BLOGAugust 01, 2017

Heartbreaking: Glenn Sheds Tears With Mother Whose Children Were Taken by the State

Oregon couple Amy Fabbrini and Eric Ziegler lost custody of their son Christopher about four years ago, shortly after he was born. Fabbrini gave birth to their second son in February --- and he was taken by the Department of Human Services before leaving the hospital. Fabbrini and Ziegler claim the state took these actions because of their low IQ.

Tuesday on radio, Glenn spoke with Fabbrini and her advocate Sherrene Hagenbach, who was appointed by the state as a volunteer supervisor during the couple's visits with their children. Hagenbach was relieved of her position after siding with the couple. She's on record as saying there's "no sign of abuse" and that Fabbrini is "perfectly qualified to have and hold and love her children."

"I am so bothered by this story. I think you will be, too," Glenn said.

The story unexpectedly hit Glenn hard.

"I don't know what you expected her to sound like, but she sounded perfectly normal to me. She is a mother who loves her children. Sorry this . . . hits close to home. I have a daughter with cerebral palsy who is a wonderful . . . and would make the best mother ever," Glenn said emotionally, following the interview with Fabbrini.

The couple has gone through rigorous testing to prove their competency, but their children remain in foster care, awaiting adoption.

TAKE ACTION

To learn more or get involved:

• Visit Sherrene Hagenbach online at aktionnow.com

• SIGN THE PETITION to get Christopher and Hunter back in their parents' care

• DONATE via GoFundMe to assist with the family's legal expenses

GLENN: In light of Charlie Gard and now Alfie Evans, and in the past, it was Justine Pelletier, governments and hospitals are taking children from their parents. And we want to make sure that you are aware of this. We welcome Sherrene Hagenbach, her mentor, and Amy Fabbrini, the mother who is going through this in Oregon. Amy, how are you?

AMY: I'm doing good. Thank you.

GLENN: Tell me -- tell me what's happening to you and what's happening to your children.

AMY: So Christopher, my oldest, he was taken -- he was taken into CPS custody almost four years ago. And we have been fighting the state for almost four years now to get him back, trying to represent him as best as we can, trying to get our story out there, trying to get a lawyer, an attorney that will represent us in court so we can get our -- get Christopher back. We have a trial coming up in December to terminate our rights for Christopher.

And then Hunter, he was born in February. He was two days old. CPS came. Took him right from the hospital. I didn't even get to bring him home. So since then, we've been fighting for him as well. We've been getting our story out there to try and find someone that can represent us so we can go up against the state to get our kids back. And we just -- we want our story out there so they know that you can get your kids back.

GLENN: Amy, are -- are you a good mom?

AMY: I'm a wonderful mother. I love my boys. I would do anything for my boys.

GLENN: Sorry. This has caught me off guard. I have a daughter of special needs. And so this has caught me off guard. I'm sorry to be emotional with you.

What does it feel like to now have to be on national radio with people discussing your IQ and saying that you're not smart enough to be a mom?

AMY: It's -- it's been hard. But it's worth it to get my story out there so that people know that you can get your kids back, as long as you just fight. Fight for everything you have because your kids are worth it.

PAT: Has a lawyer stepped up to help you, yet, Amy?

AMY: I have a court-appointed attorney and an appeals attorney. But I would like to see if I could find someone that's out of state that can better represent me.

GLENN: Sherrene.

SHERRENE: Hi. I'm doing good. Thank you.

GLENN: You worked for the state of Oregon?

SHERRENE: So, yes. Actually, I was a volunteer. So I'm a professional mediator by trade. And I went there to just volunteer my time in the community. And because of my credentials and education, they put me in the role of a caseworker that came into the home and observed visitations with the children.

GLENN: What did you observe?

SHERRENE: Well, first, I should preface this with I've had over 20 years' experience working with children, youth, and families.

So my undergrad is in psychology. And I have, you know, a ton of certificates regarding safety and health and abuse. And what I found when I came into the home is a home. I found two parents that just loved their child. It was just Christopher at the time. It was last summer.

And definitely, my first impression was that Amy, in particular, didn't speak to me very much.

GLENN: Didn't --

SHERRENE: She was very insecure.

GLENN: She didn't, what?

SHERRENE: She didn't speak with me at first. It took about four weeks at least to gain her trust in me as a caseworker.

And once she felt comfortable with me in the home, you know, it was -- it was clear to see that she had had years of -- you know, just this unhealthy relationship between her and the state of Oregon when they came in. So, you know, I just had to build that trust up with her. But I just saw a loving environment. There was -- you know, they've got the same dog apparently for the last five years. There's really nothing going on, at all, that I discovered other than maybe they were depressed and, you know, that was -- that was the only thing that I could see. And obviously, if they had their children back, that depression would have lifted.

GLENN: Yeah.

SHERRENE: In the ten months I had worked with her after -- she's just. She's got her voice now. She's fighting. You know, she's -- she's really looking for more than an advocate. Because we live in a small town here. And that's been the hardest thing for me is, one, to speak out against Child Protective Services and care for my family. My stepdad is a lawyer and judge in town. And my mom has got a pretty high position. So I wanted to protect them. But also stand up for people that don't feel like they have a voice and they're not being heard. So I'm pretty much the lone star out here. (chuckles)

And their attorneys are representing them. But, you know, they all know each other here. So I know that they're not being fought for properly.

