BLOGMarch 08, 2018

Gawker takedown: Author chronicles Hulk Hogan’s epic smackdown that bankrupted liberal website

How much do you really know about one of the biggest media stories of all time?

Ryan Holiday, the author and strategist behind the marketing expose “Trust Me, I’m Lying,” is back with a book about the famous battle between billionaire Peter Thiel and the now-defunct website Gawker.

Thiel had it in for Gawker after the site revealed in 2007 that he was gay, but the investor was smart enough to bide his time until he could catch Gawker doing something illegal: publishing without permission parts of a sex tape of Hulk Hogan and his former best friend’s wife.

In his new book, “Conspiracy: Peter Thiel, Hulk Hogan, Gawker, and the Anatomy of Intrigue,” Holiday gives an insider’s perspective on the famous Gawker takedown based on his time with both Thiel and former Gawker chief Nick Denton.

According to Holiday, Thiel’s chance meeting with a mysterious “Mr. A” was the turning point. “Mr. A” and attorney Charles Harder worked together to find any potential dirt on Gawker and jumped on the opportunity when the site published the Hogan footage.

Where is “Mr. A” now? Holiday didn’t say who he was or exactly what he’s doing now, but it’s a safe bet to imagine he’s set for life.

“I would imagine when you solve a problem for a billionaire like this, the world is sort of your oyster from that point forward,” Holiday said.

Want more? Listen to the full interview with Holiday in Hour 2 of today’s show here:

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: Do the ends justify the means? Are there real white hats and black hats anymore? Can you actually be a white taking down a black hat?

If you've done them in nefarious ways, are you wearing a gray hat, or are you wearing a black hat?

There are so many things today that we would all like to see, you know, dishonest, bad media go away and collapse on its own weight. We might even cheer when something like gawker, which was a despicable website, when gawker went out of business and had to shut down, we might all cheer.

However, are we all comfortable with the idea that a billionaire can conspire and make that happen?

Even though, the end is good.

STU: Ryan Holiday is an author. He wrote a great book called Trust Me On Lying, which is a fantastic read, to go back and see how the news you see every day gets to you.

GLENN: Sausage.

STU: It's incredible.

GLENN: You'll find teeth and shoes in it.

STU: You have to read that. The new book is Conspiracy: Peter Thiel, Hulk Hogan, Gawker, and the Anatomy of Intrigue. And it's -- it brings us through this entire story, and Ryan joins us now.

GLENN: So, Ryan, can you tell this story like only you can? Tell this story before we get into what we're supposed to learn from it.

RYAN: Well, it's an almost unbelievable story. In 2007, Gawker Media, a gossip website in New York City, has a Silicon Valley arm called Valley Wag, and they out the Silicon Valley investor Peter Thiel as gay. He's at that point the founder of PayPal. He was an early investor in Facebook, but a relatively unknown person whose sexuality was known to his friends. But he was not publicly gay.

He's -- he's humiliated by this. He's frustrated by it. He's hurt. Gawker's headline, I believe, was Peter Thiel is Totally Gay, People. So imagine your most sensitive secret being made public in such a flippant way. And he finds this not to be illegal, but to be disgusting. And --

GLENN: Now, hang on just a second. Ryan, when this happens with gawker, is this -- because I find gawker despicable. They've done things to me and my family that are just despicable.

RYAN: Sure.

GLENN: But on this, people were saying, well, we should out people, because that's only going to make people more comfortable with -- you know, with gay people if they know you're around them all the time. So were they using the ends justify the means at that time to do something good, or are they just dirtbags?

RYAN: I think it's a little bit of both, right? I think they thought, why should he keep this secret? And I think they also thought, why should this be a jet? This isn't something to be ashamed of. But the truth is be with he didn't want it to be public. And I believe that's his prerogative.

GLENN: Yeah, it's his story to tell, not anybody else's.

RYAN: He sort of despairs of being able to do anything about it for five years. He just sort of sits on this. He's frustrated. He's hurt by it. But he can't do anything about it. And it's only in 2012, when Gawker makes another enemy, they run an illegally recorded sex tape of the professional wrestler, Hulk Hogan, that Thiel sees the opportunity that he's been looking for this whole time, that he had been looking for. He had hired a lawyer to spot opportunities like this.

He approaches Hulk Hogan, and he says, look, what they did to you is not only despicable, I think it's illegal both federally and in Florida, where you're a resident. I will fund this. Thiel approaches him through an intermediary. This is totally in secret.

I will fund this case as far as you're willing to take it. And he approaches a number of other people in similar cases. And then for the next four years, this case winds its way through the legal system. And he eventually wins 140 million-dollar bankruptcy-inducing verdict against Gawker in Florida, to the shock of all onlookers and legal strategists at the time. And he achieves that thing that he had set out to do in 2007, which was to both get his revenge and to prevent this -- this website that he believes to be evil, from doing what it did to people.

GLENN: So --

STU: Wow.

GLENN: -- I know Peter -- he is a very, generally quiet guy. You know, he's -- he's an odd duck.

RYAN: Sure.

GLENN: He's a really nice guy. Doesn't seem like a guy who is driven by vengeance. But does sound like a guy -- or feels like a guy who will take all the time necessary in the world. He is not in any hurry. He'll wait until it's right.

