Glenn Greenwald On The Left: Hey Idiots, It's Your Fault!

Hey, everybody's on The Charlie Kirk Show.

Glenn Greenwald joins the program as we talk about the Intel communities and the entire Leviathan of the deep state against Donald Trump and of course, Ukraine. Become a member today, members.charliekirk.com. Please get your tickets to America Fest, that is amfest.com, a-m-f-e-s-t.com, amfest.com. America Fest is the event of the year, the biggest conservative movement in the country.

Boy, these speakers are just breathtaking. From Danica Patrick to Steve Bannon, Tucker Carlson, Don Jr., Ben Carson, Matt Walsh, Matt Gates, amfest.com, a-m-f-e-s-t.com. We just confirmed Glenn Beck and more to come, amfest.com.

Buckle up everybody, here we go. Charlie, what you've done is incredible here. Maybe Charlie Kirk is on the college campus. I want you to know we are lucky to have Charlie Kirk. Charlie Kirk's running the White House folks. I want to thank Charlie, he's an incredible guy, his spirit, his love of this country. He's done an amazing job building one of the most powerful youth organizations ever created, Turning Point USA. We will not embrace the ideas that have destroyed countries, destroyed lives, and we are going to fight for freedom on campuses across the country.

That's why we are here. Noble Gold Investments is the official gold sponsor of The Charlie Kirk Show, a company that specializes in gold IRAs and physical delivery of precious metals. Learn how you could protect your wealth with Noble Gold Investments at noblegoldinvestments.com. That is noblegoldinvestments.com. It's where I buy all of my gold.

Go to noblegoldinvestments.com. Joining us for the entire hour is the legendary Glenn Greenwald, independent journalist, host of System Update on rumble.com. Glenn, welcome to the program. Glenn, your journalism has been terrific over the years and your commentary as well.

I want to get into this Pod Save America story because I think it's hilarious and delicious, but I want to get you on the show here. Just your reaction and takeaway first of President Trump's triumph. The intel agencies were against him, the apparatus of the government and the regime was against him, and the American people spoke. What is your initial takeaway three weeks now removed from President Trump's comeback victory?

I thought the most important and beneficial outcome of the 2016 election when Trump won was that it had so severely undermined the leading institutions of authority, which up until that point had seemed almost invulnerable. These were the people who controlled the flow of information, who dictated public opinion without much dissent, who controlled the policy and ideology that governed Washington regardless of the outcome of election. It was that DC bipartisan consensus and Trump's victory shattered so much of their sense of invulnerability because they were all united against him. They were all guaranteeing everybody that he was going to lose. He was completely anathema to the sort of person that they expected would and had been and would always be entering the presidency. But I think there was almost a subconscious level, even though it damaged them, on which they wrote it off as an aberration.

2020, despite all the challenges in the world that every incumbent globally faced because of COVID, he almost won again. And then I think this time they really devoted themselves, they tripled and quadrupled their effort in so many different ways, calling him Hitler and a fascist and a white supremacist, all the way up until the day of the election, only to realize, and I think this is the most traumatic part for them, not just that he won, but that so many of the groups that they believe they own, Lock, Stop and Barrel, who have an entitlement to obey them, migrated in huge numbers away from Joe Biden and Kamala Harris to the person that they've been saying is a white supremacist, black voters, Latino voters, nonwhite voters. And I think they're finding now starting to internalize that nobody listens to them.

Nobody trusts them any longer. They have zero influence beyond the people who already agree with them, that this kind of power over information has been decentralized because deservedly they've lost trust because of how often they lie. And Trump has been more than anything else. And there's a lot of things he's been, but he's been a disruptor of status quo institutional authority.

And I don't think there's anyone who could do anything other than celebrate that. Without a doubt. So that kind of is a nice segue to the Pod Save America conversation. For people that don't know, Pod Save America is like regime approved, sarcastic political chatter on the left, right? It is one of the top podcasts on the planet. It's all the former Obama bros. They got all the guests.

