BLOGMay 02, 2017

FCC Chairman: We Don't Need to Preemptively Micromanage Every Business

Ajit Pai, Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), joined Glenn on radio to discuss the future of the internet and net neutrality. If a government regulator exists that Glenn likes, it's Ajit Pai, who stood alone in a hostile world at the FCC during the Obama administration. Pai favors light regulation to ensure consumers have a competitive choice and companies have a greater incentive to invest in the internet.

Enjoy the complimentary clip or read the transcript for details.

GLENN: The head of the FCC. The FCC chairman, Ajit Pai, now joins us.

Ajit, I don't know if you are aware of this at all, but we've been watching you for a while. I have -- I have no idea how you got by Obama. But we're glad you did.

AJIT: Thanks so much, Glenn. I really appreciate the kind words. And grateful to you for making time for me today.

GLENN: Oh, you bet. We have a lot of questions for you. And I want to talk to you about net neutrality. I want to talk to you about the cable industry and this cry of fake news and where you think we're going.

Let's start with probably net neutrality.

Net neutrality is -- is in some ways, a -- a nightmare and will limit people. In other ways, people will look at this and say, "Wait. I don't want my cable operator being able to pick and choose winners and slow down, you know, the speeds of YouTube, if they're trying to promote their own YouTube." Can you make the argument?

AJIT: Absolutely. I think the key point here is nothing about the internet was broken. From the dawn of the internet age in the 1990s until 2015, the internet economy in the United States was the envy of the world precisely because President Clinton and a Republican Congress agreed that instead of regulating the heck out of this new technology, we would let it develop and take targeted action as necessary.

And that's, I think, part of the reason why we saw the tremendous explosion and activity online. But in 2015, on the party-line vote, the FCC imposed these heavy-handed rules that were developed for Mondale, the telephone monopoly back in the 1930s.

And as a result, we've seen less investment in networks. We're seeing less competition than ever. And I think that's one of the things we want to address going further, is, you know, light-touch regulation I think is the best calibrated to make sure the consumers have more competitive choice, and the companies have a greater incentive to invest. And that's where we're heading.

GLENN: So how would you address -- I said this to Ray Kurzweil who is part of the Singularity University. Works for Google. And I said, "So, Ray, why wouldn't Google develop an algorithm that would find people who are using the search engine to create a bigger and better Google? Why wouldn't they just -- I mean, that's human nature to protect yourself. If somebody is coming -- you can piece together in advance, "Wait a minute. These people are looking to build a better Google." Why wouldn't you just shut them down? He said, "Oh, that would never happen because we're all good people." I don't necessarily subscribe to that theory.

But, you know, we are now in the internet age, playing devil's advocate, of these gigantic corporations that you're just not going to -- the little guy is not going to compete against Google. They're not going to compete against Apple. They're not -- you can't compete around Comcast.

AJIT: And the point I consistently made is we don't put our faith in people or in companies. What's that saying? If men were angels, no laws would be necessary.

GLENN: Right.

AJIT: Well, we have a system of laws, and interest in competition laws on one hand and consumer protection laws on the other. And those are administered by a -- say the Federal Trade Commission or Justice Department here in Washington, by state agencies across the country. So there's a whole framework of laws to protect against that kind of conduct.

What we don't need is the FCC preemptively micromanaging every single business in the United States, not just the big ones that you mentioned, but even the smaller companies that have told us we're holding back on investment now because of these heavy-handed investments.

GLENN: So we're talking to Ajit Pai, he's the chairman of the FCC. You know, as I look at the most hated services in America -- or service providers, it's your electric company, it's your insurance companies, it's your cable companies. Those are all the ones that are the most heavily regulated.

However, as somebody who has tried, without $200 million behind me, to break in and have a -- a groundswell -- a verified groundswell of -- of support behind me, these -- to break into cable is absolutely impossible if you are a voice that the companies want to block. You just can't do it. How do we balance that and make sure that, you know, the app system -- because that's why we -- that's why we're online. Okay. Well, good. We'll do it online. But how do we make sure that the app system isn't blocked now by a Comcast or an Apple, where you're just not going to get in and break through?

AJIT: That's a terrific question. And two different answers: Number one, the way you do it is by promoting more competition. You make sure that the barriers to entry, so to speak, are low. That people like you can express yourselves over a variety of different platforms. And number two, to the extent that that's a concern, remember that the people who are promoting this Title II regulation through the US government are not the friends of free speech and free expression. These groups are consistently saying that they want government control of the internet, not just for its own sake, but in order to regulate how speech and expression happens online.

GLENN: Right.

AJIT: And they've been very open about this throughout the years.

GLENN: But you can't -- as a person, I can't start my own cable company. It's all regulated. I can't start one.

AJIT: And that's why we've had a very aggressive agenda in the three months that I've been in the chairman's office to make sure that we enable more companies to make that decision, to enter the marketplace, removing some of the barriers that they found, in terms of the rules, and making it easier for them to raise capital and to enter these marketplaces. And we want the smaller companies that are getting squeezed by these regulations to finally enter the market and provide a competitive option.

GLENN: Good for you.

