MSM Got the Memo: New Word of the Day Is 'Contemporaneous'

If there's one thing you can count on, it's the media thinking independently. Not.

Following the revelation that Comey documented a meeting with the president, their coverage had a rather obvious similarity: using the same word on different networks and different shows with different people. Looks like they got the memo.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: Yesterday, the media found a new word.

VOICE: Mr. Woolsey told several people contemporaneous, and I've spoken with them --

VOICE: There are contemporaneous notes that were backed up.

VOICE: There was other contemporaneous notes.

VOICE: Talking about contemporaneous issues.

VOICE: If the FBI is still doing, one, contemporaneous with anything they're doing. But I don't think we can --

VOICE: Have a discussion, contemporaneous.

VOICE: They're going to have a hard time proving it, because they didn't catch him contemporaneous.

VOICE: Having these type of contemporaneous memos.

VOICE: And we have Director Comey's contemporaneous notes. They're called 302s. They're contemporaneous memos.

VOICE: Bob Muller kept his contemporaneous notes.

VOICE: Contemporaneous notes of those conversations.

VOICE: What do Comey's contemporaneous memos say?

VOICE: Which is a nod, again, to how powerful contemporaneous.

VOICE: Those notes, the contemporaneous notes --

VOICE: They were contemporaneous at the time.

VOICE: One reason why lawyers take contemporary notes is --

GLENN: Contemporary.

VOICE: Rely on a contemporaneous.

VOICE: As close to a contemporaneous way.

VOICE: Where he has made contemporaneous memos.

VOICE: How contemporaneous is --

VOICE: Kind of contemporaneous at the time.

VOICE: The FBI director kept contained -- contemporaneous, sorry. It's hard to say that word.

PAT: Especially when I've never seen it before.

GLENN: Yeah. But that one made me feel better. That one made me feel better.

So they found this new word yesterday, and they found it for a very important reason. And we need to start with the definition of contemporaneous and why they're using that word, helping you understand your world a little bit more, when we come back.

[break]

VOICE: Mr. Woolsey told several people contemporaneous, and I've spoken with them.

VOICE: There are contemporaneous notes that would back up?

VOICE: There was other contemporaneous notes?

VOICE: We're just talking about contemporaneous issues.

VOICE: If the FBI is still doing, one, contemporaneous with anything they're doing. But I don't think we can afford --

VOICE: Not have a discussion, contemporaneous.

VOICE: They're going to have a hard time proving it, because they didn't catch him contemporaneous.

VOICE: Having these type of contemporaneous memos.

VOICE: And we have Director Comey's contemporaneous notes. They're called 302s. They're contemporaneous memos.

VOICE: Bob Muller kept his contemporaneous notes.

VOICE: Contemporaneous notes of those conversations.

VOICE: What do Comey's contemporaneous memos say?

VOICE: Which is a nod, again, to how powerful contemporaneous --

VOICE: Those notes, the contemporaneous notes --

VOICE: They were contemporaneous at the time.

VOICE: One reason why lawyers take contemporary notes.

(laughter)

VOICE: Rely on a contemporaneous.

VOICE: As close to a contemporaneous way.

VOICE: Where he has made contemporaneous memos.

VOICE: How contemporaneous is --

VOICE: Were kind of contemporaneous at the time.

VOICE: The FBI director kept contained -- contain -- contain -- contemporaneous. Sorry. God, it's hard to say that word. Contemporaneous.

STU: It is.

PAT: When you've never seen it, you don't know what it means.

GLENN: All right. So Merriam-Webster defines contemporaneous, existing, occurring, or beginning during the same time.

So a political event and cultural event that are happening at the same time. In this particular case, the -- the notes that are contrary, because the notes were taken at the same time as the meeting.

So there's a difference between notes that you go and you write, you know, a week or two later, as opposed to the notes that you take at the time.

Now, when I met with President Bush, I know that I could not take a pencil or paper, a telephone, anything in. No recording device.

However, I could record my reflections of feelings. That's what it was explained to me. And so I know that when you're with the president, if he's having an off the record talk with you, the rules are, you don't write anything down.

And so the minute -- you try to remember -- it's the most important meeting of your life. You try to remember everything that is being said to you. And the minute you get out of that meeting -- I mean, I remember -- I don't remember who was with me. Stu, I don't know if you were with me.

STU: No.

GLENN: But I had somebody standing outside of the gates of the White House with a pad and a pencil and a phone. And I, you know, vomited into the phone as much as I could. As much as I could remember. And then I started writing it all down so I could remember. That's what James Comey did. He left the meeting and he immediately wrote down what happened in the meeting.