GLENN: So -- can you hang on just a second. I need to take a quick break. I'm going to come back after a commercial break. We'll continue our conversation.

[break]

GLENN: Welcome back to the program. We're talking about Amy Fabbrini, who the state has decided -- the state of Oregon that she does not have a high enough IQ to be able to have her two children. Her first child was taken from her after being fine in the home and living for two or three years with mom and dad. And her second child has just been taken from her at the hospital at birth. Go ahead, Amy. Did I get something wrong?

AMY: Yeah. Christopher was only in our home for like four days when CPS came and took him.

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: So, Amy, what is the thing -- talking to the mother, who, remember, is not smart enough to have her own children, according to the state of Oregon -- Amy, what caused this? Why did the state come over to your house? What was the complaint?

AMY: The initial complaint was that we had an ex-friend that was living with us. And they called CPS and reported that the father, Eric Ziegler, had been neglecting Christopher. He hadn't been picking up on his keys (phonetic). He wasn't cleaning him properly. And then there was also put in the report that he wasn't properly feeding our dog. That was the first report. And that's why CPS came in and took Christopher.

GLENN: Okay. And so the woman who came out -- Sherrene, you were the person that came out with that report?

SHERRENE: I am not the first person that came out with the initial report.

GLENN: Okay. And what did that first report say? That report took the child away?

SHERRENE: Yeah. The first report was called in supposedly by a roommate of theirs. And the second report was actually from Amy's father who was upset that she decided to move in with the father of her child.

GLENN: Okay.

SHERRENE: So they've just gone with that for, you know, the last almost four years now.

GLENN: Okay. Now, Sherrene, you have been with Amy over the last couple of years. You see her quite often, or not?

SHERRENE: Yes. So I was placed in the home as a volunteer. I gave my time. So I was placed in the home last May of 2016. And performed weekly visitations for three hours a piece with Amy, Eric, and their child Christopher.

GLENN: Over the last -- over the last year?

SHERRENE: So it was from May of 2016 until August of 2016, when their attorney asked for my -- my observations, because Child Protective Services was not releasing them. So --

GLENN: And, Amy, when was the birth date of your second child?

AMY: February 16th of 2017.

GLENN: February of 2017?

AMY: Yes. Yes.

GLENN: So, Amy, I have to ask you a tough question because this is what the people who are against you say, that you didn't know that you were pregnant until you had your child. And they find that unreasonable. It has happened before with people who are supposedly intelligent. But it is difficult to not know that you're not pregnant. Can you tell me about that. Is that true? What happened?

AMY: So that was with -- that was when I was -- I didn't know I was pregnant with Christopher. And I didn't. All I thought was -- because I have -- I have kidney issues. It's been passed down through my family. So when I was getting these -- when I was getting these pains in my side, I just thought it was my kidneys acting up. I had no indications that I was pregnant. I didn't have any movement or anything.

GLENN: And when you had no -- when you weren't having your period, is that normal for you?

AMY: Yes.

GLENN: And were you -- were you growing in size? Did you look pregnant?

AMY: No.

GLENN: Sherrene, can you help me out on that.

SHERRENE: Yeah. So, Amy's figure has just -- it's just always been the same ever since I met her actually. And when I came into the home last summer, she actually -- we didn't know at the time, but she was beginning, you know, her pregnancy for the second child. And she had stayed the same since the first time I've met her until today. She looks exactly the same. So -- and she just gave birth in February. How big are you? What is your size about?

GLENN: We don't have to get into that -- we don't have to get into that. Please.

AMY: It's something where you just -- you just can't -- you don't notice. It's just -- it's the way that she's built. But she did know she was pregnant with Hunter, the second child. And we discussed extensively about her coming forward. But they just had an incredible amount of fear that they would take their child. So --

GLENN: Which they did.

SHERRENE: Which they did, yeah.

GLENN: So your aunt, Amy, agrees with you and your husband and Sherrene, that --

AMY: Yes. She does.

GLENN: Your children are now up for adoption by the state.

AMY: Christopher is.

GLENN: How do you feel about that?

AMY: I don't feel it's right. He shouldn't be put up for adoption. He should be with us. It's completely wrong.

GLENN: Sherrene and Amy, how can we help you? Is there anything, first of all, that I've missed?

SHERRENE: Well, I would like to advocate that Amy and Eric have remained together. They live in a three-bedroom, two-bath home. It's owned by Eric's father. And they've taken extensive courses on parenting. What abuse and neglect looks like. Health and fitness. I mean, they are very proactive in showing the courts that they want to learn what they want them to learn. And that -- and they're proving to the courts and to everybody around here that they're very capable of learning. They're -- the IQ that is given, you know, is debatable anyway. That can be subject to depression, all kinds of things.

GLENN: Yes.

SHERRENE: But she's very articulate. They're very sweet. They're very kind. And what could help them is finding good representation to help them advocate for their rights to have their children. That is truly what we're looking for, for this family.

GLENN: How do they get in touch with you?

SHERRENE: They can go to either my website or they can contact me via email.

GLENN: Okay. Give me the information right now. Yeah.

SHERRENE: Okay. So my website is www.aktionnow.com. But it's spelled with a K. So it's A-K-T-I-O-N-N-O-W.com.

GLENN: Okay.

SHERRENE: And my email address is support@aktionnow.com.