So help me out on this. Ted Koppel, who I have a lot of respect for, has done a lot of great journalism over his lifetime -- I was talking to him, and he was concerned about all this fake news. And I said, at the end of the day, go back to the revolutionary war, there was tons of fake news back then. We're just in a new situation. And we haven't found our way to balance it yet. But you got to trust the people.

And he immediately said, "I think that we need to start, you know, having a license for people to be on the internet and to present news. We have to verify those people who are online."

That's insane.

AJIT: I couldn't agree more. And I have a lot of respect for Ted Koppel's career. But, frankly, his comments are repugnant to the spirit and the letter of the First Amendment. In fact, that's the very reason why John Milton in 1644 wrote his great treaties on free expression, Areopagitica, where he said that, you know, look, the king has no business licensing people to allow them to speak. We -- the entire premise of western civilization is that you don't have a gatekeeper allowing you to speak only at the whim of the king. And that's the same here in the United States. The last thing I think we want is government -- sort of regulators like me deciding who speaks and who doesn't. That's the fantastic thing about the internet age, I think.

STU: Don't you think though, Glenn -- and Ajit Pai -- we're talking to the FCC chairman. You have this situation where it's not about what happened in 1644 or anything. It's about what's coming up on May 30th, which is season five of House of Cards.

JEFFY: Thank you. Thank you.

STU: People want their Netflix. They want it streamed. They don't want their evil cable company slowing it down. Is that something that needs to be regulated, or does the market actually work that stuff out?

AJIT: To me, the market works it out. The best evidence of that is the digital economy that we had, prior to 2015 when we imposed these rules.

Companies were not engaging in the blocking of lawful content. And to the extent that we have concerns about competition, the best way to get there is not by imposing these heavy-handed regulations that slow down infrastructure investment, especially by some of the smaller companies that would give you a competitive option. It's by making sure we have clear-cut rules of the road, that are market-friendly, that incentivize more companies to enter this space.

And so, you know, look, I'm all in favor of the government looking at any competitive problems as they pop up. Preemptively regulating, from the Fortune 500 companies, down to the tiny companies in Little Rock, Arkansas, is not the way to get there.

GLENN: I will tell you, Ajit, I look at this time period -- and I'd love to hear your point of view of this. I look at this time period of American history as a combination of the industrial revolution and heavy emphasis on Tesla and Edison, all in about a 20-year period. I mean, what's coming in -- in technology and communication has already been profound. But it's going to become even more profound.

And, you know, as a student of history -- and you obviously are one as well. When you look back at those days of Tesla and Edison, in many ways, Tesla was right. Edison was just good at playing the game with the government.

And he was a -- excuse my language, but a son of a bitch. And that's not French. That's English.

STU: Can we say that on the air, Mr. FCC Chairman?

GLENN: Oh, yes, I shouldn't have said that with the FCC chairman.

AJIT: I'll give you a pass, don't worry.

GLENN: Okay. Thank you.

PAT: You didn't think that one through. Did you?

GLENN: Yeah, I didn't think that one through. I forgot who we were talking to. Anyway, we never say things like that, by the way. Golly, gee, darn it. I'm sorry.

But we were pushed back because of the collusion with very powerful people like Edison and very powerful politicians. Do you see us -- how do you see what's coming our way?

AJIT: Boy, that's a great question.

I think the first thing is the empowerment of the citizen that the internet allows. It used to be that to do virtually anything, you had to work through some sort of gatekeeper. If you were buying a car, you had to go through a dealer. If you were wanting to stay in a place, you have to go book a room with a hotel.

And now, because of technology, you can do anything, basically by yourself. And that's an incredible amount of empowerment. But, on the other hand, we always have to guard against this instinct of essentially crony capitalism, the phenomenon that you talked about. And to that extent, I think what people need to understand is that heavy-handed regulation is actually the friend of bigger businesses and for those who believe in big government. Because -- the big companies are always going to have the armies of lawyers and accountants to comply with these regulations, to persuade government to do favors on this or that issue. It's the smaller companies that are disproportionately affected. And the second thing is that it's very seductive for a lot of people to think, "Well, the market just leaves consumers at the mercy of these wild and unpredictable forces." When in reality, the market has delivered more value for consumers than preemptive government regulation ever could.

I mean, the fact that we have billions of people who are emerging from poverty now is the result of free market policies. It's not because the governments of these various countries have suddenly decided to bestow largesse upon them. And so it's a case that we consistently have to make that crony capitalism and big government regulation, those are not the friends of the average consumer.

GLENN: So we have -- we have a situation now of fake news. And it's been around forever. But it's at epidemic proportions because the average person has access to everybody. And the average person, you know, unfortunately doesn't think things through and really read everything. They see a headline, they click on it, and they share it.

We have some really nefarious people, some of them in Russia, that are using our own technology against us, using our own freedoms against us. We have the press -- I told you about Ted Koppel. But we also have the president coming out and saying, you know, you're fake news. And maybe we should be able to sue you more.

Does the FCC have a role in the First Amendment in saying to all sides, "Knock it off. The freedom of the press is the freedom of the press, no matter if it's a printing press or the internet. Knock it off?"

AJIT: Well, I've consistently said -- and this goes back to my time as a commissioner up to five years ago, that one of the distinctive features of America is the fact that we have a First Amendment. It's unique in human history for the government to establish in its very founding papers the notion that anybody in this country has the ability to speak, anybody has the ability to write, anybody has the ability to worship as he or she sees fit.

