand meekly by and support this very same Hakeem Jeffries to be their leader.
Now, as we documented in that pre-launch show we did, AOC and Bowman and the Squad used the cheapest and crudest form of identity politics to justify this humiliating episode: “He's first-ever black Party leader”. That was the mantra repeated over and over and over as if that made Jeffries some sort of revolutionary and edgy challenge to Washington power centers instead of what he is: the ultimate loyal servant to its interests. But that, as AOC herself used to argue, before being elected to Congress, is the purpose of these crude versions of identity politics: to glorify banal, sleazy, corrupt politicians like Hakeem Jeffries as some sort of courageous blow to the system.
One of Jeffries closest allies in Congress was the longtime Democratic incumbent against him, Jamaal Bowman ran and defeated, Eliot Engel. Jeffries did everything he could to orchestrate Jamal Bowman's defeat, and even once the Squad became very loyal Democratic incumbents. Jeffries hated them so much that he still used his senior position in the House and his vast fundraising prowess to try to sabotage and defeat the Squad. And what did the Squad do in response to Jeffries’s aggressive acts against them?
Like Stockholm Syndrome hostages who fall deeply and masochistically in love with their captives, they became some of his biggest and most obsequious boosters. Not only did Bowman support Jeffries to be his Party leader, but he unleashed one of the most cringe-inducing lines ever to glorify Hakeem Jeffries’s ascension. When asked about the likely fact that both the Senate Democratic leader, Chuck Schumer, and the new House Democratic leader, Hakeem Jeffries, would both be from New York City -- hardly a surprise given its proximity to Wall Street and other top money donors -- Bowman replied: “That's pretty gangster”. Pretty gangster. Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries.
After I tweeted my reaction, after seeing that grinning photo of Bowman posted – “These GOP holdouts are doing what the Squad never has the courage to do: they're using their power to defy Party leadership in order to extract concessions. Not sure why it's a source of pride to show how you always submit to Party orders like good little soldiers. Not much dignity in that. Is there?” In response to that, The Washington Post columnist, Jason Willick, reacted to my tweet with this observation: ”I think this is the only real takeaway from today's drama, as Pelosi's rule showed, Democratic disrupters are scare “are still firmly under their Party's control. As Trump's tenure showed, the GOP landscape is much wilder”. Indeed, it is.
I hope Democrats have fun today, as they watch actual politicians across the aisle do what real politicians do and ought to do -- use one of the very few times they have real leverage to extract concessions in defiance of party leaders in order to get what they want, rather than fall meekly, obediently into line behind them and do what they're told without a peep of protest or dissent. The examples of the Squad completely abandoning their own professed values in order to advance the only thing they really seem to believe in -- servitude to partisan demands -- is far too long to list tonight, especially when we have such an esteemed and important guest waiting for us to talk to. We don't want to keep him waiting. We've covered these episodes all before in-depth, many times, as unpleasant and cringe-inducing as that work is. Watching these gruesome, borderline pornographic scenes of submission by the Squad to Nancy Pelosi and the Biden White House is a sacrifice we make for journalism. Journalism always must come first.
So, the disorder and fleeting internal divisions in the House Republican caucus over the speaker may be disruptive, but given the nature of Washington politics, I far prefer disruption to the meek obedience and orderly submission, often by Democratic House members, including especially these self-branded, anti-establishment, radical members of the Squad.
For our interview segment tonight, we speak to one of the most heterodox, unpredictable, insightful, and independent-minded political commentators in American politics, James Dore. You likely know him as Jimmy, but I'm trying to clean them up a little bit and bestow him with some gravitas to get him ready for his debut appearance in the big time on my show here.
Mr. James Dore's trajectory is fairly remarkable. Not that long ago, he was working for one of the most hackish Democratic Party partisan sites on the entire Internet: The Young Turks, hosted by -- and I know this isn't polite to say, but sometimes it's just so accurate that it becomes unavoidable to point out if you want to explain the truth -- hosted by two of the genuine Jesse genuinely dumbest people in all of the American media, Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian, eager and inexperienced. And again, when I say “dumb”, I don't really say that to be insulting -- many dumb people are really nice. Those two aren't, but many are. -- by “dumb”, I just mean that they are only capable of functioning on the most primitive cognitive level simpletons, capable of only the densest and cliched ways of understanding the world, which is what leads someone to see the world as predominantly in cartoon form, as an overarching battle between Democrats, the good guys, and Republicans, the bad guys.
But James Dore being neither partisan nor dumb, was never long for that show and so he became the ultimate independent journalist. Working only with his wife, he set up a camera in his garage and began speaking very honestly and thoughtfully and passionately and independently about politics, becoming an ardent critic of establishment leaders of both parties, and with nothing more than that, he quickly developed one of the largest, most loyal and most ideologically diverse audiences on YouTube, as host of The Jimmy Dore Show. Since we debuted our show here, I've been really excited about his first appearance on System Update. For reasons we're about to discuss, the speakership drama in the House today makes it the best possible opportunity to speak to him, which we're going to do right now.
The Interview: Jimmy Dore
G.G.: Hello, James. It's so great to see you. I'm very happy to see you in this box here on System Update.
J.D.: It's great to see you, too. I like to talk to you when you're standing. You have a little bit more energy in the crowd to stay awake longer.