GLENN: Sherrene, thank you for -- you know, you're in a small town, and you have apparently a very visible family. And it takes guts to stand up and to do it with class and grace. And it sounds like you're doing that. And God bless you for standing up.

Amy Fabbrini, we will not forget you, and we will further this story on any platform that I have to do with. And I will do everything I can to help you out. And I wish all of the best. And we'll talk to you again soon.

Back in just a second.

AMY: Thank you so much.

GLENN: God bless you.

[break]

GLENN: On a personal note, if you just joined us, we did an interview with a -- a mother of two children in -- in Oregon that have just been taken. One of them had been taken from them a few years ago. They have been fighting to get their child back. A -- a mother and father.

Father has a borderline on the higher end IQ of mental disability, 66. Mom has an IQ of 72. I don't know what you expected her to sound like. But she sounded perfectly normal to me.

She is a mother who loves her children. Sorry this is -- this hits close to home. I have a daughter with cerebral palsy who is a wonderful -- and would make the best mother ever.

(crying)

And I can't imagine what it would be like to have to defend your intelligence and to have everyone calling you stupid, when most likely, that's the way you have felt your whole life anyway. And all of the cruel remarks that probably came your way through your whole life, to now have a child and have it taken from you at the hospital, when there is no sign of abuse nor neglect, is an injustice that is beyond comprehension to me.

As I started this break, on a personal note, last night, I have these sweet women who -- who come to the studios. And they pray. And they pray for us. And they pray for me. And we're in my studios or office last night. We had a great conversation. And the last thing they said was, "What can we pray for, for you?"

And I said, "Two things." And I would like to ask you to pray for the second thing more than the first. But I said, "Empathy and courage."

We can't solve anything unless we can feel one another, unless we really have empathy for what people are going through, and we can stop seeing things through the prism of policies or even the Constitution. But start to feel where other people are.

I need more empathy for people. And I have been praying for that gift. But at the same time, I know that we will find things like Amy. And I need the courage and the -- the spine to be able to walk through it. And not because it's difficult, but because it's hard on the heart after a while.

And so if you would join us in -- in that prayer, I would appreciate it. I would appreciate it.

So what they're looking for is an attorney that can represent them. They're in a small town, and it sounds a little incestuous this town. No, I don't mean to speak ill of this town. I don't know anything about it. But we all know how small towns are and can be. And once people make their mind up about a person, it's hard to reverse that. I found very early on, the great joy, which in some ways, was so hard. And I didn't like it. Moving away from my family and my own hometown, you become that -- whatever people have known you as -- you know, I was -- you know, I -- to my sisters, I was their stinky little brother. And, you know, you -- you just grow up, and people have this image of you.

By going away, you can start fresh. And so I don't know Amy's story in this small little town and what they thought of Amy. But I know what the state worker thought when they went in and they found no abuse and no neglect. So we need somebody -- and would Kelly Shackelford -- would this be something -- he is, what? Is the Liberty Counsel? I mean, he does more religious freedom, but he might know somebody that could take on a case like this.

STU: Yeah, that would be interesting to hear. I mean, because there's a lot to this story. But if you back up for a second -- and I don't mean to get scientific, but it's like, this is just completely bonkers. Like this woman -- you expected to hear something completely different from that interview. At least I did. And I know that's totally judging a book by its cover, but...

GLENN: We never -- we had never talked to her before.

STU: No.

GLENN: Our phone screeners had never talked to her. Our producer had not talked to her.

STU: No.

GLENN: Talked to the mentor or the state advocate who was her state advocate until the state fired her. Talked to her. But we didn't -- I mean, I did not expect that conversation.

STU: It's similar to the Charlie Gard thing in a way, that, you know, there is a line you can find with a story like this. Where if they are so disabled that they can't do basic functions of life, there may be -- you know, there's an argument to have. This is not that case. I mean, she's smarter than 80 percent of the people I interact with on a daily basis.

GLENN: And they're taking parenting classes. And his parents are around. And they have help. And the -- the people are aware of them.

I mean, this is why you -- I mean, I will tell you, I feel like adopting their children and building a house next to mine and giving them the house and we would be the adoptive parents. But we would right next to them and they could keep the -- I mean, that's what families are supposed to do. Not state. That's what the family is supposed to do.

You have your child live close enough to where the grandparents help. You don't just take the children away. And, again, the state found no evidence of neglect.

STU: And it's important to note too, IQ is one of those things that has been beaten into our heads for decades and decades and decades as this actual measure of intelligence, that it has some level of accuracy to it. There's no real -- you cannot decipher. These are not accurate enough measures to decipher the difference between someone who has a 72 and a 78 IQ.

Listen. This is from a Canadian university. Dr. Adrian Owen did a huge study, the largest study ever on IQ and the accuracy of it. He was the senior investigator in the Canadian Excellent Research Chair in cognitive neuroscience and imaging at the university's Brain and Mind Institute. When we looked at the data, the bottom line is the whole concept of IQ or of you having a higher IQ than me is a myth. There is no such thing as a single measure of IQ or a measure of general intelligence.

And we're taking people's children away based on some random test they took on some day. Some number that has no real basis in science anyway. And just the sniff test here. You listen to this woman speak, and blatantly she has the intelligence to raise children.

How many people have you met in your life and you think, "Those people shouldn't have children?" This is not one of them. I mean, this is an absolute horror show. A complete outrage!