And that's something that requires not just the cold parchment of the Constitution, but it requires a culture that admires that -- those freedoms. And so I've consistently spoken about -- about the need to preserve that culture of freedom for speech and free press. Because it's a slippery slope. Once you lose it, it's very hard to reclaim it.

GLENN: You have a 50 -- what is it? A 50 or 60 percent of so-called conservatives saying that there's a limit to freedom of the press. Is there?

AJIT: Well, the Constitution speaks for itself. And so long as I have the privilege of occupying this office, I'll keep defending that core constitutional freedom. It's one of the things that I think makes America a very unique place across time and across the world.

GLENN: So I think with that answer, I just have to end where I started: How the hell did you get past Barack Obama?

AJIT: That's a good question. I'm not sure how I slipped through the cracks.

GLENN: I don't know either.

AJIT: But maybe it's the -- sort of like the Forrest Gump of the Washington scene. Just kept gamboling on, and here I am.

(laughter)

GLENN: Yeah. Okay. Ajit Pai, thank you so much for talking to us.

PAT: Great.

GLENN: And keep up the good work.

AJIT: Thank you, sir. Thanks for having me on.

GLENN: You bet. Buh-bye.

PAT: And thanks for the shout-out to Areopagitica. That's -- I think that's a first.

JEFFY: Right.

GLENN: Oh, how many times have we talked about -- off the air --

PAT: All the time. All the time.

STU: Talked about all the time.

GLENN: Okay. You know what I love --

PAT: Talked about all the time. Milton's Areopagitica.

JEFFY: Right!

RADIO

3 Signs that Anti-Jewish ATROCITIES are Becoming Mainstream

The pro-Palestine, anti-Israel protests are getting out of hand. Glenn reviews 3 stories that prove just how mainstream these often-times anti-Jewish, demonstrations and beliefs are becoming: The United Nations Division for Palestinian Rights advertised "5 ways to take action for Tax Day" if people don't want their tax dollars to "fund genocide"; a group called Palestine Action has called on activists to surveil and violently vandalize businesses connected to the "Israeli weapons industry"; and a cop in London threatened to arrest a man for crossing a road during a pro-Palestine protest because his "openly Jewish" appearance could "antagonize" the crowd. In the name of "tolerance," we're "tolerating the REAL problem," Glenn says. So, is anyone looking into these acts of hate? Or are they still too focused on Trump supporters?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: You know, Stu, I've been thinking. Now, hear me out on this theory.

I'm thinking that maybe Americans. Now, this has never been said before, that I know of.

Do you think Americans just have an unusual fear, a heightened unusual fear of Tiki torches. Hear me out.

STU: This is a theory I've never heard before.

GLENN: Right. It's a first year.

Hear me out. When you have a gathering of Nazis, and they're screaming, death to the Jews.

STU: Jews will not replace us, I believe was the big --

GLENN: Yeah. Okay.

So you have the Tiki torches. We freak out.

But when you have the Palestinians say, kill all the Jews, and nobody freaks out.

They don't have Tiki torches.

STU: Oh!

That's -- that is an interesting difference.

GLENN: It might just be, I don't know. Because I've always go to of Tiki torches, as something you brought, that parents would have brought around the pool for a luau or something. You know, they got like, hey, we have a fresh pineapple. Let's have a luau. And so they would have a luau around the pool. I would like to do an experiment at your house, Stu. Let's see if we can get a bunch of Nazis to go with Tiki torches, and stand around your pool. Just to say, you know, if you like pineapple.

STU: Because then you wouldn't know if it was a racist protest or a luau. You wouldn't know. That's interesting.

GLENN: Yeah. You wouldn't know. You wouldn't know. So I think, is it the Tiki torches that are the difference here between the Nazis?

STU: We have some citronella situations, where they're supposed to help chase the mosquitoes away.

Maybe the American people are just sensitive to those same types of issues. Maybe they're scared away by the Tiki Torches.

GLENN: Maybe. Because I don't understand what's going on.

STU: But you didn't like the, every day should be October 7th chance this weekend?

GLENN: No, I didn't, I didn't.

STU: It didn't say necessarily, it was that thing on October 7th. They could have --

GLENN: It could have been the convert.

STU: Things that occurred on October 7th, you know.

GLENN: Sure. Should have been. Don't think it was. A little Nazi for my taste. A little too Nazi for my taste, but they didn't have Tiki torches.

Hey, by the way, we were just talking about the surveillance that the government is doing with foreigners and Americans getting scooped up. I'll bet you, none of that is going to happen to any of those proud, proud Palestinian protesters. They're not going to get scooped up. No!

Not at all.

By the way, I find it fascinating that the UN, the United Nations, the division for Palestinian rights and geoaction news, reportedly has given an update on the Civil Society Organization's concerning the Palestinian issues. So they're just putting out this information, and they're pointing to the US campaign for Palestinian rights. Lists ways to take action for tax day. So the United Nations put out a little flier there. Just you know Palestinian rights. And put together a little helpful list, if you wanted to take action.

Let me just show you what was in this. Instructions on how some protesters who didn't want their tax dollars to fund genocide. This is from the UN, could disrupt a free Palestine.