RYAN: Well, that's what's so brilliant about what he did. I think most of us, when something is done to us, we react. We respond. Right? A fight breaks out.

A conspiracy, to me, is more something that bruise, that develops. And that's what it was so brilliant about Peter. He didn't -- he said, look, what they did to me I don't think was right. And I'm angry about it. But it's never good to be driven by anger. And so, instead, he steps back. He never forgot what happened. But he looked for an opportunity, where he actually had legal -- legal ground to stand on, where he actually could have an impact. Where the public would be so universally repulsed by what these people did, that he would have a shot at making a difference. So I think both that patience and that ability to be strategic, is why he was able to solve a problem, if that's what you want to call it. That many other powerful people had looked at, and said basically, there's nothing you can do about this.

GLENN: But he didn't do -- did he become the thing that he despised?

I don't get the impression that he did. He -- he did this on the up-and-up. The only thing -- the reason why it's a conspiracy is, he didn't want to be out front. But now that it's known -- he doesn't mind. I mean, he's owning it now.

RYAN: Sure. Look, I think secrecy is a fundamental element of a conspiracy. And I respect that he was willing to see that the optics of a billionaire being publicly in front of this thing completely changes how the public would look at it. You know, he said to me, he got this advice from one of his friends. His friends said, Peter, you have to choose your enemies carefully because you become just like them. So that's really the danger of spending nine years scheming to destroy or ruin someone or something, is that you study them so much, they consume so much of your mental bandwidth, that you can kind of become like them.

I don't think that he became anything like Gawker. But, for instance, there's a seminal moment in jury selection, where they notice that overweight female jurors are the most sympathetic to their case. Now, that's not disgusting. But there is an element of unpleasantness in selecting a juror to then exploit their most vulnerable body issue to win a case --

GLENN: But don't you think -- that's done in the court system every day of the week.

RYAN: Agreed. My point is, I think we -- we tend to be idealists about change.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

RYAN: We think that we can make change without getting our hands dirty or without dealing with some of this unpleasantness.

GLENN: Yes.

RYAN: And so there's compromises of pursuing something of this magnitude. And I think Peter was so committed to what he was doing, that he felt that that end did justify -- that means did justify the end.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: So Ryan has spent a lot of time with Peter Thiel. Peter Thiel -- this is not an anti-Peter Thiel book. Peter worked side by side. He had unprecedented access to Peter. And while Peter didn't -- I don't think, Ryan, unless there's another conspiracy theory. He didn't fund this book. He just gave access. More with Ryan Holiday.

The book is Conspiracy. And there's some tough questions that we have to ask ourselves. More in a minute.

GLENN: We're with Ryan Holiday, he's the author of a book called Conspiracy: Peter Thiel, Hulk Hogan, Gawker, and the Anatomy of Intrigue. It's a very tough question that we have to tackle, but I want to get a couple more facts out of the way here before we do with Ryan.

STU: Ryan, a couple of things that we picked up from the book, one thing that Peter had conversations about his strategy, trying to get Gawker to go away.

RYAN: Uh-huh.

STU: They discussed at least seemingly -- he comes off a little flippantly, but at least considered doing things actually illegal when it comes to the approach.

GLENN: Yeah. What was the -- what was the example, Stu?

STU: Well, I'm sure -- I'm sure Ryan can walk us through the examples. I don't have them in front of me.

RYAN: Sure.

GLENN: Go ahead, Ryan.

RYAN: Sure. It struck me as a little bit of a tempest in a teapot by the media coverage. Because it's like getting in trouble for thinking about speeding and then not speeding.

GLENN: Yeah.

RYAN: But, you know, if you think about Thiel's position, he finds Gawker to be this great evil. He's trying to do something about it. But as a billionaire, he has essentially limitless resources. He's also the majority owner of one of the most powerful in intelligence and defense companies on the planet. So he has these immense resources.

And so it's a question then of, which of them is he going to use and what limitations is he going to impose on himself?

So theoretically, could he hire private detectives to follow Gawker writers and attempt to find dirt on them, that would be embarrassing? Could he start a rival website that would focus, but nothing on their personal lives? Could he bribe employees to leak information to him? Could he -- could he lobby politicians to go after them?

Like there's many things that he could do. But what he decides, actually, early on, after sort of laying all these options on the table, is that he -- that he wants only to do what's legal and ethical, because he's -- he's both, I think an ethical and moral person. But also, because at some point, your involvement is made public. At some point, you win.

And then the public looks at what you did, and they judge you for this. Right?

And so his belief was that, if they accomplished this thing they were trying to accomplish with unethical or illegal means, the victory would stand. And it would also be, as we were talking about earlier, it would be pyrrhic, in that it would come at a great cost to himself because he would have had to become the thing that he was trying to change in the first place.

GLENN: I have to tell you, this is kind of being spun as an anti-Peter Thiel book, and just that alone speaks volumes. I don't know how many billionaires there are that would have the self-control that he had, to say, no, I want to do it -- I want to do it the right way.

Can you tell me anything -- because you have an exclusive in this about a guy named Mr. A. I know you're not going to tell me who. But what is Mr. A's role?

