New York Times' Pro-War Think Tank Ties EXPOSED: Interview with Journalist Lee Fang

all right uh we have our guest here um and I want to get to him because as much as he loves listening and watching our show he does it every night we didn't invite him on just to do that we invited him on to actually participate in the show so I want to make sure we get to them he is as I said my friend my former colleague at The Intercept he has become I think one of the very very best investigative journalist he now writes at substack and he has a new article about Ukraine in the media he has a recent article that we actually didn't report on about Israeli influence operations inside the United States and notably how they are not treated anywhere the same as alleged Russian influence operations and we want to talk to him about many other things including things regarding the 2024 election Lee it is always great to see you thanks for coming on uh congratulations on getting to listen to so much of our show but I'm happy to have you be able to speak as well well I was enjoying every second of it no I know I know you're one of our biggest fans um all right you have this new article out in substack that I believe you published just today just a few hours ago uh where you're essentially describing the tactics of media Outlets including the New York Times to suppress or get people to be indifferent toward the risks of escalation or the risk of nuclear war from doing things like uh allowing the EU and the UK to launch longrange missiles deep inside Russia there's the article on the screen it says the New York Times previous reporting undermines its War escalation journalism and there's a sub headline that describes as well so let me just ask you what do you think the New York Times and broader corporate media Outlets are doing in order to kind of suppress this debate about or the debate that we should be having regarding Ukraine well look um many reporters have pointed out this Dynamic that oil lobbyists you know Bank lobbyists defense industry lobbyists often launder their viewpoints through academic appearing think tanks that instead of going directly to the media they will work with something that has a euphemistic name that has a nonprofit title that you know seems dedicated to the public interest and funnel their money and opinions through that to shape the media um I'm not the first one to point this out um but what's incredible here is that the New York Times is agenda setting uh for this ukrain Russia conflict constantly kind of just reporting on every step of this escalation whether it's supplying new tanks uh new fighter jets new new missiles uh with this latest decision to allow longrange surface to surface missiles that could strike Russian uh oil refineries cities uh civilian and Military infrastructure major escalation of the War uh the New York Times is repeatedly going to just one uh independent expert voice you know they they'll quote the political and Military leadership and then have one expert opinion voice and it's the csis think tank the center for strategic and international studies in Washington um what's incredible here is that 10 years ago the New York Times did a series of investigations you know I mentioned that I'm not the only reporter to point this out the other reporters to point this out are the New York Times they did a whole series on how out of all the most prominent think tanks in Washington DC um among the most prominent think tanks uh csis is is very problematic in the sense that they have been uh working with defense contractors locked Martin General atomics northr groomman uh and many others allowing registered lobbyists to appear as at this Think Tank uh to promote you know higher defense spending higher uh export export licenses of of American defense products uh meetings with defense officials uh you know helping shape the entire programming at this Think Tank um they they've really exposed it you know the New York Times did a great job 10 years ago um but Zoom forward to today when they're reporting on this major escalation in the conflict just as they've reported over the last two years on this conflict they're repeatedly going back to csis and this and in the latest news article today just about this um you know decision to use these attack thems of surface to surface missiles they're quoting csis as their only expert and they're quoting an individual Seth Jones who doubles as a consultant at a defense industry uh public affairs firm that that reportedly engages in lobbying um so they're doing the exact same thing that they've called out for a decade well one of the other points that I want to add to that I know you've done reporting we're going to get to in a separate article that you published last month on how much Israeli money is Flowing to influence Americans to advocate for the Israeli government sort of exactly what these defendants in the case that we just covered were accused of doing for Russia and yet nobody seems to care nobody seems to mind that's all no one pays attention to that no one talks about it probably be anti-semitic if he tried but we'll get to that in a minute but there was also some New York Times reporting that I know uh you paid a lot of attention to because one of the think tanks it talked about was one where you worked about how so many of the leading think tanks that influence our foreign policy like the Brookings institution are drowning in all sorts of foreign money particularly Persian Gulf money the United Arab Emirates or Qatari money or Saudi money and you know I remember there being a big scandal at the center for American progress because they would often publish who their funders were and many of the largest ones were just Anonymous but one of the on ones that often funded the center for American progress was the Emirates the government of the United Arab Emirates um in Dubai and they are obviously notorious for their Savage human rights abuses and dictatorial conduct and the like why do you think that things like