Second item on the list, pointed to a user hyperlink for protesters who wanted to engage in a coordinated multi-city economic blockade, to free Palestine.

You know what is not under investigation by our FBI?

These people.

The state laid -- the site laid out specifically how participants could be most effective with their disruptions. The proposal states that in each city, quote, will identify and blockade major choke points on the economy. Focusing on points of production and circulation, with the aim of causing the most economic impact as the port shutdowns did in recent months in Oakland, California, and Melbourne, Australia, just a few examples.

There's this need, quoting, from a shift of symbolic actions to those that cause pain to the economy.

Still quoting, as Yemen is bombed to secure global trade, and billions of dollars are sent to the Zionist war machine, we must recognize that the global economy is complicit in genocide, and together, we will coordinate to disrupt and blockade economic, logistical hubs, and the flow of Capitol.

So I think this is great. Hey. Justice Department.

Nothing to see. I don't need to say this to you. You know, nothing to see there.

Nothing to see there. Whatsoever. By the way, new document, also has -- has been given to the investigative journalist up in Canada. You know, we saw the breakdown of society.

You know, the UN. This is another one. This is an underground manual, created by Palestinian action.

It's a network of groups, that use what they call direct action against individuals and organizations who are believed to support Israel.

The manual, this is another manual, urges the sales to pick your target.

Anyone who enables and profits from the Israeli's weapons industry. Palestinian action then calls on some members to prepare for action. And do what it refers to as recce. R-E-C-C-E. Reconnaissance, is that what you mean? Even advising borrowing someone's dog for a walk, to avoid looking suspicious.

STU: Well, you don't want to look suspicious, Glenn.

GLENN: Right. Can I borrow your dog for a walk? Hey, free dog walking!

STU: That wouldn't be suspicious?

GLENN: No. No. Extremists are counseled to map out where closed-circuit cameras are located, as well as fencing, barbed wire, access points, alarms, and how far the police are from the target. Next, the pamphlet describes to sell -- to be advised to plan action, among the suggestion action. Smashing windows. Exterior equipment. Blocking company's internal pipes. Including using concrete. As anti-Israel protesters did on the railroad tracks in Toronto.

Last week, that was great. This will cause disruptions for the target. Break-ins are also advised by Palestinian action, because breaking in to your target, and damaging the contents inside, is obviously a very effective tactic. This thing goes on and on and on.

It says, at the end, in all caps. Palestinian action warns, taking action, never leave anything behind.

Absolutely nothing. Apart from the paint and the destruction.

The police may try to forensically analyze any items which are left. So don't leave anything. By the way, you should have untraceable burner phones. Oh.

If caught, Palestinian action members are give up the names of lawyers to represent them. Apparently at no cost. And the assistance of, quote, our dedicated support team throughout your entire legal process. End quote.

STU: Oh, that's nice.

GLENN: So I'm -- I'm wondering. I'm wondering, if there's any -- anybody at all, thinking about this?

STU: I think that came from the Toronto star, which is obviously the -- when you're thinking about this type of thing.

You think, I don't know.

Maybe the New York Times. The Washington Post.

GLENN: No. No.

STU: The LA Times would be really interested, in uncovering a document like this, that is advocating this type of things.

GLENN: No. They won't. I just gave you two. One from the Toronto star. Another from the UN.

Hello. Hello.

Nobody. Nobody is interested in this. So please don't talk to me about, oh, my gosh, the United States is in such danger.

Yes. When you close the border. And make sure we don't have, you know, half a million people coming in every 90 days. You let me know. Then I'll take you seriously.

When you start investigating people that are -- that are organizing paying for, and encouraging these kinds of Nazi rallies. When you -- you know what, once you start calling them Nazi rallies, I'll take you seriously.

Otherwise, I think you're actually part of the rob. And here. I want you to listen. What British police said to this Jewish man. It's Saturday. The Sabbath. He's coming back.

He does this every Saturday. He walks.

And here's what the British police said to him, because there were Palestinians around.

He's trying to -- I -- I don't want to stay here. I want to lease as a Jewish man. When the crowd is gone. He can go.

I'll escort you.

No, sir. You're not. I don't want to antagonize anyone. I just don't want to walk across the street. And at the moment, sir, you're quite openly Jewish. This is a pro-Palestinian march.

I'm not accusing you. But I'm worried about the reaction to your presence.

I just want to make sure you're safe. So that no one attacks you.

That's all. I would like that too. But your sergeant told me, because I'm Jewish, it's antagonistic to the crowd. And dangerous.

I'm not saying that. He just said that.
(music)

VOICE: On every Saturday, you probably know it. Your colleagues know it.

VOICE: It changes every single week. (inaudible).

VOICE: And now, look at the number of police around him. Look around.

GLENN: Probably 20 policeman around him. And he's like, I'm -- I'm told that it's completely safe for the Jews to walk around. I should have nothing to worry about. And yet, here I am. They're shouting me. Shoving me. And I'm surrounded by cops.

So they're going to escort him out.

He doesn't want any of that to happen.

He says, you're -- the cop says, you're causing a breach of peace. Because you're standing here.

Your presence here is antagonizing a large group of people. So we're going to arrest you. Because your presence is antagonizing them.

STU: Huh?

GLENN: Now. They didn't do anything to the people that were surrounding him. Calling him vermin.