RYAN: Well, that's -- it's one of the weirdest twits of this story, this incredibly well-covered story.

I think people thought, I guess myself included, felt like Peter Thiel was involved on a day-to-day basis. And, in fact, he sort of follows the start-up model, which is, in 2011, he has -- he has dinner with this promising young college graduate, who has told Peter he has an idea. They sit down to dinner.

And this kid says, Peter, I think I can solve your Gawker problem. I think that buried in their archive of posts are illegal acts or acts that make them vulnerable to -- to civil judgments. And I think -- he says, if you give me $10 million and three to five years of time, I think I can make something happen here. And basically, on the spot, Peter invests in this kid. And this kid is Peter's go-between, his operative who hires the attorneys, who vets the cases, who makes the decisions day-to-day. And Peter is -- is -- and the way that Peter puts $500,000 in Mark Zuckerberg's hands and he goes and makes Facebook, Mr. A goes and makes this conspiracy a reality.

STU: Wow.

GLENN: So what do you think Mr. A is going to be doing now?

RYAN: Well, I would imagine when you solve a problem for a billionaire like this, your world is sort of your oyster from that point forward. I think he's got basically limitless options now. And has one patron who is probably willing to back him on any project under any condition.

GLENN: Holy cow.

STU: Wow. What was Peter's motivation in cooperating with you, Ryan, on this book?

RYAN: Well, as I'm sure you guys have seen, in the coverage just talking to me. This is a story that has been intensely covered, but with such bias and such sort of tribal instincts on behalf of the media. Because the media sees what happens to Gawker. And they think, oh, that could happen to us. Let's circle the wagon. So there's been this incredible amount of judgment about what's happened.

And I think that's greatly impacted the coverage, right? To such a degree, that Peter has become, in many people's eyes, this sort of James Bond villain. And that's really not what he is, when you read him and you see what he did and why he did it. So I think -- I had written critically about Gawker many times. You know, myself. My emails were once hacked and leaked to Gawker. So I know what that feeling is like. So I was willing to at least be fair. You know, I told Peter, look, you're not going to get to see the book before it's printed. You're not going to have any input on it. I'm going to play it down the middle, but I think he at least believed that I would play it down the middle, rather than holding him up as the villain, if that wasn't true.

GLENN: Yeah. So, Ryan, there's -- if -- I'm just trying to think this through. If a billionaire -- let's say George Soros, who is not a friend of mine. If he decided to go after me and I was doing something -- and TheBlaze was doing something that was blatantly illegal. And I don't mean death by a million paper cuts, what a billionaire could do.

RYAN: Sure.

GLENN: I don't think I would have sympathy for Peter, if he had just been paper cut after paper cut, technicality after technicality, just keep him in court and bleed them dry.

RYAN: Right.

GLENN: I don't think this is a problem for the First Amendment, if they're going after things that are really, truly illegal and they're big.

And I'd like to get your response on that when we come back. What does this mean for the First Amendment? That a billionaire can mark somebody and then take them out? Is that good for the republic? When we come back.

GLENN: I am -- I'm currently on a -- on a couple-week rant of, we've got to do something, and how that always leads to bad things. You just don't make good decisions when you're angry, upset, emotionally. We've got to do something usually also means, I'll violate my principles because I want this pain to stop.

So what are our principles? I -- I don't -- I didn't like Gawker. Gawker did some things that were dangerous for my family. I thought they were despicable people. And I did wish them to go out of business. But I wouldn't have done anything to get them to go out of business. And I like the way Peter Thiel did this. He waited to see, is there something that they have done that breaks the law? When they had Hulk Hogan, that was an illegally recorded tape. And for what? What was the purpose of exposing that?

So Peter took them to court on that. The problem is, he's a billionaire, has unlimited resources. And are we setting a precedent that somebody who has an axe to grind can put another company out of business? One man can put a media company out of business if they want to?

Are we -- did anybody learn that lesson in a negative way? Ryan is with us.

Ryan Holiday is the author of the book Conspiracy: Peter Thiel, Hulk Hogan, Gawker, and the Anatomy of Intrigue.

What have you come to, Ryan, on that?

RYAN: Well, that is the big question. And it is potentially scary to think a billionaire could shut a media outlet down? And then when you step back, you know, your point about not reacting emotionally, well, did Peter actually do anything new that doesn't happen every day, anyway, right? The ACLU. The Sierra club. The NRA. They back cases all the time that they think move their ideology forward or stands up for one of their constituents. And so the idea of a wealthy person backing a lawsuit, not out of financial gain, but out of ideological alignment is actually not remotely new. And if you were to ban it, society would undoubtedly become a worse place, right?

Why shouldn't your rich uncle be able to support you against a person who ran into you, with their truck, right? You want that.

GLENN: So there's the legal question, which I think he did everything right. And then there's the ethical question, which I think he did everything right.

But you have to ask that ethical question too. And would you have felt different if he would have taken Gawker on, with -- with almost frivolous lawsuits and just done death by 1,000 paper cuts? Do you think it would have been a different story for you?

RYAN: Absolutely. Because there you're not attempting to win. You're not attempting to have your argument validated. You're attempting to destroy someone for something they may not have done something wrong.