They think they know so much. They had General Malley Dillon on the program, who was kind of walking through how things happen. I want to play some tape. But first, Glenn, just set the table for the audience. Why did you find this conversation so illuminating? I was just joking with your producer that in a million years, I honestly never thought I would ever be able to sit through an hour and a half of a Pod Save America episode.

And yet I proved myself wrong because I cannot take my eyes off of it. These are people who all come from Obama world. So even though Obama was a very talented candidate, and won at national elections, underneath Obama, the whole time, the Democratic Party was crumbling. They lost governorships and state houses.

And it was really a party in complete disaster, just kind of with the stench, you know, covered up by the shine of Obama. And these people came away from that thinking that they were the greatest geniuses in all of politics. And they were the ones who exercised the most influence over Kamala's campaign.

The purpose of this episode was to convene the geniuses who ran Kamala's campaign and try and ask them honestly, hey, what happened? You just raised a billion dollars, infinitely more than Trump, far more than any other candidate, and you've got your asses kicked up and down every one of the swing states. You've lost major margins in the most blue states like New York and California and New Jersey. And you even lost the popular vote.

So you would expect there to be at least some symbolic or feigned acknowledgement of error. Here are things we probably did wrong. Here are reasons why the electorate has rejected.

There was none of that. It was all, we did the best campaign we could possibly have run under the limited circumstances. There was a lot of implication that it was the voters' fault. There was a lot of suggestions that just the structural conditions of the economy and Biden's unpopularity made it impossible to win. And the whole time I'm thinking, whose fault is it that your candidate ended up being imposed on the public with no primary vote, no mini election within your party, someone who had been long considered to be one of the least politically talented people on the planet, they were acting like these were externalities over which they had no control when they were the ones who did it. And how do you, Charlie, as somebody at the top of your profession, making millions of dollars, which they do up these campaigns, walk away from one of the most devastating defeat in a long time to Donald Trump, someone they consider a Hitlerian figure and a white supremacist, and not have an iota of self-reflection or self-doubt about what they might have done to contribute to that loss.

But that's exactly what it was, 90 minutes, not just a refusing to admit error, but congratulating themselves. Oh, we ran a spectacular campaign under the limitations. No one knew who she was. We really made people excited about her. We lost with less margin in the swing states than we did in the other states, which proved that some of our work actually had, I mean, I always want to watch it again because of just how simultaneously mind-boggling it is, but also how revealing it is about how this rotted political class thinks. I want to play James Carville's reaction to Kamala's staffers here.

Play cut 57. The vice president was thinking about going on Joe Rogan's show and a lot of the younger progressive staffers pitched a hissy fit. Supposedly the campaign said that that wasn't the term of the fact, but they did. When you put a campaign together and you hire young people to do work, let me tell you exactly what you tell these people, what I would tell them. Not only am I not interested in your opinion, I'm not even going to call you by your name.

You're 23 years old. I don't really give a s*** what you think. What James Carville is getting at is that they were unwilling to even go sit down with Joe Rogan. You've been on Rogan many times, Glenn, and the whole joke, they're like, well, how do we get a new Rogan? Well, you guys used to have Rogan. Glenn.

Yeah. I mean, first of all, just let's recall when we're talking about James Carville, that he wrote article after article, including in the New York Times, saying that not only did he believe Kamala was going to win the election, but he didn't think it was going to be close, that he had no doubts about it, that he had absolute certainty about it, and maybe that was just some activism. But that is what he said repeatedly, and he turned out to be just as wrong as anybody else.