Calling for the death of Jews.

They did nothing.

But he's the problem. Again, this is tolerating!

You're tolerating the real problem!

You're tolerating the views of Nazis! Now, I just -- I'm not going to have time here. But tomorrow, I'm going to go through the history of Columbia university. You know, Columbia university. They were welcoming Nazis in. They had a cap on how many Jews we could have in the college. They have a history of this. Does anybody really care? America, it is so easy to know, if you're on the right side of history, right now.

You do not want to tell your grandchildren or your great-grandchildren, yeah. Your grandma and I did nothing.

When this all came down. We were just too afraid to say anything.

You know, my job was really important.

Yeah. I get that grandpa. But look what that led to, your silence.

RADIO

The INFURIATING Truth About New York's 34 Counts Against Trump

New York’s hush money trial against former president Donald Trump has begun and the media suggests there’s a “mountain of evidence” against him. But Glenn and Stu reveal the truth: Trump may have 34 counts of falsifying business records against him. But they’re all for ONE payment. So, how can one payment turn into 34 charges? And why is the prosecution relying on known-liar Michael Cohen?! Glenn and Stu break it down and also play a clip of a Democratic congresswoman revealing the real reason why Trump is on trial.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: You know, here's -- here's what you need to say to yourself. When you start listening to, you know, politicians or newscasters. Say, hey. This is really important that you pay attention to this. Because this is what I think. And you'll know who you can trust. Especially in Washington, DC.

If they -- if they're not talking about the government spending, then they're not serious about inflation. Period.

If -- with the border. If they're talking about dangerous things are in America, and we've -- we've got to -- we've got to make sure that we are buttoned up. And things are bad.

And blah, blah, blah. And we have terror. All the red lights are flashing.

But they don't talk about stopping the hemorrhaging at the border. They're not serious.

You talk about FISA. Oh, we have to have extra. Extra super-duper, you know, warrantless searches on Americans. Because it's so dangerous, and you never know if Americans are involved.

But they are not saying anything about the Palestinian Nazis on our streets. That are organized and well-funded.

They're not serious about your security. Period. If the New York Times writes a story that says, yeah. You know what, this Trump trial, well, that's -- it's got a mountain of facts to it. Really? But they don't seem to care that the statute of limitations, is passed.

STU: No mountain of evidence could overwhelm that fact. We're past the statute of limitations.

GLENN: Yeah. Right.

The fact that the DOJ passed on -- I don't know if you know this.

DOJ doesn't like Donald Trump.

STU: What?

GLENN: Yeah. The fact that the federal elections committee also passed on this. And said, there's no crime here.

There's nothing.

He -- even Alvin brag, the prosecutor, passed on this originally.

There's nothing here.

There is no mountain of evidence, that could -- that is standing in the way, of -- of anything, other than a mistrial.

STU: I love how it's like presented as this uphill battle too. It's like, oh, is a mountain of evidence, even enough for this very difficult task they have to do of convicting Donald Trump in Manhattan? Yeah. That's --

GLENN: Did you hear what Jayapal said? What's her name?

STU: Jayapal.

GLENN: Yeah. Jayapal. She came out and said this weekend. Do we have it? Yeah, listen to this.

STU: Oh, good.

VOICE: You know, I go back to the responsibility of Congress here because had the Senate actually gone through with the impeachment of Donald Trump. We would not be in the situation.

STU: Oh.

GLENN: Wait. What?

STU: Wait a minute. What?

I don't understand.

GLENN: We wouldn't be in this situation. Now, she's telling the truth. She's telling the truth.

GLENN: Yes, she is.

Not even under oath. If she's under oath, she will lie. In this case, she's telling the truth.

STU: She is. If they had convicted Trump, and he is eligible to become president of the United States, they would be doing anything of this.

Because they don't actually care. These aren't real. They're just trying to win this election.

GLENN: Give me the New York Times mountain of evidence.

STU: Well, Glenn, as you know, they have 34 counts.

GLENN: Thirty-four counts.

STU: I've forgotten this. This is incredible, going over this stuff, as we're preparing this.

Thirty-four false records accusations here.

GLENN: Wow. So he's forged or put lies in 34 different places, 34 different times.
STU: That's a lot.
GLENN: That's a lot.

STU: Now, when you think about this case, we kind of know the basic structure of it, right? Like, Michael Cohen made payments to these women, to shut them up before the election. Again, this is the accusation. And Trump, now, that's not illegal, by the way.

They're not even saying. They're not even accusing him of being illegal.

GLENN: No. Hush money. It's just hush money. No. But it's not illegal.

STU: You might have problems with that. You might think that's not a good feature for the president of the United States to have.

But you can make that decision at the ballot box. Because they're not even saying that. What they're saying it's false records. What they did was Cohen made these payments to shut up Stormy Daniels and the group.

And then to pay Cohen back, they basically make a -- a BS line in the records, which says, it's additional legal expenses. Or something like that. They market as like a retainer for legal services. Which it was.

It was paying him back for these payments.

Okay. So this is how they get to 34 counts.

Remember, that was paid back over a year. So how do you get to 34 counts when it's basically one payment? Well, first of all, you bring that up. They made 12 payments. So that's 12 counts. Okay?