And how have we not heard more about this story? How does she not have the help that she needs? I mean, look, you may look deeper into this story and find something that indicates something different. But, I mean, so far, we have not found it. And I think just by -- on its face, you listen to that interview, if you heard that interview, I mean, there are times -- and you could not tell the difference if it was the mother or the mentor. Speaking.

GLENN: There was at least one time that that happened. I wanted to ask who is speaking.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: I could not tell the one who had their master's in -- what did she say it was? And the one who just graduated from high school. The one whose kids are being taken away because they're not smart enough and the one who has all the degrees and certificates to be hired and sent in by the state to do family counseling and observations. I mean, when you can't tell the difference between the two, there's a problem.

STU: And do we live in a country in which the state decides whether they'll allow you to have your children? Or do we live in a country in which they're your children and with only the most incredible exceptions and incredible circumstances would the state even consider stepping into -- into a parent/child relationship. That is the country we're supposed to live in. And if we live in -- I mean, I know Oregon is a lot different than other states. And maybe this wouldn't happen in other states. I don't know. But this is a complete outrage, on its face.

GLENN: So here's what I want to say to you: Have you -- my aunt was -- she married an abuser. And he wasn't abusing her at first. Not physically. Before they got married. Mentally, he was. My grandfather spotted him a mile away. And all the way down the aisle, my aunt told me, my dad, I thought at the time just wrecked my ceremony. Because grandpa was walking her down the aisle and said, "Please. Please, Joanne, don't do this. Please, don't do this. Please, don't marry him. Please turn around right now and come with me. Please, I'm your father. I'm begging you."

And she said, "Dad, stop it." When they got to the end of the aisle, he kissed her on the cheek and said, "I will always be your father. And I will always be there. But I cannot be there to watch my daughter be abused. When you are done, you let me know."

And he gave her to this abuser. She would come over to my grandfather's house from time to time with a black eye or whatever. And she would come crying to my grandmother, her mother. And grandpa would answer the door. And his heart would break. And he would look at her, and he would hug her. And she would cry. And then he would look at her and say, "Are you done yet?" She'd say, "Dad, no. You don't -- he stopped listening. And he would walk away. And grandma would spend the time.

Until that time came when she came home and said, "Dad, I'm done" -- we never saw the abuser again. He went away. And they had a very easy divorce.

I think it involved my grandfather and the man who became my uncle and her husband later showing up at his door with a shotgun or two, but I could be wrong. But here's why I tell you that story: Are you done yet? Are you done yet? Are we done arguing politics? Are we done making that the center of our universe? Because I'm done. I'm so done.

That's not getting us anywhere. This, we can make a difference on. This, we can do. This is a noble cause. This is something we should be spending our time on.

I'll pick this up tomorrow. But today, I just want to ask you that question. Are you done yet?

If you are, when you are, let me know. Because we have to focus on other things.

RADIO

WATCH: Biden SAYS What the Media Falsely ACCUSED Trump Of

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

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

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

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

Yesterday.

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

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

VOICE: Should the Columbia University president resign?

VOICE: I didn't know that.

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

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

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

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

STU: It really is fascinating.

GLENN: It's fascinating.

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

I can't believe the parallels.

It's exactly the same thing.

GLENN: It is!

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

GLENN: Very fine people on both sides.

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

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

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

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

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

STU: Really?

GLENN: It wasn't just Charlottesville.

STU: Thinking, calculating.

GLENN: Oh, January 6th.

STU: Yeah.

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

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

GLENN: That's weird.

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's a fascinating.

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

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

Is that what you're looking for?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

VOICE: I know you're afraid.

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

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

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

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

STU: The hatred.

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

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

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

You're not German enough.

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

Including, what's weird.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And he signed an appeal against the Luther invitation.

And he -- and he was fired.

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

So you couldn't picket the Nazis.

You know.

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

Held by the Nazis.

They loved that.

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

Why are we surprised?

Harvard was disturbing as well.

There was a warm welcome extended to Ernst Hanfstaengl.

Earnest Hanfstaengl here. Yeah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's up to America now, to decide.

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

But I personally think Jesus is coming.

Kind of soon. Probably.

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

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

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

GLENN: Yeah, okay.

RADIO

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

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

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Making other states part of NATO.

That is kind of a red line for Vladimir Putin.

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

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

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

So you're mistaken there.

GLENN: Yeah.

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

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

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

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

GLENN: It is insanity. It's insanity.

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

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

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

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

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

He had his Winston Churchill moment.

GLENN: Wait. Wait.

Let me give you the CNN headline.

By passing Ukraine aid, Johnson became an unlikely Churchill.

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

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

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

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

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

Call your senator.

You call all 50 or 49 senators from the Republicans.

And respectfully, nicely. Kindly.

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

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

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

And I hear from them every time.

When the audience calls, it makes a difference.

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

No!

Spend it on our border.

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

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

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

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

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

But I'm not stopping.

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

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

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

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

Have to a degree empowered this kind of action.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GLENN: On both sides.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GLENN: Mike, 30 seconds.

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

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

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

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

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

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

No one is safe. No one is safe.

Thank you so much, Mike. I appreciate it.

Senator, Mike Lee.