G.G.: Yeah, well, unlike in your show where you put the gas in a tiny little box at the corner so that you can feel big and strong, like The Wizard of Oz, we actually put you face level, basically the same size as I am. We don't have to play those games that you play on your show to feel important, but we like it to be an even discussion. So, let's begin. When I was getting ready to think about introducing you and how I was going to do that, that phrase that you often use to describe yourself, ‘pothead comedian in your garage’ kept popping into my mind. And of course, that is literally true. You are indeed a pothead comedian who does your show from your garage, but you've obviously become much more than that. I think even you're willing to acknowledge that. So, I'm wondering, beyond that phrase, how is it that you've come to see your role in the American political and media ecosystem?
J.D.: It's yeah, it's amazing how bad the corporate news media has become, especially since 1996, when Bill Clinton passed the Telecommunications Act, which took us from 50 giant news media organizations down to just six. And so now, that's why there's no diversity of opinion, and that's why things like Russiagate can happen and everybody thinks it's real. And so, my job is to point out where the establishment is lying from the left. More importantly, I focus on the Democratic Party's unbelievable hypocrisy. We're living with the Uniparty right now. I mean, the whole idea behind the Squad was that we would elect those people to go and be a violent opposition to the establishment Democrats, and they would actually take over the party and they won't do anything.
So, my job is to let people know that they're being conned by the establishment. You know, this last election, they were trying to tell people that you have to vote for democracy because one party's for democracy. And then as soon as they voted that man, they committed fascism and squashed the strike and took away the right to organize by the railroad workers -- and the railroad is the glue that holds our whole economy together. That's how broken down our system is right now. My job is to point that out, that if you think you're voting for somebody who represents you, you're not. And I'm there to remind people that the Squad and anybody in the Democratic Party is not your friend. They're actually their enemy, even though they know all the words, just like Thomas Frank pointed out. And listen, liberal, they know all the words about democracy. They know all the words of progressivism. But they just go out and rob and steal and lie right out in the open and nobody cares.
So that's my job. My job is to remind people that it's not left or right. It's us against them now. And that obviously, Glenn, not to be hyperbolic, but that is the message that scares them, is that when the people on the left and the right understand that they have a common enemy and that we have actually more in common than the oligarchy wants us to realize -- that's what actually threatens them, which is why they have these cultural battles on such high octane right now.
You were talking about identity politics. What I say at my show is to explain what identity politics is… if it was 1860, the Democrats wouldn't be fixing slavery. They'd be bragging about their first transgendered slave owner. And that's the problem. That's where we are. Everybody's distracted while we get crushed economically. They just did a controlled demolition of our economy during COVID, which crushed everybody except a handful of millionaires and billionaires that actually got wealthy. And they want me to hate my neighbor because of the pain I felt during that lockdown because my neighbor wouldn't take a vaccine that didn't work the way they said it did in the first place. Well, I'm not going to hate my neighbor. I'm going to love my neighbor. I'm going to join with them in our common interests against the establishment. And I'll stop now.
G.G.: Yeah, no, that is absolutely the thing they fear most precisely because keeping us divided and hating each other over what are often distracting or trivial issues is the way they ensure we don't unite against them. That's a primary tactic of theirs. I did begin the show by saying that I generally try to avoid which I know you do too, seeing the world through Democratic versus Republican, this prism of the two parties because there's no way to be led astray more quickly than by succumbing to believing that that's how to understand the world.
In general, as you just said, avoiding these labels like left versus right, even though you notice another tactic of mainstream media power centers, corporate journalism, and these politicians as well, they don't want to forget about those labels. These are really important weapons in their hands. I recounted the history that brought you to the show because, in part, I think it's hilarious that you were working with two of the dumbest Democrats on the planet, but also because, it wasn't that long ago when I think you considered yourself a progressive, somebody doing your politics on the left, You were a supporter of Bernie Sanders, you believe the Democrats needed to move left. I think you kind of -- like a lot of us did -- fell for the Squad, at least to some extent at the beginning. When it comes to the question of these labels now, do you claim those labels still? Do you see yourself as working from the left or as a progressive or have you entirely rejected them in favor of this kind of anti-establishment/pro-establishment framework for understanding things?
J.D.: Well, like you, I consider myself a white supremacist. Isn't that where we're at now?
G.G.: I mean, all you have to do is pick up any newspaper and you see each of us describe that way -- and a fascist and a far-right extremist. And I guess that's why I'm asking you is -- given how weaponized these labels are, have you just do you just kind of washed your hands of them entirely, or do you still insist on claiming some?
J.D.: No, I don't. You know, I used to call myself a progressive, but now the people who call themselves progressives are pro-war. They're war pigs. So, Bernie Sanders, the Squad, and all the people to support them uncritically are war pigs. It's unbelievable what has happened. I say now I'm politically homeless and so I don't like those labels. And I will just call myself a populist, I guess, because I think labels kind of certainly now divide. I really did like the idea of being a progressive because the word's nice and it does mean making progress and all that stuff. But they've pasteurized that word, you know, it's not what it means. They don't stand for anything progressive. You know, Bernie Sanders just became, in modern-day policy, a cog to the Democratic Party and Joe Biden. He'll do whatever they say. Then he'll come out and gaslight his followers about it, just like he gaslights the followers about voting for $100 billion to Ukraine while there are people living under every bridge in America. So, no, I don't call myself that anymore. I think I would just call myself a populist.
