We'll discuss today's Russiagate retractions, Rittenhouse, the FBI subpoenas to Project Veritas, and leave the bulk of the time for Q&A with readers here.
Callin is apple only, which means Apple can remove it at any time and their guidelines are opaque on when apps are removed. Same goes for the Android marketplace. Callin should have started with a browser based option that can work cross-platform & device.
See my above answer. It will shortly be on all platforms, and ensuring that it is not susceptible to the pressures of these big tech platforms is one of their key strategies, as it is for Substack and Rumble. Until blockchain and crypto protocols are widely in use for truly decentralized communications, supporting these alternative platforms is the best way I can think of to fortify free speech venues.
I'm not the designer or creator of any of these platforms. I've tried to explain what I'm doing: instead of merely reporting on and denouncing increasing censorship by Big Tech (which is really censorship by corporate media and the Democratic Party using Big Tech platforms as a proxy), I'm trying to support and use those platforms which I really believe are committed to defending free inquiry and allowing the full range of ideological debate to take place. I'm not sure why these apps find it easier to start with iPhones -- maybe there's an ease that is lacking for Androids and webs; maybe there's a bias among coders in Silicon Valley -- but I was given assurances that they would very quickly be on the web and Androids and thus universally available. Can I tell you with 100% certainty that they -- or, for that matter, Substack or Rumble -- will never capitulate to any social pressure to censor? Of course not. Those guarantees don't exist. But I'm doing my best to find people I believe are genuinely committed to these values to support and use those platforms rather than the ones censoring. When I moved to Substack, many insisted that they would eventually cave and deplatform people and I said at the time I believed their commitment was real. So far, despite much pressure, they have resisted it and refused to capitulate, as has Rumble. I believe the same is true of Callin -- the people who founded it have enough past success and genuine conviction about these matters that I find their commitment convincing. My goal is to use my platform not just to report on and condemn Big Tech censorship but try to find ways to create alternatives/competitors to it.
All the hate on Apple is deserved, but unfortunately the facts are they have the most cohesive platform. And if you actually want the most people to see and use your latest-n-greatest app, you must release on iphones first. More people run the latest version of the operating system. If you release on Android, only a few (relatively speaking!) will be able to use it. I know this doesn't sound correct because there are millions more Android devices than Apple. But most of these are older devices or less-capable phones unable to take advantage of the latest features or even run the newest operating system. The Callin experience is probably going to suck unless you have newest phone running the latest version of the OS -- even after they release on Android. Same with the web. But it's even worse there. Most people don't have mics+speakers on their desktops. And how many times does your headphone or speaker setup break when you upgrade something? The experience is more seamless on a phone and best on an iphone -- as much as I hate to admit it. So they have to go iphone first.
I get your points. Just want to point out that people have different priorities. Prioritizing what you call a "seamless" experience is very important, even axiomatic, to some, and of course people who are focused on the seamlessness of the proffered experience won't care so much about the problems with Apple etc. But people with different priorities do take those problems seriously. I appreciate that Greenwald did not follow the line of reasoning you suggest which would have led him to stay on YouTube. And I recognize that he has tactical decisions to make. Greenwald's audience includes a large fraction of people who are unhappy with him releasing certain content on Apple first, and some of that is due to the problems with Apple. I think it is very good for Greenwald that he has an audience like that.
I appreciate your engagement with your fans Glenn! I also understand the challenge between truly free-libre-open-source (FLOSS) and polished easy to use applications with support from companies. While not FLOSS this company isn't AWS/Google/Microsoft/Apple/Facebook so I appreciate your embrace of new companies. With that being said it's still centralized and vulnerable. There are decentralized options but again not as easy to use. Hopefully that changes in the future.
I don't understand the defeatist mentality that says nothing can ever work, nobody has any real commitment to fighting Big Tech, it's all going to fail eventually. I understand the temptation to give in to that defeatism, but it seems much better to look for ways to succeed than just proclaim in advance that any efforts are doomed to failure.
I appreciate your response. I am a cynic and have pretty much given up, I have been tilting at windmills since the 60s. I was online since the early 80s, yes I said 80s. First dial-up bulletin boards, then Compuserve (that was before AOL). Then saw Internet when it was only at universities and government. I was super excited to see it go public and, when it did, it was great. I was an Amazon affiliate when they still sent affiliates Christmas gifts. I made maybe $20 a month, LOL. But, I could see the evolution happening. In 1997, I wrote a long gone article predicting that capitalism would destroy the Internet. I didn't know how right I was and it is now so far removed from its promise it isn't even funny. And most people have no idea because they weren't even alive back then. Most people do not realize how good the world and economy was up until things started to change in the 80s. And that change has been slow. My young friends don't ever remember a time when there was maybe only one billionaire in the US (and his name was Rockefeller) and you could go out and get a job one day and start the next at a wage you could live on. Maybe not live well, but you could live and not be homeless. And the top tax rate was 70% and unions were strong. Anyway, I support you, but I am under no illusions.
I have been putting my Callin shows on my Substack. It could not be any easier. Just download the file to dropbox and upload to an audio post on Substack.
I love that you are responding to your subscribers. Thank you for that! At the very least for those of us who can't participate live really need a way to listen to what transpired. Especially if you or others start referencing conversations from these Callin streams in your substack, Rumble or other platforms.