Maybe he should be listening to people a little bit more. But I think one of the things that's so funny that people have forgotten is that for all this talk about how the left needs Joe Rogan, as you said, the left had a Joe Rogan, whose name was Joe Rogan, just in 2022, not two decades ago, four years ago, Joe Rogan said his favorite candidate was Bernie Sanders, and his second favorite candidate was Tulsi Gabbard. So Joe Rogan endorsed the most left wing socialist candidate who's viable for the presidency in decades, this far right, you know, radicalizing into fascism, voice for young men, four years ago was on board with Bernie Sanders. And one of the things that happened was when the Sanders campaign did what of course they should have done, which was touted Joe Rogan's endorsement in their advertisements, because those were the voters they need to attract, they needed to undermine this view that only far left is supportive Bernie Sanders. People in the party led by AOC were so offended that the Sanders campaign would even speak with, let alone tout the endorsement of Joe Rogan, that AOC for months refused to have anything to do with the Sanders campaign, she stopped campaigning with them, she accused them of promoting transphobia. And so when you have someone like Joe Rogan, who has so many classically left wing positions, he's probably the loudest, most prominent advocate of same sex marriage, people go on his show and say, we need traditional marriage, he'll pound them for hours about why that's wrong. So many different views like that he's anti corporatist, he's anti war, to take somebody like that and just malign them and attack them and exclude them and say, because there's a couple of positions, like whether trans women should be able to play in sports, or young children should get, you know, experimental sex reassignment surgery, we're going to declare you far right.

That's why they alienate everybody. The last couple of years have been very tough on people economically. A lot of good folks have gotten into horrible debt just to survive. Some of you are paying 20 to 30% on your credit card debt and drowning in those monthly bills. If you own your own home, did you know that refinancing that home can help get you help right now?

I can hear it now. But Charlie, I have a three and a half percent rate and I can't refi. Don't be a slave to the rate. Talk to my good friends Andrew Del Rey and Todd Avakian. Let them crunch the numbers for you and show you I've used them. They're amazing. I can't say enough good stuff about them.

You can consolidate and pay off all your debt, lower your payments, save thousands in interest, and possibly even pay your home off sooner. Go to Andrew and Todd.com. That's Andrew and Todd.com.

Fill out their form and they'll give you a call and you can view the math together and see if it works for you. Get relief at Andrew and Todd.com today. So Glenn, I want to dive now into the foreign policy portion of our discussion here. Joe Biden seems hell-bent on sending even more and more money overseas. He just asked for 24 billion additional dollars to be sent to Ukraine to continue this very, very dangerous vertical escalation proxy war. Glenn, break down this latest news and the significance of the danger here during this transition period.

I honestly don't think we've ever seen anything like this. I can't think of a historical analogy where a president whose party is resoundingly rejected in an election uses the lame duck session not for anything urgent or time sensitive, but to simply pour fuel on a fire of a war that even its initial advocates have acknowledged can no longer be won. And especially when Trump ran on a platform of resolving this war peacefully and diplomatically, precisely because he knows Ukraine can't win, all it's doing is resulting in the death of hundreds of thousands of people and the destruction of Ukraine that the American taxpayer will pay to rebuild. To watch Biden not just send more money out, but authorize the use of attack missiles to strike deep inside Russia when that requires the active involvement of US or NATO military and other escalatory acts seems very much designed to prevent the next administration, the Trump administration, from fulfilling the promise it made to the American people that they accepted of resolving this war diplomatically.

And it's incredibly dangerous. Russia has the largest nuclear stockpile on the planet. They regard Ukraine as their neighboring country and therefore a vital interest to their national security.

And Washington has been playing this bizarre game from the start, where they seem to view the risks as trivial and are willing to trifle with them for very trivial reasons. Well, yeah, and I just, the DC warmongers that have been pushing this further and further towards whatever this is, and it's bad, they're now applauding, saying finally we're able to use long range American-made missiles into the interior of Russia. Let me ask you from your reporting, Glenn, how are the Russian politicians and the Russian people viewing this? Because we never get the Russian side of the story in American media. Are they viewing this as an act of aggression, as they should, by the way?