G.G.: You did, though, use this phrase ‘’politically homeless” which I understand where that's coming from. At the same time, you know, you have built, as I said, this gigantic community where your shows routinely attract an audience that would produce envy in many shows on the largest corporate branded networks on the planet, CNN and MSNBC, to say nothing of these newer outlets. We're here for two weeks now, barely just two weeks. I think we're close to 10,000 people watching live. In the first eight hours of every show that we post, we have 150 - 200,000, and often more. You have a million subscribers, so, clearly, there are a lot of other people. If you're politically homeless, who is there with you? What is it that has been the cause of the popularity, not only of your show but of this entire sector of the media ecosystem which clearly is growing and thriving at the exact time corporate journalism is collapsing?
J.D.: People are hungry for the truth. They feel the pain of their life, right? They look to their leadership and they look to the corporate media and they're being gaslit all the time. And if they're not being gaslit, the corporate media is talking about how bad it is that workers have power and are in the market now or have savings. I just watched a clip on CNBC that said just those two very things that it's bad for business: that workers have power and that they have savings. It's the craziest thing. So, the reason why the people, I think, come to my show is that I was an unabashedly ultra-lefty. I'm a peacenik, anti-war, for Medicare for All. I'm all this stuff. Anti-Wall Street. So, the people on all sides of the spectrum, people on the right, they see that I'm honest. And they say this because I can honestly critique people who used to be my heroes, like Bernie Sanders, the Democratic Party, the people who are supposed to line up with my political point of view.
I critique them the hardest because they're the ones who have been lying to me. People on the left appreciate that because they've been lied to and people on the right appreciate that because they appreciate my honesty. So then when I say something about Trump or Russiagate or whatever it is, they can trust that I'm saying it honestly, and I'm not trying to gaslight them. I'm not bought by anyone. I travel the country, right, all the time as a standup comedian, I meet people of all stripes and all colors and you go to my shoulders. Hippies. There are right-wingers, there are libertarians, and there are lefty socialist communists. There are all kinds of people there. And what they're really, really desperate for is authenticity and for someone to speak against the people who are crushing them. And that's what they find at my show. And you can't find that anymore on the left, it's the craziest thing. All the YouTubers just go along now with Joe Biden. They go along with the COVID narrative.
G.G.: They just run interference for the Squad. Whatever it is the Squad does, they have this whole media industry who built their brands around their association with Bernie and AOC and, therefore, need to be authentic, even though there are obvious frauds, otherwise, their whole industry collapses.
So let me ask you about that -- this sort of like coalition that has emerged that makes independent media successful. I call it kind of Roganism, right? The most influential media figure in this country, especially among young people, is someone whom it's impossible to pigeonhole ideologically or even by party, which is Joe Rogan. There's this kind of very similar ecosystem that has arisen, of which we're both clearly a part, and one of the tactics they use against you -- and we have very similar tactics used against both of us so, I can recognize it very easily -- is to say that you started pandering to almost an entirely right-wing audience, in part because that's how you get rich, but in part, because that's your politics. And for one thing, I'm always amazed at this idea that in order to get rich, you have to move to the right, when the easiest way to get rich in American politics and Trump era -- the people who sold the books and the Lincoln Project scumbags -- was to just talk about how Trump is Hitler and was in bed with Vladimir Putin.
That was the easiest path to wealth: to become liberals. That's why they all did that, not to try and change, but all you have to do is look at the comment section of your YouTube show, your Rumble show and you'll see this incredibly diverse audience. It reminds me of facts like there really are millions and millions of people in this country who twice voted for Obama and then voted for Trump; or who, in 2016, were saying, as Joe Rogan did, ‘my two favorite candidates are Trump and Bernie Sanders’, which makes no sense to elite opinion makers because they only can see the world through Democrat versus Republican -- but to millions and millions of Americans, and I think to you, and I'm sure I know for me, that makes all the sense in the world, that people who liked Obama -- I'm going to go to Washington and destroy the way things work -- loved Trump’s ‘I'm going to go drain the swamp’ -- or the two candidates, Trump and Bernie, who were railing against corporatism and globalism, ended up finding very similar bases of admiration. How do you define the audience that has coalesced, you know, in terms of your show and in terms of these people who are making independent media so popular?
J.D.: You know, I think it's hard to define what my audience is -- again like I said before, we can come together in big things, right? So, we're against police brutality, we're against war, and we're for health care. Now, even the latest polls show that 73% of Republicans, people who consider themselves Republicans, think the government should take a role in providing health care for everyone. These are things that we can all agree on. I think that the thing that kind of brings my audience together is that they want authenticity, they stand up against authoritarianism, they stand up against endless war imperialism.
The thing about Trump -- people forget that Michael Moore, in 2016, before the election, gave a speech that made its rounds on the Internet about how the people voting for Trump, they're not voting for Trump because they might like Trump, they're voting for Trump because they want to take a brick and throw it through the window of the establishment. And that's what he represented. They forget the thrill people got when Trump was standing up at those debates -- and I think it was in South Carolina, he turned to Jeb Bush and said, “your brother did that war. They lied about the war”. They lied about the war. And that's what people were dying and begging for someone to say on television. And they said it to his face. Another reason why they hate Trump so much it’s because he'll accidentally tell a truth that they can't have told, like that there is a deep state or the fact that when they said ‘Hey, Trump, why are you leaving your troops in Syria?’ And he said: “For the oil” You can't do that, then the game is over and they got to get rid of that...
G.G.: Or when they demanded of him that he denounced Putin on the grounds that Putin kills and imprisons dissidents and journalists, and Trump responded by saying, “What? You think we're so anything, you don't think we kill anybody? -- basically, the answer that Noam Chomsky would have given and that was among the angriest he made the establishment.