Frankly I don't get these erratic moves. You get in fanfare on Rumble, then Locals which enables live streams with interaction with your community joins forces with Rumble and you open a Locals channel (to which I subscribed! in addition to your substack) but NO content provided on Locals at all (which is a scam) - and now we're supposed to move to yet another platform? That's nuts. At least Locals subscribers to your empty channel should get a refund
(By the way, Callin is completely free and will remain free. And again, I didn't really promote Locals because I wasn't ready to use it. We do have plans to start but I can't say when. Anyone who signed up thinking that I intended to use it and wants a refund given that I haven't started, feel free to email us and I'll work to make sure that happens).
When I went to Rumble, Locals had nothing to do with it. I didn't even know what Locals was. Rumble subsequently purchased Locals and integrated in into their platform. I've since learned what Locals is and see the potential in it, but I haven't been promoting it to anyone precisely because I'm not ready to use it. We're trying to make sure that the various platforms have a synergistic effect on the journalism -- that they complement and strengthen one another rather than just being a diffuse, manic way of producing content -- and since I haven't quite figured out yet the best use of Locals, we haven't started to use it or promote it, but we will.
It's only for iPhones in the first couple months of launch. As I indicated, it will have both functionality on Androids and a website very, very shortly, ensuring universal accessibility.
WoW. No browser for a couple of months. Is it being done by the Michelle Obama's friends? I hope you will produce something to read in the meantime so I can get an occasional Glenn fix. All the video stuff is nice; but sometimes - many times actually I'm not in a place where I can watch videos even with head phones. I'm a written word person for the most part. But I'll watch the occasional video. I hope you don't go all video big brother on us.
Substack has been and will continue to be the primary platform where I produce journalism. Writing is what I do. I just published a long article about Democrats and the Rittenhouse case and 1/6 defendants this week. Everything else I'm doing is designed to supplement and expand the journalism I do here at Substack, not replace it. I'll never ask any subscribers here to pay for any other subscriptions for my work. The idea with both Rumble and Callin is to expand the mediums I use -- both to reach new audiences (who, for instance, only want to watch videos or listen to podcasts but not read) and to produce more commentary/journalism (there are only so many 2,500-word heavily researched and fact-checked articles per week I can write). But all of it will be made freely available to Substack subscribers (we're making the Rumble videos and the transcripts to them available to Substack subscribers, for instance). The point of Callin is to let subscribers have more active engagement with my work by providing a way to comment on it, ask questions about, post critiques, etc. My home base for journalism is written articles here at Substack. Everything else is to supplement the work here.
Until now I have been reluctant to become a paying subscriber to your substack platform. Primarily because of the increasing number of independent voices endeavouring to present the truth as they understand it, without editorializing according to personal bias. One only has so much money to commit to trying to grasp the reality behind events of the day. Most of the "journalists" on corporate media are more parrots for the preferential agenda of their overlords, so rarely is one exposed to the why's of what may be happening. Sadly, it seems it has been forever thus, and even more sad is that I didn't really comprehend this fact until late in the 6th decade of my life. Your writings are compelling, well researched and highly informative. That you are endeavouring to get your voice out to the widest possible audience is enough for me to overcome previous reluctance. Thank you for all that you are seeking to do.
This would be a subject for a call in show, now that the issue is being blown wide opern by Durham
WHEN ADAM SCHIFF LOVED THE DOSSIER.
March 2017 was a heady time for Trump-Russia conspiracy theorists. The collapse of their enterprise lay two years in the future, when Robert Mueller, the special counsel in whom they placed their hopes of bringing down President Donald Trump, announced that after an intensive investigation he could not establish any conspiracy or coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia in the 2016 election. Their total embarrassment lay more than four years away when another special counsel, John Durham, would release findings showing that their theory was not only wrong but laughably wrong — if a theory that did so much damage to the American polity could be called laughable.
But in March 2017, all that lay ahead. It was a time for Democrats to celebrate the hottest “intelligence” on everyone’s mind: the Steele dossier , the collection of anti-Trump allegations compiled by the former British spy Christopher Steele, commissioned and paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee.
On March 20, the House Intelligence Committee held a hearing on Russia’s attempts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential race. The witnesses were James Comey and Michael Rogers, then the chiefs of the FBI and NSA, respectively. Much of the questioning that day — from Democrats — focused on the dossier.
What Democratic lawmakers said seems surreal today, given everything that has happened. But led by Rep. Adam Schiff, the ranking minority member — the committee was still controlled by Republicans and Rep. Devin Nunes at the time — Democrats repeatedly lent credibility to the dossier. They took it very, very seriously. And these were not anchors and commentators at MSNBC or CNN. They were members of the U.S. House of Representatives who had special clearances to deal with the nation’s secrets. And they were spreading disinformation left and right.
Subscribe today to the Washington Examiner magazine that will keep you up to date with what’s going on in Washington. SUBSCRIBE NOW: Just $1.00 an issue!