So Peter's decision, for instance, not even an attack on First Amendment grounds because he believes that's sacred. But to look instead at the individual's right to privacy, right? Is there a newsworthiness in this sex tape, or is there a copyright claim here? He specifically did not sue them on say frivolous, libel, or defamation grounds because he was worried about the precedent that it might set. And he didn't believe that there was anything wrong there.

So his distinction is really, really important. And I think, you know, a potential hypothetical would be, what if a liberal had backed Shirley Sherrod in her lawsuit against Breitbart, when they ran that deliberately edited, manipulative tape of her in I believe it was 2011.

GLENN: Yes.

RYAN: And I don't think many of the people who are deeply upset about what happened to Gawker, I don't think they would be upset if Breitbart had gone out of business in 2012. I think they would be cheering at the exact same way.

STU: It's very interesting. Yes, that's absolutely true. I wanted to get your take quickly on -- I can't remember the guy's name who actually wrote the story.

But he -- he's become somewhat of a cause celeb on the left of a guy -- because he's not the guy -- he's not Nick Denton who ran Gawker. But the guy who actually just did the post.

He's a lowly --

Yes. Yes. Just -- you know, a writer. And he's working for Gawker. Not making a ton of money. And he was involved in this lawsuit. And he has been presented as this guy who got in the middle of this thing. And he was helpless in this situation. And now he has no chance of making any money. He owes an ungodly amount of money for this lawsuit and can't do anything about it. He wasn't wealthy. He didn't own Gawker. Do you have any perspective on that and how that went down?

RYAN: Yeah. So in a way, he's just doing his job. Gawker publishes these stories all the time. It's so unremarkable when you get to the Hulk Hogan tape, that Nick Denton, the CEO isn't even notified, right? The case that bankrupts the company, the CEO doesn't know about it until after it is published. Because that's how run-of-the-mill it actually was.

So, yes, it was unfortunate that this individual, this writer doing his job, takes the full brunt of it in the public eye. You know, during the trial. And then is held liable -- the jury says -- holds him personally liable for about $100,000 of this 140 million-dollar judgment. But what people forget is that months after the verdict, Peter and Hulk Hogan settle with Gawker that releases both Denton and Daulerio from these individual claims. And they're able to walk free.

You know, they were not necessarily ruined by it. And Peter said, look, my goal was to destroy Gawker, not to ruin these people personally. But individuals are held accountable for their actions.

GLENN: Yeah.

RYAN: And that's life.

GLENN: I mean, we all have choices, no matter if everybody else is doing it. We still have a choice.

You know, I'm so intrigued by Peter. I think he is a real force for good. And I think he's a deep and thoughtful man, that doesn't make everything that he -- everything that he does right or good. But he really seems to think about things.

RYAN: Yes.

GLENN: And I heard him say once, it's not that I think I'm right, I'm not even sure if I'm right, I just don't think other people are even thinking about these things. What does that tell you about him?

RYAN: He would say that even about this case. That it's often not that he was right and other people were wrong. It's that Gawker wasn't even -- Gawker just assumed that this Hulk Hogan case would get settled. They weren't even taking it seriously. And so Peter is a person who has theories about the world. And he's willing to put some skin in the game. Right? He's willing to throw some weight behind them and see what happens. And I think -- to me, the lesson of what happened, and what I tried to write about in the book, is that, you can fundamentally disagree with what Peter did, and you can think that it's dangerous and alarming that Gawker doesn't exist anymore. But there is something to study, a lesson to learn, about how this guy did it. And why he did it.

And how he was able to effectuate the change that he needed to happen, outside of writing op-eds or putting out a petition. You know, he -- he made real change in the real world, where other people said, there was nothing you could do about it. And to me, that's a lesson that -- and in some ways, that's an inspiring things right now, in this society, where we're stuck, you know, on both sides of the aisle. I think we just feel like change can't happen. And here, a guy made something happen.

GLENN: Yeah. When -- I saw that in the book that -- that phrase.

I -- I thought to myself, that is something that the world is not even rewarding now. It doesn't reward you to think. It doesn't reward you to think outside of the box and to think differently. And it doesn't reward you to say, I'm not sure if I'm right. I just want us to think about that. And that's really what we're missing.

RYAN: And the irony is that in some ways, Gawker was part of that problem, right? I think one of Thiel's objections to them is not just the despicable things that they did and the violations of privacy, but as the site that just sort of made fun of everyone for every mistake, every failure, every personal idiosyncrasy.

They were dis-incentivizing people from thinking outside the box, from being weird. And weirdness is where innovation comes from and creativity. And we should want people to take risks and turn out to be wrong. What we don't want to do is mercilessly mock them, to the point where nobody tries anything because they don't want to end up on the front page of Gawker.com or any website.

GLENN: Ryan Holiday, thank you very much.

RYAN: Thanks for having me.

(music)

STU: I think we sold you on that story.

GLENN: Good story.

STU: Ryan tells it well.

GLENN: Good book.

STU: And there's a lot in here that's not previously been reported on.

Conspiracy: Peter Thiel, Hulk Hogan, Gawker, and the Anatomy of Intrigue by Ryan Holiday. Also, we should have Ryan back on for Trust Me On Lying.

