Ben Shapiro Officially Dubs the Trump vs. CNN GIF War 'Clowntastic'

Ben Shapiro is an author, journalist, and Editor in Chief of the Daily Wire, but his specialty is getting under the skin of liberals. The conservative powerhouse joined Glenn on radio Thursday and the two couldn't help but notice the blatant hypocrisy from both sides in the story of Trump's retweet of a video clip of him beating up a guy for a WWE stunt with the CNN logo superimposed on the victims face.

"If Barack Obama would have retweeted something that had an old clip of him beating the snot out of somebody and it superimposed a teabag over a guy's head, we would have gone ape crazy. We would have become animals and gone nuts. Right?" Glenn asked.

As always, Shapiro put the nail right on the head.

"For sure... Because we don't care about how we're acting anymore. All we care about is the reactionary nature of politics right now. It's why President Trump has like a 90 percent approval rating among Republicans and a 10 percent approval rating among Democrats. And the same thing by the end of the Obama term, was basically true. We're so polarized that we're using the polarization as an excuse for bad behavior," Shapiro said.

According to Shapiro, this behavior by the right is disappointing for an interesting reason.

"And, listen, I've spent my entire life -- my entire adult life fighting the left, and I was not expecting moral leadership from the left. I've never expected moral leadership from the left. Because they don't believe in the same values that I believe in. But I did expect moral leadership from the right. And I don't really see how moral leadership is advanced by tweeting out, you know, GIFs of WWE wrestling CNN logos. I mean, this was once an office occupied by George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. It's a little bit clowntastic to watch the president," Shapiro said.

Enjoy the complimentary clip or read the transcript for details.

GLENN: Ben Shapiro. Good to have you on the program.

BEN: It an honor, of course.

GLENN: Good to have you here.

So I just want to run down just a few of the things that are going on in the world and just get your take on where we are, what we're headed towards.

First of all, quickly, let's touch on the topic that we've been on all day. Charlie Gard, the little 11-month-old child whose parents have the money to take him to America to get the treatment. The courts and the national health care system in Great Britain says no. He's got to die in a British hospital. Literally, he's got to die in a British hospital. Slate magazine just said that the right is going to use this as a case for death panels and against socialized medicine. Yeah.


Where do you stand on this?

BEN: I mean, it seems like a pretty solid case against death panels and socialized medicine. I don't see why we wouldn't possibly use that as a cutchall (phonetic). But, yeah, I mean, I think that -- my wife is a doctor. She's in residency, and she works in a hospital. And she deals with, you know, terminal people all the time.

And doctors will say that it's -- that -- they'll give -- they'll lay out all the choices for people who are terminal and they say, maybe you'd prefer not to be poked and prodded every five hours. Maybe you want to die at home. But this is all about the choice of the patient.

And here, in Charlie Gard's case, obviously, it's not the choice of the patient. It's not about the choice of the parents. When a government and a society decide that the quantity of life is less important than quality of life, you end up in a really dire situation. Because the goal of government at least should be to preserve quantity of life. It's your job to decide what sort of quality of life you want to enjoy. And we all have our different moral standards on that. But once the government decides that it gets to decide what quality of life is worth living, then you run into serious --

GLENN: You're in trouble. So I had my staff reach out to leaders of churches and faith over in England yesterday.

BEN: Uh-huh.

GLENN: And I got several responses. One of them was from a pastor who said, look, the churches and the pulpits, they are not dealing with this. They are not talking about it at all.

However, the Christians in England are talking about it. It's interesting that he -- he hoisted the white flags and said, the pulpits, including mine, have surrendered on this. But the people are talking about it.

BEN: Yeah.

GLENN: So there's a huge disconnect there. But he said, please tell Glenn that this is not a case of the government just taking away the rights of a child -- or, rights of parents. It is -- it is more so that the government has paid for this child's health care. And he said now that they have the money to take him to America, I see no reason he can't go to America. However, there isn't enough money to work on cases like that here in England.

So he was making the case that if you don't have money, that it would be right and righteous to say, let him die.

If you are in a socialized health care system and you don't have the money, is it wrong? What do you do?

BEN: Well, I mean, this is why socialized health care systems don't work. I mean, eventually someone is making the final call. It's not as if these parents were born into wealth. I mean, they raised this money from a bunch of charitable people so that they could take their kid out and try and save the kid.

As far as the issue with the pulpits, I mean, this is something that happens in the United States also. I think one of the great tragedies of the latter half of the 20th century is that pulpit figures across-the-board in Judaism, in Christianity, have fled from crucial moral battles that are happening in the now, in order to keep on the good side of government because they're afraid that the government is going to come against them. And so they've run from these moral battles. And you see it all the time. And it's really devastating. It sucks the marrow from the bones of religion.

GLENN: So then let's go to another moral question, of much less importance.

The CNN battle with the WWF video. Okay? I don't -- I'm having a really hard time with this because I don't see a good guy on either side.

BEN: Uh-huh.

GLENN: I see the president doing something that if Barack Obama would have had -- if he just would have retweeted -- not saying that Donald Trump did anything, but retweet it. If Barack Obama would have retweeted something that had an old clip of him beating the snot out of somebody and it superimposed a teabag over a guy's head, we would have gone ape crazy. We would have become animals and gone nuts.

BEN: Oh, yeah.

GLENN: Right?

BEN: For sure.

GLENN: So why don't we see now that we would have reacted the same way that the left is reacting to this and -- and forget about how others are acting, worry about how we're acting?

BEN: Because we don't care about how we're acting anymore. All we care about is the reactionary nature of politics right now. It's why President Trump has like a 90 percent approval rating among Republicans and a 10 percent approval rating among Democrats. And the same thing by the end of the Obama term, was basically true. We're so polarized that we're using the polarization as an excuse for bad behavior.

And, listen, I've spent my entire life -- my entire adult life fighting the left, and I was not expecting moral leadership from the left. I've never expected moral leadership from the left. Because they don't believe in the same values that I believe in. But I did expect moral leadership from the right. And I don't really see how moral leadership is advanced by tweeting out, you know, gifs of WWE wrestling CNN logos. I mean, this was once an office occupied by George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. It's a little bit clowntastic to watch the president --

GLENN: Clowntastic. So have we just surrendered to clowntasmia --

BEN: Yeah, I think the Republican Party is broken down into -- and the conservative movement has broken down into maybe three groups: Group number one are people who say this is ridiculous and silly and there's no way he should be doing this. Group two is, this is ridiculous and silly, but at least we got Gorsuch. And then group three are the people -- and this is the growing group -- this is the one that I actually worried the most about is people who actively celebrate this, where this is a feature, not a bug. It's not, well, you're going to get the stupid tweet from time to time. But at least you get Scott Pruitt over at EPA, paring back the regulations. It's the people who say, I don't really care what Scott Pruitt is doing so much. Like, I don't pay attention to that. And Gorsuch, yay. But what I'm really interested -- what really gets you jazzed up is the tweets about Mika Brzezinski's bloody face lift or Trump tackling a CNN logo. Like, that's really what gets me going.

GLENN: Well, it's amazing because we used to say, when I was at Fox, watch the other hand. And the other hand -- well, A, I don't think they're coordinated. I think both hands are just flailing, doing whatever they want. But you could make the case that they're very strategic because as we are -- we're not talking about a health care reform that is absolutely awful. It's not -- it's not any better.

BEN: Well, I'm always hesitant to credit strategy to President Trump when sheer unbridled id would do it. You know, I think this wasn't, he thought, you know what, I really need a distraction for my health reform bill. So I'm going to tweet out a dumb gif. I think it was, somebody forwarded me a dumb gif. Ha-ha-ha-ha. Wouldn't it be hilarious if I put it up on my Twitter feed? And it really was that amount of consideration.

GLENN: Right. Right. Right.