The disinformation began with Schiff’s opening statement, referencing a theory from the dossier involving the former low-level Trump campaign adviser Carter Page and former Trump campaign chief Paul Manafort. “According to Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer who is reportedly held in high regard by U.S. intelligence,” Schiff said, “Russian sources tell [Steele] that Page has … had a secret meeting with Igor Sechin, CEO of the Russian gas giant Rosneft. Sechin is reported to be a former KGB agent and a close friend of Putin’s. According to Steele’s Russian sources, Page is offered brokerage fees … on a deal involving a 19% share of the company. According to Reuters, the sale of a 19.5% share of Rosneft later takes place with unknown purchasers and unknown brokerage fees. Also, according to Steele’s Russian sources, the [Trump] campaign was offered documents damaging to Hillary Clinton which the Russians would publish through an outlet that gives them deniability, like WikiLeaks. The hacked documents would be in exchange for a Trump administration policy that de-emphasizes Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and instead focuses on criticizing NATO countries for not paying their fair share … According to Steele, it was Manafort who chose Page to serve as a go-between for the Trump campaign and Russian interests.”
First, do not believe anyone who says Democrats did not make a big deal of the Steele dossier. They did, starting with the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. And second, it was all false. There was no Rosneft deal. There was no 19%. There was no agreement to trade dirt on Clinton for an easy-on-Russia policy. And Manafort did not choose Page as the “go-between” for these nonexistent deals.
But Schiff did not stop there. “Is it a coincidence,” he asked a moment later, “that the Russian gas company, Rosneft, sold a 19% share after [Steele] was told by Russian sources that Carter Page was offered fees on a deal of just that size? Is it a coincidence that Steele’s Russian sources also affirmed that Russia had stolen documents hurtful to Secretary Clinton that it would utilize in exchange for pro-Russian policies?” None of it was true.
Democratic Rep. Jackie Speier also cited the nonexistent Rosneft-Carter Page deal, specifically referencing the dossier. But her colleague, Democratic Rep. Joaquin Castro, really took the ball and ran with it. “I want to take a moment to turn to the Christopher Steele dossier,” Castro said. “My focus today is to explore how many claims within Steele’s dossier are looking more and more likely as though they are accurate.” Claiming that Russia traded compromising information with the Trump campaign, Castro continued, “The dossier definitely seems right on these points. A quid pro quo relationship seems to exist between the Trump campaign and Putin’s Russia.” Castro went on to quote from multiple entries from the dossier. He cited them one after the other.
Democratic Rep. Andre Carson was on board, too. “The dossier written by former MI6 agent Christopher Steele alleges that Trump agreed to sideline Russian intervention as a campaign issue, which is effectively a priority for Vladimir Putin,” Carson said. “There’s a lot in the dossier that is yet to be proven, but increasingly, as we’ll hear throughout the day, allegations are checking out. And this one seems to be as accurate as they come.” Except that it wasn’t.
Comey and Rogers refused to comment on any of the Democrats’ dossier speculation. Had Comey spoken up, he could have told the lawmakers that at that very moment FBI investigators were desperately trying — and failing — to corroborate the dossier’s allegations. They were finding out what Justice Department inspector general Michael Horowitz and, later, John Durham, would discover: Steele’s “sources” were mostly one man, Igor Danchenko, working at the liberal Washington think tank Brookings Institution, in some cases passing on allegations from a Democratic activist in the Clinton circle, Charles Dolan, who passed on gossip and stuff he read in the newspaper as intelligence from sources close to Trump.
[……]
In the end, it is too simple to dismiss the dossier affair by saying, “people lied to Christopher Steele.” Yes, Steele’s “sources” fed him made-up allegations. But why did Steele, supposedly the master spy, accept them so uncritically? Because they might help bring down Donald Trump. That was more important than whether they were true or not. The important thing to remember is that the sources told Steele what he wanted to hear. And then Steele, through the dossier, told his bosses at the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee what they wanted to hear. And then the dossier told some key FBI officials what they wanted to hear. And then it told Schiff what he wanted to hear. And then it told Rachel Maddow and many others in the media what they wanted to hear. And so on. The dossier was so important because it seemed to fulfill the wishes of so many people.
As bad as it is, it’s likely the public still does not know all the ins and outs of the dossier story. More could be on the way from Durham. But we do know the most important thing to know about the dossier: Dig down deep, and there’s nothing there. That’s why the Adam Schiff of 2021 does not like to be reminded of the Adam Schiff of 2017, who tried to sell the public a document even he can no longer defend.
Hm, so the first call-in/interactive liveshow is on a platform that is only available as an iPhone app. People are right to complain.
Among the stuff that Apple installs inside the iPhone:
--Facial recognition sensor
--Fingerprint sensor
I have NEVER allowed -- into my house, pocket, or life -- any device that does facial recognition or fingerprint sensing. Like other big tech-exploiting monopolies, Apple puts out a closed-source product that constantly transfers intrusive data about you to its servers and says "Trust us". Thoroughly untrustworthy. And I'm disappointed that Greenwald is expecting his audience to sign up for an app that's only available on such a dubious platform.
Still, given there's some chance that the call-in will consist of reasonable discussion that's worth listening to, I would like if a transcript is later made available on a less evil platform.
You could complain, or you could thank GG for comitting to mirror on rumble until it's available for other platforms. Also, you're delusional if you think you've never let a face ID or fingerprinting device into your house.
Thanks for the "you could complain" permission, Master Delusional. But I don't need your permission. I've never had any kind of evilphone (I have no need for apps on a phone anyway), nor have I ever owned a device designed for face ID or fingerprinting.