I gave you what I called your reading assignment for tonight -- I'm sure being who you are, you ignored me and didn't read it, but I'll just summarize it for the audience, even in case you did read it -- which I found fascinating, which is there's this hardcore leftist leader who has become one of the most popular politicians in Germany. Even though she started with the Communist Party, she still kind of identifies as a Marxist, but she's popular not only among the left but even in parts of the populist right now. The reason is that her views have become things like questioning why Germany continues to be in NATO, why Germany is risking the welfare of its own citizens by alienating Russia to support this war in Ukraine, and that Germany has no benefit in one way or the other. She was opposed to COVID mandates. She kind of uses that old left-wing argument about how immigration has become an international corporatist plot to drive down wages. and she's finding all kinds of common ground, you see this ability to unite these two sides that are supposed to hate each other, that are constantly told they should hate each other. Do you see as part of your project an attempt to bridge these gaps, or is that something that happens organically as a result of your show?
J.D.: Well, at first it was organic. I have people in my family that voted for Trump, so I can't hate them, you know, what am I supposed to do? Hate them? A lot of people did hate them. But the crazy thing is, in my mind, Glenn, you've stayed consistent, I've stayed consistent. It's the liberal class that has moved to the right on big major issues.
For instance, free speech. Now, if you're for free speech, you're considered right-wing. I go in comedy clubs in Los Angeles every night, and I'll see comedians, almost once a night somebody will say something about free speech and how it's now a right-wing thing. So, they've shifted and so now that's why they call us, and so, it is now part of my mission: to bring people together, to not demonize your neighbor. Your neighbor isn't the guy causing you pain. They want you to be distracted and think Trump voters are your enemy. They're not. We share a common enemy and that enemy right now... So just like what's happening with McCarthy today, right? So, whether it's McCarthy, whether it's Nancy Pelosi, you and I both know they work for the same people. I have friends who say they are still Democrats, who say, ‘I wish the Democrats were just better at their jobs’. Hey, the Democrats are great at their job. You just don't know what their job is. Their job is to be the Washington generals to the Harlem Globetrotters. And what people don't remember is that the same guy who pays the Washington generals is the same guy who pays the Harlem Globetrotters, just like the same guy who pays the Republicans and the Democrats.
G.G.: Because you need that theater of two sides playing for the same side but appearing to fight one another.
J.D.: I just saw, I think on your Twitter feed, there is a video of Joe Biden saying how great friends he is with Mitch McConnell. And that's all you need to know. It's a class war that's already been waged. And they won.
G.G.: Yeah. I mean, it's amazing. When I first started writing, it was not only common but almost obligatory if you wanted to succeed in left-liberal politics to affirm that George Bush and Dick Cheney were similar to Hitler. And now Michelle Obama and Barack Obama love to make very flamboyant showings of hugging the Bushes and the Cheneys. Liz Cheney has become, despite having never changed, a single one of her views, like Bill Kristol and David Frum and all those scumbag neocons who started wars, heroes to the American liberal establishment and to American liberals.
I want to talk a little bit about why I regarded today as such a great day to have you on. Well, I think a lot of people don't realize watching the thing with Kevin McCarthy and his desperation to get almost every Republican vote on his side to become a speaker, which gives every Republican member great power because the small majority means they each have leverage.
Back in 2020, Nancy Pelosi was in a very similar position. She had very few votes that she could lose, which vested every individual Democrat with a great deal of power because they could withhold their vote to make her a Speaker in exchange for some kind of concession. And you came up with and pioneered a theory or a strategy that you called “Force the Vote” that I think incited one of the bitterest and most hateful infighting episodes within left-liberal politics I've seen in a long time for really revealing reasons. So, explain to people what that strategy was, for those who don't remember back in 2020, what was the scenario at Pelosi, and why did it lead to such vitriol against you?
J.D.: Just like McCarthy's in that spot. So, when the Squad got elected, they called them the Squad. And why do you call them the Squad? Because they're supposed to act together, right? So, if they acted together and voted together, they could actually deny Nancy Pelosi the speakership. That was my idea. “Hey, in order for her to get elected as Speaker, she needs your votes. You can deny it to her if you vote as a bloc, as a Squad, and so now you can extract something from your vote, just like the right-wing of the Republican Party is doing”. That was the idea.
Wasn't my idea, Glenn. The idea was in the DSA’s handbook from two years earlier, and they all ran on doing something like this. AOC ran -- She used to complain when she ran for office the first time that ’We can't even get a vote on Medicare for All on the House floor. We can't even get a vote’. So, when I decided, well, you now have the power to extract something with your vote for her as Speaker, that would be the thing we've all agreed on for a generation -- that we need to get a vote for Medicare for All. And that was or I thought that would be an easy thing that we all agreed on. We all do agree on it. They pretended to not agree, meaning the Squad, AOC, and all those people pretended that that was a bad strategy. That is not a strategy. It's a thing you do. It's politics 101. It's what the Republican right wing is doing right now.
And so, they didn't do it. And what they did was they got their minions in the press like the Tea Party. You mentioned those people: Jack Booker, Ryan Grim, at The Intercept, and they all ran interference -- also, David Sirota came on my show and said Kevin McCarthy could become Speaker if they withhold their vote. So, there were a lot of people, who are considered lefties, who were running interference for politicians, and that's when I got exposed. And so why was it so contentious? Why was there so much vitriol? Why did I become so hated? Why did they write all those hit pieces about me in the establishment magazine? Because I exposed the game. So, now, everybody knows that AOC, the Squad, Rashida Tlaib, Jamaal Bowman, they're all fakers. And it's what someone, I think, Chris Hedges said before me, it's worse to have those people inside the Democratic Party because it gives people the misimpression, the bad idea that there is someone in the Democratic Party or in government actually fighting for you”.