GLENN: For Trust Me. Yeah. He is a guy who has had firsthand experience, really, with fake news. I mean, it was really kind of his job as a PR person.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: And he knows how it works. And it's really fascinating.

STU: Yeah. Quickly on it, the concept in that book was that he -- you know those weird stories that bubble up to the national media. And you're like, how did we even hear about that?

It was his job to try to get them elevated from -- from a blog to a local media, to regional media, to national media, to try to get attention for clients and all sorts of stuff. So he was in the media manipulation business for a long time.

GLENN: And, you know what, it goes to -- remember the first thing that I said when we went to CNN and I said, I'm really uncomfortable with this. The ingesting of news.

STU: Oh, yeah.

GLENN: Because if you make one mistake, that is your basis forever.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: And it's interesting. Because what he did was, it was on a blog. And then he would call the local news and say, did you see this? Did you see this blog?

STU: Did you see this blog?

GLENN: And they would use that as a credible source. And then he'd go to the regional news and said, did you see this in the newspaper? And it got more incredible as it went on.

STU: Yeah.

RADIO

WATCH: Biden SAYS What the Media Falsely ACCUSED Trump Of

Remember when the media went nuts and accused Donald Trump of praising Nazis when he said there were “very fine people on both sides” of the Charlottesville “Unite the Right” rally (although he WASN’T referring to the neo-Nazis)? Well, President Biden just had his own “very fine people” moment. Glenn reviews how Biden’s answer to a question about anti-Semitic, pro-Palestinian protests at Columbia University was EXACTLY what the media accused Trump of. But yet, there’s no outrage… Glenn also reviews the message of a Jewish professor at Columbia who was barred from campus after his participation in a pro-Jewish rally.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: I've learned from the president. That why focus on the negative?

Here's President Biden about what's going on in Columbia university.

Yesterday.

VOICE: End the anti-Semitic protests at college campuses.

VOICE: That's why I've set up a program. I also condemn voters who don't understand what's going on with the Palestinians.

VOICE: Should the Columbia University president resign?

VOICE: I didn't know that.

GLENN: So wait a minute. Hang on. I think what I heard here was, you know, there's fine people on both sides.

STU: Very fine. I would call them very fine.

GLENN: Yeah. Very fine people on both sides. It's almost like what happened with Donald Trump. Except when Donald Trump said that, he was a Nazi. He was a Nazi sympathizer. He was reaching out to the Nazis.

Nowhere, do I read how he's a Nazi. That Biden is a Nazi. For saying the same thing about the same kind of people. They were calling for the death of Jews.

STU: It really is fascinating.

GLENN: It's fascinating.

STU: You pointed this out, just because you came on the air.

I can't believe the parallels.

It's exactly the same thing.

GLENN: It is!

STU: It's just a left-wing version, and I have listened to tons of coverage and watched a bunch of coverage on this, over the past 24 hours. And now that I think of it, the entire tone of the coverage was, there are very fine people on both sides.

GLENN: Very fine people on both sides.

STU: It's like, yes, some of these Jewish students have been walking down the street and being attacked.

You know, one woman said that she was trying to go to class. And someone came up to her with a sign that said, we hope Hamas comes here next.

GLENN: Oh.
STU: And then they went to a protester on the Palestinian side. Who said, look, we know there's been some bad incidents. We're here peacefully protesting. There's no question, as to whether that was appropriate to do. To cover. Because I don't remember, on let's say, during Charlottesville.

When they found people in the crowd, who are like, yeah. I don't know what these nut jobs with the Tiki torches are, I'm just here for the statue thing.

GLENN: You know, there's another case like that, that comes to mind.

STU: Really?

GLENN: It wasn't just Charlottesville.

STU: Thinking, calculating.

GLENN: Oh, January 6th.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: I never heard anybody say, yeah. Well, there were grandmothers here. Nice people here. That's not what they were doing. There were some really bad people there. We should condemn them. But not the others. I don't remember that.

STU: No. I don't remember that either. There was 100,000 people at the speech. All of them seem to be painted with the very broad stroke. That's awful.

GLENN: That's weird.

You know who does that? Who used to love doing that?

Hitler. Yeah. He used to do that all the time.

STU: You went right to Hitler. Seeming, his ideals are living on today. And seeming in all these protests.

GLENN: You know, I'm not going to tolerate anymore people saying, oh, you know, you're bringing up Hitler. Of course, you're going right to Hitler. Hitler.

Yeah. Because you're saying exactly the same things, that Hitler said.

STU: You are basically quoting Mein Kampf in every one of these protests. It's not that crazy.

That's a fascinating.

GLENN: By the way, I hope Hamas comes here. What do you mean by that.

You want the rape? The killing, the slaughtering? The burning of children. The chopping off of heads.

Is that what you're looking for?

STU: A chant just yesterday of a long live October 7th.

I mean, maybe they just had something else going on that day on October 7th. We don't know. It could be anything.

GLENN: I think the press should find out. I think they could find somebody who said, no. We were just talking about that wonderful, wonderful concert that was happening.

Because there were good things that day. And some bad things.

STU: And a couple bad things. A couple thousands of individuals bad things.

GLENN: Yeah. You know what this looks like, at Columbia university.

