RADIO

'Tiger mom' and Yale law prof says calling for America's 'divorce' is 'playing with fire'

You may know Amy Chua as the “tiger mom” who wrote a bestselling memoir about the benefits and drawbacks of strict parenting called “Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother.” Chua is also a Yale professor and the author of several books on a range of topics. In her latest book, “Political Tribes: Group Instinct and the Fate of Nations,” Chua tackled the political tribalism that is dividing America.

On today’s show, she and Glenn chatted about the right-left dichotomy that is tearing Americans apart; solutions that can help us see each other as people again; and the insanity of calling for a “divorce” into two separate nations.

“How do we come together when we each think the other side is the problem?” Glenn asked.

Watch the full clip (above) for Chua’s response to this crucial question and listen to the full interview here.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: I'm hoping that Amy Chua can spend some time with us today. She has written a book called Political Tribes: Group Instinct and The Fate of Nations. She is the -- the John duff professor of law at the Yale Law School. She graduated from Harvard.

Amy, welcome to the program. How are you?

AMY: I'm great. Thanks so much for having me.

GLENN: You bet. I don't know how much time you have, but I would love to spend as much time as you have.

AMY: I have time.

GLENN: Okay. Your book is great because you talk about the secret of America. And how we're really kind of violating that now. Really, strangely, unknowingly. But you -- you speak to both sides of the aisle so we can kind of hear each other.

It's not -- it's not a book written from the left or the right.

AMY: Absolutely not.

GLENN: And it's trying to speak the language of -- of both sides. And let's start with the essential goodness of America, that you point out.

AMY: Right. So I'm not even trying to be both sides. I am just kind of going back. I think we all need to remember what it is that makes America special.

And so I actually have spent 20 years studying different countries, countries in the developing world. You know, European countries. And believe it or not, there was something really special about America, that I think most Americans don't even realize. And I say that we alone among the major powers, not France, not England, we are what I call a super group.

And to be a super group, Glenn, it's really simple. You only need to do two things.

The first is to have a really strong overarching national identity. Just something that holds us together. Americans. But the second requirement for a super group, is we have to allow all different kinds of subgroup identities to flourish.

So it's like -- so in this country, you can be -- you know, you can say, I'm Irish-American. I'm Italian-American. I'm Croatian-American. I'm Japanese-American and still be intensely patriotic at the same time. And believe it or not, this is not true in a country like France. You wouldn't say I'm Italian French. There's no such thing.

GLENN: Right.

AMY: So we -- and right now because of the tribalism that has taken over our political system, we're starting to destroy that. We're starting to destroy this connective tissue, this big overarching national identity that we have, that has -- what's made us special.

And, you know, your example, really, about Chick-fil-A, is also -- there's an attack on allowing individual subgroup identities to flourish too. So it's a dangerous moment for us.

GLENN: Right. So you -- I thought this was really fascinating. And the most clear I have heard anybody state this.

You're saying that a lot of these wars that we have engaged in, are unwinnable, simply because those nations don't have a super group.

AMY: Exactly. So one thing that America has done -- and so, you know, my real feel for 20 years has been, again, looking for foreign policy. And what I try to say is I explain why we have messed it up so much, in countries from Vietnam, to Afghanistan, to Iraq.

And a lot of it has to to do with, we don't realize how exceptional, our own identity and history is. So we forget how unusual it is to be this multi-ethnic nation, with so many different ethnicities, and to have a really strong American identity.

So, Glenn, why do you think Libya is now a failed sate? We missed this. President Obama actually really, honorably conceded this.

He said, we failed to see the depth of the tribalism. They -- Libya was a multi-ethnic country like we are. One hundred forty different ethnic groups. But the difference is, that Libya didn't have a strong enough national identity. This idea of being a Libyan didn't matter to these people.

And it just fell apart. It fell apart after we intervened. And we didn't see that. We thought, you know what, they're going to be like us.

GLENN: Yeah.

AMY: If we just take out this horrible dictator and then we leave and put in democracy, it's going going to come together. And it didn't happen. So we project -- we forget how special we are, and we make mistakes by forgetting that other countries are not like us.

GLENN: And it seems in a sick, sort of twisted way, we understood this with the motivation behind the Sykes-Picot line and agreement in the Middle East. Where we drew these country lines, knowing that it would cause warring factions and the dictators would -- would be -- would be so busy trying to keep their own tribe together, that they wouldn't have time to look out.

We did know this at one point.

AMY: Well, you know what's so funny, the British were the masters of this, actually. Because the British, they -- I mean, morally, of course, that's another question. But how were they so successful in maintaining this empire, for centuries, with such a small number of people?