RADIO

3 Signs that Anti-Jewish ATROCITIES are Becoming Mainstream

The pro-Palestine, anti-Israel protests are getting out of hand. Glenn reviews 3 stories that prove just how mainstream these often-times anti-Jewish, demonstrations and beliefs are becoming: The United Nations Division for Palestinian Rights advertised "5 ways to take action for Tax Day" if people don't want their tax dollars to "fund genocide"; a group called Palestine Action has called on activists to surveil and violently vandalize businesses connected to the "Israeli weapons industry"; and a cop in London threatened to arrest a man for crossing a road during a pro-Palestine protest because his "openly Jewish" appearance could "antagonize" the crowd. In the name of "tolerance," we're "tolerating the REAL problem," Glenn says. So, is anyone looking into these acts of hate? Or are they still too focused on Trump supporters?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: You know, Stu, I've been thinking. Now, hear me out on this theory.

I'm thinking that maybe Americans. Now, this has never been said before, that I know of.

Do you think Americans just have an unusual fear, a heightened unusual fear of Tiki torches. Hear me out.

STU: This is a theory I've never heard before.

GLENN: Right. It's a first year.

Hear me out. When you have a gathering of Nazis, and they're screaming, death to the Jews.

STU: Jews will not replace us, I believe was the big --

GLENN: Yeah. Okay.

So you have the Tiki torches. We freak out.

But when you have the Palestinians say, kill all the Jews, and nobody freaks out.

They don't have Tiki torches.

STU: Oh!

That's -- that is an interesting difference.

GLENN: It might just be, I don't know. Because I've always go to of Tiki torches, as something you brought, that parents would have brought around the pool for a luau or something. You know, they got like, hey, we have a fresh pineapple. Let's have a luau. And so they would have a luau around the pool. I would like to do an experiment at your house, Stu. Let's see if we can get a bunch of Nazis to go with Tiki torches, and stand around your pool. Just to say, you know, if you like pineapple.

STU: Because then you wouldn't know if it was a racist protest or a luau. You wouldn't know. That's interesting.

GLENN: Yeah. You wouldn't know. You wouldn't know. So I think, is it the Tiki torches that are the difference here between the Nazis?

STU: We have some citronella situations, where they're supposed to help chase the mosquitoes away.

Maybe the American people are just sensitive to those same types of issues. Maybe they're scared away by the Tiki Torches.

GLENN: Maybe. Because I don't understand what's going on.

STU: But you didn't like the, every day should be October 7th chance this weekend?

GLENN: No, I didn't, I didn't.

STU: It didn't say necessarily, it was that thing on October 7th. They could have --

GLENN: It could have been the convert.

STU: Things that occurred on October 7th, you know.

GLENN: Sure. Should have been. Don't think it was. A little Nazi for my taste. A little too Nazi for my taste, but they didn't have Tiki torches.

Hey, by the way, we were just talking about the surveillance that the government is doing with foreigners and Americans getting scooped up. I'll bet you, none of that is going to happen to any of those proud, proud Palestinian protesters. They're not going to get scooped up. No!

Not at all.

By the way, I find it fascinating that the UN, the United Nations, the division for Palestinian rights and geoaction news, reportedly has given an update on the Civil Society Organization's concerning the Palestinian issues. So they're just putting out this information, and they're pointing to the US campaign for Palestinian rights. Lists ways to take action for tax day. So the United Nations put out a little flier there. Just you know Palestinian rights. And put together a little helpful list, if you wanted to take action.

Let me just show you what was in this. Instructions on how some protesters who didn't want their tax dollars to fund genocide. This is from the UN, could disrupt a free Palestine.

Second item on the list, pointed to a user hyperlink for protesters who wanted to engage in a coordinated multi-city economic blockade, to free Palestine.

You know what is not under investigation by our FBI?

These people.

The state laid -- the site laid out specifically how participants could be most effective with their disruptions. The proposal states that in each city, quote, will identify and blockade major choke points on the economy. Focusing on points of production and circulation, with the aim of causing the most economic impact as the port shutdowns did in recent months in Oakland, California, and Melbourne, Australia, just a few examples.

There's this need, quoting, from a shift of symbolic actions to those that cause pain to the economy.

Still quoting, as Yemen is bombed to secure global trade, and billions of dollars are sent to the Zionist war machine, we must recognize that the global economy is complicit in genocide, and together, we will coordinate to disrupt and blockade economic, logistical hubs, and the flow of Capitol.

So I think this is great. Hey. Justice Department.

Nothing to see. I don't need to say this to you. You know, nothing to see there.

Nothing to see there. Whatsoever. By the way, new document, also has -- has been given to the investigative journalist up in Canada. You know, we saw the breakdown of society.

You know, the UN. This is another one. This is an underground manual, created by Palestinian action.

It's a network of groups, that use what they call direct action against individuals and organizations who are believed to support Israel.

The manual, this is another manual, urges the sales to pick your target.

Anyone who enables and profits from the Israeli's weapons industry. Palestinian action then calls on some members to prepare for action. And do what it refers to as recce. R-E-C-C-E. Reconnaissance, is that what you mean? Even advising borrowing someone's dog for a walk, to avoid looking suspicious.

STU: Well, you don't want to look suspicious, Glenn.

GLENN: Right. Can I borrow your dog for a walk? Hey, free dog walking!

STU: That wouldn't be suspicious?