Well, first of all, could I just play -- this guy was locked out of Columbia. He was an associate professor.

And he was locked out. From the campus. Because they were afraid. You know, it would get out of hand. So he was just standing on the street, in front of Columbia. And he was speaking. And I just -- I mean, want you to hear what he had to say. It was very radical. Very radical.

VOICE: I know you're afraid.

I know you're a victim. Bravery. Bravery is not, not being afraid. Bravery is showing up when you're afraid. That's what courage is about. Showing up. And you all showed up. And you will keep showing up. And next time you show up, bring a Jew friend. Bring five friends, bring ten friends. A Jewish and non-Jewish friends, we need to make the world understand that being Jewish in public is a safe thing. Right?

It shouldn't be something that is contested. We are not fighting just for the Jews. We are fighting -- we are fighting for everyone. We are fighting for the rights of African-Americans. We are fightings for the rights of Hispanics. We're fighting for the rights of women and LGBTQ and the trans community. We are fighting for everyone.

Because it always starts with the Jews, and it never ends with the Jews. So I am here for all of you.

GLENN: Boy, you could see why Columbia University locked him out of -- they deactivated his key card, so he couldn't get back into the university. Because he's an extremist, clearly.

STU: The hatred.

GLENN: But don't just take that as the entire movement. Because there are some very fine people on the other side. As well.

Let me take you way back into the time machine, of 1933.

New York City. In 1933. Hitler has come to power. The Nazis begin taking Jewish students, and speckle them. Dismissing the Jewish professors from the universities.

You're not German enough.

And the campuses across Germany. Nazis, and their sympathizers. They start burning the books. You know, written by Jews. And perceived enemies.

Including, what's weird.

On that list of books to burn, was a book by a -- a Columbia professor and anthropologist named Frank Boaz, but he was Jewish.

They had on their list, to make sure they burned his books in the universities, in Berlin.

Now, just months after the first book burnings, Columbia had a president, Nicholas Murray Butler. He welcomed hens Luther in. He was the German ambassador to the United States. And he said, you have to come to Morning Heights.

You crazy cats over there, you're being misunderstood.

You got to come over here. And then he told all of the students at Columbia.

I respect him. He deserves the greatest courtesy and respect.

Now, at the same time, Columbia was doing this.

Cambridge, the dean of the Harvard law school. He accepted an honorary free at the university of Berlin.

He was there over 1934. And he returns from a trip. And he -- he got that -- he got that special honor from Berlin.

And he -- he came back to assure people, there is no persecution of Jewish scholars or of Jews, happening in Germany.

You know, for those Jews who have lived in Germany for any length of time.

That's an odd thing to say. Butler, back in Columbia, responded, because there were some criticism on campus. The spectator, and other student groups. He had to respond to.

He emphasized that Columbia's relationships with the German universities, strictly academic. No political implications, at all.

And he then mocked the protests, that were standing up against the university, saying, hey. You know, there's bad things happening with Jews.

And he's like, this is just academic. This is academic -- we have nothing to do with any of the spooky stuff from the Nazis. And then he said, quote, may we next expect to be told, that we should not read Goethe's Faust, or listen to Wagner's Ring Cycle? Or study the picture galleries at Dresden? Because we so heartily disapprove of the present form of government in Germany?

Now, by the way, he was a long-time admirer of Benito Mussolini as well. And in 1934, he fired Jerome Klein. That's a weird name, isn't it? Klein. You know what I'm saying. Right?

So we know why he was fired. He was a young member of the fine arts faculty.

And he signed an appeal against the Luther invitation.

And he -- and he was fired.

Also, Robert Burke, a Columbia college student, he was expelled because he was participating in the 1936 book burning. And anti-Nazi picket on campus.

So you couldn't picket the Nazis.

You know.

But you could go to the big rally, at Madison Square Garden.

Held by the Nazis.

They loved that.

That was great. So what I think I'm trying to say is, why are we surprised

Why are we surprised?

Harvard was disturbing as well.

There was a warm welcome extended to Ernst Hanfstaengl.

Earnest Hanfstaengl here. Yeah.

He was -- he came to the commencement in 1934.

He was a Nazi leader. Good, good, close personal friend of Hitler. And Harvard, well, a lot of people were like, hey, Mr. Hanfstaengl maybe shouldn't be here, yeah.

Harvard, they loved it. The students loved it. The faculty. They were delighted.

In fact, the president of Harvard wrote, it's trillion shameful. It's truly shameful, that -- the -- the -- the most prestigious, prominent university is coming under attack. You know.

For this. Now, they're just trying to influence young minds. And, you know, we're not for the Germans, but we're not not for the Germans either. Isn't that right, Mr. Hanfstaengl?

Here's the problem: I can't believe in 2008, I said several times, the hatreds of the past, that we saw in the 1930s are going to come back with a vengeance.

We are going to see the same things that happened in Europe, in the 1930s, happening on our streets.

And if we don't stand up and stop it, if we don't choose to be -- to never forget, never again is the promise we made to each other.

We're going to make the Nazis. With our technology. We will make the Nazis look like rookies.

It's up to America now, to decide.

I personally think, I haven't spoken to Mr.Hanfstaengl.

But I personally think Jesus is coming.

Kind of soon. Probably.