that that kind of foreign influence get almost no attention in in in in Li of focusing almost exclusively on Russia well you know these laws you know they are neutral in the way they're written you know they're supposed to apply to All Foreign agents any kind of foreign country uh funding propaganda funding um lobbying uh they have to abide by the foreign agent registration act and disclose their activities but H as we seen this law is selectively applied on us enemies and on us allies uh it's it's rarely applied so you know the fact that the moraes which which do disclose a lot of lobbying but at the same time engage in another kind of uh bundle of lobbying that's completely in the dark um we never see the same type of enforcement I mean at best um we've seen a little bit of Gulf uh Gulf country enforcement um there there has been some of a Crackdown on some qaris uh influencing uh some think tanks you know the but imira money flows across Washington DC it's you know the think tank that I used to work at the center for American progress those on the center left those on the center right those certainly on the center uh University professors uh lawmakers their staff uh even you know the the Arts institutes all across and and and ballet and and Theater all across DC everyone's getting emara money and so you know uh they've they've bought off the elite class in DC so not only are are they allies of the US but they're they're truly kind of ingrained into the the power structure right just to emphasize that point I mean these think tanks are not just these like quasi scarly groups it's just issue papers that nobody reads they're usually people that go in out of government they're often like a kind of Shadow government a part of the state department or our foreign policy and the center for American progress as you know was founded by John podesta who was one of Bill Clinton's top age and then ran Hillary Clinton's campaign certainly would have been her chief of staff had she won and then the next president was uh someone named n tanden who aside from being a crazy woman on on X also became and still is working as a top domestic foreign policy adviser to Joe Biden they were running institutes making a ton of money that were funded by the amadis all of Washington is drowning in foreign money Tony Blair became extremely rich by essentially just going around the world and using his name and credibility on behalf of some of the most Savage dictators on the planet and it's remarkable how we fix it on like a thousand dollar of Russian money as though it's a threat to the pillars of our democracy and basically the leader the elites of our whole country are feeding at that foreign tro um just on the topic of this article that you wrote the the New York Times Reliance on this kind of handful of experts who all say the same thing and they you know have these benign sounding names just like the pro censorship groups do those ones that PR medar funds and and Bill Gates and uh George Soros these kind of like uh Organization for the promotion of a healthy discourse and like all they're really do there to do is like give reports on what is disinformation therefore what should be censored um the thing that just strikes me so much about this is We we played this uh video last night from George Carlin he was on the uh Late Late Show with Tom Snider this is back in 2008 and he was kind of we was talking about media and he said the reason why people like say Nome Chomsky or Howard Zin he named two left-wing radical historians but you could now put into that group some sort of people on the populace right as well the reason they're not on TV is not because they're not qualified to opine in our discourse I mean you're talking about extremely credentialed people he was saying that the reason why they don't go on TV is because the parameters of debate are agreed to and established by the media in advance and it's a very very narrow range of debate even though you see people on television yelling at each other and I think this has always been a sort of subtle point but so important is that if you go and talk to people at the New York Times or whatever or any of these carp medials they will say and they really believe it oh we don't propagandize we don't try and uh drive people to what to think because we're free we we we include all opinions and yet as you say one of the techniques the key techniques that you can use propaganda is picking and choosing who is worth hearing from and who is not and if somebody is just vly opposed to the NATO war in Ukraine or warning about the escalation they'll just be deemed inherently unserious for that reason alone no just as uh we we talked about earlier this year there's a range of US government funded it's not just you know the billionaires like Gates and a mid US taxpayer money flows to a range of anti- disinformation think tanks that create reports for social media for the mainstream media uh for other reporters basically as guide books of who you're allowed to speak to and who who you're not who and they you know they use claims like hate speech and disinformation and you know that false allegations or at least allegations with absolutely no evidence of you know certain critics of the war of being Russian agents and they will disqualify dissidents or any kind of critical view they've done that to you they've done that to Jeffrey Sachs they've done that to uh John mimer and many other experts to try to limit the scope of the debate and you know I'm not one to say that you know our media in the US is equivalent to that in Russia or China or you know some other authoritarian uh structure you know I I do think we have a much more Dynamic and open media with much more uh free speech and individual rights in this country but if you look at how the debate is shaped the the kind of Contours of the Overton window at the big establishment press that kind of agenda set and set the narrative for the rest of the media that have incredible influence not just in Elite circles but in