This is legitimately how they're doing it. Obviously, they're paying him back for one thing. But he separated it into monthly payments, so 12 counts.

GLENN: Wait a minute.

So I would like to hear the jury argument.
You know, I don't think he meant it in June and July.

But the other ten counts, they'll stand, so you have 12 counts. That already sounds horrible.

STU: Right. But it's all it is.

GLENN: Because you wouldn't pick one month, he didn't really mean it. You would have to pick all 12.

He's convicted just there.

12 counts.

STU: Now, technically it was 11.

If I remember right, one of his payments were skipped.

11. So 11 checks. Eleven of the 34 counts.

GLENN: Okay. 11.

STU: You might say, wait a minute. That's totally stretching. Right? It's one payment, broken into 11 times. Okay. That's BS. Secondarily, it's 11 monthly voices Mr. Cohen submitted.

GLENN: So now we're up to 22.
STU: Twenty-two counts. So the 22 counts are eleven times he paid him a check, and the 11 times he invoiced him for those same payments.

So, again, it's still just one payment. They've now worked it into 22 different charges. Okay? You might say. Well, that's completely ridiculous.

They couldn't get more ridiculous than that. Well, when the payments went through in the general ledger for Mr. Trump's trust, they used 12 entries to signify this. So that's the other 12. So it's 11 checks, eleven invoices, and 12 entries into the general ledger. Those are the 34 charges. Come on!

Yeah. Thirty-four. Come on. I mean, anyone could recognize, they're trying to blow this number up to make it look more like it was a real series of criminal activity, rather than just one thing.

This is one payment.

Now, you can absolutely have a problem with that one payment. That is totally fine.

GLENN: But that's not 32.

STU: It is not -- 34.

And that's not how the legal system is supposed to work. There are very clear warnings against prosecutors, throughout our legal history, that say, hey.

Don't inflate cases like this.

Don't try to get the number up there, just so it looks overwhelming to the general public.

Of course, that's what they're doing here.

This is all about the general public. It has nothing to do with him, and his business records.

Come on!

There is no way you can justify this.

Especially after the statute of limitations has already expired.

GLENN: That's unbelievable. Unbelievable.

32 counts.

STU: Thirty-four.

GLENN: No. Thirty-two counts.

I don't count -- I don't count one of the checks. And one of the entries on a different month.

STU: So the April -- July payment.

GLENN: Yes. I thought the entry was -- I thought he meant it, at that point.

STU: That particular one.

GLENN: Yeah. That particular one. So I'm convicting on 32 counts.

I mean --

STU: And then you have Michael Cohen. The guy who will come in here.

And they say, this is an interesting one. That they also frame it, in the New York Times story.

So they say, that aids and friends who lied on Mr. Trump's behalf, will take the withstand to testify against him.

They include David Pecker, the tabloid publisher, who bought and buried damaging stories about Mr. Trump.

Now, Pecker, I don't think he is -- I will say, maybe he will testify against Donald Trump.

Or he will just tell the truth, that they probably did catch and kill these stories. Like it seems like --

GLENN: That's what he did.

STU: There's an incredible amount of evidence. That, again, is not what he's being charged with.

Right? Like, the payments and the ledger entries are what he's being charged with. Not the fact that he wanted to minimize publicity about negative instances right before an election, which, of course, he was trying to do.

GLENN: Stu. Stu.

He was -- he made a mistake. And he was only trying to save his marriage. A man can't lie to save his marriage.

STU: Look.

GLENN: I can --

STU: They're going to -- to try to push all of these angles. Hope Hicks is another one.

Now, hope Hicks is a spokesperson who tried to spin reporters, is her description here.

Now, Hope Hicks. Again, I don't think is going to come out and testify against Donald Trump. In air quotes.

I think she's going to tell the truth about what happened, right?

I don't think anyone is saying that he she has this vendetta against Trump.

Now, Cohen does. Cohen clearly does. Cohen will go farther.

My guess is either than those two by a lot.

He will say anything.

This is what he was known for. When he worked for Trump.

GLENN: This is how he gets a job at MSNBC.

STU: Yeah. And how he got a job with Donald Trump.

Like, he wasn't qualified for that job. He was a nobody. And he was constantly lying about everything when he worked for Donald Trump.

Now he's constantly lying about everything that will please MSNBC. He's been a constant liar, every day he's been alive, since I've been aware of it.

That's been who he has been. He's always done this. In my opinion.

And so he's one of those people, of course that is -- I mean, they're saying, Trump is basically saying, this guy has no credibility.

And it's try. You can name 500 things. From when he worked for Donald Trump. When he had no credibility. A lot of the lies, they know are lies, are because he was lying on behalf of Donald Trump for so many years. And now he's coming out, no. Now I totally change my mind, and all of the things I said before, I can admit are lies.

And, suddenly, the media embraces him for that. It's so transparent.

Like, he should be the type of person that you don't even allow in the courtroom, unless you're convicting him of something.

GLENN: And here's the real problem: Again, all of this is past the statute of limitations.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: The reason why you can't go after Hunter Biden on some of the drug charges. Was it the drug charges?

No, no. Tax charges. Is because it's past the statute of limitations. Which they intentionally have the Justice Department drag it out, so they couldn't charge him with that.