Of course, it would be like asking, would the United States view it as an act of aggression if the United States were actively collaborating with some other country, not just to provide weapons to strike inside the United States, but use its military to guide those missiles and to target using their intelligence services where they should land and what they should explode. I think one of the things that has been most lost because of how awash we are in propaganda is the fact that Ukraine is the most sensitive border spot for Russia. It's the place that was used to invade Russia twice during the 20th century in both World Wars that resulted in the deaths of tens of millions of Russian citizens.

I actually interviewed a German politician, a really interesting woman, Sarah Bagenknecht, who has long been on the left, but is a vehement opponent of German support for the war. And she talked about the generational psychological trauma for the Russians of seeing German troops and German tanks, rather, rolling eastward once again into Russia toward the Russian border. This has been something, this war, that has been extremely provocative toward Russia. And the problem is that we hear that Putin is a totalitarian leader, no one challenges him. He has a lot of political pressure, primarily on his nationalistic right, that has been critical, believing that he's shown too much restraint about NATO involvement in Ukraine. And he has a lot of pressure to respond very aggressively to this seriously escalatory policy of now having the US and NATO directly bombed inside Russia. Yeah, I just, at some point, somebody has to articulate what exactly success looks like here, and just these platitudes and abstractions punishing Putin or making sure Ukraine wins.

We have a minute remaining here, Glenn. Am I correct in saying that Russia is taking more territory as months go by, and that the Ukrainians are losing more and more ground? Is that correct? Yeah, nobody doubts that the Russian front line is expanding westward. Nobody doubts that Ukraine has zero chance. The problem is NATO defined victory from the start in a very unrealistic way, expelling every Russian troop from every inch of Ukrainian soil, including Crimea, and the Russians would never permit that. And now the US knows that's the outcome and they're gonna have to accept the humiliation of defeat. Including Crimea. I mean, first of all, Crimea is rightfully Russia's, okay? That's where Russian wine comes from.

It's where their Navy was centered in World War Two. I mean, these people are pathologically insane. Everyone check out Glenn's show on rumble.com.

That is rumble.com. Glenn, I want to ask you about the changing media landscape. It seems as if the Democrat Party, who seems they're always on, they claim to be on the cutting edge of culture, have just come to realize that more Americans are getting news from social media and podcasting. I mean, it's hard for me to believe they were this naive, but walk me through how they got to a place where they have lost such significant ground in digital content creation and podcasting. I mean, you're in independent media. I've been in independent media ever since I left the media outlet I founded when it wouldn't let me publish negative reporting about Joe Biden before the 2020 election.

Any of us could see this coming. The data has been so clear. Their ratings have been in collapse and freefall. Every poll shows that Americans trust and like corporate media almost less than like pedophiles and syphilis.

And so the trends have been clear for so long. But when your entire self-identity or entire self-esteem depends upon the position and the prestige that you think it brings with inside of a collapsing institution, you're always going to be the last people to believe that the institution is collapsing. I think the most traumatizing part of this election for them was, again, not just that Trump won, but that so many nonwhite voters, the people who they think they're the benevolent leaders of, who they think they own, who they think they have the right to have eternal support, migrated in huge numbers away from their candidate to Donald Trump, despite constantly saying Trump was a Nazi, was going to put them in camps. Remember the whole last week of the invention was the media claiming that Trump had a Nazi rally in Madison Square Garden. They were convinced Tony Hinchcliffe's joke was going to swing the election because Puerto Ricans would rise up with Latinos led by Jennifer Lopez and Big Buddy or Bad Buddy or whoever.

And none of that happened. And so when you think that you speak and are so foreign, so connected to a group of people who turn around and show that they don't see the world remotely the way you see it, they don't care what you see, they don't listen to what you see, this is almost too much for even them to be in denial any longer. And that's why you see all these, oh my god, how are we going to create our own Joe Rogan? Yeah, but is there something to the format where leftists, not liberals, struggle in long form podcasting, they struggle in unscripted environments? Is there something to the new left, and I don't mean traditional liberal values, I mean one that has a primary focus on censorship and war and regime politics that stays away from that sort of inquiry towards truth or long form dialogue? Is it the format that also doesn't fit their politics?