GLENN: No. No. Extremists are counseled to map out where closed-circuit cameras are located, as well as fencing, barbed wire, access points, alarms, and how far the police are from the target. Next, the pamphlet describes to sell -- to be advised to plan action, among the suggestion action. Smashing windows. Exterior equipment. Blocking company's internal pipes. Including using concrete. As anti-Israel protesters did on the railroad tracks in Toronto.

Last week, that was great. This will cause disruptions for the target. Break-ins are also advised by Palestinian action, because breaking in to your target, and damaging the contents inside, is obviously a very effective tactic. This thing goes on and on and on.

It says, at the end, in all caps. Palestinian action warns, taking action, never leave anything behind.

Absolutely nothing. Apart from the paint and the destruction.

The police may try to forensically analyze any items which are left. So don't leave anything. By the way, you should have untraceable burner phones. Oh.

If caught, Palestinian action members are give up the names of lawyers to represent them. Apparently at no cost. And the assistance of, quote, our dedicated support team throughout your entire legal process. End quote.

STU: Oh, that's nice.

GLENN: So I'm -- I'm wondering. I'm wondering, if there's any -- anybody at all, thinking about this?

STU: I think that came from the Toronto star, which is obviously the -- when you're thinking about this type of thing.

You think, I don't know.

Maybe the New York Times. The Washington Post.

GLENN: No. No.

STU: The LA Times would be really interested, in uncovering a document like this, that is advocating this type of things.

GLENN: No. They won't. I just gave you two. One from the Toronto star. Another from the UN.

Hello. Hello.

Nobody. Nobody is interested in this. So please don't talk to me about, oh, my gosh, the United States is in such danger.

Yes. When you close the border. And make sure we don't have, you know, half a million people coming in every 90 days. You let me know. Then I'll take you seriously.

When you start investigating people that are -- that are organizing paying for, and encouraging these kinds of Nazi rallies. When you -- you know what, once you start calling them Nazi rallies, I'll take you seriously.

Otherwise, I think you're actually part of the rob. And here. I want you to listen. What British police said to this Jewish man. It's Saturday. The Sabbath. He's coming back.

He does this every Saturday. He walks.

And here's what the British police said to him, because there were Palestinians around.

He's trying to -- I -- I don't want to stay here. I want to lease as a Jewish man. When the crowd is gone. He can go.

I'll escort you.

No, sir. You're not. I don't want to antagonize anyone. I just don't want to walk across the street. And at the moment, sir, you're quite openly Jewish. This is a pro-Palestinian march.

I'm not accusing you. But I'm worried about the reaction to your presence.

I just want to make sure you're safe. So that no one attacks you.

That's all. I would like that too. But your sergeant told me, because I'm Jewish, it's antagonistic to the crowd. And dangerous.

I'm not saying that. He just said that.
(music)

VOICE: On every Saturday, you probably know it. Your colleagues know it.

VOICE: It changes every single week. (inaudible).

VOICE: And now, look at the number of police around him. Look around.

GLENN: Probably 20 policeman around him. And he's like, I'm -- I'm told that it's completely safe for the Jews to walk around. I should have nothing to worry about. And yet, here I am. They're shouting me. Shoving me. And I'm surrounded by cops.

So they're going to escort him out.

He doesn't want any of that to happen.

He says, you're -- the cop says, you're causing a breach of peace. Because you're standing here.

Your presence here is antagonizing a large group of people. So we're going to arrest you. Because your presence is antagonizing them.

STU: Huh?

GLENN: Now. They didn't do anything to the people that were surrounding him. Calling him vermin.

Calling for the death of Jews.

They did nothing.

But he's the problem. Again, this is tolerating!

You're tolerating the real problem!

You're tolerating the views of Nazis! Now, I just -- I'm not going to have time here. But tomorrow, I'm going to go through the history of Columbia university. You know, Columbia university. They were welcoming Nazis in. They had a cap on how many Jews we could have in the college. They have a history of this. Does anybody really care? America, it is so easy to know, if you're on the right side of history, right now.

You do not want to tell your grandchildren or your great-grandchildren, yeah. Your grandma and I did nothing.

When this all came down. We were just too afraid to say anything.

You know, my job was really important.

Yeah. I get that grandpa. But look what that led to, your silence.

RADIO

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

New York’s hush money trial against former president Donald Trump has begun and the media suggests there’s a “mountain of evidence” against him. But Glenn and Stu reveal the truth: Trump may have 34 counts of falsifying business records against him. But they’re all for ONE payment. So, how can one payment turn into 34 charges? And why is the prosecution relying on known-liar Michael Cohen?! Glenn and Stu break it down and also play a clip of a Democratic congresswoman revealing the real reason why Trump is on trial.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: You know, here's -- here's what you need to say to yourself. When you start listening to, you know, politicians or newscasters. Say, hey. This is really important that you pay attention to this. Because this is what I think. And you'll know who you can trust. Especially in Washington, DC.

If they -- if they're not talking about the government spending, then they're not serious about inflation. Period.

If -- with the border. If they're talking about dangerous things are in America, and we've -- we've got to -- we've got to make sure that we are buttoned up. And things are bad.

And blah, blah, blah. And we have terror. All the red lights are flashing.

But they don't talk about stopping the hemorrhaging at the border. They're not serious.

You talk about FISA. Oh, we have to have extra. Extra super-duper, you know, warrantless searches on Americans. Because it's so dangerous, and you never know if Americans are involved.

But they are not saying anything about the Palestinian Nazis on our streets. That are organized and well-funded.