Incidentally, I note that it is entirely possible for dog ownership to be desired by, among others, the kind of sicko who imagines that he's being called "lord and master".
I popped in around 21:00 eastern you were taking questions at that time directly from attendees.
I found myself looking around for a chat enabled area for the other audience members but wasn’t able to find one.
Is that a possibility on this platform so that other listeners can chat amongst themselves while you’re speaking to the current caller?
If not I hope that ‘Callin’ can look at that as a future upgrade to the app. I love connecting with people in chat. Especially your audience. The energy would be amazing!
I don’t know if the technology is available yet but it would be useful if some modality/algorithm/AI could collate and group questions in real time. I am sure many people have the same, or the same type of question
Hi Glenn. Will try to make it but if I don’t, here’s my question. I like and appreciate your thoughts on the DP. Recent piece on criminal Justice … How about at least pointing out that both major parties relate to the criminal justice system only to support their ideologies, so there's no way to get prison reform from the current political arrangement. Seems to me you stop short of this. In doing so, you end up being a house radical Dem in the process; i.e., giving a Left cover to the Dems (while criticizing them!) A neat trick. But what's the point?
That's a fair point, though note that the Trump administration -- working with Rand Paul, the ACLU and several Democrats -- actually did get a decent (though not great) criminal justice reform bill passed.
Thanks for responding, Glenn. I feel you sidestepped my main point. Why do you, like all of the mainstream media, insist on the binary choice of DP or RP? Especially given that independents are 43% of the country today. Many are young. Growing numbers are from the communities of color. Among millennials and Latinos, 50% identify as independent and 35% of African American between the ages of 18 - 34 are independent. Why not write about this? Nothing seems to bother the powers that be more than a challenge to the duopoly! The Left insists on working in the DP. Bernie was never going to be their nominee. Would that he was. He will never be allowed to lead the corporatist DP. Thanks for listening. I admire your journalism and voice. I only wish you would not be like the mainstream media on this critical issue. Let’s change the culture of politics! Let’s break the chains of this moribund two party system! It is literally killing us!
I don't see the world through that binary prism. But the fact is that the Democratic Party is an extremely powerful institution - it controls both houses of Congress, the White House and thus the entire Executive Branch -- and deserves to be journalistically scrutinized. That was the point of that particular article. I hear many criticisms, but that my journalism and analysis are trapped within the parameters of the two parties -- meaning I see the world primarily as GOP v. Dem - is almost never one of them, because I think it's plainly untrue.
Perhaps you can write about some of the Issues that animate independents across the political spectrum - these aren’t really issues in the traditional sense. They are about process, the way things work. After 2016 & 2020, many people became educated about the pitfalls of the process—closed primaries which locked out nearly 25 million voters; controlled presidential debates; the convention delegate selection rules; the electoral college; and so forth. Independent voters became more visible as a result. Independent voters deserve respect, recognition and reform and we work in every state—from the ground up—to make that possible.
The two-party system is a function, to a large extent, of the relatively undemocratic "single-vote" method used for elections. With all the modern technology we still haven't figured out the best way for voters to select one candidate out of three. I'm working on it at MEVoting.com (corrective update in the works), looking for assistance (hint, Glenn:)
To be fair: You suggest going after "both major parties" and indicate that Greenwald doesn't do that enough. I would acknowledge that he's always done it some, and he continues to do it some. But you still make a valuable point. At this particular moment of his career, his message in many cases is not "both major parties need to be rejected and thoroughly debunked" but more like "The Democratic Party is bad, and so Republicans and/or the Trumpist movement is the better alternative within the two-party system". I'm sure Greenwald does have an appreciation of SOME of the ways in which the two major parties share similar flaws, but his politics are noticeably different from people who are more intensely committed to discovering the flaws that are shared between the DP and RP. So, you make a reasonable point.
Appreciate your thoughts, Randall. I'm hoping Glenn covers the Issues that animate independents across the political spectrum - these aren’t really issues in the traditional sense. They are about process, the way things work. After 2016 & 2020, many people became educated about the pitfalls of the process—closed primaries which locked out nearly 25 million voters; controlled presidential debates; the convention delegate selection rules; the electoral college; and so forth. Independent voters became more visible as a result. We believe that independent voters deserve respect, recognition and reform and we work in every state—from the ground up—to make that possible.
Callin is apple only, which means Apple can remove it at any time and their guidelines are opaque on when apps are removed. Same goes for the Android marketplace. Callin should have started with a browser based option that can work cross-platform & device.
tl;dr: Apple & Android marketplaces are the antithesis of free speech.
See my above answer. It will shortly be on all platforms, and ensuring that it is not susceptible to the pressures of these big tech platforms is one of their key strategies, as it is for Substack and Rumble. Until blockchain and crypto protocols are widely in use for truly decentralized communications, supporting these alternative platforms is the best way I can think of to fortify free speech venues.
So starting with the browser would have been best? Please replay on Rumble for us anti Apple folks.