I definitely see what you mean. At the same time as somebody who has long been associated with the left, who was kind of steeped in a civil libertarianism with which the left was once most associated, you see a lot of the right-wing movements at least shaped and led by Donald Trump having commandeered a lot of these issues quite successfully. The only people who talk anymore about free speech versus censorship are on the right. The only people who talk anymore about the evils of the CIA and the FBI and the US security state are people on the right, not the left.

Same with the war machine. I don't think it's so much the topics, I think it's the fact that there's so much forced orthodoxy within liberal left discourse that people just can't speak freely. They're constantly afraid of their own shadows. You saw that with Kamala Harris, you see that with left-wing media in general. So, people sense that.

If you're not someone speaking freely, if you're petrified of saying the wrong word, you seem inauthentic. And it's not a faction that anyone wants to be a part of that's so repressed and petrified. And Trump came along and blew through every single taboo and limit without the slightest concern, the slightest apology. And that opened up so much space on the right, and I think that's what made it so much more powerful, so much more able to connect with the ordinary people that the left had had a claim on for so long. And what I mean by the new left, I don't mean traditional liberal values.

I mean totalitarian impulses and international warmongering values that you and I don't hold. What I'm curious, though, is what will their next move be? Do you see the Democrat Party liberalizing itself towards one and re-embracing a free speech dialogue expression, agree to disagree, kind of the promise of the Bill of Rights? Or is there going to be the even further rise of this kind of woke wing? I know I'm asking you to speculate and predict, but as a reporter, I'm sure you've thought deeply about this. What is next for the current composition of the American Democrat Party? I don't think that's hard.

I don't think it's that hard to predict. And I also don't think that this distinction that you're drawing that has always been valid between kind of establishment liberalism and the left is really that wide anymore, or even that real, you know, the left of the 1960s, protesting against the Vietnam War, and the establishment was always a little different than Lyndon Johnson and that whole gang that pursued the Vietnam War. Those distinctions have eroded in favor of this idea that you cannot trust ordinary people.

You can trust elites with expertise, but you can't trust ordinary people. And this whole industry that was concocted out of nowhere, creating a fake credential of people being disinformation agents, that was all reaction, first of all, to the UK approval of Brexit, but way more so the big trauma for liberals of Donald Trump beating Hillary Clinton in 2016. And they concluded from that the only hope they have to continue to control people and their thoughts is to create systems to further control, censor and manipulate public opinion through the internet more. And I think with this crushing defeat, and then being at such a loss in the wilderness to figure out how to get back, they're going to resort to increasingly authoritarian tactics that they already believe in, and just kind of double and triple down on them, not just as American liberals, but with the western left that very much believes in this also. Yeah, and that's an important distinction is that if this current government they might not have control of, but they still control a lot of states.

And a lot, almost all of Europe has embraced this new orthodoxy. It's very dangerous and pernicious. So don't wait to take advantage of this amazing deal. Now with promo code Kirk, Mike believes God gave him this idea for my pillow in a dream and it's designed with your comfort in mind.

The pillow holds its shape and adapts perfectly to your unique sleep position, helping keep your neck aligned for the best night's sleep. And there's more take home a four piece kitchen set for only $25 and enjoy their new mattress topper starting at $99.99 or pick up the luxurious MyPillow bedsheets starting at $49.98. Visit MyPillow.com or call 800-875-0425. Use promo code Kirk to unlock huge discounts. Don't miss out. Order today. I want to play cut 60 here.

I just got this tape. Stephanie Cutter describing how important TikTok was for Donald Trump. And this ties into the whole TikTok ban that I know you spoke against and it's looming on January 19th. And should we give the power to the government to ban social media apps we don't like? Maybe this would explain why they want TikTok banned.