They're not serious about your security. Period. If the New York Times writes a story that says, yeah. You know what, this Trump trial, well, that's -- it's got a mountain of facts to it. Really? But they don't seem to care that the statute of limitations, is passed.

STU: No mountain of evidence could overwhelm that fact. We're past the statute of limitations.

GLENN: Yeah. Right.

The fact that the DOJ passed on -- I don't know if you know this.

DOJ doesn't like Donald Trump.

STU: What?

GLENN: Yeah. The fact that the federal elections committee also passed on this. And said, there's no crime here.

There's nothing.

He -- even Alvin brag, the prosecutor, passed on this originally.

There's nothing here.

There is no mountain of evidence, that could -- that is standing in the way, of -- of anything, other than a mistrial.

STU: I love how it's like presented as this uphill battle too. It's like, oh, is a mountain of evidence, even enough for this very difficult task they have to do of convicting Donald Trump in Manhattan? Yeah. That's --

GLENN: Did you hear what Jayapal said? What's her name?

STU: Jayapal.

GLENN: Yeah. Jayapal. She came out and said this weekend. Do we have it? Yeah, listen to this.

STU: Oh, good.

VOICE: You know, I go back to the responsibility of Congress here because had the Senate actually gone through with the impeachment of Donald Trump. We would not be in the situation.

STU: Oh.

GLENN: Wait. What?

STU: Wait a minute. What?

I don't understand.

GLENN: We wouldn't be in this situation. Now, she's telling the truth. She's telling the truth.

GLENN: Yes, she is.

Not even under oath. If she's under oath, she will lie. In this case, she's telling the truth.

STU: She is. If they had convicted Trump, and he is eligible to become president of the United States, they would be doing anything of this.

Because they don't actually care. These aren't real. They're just trying to win this election.

GLENN: Give me the New York Times mountain of evidence.

STU: Well, Glenn, as you know, they have 34 counts.

GLENN: Thirty-four counts.

STU: I've forgotten this. This is incredible, going over this stuff, as we're preparing this.

Thirty-four false records accusations here.

GLENN: Wow. So he's forged or put lies in 34 different places, 34 different times.
STU: That's a lot.
GLENN: That's a lot.

STU: Now, when you think about this case, we kind of know the basic structure of it, right? Like, Michael Cohen made payments to these women, to shut them up before the election. Again, this is the accusation. And Trump, now, that's not illegal, by the way.

They're not even saying. They're not even accusing him of being illegal.

GLENN: No. Hush money. It's just hush money. No. But it's not illegal.

STU: You might have problems with that. You might think that's not a good feature for the president of the United States to have.

But you can make that decision at the ballot box. Because they're not even saying that. What they're saying it's false records. What they did was Cohen made these payments to shut up Stormy Daniels and the group.

And then to pay Cohen back, they basically make a -- a BS line in the records, which says, it's additional legal expenses. Or something like that. They market as like a retainer for legal services. Which it was.

It was paying him back for these payments.

Okay. So this is how they get to 34 counts.

Remember, that was paid back over a year. So how do you get to 34 counts when it's basically one payment? Well, first of all, you bring that up. They made 12 payments. So that's 12 counts. Okay?

This is legitimately how they're doing it. Obviously, they're paying him back for one thing. But he separated it into monthly payments, so 12 counts.

GLENN: Wait a minute.

So I would like to hear the jury argument.
You know, I don't think he meant it in June and July.

But the other ten counts, they'll stand, so you have 12 counts. That already sounds horrible.

STU: Right. But it's all it is.

GLENN: Because you wouldn't pick one month, he didn't really mean it. You would have to pick all 12.

He's convicted just there.

12 counts.

STU: Now, technically it was 11.

If I remember right, one of his payments were skipped.

11. So 11 checks. Eleven of the 34 counts.

GLENN: Okay. 11.

STU: You might say, wait a minute. That's totally stretching. Right? It's one payment, broken into 11 times. Okay. That's BS. Secondarily, it's 11 monthly voices Mr. Cohen submitted.

GLENN: So now we're up to 22.
STU: Twenty-two counts. So the 22 counts are eleven times he paid him a check, and the 11 times he invoiced him for those same payments.

So, again, it's still just one payment. They've now worked it into 22 different charges. Okay? You might say. Well, that's completely ridiculous.

They couldn't get more ridiculous than that. Well, when the payments went through in the general ledger for Mr. Trump's trust, they used 12 entries to signify this. So that's the other 12. So it's 11 checks, eleven invoices, and 12 entries into the general ledger. Those are the 34 charges. Come on!

Yeah. Thirty-four. Come on. I mean, anyone could recognize, they're trying to blow this number up to make it look more like it was a real series of criminal activity, rather than just one thing.

This is one payment.

Now, you can absolutely have a problem with that one payment. That is totally fine.

GLENN: But that's not 32.

STU: It is not -- 34.

And that's not how the legal system is supposed to work. There are very clear warnings against prosecutors, throughout our legal history, that say, hey.

Don't inflate cases like this.

Don't try to get the number up there, just so it looks overwhelming to the general public.

Of course, that's what they're doing here.

This is all about the general public. It has nothing to do with him, and his business records.

Come on!

There is no way you can justify this.

Especially after the statute of limitations has already expired.

GLENN: That's unbelievable. Unbelievable.

32 counts.

STU: Thirty-four.