There's corruption. This one, they just didn't file charges. Because the government said there was problem. Even Alvin Bragg the prosecutor, said there was no problem.

So they just waited and waited. They had nothing else. I don't know. Try it.

So they concoct all of this.

STU: Yes.

GLENN: To get past the statute of limitations. There's a mountain, I would like to see them climb.

STU: Yeah, and they will try it. This is, again, to your point. The zombie case side of Bragg's office.

Because they were just waiting and hoping something would come up to make it real. But they knew it wasn't.

So now, how do they make it real?

Well, they say, if it's connected to another crime. If the business record falsification was connected to another crime, that was not past the statute of limitations, then we can turn it into a felony. And then we can --

GLENN: So what was the other --

STU: He wasn't charged with it. So Bragg is assuming a crime, that the DOJ didn't go after Trump for. He's saying, they should have gone after him for it.

Therefore, I can pass through the statute of limitations. Even though -- to bring the crime he's talking about.

GLENN: Let me bring this to simple terms.

Let's say, I want to get you on the same thing, Donald Trump is doing. Okay?

And I say, well, it's past the statute of limitations. But you murdered that woman.

You know, all those years ago.

STU: Right. The payments were connected to my murder. Right?

GLENN: Right. But you were never charged with murder. You were never convicted of murder.

I will not bring up the murder.

STU: No. Right. No.

GLENN: But that's how --

STU: It's connected to the murder.

GLENN: I can get you.

STU: Yeah. Huh. It's a great way. That's exactly what the people in the jury should --

GLENN: This is going to be. This is amazing.

What a magic trick, this will be. To pull off.

But not in New York. Because everyone there, for some strange reason, loved Donald Trump.

And now, that he was president, they hate him. This is the O.J. Simpson trial, in reverse. In reverse.

This guy didn't cut somebody's head off, but because they're so mad at him, they're going to convict him.

Where O.J. he did cut off somebody's head. But the jury was so pissed off at the system, they let him off. There's no difference.

RADIO

Bill Maher Believes WHAT About Abortion?!

Bill Maher has admitted that he believes abortion is murder…but he also said he’s OKAY with that?! Glenn and Stu break down this unusual take: At least he’s honest, but is that a good thing? And why won’t the GOP be honest and take a real stand? Is being strongly pro-life REALLY an election-killer? Or is that a lie?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: You know, I would love to have a conversation with Bill Maher now. Okay? Bill Maher is -- he's changed.

And he has -- maybe not. He may not have changed any of positions. But I think he takes it more seriously.

And he's not going for -- he's -- I think he's had a change in -- you know, things are getting really serious here.

And we have to have honest conversations.

And for the first time, you know, I -- I look at Bill Maher. Can we play the clip we played last hour?

STU: The abortion one?

GLENN: Yeah. Listen to this, Bill Maher, just recently.

VOICE: The idea that you are fighting the election around this issue, seems to be, you know, just strange.

STU: Yeah. Really weird.

VOICE: Back to the 19th century.

VOICE: Well.

STU: Clap. Clap.

VOICE: None of you believe it's murder. That's why I don't believe --

GLENN: Nobody laughs. Nobody laughs.

VOICE: Or that Trump's plan is, let's leave it to the states. You mean, so killing babies is okay in some states? Like, I can respect the absolutist position. I really can. I -- I scold the left when they say, oh, you know what, they just hate women. People who aren't pro-life. They're pro-choice. They just -- they don't hate women. They just made that up. They think it's murder.

And it kind of is. I'm just okay with that. I am. I mean, there's 8 billion people in the year. I'm sorry. But we won't miss you. That's my position on it.

VOICE: Yeah, exactly.

VOICE: Not your position if you're pro-choice.

VOICE: Is that not your position because you don't like children?

VOICE: No, no, no.

You said you're pro-choice. That's your position too.

VOICE: Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

STU: That's totally true.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

STU: And, by the way, I completely agree with him on his point, the absolutist positions are the only ones that make sense. It doesn't make any sense to ban it at 18 weeks. And say, okay. I guess we banned 1.6 percent of abortions. I think our hands are clean. None of that makes any sense to me. But that's another story.

GLENN: So the reason I bring this up. For the first time, I think I'm getting to where Ronald Reagan was. With "Tip" O'Neill.

You know, the old story was, well, they could just hash it out. And really come at each other.

And then really go have a beer.

Well, I don't want to have a beer with AOC. Or, you know, Joe Biden.

STU: Disbar the world.

GLENN: It would. And we would need --

STU: You think the Star Wars cantina was weird?

Imagine you walk into a bar, and just Glenn Beck and AOC just throwing it back.

GLENN: Yeah. And believe me, if I were in the bar with AOC. I would not be starting with beer. Okay?

Bring the Jack over -- leave the bottle here.

So, anyway, you know, but I -- but that's because they're not honest.

STU: They're fake, yeah.

GLENN: Yeah. He's at least saying the truth. He's saying, look, I don't have a problem with it.

It is murder. It is killing babies. Bit I don't have a problem with that. And nobody likes that point of view. But at least he's being honest.

STU: At least he's being honest.

GLENN: You know, and you can disagree with him, all you want.

But as long as somebody is honest on the other side of the table, I can get along with them forever. It's my problem is, the progressives, because it's built in their name. Progress. Little bit at a time.

