BLOGAugust 10, 2017

Stephen Crowder: Google Clearly Doesn’t ‘Want to Discuss Issues Anymore’

A Google software engineer lost his job this week after writing a 10-page internal memo critiquing the company’s diversity efforts.

In the memo, the engineer gathered some general observations based on research about men and women and what they can both offer to a company, suggesting some ways that tech jobs could become more friendly to women. He also objected to company programs that are only offered to employees based on race and gender.

“Of course, men and women experience bias, tech, and the workplace differently and we should be cognizant of this, but it’s far from the whole story,” he wrote in the memo.

Google CEO Sundar Pichai said in a statement that “portions of the memo violate our Code of Conduct and cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace.”

Stephen Crowder of LouderWithCrowder.com joined Glenn on radio Thursday to share his take on Google’s decision to fire the engineer.

“Is that still hate speech?” Crowder sarcastically said of the memo. “When you read the entire memo in context … I go ‘OK, this is a guy who’s a classical liberal … and he’s writing something genuinely trying to be productive.’”

GLENN: Steven Crowder, welcome to the program. I was talking to a millennial yesterday, a very smart, well-thought out millennial who said, "You know, I don't agree with this, but I have to tell you what my feelings were when I first heard about this memo." She said, "I don't like people telling me what I can and can't do because of my genetics.

And she said, you know, "I heard the quotes, that he was saying that I can't do these things because I'm genetically predisposed to X, Y or Z." And she had a big problem with this.

Now, the good thing about this millennial is she moved past her feelings into thought, but that's not really happening, especially even in the press.

STEVEN: Yeah, well, thanks for having me, Glenn.

You're absolutely right. You know, a couple of points about the memo. I hate to use the fake news hashtag, but when CNN goes out and says, anti-diversity manifestos, they call it, like it's The Count of Monte Cristo writing on the stone wall, next to days in prison. Manifesto. Anti-diversity. And then it says anti-woman. Well, the quotes they take are where this guy essentially says, listen, Google is essentially pushing diversity, hiring for diversity's sake. And it hasn't really been that successful. We may want to -- and, by the way, I'm not saying that all men and women are the same. There's a significant overlap. Of course, there are people who would fall on both signs of the spectrum when it comes to attributes and perhaps some shortcomings.

But as a general rule, this may be why we don't have as many women in tech, and he talks about how women generally value work-life balance over status, whereas men will drive themselves into the -- they'll work themselves into the ground for status. It does say, "Yeah, you know, listen, women tend to handle stress more emotionally. It does list some characteristics that might not lend themselves well to high-stress tech situations."

But then, and here's what the media doesn't cover: On the flip side, he says, "No, I strongly believe in diversity." And I think if we want to hire more women, we might want to place emphasis on the -- on the issues where women perhaps are more valuable to the company.

For example, they're more cooperative. In general, they're more agreeable than their male counterparts. In general, they're more people-oriented. They're more empathetic.

We don't really place a strong value on those attributes that Google in these positions -- we might do better to do so.

So, listen, is that still hate speech? Do you lock this guy up with the Nazis? I don't know. Leave it up to people to decide. But when you read the entire memo in context, I can't see -- you know, Glenn, this is one of those issues where I read it, I go, okay. This is a guy who is a classical liberal. He even gets some digs in at conservatives in this memo. People read it. He's certainly not a right-winger. And he's writing something genuinely trying to be productive. Generally writing out points as to where Google may be able to improve.

And Google says, we can't -- this is hate speech. We have to fire this guy. Which tells me, if this guy can't do it, you know, you and I haven't got a shot. They're not interested in a dialogue. For the same reason we couldn't have anyone from Google or anyone on Google's side come on my program to argue this issue. They don't want to discuss issues anymore. They've gone too far around the back.

GLENN: So a couple of things: I would agree with you. And I have not been able to find somebody that can make a cogent argument on how this isn't the beginning of fascism in the Google world. The institutionalization of fascism in the Google world.

I really want to understand how silencing somebody who is really, truly making valid points. You don't have to agree with them. But bringing out a valid argument. How the best way to deal with that is to silence them and to shun them and to name-call. That's fascism.

And why this is concerning -- you know, if they were just making ashtrays, I wouldn't really care. But they're not.

STEVEN: Yeah.

GLENN: These are the people who are the gateway to information. And if they are saying, "This information isn't worthy to even be discussed at the levels in Google," are they really going to allow us schlubs who don't know anything to access that information in an equal and fair way? I don't think so. It wouldn't -- it wouldn't make any sense at all. It would be completely inconsistent.