BEN: So in order for it to be a diversion, a diversion usually requires something for you to divert attention from. I don't think he's diverting attention necessarily from the health care bill because that's a giant -- like, right now, it's a cluster.

GLENN: But what kills me is that there are a lot of people that are willing -- very smart people that are willing to say -- and help me understand it, Ben.

BEN: Uh-huh.

GLENN: That are willing to say, this is okay. The health care bill. Let's just say everything else is sane. But this is -- the people I trust now are not Mike Lee. They are what's-his-face? Turtle face from Kentucky.

BEN: McConnell.

GLENN: Okay. McConnell. They're trusting McConnell over people like Mike Lee. Help me figure that out.

BEN: Yeah. So, not to break too many groups down to other groups. But I think there are two groups of people here: One is the people who just want to see a win for Trump. And that means something has to pass. And since we're not going to pass simple repeal because Trump basically foreclosed that -- I mean, he forbade that during the campaign. He made a bunch of promises that are not in coordination with simple repeal. And he said, we're not going to let anybody go without health care. The government is going to make sure everybody is covered. I mean, he said this stuff in the campaign.

GLENN: Yeah.

BEN: So it's kind of difficult to say then now we're going to repeal and we're going to cut back Medicaid. So there's group number one that just wants to see Trump get a win. And then there's group number two who say, okay. Now we're going to be honest. We were lying for seven years. Republicans were lying for seven years when they said they were going to repeal this thing. Now we got to be honest. We're not repealing it. But the best that we can do is Medicaid restructuring and a tax cut. And that's the best we'll do here. And we'll call it Obamacare repeal so that all the idiots --

GLENN: Do you believe -- is there a group -- a growing group of conservatives that believe in socialized everything?

BEN: Yeah. I think there's a growing group of conservatives who at least don't care, who are apathetic. Who are more interested again in the fight in what they perceive to be the left than they are the fight against leftist policy. There's been a mistake that's been made, which is you identify the entirety of leftism as residing in the halls of CNN or the New York Times or at the universities. But when leftism actually starts to infect your party, then it can't be infecting your party because, hey, we're Republicans. We're conservatives. We don't believe in the -- we're not leftists. I mean, come on. We hate those guys.

And it doesn't matter -- this is why Steve Bannon, the White House chief strategist, he was out there floating trial balloons about raising taxes on the rich. And there were a bunch of people going, well, yeah, why not do that?

What? I've been here for a while. This is a new one. But people saying, well, I mean, if that's good policy and if that will help us win Democratic voters and all the rest of it, then why not do it?

Again, I think that what people -- the stuff that you and I were looking at during the campaign, we were saying, this is really -- like, some of the activity that Trump was pushing or things like Gianforte, the Montana body-slamming reporter. Things where you and I were going, this is crazy. How is this happening? There were a lot of people who were seeing that not as -- in spite of that, we're happy because we're getting good policy. The policy doesn't actually matter. All that matters is that we have for so long hated losing to the left, that people literally body-slamming reporters or just going out there labeling everything fake news, all of this stuff is -- that's what we wanted. We elected that. Right? What we wanted was the Twitter.

Okay. The Twitter is not an obstacle to getting what we want. The Twitter is what we want. The policy is the obstacle to getting what we ant because we might not get more Twitter if he doesn't get policy passed that allows him to get reelection. And I think we have to be honest with ourselves about whether we're more jazzed up about the wrestling gif or whether we're more jazzed about Gorsuch. Because I think that --

GLENN: We're more jazzed up about the wrestling --

BEN: I think that's right. And I think Trump thinks that's right too, which is why he keeps doing it. Right? He gets more applause doing that than he does with conservative policy.

GLENN: Right. Back with Ben Shapiro here in a second.

GLENN: Good friend of the program. Good friend and also a good friend to the Constitution, deeply rooted in -- in logical thought, which is rare, Ben Shapiro from The Daily Wire is with us.

STU: And a lot smarter than us, so let me ask a question. The CNN thing, their reaction to the wrestling situation, which was them saying, well, we won't release a name. But, you know, if you act badly, we might.

BEN: Yeah.

GLENN: I don't even understand that.

STU: It was a weird way of phrasing it. And I'm not defending CNN and the way they handled it. It was very clunky at best.

I was a little surprised at the uniform reaction on the right though, at least the passionate response from the right saying -- sort of giving this real reverence to an online pseudonym, as if this really means you're anonymous. You could try to be anonymous, but that does not guarantee your anonymity.

You know, who are you mad at? You're mad at CNN here, who is essentially, let's say in the school situation, the principal punishing your kid for doing something wrong, right? They're punishing your kid for doing something wrong. I always see the right as the people who are mad at their kid, not at the school. The left is the one that goes and whines about the school. Hey, why did you get my kid in trouble? You're causing real detriment. Where, the right is the one supposed to be saying, wait a minute, moronic kid, don't post anti-Semitic stuff. Don't post stuff online you don't want to associate with yourself. What am I missing?

BEN: Well, I don't think you're missing anything with the basic calculus as far as the right is supposed to be chiding people when they do this sort of stuff. Although, during the last election cycle, as the number one recipient of anti-Semitic tweets in the journalistic community, according to the ADL.

STU: Yes, 40 percent.

BEN: Forty percent of all anti-Semitic tweets directed at journalists came to me personally during the last election.

GLENN: Congratulations.

STU: Congratulations.

BEN: Thank you. That's great. I have a trophy on my desk: Most hated Jew in America, which is a real accomplishment. Yeah, it's great.

But the -- you know, I think that this story is a little bit more than for that for a couple of reasons. One is that the attempt to link Trump with the guy who created the meme and then to link him with all the other stuff that this guy had ever created was obviously a stretch.

STU: And unfair.

BEN: And unfair to Trump. And obviously a hit job on Trump. So that was CNN going over its skis on that.

Okay. So assume that and say, okay. Fine. Well, they disagree. They think that Trump associating with the Reddit crowd, he gets -- whoever he's linked to, we're now going to search for all their ancillary material and link him to that. Which, again, I have a problem with that. That's mistake number one. Mistake number two is that apparently they got the wrong guy. So apparently they didn't even get the right guy.

GLENN: Yeah.

BEN: And then mistake number three is that they apparently called him. And before he returned their call, he said, okay. CNN is on my tail. I'm going to apologize and pull all the stuff down before I call that. He does that. He calls them back. And then they run that story where they say, and we'll keep him anonymous if he obeys our orders. Okay. That's no longer journalism. That's now activism. So if you're an activist group, that's okay. Right? It's still not moral.

GLENN: What do you think of the idea that Stu floated yesterday, that's really the Buzzfeed crew that kind of came in that was pushing back against CNN, because they are more activist. Don't get me wrong, I worked at CNN. They are activist as well, but not like the Buzzfeed people.

BEN: Uh-huh. I do think that the media have become just generally more activist since Trump was elected.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

BEN: They now see it as their -- I wrote a column for National Review where I said the dichotomy right now in the American discourse is that the left sees themselves and the media see themselves as these battered-hat, trench coat-wearing guys who are snooping on the streets, and every nook and cranny for all the corruption over at Trumpany Hall. And then the right sees Trump as a sort of Playboy billionaire Bruce Wayne type, who is an idiot during the day, but then at night, he dons the bat cape and goes out and brings justice to Mika Brzezinski's face. So I'm not sure it's a bridge that can ever be gapped -- a gap that can ever be bridged. But as far as CNN's behavior on this, I think I reacted very strongly to this because CNN is not the gatekeeper of telling people what they can do or we're going to release X. It's either newsworthy and release it, or it's not newsworthy and let it go. You don't get to hold things over people's heads.

GLENN: So here's the thing I don't understand. I mean, today I saw this for the first time. This is apparently what was on that guy's feed.