I'm not the designer or creator of any of these platforms. I've tried to explain what I'm doing: instead of merely reporting on and denouncing increasing censorship by Big Tech (which is really censorship by corporate media and the Democratic Party using Big Tech platforms as a proxy), I'm trying to support and use those platforms which I really believe are committed to defending free inquiry and allowing the full range of ideological debate to take place. I'm not sure why these apps find it easier to start with iPhones -- maybe there's an ease that is lacking for Androids and webs; maybe there's a bias among coders in Silicon Valley -- but I was given assurances that they would very quickly be on the web and Androids and thus universally available. Can I tell you with 100% certainty that they -- or, for that matter, Substack or Rumble -- will never capitulate to any social pressure to censor? Of course not. Those guarantees don't exist. But I'm doing my best to find people I believe are genuinely committed to these values to support and use those platforms rather than the ones censoring. When I moved to Substack, many insisted that they would eventually cave and deplatform people and I said at the time I believed their commitment was real. So far, despite much pressure, they have resisted it and refused to capitulate, as has Rumble. I believe the same is true of Callin -- the people who founded it have enough past success and genuine conviction about these matters that I find their commitment convincing. My goal is to use my platform not just to report on and condemn Big Tech censorship but try to find ways to create alternatives/competitors to it.
All the hate on Apple is deserved, but unfortunately the facts are they have the most cohesive platform. And if you actually want the most people to see and use your latest-n-greatest app, you must release on iphones first. More people run the latest version of the operating system. If you release on Android, only a few (relatively speaking!) will be able to use it. I know this doesn't sound correct because there are millions more Android devices than Apple. But most of these are older devices or less-capable phones unable to take advantage of the latest features or even run the newest operating system. The Callin experience is probably going to suck unless you have newest phone running the latest version of the OS -- even after they release on Android. Same with the web. But it's even worse there. Most people don't have mics+speakers on their desktops. And how many times does your headphone or speaker setup break when you upgrade something? The experience is more seamless on a phone and best on an iphone -- as much as I hate to admit it. So they have to go iphone first.
I get your points. Just want to point out that people have different priorities. Prioritizing what you call a "seamless" experience is very important, even axiomatic, to some, and of course people who are focused on the seamlessness of the proffered experience won't care so much about the problems with Apple etc. But people with different priorities do take those problems seriously. I appreciate that Greenwald did not follow the line of reasoning you suggest which would have led him to stay on YouTube. And I recognize that he has tactical decisions to make. Greenwald's audience includes a large fraction of people who are unhappy with him releasing certain content on Apple first, and some of that is due to the problems with Apple. I think it is very good for Greenwald that he has an audience like that.
I assume that most of us trust you enough.
I appreciate your engagement with your fans Glenn! I also understand the challenge between truly free-libre-open-source (FLOSS) and polished easy to use applications with support from companies. While not FLOSS this company isn't AWS/Google/Microsoft/Apple/Facebook so I appreciate your embrace of new companies. With that being said it's still centralized and vulnerable. There are decentralized options but again not as easy to use. Hopefully that changes in the future.
Dream on about them not being pressured by Big Tech.
I don't understand the defeatist mentality that says nothing can ever work, nobody has any real commitment to fighting Big Tech, it's all going to fail eventually. I understand the temptation to give in to that defeatism, but it seems much better to look for ways to succeed than just proclaim in advance that any efforts are doomed to failure.
I appreciate your response. I am a cynic and have pretty much given up, I have been tilting at windmills since the 60s. I was online since the early 80s, yes I said 80s. First dial-up bulletin boards, then Compuserve (that was before AOL). Then saw Internet when it was only at universities and government. I was super excited to see it go public and, when it did, it was great. I was an Amazon affiliate when they still sent affiliates Christmas gifts. I made maybe $20 a month, LOL. But, I could see the evolution happening. In 1997, I wrote a long gone article predicting that capitalism would destroy the Internet. I didn't know how right I was and it is now so far removed from its promise it isn't even funny. And most people have no idea because they weren't even alive back then. Most people do not realize how good the world and economy was up until things started to change in the 80s. And that change has been slow. My young friends don't ever remember a time when there was maybe only one billionaire in the US (and his name was Rockefeller) and you could go out and get a job one day and start the next at a wage you could live on. Maybe not live well, but you could live and not be homeless. And the top tax rate was 70% and unions were strong. Anyway, I support you, but I am under no illusions.
Wish I could give more than one upvote.
Katie H, Matt T, and Aaron Mate had a fun show on Steele Dossier and Russiagate today.
I am listening to Useful Idiots right now. Amazing that Taibbi called the Schiff people right after he read the dossier into the Congressional Record.
The plot thickens...
Thanks I’ll check that out. I was looking for other programs , in addition to the 3 Glenn mentioned, to subscribe to as well.
David Sirota, perhaps.
I have an android. Will the show be recorded and put on rumble?
We're going to figure out how to put each show on Rumble or even Substack until it's on all platforms.
I have been putting my Callin shows on my Substack. It could not be any easier. Just download the file to dropbox and upload to an audio post on Substack.
I love that you are responding to your subscribers. Thank you for that! At the very least for those of us who can't participate live really need a way to listen to what transpired. Especially if you or others start referencing conversations from these Callin streams in your substack, Rumble or other platforms.
Does this get recorded so I can watch later on?
Yes, the idea of the app is that each show is saved as an episode, like any normal podcast, so that it can be listened to after the live recording.
YAY!!!
Can I just thank you for being an "honest intellectual"? Seriously.