the Grassroots as well on topics like the uh Ukraine Russia War for for certain foreign policy you know major power conflicts uh the range of acceptable opinion is incredibly narrow go back and read the last 20 kind of news articles at the New York Times about these around these debates over you know Congress approving that $40 billion $50 billion Aid package uh earlier this spring about the decision to provide new fighter jets and Abrams tanks and and now this you know debate around uh extending the range of these ATT attack missiles uh you won't and you look for the expert opinion you know buried 10 paragraphs deep in in each article you won't find any criticism you won't find you the criticism you'll read from csis and similar think tanks like the Atlantic Council that are funded by defense contractors and and the US government basically arguing uh the only criticism is that you know it's not enough we should be going further we should be striking you know Russia more directly we should be providing more arms um it it's incredibly propagandistic and it kind of just it's it's potentially why we haven't had a more serious debate in Congress and in the kind of public sphere about this very dangerous conflict yeah yeah I remember back in 2002 and 2003 in the runup to the Iraq War everyone knew the incentive scheme in Washington if you came out as a thinktank scholar or some uh expert in the history of war and you just simply said I'm against the invasion of Iraq I think that weapons of mass destruction are nonexistent I think this intelligence is manipulated you had some space in media to be heard but you didn't get into the door of where policy is made you were automatically excluded because it was deemed that you had nothing of of use to say everyone understood that if you wanted to get into the policymaking rooms in Washington if you wanted to be called to testify for congress you could quibble with the Iraq War policy oh I think we should wait a couple more months until the UN inspections are done I think we should ignore the UN I think we should go in there was that kind of debate as long as you affirm the core fundamental premise that we were going to invade Iraq that was a the price of admission to to be deemed serious or competent enough to be heard as an expert and that's the same exct thing with the war in Ukraine the minute you say I think we should get out of the war in Ukraine I think we should just get a settlement done by definition you are considered somebody unqualified to to be listened to and you simply won't be included in the New York Times no matter how credential you are you're automatically excluded all right let me ask you Lee uh you said something about this earlier today on social media it's something that we've talked a lot about and I I genuinely it's it's it's something that shocks me but I I genuinely don't understand it because the US the conflict between Washington and Moscow was generally considered genuinely considered existential as part of the Cold War from the end of World War II up through the the collapse of Soviet Union at the end of 1980s some very extreme things were done in the name of that conflict and driving all of it was this people everybody was petrified about the possibility of provoking a nuclear war because the US had used two nuclear weapons to and and and World War II just in 1945 which for the Cold War was still pretty recent and people are petrified of it kids used to every day get trained to how to go into nuclear bomb shelters the the the uh the desire to avoid nuclear war not even intentional but by miscalculation miscommunication misperception was absolutely Central to everything we did and as you observed earlier and I've been observing this for a while too it's it's as though that fear no one has that fear anymore in the west to the point that every couple months we cross some line that we previously said we would never cross because it's too provocative or too dangerous in terms of escalating with Moscow and we've even had articles like in the Atlantic and other places saying ah we can't be blackmailed by nuclear war it might not even be that big deal you could probably survive it what do you think explains this really deranged indifference to or minimizing of the risk of the one thing that actually can be an extinction level event for Humanity I think fundamentally just starting this conversation that this is a dangerous conflict that is tempting the risk of allout nuclear war you know there's lots of different scenarios it's possible that it might start with a small tactical nuclear weapon that is done as kind of a demonstration of of of Might that then escalates to a response you know we don't know exactly how this would play out but this is one of the closest we've come since the Cold War probably the most closest we' we've come to a serious nuclear conflict and it's just incredible to me because the New York Times and other uh corporate mainstream media Outlets are not against any type of emotional blackmail around existential risks you know they've written hundreds of Articles around how dangerous the pandemic was in many cases overstating uh the health risk of of covid-19 in other times they they've written um and in that same kind of batch of uh uh of of existential risk articles they about climate change about you know famine and and flood and and sea level rise I mean covid-19 and climate change are serious issues but if you're going to take the editorial angle that you know it's if you're the paper of record and you need to be reporting on potential you know civilization destroying events um but carefully avoid the potential for nuclear war you know it just to kind of put your your listeners in the the right mindset I mean if if there was something equivalent happening in Mexico if the Chinese government had overthrown or helped overthrow The Mexican government and you know the US had invaded Mexico and then got bogged down in a Guerilla conflict and was perhaps losing some territory or or losing that war