BEN: Feed or whatever, yeah.

GLENN: This comes from a pro-Hitler group.

BEN: Yeah, I've seen it.

GLENN: You're not on this.

BEN: I don't know how they missed me.

GLENN: This is all the Jews that work at CNN.

BEN: Come on.

PAT: Wait. There are Jews that work at CNN? Oh, my gosh.

GLENN: Yeah.

So this is amazing because it has all their faces with a Star of David next to it. I mean, it's so Hitler anti-Semitic kind of stuff.

PAT: Oh, that's bad.

GLENN: By saying, hey, we're not going to release this stuff, they actually I don't think did go as far as they could have to tie Trump to this kind of stuff. If they would have spent two days showing this stuff and saying, "This is the kind of stuff he was doing, blah, blah," then it would have been worse. I don't understand their strategy. I'll get to that in just a second.

GLENN: Welcome to the program. And to Ben Shapiro, who is from The Daily Wire and a -- a really bright guy who is not afraid -- we have very different approaches, the two of us. But I think we believe much of the same stuff.

BEN: Right. You're a nice person. I'm not.


GLENN: No. It's just -- yeah. I want to talk to you a little bit about that too before we go. Because that's not it. I don't think you're a bomb thrower by any stretch of the imagination. We were talking about this earlier today. You're very logical, and you don't mind confrontation.

BEN: Right.

GLENN: But you're not a bomb thrower. There's a difference between a bomb thrower and -- you're not quite Ravi Zacharias.

BEN: Yeah.

GLENN: But you're on that road.

BEN: Well, I appreciate it. Thank you. Yeah, I'd like to think that I'm more interested in saying things that I think are true than I am at offending people. And if the things that I think are true offend people, than so be it.

GLENN: Yeah. There's a totally different -- some people go out to make headlines and to offend. I don't think you -- I've never seen you do that.

BEN: Yeah. Thank you. It's something that I do take some pride in. And it's one of the reasons why -- it's so funny, I'll speak on these college campuses. And there will be these major protests and quasi-riots and all this. And then when people who are on the left actually come to the lecture, they'll say they don't understand what that was all about.

GLENN: Yeah. I know. I know.

Okay. So let's go back to where we were before the break. You were about to answer something.

BEN: It was the CNN thing.

GLENN: CNN. Yeah. So what is CNN's strategy on the way they dealt with all of this?

BEN: I think that the entire media right now are so -- as I said, we're in a reactionary period, which is really dangerous because whatever happens out of a reactionary period, it's rarely good. But the media are so reactionary that they think every story is a kill shot. And so they're interested in just getting the story out fast.

GLENN: Don't they know there is no kill shot on this one? It's just not going to happen.

BEN: Yeah, exactly. But they think everything is. Right? You have Democrats who are saying, based on his tweets last week with MSNBC, he should be impeached. It's like, really? That's your grounds? Like that was it? Have you not seen his Twitter feed?

GLENN: Is that a high crime or a misdemeanor? Which one is that?

STU: It's the Twitter clause of the Constitution.

GLENN: Yeah.

BEN: They put a lot of other clauses in there. No reason they can't put that one in there too.

They really are -- in order for them to maintain ratings -- also, actually because they believe this. They are living in this mythical world where if they break the right story, then Trump will just collapse and he won't be president anymore. And the entire reality will change. And this is why CNN was pumping the Trump/Russia collusion stuff. Not just saying that, you know, there are people who Trump has associated with, who have Russian connections -- which is true -- but saying there is active collusion in trying to blow this up into some big scandal with no evidence.

GLENN: There is no evidence of that.

BEN: None. And they were doing this for a year. And particularly post-election they were doing it because their viewers are invested in the idea that -- they want to be watching CNN at directly the moment when Trump goes down.

GLENN: Yeah, but don't they -- that's true. But don't they understand that we kind of already paved that ground, and it gave birth to the birthers?

BEN: Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

GLENN: Okay. And four years into it, Donald Trump is doing the whole birth certificate thing, which only hardens his supporters. That's all that that does. And so by CNN making everything into an -- a grounds of impeachment and a constitutional crisis, they're only hardening both sides.

BEN: They don't care. Why would they care? And I think that on the right, why would people on the right care?

You used to be able to say two things: Number one, it's bad for the American body politic to have these hardening of positions. And number two, it's not going to bring you victory. But clearly that's not true. Right? I mean, clearly -- like, we on the right keep saying, when are the Democrats going to propose something? When are they going to bring their solutions? They don't need to. Okay. Let's not pretend here.

The Republicans brought no solutions for eight years while Obama was president. And they yelled at him. And then the guy who said that he was born in Kenya is the president of the United States. So it's very difficult to make the argument that what we really need is a great unifier in order to win elections when I can't say that we're exactly the party of unification.

Now, that doesn't say something to unify with. The left wasn't providing a lot for us to unify over while President Obama was president and was providing his own form of polarization and racial extremism in terms of polarizing various racial groups for political gain.

But right now, there's not a lot of incentive on any side for a rhetoric of unity or for a rhetoric of reason.

GLENN: Well, a rhetoric of reason and unity -- and I don't like his policies at all -- was Mitt Romney.

BEN: Yes.

GLENN: And he was right down the traditional middle and everything else.

BEN: Uh-huh.

GLENN: He was much more conservative than this president is in many ways.

BEN: Uh-huh.

GLENN: And yet we didn't unify around that. We unify against somebody that will punch back.

BEN: And that's the whole thing. This is a rage moment. And one of the things that's happening for politicians and the media is there's a lot of money and a lot of political gain to be made in humoring people's anger. You know, I'm -- as a parent, one of the things -- I have two kids who are under the age of four. Which means you deal with tantrums a lot. And one of the things that you do with a kid who is having a tantrum is you have to say, you know, why are you having the tantrum? Is the anger justified?

Right? And usually the anger is not. It's a 3-and-a-half-year-old. The anger usually isn't. When people who are adults are angry, we no longer even bother asking them, is your anger justified? Are you mad for a good reason, or are you just mad? And then if they're mad, we say, okay. Well, we can grab that. We can use that. We can channel that anger into something politically useful, electing me or raising money for this cause. Or -- and so if there's nothing to be angry at or if there's less to be angry at than you think, then how are you going to take advantage of that? And I think that that's what you see happening on both sides of the aisle.

So on the left, they're saying, this is the worst president who ever was. He's Hitlerian. Nothing is happening, guys. Like nothing. Zero things have happened.

GLENN: Nothing.

BEN: I mean, Judge Gorsuch replaced Justice Scalia. Okay. Nothing happened. Nothing is happening. Right? There's been zero major pieces of legislation passed and signed by this president. There have been a bunch of repeals of small laws under -- under -- under Obama. But like, come on. This has been a transformational presidency? Not in any way has this been transformational. But the left is treating it like, you have a reason to be angry. They're a reason you're mad.

Not really. And on the right, you have people -- like President Trump did this during the campaign, to great effect, where he was going into these small towns that were shutting down because the industries had left. And saying, well, the reason -- you have a right to be angry. And not a right to be angry at the overregulation, which is legit, but you have a right to be angry because the Chinese and the Mexicans are stealing your job. And if we'd just win again -- if we didn't have all these idiots and we would just win again, then we would be able to bring everything back. All these factories would come flowing back in.

And, of course, none of that is true. And so what you have right now is the media trying for a buck to promote anger. And you have the politicians for a vote to try and promote anger. And never at any point does anybody -- it makes a pathological country.

Jonathan Haidt, social psychologist over at NYU, he talks about how when it comes to psychology, the single best method that's been devised for psychologists is cognitive behavioral therapy, where they trying try to take somebody who is having a chain of bad thoughts that's leading to depression. And then they try to say, why is it -- is it possible you're exaggerating the situation? Is it possible you're reading someone wrong? You break the chain of bad thoughts by saying, maybe your feelings are not justified. Maybe you should reexamine your own feelings and get control over your own feelings, and then you can control yourself as a human being. Politics is the opposite of that now. It's to take that rage and exacerbate it and magnify it and make it bigger and broader and louder.