STEVEN: Well, you're talking about a company -- my friend Owen Benjamin talked about this on the program. You're talking about a company where when you Google how to be a better man, it shows you articles written from lesbians. So they can't help you be a better man, nor do they have any interest in doing so.

As a matter of fact, you mentioned fascism. You know, if you Google fascism, it says far-right ideology. You know, and then description. Description. But if you Google communism or socialism, there's no mention of the left. There's no mention of the left side of the political spectrum.

It really is -- and here's the deal: They have the right to do what they want. They have the right to fire this guy. I think we all agree on that.

GLENN: Yep.

STEVEN: What they can't do is say, we believe in diversity. We believe in difference of opinions and then fire somebody for a difference of opinion. That's the issue here, is the dishonesty. When like you've said, I've read anywhere from between 60 to 80 percent of our online interactions occur either somewhere between Google, Facebook, Twitter, or Amazon.

So when you think of how much information is controlled, it really is -- and there are a few. Listen, what's so offensive, are we really going to start firing people because someone says men and women are different? Are we at that point where it's offensive to say, hey -- and anyone who is married knows that it's true.

And, by the way, hey -- hey, men -- you can't say men and women are different. Men and women are exactly the same. Men can do everything women can do, and women can do everything men can do with the exact same results.

By the way, let's celebrate diversity.

Did I step into a time? What happened? What world did I fall into?

GLENN: And the fact that women and men are exactly the same, except they can't play the same sport. That's unfair. You're going to put women. Really? Women are going to have to compete with men on the basketball.

Well, wait. You were just saying that there wasn't a biological difference. What are you talking about?

STEVEN: Yeah. Unless it's a transgender, then just let him into the octagon to beat the living daylights out of women. That's progress.

I think, Glenn, I think that this is a real opportunity -- the pendulum swing states both ways. We've talked about that. You kind of saw that with Bush. Then the sort of anti-establishment sentiment from young people. Then it swung the other way with Barack Obama.

But the pendulum is swinging so quickly now. And I think the left has gone too far for it to swing back. I think you're seeing too many liberals. And we see this with our content, a lot of people who used to be liberal going, I just can't get on board with this. Once they read the memo, people go, "You know, it's offensive to say that men are more task-oriented. It's offensive to say women are more emotional."

It really is at a point -- and, by the way, really, what hurts people here is that they don't feel good about it. The women took a sick day at Google. They were so offended at the notion that they might find work too stressful, that they read this memo and took a sick day.

By the way, not all women are this weak, just the feminists at Google. That's important to note. I'm sure -- I'm sure your wife isn't.

My wife's reaction was so earnest. And it just hit me like a Mack Truck. She just said, "Do you have to talk about it? It makes me just so ashamed. Ugh, women who complain like that. They're just so weak. They're so obnoxious. Most women don't like to be around them. They're just draining." That's what my wife said. Isn't it ironic that a non-feminist, conservative, Christian woman finds feminists to be obnoxious in their weakness? And that's where we are.

GLENN: That's really -- but that is the progressive mantra, is weakness. Celebrate -- not celebrate diversity. Celebrate your weakness, and we will compensate. We will be your defender.

I think your -- this -- this millennial who said this, you know, I -- you know, this is the way I felt. I don't like people telling me one thing.

Well, wait. The other side is telling you that, oh, yes, you can do it, but only with special exemptions. Only with special protections. Only with special training.

No. I'm telling you if that's what you want to do, go do it. Go do it. How is that offensive to say, you don't need somebody in between you. That's just somebody sucking you dry of all of your power.

STEVEN: Right. A couple of things: You know, they say, I don't like being told what I can and can't do. And conservatives are saying, well, listen, we're not really telling you what you can and can't do. But we can all find common ground on one issue: Pullups. Right? Liberals want to lower the PT requirements in the military with pullups so that women can join more easily. And we say, hey, women biologically can do fewer pullups. So there's a great litmus test.

As far as what's offensive -- you know, offensive now isn't about intent. And we've talked about this with the Google algorithms. You know, for the most advanced tech company in the world, right? On my videos, Muslim singles and gay cruise ads are playing.

Well, we're trying to fix the algorithms. You're Google. If you can't associate proper advertisers with my -- who can?

So, I mean, we're talking about people's feelings. That is what it comes down to Google. It's not about intent. It's not about context. Leftists don't really understand context. Or they don't value context, I should say. Certainly, as a whole. Anyone can feel bad about anything. I'm feeling miserable this morning. You know why? It's stupid. But I have some nagging injuries.

So I haven't been able to go to the gym. So I've been doing these -- these water weight exercises. You know, those foam dumbbells in the pool. And I was thinking, you know, hey, good for me. I'm going out. I'm doing something.