And they will -- they will deny their end goal. And because they deny their end goal. You can't talk to them.

You can't -- you have -- you have nothing serious. Nothing serious.

STU: Female voice that starts that clip is a great example of it. Like, I don't understand why they would want to fight an election on this issue.

It's just strange.

Is it strange?

The ending of life of children?

Is that a weird thing for you, to think about? During the election. I mean, I kind of find it weird, that fighting for the right to end lives much children. Is something you want to fight the entire election. But that's why they're doing.

GLENN: That's why they used to say, safe, rare, and legal.

STU: Right. And then they said, screw rare.

GLENN: Right. Because they used to -- they were more honest. Look, it's bad. It's really bad.

STU: We think it's the best of two horrible choices. Right? That's a bad position, and wrong to be --

GLENN: Correct. Now they're saying, it's a great choice. In fact, maybe the choice more people should make.

STU: And in some wisdom, that's more intellectually defensible than the other position.

It's like, if you're going to be Bill Maher. And say, yeah. Killing people is fine.

At least that's consistent. It doesn't make sense to say, I think kill people are wrong. But also, women's rights are the way that I will make this decision on this fetus.

GLENN: But that is the way to win nope it is the way to win.

STU: Exactly. It's not honest.

GLENN: But it is the way to win.

STU: Frankly it's the same thing going on with the Republicans right now.

The idea of having some sort of ban that takes out one or 2 percent of abortions. It's great to put a ceiling on it. Every baby that can actually be born, instead of dying is something that I am going to be happy about.

But at the end of the day, these decisions are being made, because people want to win elections.

Which is a concern. Right?

It's a legitimate concern.

I know a lot of people who believe. You have to stay away from the abortion thing.

It's just. It's an election killer.

Maybe it is.

But at some point, you have to think. Like this is a very basic life-and-death issue.

At some point, you just need to be able to say, hey. Like, I'm not going to fold on that issue.

Like, I don't understand why every single -- every single Congress, there's not a Republican proposing a constitutional amendment, to ban abortion.

None!

What if we take three days off the end, and make it a 22-week and four-day ban. Or whatever they're proposing.

Like, how is there not -- at least -- you know, it may never pass.

STU: But it should be proposed every single Congress.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: And should have a vote, every single Congress. It's not that serious of an issue.

GLENN: That's John Quincy Adams. He went back to Congress, to stop slavery. He was the president, and he went back to Congress to sit as a Congressman, and having to get votes every two years.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: And he sat there. Just to propose an end to all slavery.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: And he did it over and over and over again.

And it wasn't popular.

And he realized, at the end, you can't make -- you're going to have to have a war over this.

Because there is no progress.

Nobody is making progress on this.

They're all just talking a good game.

STU: And it was an issue that was so important, that that was --

GLENN: Yes, and you couldn't get people to talk about it for the same reason.

Nobody wants to think about this. Nobody wants to think about this.

STU: It's true.

GLENN: It's the slavery issue of our day.

STU: You know what, no one wants to think about it.

It's difficult issues you're talking about. Everything from sex, to all these impossible decisions.

And when Democrats have to think about what it really is, they have to face a lot of uncomfortable truths about their position. And what are the Republicans doing right now?

Well, what we should do is make sure no one can think about it. Because what if we lose this election, and I lose my seat.

The Republican response is to take the responsibility away from people on the left, who are advocating for this policy. And hopefully, making it so they don't to have think about it again. How does that change long-term?

Yeah, I got it! Maybe it gets you an extra couple hundred votes in your district. But how does that change things long-term?

How does this end, in children not dying?

Can you explain that? It doesn't seem to even be part of the plan for a lot of these people.

GLENN: It is the progressive way. That is the problem.

Republicans are progressives, as well.

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

RFK Jr.: America’s Economic Collapse Will Bring a REVOLUTION | The Glenn Beck Podcast | Ep 217

“There’s going to be a revolution" if the economic destruction of America continues, warns Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The “billionaire boys club” at the World Economic Forum is “arranging the world to shift wealth upwards and to clamp down totalitarian controls on everybody else.” This episode of "The Glenn Beck Podcast" is part of an ongoing series to introduce you to the 2024 presidential candidates. In a discussion ranging from Big Pharma and the Patriot Act to Iran and the Second Amendment, RFK Jr. explains what he would do if he defeated both President Biden and Donald Trump to become America's next president. After agreeing on the current conflict in Israel, Ukraine, COVID-19, the administrative state, and the First Amendment, Glenn presses RFK Jr. on guns, ESG, and some of his past statements on climate change ... including one that directly targeted Glenn. In the end, although they may not agree on everything, they do agree: Democrats, Republicans, and big corporations are ALL a “stage show” largely operating under control of mega investment firms like BlackRock. It's the elites vs. the rest of us.

Glenn's Show Prep

FCC Chairman: We Don't Need to Preemptively Micromanage Every Business

3 Signs that Anti-Jewish ATROCITIES are Becoming Mainstream

Transcript

The INFURIATING Truth About New York's 34 Counts Against Trump

Transcript

Bill Maher Believes WHAT About Abortion?!

Transcript

RFK Jr.: America’s Economic Collapse Will Bring a REVOLUTION | The Glenn Beck Podcast | Ep 217