I mean, just a handful of British administrators in places like India and the Middle East, exactly what you said. They were masters -- they were so conscious of all these little group decisions. But they used it to divide. And you're right. You know, they were like, okay. How can we keep these people at bay? And they actually purposefully pitted groups against each other. We were not like that, after we went to the world stage, post World War III two.

We started (?) as like this magic formula. You know, that -- if we -- because democracy -- historically has worked so well for us. We went into Iraq thinking, oh, Sunni, Shia, Kurds, it's kind of a mess, but let's just have some elections. And that was so wrong-headed. Because what I've shown is under certain conditions, democracy can actually worsen. (?) not make it better.

GLENN: Sure. So I want to go to the part of the book where you talk about how the left isn't listening to the (?) and you -- you describe, especially for a professor. I'm just shocked that you're even allowed to teach.

But --

AMY: I get to go back.

GLENN: Yeah. But you described what happened with the Trump voter. And what's happening with the Trump voter. And try to explain that to a person on the left. And I've not heard anyone in the media do this. And do it effectively, as you did. And what we're supposed to learn from this. And how you describe the left to the right, when we come back.

The name of the book is Political Tribes. Amy chew ais with us.

Don't hold it against her that she's a Yale professor. She just said, I don't know how -- I don't know if they're going to let her back in. But it's a remarkable book.

GLENN: Amy chew a,she is an author of the book (?) political tribes. Group instinct. And the fate of nations.

In your book, you -- you talk about the left believes that the right-wing tribalism, bigotry, racism is tearing the nation apart. (?) identity politics. Political correctness is tearing the country apart.

And they're both right. Can you explain?

AMY: Right. So, you know, I'm the kind of person that believes that people are basically good. And so many things that go crazy and end up being awful and are now ripping us apart actually started with good intentions. (?), for example, let's start with the left. Progressives in the '60s and the '70s, a lot of their rhetoric was about equality. And it was very inclusive. It was about, let's include everybody. Let's tran end groups, so that we don't see skin color. What happened was right around in the '70s and the '80s, a lot of people (?) all these calls for let's not seek groups. Let's be equal and all this, are not actually helping us. And so you started seeing people as a minority -- they're like, look at these histories that we're telling about the United States. We're romanticizing our Founders. We're romanticizing the Constitution. We're romanticizing everything.

And, Glenn, I think there's some good to that. We should talk about the fact that our Founders, some of them held slaves. We do to have talk about our naturive populations. But what happened is they just started going way, way too far.

So now, if you fast forward to 2018, it's all the way to the other extreme. It's like, America is a land of oppression.

It's not even -- it's not like, look, we have this wonderful Constitution, with these incredibly important principles, which we have repeatedly failed to live up to, which I believe.

Instead, it's like this whole thing is a sham. The country is built on white supremacy.

GLENN: Yes.

AMY: And that is playing with poison. Because it's throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It goes back to what I was saying. It's attacking that precious American identity. Not saying we need to strive to make it better.

To make it reality. But just saying, you know what, let's just throw the whole thing out. And with identity politics, another thing that has happened is -- and, again, I understand where the left came from. They were like, you know, all this group stuff is just being used to block (?) it's just being used by the right to not make any changes. Well, fast forward, it's gone too far. Brav in 2018 now, on a college (?) campus where I teach, it's all about groups. If you try to be group transcending, you will immediately be called a racist. Because the idea is that you are trying to erase all the very individual examples of group oppression that we have. But the problem is that the groups are dividing, smaller and smaller. And even worse than that, the idea is like, you cannot understand me. You cannot speak for me.

And on top of that, the final thing that drives me craziest is the vocabulary policing.

So I feel like a lot of people -- you know, in the middle of the country, who are not on these Ivy League campuses, they are good-willed. They may be anxious about immigration. They may be anxious about our country changing.

You know, they may have certain views that I disagree with. But that doesn't mean that they're racist and xenophobic and homophobic and whatever. Does or (?) you're immediately branded all these things.

And what that does, is it drives. (?) a lot of horrible stuff on the right. And there you hear terrible things. You know, so -- and it's this vicious cycle.

So that's half of it.

GLENN: Okay. So now let's go -- when we come back, let's go to, how do we fix it? Because I -- Amy, you're one of the few people that I've talked to that I think fully understands the problem that we face, and you have a solution. Next.

STU: We're talking to Amy chew a. She's the author (?) group instinct and the fate of nations. You also might remember her from (?), you know, that only sold about 25 zillion copies a few years ago. So she joins us now.

Amy is with us.

GLENN: So, Amy, I have to tell you, I feel like -- you know, I'm a brother from another mother with you.

AMY: Yes.

GLENN: Because you're -- you're so spot-on, on what the problem is, I think, with the political tribes. And how we are -- how we are one half of the country (?) dismisses the other half. We dismiss -- you know, one half of the country dismisses all the good that America did. The other half sometimes dismisses all of the bad that America did. And we've just been pushed further and further apart.