GLENN: Yeah. So, Ben, that brings you right to you and me. And I wouldn't put us in different categories. You just approach it differently. You're approaching it with reason. But you don't mind the battle.

STU: I kind of want to see Ben Shapiro as a dad with a logical argument to the 3-and-a-half-year-old.

BEN: Thankfully, she's a pretty logical three-and-a-half-year-old. She's still three-and-a-half.

GLENN: I bet.

STU: Actually, the macaroni and cheese is the correct temperature.


GLENN: Right. Are you seeing and are you even looking for those people, not on the left, but the reasonable people -- I think there's -- I don't even know what the number is. On a bad day, I think it's 30 percent. On a good day, I think it's maybe 70 percent of Americans who if were presented with a group of adults that could all get along, even though they disagree and were saying, you know what, just come over and watch that stuff burn down over here. We're just going to start moving and getting some things done. Kind of the Republican Party in the 1850s that really was mainly made up of Democrats at the time that said, you're not serious. And the Whigs that joined them and said, my side is not serious either. And we actually want to solve this slavery thing.

Do you see -- do you see those reasonable people out there?

BEN: I do actually. It's a growing number of people who are disillusioned with the WWE of it all and are sick -- and they see it's kind of fake. That really it's a lot of people that are --

GLENN: And you see it on the left as well?

BEN: I think, yeah. I get a lot of letters from college kids because I speak a lot to college kids and they watch my videos. And I get a lot of letters from college kids who is, I was on the left, and I was motivated to believe the people on the right were nasty and mean and cruel. And then I watched some of your stuff, and now it's opened my mind. I'm doing some reading of my own. And I'd like to kind of examine ideas differently. And I think that there are those people who are getting over this.

I think that what's -- the future for conservatism is not going to be complete Reagan conservatism. It's going to be almost a conservative Libertarian merger. It's going to be a leave me alone thing. Because we're so sick of everybody in our business.

In fact, I think that that's actually the strongest pitch that conservatives can make right now to people on the left is not, come on over here and join us on the Trump train. It's, you hate Trump. It's, okay. I hated Obama. I thought he was terrible. Well, I have a solution for all of this, which is, how about we just take the power away from everyone in Washington, DC, and then you don't have to care who is the president. He's just some guy who lives in a house --

GLENN: Yeah. And we're not going to change your life. You live what you like. Don't change how I live my life. Let's just live side by side. I think there's a real case to be made -- I think that's what's going to come out of this.

I was in Hollywood of all places all last week, and I met with group after group after group, some of them were hardened -- at least one in each group of the probably ten meetings that I had -- at least one was hardened against me when I first walked in.

BEN: Uh-huh.

GLENN: And it became a joke of the team that was going with me because they were like, how long before they turn? How long before they turn?

BEN: Yeah.

GLENN: Turned every single one of them because of Jonathan Haidt, actually used his method of talking their language.

BEN: Yeah.

GLENN: Speaking reason. Being humble, friendly, likable, laugh, laugh at yourself, laugh at the other side. Immediately turned.

I had huge liberals come to me and say, "I am more afraid of the left than I am of your side now."

BEN: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Because of what's happening on college campuses. This is the kind of round people up. And it's usually Jews. You know, they were the liberal Jews that were saying these kinds of things to me.

BEN: Uh-huh. I think the political situation right now, it's sort of a game of ping-pong. And the eventually, the -- people are just going to get tired of bouncing between the two polar extremes, between the Bernie Sanders left and the Black Lives Matter left and the, you know, hard-core --

GLENN: Do you think there's enough Democrats that are still out there that say, I don't want Bernie Sanders? Because the Democrats are moving towards that kind of a --

BEN: I think -- well, I think Bernie Sanders is an interesting case because Sanders is smart enough to actually not play the intersectional game as much as he plays the socialist game. So he's actually a more unifying figure for Americans than Kamala Harris, for example.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

BEN: And so Sanders is actually -- the great danger from the Democrats is coming -- I agree with the hard left of the Democratic party, who is Bernie Sanders-ite, that the actual future of the Democratic Party and their victory is going to lie with people like Bernie Sanders and not with -- not with this separate people by their race and then run on the typical Democratic platform.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

BEN: I mean, I think if Sanders had actually been the nominee, I think there's a much more significant chance that he is president than Hillary. I think he probably wins Michigan pretty easily.

GLENN: I agree. I agree. I agree.

BEN: So, you know, that's the danger. But that's not just because of his ideas. It's because he has steadfastly refused to engage in some of the --

GLENN: Play the game. He's not playing the game.

BEN: Exactly. That's right.

STU: Can we do one more without -- no politics here. I'm fascinated by something that you've done recently, which I just took my kid to our first baseball game. He's five. I'm indoctrinating him to be a Toronto Bluejays fan for absolutely no explainable reason.

But you actually just wrote a book about your experience of going through the 2005 White Sox championship. How did that come about? I think that's a fascinating thing.

BEN: My dad and I are huge White Sox fans. I picked up on my dad's sports allegiances. So he's from Chicago, my mom is from Chicago. I was born in LA. So that means I've never really been to a home game. I've just been to visiting games. And so we're huge White Sox fans. And in 2005, I was at Harvard Law. He was having a rough year. We just decided we were going to watch every White Sox game. So between the two of us, we watched every White Sox game that season, and they ended up winning the World Series. And so we wrote this book where half the book is us writing notes to each other: How are you doing? And we just compiled all of that into a book. So took notes on the games --

GLENN: See, I wrote you about that. And you said it's a sports book. So really no big deal.

That's not a sports book. That's a dad -- that's a father and son book. Oh, that's great.

BEN: But it is -- it's a lot of fun. If you're a baseball fan, you'll get a lot more out of it because there is a lot of baseball in there. I mean, we do love baseball, so there is a lot of baseball in there. But, yeah, it's my dad telling stories about his dad and me and my dad interrelating. And so that's --

GLENN: What's the name of the book?

BEN: It's called Say It's So.

GLENN: Ben Shapiro. He'll be on with us -- I think we're doing a Facebook thing. We're so thrilled to have you on. And keep up the good work.

BEN: As I say, it's an honor and pleasure to be with you always.

GLENN: Thank you.


George Soros IS linked to Trump indictment, despite NYT LIES

What would we do without the New York Times? A recent piece from the publication details why right-wing claims that George Soros is connected to Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg — who may move forward with a Trump indictment soon — are baloney. But thankfully, Glenn saves the day, explaining in this clip why the New York Times — shockingly — is LYING. George Soros IS linked to the possible Trump indictment, with one million dollars possibly at play…


Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: What would we do with the New York Times?

Listen to this, Stu. As a potential indictment looms over president Donald J. Trump. He and his allies have taught to tie the Manhattan district attorney, bringing the case to a familiar Republican Specter, George Soros.

STU: They didn't. Oh, come.

GLENN: Yeah. Soros who has backed democratic candidates and causes, as well as democracy and human rights, all around the world.

STU: Loves democracy. Loves human rights.

GLENN: He does! He's been the bogeyman on the right, for many years.

STU: You mean like a mythical creature in the night.

Doing all these negative things. But in reality, he doesn't even exist.

GLENN: Well, here's the deal. He had to confront a task that portray him as a globalist mastermind, and they often veer into.

STU: Anti-Semitism, right?

GLENN: Yes. The connections between him and Alvin Bragg -- this is the New York Times. Between him and Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan District Attorney, are real. But overstated.

STU: Wait. So they are real. This isn't a conspiracy.