Play cut 60. But we have to pay attention to why people find that appealing. And his use of TikTok and specifically reaching those younger men, I can't tell you how many friends of mine or nieces and nephews would say to me, you know, I'm getting these things from Trump all the time on TikTok. And they're not political people. They weren't signing up for that stuff. But Trump was reaching them.

So there's there is a lot for us to learn in that. So the main takeaway there, Glenn is, as you know, the TikTok ban was birthed out of the October 7th situation because there were too many Americans that were getting a, let's just say, unfavorable opinion of a foreign country. And I'm pro-Israel. And I think it's insane that you ban a social media app because Americans don't agree with you on a foreign policy issue. Talk about the whole TikTok element, its role in this election, and this looming TikTok ban that Trump's gonna have to decide on. Well, the irony, of course, is that TikTok has always been perceived as the far left or leftist platform, which is normal for young people to be more inclined to the left. And the idea of banning TikTok originated with the Trump administration, a lot of Republicans in the Senate, based on this idea that it was a CCP controlled propaganda outlet, that it was a threat to national security, which as you point out, it never went anywhere. It never got the votes until after October 7th, when Democrats decided it was too pro-Palestinian, too permissive of anti-Israel criticism. But to watch now Democrats turn around and be concerned about TikTok as some sort of right wing propaganda outlet, when all along they saw it as one of their best assets, because so many people perceived it as a left wing outlet, you know, is amazing.

But at the end of the day, it shouldn't matter. TikTok is an app that people voluntarily use, huge numbers of people to organize, to speak to one another, to form communities. And it's always their impulse now that if they identify a certain font of information that they think is harmful to their political interests, their instinct is not to figure out how to commandeer it or integrate into it, but how to just stop it, suppress it, make sure that it no longer can compete with the outlets of institutions that they control.

That is the prevailing left liberal instinct in the West that I think is so dangerous. Yeah, I just, can we just also talk more just about the precedent of what this would allow for, I mean, to allow the federal government to say what social media apps you can use because it's fostering opinion that we don't like. And just so everyone understands, right now, TikTok is scheduled to be banned on January 19th, almost simultaneously with Trump's inauguration. I mean, again, this is so coordinated. And you're seeing this firsthand in Brazil as well, if I'm not mistaken.

Oh, yeah. I mean, in Brazil, there's an obsession and a successful one because there's no First Amendment with simply banning every single expression on social media that the predominantly centrist left liberal part of the government dislikes out of fear that Bolsonaro is a highly popular political figure, which he is. And if they allow free speech, he will return, which he will.

In the United States, it's a little bit more difficult just because of the First Amendment, but it's exactly the same mentality. And you're so right, you know, there's a constitutional prohibition on Congress passing a law about just one company. So you can't pass a law saying TikTok is banned. You have to pass a law saying, in the event the president determines that a foreign owned social media app is a threat, he has a unilateral right to force a seller to ban it, which means this law that's about to go into effect is way broader than just TikTok. It gives the president sort of the unilateral magic wand to wave his magic wand and say, this app will no longer be permitted in the United States. And, you know, it's been incredible to watch a lot of people who raised the free speech banner support that as well. Yeah, and that means that a future Democrat president could ban Telegram, could ban Rumble.