Now, this is not something that James Comey just did for this meeting. He is known in the FBI as being very, very buttoned.

PAT: Also, very contemporaneous.

STU: Very, very contemporaneous.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: See, that comment is happening contemporaneous with this subject.

PAT: It is. It is.

GLENN: Thank you.

PAT: I was speaking contemporaneously.

GLENN: Yes, you were.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: And you were exhibiting contemporaneousness, if you will.

STU: Oh, yeah.

PAT: And I will. And I will.

GLENN: Anyway, so what he did was, whenever he was involved in a serious exchange for case or anything like that, he is known as taking copious, contemporaneous notes. I'm going to let you figure out copious yourself if you don't know. But he would take copious notes, as soon as he would leave meetings. And then he would file them away.

So we don't know if these notes are real. But it is definitely a shot back to the White House, saying, oh, really? You got tapes? Good. Because I've got contemporaneous notes.

And so whichever one is playing chicken here is making the other one sweat.

STU: Yeah, and they keep pointing that out, specifically, because like think of the alternate situation here. James Comey comes to testify, after he's been fired. And says, "Well, you know what, Trump told me in that meeting that he wanted me to back off the Flynn thing." I felt comfortable.

Well, that means nothing after he's been fired, right? I mean, if he's saying that now, everyone is going to say, "Well, look, he's just saying that now."

PAT: But if he supposedly wrote that down at the time --

STU: And it's filed at the time. So it's not even supposedly. It was filed in a way -- it was marked and it was known that it was the time it was filed, it's going to be a lot more powerful and credible. While he was still working for them. Where they were having meetings before and after this. Supposedly, he did this with every personal meeting he had with Trump.

PAT: Would you also record it, if you're going to do that, to have proof?

GLENN: No, you can't. You're asked --

PAT: Probably can't record your conversations with the president, yeah --

JEFFY: Well, you better hope there's no tapes.

GLENN: You're told --

STU: And their response to that comment from Trump was, oh, I hope there are.

You know, his side is saying, "Yes, please, bring on the tapes. If they exist, please bring them on."

And the rumor is, at least the speculation is that this -- this was leaked to the media so that the -- Congress would subpoena these things.

GLENN: Well, Jason Chaffetz has already said turn them over, or I will subpoena them.

STU: Yep.

GLENN: And they should be subpoenaed. The White House record should be subpoenaed. We should know all of these things. And we should be as transparent. And the media should shut their pie hole and let the system work. There's a clear way to make this work. There was a clear way to make the IRS investigation work, but we didn't follow it. And what happened?

STU: Uh-huh. Nothing.

GLENN: Nothing.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: So let's follow the rule of law. And, you know, what is it, 70 percent of the American people now say appoint a special prosecutor? Look, I want a neutral special prosecutor. I don't want a guy who is hell-bent on destroying the president or anything else. I want somebody who is just going to look at the facts of this. And they don't have a horse in this race.

Please, for the good of the nation, we need to know, is the president a liar? Did the president -- is the president reckless with classified information?

If those things are true, we need to know it. And I mean -- when I say a liar, we know that -- I mean, we've seen this record. But when it comes down to the United States of America, are you lying to us, dude?

I mean, this is not about, you know -- this is not about your personal life or anything else. This isn't even about you.

And that's what's so sad about this is I think the president keeps thinking all of this is about him. And I do believe with the press, it is about him.

STU: Yeah, they -- I mean, they don't care. Many of them, at least don't care about what the truth here --

GLENN: Right.

STU: Many of them -- but, again, Jonah Goldberg brought this up, and I think said it correctly is that, you -- yes, of course, they want to take him down. There's no disagreement. You talked about this with Bill O'Reilly last week too. He's like, but, Beck, I can't believe you don't get that when they want to take you out. Well, of course, you get that. You absolutely get the media wants to take Trump out at all costs and will do whatever they have to do to do that.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: However, if there is something legitimately to be criticized, you have to have the principle and spine to do it.

PAT: Now, you're speaking uranusly, right?

STU: Uranusly, yes.

PAT: Or contemporarily.

STU: Contemporaneously.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Uranusly means you're speaking out of your butt.

STU: Yes. That's a good point.

GLENN: You're speaking uranusly, you're speaking out of your butt. And that happens a lot on this program.

STU: Absolutely.

PAT: No, that's the Webster's dictionary definition.