So now, how do we come together, when we each think the other side is the problem?

AMY: So, there are these fascinating, but terrifying studies that I describe, that showed that a lot of this is actually biological. That human beings are tribal animals, that we would want --

GLENN: Sure.

AMY: And that's not always bad. Family is tribal, but positive.

GLENN: We had to -- to survive.

AMY: Exactly.

GLENN: Prehistoric man had to be.

AMY: Exactly. But there are some scary tests that show that our brains light up when we stick it to the other side.

So there's a lot of it. But here's the good news: I have all these studies that show that we can as human beings overcome this tribalism. And there are all these very, very robust studies that show, that if you can pull human beings out of their group context. Because we're worst with our buddies. You know

GLENN: Yeah.

AMY: And you pull two people from opposite sides. Opposite tribes. And have them interact as human beings. It is astounding how much progress can be made.

Now, this is not saying to (?) you put a bunch of different races and backgrounds, they could just hate each other more.

The point is, having them interact as human beings. And the best example of this is the integration of our military in the 1950s. That was a time when everybody said, no way. This is not going to work. Nineteen percent of America was against (?) troops. But they did it. And afterwards, they found that the integrated troops were as or more effective than the all-white troops. And when they interviewed and conducted all these studies, it was so inspiring.

I mean, this is not just black and white. This is at that time, Italian Americans (?) Swedish Americans and German Americans. But what they said is, you know what, if you throw us all into the foxhole, we miss our loved ones in the same way. We're terrified in the same way. And we have to trust our lives to this other person, we don't care what accent they have, or what color their skin is.

And that's a perfect example. Because norms really changed. And a lot of bad things happened in Vietnam. But one good thing is people start to see each other as human beings. So I have this one idea that a lot of people are excited about. It's going to sound silly. But like a public (?) a lot of children from one part of the country, where they're always with their own kind. Their own privileged (?) and maybe enforce -- you know, encourage, on are they have (?) and work side by side with other young Americans on a common project. Not in a condescending way. Like we're going to teach you. But rather, just some common infrastructure or some project together. So I think that we really have to think about this.

I think we have to change the way we teach our history. I think we've overcorrected. I mean, when you were saying bad and good. You know, we have to tell the truth. But we have to make people feel proud of being part of this country. And not forget what makes us so exceptional about it.

GLENN: But, you know, I have to tell you, Amy, my daughter challenged me once. She said, Dad, you only know the good stories about America. And I said, honey, you've gone to school. You only know the bad stuff.

And I said, I tell you what, you read the stuff, I'll read the bad stuff. And by really immersing myself in things like wounded knee and really, truly understanding it, I've actually come out more hopeful, that we can survive (?) anything, if we learn from it.

PAT: Yes. Yes. I could not agree with you more! (?) and I think we're criticizing the same thing. Because there's a lot of voices on the right and the left, it's almost like they want to maintain those tribes. So if I were to want to -- if you're somebody on the left and you wanted to go to Chick-fil-A or read something positive about George Washington, you're instantly branded by a lot of people preponderance and the same thing happens on the right. If somebody on the right wanted to do, you know what, I want to hear this person talk about Black Lives Matter. No, no, no. You can't. And I just think that it's -- because I -- I wrote this book because I actually looked at other countries that have actually fragmented and just broken up. And I think that America doesn't realize how precious what we have is. I see people on both sides saying, let's just get a divorce. Let's just break up the country. And I think they're playing with fire. And I understand that. Sometimes you just get so mad at the other side and what people are saying. And one extreme thing feels like a more (?) escalates in a place where people are so (?) at both sides.

GLENN: So, Amy, I think what stops us from listening to the other side, or sitting down -- and perhaps it's just saying that you're part of the problem if you do sit down, is both sides feel -- and I could speak for the -- for the right, I think on this one. Is it feels like, you know, we'll sit down and we'll tell you the truth. But, you know, the left isn't going to tell us the truth of what their real intent is. And I think there's a difference between the -- the average person in the country, and those who are leading these -- you know, these -- these groups.

AMY: Yes. I totally agree. I think it's actually a lot of very loud, shrill groups. Even on a campus, I can say, you'll hear these things that the rest of America will (?) these crazy things that are said. But when I talk to my students in a private setting, in a smaller group, I find that the majority of them, whether they're on the right or the left, are actually very -- very reasonable reasonable. (?), but it's a very small number of people. Almost like bullying. You know, and -- but I think that, for example, just -- like what you just said about -- you're a very influential person. So if you just said, you know, I read this book about Wounded Knee, or something. Try it.