GLENN: No. Thirty-two counts.

I don't count -- I don't count one of the checks. And one of the entries on a different month.

STU: So the April -- July payment.

GLENN: Yes. I thought the entry was -- I thought he meant it, at that point.

STU: That particular one.

GLENN: Yeah. That particular one. So I'm convicting on 32 counts.

I mean --

STU: And then you have Michael Cohen. The guy who will come in here.

And they say, this is an interesting one. That they also frame it, in the New York Times story.

So they say, that aids and friends who lied on Mr. Trump's behalf, will take the withstand to testify against him.

They include David Pecker, the tabloid publisher, who bought and buried damaging stories about Mr. Trump.

Now, Pecker, I don't think he is -- I will say, maybe he will testify against Donald Trump.

Or he will just tell the truth, that they probably did catch and kill these stories. Like it seems like --

GLENN: That's what he did.

STU: There's an incredible amount of evidence. That, again, is not what he's being charged with.

Right? Like, the payments and the ledger entries are what he's being charged with. Not the fact that he wanted to minimize publicity about negative instances right before an election, which, of course, he was trying to do.

GLENN: Stu. Stu.

He was -- he made a mistake. And he was only trying to save his marriage. A man can't lie to save his marriage.

STU: Look.

GLENN: I can --

STU: They're going to -- to try to push all of these angles. Hope Hicks is another one.

Now, hope Hicks is a spokesperson who tried to spin reporters, is her description here.

Now, Hope Hicks. Again, I don't think is going to come out and testify against Donald Trump. In air quotes.

I think she's going to tell the truth about what happened, right?

I don't think anyone is saying that he she has this vendetta against Trump.

Now, Cohen does. Cohen clearly does. Cohen will go farther.

My guess is either than those two by a lot.

He will say anything.

This is what he was known for. When he worked for Trump.

GLENN: This is how he gets a job at MSNBC.

STU: Yeah. And how he got a job with Donald Trump.

Like, he wasn't qualified for that job. He was a nobody. And he was constantly lying about everything when he worked for Donald Trump.

Now he's constantly lying about everything that will please MSNBC. He's been a constant liar, every day he's been alive, since I've been aware of it.

That's been who he has been. He's always done this. In my opinion.

And so he's one of those people, of course that is -- I mean, they're saying, Trump is basically saying, this guy has no credibility.

And it's try. You can name 500 things. From when he worked for Donald Trump. When he had no credibility. A lot of the lies, they know are lies, are because he was lying on behalf of Donald Trump for so many years. And now he's coming out, no. Now I totally change my mind, and all of the things I said before, I can admit are lies.

And, suddenly, the media embraces him for that. It's so transparent.

Like, he should be the type of person that you don't even allow in the courtroom, unless you're convicting him of something.

GLENN: And here's the real problem: Again, all of this is past the statute of limitations.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: The reason why you can't go after Hunter Biden on some of the drug charges. Was it the drug charges?

No, no. Tax charges. Is because it's past the statute of limitations. Which they intentionally have the Justice Department drag it out, so they couldn't charge him with that.

There's corruption. This one, they just didn't file charges. Because the government said there was problem. Even Alvin Bragg the prosecutor, said there was no problem.

So they just waited and waited. They had nothing else. I don't know. Try it.

So they concoct all of this.

STU: Yes.

GLENN: To get past the statute of limitations. There's a mountain, I would like to see them climb.

STU: Yeah, and they will try it. This is, again, to your point. The zombie case side of Bragg's office.

Because they were just waiting and hoping something would come up to make it real. But they knew it wasn't.

So now, how do they make it real?

Well, they say, if it's connected to another crime. If the business record falsification was connected to another crime, that was not past the statute of limitations, then we can turn it into a felony. And then we can --

GLENN: So what was the other --

STU: He wasn't charged with it. So Bragg is assuming a crime, that the DOJ didn't go after Trump for. He's saying, they should have gone after him for it.

Therefore, I can pass through the statute of limitations. Even though -- to bring the crime he's talking about.

GLENN: Let me bring this to simple terms.

Let's say, I want to get you on the same thing, Donald Trump is doing. Okay?

And I say, well, it's past the statute of limitations. But you murdered that woman.

You know, all those years ago.

STU: Right. The payments were connected to my murder. Right?

GLENN: Right. But you were never charged with murder. You were never convicted of murder.

I will not bring up the murder.

STU: No. Right. No.

GLENN: But that's how --

STU: It's connected to the murder.

GLENN: I can get you.

STU: Yeah. Huh. It's a great way. That's exactly what the people in the jury should --

GLENN: This is going to be. This is amazing.

What a magic trick, this will be. To pull off.

But not in New York. Because everyone there, for some strange reason, loved Donald Trump.

And now, that he was president, they hate him. This is the O.J. Simpson trial, in reverse. In reverse.

This guy didn't cut somebody's head off, but because they're so mad at him, they're going to convict him.

Where O.J. he did cut off somebody's head. But the jury was so pissed off at the system, they let him off. There's no difference.

Glenn's Show Prep

Heartbreaking: Glenn Sheds Tears With Mother Whose Children Were Taken by the State

WATCH: Biden SAYS What the Media Falsely ACCUSED Trump Of

Transcript

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

Transcript

3 Signs that Anti-Jewish ATROCITIES are Becoming Mainstream

Transcript

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

Transcript