So, what keeps you going into the Democratic Party? Just like Kshama Sawant said, “The road for progressives leads to a graveyard inside the Democratic Party”. That's what this revealed -- because they didn't have to ask permission to do this. They could do it. But instead of withholding their vote and extracting a concession from the progressive wing of the party, which is what we elected them to do, instead of doing that, they rolled over for the establishment on purpose to protect their own careers. They all got book deals and stuff after that, and that's what they're exactly. And then what did they do? They then demonized the activists like us. AOC said that I was committing violence against her with my words. Okay? That led me to say, “Well, you can stab me with an adjective and then I'll hit you with a bat and you can tell me which one is actual violence”. So, that's what “Force the Vote” was. We wanted to force a vote for Medicare for All on the House floor. And the leverage we could use was that Nancy Pelosi could not get elected Speaker without their votes. They decided not to do it. They turned on the active healthcare activist base and the rest is history. They never, ever, voted together as a bloc. Instead, they did a one-time block vote together to make sure a horrible funding bill for Israel went through.
G.G.: You know, Jimmy, you know, I kind of pride myself on being a good judge of character. I've been around politics and journalism for a long time now, so I feel like I'm not easily fooled. And yet one of the most shameful episodes was that, in 2018, I really did get taken in by AOC. You know, I remember very vividly Ryan Grim, whom you mentioned, who was the Washington bureau chief of The Intercept, called me and said, “hey, there's this candidate in Queens who is challenging this member of Congress. He's been there for decades. He was a hardcore, pack loyalist. All he wanted to do was transfer as much money of the United States taxpayers to Israel as possible, and stand behind everything Israel did, no matter what, even if it came at the expense of the American government”.
Obviously, I was not a fan of his, but I also was very wary of these challengers because I've seen so many times where they weigh this banner of dissidents and they quickly get co-opted. So, I wanted to kind of kick the tires, metaphorically speaking, on AOC. And I asked her to interview her and she subjected herself to an almost one-hour interview where I really asked these probing questions. I wanted to see if it was bullshit or if there were actual subsidies behind it -- go watch it on YouTube and you tell me if you wouldn't have gotten fooled as well. I mean, every question I asked, she had a perfectly constructed answer that seemed so thoughtful and compelling, and genuine. Maybe she's just like one of those once-in-a-generation sociopaths, like Bill Clinton, who just has an immense talent to deceive people. Part of me still really wonders whether there was ever anything authentic about her and people like her, and then they got co-opted by Washington, or whether it was a scam and a fraud all along. Or maybe it doesn't even matter. But what is your view on that?
J.D.: Once in a lifetime psychopaths -- it's the name of my new special. Anyway, so I think it does. You're right. It doesn't matter. But in retrospect, this was always a game being played by her. You know, she worked for Ted Kennedy, right? Didn't AOC intern for Kennedy or something like that? And so, she always was in retrospect, she was always maneuvering to do this and be this way. And then I found out that the day she got elected was the last time she called one of the founders of the Justice Democrats. She stopped even talking to those people. I think this was in the works all along with someone like her. And I think it is a once-in-a-lifetime psychopath just like Bill Clinton. She's great at getting people and, of course, she plays up that she's a victim somehow all the time. She's got 12 million Twitter followers. She never asked them to do anything, to do anything except to do a phony stunt, to get a moratorium on mortgages, which was a 100% stunt. And it was obvious to see, we called it out immediately, but that's all they're done. All they have is virtue signaling and stunts like that. And victim and crying victim. Yeah, I think it is a once in a lifetime, and I fell for it too. Don't beat yourself up too bad. I pride myself on having a good, pretty good B.S. detector. But she got me.
G.G.: Yeah, yeah, for sure. I plead guilty. But also, obviously, I think one of the most important episodes of this year, one of the clearly the most important foreign policy debate of the Biden administration, I would argue, probably the most important foreign policy debate of the last six years, going back to the Trump era, is the decision by the Biden administration to involve the U.S. very directly in the war in Ukraine, to the point where all the things we swore we wouldn't do at the beginning because it was too provocative, we're now not just doing, but doing it out in the open.
You saw when Zelenskyy visited, Congress couldn't get on their feet enough in a bipartisan way. With the exception of some Republicans who didn't show up. He draped the dais of the American Capitol with the Ukrainian flag, out with the American flag, and no one thought there was anything wrong with that. They thought that was inspiring. And every single last Democrat, Jimmy, including Bernie, who wrote an op-ed in The Guardian right before the war, warning of how dangerous it was for the U.S. to involve itself. And Ilhan Omar, who tweeted about how we're going to send money to Ukraine -- if we do that, it's going to end up in the hands of neo-Nazi militias, and that's going to be the most dangerous thing we could do. And Cori Bush, on the day she voted, issued a statement explaining her vote, which was actually a really eloquent reason not to send out money, about how it was all going to go to Raytheon in the CIA. They have no pretense, even, of core values. I mean, if you're someone who claims to be on the left and is now willing to send tens of billions of dollars, limitless amounts of money, knowing it's going to General Dynamics and Boeing and the CIA, at a time when Americans are suffering. How did it become this extreme where there's no, as I said, even pretense among Democrats to be concerned with any of this anymore, while a dozen Republicans are voting no for all the right reasons?