You know, that's not a strident thing. It's not taking sides. And I think if even just a few people start doing that -- and, yes, I think the left is very problematic this way. You know, if somebody -- look, maybe George Washington was a slaveholder. But that's not all he was.

You know, it was an amazing story. There was (?) so much heroickism. And that's like a no-no no. (?) that's partly why I wrote this book. So Amy, I have to tell you, I think I was in Denver. Were you with me institutions

STU: I think I was, yeah.

GLENN: I was in Denver. I had just flown in. (?) and it was a guy who was driving the car. And he was a -- a professor. And he was a professor of Native American studies. And something else. I can't remember what it was. But everything -- everything in me went, he hates your guts, Glenn.

And I -- you know, I -- I would -- you know, I was supposed to hate him, I think. But I started talking to him. And he was taking me to a broadcast station. And I could tell that he didn't really like me.

And so we just started having a conversation. And I found out that he was from Wounded Knee, that he had done a lot of studies on Wounded Knee. So we had this great conversation. He dropped me off at the station. I said, wait. Wait here. When I'm done, I want to show you something.

In the back of the car, he didn't know this. But I had one of the seven Native American guns from wounded knee that had been collected.

AMY: Wow.

GLENN: And I told him when wedding back in the car, I said, I want to tell you something. I said, I don't know if you know who I am. He said, oh, I do.

And I said -- I said, let me tell you what I found out about Wounded Knee. And I said, (?) when I arrived, I want you to open up the back. I have something to show you. And I pulled out the gun. I handed it to him. And he actually wept. He cried.

AMY: Wow.

GLENN: And we hugged each other. And we had a great conversation. And we ended up liking each other, a lot. That doesn't mean we agree on everything. We just --

AMY: Exactly.

GLENN: We saw each other -- I stopped seeing him as a -- as a professor. And he stopped seeing me as a guy who talks politics. And we saw each other each as people.

AMY: I love that -- that's what I was saying. (?) I have conservative students. Believe it or not, they take my classes. And I have a lot of minority students. Because I'm a minority. And I try to do the same thing. I facilitate it. But I say that -- you know, I think we all need to elevate ourselves on both sides of the spectrum and be more generous. Because sometimes it's almost like -- and, again, I get it. It's almost like a game of gotcha. It's very pleasurable just to hate the other side too. You think of sports, you know. I like my story.

Your story reminds me of the one that I tell, that's the same thing. I have this very poor Mexican (?) grew up in a trailer park. And he tells a similarly moving story about the people in the next trailer over who were so kind. To his family. And they were, you know, very strong Trump supporters. The other people would have called white supremacists. But what (?) even though the words they used, to all my progressive friends sound horrible, the things that they said, at the level of just human beings, they were the ones that protected us. They were the ones that said, we're going to be here for you. So I love that story.

GLENN: So we are sitting in a place -- Amy, I'm going to run out of time.

We are sitting at a place now, to where you just said, I think, the language that they might use, we almost speak a different language. I don't know if you're familiar with Jonathan Haidt.

AMY: Yes. I completely agree with him.

GLENN: But we speak a different language. And I've learned this by going to all kinds of different churches and synagogues and mosques and listening. And I'm amazed that we agree, I think, on 95 percent of the stuff. But we think we're farther away from each other because of the language that each religion happens to use. And we don't understand it. Coming in, we're like, okay. That's weird.

No, it's exactly what you're saying, just said in a different way.

AMY: Exactly. And here again, I think that the left and the right have to -- they both have to improve. I have been quite harsh about the left just all this vocabulary policing.

GLENN: Yes.

AMY: The vocabulary changes all the time. If you slip up a little bit, then suddenly, ah, we caught you. You're racist.

And that's not going to help anybody. But I think what that does is it makes some people on the right go too far on the other direction. They go, you know what, (?) we're going to say this. Then it makes them purposefully say incendiary things that do sound artificial. (?) more generous towards -- I always say, just try to think about what they're -- what the person is really trying to say. Instead of fixating on the exact word. You know, where are they coming from? Are they coming from a good place? Because I see so many people coming from a good place, who suddenly get torn down because they get the wrong -- they use the wrong word. And, again, I think that's bullying.

GLENN: Amy chew a,it is a thrill to talk to you. (?) political tribes. Group instinct and the fate of nations.

She has not only diagnosed the problem, but she points to the cure. Amy, thanks so much.

AMY: Thank you so much for having me.

GLENN: You bet. Can't believe she's a professor at Yale. How did she get on campus?

If they find out -- let's keep this interview to ourselves, if they find out, she's gone.

WATCH: Biden SAYS What the Media Falsely ACCUSED Trump Of
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.

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

3 Signs that Anti-Jewish ATROCITIES are Becoming Mainstream
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.

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