GLENN: They are real. But they're overstated!

STU: Oh, they are overstated. Okay. Okay.

GLENN: In reality, Mr. Soros donated to a liberal group, that endorses progressive prosecutors, and supports efforts to overhaul the criminal justice system.

STU: Okay. So basically, if I could just translate the -- the Republican lies here for a moment.

GLENN: Yes. Right.

STU: Basically, what happened, George Soros wrote a 5,000-dollar check to a charity. And that charity gave a ton of money to this candidate. And George Soros was a small part of it. Because George Soros is Jewish, people are just -- signaling him out basically.

That's the way this works? Is it?

GLENN: Sure. Sure.

Here's the deal: He did donate to that liberal group that endorses progressive prosecutor and supports efforts to overhaul the justice system. But this isn't in line with causes that he's publicly supported for years.

STU: Okay. See, that's what I mean.

GLENN: So he wasn't going after this guy in particular.

STU: So let me guess. He gave a donation, years ago.

And that money just sat in the -- in the bank account for a while. And eventually was given out by this organization.

This one guy that they're highlighting because they want to make the big Donald Trump conspiracy.

It's so typical of these conservatives.

GLENN: Oh, okay. So here's the thing: While the link between Mr. Bragg and Mr. Soros does exist, arguments that the district attorney was bought is misleading.

Mr. Bragg announced his candidacy for the position in June 2019, nearly two years later.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: On May 8th, 2021, the political arm of Color of Change.

STU: Oh, good organization.

GLENN: A progressive criminal justice group, endorsed him!

It pledged it would send a million dollars on direct mailers on the ground campaign voting and voter turnout efforts on his behalf.

STU: Okay. So a small portion of that money was the money that George Soros had already --

GLENN: No. No. Will you listen? You're jumping to conclusions.

STU: I am. I am.

GLENN: It didn't donate to Mr. Bragg's campaign directly. There was no money. They were just doing that. Okay?

STU: Okay.

GLENN: A few days later, a few days later.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: May 14th. Mr. Soros contributed a million dollars to the group.

STU: Come on.

GLENN: Right. Which intended to help Mr. Bragg with the money. But he didn't do it.

STU: Wait. Let me make sure I understand here.

GLENN: Right.

STU: So color of change announces publicly, they want to give $1 million exactly to this candidate.

Three days later, George Soros gives $1 million to this organization. And says he wants it to go to the candidate.

GLENN: Well, no. He says, here's a million dollars. I don't care how you use it.

STU: Did he though?

GLENN: Well, I mean, you're making it up, that he said that.

STU: I thought what he just said -- he intended --

GLENN: The New York Times just said, Mr. Soros contributed $1 million to the group, which intended to help Mr. Bragg with the money.

STU: So the group intended to do it. And he just happened to donate the exact amount of money, three days after they, quote, unquote, publicly announced it.

GLENN: And he just happened to be there. He didn't know that Color of Change didn't meet its pledge.

It eventually spent nearly $500,000 in support, and that was at 11 percent of the group's $4.6 million in spending. Okay?

STU: How much was Soros' spending of 1 million out of 4.6. Gee, he's not important to this organization at all.

GLENN: A spokesperson for the political arm of Color Change said the group reviewed an interviewed reformed minded district attorneys each election cycle. And the process was independent of all the funders.

Mr. Soros was just one of many large donors to the group. Past donors, include, write this down. The members of the wealthy Pritzker family, the Facebook cofounder, Dustin Moskovitz, and the hip-hop group, The Beastie Boys.

Mr. Bragg was -- no. I'm glad that they're influencing our campaign.

Mr. Bragg was not the only candidate for Color of Change that they endorsed, and aided through organizing efforts.

The group also helped with George Soros' money, to re-elect Larry Krasner, the district attorney of Philadelphia, okay?

And all they did was contact more than 300,000 voters, and sent nearly 200,000 pieces of direct mail on his behalf.

In addition, it also operated phone banks, ran advertisements, and mobilized voters to support the local candidate in Virginia with a ballot initiative in Minneapolis.

Nor was Mr. Soros 1 million-dollar contribution particularly unusual. Soros has given to the group, multiple times, before it endorsed Mr. Bragg.

He personally donated 450,000 between 2016 and 2018.

STU: Wait. But what the hell does this matter?

GLENN: And his pack gave 2.5 million in 2020.

STU: We agree that George Soros funds crazy, terrible attorney candidates.

GLENN: There is no connection between George Soros and Alvin Bragg. I'm quoting: No contact between the two.

STU: It says that?


George Soros and Alvin Bragg have never met in person or spoken by telephone, email, Zoom.

STU: What does that matter?

GLENN: There has been no contact between the two.

Mr. Soros has been open about his year's long support of progressive prosecutors.

In fact, in a 2022 op-ed article in the Wall Street Journal, Mr. Soros explained his thoughts on overhauling the criminal justice system, and wrote, quote, we have -- no, the idea, we need to choose between justice and safety is false.

I have supported in the election, and more recently, the reelection of prosecutors, who support reform.

I've done it transparently. And I have no intention of stopping.

He says, look, we have justice.

And that's what I'm pushing for.

And you say, that it won't be as safe, that's false.

STU: We have to spend more time on this.

GLENN: Back in just a minute. MantisX. I'm not sure where ammunition comes from anymore. I suspect it's made in a giant factory, where a bunch of Oompa Loompas dance around and sing songs about F-ing around and then finding out that it's bad. But I can't really be sure.

What I do know is that it costs a fortune. A fortune.

Just going to target practice right now, can set you back quite a bit. And you still need to maintain your marksmanship. There is a better way.

This is why I highly recommend the MantisX. It is high-tech. Easy to use system.

We should put this on my screen in front of us. So I could show you. It's so incredible. All you do is you take your gun. You attach the MantisX to the barrel. And you can aim at anything. You don't need a target. And you aim at anything.

And what it's doing, is it's analyzing where you're trying to focus on. And what happens as you're trying to pull the trigger.

Within 20 minutes. Within 20 minutes. 94 percent of shooters improve.

It is fantastic. It's like having a firearm instructor, I don't know. Taped to your gun.

Start improving today. Get yours as

Ten-second station ID.

STU: So what do they think the accusation here is?

That they were buddies?

I never thought that George Soros and Alvin Bragg were hanging out and going to coffee in the morning.

The accusation is George Soros has an insane political philosophy that gets people killed.
And he's been paying for these candidates at the campaigns.

GLENN: See, there you go. There you go.

There's your connection.

Trying to tie George Soros to Alvin Bragg, saying that he's in his pocket because he's paying for the campaigns.

STU: Yes! I think there's a -- this happens all the time, where George Soros gives $100,000 to an organization that winds up supporting something, you know, multiple years later.

And it's still an interesting time. That's interesting.

This is way, way more clear than that. They announced a million dollars for this guy. And three days later, he gave a million dollars to the organization, to give to this guy.

GLENN: You know, you're a guy. You are a guy, I guarantee. I guarantee, just by the way you're saying, you're against the New York Times. When they come after the Koch brothers. When they come out and say, hey, there's no connection. No connection to their money and the politicians and the policies that they're supporting. There's no connection.

STU: They have issues -- the one that is alive, that has issues that they believe in. And they donate to organizations that support those.

GLENN: No, you say that's evil. Because that's the New York Times.

I mean, the New York Times has got to be saying that's evil with the Koch brothers.

STU: There's no problem whatsoever with George Soros giving his money to an organization he believes in.

The problem is, the things he believes in, are killing our society. That's the problem. He can give his money. But we can also note that he's the cause of all the things that are happening to us.

GLENN: He's just looking for justice.

STU: Of course, there's a connection. What do you mean there's no connection?

You just outlined an incredibly clear connection.