J.D.: Well, they saw that there was no consequence for the Squad not doing “Force to Vote” when they were electing Nancy Pelosi as Speaker. They had 100% turned on their base. The 100% went against what the DSA handbook said that they should do. The Democratic Socialists of America, which AOC considers herself, they definitely went against that 100%. They attacked me instead of holding their feet to the fire, they're supposed to get kicked out of the DSA for crushing a strike. They crushed a union strike!. So, there's no consequence anymore. The left has been 100% co-opted. Again, I don't know how we get out of this. All I can do is keep telling the truth and my audience grows because of it, but that's why they're able to do this, Glenn. That's why they're able to spend $100 billion in Ukraine.
You know, they could have ended homelessness in the United States three or four times over, and they just won't do it. Now I’m saying that, hey, I'll let you send $100 billion to Ukraine because that's how the gears of corruption work in our government, as long as you send $100 billion to Los Angeles, Houston, Chicago, Boston, Minneapolis, San Francisco, and we can use that to help. But they won't do that -- because the gears of government now, it's so corrupt – it’s 100%. People in America think that their government and their politicians are just regular corrupt and that some people are good and some people are bad. They don't understand that it's 100% corporate captured. We're now being run like a mafia -- not like a mafia: it is a mafia. And they don't care. And the gears of government only work in the direction of corruption, which is why we can send $100 billion to Ukraine in the blink of an eye and we won't send $1,000,000 to Flint to fix their water. So, this is where a hundred Americans are the most propagandized people in the world, and they have no idea that they are. At least in Russia and China, they know that stuff was propaganda. In America, they turn on Rachel Maddow, and they think they're getting the news. I'm not kidding.
So that's why they're allowed to do this. And that's why it happens that corruption at the blink of an eye, we're at the end of our empire. Glenn, I don't know how much longer we're going to be. There is no middle class. What do you call a system that takes the richest country the face of the earth has ever seen and renders half of its population poor or low income: 80% of workers live paycheck to paycheck and 50% of wage earners are 30 grand or less. That's a failed system, and it's not getting any better. It's only getting worse. People who are running this country…
G.G.: Yeah, I think if you look at history, it's really interesting when empires start to collapse, when you start to get such a breach between how the elite lives and how the rest of the country lives. There are usually two options: you can either start to placate and appease the vast majority of the country who are living in deprivation -- some symbolic gestures of social programs just enough to keep them mollified so they don't go out into the streets -- or you can decide, “You know what, we don't really care how angry the citizenry gets. What we're going to do instead is ‘paramilitarize’ the country, we’ll put them under a massive surveillance system.
We’ll keep a really close eye on everything they're doing, we'll listen to their communications and we'll crush, first by demonizing and then, criminalizing and, then, censoring any form of dissent so that they have absolutely nowhere to turn. So, they can get as angry as they want. We'll just make ourselves so powerful and so opaque, no one will know what we're doing -- but we can see everything they're doing, that there's nothing they can do about it anyway”. Amazingly, it is the American left who has become the main ally in imposing that.
Let me just switch subjects for a little bit to COVID and the issue with the Twitter Files, because one of the things that I think impelled the popularity of your show is you were on YouTube, on your show, often questioning COVID orthodoxy almost from the beginning, when it was basically taboo to do so, questioning the pronouncements of Fauci and the World Health Organization about vaccines and cloth mask and certainly vaccine mandates.
One of the episodes of the Twitter Files, it's amazing what happened there. The corporate media, on the first day, announced “it's all corrupted, it's all trivial, it's all nothingburgers, it's all meaningless”. They've ignored and trained millions of people to ignore every last revelation that has come out about how the FBI is policing the Internet and that not one Democratic Party politician other than Ro Khanna has even mentioned it.
But let me just show you a couple of the tweets about COVID and censorship of COVID and dissent showed. This is from David Zweig, the reporter who did this. We interviewed him. He wrote, “Inevitably, dissident yet legitimate content was labeled as misinformation, and the accounts of doctors and others were suspended both for tweeting opinions and demonstrably true information”. Then he gave a couple of examples showing that it wasn't just random and credentialed trolls, as they're called, meaning citizens who were being censored because of their dissent, but actual, very credentialed members of the medical establishment, people who are doctors and scientists, who were questioning a lot of these lies in the beginning.
This was being done at the behest of Homeland Security and the FBI, who were saying, we need you to take this down because this is misinformation, which should be disturbing -- even if it weren't from misinformation, but so much of it turned out to be true. As someone who is covering that in real time, warning of how COVID dissonance was being demonized and then banned. How do you look at these Twitter Files and what do you think about the fact that literally not one Democrat, Brian O'Connor, whose name was involved in the beginning, has even mentioned these, let alone done anything about them?
J.D.: Well, it's depressing, but I guess it's to be expected that they're not going to do anything about it because they're the ones who want to do that censoring. They are the establishment. Now, the Democratic Party is no different -- it's a broken record, but they are no different from the Republican Party. They're the ones who want to do the censoring. They're in control and they're so, so okay with that. And so, as soon as COVID happened, when I got vaccine injured, I started to look into the COVID narrative. I didn't really look into it before that. And at every turn, they were lying. And so I…
G.G.: Explain what happened to you in that story briefly. I don't want to force you to delve into the personal drama, but you've talked about it and it was an important part of what happened in your navigating this COVID debate. So, explain what happened to people who don't know.