Boo. (Android user)
Frankly I don't get these erratic moves. You get in fanfare on Rumble, then Locals which enables live streams with interaction with your community joins forces with Rumble and you open a Locals channel (to which I subscribed! in addition to your substack) but NO content provided on Locals at all (which is a scam) - and now we're supposed to move to yet another platform? That's nuts. At least Locals subscribers to your empty channel should get a refund
(By the way, Callin is completely free and will remain free. And again, I didn't really promote Locals because I wasn't ready to use it. We do have plans to start but I can't say when. Anyone who signed up thinking that I intended to use it and wants a refund given that I haven't started, feel free to email us and I'll work to make sure that happens).
When I went to Rumble, Locals had nothing to do with it. I didn't even know what Locals was. Rumble subsequently purchased Locals and integrated in into their platform. I've since learned what Locals is and see the potential in it, but I haven't been promoting it to anyone precisely because I'm not ready to use it. We're trying to make sure that the various platforms have a synergistic effect on the journalism -- that they complement and strengthen one another rather than just being a diffuse, manic way of producing content -- and since I haven't quite figured out yet the best use of Locals, we haven't started to use it or promote it, but we will.
Indeed, very confusing. And Apple only?
It's only for iPhones in the first couple months of launch. As I indicated, it will have both functionality on Androids and a website very, very shortly, ensuring universal accessibility.
That sounds promising :)
WoW. No browser for a couple of months. Is it being done by the Michelle Obama's friends? I hope you will produce something to read in the meantime so I can get an occasional Glenn fix. All the video stuff is nice; but sometimes - many times actually I'm not in a place where I can watch videos even with head phones. I'm a written word person for the most part. But I'll watch the occasional video. I hope you don't go all video big brother on us.
Substack has been and will continue to be the primary platform where I produce journalism. Writing is what I do. I just published a long article about Democrats and the Rittenhouse case and 1/6 defendants this week. Everything else I'm doing is designed to supplement and expand the journalism I do here at Substack, not replace it. I'll never ask any subscribers here to pay for any other subscriptions for my work. The idea with both Rumble and Callin is to expand the mediums I use -- both to reach new audiences (who, for instance, only want to watch videos or listen to podcasts but not read) and to produce more commentary/journalism (there are only so many 2,500-word heavily researched and fact-checked articles per week I can write). But all of it will be made freely available to Substack subscribers (we're making the Rumble videos and the transcripts to them available to Substack subscribers, for instance). The point of Callin is to let subscribers have more active engagement with my work by providing a way to comment on it, ask questions about, post critiques, etc. My home base for journalism is written articles here at Substack. Everything else is to supplement the work here.
Until now I have been reluctant to become a paying subscriber to your substack platform. Primarily because of the increasing number of independent voices endeavouring to present the truth as they understand it, without editorializing according to personal bias. One only has so much money to commit to trying to grasp the reality behind events of the day. Most of the "journalists" on corporate media are more parrots for the preferential agenda of their overlords, so rarely is one exposed to the why's of what may be happening. Sadly, it seems it has been forever thus, and even more sad is that I didn't really comprehend this fact until late in the 6th decade of my life. Your writings are compelling, well researched and highly informative. That you are endeavouring to get your voice out to the widest possible audience is enough for me to overcome previous reluctance. Thank you for all that you are seeking to do.
It looks like it's Apple only for now. When Android is available, I can't wait to tune in.
This would be a subject for a call in show, now that the issue is being blown wide opern by Durham
WHEN ADAM SCHIFF LOVED THE DOSSIER.
March 2017 was a heady time for Trump-Russia conspiracy theorists. The collapse of their enterprise lay two years in the future, when Robert Mueller, the special counsel in whom they placed their hopes of bringing down President Donald Trump, announced that after an intensive investigation he could not establish any conspiracy or coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia in the 2016 election. Their total embarrassment lay more than four years away when another special counsel, John Durham, would release findings showing that their theory was not only wrong but laughably wrong — if a theory that did so much damage to the American polity could be called laughable.
But in March 2017, all that lay ahead. It was a time for Democrats to celebrate the hottest “intelligence” on everyone’s mind: the Steele dossier , the collection of anti-Trump allegations compiled by the former British spy Christopher Steele, commissioned and paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee.
On March 20, the House Intelligence Committee held a hearing on Russia’s attempts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential race. The witnesses were James Comey and Michael Rogers, then the chiefs of the FBI and NSA, respectively. Much of the questioning that day — from Democrats — focused on the dossier.
What Democratic lawmakers said seems surreal today, given everything that has happened. But led by Rep. Adam Schiff, the ranking minority member — the committee was still controlled by Republicans and Rep. Devin Nunes at the time — Democrats repeatedly lent credibility to the dossier. They took it very, very seriously. And these were not anchors and commentators at MSNBC or CNN. They were members of the U.S. House of Representatives who had special clearances to deal with the nation’s secrets. And they were spreading disinformation left and right.
Subscribe today to the Washington Examiner magazine that will keep you up to date with what’s going on in Washington. SUBSCRIBE NOW: Just $1.00 an issue!