GLENN: I apologize. If anybody is in tasted Brock's organization, who is an attorney for Perkins Coie, happens to be listening. It's all on him.

I'm with you. I'm for justice.


EXPOSED: YOUR tax dollars are being used for AI to TRACK YOU

The Biden Administration was met with huge backlash last year when it announced plans to establish a ‘Ministry of Truth.’ Plans eventually were put on pause, but Glenn warned back then that the far-left would just find a more secretive way to accomplish the same goals. And now, thanks to a new report from the Federalist, we know more details about those plans. The Federalist reports that ‘our tax dollars are funding the development of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine-learning (ML) technology that will allow the government to easily discover “problematic” speech and track Americans reading or partaking in such conversations.’ Glenn has all the details in this clip — like how there have been over 500 contracts or grants given to companies to partner with the federal government to accomplish these terrifying goals…


Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: This comes from the Federalist.

While the Twitter files offer a glimpse into the government's efforts to censor disfavored viewpoints, what we have seen is nothing compared to what is planned. As the details of hundreds of federal awards now lay bear.

Research by the Federalist reveals that our tax dollars are funding the development of artificial intelligence, and machine learning technology, that will allow the government to easily discover problematic speech, and track America's reading and partaking in conversations.

In partnership with big tech, big business, and media outlets, the government will ensure the speech is censored, under the guise of combating misinformation and disinformation.

Remember when they said they wanted an office of truth or whatever it was. And everybody, oh, my gosh. That's horrible. We can't do that. And they dropped it right away.

And I said, don't put your guard down. They'll do it a different way.

Well, here is the money, showing you what they're doing.

The federal government now has awarded more than 500 plus contracts, or grants. Related to misinformation, or disinformation. Since 2020.

So 500 different companies or groups are working for the government, to gather information on you.

One predominant area of research, pushed by the Department of Defense, includes the use of AI and ML technology, to monitor or listen to internet conversations. Originally used as a marketing tool to track discussions about their brands and products. And to track competitors. The DOD and other federal agencies are now paying for profit public relations and communication firms, to convert their technology into tools for the government, to monitor your speech online.

The areas of interest, the companies monitor, differ somewhat. And each business offers its own unique AI and machine learning proprietary technology.

But the underlying approach and goals are identical.

The technology under development will mine large portions of the internet, and identify conversations deemed by the government. Indicative of an emerging harmful narrative, to allow the government to track these threats, and adopt countermeasures before the messages go viral. With AI and machine learning identifying in real time the origins of supposed influence operations and how the message is spread. The government will have the ability to preempt the amplification of speech, squelching even true reporting, before the general populace has an opportunity to learn the news.

To appreciate fully the danger this poses to free speech requires Americans to consider the use of that technology, with some additional details.

First, the AI and ML technology under development will mine every conceivable mode of conversation for the government.

Consider, for example, the databases monitored by just a few of the companies the government is paying to develop this AI and ML technology.

One, peak metrics. The receipt of $1.5 million tracks millions of news sites, blogs, global social platforms, podcasts, TV, radio, and all email newsletters.

Oma Loss, Inc. just received more than a million dollars in taxpayer money. It will cull data from the most influential newspapers, TV channels, government offices, militant groups, and across more than a dozen social networks and messaging apps. Thousands of webs and thousands of RSS feeds.

The Althea Group, which received a phase one award of $50,000 to develop a machine-learning tool for proactive disinformation/misinformation detection, assessments, and mitigation.

It mostly covers data sources, including mainstream and fringe social media platforms. Stu, I think they're talking about us.

Peer-to-peer messaging platforms. Peer-to-peer messaging platforms, blogs and forums, state-affiliated media sites, gray propaganda sites, and the dark web.

NewsGuard, which was just recently discredited, $750,000 by the DOD. They're offering two databases, including the unreliable reliability rankings database.

Primer, which scored 3 million that are award, to develop its technology, offers a database, that looks to news and media data sources, publicly captured images -- publicly captured images, the dark web cyber attacks shared by the general public, and classified presumably for the government clients. And unclassified data sources.

Primer also partners with flash point, which adds telegram, reddit, discord, and the deep dark web to the database's mind.

Okay. So they plan on listening, reading, culling, and sorting through AI all of our communication and all of our thoughts.

This is not just for foreign influence.

This is for America, as well.

They will be able to, quote, flag problematic speech on any imaginable subject.

Here the past is prologue. Speech need want involve terrorism, act of war, or even our electoral process for our government to consider it within its purview. To fact-check.

It also needs not be false. The Twitter files and recent events provide Americans a glimpse into the breadth of the topics of the government, that they may deem harmful narratives worthy of censor from elections, to vaccines, to run on grocery stores underlying the government's obsession with silencing disinformation, misinformation, and malinformation, is the great power competition perspective of foreign relations under which China and Russia represent a constant threat to America's power, influences, and interests.

So when you have a problem, we have to be the -- the great power competition. We -- we have to do what the other people are doing.

And we also can't let our own people do anything to hurt our great power. So anybody who talks about bank runs, it's not just the people that might be influencing outside the country.

But if you say, I got my money out of the bank. And you have to think about it. Because this is -- this is a problem.

These things are going to collapse.

The government with AI and machine learning, will team that as a threat to the United States of -- of America, and you will be tracked and silenced.

These -- this is not up for debate or question. This is not a conspiracy theory. We have the receipts. This is what these companies are being engaged by our government to do.

Now, there's another story. The TSA, Transportation Security Administration.

The chief David Petrosky said, we really want to make the travel process easy and safe and more comfortable. More pleasant.

All this taking off of your shoes. And we -- we can do so much better.

Have you tried clear? All we need is a retinol scan of your eye. Don't ever let them take a retinol scan.

We just need a retinal scan of your eye. I mean, 2.4 million people are screened every day, by the TSA. And we need to make sure the security is there. But also, that they don't suffer any friction at all.

So we urge now, facial recognition. We urge the new technology. And we're building this. And may I quote, biometrics will not be optional.

You want to fly, you're going to have to give them your retinol scan. But you won't have to take off your shoes.

One last thing: On this subject. There's a bill going to the Senate floor now. And this is the way you have to think. You have to understand, there's a bill on the Senate floor now. To prevent spying on you and your family, by your refrigerator. Because smart refrigerators have cameras. And also microphones. And we have already seen cases where that information can just be given over to the government, sometimes without even a warrant or asking for it.

The world is changing dramatically. I want you to be prepared.


THIS is the Biden scandal with China they’re TRYING TO HIDE

There’s a reason why the far-left will stop at nothing to go after President Trump: It’s all a distraction. There’s several failures, missteps, policy decisions, and SCANDALS the Biden Administration would like to keep hidden, and in this clip, Glenn exposes just one of them. He explains the beyond-suspicious business dealings Hunter Biden — and possibly Joe, too — have had with the Chinese energy company CEFC. Is President Biden helping to make DEALS with China — one of our ENEMIES?!


Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Let me start here. Hunter Biden. The Hunter Biden story, it is critical now, that we do not play games of he said/she said, or it doesn't matter, or any of this.

Listen to this. Because if this is allowed to go on, we do not survive as a nation.

We become Russia. I don't know any Democrat that wants us to become like Russia. I don't know anybody.

Well, maybe George Soros. I'm not sure.
Listen to this. Hunter Biden had an FBI mole named One Eye, who tipped off his Chinese business partners, that they were under investigation, according to an Israeli energy expert, arrested in Cypress last month, on gunrunning charges. Why should we listen to him?

The story goes on. The House oversight committee is investigating the explosive claims by Dr. Gal Luft, a former Israel Defense Forces lieutenant colonel, with deep intelligence ties to Washington and Beijing, who says he was arrested to stop him from revealing what he knows about the Biden family, and FBI corruption.