J.D.: So, I got the Moderna vaccine. I got the first one. I had my side effects for a week. And then I thought they went away and three or four weeks later, I got my second one and I got sick and I never got better. I had horrible headaches and body aches and joint pain and I had like flu-like -- horrible flu-like -- symptoms as if I had COVID.
And so, I tweeted about it five weeks after my second jab, I tweeted about it to see if there was anyone else having these symptoms. Of course, there were lots of people having crazy symptoms. I got a doctor who was running a study, trying to figure out how to treat Long-Covid. He entered me in that study because his theory was that people who got vaccine injured in the way I did, would be presenting, biologically, as people who had long COVID. They did some sophisticated blood tests and he showed me that I had this as if I had COVID, though I never did and I got it from the vaccines. So that's what was causing all these problems.
One of the drugs, they gave me a bunch of drugs, one of them was Ivermectin. And I go, hey, isn't that that is horse shit? I don't want to take that. And he just looked at me and said, ‘Jimmy, that's not what it is. It was considered a wonder drug before COVID. They thought it could cure cancer. It saved billions of lives. It's safer than aspirin. It's you're being lied to about it’.
When he told me that, it was like, that's such a huge lie that I was just like, wow, I bet this whole thing could possibly be a lie. And it turns out it was they lied about herd immunity. They lied about natural immunity. They lied about the transmission, the vaccine stopping transmission, and they lied about everything at every turn.
They didn't even study if it stopped transmission. How can you mandate something on that? So, anyway, that's where it started for me. And then, so, once I started to challenge the COVID narrative, I was like, “Oh my God, they're lying at every turn”. Then people started calling me anti-vax and I had to go, “No, I got the vaccine. I got injured by the vaccine. And I'm just telling you, these guys are pathological liars”. And Fauci was obviously a pathological liar and a criminal, and so was Collins at the NIH and so is Walensky. Is that her name, at CDC? They all lied and said that the vaccine stops the transmission of the virus. When a European Parliament politician had to ask a question of a Pfizer executive, ‘Did you test to see if it stopped transmission?’ They said they didn't even test to see if they... By the way, Pfizer didn't want to release their vaccine trial data for 75 years. Do you remember that? And I was like, I didn't know Pfizer killed Kennedy.
So anyway, finally a judge ordered them to release their vaccine trial data -- that gives you trust in science, doesn't it? When a judge has to order the company to release their vaccine trial data -- that feels safe and secure. Well, they did finally release it, but nobody… Where are the scientists we're supposed to look through there and find out that, hey, they didn't test for transmission? I had to wait for a politician in Europe to ask a Pfizer executive that question, why weren't their articles being written all over the place about how they didn't do this and how they can't justify mandates? I'm a comedian. I'm not a goddamn scientist or a doctor. That's their job. They should. But now it's my job to report the shit they didn't investigate.
G.G.: One of the things, on this whole COVID issue, the thing that strikes me so much is not the fact that the health establishment got things wrong on some level -- even if operating in the best of faith, you would expect them in the new complex pandemic to get things wrong. What was amazing about it was that they foreclosed any questioning or any debate, on purpose, about what they were saying because they knew how dubious it was and didn't want anyone challenging it.
I think the most shameful example is the very first one, the kind of thing that kicked it off when Peter Daszak and those other scientists wrote that letter in The Lancet, and Lancet declaring the debate closed on the question of whether or not the virus leaked from the lab in Wuhan. Without disclosing the extremely significant conflict that Peter Daszak and his company had been involved in partnership and funding with a Gain-of-Function Research in that very Wuhan lab, they lied clearly by saying they had conclusive evidence that it was [not], only for the Biden administration a year later say they don't know what the answer was. And only then did it become permissible in Big Tech to debate this because now the government said it's okay to debate it, so now you're allowed to debate it, now that the government has given permission.
You come from this line, you know, this world of comedy, which, even though you sometimes used to kind of minimize what you're doing, comedians have always been political and one of the main values they stand for -- from like Lenny Bruce and George Carlin -- is the evils of censorship and the need to say what you want. This was always a value directly associated with the American left. You know, I grew up with the ACLU defending Skokie, and they became my childhood heroes. When you combine free speech, which really did use to be a value of the left, along with a fundamental mistrust, really healthy and valid, in the CIA, the NSA, and the FBI, you still see this on the international desk, and that's part of why our show. Jeremy Corbyn opposed vaccine mandates in vaccine passports, something that would be completely taboo here. Lula da Silva, in Brazil, constantly crusades for Julian Assange and says it's at least as much Zelensky's fault what's happening in the war, not Putin's. Something you would never drag out of a Democratic Party politician's mouth here.
Why? What has happened uniquely to the American left that was once their core defining values, at least some of these issues -- free speech, questioning, authority, distrusting – and just like in the deep state, have completely evaporated -- and now these are values that you almost exclusively, with a very rare exception on a few isolated and pretty kind of obscure leftwing sites, you find almost exclusively from right-wing populists in the Republican Party or the conservative movement. What happened there?
J.D.: I've never seen anything like this in my life. I never thought I would see anything like this… Everybody talks about challenging authority, for it is when it came to COVID, either you did what you did, what Fauci said without question -- and then that made you a good person -- and it became a good person versus a bad person thing. It was really weird. And if you question it, you're a bad person and you're a Trumper and you are a white supremacist. “No, I didn't vote for Trump. I just have questions about an experimental medical treatment that everyone's being mandated to take” and they would say, “Jimmy, only dumb people ask questions, you know?”