The disinformation began with Schiff’s opening statement, referencing a theory from the dossier involving the former low-level Trump campaign adviser Carter Page and former Trump campaign chief Paul Manafort. “According to Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer who is reportedly held in high regard by U.S. intelligence,” Schiff said, “Russian sources tell [Steele] that Page has … had a secret meeting with Igor Sechin, CEO of the Russian gas giant Rosneft. Sechin is reported to be a former KGB agent and a close friend of Putin’s. According to Steele’s Russian sources, Page is offered brokerage fees … on a deal involving a 19% share of the company. According to Reuters, the sale of a 19.5% share of Rosneft later takes place with unknown purchasers and unknown brokerage fees. Also, according to Steele’s Russian sources, the [Trump] campaign was offered documents damaging to Hillary Clinton which the Russians would publish through an outlet that gives them deniability, like WikiLeaks. The hacked documents would be in exchange for a Trump administration policy that de-emphasizes Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and instead focuses on criticizing NATO countries for not paying their fair share … According to Steele, it was Manafort who chose Page to serve as a go-between for the Trump campaign and Russian interests.”
First, do not believe anyone who says Democrats did not make a big deal of the Steele dossier. They did, starting with the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. And second, it was all false. There was no Rosneft deal. There was no 19%. There was no agreement to trade dirt on Clinton for an easy-on-Russia policy. And Manafort did not choose Page as the “go-between” for these nonexistent deals.
But Schiff did not stop there. “Is it a coincidence,” he asked a moment later, “that the Russian gas company, Rosneft, sold a 19% share after [Steele] was told by Russian sources that Carter Page was offered fees on a deal of just that size? Is it a coincidence that Steele’s Russian sources also affirmed that Russia had stolen documents hurtful to Secretary Clinton that it would utilize in exchange for pro-Russian policies?” None of it was true.
Democratic Rep. Jackie Speier also cited the nonexistent Rosneft-Carter Page deal, specifically referencing the dossier. But her colleague, Democratic Rep. Joaquin Castro, really took the ball and ran with it. “I want to take a moment to turn to the Christopher Steele dossier,” Castro said. “My focus today is to explore how many claims within Steele’s dossier are looking more and more likely as though they are accurate.” Claiming that Russia traded compromising information with the Trump campaign, Castro continued, “The dossier definitely seems right on these points. A quid pro quo relationship seems to exist between the Trump campaign and Putin’s Russia.” Castro went on to quote from multiple entries from the dossier. He cited them one after the other.
Democratic Rep. Andre Carson was on board, too. “The dossier written by former MI6 agent Christopher Steele alleges that Trump agreed to sideline Russian intervention as a campaign issue, which is effectively a priority for Vladimir Putin,” Carson said. “There’s a lot in the dossier that is yet to be proven, but increasingly, as we’ll hear throughout the day, allegations are checking out. And this one seems to be as accurate as they come.” Except that it wasn’t.
Comey and Rogers refused to comment on any of the Democrats’ dossier speculation. Had Comey spoken up, he could have told the lawmakers that at that very moment FBI investigators were desperately trying — and failing — to corroborate the dossier’s allegations. They were finding out what Justice Department inspector general Michael Horowitz and, later, John Durham, would discover: Steele’s “sources” were mostly one man, Igor Danchenko, working at the liberal Washington think tank Brookings Institution, in some cases passing on allegations from a Democratic activist in the Clinton circle, Charles Dolan, who passed on gossip and stuff he read in the newspaper as intelligence from sources close to Trump.
[……]
In the end, it is too simple to dismiss the dossier affair by saying, “people lied to Christopher Steele.” Yes, Steele’s “sources” fed him made-up allegations. But why did Steele, supposedly the master spy, accept them so uncritically? Because they might help bring down Donald Trump. That was more important than whether they were true or not. The important thing to remember is that the sources told Steele what he wanted to hear. And then Steele, through the dossier, told his bosses at the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee what they wanted to hear. And then the dossier told some key FBI officials what they wanted to hear. And then it told Schiff what he wanted to hear. And then it told Rachel Maddow and many others in the media what they wanted to hear. And so on. The dossier was so important because it seemed to fulfill the wishes of so many people.
As bad as it is, it’s likely the public still does not know all the ins and outs of the dossier story. More could be on the way from Durham. But we do know the most important thing to know about the dossier: Dig down deep, and there’s nothing there. That’s why the Adam Schiff of 2021 does not like to be reminded of the Adam Schiff of 2017, who tried to sell the public a document even he can no longer defend.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/byron-yorks-daily-memo-when-adam-schiff-loved-the-dossier
\\][//
Like I said to her, 'excuse my length...
Sadly, I can't view it because I don't have an iPad, iPhone or iMac.
I'll be waiting for the next one that will hopefully be more widely available.
This looked to be really fun, too.
PS: Apple can eat a bag of muddy dicks.
Hm, so the first call-in/interactive liveshow is on a platform that is only available as an iPhone app. People are right to complain.
Among the stuff that Apple installs inside the iPhone:
--Facial recognition sensor
--Fingerprint sensor
I have NEVER allowed -- into my house, pocket, or life -- any device that does facial recognition or fingerprint sensing. Like other big tech-exploiting monopolies, Apple puts out a closed-source product that constantly transfers intrusive data about you to its servers and says "Trust us". Thoroughly untrustworthy. And I'm disappointed that Greenwald is expecting his audience to sign up for an app that's only available on such a dubious platform.