and the Chinese started supplying missiles that could then strike major American cities and major American oil refineries ma major American civilian centers how would we respond we wouldn't we would possibly you use nuclear weapons I I think in that scenario and and that you had to put yourself in the place of of the Russians even if you completely I mean and I completely oppose the invasion of Ukraine and I think Putin is an authoritarian leader um but this this conflict is is complex and there are many historical events that led to this Invasion and where we're at today we could at least put ourselves in the positions of the Russians that once American made Lockheed Martin made attack's missiles are being launched deep into Russian territory striking you know uh areas that are are are core to the to the Russian country um if if that happened to us there would be a democratic demand for nuclear weapons um and and with just this conversation of what are we risking here what are we fighting for is this for a few miles of territory in the dbas what do peace look like what could this you know escalation lead to I mean these questions are simply not being asked I mean we had a one attack on our soil in our lifetime the only real Attack on our soil which was on September 11th and we went to war for the next 20 years over it we radically reshaped our country's uh character and then and our legal framework and our values and and and and we bombed you know close to 10 countries in that time we invaded two so that was a one-day attack so think about what's happening in the minds of the Kremlin if right on the other side their border the most sensitive part the one that was invaded twice in in two world wars that killed tens of millions of their citizens in the 20th century namely Ukraine you have all this Western presence and now NATO countries are participating in the launching of and encouraging the launching of longrange missiles deep into Russia meaning Moscow St Petersburg their major metropolitan areas no country would tolerate that let alone one with nuclear weapons and it seems like we're just playing this kind of game with it like hey let's see what happens if we cross the line and now tanks let's see what'll happen if we send fighter jets and now you know what else there's not really much space left other than direct combat once we say we're going to provide longrange missiles and give you the green light to shoot them especially since the Russian government pointed out today the ukrainians don't have the capability to shoot those longrange missiles with any Precision because you have to use satellites to do so which only NATO can do so NATO will by definition be participating in those attacks their use of their satellites and I guess I just want to ask you one more time cuz maybe there is no maybe we don't we don't know the answer anymore than I do I'm asking not rhetorically because I generally don't know what do you think has caused this like it's insane it is insane to have thousands of nuclear tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles aimed at one another's cities the two greatest nuclear powers on the planet Russia and the United States that came very close in the past at least twice to actually blowing up the entire world and ending Humanity not all that long ago and just be like ah who cares let's just see what happens let's just keep our it like what what explains that kind of demented indifference I don't have an answer to that I mean American huis and privileged that this is a country that for the you know the blessing of of Fate that you know we're surrounded by oceans and have have no near peer threat in this hemisphere has never been truly invaded and and conquered in the modern sense of the word and we haven't suffered the way that Russians have so we can't uh empathize with this kind of um paranoia about the West uh that they they have um but just look at the major disasters and the way that that Wars have unraveled in history it's come from a combination of of huis and kind of sleepwalking through really kind of Reckless decisions without thinking about how the enemy or the adversary could respond and that seemed seems to be the case here I hope not um but just rationally you know I'm not a military expert I I I wouldn't pretend to be but just rationally speaking if if if missiles long range missiles were were raining down on major American cities as as you mentioned 911 as as a 911 equivalence were happening on a regular basis if if this kind of missile you know decision is is is approved how would the US respond I think that's that's the kind of debate we need to be having it's so obvious it's as you said there'd be a democratic uh demand a very intense one for serious retaliation if not nuclear weapons if you don't use your nuclear weapons when your cities are being attacked by long-range missiles from a great power what are they for if not for that I mean if the deterrence value of them fails because no one takes it seriously anymore which the West is doing um then the only thing I'll have to do is to use them all right uh let me ask you about this uh article alluded to which was uh published on your substack uh last month and you wrote that with your co-author uh Jack Paulson is that correct and here it is on the telepromter we actually had both of you on to talk about a prior investigation into Israeli influence operations in the United States but this is was a new one on August 17th entitled leaked Israeli documents reveal effort to evade flooring agent lobbying law the the exact law that was just used to prosecute these lifelong black leftist radicals by accusing them of only opposing NATO imperialism which they've been doing their whole light because Russia ordered them to and paid them to what is this what are these leaked documents and what did they reveal about Israeli influence Ops inside the United States well the last time that Jack and I came on to your show was for the first part of this investigation that was back in July where