STU: Glenn, there are very fine Hanfstaengls on both sides.

GLENN: On both sides, really? So there were the kill the Jews Hanfstaengls, and then the, eh Hanfstaengls.

STU: Hanfstaengls. Yes. You've got it. You've heard this story.

GLENN: Yeah, okay.

RADIO

Is NATO About to “DECLARE WAR” Against Nuclear Russia?!

The House of Representatives has passed a $95 billion war bill that gives aid to Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan (mostly Ukraine), with the help of Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson. Now, as the bill heads to the Senate, Sen. Mike Lee tells Glenn that “this is an insult to the American people.” But why does it seem like everyone is so set on war? Sen. Lee explains why NATO’s promise to invite Ukraine into the alliance would practically be “declaring war against a nuclear-armed adversary,” Russia.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Mike Lee joins us now, from Washington, DC. There is a vote coming up for Ukraine. And, you know, Mike Lee just loves Vladimir Putin. And so he's against that Ukraine bill. Hello, Mike Lee.

MIKE: Naturally. You know, I don't know how to say good day to you, sir, in Russian. But I'm still working on it.

GLENN: Yeah, right. $95 billion. It only will take 41 senators to stop it.

There are 49 Republicans in the Senate. But you saw what happened in the House. They had Ukrainian flags. It was disgusting, Mike.

MIKE: Yep. Celebrating a foreign flag, on US soil, in a legislative chamber in the United States Senate. Seems odd to me. But not nearly as odd, is the fact that we're shelling out $95 billion with a B. At a time, when we don't have that money. So it's borrowed, which means we're going to print it, which means it's going to contribute even more to inflation. It's already causing Americans to shell out an additional $1,000 every single month, just to put food on the table and keep a roof over their heads. This is an insult to the American people.

When you ask the American people what they want, it's overwhelming, they say no. Look, regardless of what you think about what's going on, in Ukraine. And I intensely dislike Vladimir Putin. I would love for Ukraine to win this battle. But, you know, Glenn, we've spent $113 billion plus on this whirlwind. Why are we spending another $51 billion to that effort, when Europe hasn't stepped up. We have given more than every other nation on earth, combined. And this is in the backyard of our European allies, who, by the way, we've been backfilling their security needs for decades. Through NATO. This is their problem, more immediately, than it is ours.

We shouldn't give a dime. Especially when our own border is not secure.

While we have a 34 and a half trillion dollar debt. And while Europe still hasn't paid up, a sum, not just equal to. But greater than what we put in so far. This is shameful.

GLENN: I heard someone in the House is that I, that their border is our border. No, it's not. No, it's not. Our border is our border.

Their border is their border. I mean, we're not getting any money to protect ourselves. We have a real and present danger, because of our own border.

Everything that I'm reading, I don't even know -- I don't even know what this is about, Mike. Other than, money laundering.

Sending money over there. And it's all going to oligarchs.

We're funding this thing. We're sending the message, that we want war. We are talking about bringing Ukraine in. And making them part of NATO.

Making other states part of NATO.

That is kind of a red line for Vladimir Putin.

And now, I read today. I think it was Poland, that says, they're ready for nuclear missiles in Poland. What do you think Vladimir Putin is going to do?

Exactly what we would do, if you put those in Acapulco.

MIKE: Right. First of all, Glenn, you're wrong about the border issue. We all know that Kyev just a few miles away from Laredo.

So you're mistaken there.

GLENN: Yeah.

MIKE: But, look, the idea of adding Ukraine to NATO, is itself an idea about declaring war. The United States declaring war, against Russia. Because Ukraine, of course, who is at war with Russia.

And if we brought Ukraine into NATO, we would have an Article V obligation to fight Russia. So let's just call this what it is. Those conversations are about declaring war with a nuclear-armed adversary. I know Russia, economically and militarily is not on par with the United States. Nonetheless, their nuclear arsenal is.

Their nuclear arsenal is massive. In part because they have cheated on us like crazy for decades on our nuclear arms treaties.

And consequently, you've got to tread lightly in this area. And nothing says the opposite of tread lightly, quite like declaring war on a nuclear armed adversary.

GLENN: It is insanity. It's insanity.

We are -- we are in so much. If we don't turn this around with elections, in the House, the Senate, and the White House, if -- if we don't turn this around, we're done. We're absolutely -- this is -- these actions are the actions of madmen. Who are -- I mean, if I was being charitable, would say, they're just horribly wrong, at everything they do.

But I -- I mean, I just don't know how to -- how to explain it.

And then the Republicans. I mean, what happened to -- to Johnson. Speaker Johnson.

I've always heard he was a good guy. He was devout. He really understood the Constitution. And he is just like, I mean -- he is part of the borgue.

MIKE: Well, he's Churchill. CNN literally -- literally called him Winston Churchill.

He had his Winston Churchill moment.

GLENN: Wait. Wait.

Let me give you the CNN headline.

By passing Ukraine aid, Johnson became an unlikely Churchill.

MIKE: Yeah. Last I checked, Glenn, Winston Churchill defended and protected his country while it was under attack, and threatened with invasion. He didn't send America -- British treasure to another continent and call that border security for his own home country.