Still, given there's some chance that the call-in will consist of reasonable discussion that's worth listening to, I would like if a transcript is later made available on a less evil platform.
(clarification: the last bit about "less evil platform" was meant as a criticism of Apple, not as a criticism of Callin which I know nothing about.)
You could complain, or you could thank GG for comitting to mirror on rumble until it's available for other platforms. Also, you're delusional if you think you've never let a face ID or fingerprinting device into your house.
Thanks for the "you could complain" permission, Master Delusional. But I don't need your permission. I've never had any kind of evilphone (I have no need for apps on a phone anyway), nor have I ever owned a device designed for face ID or fingerprinting.
Incidentally, I note that it is entirely possible for dog ownership to be desired by, among others, the kind of sicko who imagines that he's being called "lord and master".
Yeah, they content would {probably} be great. Stupid Apple and their shit.
I popped in around 21:00 eastern you were taking questions at that time directly from attendees.
I found myself looking around for a chat enabled area for the other audience members but wasn’t able to find one.
Is that a possibility on this platform so that other listeners can chat amongst themselves while you’re speaking to the current caller?
If not I hope that ‘Callin’ can look at that as a future upgrade to the app. I love connecting with people in chat. Especially your audience. The energy would be amazing!
I don’t know if the technology is available yet but it would be useful if some modality/algorithm/AI could collate and group questions in real time. I am sure many people have the same, or the same type of question
Glenn, will us Androiders be able to watch on Rumble or a re-run later on Callin or something?
Hi Glenn. Will try to make it but if I don’t, here’s my question. I like and appreciate your thoughts on the DP. Recent piece on criminal Justice … How about at least pointing out that both major parties relate to the criminal justice system only to support their ideologies, so there's no way to get prison reform from the current political arrangement. Seems to me you stop short of this. In doing so, you end up being a house radical Dem in the process; i.e., giving a Left cover to the Dems (while criticizing them!) A neat trick. But what's the point?
That's a fair point, though note that the Trump administration -- working with Rand Paul, the ACLU and several Democrats -- actually did get a decent (though not great) criminal justice reform bill passed.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/21/trump-signs-sweeping-criminal-justice-bill.html
Thanks for responding, Glenn. I feel you sidestepped my main point. Why do you, like all of the mainstream media, insist on the binary choice of DP or RP? Especially given that independents are 43% of the country today. Many are young. Growing numbers are from the communities of color. Among millennials and Latinos, 50% identify as independent and 35% of African American between the ages of 18 - 34 are independent. Why not write about this? Nothing seems to bother the powers that be more than a challenge to the duopoly! The Left insists on working in the DP. Bernie was never going to be their nominee. Would that he was. He will never be allowed to lead the corporatist DP. Thanks for listening. I admire your journalism and voice. I only wish you would not be like the mainstream media on this critical issue. Let’s change the culture of politics! Let’s break the chains of this moribund two party system! It is literally killing us!
I don't see the world through that binary prism. But the fact is that the Democratic Party is an extremely powerful institution - it controls both houses of Congress, the White House and thus the entire Executive Branch -- and deserves to be journalistically scrutinized. That was the point of that particular article. I hear many criticisms, but that my journalism and analysis are trapped within the parameters of the two parties -- meaning I see the world primarily as GOP v. Dem - is almost never one of them, because I think it's plainly untrue.
Perhaps you can write about some of the Issues that animate independents across the political spectrum - these aren’t really issues in the traditional sense. They are about process, the way things work. After 2016 & 2020, many people became educated about the pitfalls of the process—closed primaries which locked out nearly 25 million voters; controlled presidential debates; the convention delegate selection rules; the electoral college; and so forth. Independent voters became more visible as a result. Independent voters deserve respect, recognition and reform and we work in every state—from the ground up—to make that possible.
Highly recommend you interview Jackie Salit, President of IndependentVoting https://independentvoting.org/about-us/
The two-party system is a function, to a large extent, of the relatively undemocratic "single-vote" method used for elections. With all the modern technology we still haven't figured out the best way for voters to select one candidate out of three. I'm working on it at MEVoting.com (corrective update in the works), looking for assistance (hint, Glenn:)
Thanks for this.
To be fair: You suggest going after "both major parties" and indicate that Greenwald doesn't do that enough. I would acknowledge that he's always done it some, and he continues to do it some. But you still make a valuable point. At this particular moment of his career, his message in many cases is not "both major parties need to be rejected and thoroughly debunked" but more like "The Democratic Party is bad, and so Republicans and/or the Trumpist movement is the better alternative within the two-party system". I'm sure Greenwald does have an appreciation of SOME of the ways in which the two major parties share similar flaws, but his politics are noticeably different from people who are more intensely committed to discovering the flaws that are shared between the DP and RP. So, you make a reasonable point.
Appreciate your thoughts, Randall. I'm hoping Glenn covers the Issues that animate independents across the political spectrum - these aren’t really issues in the traditional sense. They are about process, the way things work. After 2016 & 2020, many people became educated about the pitfalls of the process—closed primaries which locked out nearly 25 million voters; controlled presidential debates; the convention delegate selection rules; the electoral college; and so forth. Independent voters became more visible as a result. We believe that independent voters deserve respect, recognition and reform and we work in every state—from the ground up—to make that possible.
Not great but definitely a start.