Details, he told the Department of Justice, in 2019, which he says, were ignored. Luft, 56, made the claims February 18th on Twitter after being detained, at a Cyprus Airport as he prepared to board a plane to Israel.

He said, quote, I've been arrested in Cyprus, on a politically motivated extradition request by the US. The US is claiming that I am an arms dealer. It would be funny, if it weren't so tragic. I've never been an arms dealer.

DOJ is trying to bury me to protect Joe, Jim, and Hunter Biden. Shall I name names?

All right. So he is waiting extradition. He is in jail. He says, I am not a drug -- or, I mean, a gun trafficker.

Through his American lawyer, Robert Henak, Luft said, he tried four years ago, to inform the DOJ, that Chinese state-controlled energy company CEFC had paid $100,000 a month to President Biden's son Hunter, and $65,000 to Joe's brother Jim in exchange for their FBI connections and the use of the Biden name to promote China's Belt and Road Initiative all around the world.

This fits with exactly the other information, we gave you last night.

By the way, if you sign up for the newsletter tonight, you'll get all of the transcript. You'll get all of the show prep, for last night's program, where we were showing you what is really -- what the left is really afraid of and what Biden is doing to distract you.

Bill O'Reilly said, and he'll say it tomorrow on the program, this Trump thing is never going to trial. It will never have a jury. It will never go there. It's -- it's ridiculous. Ridiculous.

Hillary Clinton paid a fine for the same thing, she did. Except, what she did was the crossfire hurricane Dossier.

Which caused us to spend millions of dollars. Three years or four years of lies on the media. It's probably the most impactful thing any politician has ever done, to thwart the truth.

She paid a fine. It was a misdemeanor. And you're going to go after Trump?

No. They want you to not see this.

And, by the way, if they do arrest him, then they'll turn this whole thing around and say, this Hunter Biden thing is only about us arresting Donald Trump. We knew that guy was dirty.

We arrested him. And now they're bringing this up. And trying us as revenge.

Mark my words. Okay. So his American lawyer, back to the guy, the Israeli guy.

His lawyer said he tried four years ago, to inform the DOJ that Chinese state-controlled energy company CEFC had paid $100,000 a month to President Biden's son Hunter, sixty-five for his FBI connections.

Love learned about the scheme through his own relationship with Hunter's Chinese business partners, Patrick Ho and Ye Jianming, the chairman of CEFC.

Any of those -- Patrick Ho. Does that name ring a bell?

Do you remember why it brings a bell.

STU: I don't remember why. But it does ring a bell.

GLENN: Okay. You'll remember it in a second.

From 2015, 2018, Luft organized international energy conferences in partnership with Ho's think tank, the nonprofit China energy fund committee, a front organization for Ye's CEFC, which is the Communist Party energy.

Ye confided to Luft that Hunter had an informant in the FBI.

Quote, or formerly of the bureau, extremely well-placed, who they had paid lots of money to provide sealed law enforcement information. End quote. The FBI mole was called One Eye. Now, I'm a little uncomfortable with the Nick name one eye when we are discussing anything with Hunter Biden. But I digress.

STU: I don't know if that's necessary.

GLENN: One Eye, told Ye, you'll never be able to hear this again. One Eye told Ye that the southern district of New York was investigating him and/or Ho in late 2017.

STU: And Ho is part of the story too? Okay. Now, I've lost all focus.

GLENN: I know. I know.

The southern district of New York, this One Eye told, that an Asian and African and a Jewish guy were named on a sealed indictment. Soon after the tip-off, Ye offered Hunter a million dollars to be his private counsel. Do you remember what happened?

Isn't he the guy that met in I think a lobby in a hotel, maybe in Florida. Remember?

And there was an exchange of things. And he was like, hey. I just want you to -- you have lawyer friends, that can represent me?

Remember? Then he was busted. Okay?

So he offered Hunter a million dollars to be his private counsel. And flew to China, leaving his wife, daughter, son, mother, and nanny in his 50 million-dollar penthouse at 15 Central Park West.

He was detained in Shanghai for three months, then he disappeared.

Before he left New York, he told Ho that the coast was clear for him to come back to the US.
On November 18th, Ho flew into JFK, where he was arrested. Remember? By FBI agents on bribery and money-laundering charges. Ho was a patsy, says the Israeli guy. He was the fall guy.

Ho was convicted in December 2018, without calling a single witness. He served three years in jail and was deported. Prosecutors placed the spotlight in his case, on China's use of the foreign bribery to win contracts for its belt and road initiative. Hunter was paid $1 million by CEFC, to represent ho. Which entailed contacting his FBI sources on ho's behalf. And engaging another attorney to do all the legal work, according to emails on Hunter Biden's laptop.

CEFC paid a further 4.9 million dollars to Hunter and Jim Biden in monthly installments, for 14 months from August 2017. Government records show.

Government records show. The House oversight committee released bank statements last week. Additional one point -- $1.1 million.

Funneled from Chinese company affiliated with CEFC, went to Hunter. Jim Haley. And -- and another Biden that we don't know who it is.

Anyway, Luft claims he contacted the DOJ after Ho was jailed, and federal investigators flew to Brussels to interview him for more than 18 hours.
But he never heard from them again.

In less than four weeks later, Joe Biden announced he was running for president.

The DOJ had this information, March 2019, and did nothing.

Congress has the Biden bank records, but it doesn't know the reason for the payments. Now it does.

Okay. The corruption around the Bidens. This isn't -- this isn't just bribery.

So you know, CEFC, this is an energy company. They are not only doing the belt and road initiative. Which is bad enough in itself.

The belt and road initiative is -- is basically the Chinese plan to take over the world, and all of its technology.


That's why we banned Huawei. Because it was part of their belt and road initiative. And Huawei Technology was gathering information. So we are deadset against the Belt and Road Initiative.
So CEFC, they're paying them to help the Belt and Road Initiative.

But also, their cover. And maybe this is true, as well.

Their cover is, that -- that the subsidiary of this. That was paying them the million or actually total of $3 million.

That was for green energy. Now, let me ask you: Has there been a president that is more green energy than this guy.

Have you seen that all car companies are discontinuing gasoline engines?

All of them. Where are all the charging stations?

Where is all of the wiring, to be able to carry that amount of electricity to all our new kind of gas stations?

They don't exist.

Where is the new energy, that is going to replace all of the gasoline?

It doesn't exist. We are intentionally being crippled. And they're kicking the door behind us.

They're closing it. There's no way out of that. We now know, in our Inflation Reduction Act, they are paying billions of dollars to energy companies, who have coal-fired plants. To close them down now. They will pay them 100 percent of their profit, for the next ten years, if they will close down their coal-fired plant. And they only get the money, when they either sell it for scrap, dismantle it, or get rid of it.

Then you get your money. Why would you do that?

Why would you do that?

Now, is it possible -- I don't think this is -- this is it.

But you already have a family. The president of the United States, getting money, from our enemy.

The Chinese/Communist Party. For, what is it? Information from the FBI, or is it, hey, we'll get you some kickbacks here on green energy. You'll be really, really good with green energy, right?

Or what?

What is all this money going for?

This is important, America.

This is not just, hey, so I, you know, gave a guy a favor for the local golf course to be built.

That's not what this is.

This is dealing with our enemies.

Joe Biden is also sending our $100 billion. Our $125 billion, to a guy in Ukraine, named Kolomoisky. If you watch my program, or you follow me on radio, and you remember what we did on Ukraine three years ago, who is Kolomoisky? Kolomoisky is the guy who had PrivatBank, and Burisma. He's the guy that Joe Biden handed 8 billion dollars of our money, to put it in PrivatBank.

What happened to it? No one knows. It just disappeared. So Joe Biden goes back to that guy, and makes him the guy, that is overseeing $125 billion.

America, this is just -- this is just the first story. I've got about 20 of them. I don't think I'll be able to get to all of them today.