we revealed that this Israeli influence operation that was launched back in 2017 2018 18 to encourage Americans to oppose BDS uh activism you know any kind of uh peaceful boycotts or or sanctions against Israel for its conduct against uh Palestinians or the occupied territories and this kind of covert influence operation died down over the years and then was relaunched um after October 7th after after the Hamas attacks last year and and they've been working to influence a lot of our debates on college campuses and in Congress now this latest investigation published last month um in collaboration with the guardian takes a look at hacked uh emails and documents from the Israeli Ministry of Justice that's their equivalent of the justice department and they these emails basically look at the internal discussions around that initial launch of this influence operation back in 2017 2018 2019 where the Israeli government realized that they were breaking the foreign agent registration act that they were clearly you know giving money to Americans to influence public opinion and American public policy and those are the triggers uh for the law in fact you don't even need to give money if you're taking just direction from a foreign power that's a trigger for the law um but they secretly retained a former uh General Council from the DNC to advise them on how to avoid uh triggering fire registration they discussed how increased enforcement of far post 2016 with with the many indictments around Russia and Ukraine and the Trump Administration might mean uh that their own kind of influence operation would trigger a doj investigation and they want to to avoid that and they go into tactics into how they could continue influencing American uh public policy and public opinion without registering for far so they talk about setting up kind of dummy third-party proxies and nonprofits to channel the money uh through to kind of conceal the source uh they talk about like the type that was just used like the type that was just used allegedly by RT to funnel huge amounts of money to the rightwing media Outlet tenant media and their influencers like DAV timle exactly that sort of same uh scenario almost to a te exactly the same as what what been alleged there um so it's kind of incredible and they talk about hey you know when we uh talk to our the American recipients and the people involved with this uh will do it only in in inperson meetings so there will be no written notes uh they they talk about how since they're creating a chain of command through these uh proxies will you know will the kind of ultimate beneficiaries of this money uh truly use it as intended and they say don't worry we have all kinds of mechanisms set up to make sure they're carrying out our agenda um I'm paraphrasing here but you should we posted all of the documents on our respective subex Jack and I um so you can read them for yourself um these these internal Israeli documents and it's just incredible because you know like like we said at the beginning of this of the segment um many countries engage in attempts at at influence it um attempts at you know shaping American laws opinion regulations big major decisions around foreign policy um but this far law seems to be very selectively applied because we we've laid out uh and and in addition many Israeli media Outlets have laid out U they've done exposes on how this money from the Israeli government was channeled to groups that went on to help Lobby for anti-bds laws that you know appeared in Israel to to actually say on video thank you for the money and these are Americans including American legislators and then went back and lobbied more uh to enact laws that were beneficial to Israel um so this is kind of definitionally the type of activity that far was designed uh to regulate to to at least and it doesn't even prevent um this times of activity it just simply says you have to disclose you have to disclose where the the money is coming from um what kind of activities you've engaged in the last six months it's a disclosure law and at the Israeli memo state that even that is is kind of dangerous because that um degrades the effectiveness of the recipients of the money any kind of you know individual that is disclosed as a foreign agent is less effective as a lobbyist obviously that's the whole point of the disclosure is to not let people deceive the public into believing that they're advocating on their own instead of on behalf of the government um I you know personally would tell the Israelis like who wrote These was like you know just relax the idea that any uh American citizen is going to be prosecuted and indicted by either party for serving as an undisclosed agent of the Israeli government is virtually nil the only time that it ever happened was when this Jewish American uh agent of the security State the US Security State Jonathan Paul Pard was acting as a spy for Israel and passing EXT the most sensitive top secret documents to the Israeli government that was a bridge too far even for the US government he was indicted and prosecuted and I think spent something like 25 years in prison but it was a source of intense animosity between the Israelis and the Americans the idea that you would imprison a spy for your good friends Israel was outrageous and and I also remember you know during the stod reporting one of the documents that we published and reported on was a document that said that Israel is by far the recipient of the most amount of surveillance Tech we give them the most amount of surveillance technology the most amount of raw data that we collect and yet at the same time in a separate list of the top cyber threats to the United States Israel was number one or number two on that list meaning Israel gets all our cyber Tech uses our surveillance technology gets our raw data and then becomes the leading threat to spy on the United States to gather information sweep up information from the United States government and from Americans to the point where the NSA regards them as among