This is absolutely crazy. But this is part of the fantasy land that we live in.

A lot of these guys, want to think of themselves as Churchill. And they think, this is the way to do it.

By printing money we don't have. And putting on the backs of hard-working Americans. Who are made incrementally poorer, and a lot less safe, every time we do crap like this.

GLENN: All right. So we want you to call your senator today.

Call your senator.

You call all 50 or 49 senators from the Republicans.

And respectfully, nicely. Kindly.

Tell them, not to spend this money, in Ukraine.

And I will tell you, I have talked to a lot of people. There are more and more good guys up on Capitol Hill.

They're still outnumbered. But there are more really good dependable guys.

And I hear from them every time.

When the audience calls, it makes a difference.

So please call. And -- and tell them, no! No more spending money on Ukraine!

No!

Spend it on our border.

Keep us safe. What are you doing? Stop it.

One other thing I want to talk to you about, Mike. Is I don't understand. The president just doled out, I think it was another $7 billion in the last couple of days. On relieving student debt.

30 percent of that money, I think is going to people that make over $300,000 a year.

What the hell -- how -- how do you -- when somebody says no to the Supreme Court and does it anyway, and says, I know I don't have this power.

And the Supreme Court just told me, I have this power.

But I'm not stopping.

What has to happen, to get a president who thinks he's just the king, from spending our money and giving it to people, who don't deserve it!

They -- they took out the loan. Not me.

MIKE: Yeah. So in the first place, I think the most obvious answer is, don't elect to the presidency, someone who is manifestly unfit for office.

There's also a deeper question. That we all need to assess, which is, decades of congressional forfeiture, of fundamentally legislative authority, to the executive branch.

Have to a degree empowered this kind of action.

Whenever we enact vague loosy-goosy language that gives a degree of discretion, to the president. And the bureaucrats who work under him, in the executive branch.

Who are handing over a loaded gun, to people who we have to assume, will from time to time, behave as imbeciles. And so we've got reverse that trend.

And, yes, it's lawless what he's doing. He tried to do it under a the different legal theory. A while back. And was shot down by the Supreme Court.

But as soon as that happened, it's a sad commentary, on the law in our country. Without a hint of hesitation. He just said, okay.

Well, I'll find another legal mechanism, by which I could do it.

I believe he had the authority to do it. Last time, I don't think he had the authority to do it this time. But we have to clean up our laws, so that we get rid of any kind of vague delegation of power of the president.

Because they can't be trusted. This is why we can't have nice things. And this is why presidents shouldn't be given vast discretion.

GLENN: On both sides.

STU: Senator, isn't it true. I mean, when you have a thing like the student loan situation. Where he's ignoring the Supreme Court.
And just trying to jam all this through.

He did this with the -- with the eviction moratorium as well. Aren't these examples of specifically what the Founders were talking about, when they were introducing the idea of impeachment? I mean, I understand the pragmatic limitations of that politically, with something like this.

But isn't this, shouldn't this be included in the impeachment inquiry?

MIKE: Yes, without question. And, Stu, you are right. Except, remember, with the new definition of impeachment that we had after last week, basically nothing is impeachable.

I mean, you can lie to Congress, knowingly, intentionally, under oath.

And according to new Senate precedent set by Senate Democrats last week, that's not impeachable. So too, if you take legislative authority that commands you to do X, and not Y. And you instead do Y and not X.

And that is also not impeachable. So it begs the question. What is impeachable anymore?

I don't know. According to the Senate Democrats, nothing is. So this is really troubling. Yet another reason why we have to focus on who we elect as president. I hope we elect Donald Trump as president this fall. And I hope we elect a new raft of lawmakers, not just Republicans, but Republicans who understand the vital pressing need to right size our federal government, to restore the vertical protection of federalism, and the horizontal separation of powers.

There is no other way to save our republic than that. And yet, that gets if a terror, too, little attention from Republicans these days.

Because they're just too damn busy, spending money on wars that aren't ours with money we don't have.

GLENN: Mike, 30 seconds.

Any comment on the Trump case going on in New York right now?

MIKE: This is just a sad display of lawfare, of the weaponization of our legal system. There isn't anybody who thinks this would be going on, were he not the presidential frontrunner from the Republican Party.

They would never be doing it. And so speaking of things that need to go differently in elections, I hope that the people of New York will see this as the embarrassment to the Empire State that it is. And see that this as something that does not bode well.

If you have a business in New York. I -- I wonder how long you can handle this, knowing that, you know, sure, Donald Trump is the target today. Who will be next?

GLENN: Yeah. And they can take a misdemeanor and make it into a felony.

A misdemeanor that the statute of limitations has run out on. And somehow or another, make that a felony, and bring that into court.

No one is safe. No one is safe.

Thank you so much, Mike. I appreciate it.

Senator, Mike Lee.

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.

Glenn's Show Prep

Gawker takedown: Author chronicles Hulk Hogan’s epic smackdown that bankrupted liberal website

WATCH: Biden SAYS What the Media Falsely ACCUSED Trump Of

Transcript

Is NATO About to “DECLARE WAR” Against Nuclear Russia?!

Transcript

3 Signs that Anti-Jewish ATROCITIES are Becoming Mainstream

Transcript

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

Transcript