You've got to -- you've got to get the show prep, and read it in order. This is extraordinarily dangerous.

Just this one. But there is so much more.


Glenn: Why I think WAR with China by 2025 is ‘DONE DEAL’

World tension continues to escalate. In this clip, Glenn details several ways China and Russia have upped the ante — like suggesting nuclear weapons will be on the table if the United Kingdom gives Ukraine rounds that contain uranium. Plus, one U.S. ally recently suggested it may NOT align with America in a potential war over Taiwan, and Glenn also explains why he believes a major war between the U.S. and China — centered around Taiwan — is a ‘done deal’ by 2025, before our next president is sworn into office…


Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

CALLER: Earlier this morning, you mentioned China made a threat yesterday.

GLENN: Yeah.

CALLER: To the United States. And I would love to know what that is.

GLENN: Okay. You're going to love it, it may not improve your mood much. But they said that they are now -- hang on just a second. I have to get right to it.

That they are now special partners, and that change with Russia.

STU: With Russia.

GLENN: And that change is coming, according to Xi. Change is coming that hasn't happened for 100 years. And we will drive this change together. They also said that there is a new era. Special relationship and a no limits friendship between Moscow and Beijing.

So that's --

STU: They went on to specifically talk about a unipolar world. Right?

GLENN: Yeah. They said they both are fighting against a unipolar world. And -- and are for a multi-polar world. So they're gathering together. Basically, to -- to defeat us.

Which is -- oh, man. That's great.

STU: Yeah. It was a typical, like, China, bureaucratic speak, but it was pretty clear as far as China goes.

In saying, that they're changing the last century dynamic they don't like so much.

GLENN: Yes. Now, here's something else. Putin also made some threats yesterday.

Apparently, the Pentagon is accelerating our patriot air defense systems. And tanks to Ukraine. Which Putin doesn't like all that much.

Then the UK minister of state defense said, you know, we have a real problem with what -- what Britain is about to do.

They're -- they're sending in Challenger two battle tanks. And they're sending them into Ukraine. With armor piercing rounds. Which contains depleted uranium.

If this happens. And I'm quoting, Russia will have to respond accordingly. Given that the West, collectively is already beginning to use weapons with a nuclear component.

Okay. Xi is sitting next to Putin, when he says this. By the way, these -- these shells, they're armor piercing. It's not unusual, from what I understand, to use these shells. That's what Britain uses for bunker busting bombs, depleted uranium.

It does hurt the soil around there. And if you were hit by one. I mean, if you're hit by one, you probably will die. If you got shrapnel from it, it would have radiation in it. So that's good.

Hey, here's another one. Australia came out yesterday, and said, we're not going to promise, that we'll side with the United States of America, should China go into Taiwan.

What? What?

Australia is peeling itself from us?

Russia yesterday also said, Medvedev said that the ICC. The International Criminal Court. They love it as much as we do.

Except, we've never said, by the way, if you -- if you do issue an arrest warrant for Vladimir Putin.

We might strike the ICC with a hyper sonic missile. Which I think would be another war crime. But I don't know.

Russia is realizing out of soldiers. They had prisoners that they had pardoned. And most of them died.

But about 20 percent of them now have served their six months. And are going home. So you have some really violent criminals, that have been pardoned. Oh, and they also, they just came out of war.

That tends to stabilize, you know, crazy dangerous people.

So they're going home. They fought for the Wagner Group. Now, they don't know what to do. They've already made the enlistment to 65 years old in Russia.

And now they're recruiting in high school. So that's good. So here's the problem: China, I believe, before 2025, before the next president is sworn in, you will have a digital currency. I hope I'm wrong on all of these things.

I hope I'm wrong on all of these things. You'll have a digital currency.

China will be in Taiwan, and will be tied up in a major war. I think that is a done deal. Because why wouldn't you?

If you were China, America is at the tipping point. We are so divided as a nation. Our banking system.

The entire West is just waiting for a little, to completely collapse.

You have states fighting against states. You have complete unrest, at your fingertips. All over the West. We learned what Ronald Reagan did to the Soviet Union. Why would we not be doing that, to them, if it was reversed. Why wouldn't we do that to China?

Of course, we would. You think they're not going to do that, with us.

And look how they've already infiltrated. I have to say, congratulations Whitmer. You have done a bang-up job. You really have.

You know, she's created a whole bunch of new jobs. And I just think -- this is -- this is wonderful.

She's funding 715 million dollars, tax-pair dollars, to get this new -- I think it's Gotion. Maybe?

G-O-T-I-O-N. Gotion? I don't know. It's a company that I just love because now it's an American company.

And Gretchen Whitmer, America, you should be proud -- she's spending your dollars bringing these people in, because they will create jobs. They just bought $700 of property near Big Rapids. Now, you know, Whitmer might have said, I don't know if we should do business with the Chinese company.

And then that would lead to somebody going, no, they're not that bad. I mean, let's look at their bylaws. Then if you will look at their bylaws, then you're like, oh, okay.

I mean, they're making widgets or whatever it is they're going to be making.

So they're fine. Except with their articles of association. Which is the company's bylaws. Article nine, says the company shell set up a party organization. And carry out party activities.

Well, Party City is going to be raked in the bucks. They have a party committee.

And they have to have party activities. Sounds good, until you finish the sentence, in accordance to the Constitution of the communist party of China.

Then the party committee, not to be confused with cake and balloons.

The party committee of the company shall perform its duties in accordance with the Constitution of the Communist Party of China. And other party regulations.

Including, insure and supervise the implementation of the party's guidelines, principles, and policies in the company. And implement major strategic decisions of the CPC. The Communist Party of China. Central committee. And the state council, as relevant, important work arrangements of the party organization at the higher level.

Okay. But here's a really great part that I think Governor Whitmer -- I mean, I've spoken out against you, honestly. I thought you were a crazy tyrant, or dictator that really didn't have the best interest of the people in Michigan, at heart.

But now that I read this, the corporate document also states, the company's party committee, shall -- and I'm quoting. Strengthen the construction of party organization and party members, at the grassroots level.

And oversee growing the Communist Youth League. And mass work of the company.

I mean, I now think, you actually might be a traitor.

Or you're completely incompetent. How did the governor, just do a deal with taxpayer money, to sell land, and help a Chinese company develop their youth program. Their communist youth program.

Oh. You think anybody would say anything, if down south, somebody made a deal. And part of their bylaws, was to make sure you develop their Hitler youth program. Yeah, I think people would have a cow.

This is the same thing, except it's Stalin. It's Mao.

It's not Hitler. No. No. And Stalin killed a lot more people. You should remember that.

You have to ask yourself: Do they just have a really bad batting average? because I don't just they do. I don't think they do. They're batting what, almost zero, okay?

Almost zero. Let's say they have a batting average of.

STU: One hundred.

GLENN: One hundred. Okay. I have a batting average of 100.

However, if I switched teams, they have a batting average of 600. Right? Isn't it 700 batting average is perfect?

STU: No. It's a thousand.

GLENN: So 900. 900.

Their batting average is good, if they're playing for the other team.

STU: Right.

GLENN: At what point do we have the balls to say, I think they're playing for the other team?

STU: It's just hard for these things to be mistakes, is what you're saying, and it does seem difficult to be this bad at things.

GLENN: You know, we now know, because we've seen the satellite pictures. And we've seen the fighter pictures of the navigation system on the balloons.

Because it was just a coincidence, that they had no control over where that balloon went. But it went over all of our most important strategic missile sites. Then strategic air command.

And then exited the country, you know, right there, in South Carolina. Or, yeah. South Carolina paragraph

Which, gosh, don't they have a lot of military stuff?

Hmm. That tricky, tricky jet stream. Or somebody is playing on the other side. Back in a minute.