I mean, it was the craziest. And I've seen comedians in Los Angeles go on stage and tell the crowds, “Please, tell me you're not going to do your own research”. You know, before COVID, doing your own research just meant reading. So now Big Pharma has got even left-wing comedians to ingest their propaganda and spit it out to shame people for reading. Like I woke up in the middle of a Bill Hicks bit. ‘Well, it looks like we got ourselves a reader. What are you reading for? So, you wouldn't tell people that about anything else?’ No matter how trivial, you wouldn't tell them not to get informed about it. “Hey, I'm going to go buy a car. Don't look into it. Well, how will I know what car to buy? Ask the salesman, he's the expert.
This is the mentality that the left has gotten this deference to authority. And they say things like ‘Trust the science’, ‘Have faith in the science’. You don't have faith in science. You have faith in religion. Science is empirical data. The reason why we know about the speed of light and black holes and all that stuff, and we have a different idea about gravity, is because Einstein challenged science to question science. You don't have faith in it. You don't trust science. You question it. Lies don't like to be questioned. Truth doesn't mind being challenged.
So why is that happening on the left? I think there are a lot of reasons lefties are just fucking weak. Trump scared the shit out of them and they let that happen. So, they didn't want to be called into bed, they didn't want to be seen as somehow favoring Trump. So whatever Trump said, they just do the opposite and everything. Trump bad, orange man bad. And they believe they're fighting fascism by fighting Trump. You're not. You're fighting a game show host who got to be president because your two-party duopoly is so goddamn corrupt. People are willing to take a chance on a fucking game show host who's wearing a raccoon for a haircut instead of voting for known criminals in both parties.
G.G.: Yeah, the fascists probably are the people wanting to unite corporate and state power to censor the Internet, or who suddenly revere the CIA. That's probably where the institutions of fascism. Well, Jimmy, we're at the end of our show. We're actually a disciplined, professional show that has a beginning and a scheduled end. But I'm so happy you came on in for all those endless, torturous hours that you made me stay on your show over all these years, we're going to be constantly chasing you and forcing you to come back and talk to us all the time. So, this is only the beginning of your appearance here and not even close to the end. So, thank you really for taking the time out. I really enjoyed talking to you.
J.D.: I appreciate it, Glenn. Thanks for having me out. It's good to see you dressed up because, you know, usually you look like a slob when you come on my show. So, it's nice to see you.
G.G.: Yeah, absolutely. Well, I dress appropriately for whatever venue I'm in and I dress appropriately for myself and myself. As I said, it's professional, and I dress appropriately for that. Have a great evening, Jimmy. Thanks again. I'll see you soon.
All right. Well, that concludes our show for this evening. We're really thrilled to have spent so much time being able to talk to Jimmy. As I said, we're going to have him back on soon. As always, when we're done with our show here, we move to Locals for the live aftershow where we take your questions and respond to your feedback. For those of you who are part of that community, we're really appreciative. For those of you who want to join, just click on the right upper-hand button on the page that says Join and you can become part of Locals and have full access to our aftershow as well.
For those of you who have been watching, we're really appreciative. We hope to see you back here tomorrow night and every night, 7:00 PM EST, live only here, on Rumble.
Have a great night.
Glenn, since I rarely have time to watch the shows, it’s great to have these transcripts. I look forward to them everyday. Please continue! It’s real value-added for subscribers.
Agreed about the establishment Democrats: little diversity of views, and where there are it is generally regarding transitory or vague issues (rhetorical only, in effect).
However, Glenn here makes some huge assumptions.
"When Trump vowed to drain the Swamp, he didn't just mean Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, but he also meant Mitch McConnell, the hordes of neo-cons long-running Republican Foreign Policy, the Bushies and the Cheneys, the U.S. security state itself. And they knew that — those institutions did — which is why they became so strongly opposed to Trump and so determined to subvert his campaign and then his presidency."
"He meant?" The journalistically accurate language is "he implied." At best.
Given that Trump preserved the swamp, appointing to agencies the same corporate goons (but worse) that Obama, Bush, Clinton, etc. did -- embraced Wall Street -- embraced the MIC -- etc., suggests to me that Trump is EXACTLY THE SAME as all the others but for marketing.
In fact, as Glenn accurately notes, it is this marketing that made the Democrats' ability to shift its base onboard with CIA love affairs ("Most of this was due to the emergence of Trump…" -- i.e. Trump made this possible).
So why assume that there are any parties at all? Maybe getting Dems to back historically conservative agendas was Trump's function in a uni-party world? The "two parties" are bankrolled by the same industries, largely, and back the same broader agendas (as Glenn also notes, "The Democrat v. Republican theater is designed to hide and distract your attention away from the real power dynamic in Washington, where both parties are generally on board").
Maybe the two parties are all PR? Maybe Trump exists as the villain for some...."Boo! Hiss!" ... and Pelosi the villain for others .... "Boo! Hiss!" But we get the same bullshit over time. Does the fact that the Democrats are now the advocates for the things they ostensibly opposed in the 1970's really mean anything on a partisan level? Or does the "left-wing" push today toward authoritarianism that was once "right-wing" simply represent a single broom pushing the public from two different directions over time, into the same limited corner?
Seems irresponsible to ignore this possibility given the large amount of evidence that both parties have their strings pulled by the same forces over years and the paltry amount of evidence that suggests there is genuine ideological differences among the used-car-salesmen that actually serve as our partisan representatives in Congress. Seriously, can anyone say with a single bit of confidence what Schumer/McConnell/AOC/Pelosi/Rubio/whoever actually believe?