I mean, it's just whatever app that you don't like, you can just give the federal government ability to ban. Glenn, I want to get your thoughts. I mean, you're never gonna have a transition where you agree with every single person. However, as somebody who has covered the intel agencies and broke the Snowden story, I would love your thoughts on Tulsi Gabbard being selected for director of national intelligence, the profundity of that, and the significance of someone who has been one of the most articulate, outspoken critics of American intel agencies actually potentially becoming the director of national intelligence. Yeah, you almost feel like sometimes you live in a dream world where a lot of people who are paid to pay attention to politics never listen to a word Donald Trump said. He has been railing against the abuses and the politicization and the corruption of the intel agencies for eight years, in part because he was a victim of it. And he has been promising to overhaul it, to drain the swamp, which includes that. And yet somehow a lot of people in both parties in the media thought he was going to come in and just appoint status quo preservers, like the sort of people who usually get appointed to these positions. And they're shocked that he chose someone in Tulsi Gabbard, who is a virulent critic of the US intelligence agencies, of the way they've monopolized and politicized spying and abused their spying powers, when his whole campaign was about putting people in charge of these agencies who would clean it out, who would drain the swamp, who would clean it from the root. And the reason why there's so much attacks on people like her, as opposed to say, Marco Rubio and Elise Stefanik, is because they understand that she really is a radical critic of the agencies that she that he wants her to lead.

And that's what upsets Washington more than anything, because there's so many prerogatives and entitlements and profits that come from preserving these agencies as is. The keeper of secrets. And so Glenn, you know how the Intel world works better than anybody from a reporter perspective. If she gets to be DNI director, what could she do there? What can she clean up? What can she expose?

What mandate can she fulfill? DNI has kind of post 9-11 been a little bit of a kind of a shelf item, a little bit of an accessory. But actually the way it's written is an extraordinarily powerful department that is supposed to be the offensive coordinator of all Intel flow into the federal government. Right, based on the 9-11 idea that the reason it happened was because the Intel agencies weren't communicating, so you needed someone at the top of it in charge. Look, I mean, permanent power factions in Washington, the capital of the most powerful and lucrative country on the planet, don't give up power easily. I mean, as Chuck Schumer said to Rachel Maddow, everyone in Washington knows you don't confront the Intel agencies because they have six different ways to Sunday to get back at you, which I think was one of the most extraordinarily important statements.

But in this case, Tulsi Gabbard in that position can do a lot of good changing these agencies, even though the resistance will be immense. Yeah. And so can we just kind of emphasize this? If you're able to, let's just say, bring the Intel agencies to heel, that could potentially prevent the next unnecessary war. Is that a fair summary? Is that that we sometimes go into these conflicts because of faulty intelligence and misleading Intel reports?

Yeah, there are two components of it. One was the Intel agencies were never supposed to spy on or be involved in American politics, and increasingly since 9-11, that's a big part of what they do, which is obviously an anti-democratic threat for so many reasons. But the other part is they provide the intelligence to the president and when they want to persuade or deceive a president to involve the US in a war, all they do is cook up intelligence as they did in Vietnam, Iraq, Syria, Libya, even in Ukraine.

And that is probably the worst, most destructive part of these Intel agencies is that they deliberately lie in order to keep the endless war machine on which they depend and from which so many of them profit, continuing to be perpetrated by just constantly telling presidents and the media, whatever it wants to hear to generate support publicly for these words that are not in the interest of most people. If Tulsi Gabbard ends up getting confirmed as Director of National Intelligence, it'll be one of the greatest successes post 9-11 to bring trust, transparency, and truth to the Intel agencies since the Patriot Act. Would you agree with that, Glenn?

30 seconds? Yeah, if it happens, let's have a little party on your show and we can come and celebrate even just for a few minutes, a little champagne because I love it. This is the kind of the defeat that Washington rarely suffers and they're on the verge of suffering it and that's why they're in full panic mode. I'm gonna do everything I can to get Tulsi across the finish line.

It's gonna be a tough fight. Glenn, you're a great man. Thank you. I have turkey for me in Brazil.

Just you still gotta have the Thanksgiving something down there. I'm still American, so I have to honor it. All right, Charlie, great seeing you. Thanks for having me back on. Thanks for the time. Very generous with your time. Thank you. Thanks so much for listening, everybody. Email us as always freedom at charliekirk.com. Thanks so much for listening and God bless. For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to charliekirk.com.