GLENN: That's Merriam. That's Merriam. The wife of, I don't know, Bill Webster or whatever. Merriam, she's got her own dictionary.

STU: Sure, these are all facts.

PAT: The whole family had dictionaries. It's really kind of weird.

GLENN: There was Bill and the other Webster, famous one. And then Merriam, who was a sweetheart of a gal.

PAT: Right.

STU: And we should point out, and we have several times today -- again, think of the chain that this has come down here. This is a Comey ally who didn't give the memo to the New York Times, who read over the phone a memo to the New York Times.

The New York Times took notes over what he read. Did they read the entire thing? Did they read only the parts that they liked? Were there other parts of the memo that made Trump look really good?

We don't know any of that. That information went to the New York Times reporter. Do we blindly believe everything the New York Times says? Absolutely not.

Did the New York Times print the entire memo? No. We haven't seen it yet. The reporter hasn't even seen it yet. Nobody outside of the FBI has actually seen this thing yet. The other side of it is, this is not going to be the only memo. If it does exist, which you can't believe they just -- but it's possible, right? It's a Comey ally. It's not impossible they just made it. We saw that with the Rather situation, that someone who was going up against George W. Bush literally made something up. It's not impossible.

But if it does exist, it's not going to be the only one. Comey was well-known for this practice. He was well-known for creating paper trails when he believed something was going wrong, when he was made uncomfortable. He was a guy who documented what happened with his interactions with this president.

GLENN: Quite honestly, it's not the way we meant it, but it's turning out to be the same thing: Don't screw with the justice and intelligence agencies. Don't piss them off. They will find out what you're doing, and they will destroy you with it.

In light of the national conversation surrounding the rights of free speech, religion and self-defense, Mercury One is thrilled to announce a brand new initiative launching this Father's Day weekend: a three-day museum exhibition in Dallas, Texas focused on the rights and responsibilities of American citizens.

This event seeks to answer three fundamental questions:

  1. As Americans, what responsibility do we shoulder when it comes to defending our rights?
  2. Do we as a nation still agree on the core principles and values laid out by our founding fathers?
  3. How can we move forward amidst uncertainty surrounding the intent of our founding ideals?

Attendees will be able to view historical artifacts and documents that reveal what has made America unique and the most innovative nation on earth. Here's a hint: it all goes back to the core principles and values this nation was founded on as laid out in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.

Exhibits will show what the world was like before mankind had rights and how Americans realized there was a better way to govern. Throughout the weekend, Glenn Beck, David Barton, Stu Burguiere, Doc Thompson, Jeffy Fisher and Brad Staggs will lead private tours through the museum, each providing their own unique perspectives on our rights and responsibilities.

Schedule a private tour or purchase general admission ticket below:

Dates:
June 15-17

Location:

Mercury Studios

6301 Riverside Drive, Irving, TX 75039

Learn more about the event here.

About Mercury One: Mercury One is a 501(c)(3) charity founded in 2011 by Glenn Beck. Mercury One was built to inspire the world in the same way the United States space program shaped America's national destiny and the world. The organization seeks to restore the human spirit by helping individuals and communities help themselves through honor, faith, courage, hope and love. In the words of Glenn Beck:

We don't stand between government aid and people in need. We stand with people in need so they no longer need the government

Some of Mercury One's core initiatives include assisting our nation's veterans, providing aid to those in crisis and restoring the lives of Christians and other persecuted religious minorities. When evil prevails, the best way to overcome it is for regular people to do good. Mercury One is committed to helping sustain the good actions of regular people who want to make a difference through humanitarian aid and education initiatives. Mercury One will stand, speak and act when no one else will.

Support Mercury One's mission to restore the human spirit by making an online donation or calling 972-499-4747. Together, we can make a difference.

What happened?

A New York judge ruled Tuesday that a 30-year-old still living in his parents' home must move out, CNN reported.

Failure to launch …

Michael Rotondo, who had been living in a room in his parents' house for eight years, claims that he is owed a six-month notice even though they gave him five notices about moving out and offered to help him find a place and to help pay for repairs on his car.

RELATED: It's sad 'free-range parenting' has to be legislated, it used to be common sense

“I think the notice is sufficient," New York State Supreme Court Judge Donald Greenwood said.

What did the son say?

Rotondo “has never been expected to contribute to household expenses, or assisted with chores and the maintenance of the premises, and claims that this is simply a component of his living agreement," he claimed in court filings.

He told reporters that he plans to appeal the “ridiculous" ruling.

Reform Conservatism and Reaganomics: A middle road?

SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images

Senator Marco Rubio broke Republican ranks recently when he criticized the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act by stating that “there's no evidence whatsoever that the money's been massively poured back into the American worker." Rubio is wrong on this point, as millions of workers have received major raises, while the corporate tax cuts have led to a spike in capital expenditure (investment on new projects) of 39 percent. However, the Florida senator is revisiting an idea that was front and center in the conservative movement before Donald Trump rode down an escalator in June of 2015: reform conservatism.

RELATED: The problem with asking what has conservatism conserved

The "reformicons," like Rubio, supported moving away from conservative or supply-side orthodoxy and toward policies such as the expansion of the child and earned income tax credits. On the other hand, longstanding conservative economic theory indicates that corporate tax cuts, by lowering disincentives on investment, will lead to long-run economic growth that will end up being much more beneficial to the middle class than tax credits.

But asking people to choose between free market economic orthodoxy and policies guided towards addressing inequality and the concerns of the middle class is a false dichotomy.

Instead of advocating policies that many conservatives might dismiss as redistributionist, reformicons should look at the ways government action hinders economic opportunity and exacerbates income inequality. Changing policies that worsen inequality satisfies limited government conservatives' desire for free markets and reformicons' quest for a more egalitarian America. Furthermore, pushing for market policies that reduce the unequal distribution of wealth would help attract left-leaning people and millennials to small government principles.

Criminal justice reform is an area that reformicons and free marketers should come together around. The drug war has been a disaster, and the burden of this misguided government approach have fallen on impoverished minority communities disproportionately, in the form of mass incarceration and lower social mobility. Not only has the drug war been terrible for these communities, it's proved costly to the taxpayer––well over a trillion dollars has gone into the drug war since its inception, and $80 billion dollars a year goes into mass incarceration.

Prioritizing retraining and rehabilitation instead of overcriminalization would help address inequality, fitting reformicons' goals, and promote a better-trained workforce and lower government spending, appealing to basic conservative preferences.

Government regulations tend to disproportionately hurt small businesses and new or would-be entrepreneurs. In no area is this more egregious than occupational licensing––the practice of requiring a government-issued license to perform a job. The percentage of jobs that require licenses has risen from five percent to 30 percent since 1950. Ostensibly justified by public health concerns, occupational licensing laws have, broadly, been shown to neither promote public health nor improve the quality of service. Instead, they serve to provide a 15 percent wage boost to licensed barbers and florists, while, thanks to the hundreds of hours and expensive fees required to attain the licenses, suppressing low-income entrepreneurship, and costing the economy $200 billion dollars annually.

Those economic losses tend to primarily hurt low-income people who both can't start businesses and have to pay more for essential services. Rolling back occupational licenses will satisfy the business wing's desire for deregulation and a more free market and the reformicons' support for addressing income inequality and increasing opportunity.

The favoritism at play in the complex tax code perpetuates inequality.

Tax expenditures form another opportunity for common ground between the Rubio types and the mainstream. Tax deductions and exclusions, both on the individual and corporate sides of the tax code, remain in place after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Itemized deductions on the individual side disproportionately benefit the wealthy, while corporate tax expenditures help well-connected corporations and sectors, such as the fossil fuel industry.

The favoritism at play in the complex tax code perpetuates inequality. Additionally, a more complicated tax code is less conducive to economic growth than one with lower tax rates and fewer exemptions. Therefore, a simpler tax code with fewer deductions and exclusions would not only create a more level playing field, as the reformicons desire, but also additional economic growth.

A forward-thinking economic program for the Republican Party should marry the best ideas put forward by both supply-siders and reform conservatives. It's possible to take the issues of income inequality and lack of social mobility seriously, while also keeping mainstay conservative economic ideas about the importance of less cumbersome regulations and lower taxes.

Alex Muresianu is a Young Voices Advocate studying economics at Tufts University. He is a contributor for Lone Conservative, and his writing has appeared in Townhall and The Daily Caller. He can be found on Twitter @ahardtospell.

Is this what inclusivity and tolerance look like? Fox News host Tomi Lahren was at a weekend brunch with her mom in Minnesota when other patrons started yelling obscenities and harassing her. After a confrontation, someone threw a drink at her, the moment captured on video for social media.

RELATED: Glenn Addresses Tomi Lahren's Pro-Choice Stance on 'The View'

On today's show, Pat and Jeffy talked about this uncomfortable moment and why it shows that supposedly “tolerant" liberals have to resort to physical violence in response to ideas they don't like.