the the greatest cyber threats to the United States our great friends Israel well you know I would only point to uh in terms of the US Israel kind of Alliance here and and the intelligence sharing that you mentioned look at how Israeli spying technology was allegedly used for the murder of the Washington Post journalist uh Jamal kogi uh or just the the news story that was just like a one-day news story but it would have been a you know a year-long controversy if it was almost any other country uh the fact that they were stingrays um those kind of mobile cell phone uh spying devices that were found around the White House and allegedly placed there by Israeli agents it's just just you're saying that if Russia had done that there would have been a little bit more inur and sustained attention possibly know you can never know for sure it's it's a counterfactual all right let me ask you this last question Le Before I Let You Go um I know a lot of people think that you're very young you like to perpetuate this mythology too but you're actually not and I remember I know that you remember how Americans talked about specifically Dick Cheney during the Bush Administration I know you're about to say I was only 14 or whatever but I know you live through that you remember it very well it became part of your political framework and for those who don't remember it I mean Not only was he repeatedly accused of being a war criminal but the consensus among liberals and Democrats was that he essentially engineered a coup by ascending to power in the 2000 election because the Republican majority on the Supreme Court stole the election from the rightful winner which was Al Gore and Joe lman and instead appointed George Bush and Dick Cheney as you know earlier this week in fact over the weekend Dick Cheney and Liz Cheney both endorse kamla Harris and Dick Cheney is pretty old he kind of stays out of the spotlight he issued a statement but Liz Cheney was all over the media as you would expect her to be and when she was asked is the reason you and your father are supporting KLA Harris simply because you're concerned about American democracy I love the the idea that Dick Cheney who stole the 2,000 election of liberals is so concerned about American democracy and the transfer of power and the Integrity of Elections but she was asked is that the reason or there other reasons and she said no there's a lot of other reasons including the fact that even on foreign policy how my father and I see foreign policy we regard the Democratic party and KLA Harris as far closer to our ideology and and and view than we do a trump L GOP in the isolationism and pro Russia stance that he intends to usher in what do you make of the fact you first of all do you think Liz Cheney is right that the Democrats and the and a Biden Jo Biden or camel Harris are closer to the foreign policy ideology of the Chinese which has never changed they've never said it changed than the Trump GOP uh Republican party would be and and what do you think about the fact that Democrats are just openly embracing the chines I mean that was the one person KLA Harris really touted was the fact that Dick Cheney was was endorsing her well look the Republican part is not monolithic there there are big factions of it the establishment of it is still very new conservative but they are scared to death about people like JD Vance and uh you know depending on the the time of day uh Donald Trump Donald Trump's a little bit all over the map but there are populous elements of the GOP that seem ascendant that wholeheartedly reject the neocon point of view that are anti-interventionist that are skeptical of the foreign intervention and foreign war and these kind of entangled foreign alliances uh so you know the Democratic party just in terms of this Zero Sum game that we have a winner take all uh democratic system where since they see kind of this instability on the right for their viewpoints they are drifting uh to the left to the to the at least to the center left and um there is a lot of continuity you know there are a number of people who are serving in the Biden Administration who are or who have recently served like Victoria nuland who are very well connected um with this kind of uh network of DC neocons um in terms of of this endorsement I mean I just it doesn't make sense to me I mean I it kind of makes sense in this in the sense that you know kamla wants to move to the center and have bipartisan credential but you know Hillary Clinton's uh big fault in 2016 was you know embracing the establishment with with a bare hug and not really realizing the populist anger at the the powers that be whether that's in Wall Street or the establishment political system kamla has not done that to the same degree but she risk I think a lot of her election her candid see viability um by by repeating the same mistake yeah I don't know if you know or if you've heard but she grew up as in a middle- class home with a middle- class mom um Lee thank you so much it's always great to have you the two articles that you published the one about Israel and its influence operations campaign and these leaked documents the one about how the New York Times relies on particular sources to shape this narrative is exactly the kind of sort of really like classic shoe leather investigative journalism that you do and people can find that and I hope they will uh subscribe to your substack where that kind of reporting is is very frequent and it's always great to see you great to have you on my show thanks uh very much for coming on thanks for having me Glenn a great evening thanks for watching this clip from system update our live show thats every Monday through Friday at 700 p.m. Eastern exclusively on Rumble you can catch the full nightly shows live or view the backlog of episodes for free on our Rumble page you can also find full episodes the morning after they air across all major podcasting platforms including Spotify and apple all the information you need is linked below we hope to see you there