So I go on Amazon to look to buy some, as opposed to the public pool where I've been going. And then I read the reviews, and it's nothing but 77-year-olds talking about their aquatic aerobic classes. And then all of a sudden, Amazon is tracking with advertisements and the ads, every time I'm in my browser of reverse mortgages. Or Wilford Brimley with diabetes. And I feel bad. I feel bad. It's my own doing.

STU: I believe it's pronounced diabetes.

It's interesting, Steven, it's a great point on the physical part of it. Because it's exactly the point he made in the memo, which is: If you look at the top 100 meter times of all time, the world record holder for women is slower than the yearly best times for high school men. I mean, there's a clear difference here. Right?

However, what that does not mean is that the all-time world record holder is not going to be a hell of a lot faster than me trying to run 100-meter. Point being, yes, on average, there are differences. But there are women in Google all the time that are outperforming men all the time. It's just a commentary on averages, and nobody is going to bother to take a look at that.

STEVEN: Sure.

GLENN: And who is it that is devaluing the basic intrinsic worth of the sexes? I'm not.

I believe that Women Are From Mars, Men Are From venus, or whichever planet it is. I believe that we are different for many different reasons. But it's important that we -- oh, my gosh -- celebrate that diversity. That we look and say, "This trait in a woman of being less about stuff is good." It's a good thing.

STEVEN: Right.

GLENN: And at the same time, the man is worried about stuff or thinking about stuff. When you put those two together, you have a nice balance. Why are we trying to destroy -- first, say that what men are is -- has no value. And what women are naturally also has no value. You have to be this thing that is not -- neither male nor female.

STEVEN: Right. And that's kind of -- you know, I want to go back to Stu real quick. I want to answer that. But I'll throw another one into the mix. We talked about 100-meter dash. You want to know something else?

Chess. There's a women's division for chess. Think about that for a second. It's not even close, if you look at the top players of all time. There is no female Bobby Fischer.

Now, women can enter the men's division in chess, and there have been some outliers. Maybe a couple cracked the top ranks throughout time, but then they have an exclusively women's division in chess, which is just significantly further behind.

Now, that does not mean that women are less intelligent. Chess is not an indicator of intelligence. But it is -- let's remove the physical. It is absolutely an indicator of how someone's brains work, how it processes information.

We can see the difference between standard people and ADHD people. We can see the difference between, you know, people who simply read differently, who have different faster reading comprehensions. It doesn't mean they're smarter. Some people are wired differently biologically.

To what you said, Glenn, you know, Christians, we have used this term for a long time, complimentarianism. You know, it goes back to Christ. Really, the first diversity celebrationist, I guess you'd say, where he said, hey, husbands, be good to your wives.

That was kind of new, the way he really placed emphasis on treating the women as the best among you. And then, women, submit to your husbands. And submit in the Biblical sense. Not submit like Muhammad. You're going to get a fresh one if you don't do exactly what I say, but submit meaning respect the authority in the household and love your husband. So this is what we've known for a long time, the truth we believe to be self-evident.

And I do think -- and you guys can tell me if you've noticed this or if you think I'm wrong, I think it's forced a lot of people to reexamine issues. They thought they were liberalized. You know, people -- I've had people go back to the same-sex marriage issue and say, "You know, I really just thought conservatives were just a bunch of anti-gay bigots." But now when I go back and I see some of the arguments, whether I agree with them or not, but I see some of the arguments where people said, "You know what, I just don't believe men and women are interchangeable. I do believe that a father is of intrinsic value and a mother is of intrinsic value. And that they are unique and not interchangeable." You know, once we said that's not the case culturally, we kind of opened the floodgates. And I've had people say, you know, I have to look back and see where we went around the bend.

GLENN: Steven Crowder from Louder with Crowder. I think you're exactly right. And I'm seeing it in not just this, but in many things. Sitting in Los Angeles with, you know, liberals who would have just thought that we were all just racist bigots for the last ten years. Actually sitting around a table and them saying, you know what, I'm actually for the Tenth Amendment. And I thought that was all racist. And now, suddenly, I find myself going, "Yeah, you know what, maybe we should have that Tenth Amendment." And then realizing, "Holy cow, wait a minute. I may have been wrong on this. I have to reevaluate a lot." That is happening.

And if we can open our arms and not say, "Yeah, told you so," and just be decent human beings with -- with the -- with the open mind and honest arguments, I think we will welcome a lot of people into the fold.

Steven Crowder, LouderwithCrowder.com. Thank you so much. We'll talk to you again, Steven. Appreciate it.

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

Stephen Crowder: Google Clearly Doesn’t ‘Want to Discuss Issues Anymore’

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