CHALKBOARD: ‘SEL’ is used in schools to BRAINWASH & DECEIVE

We’ve heard ALL the CRT denials used by the far-left: ‘No, we’d NEVER teach this to your kids!’ But it’s all a LIE…and this lie goes far beyond CRT. Glenn’s back at the chalkboard to expose SEL — Social Emotional Learning — and how it’s connected to CRT and other dangerous ideology being forced onto our kids in school. THIS is how the far-left deceives parents, and THIS is how they’ll brainwash our kids…

Startup Says It Can Put Your HEAD on ANOTHER BODY Soon?!

Startup Says It Can Put Your HEAD on ANOTHER BODY Soon?!

The startup company BrainBridge recently released a video advertising its future services that are mind-blowing. The company promises that in about 8 years, it will be able to use A.I. and completely robotic surgeons to remove a patient's head and attach it to another body. Glenn and Stu review the shocking video and explain ask, "what could possibly go wrong?!"


Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Let me go back again. This is cut 17. From the World Economic Forum's Yuval Noah Harari. Which he is one of the big guys in the World Economic Forum. He's the leader now of AI philosophy. And futurist, philosophically. I just want you to hear about what he says. This kind of technology. Now, this is two years ago.

What this kind of technology can do. Cut 17.

VOICE: A system. That understands us better than we understand ourselves. Can predict our feelings and decisions. Can manipulate our feelings and decisions.

And can ultimately make decisions for us.

Soon, at least some corporations and governments, will be able to systematically hack all the people. We humans should get used to the idea, that we are no longer mysterious souls.

We are now hackable animals.

GLENN: So what does that mean?

Well, it means, they can hack you, and know what you're thinking before you even know you're thinking. They will be able to predict, because of all of the data they have on you.

And all of the realtime data, they have on you.

They will be able to predict. Anybody see the movie, Minority Report?

Yeah. Kind of like that. Beyond that, what he's talking about is hacking you. It will make decisions for you.

Now, I don't want anyone making decisions for me.

And that's the problem right now.

The government seems to be making all of these decisions for us.

Telling us exactly how we have to live.

But imagine propaganda that is so subtle, so good, and so tailored to you. That you don't know it's propaganda.

So all of a sudden, you're saying, you know, these 15-minute cities. You know, honey. We don't ever have to fly again.

We could sell our credits to rich people. So they can fly.

That's what he's talking about.

There has to be a -- a law passed in Washington, that protects our data.

You need to own your own data. Now, what else could possibly go wrong?

Well, let me tell you now about the first head transplant.

This is an insane medical break through.

In fact, let's just play part of the video on it. Here it is.

GLENN: Introducing Brain Bridge, the world's first revolutionary concept for a head transplant machine which uses state of the art robotics and artificial intelligence, to complete head and face transplant procedures, ensuring smooth outcomes and faster recoveries. Because head transplants require high speed, precision, and efficiency, Brain Bridge utilizes advanced high speed, high-precision robotic systems to speed up the process, eliminate human error, prevent brain cell degradation, and ensure seamless compatibility.

The head transplant procedure involves removing a person's entire head, containing the brain, from their current diseased body, and attaching it to the body of the healthy, young, brain dead donor.

The head transplants could provide individuals with severe medical conditions, such as terminal cancer, paralysis, spinal cord injuries, or neural degenerative diseases, the opportunity to have a fully functional body, while preserving their consciousness, memories, and cognitive abilities.

The neurons are the longest lasting functional cells in the human body. That according to our estimates, the brain is capable of lasting several hundred years provided that the rest of the body remains young.

GLENN: Did you hear that? As long as the body remains young, the head, the brain, can last several hundred years.

All we'll need are bodies. Now, these will be bodies of brain dead people, I'm sure. We won't -- I mean, you won't suddenly wake up with a -- oh, I don't know.

Chinese gulag body. No. That will never happen.

But as long as we have healthy bodies. We'll be -- no. No. No.

Some of us will be able to live forever.

How exciting is that?

Now, they said, you know, because brain -- you know, brain body transplants are difficult.

No. Right now. They're impossible. You can't do that. They've had one attempt recently in Russia.

And I believe the guy went insane. And died.

The same thing that happens with monkeys. They transplant the brains. Or they transplant the heads of monkeys on other monkeys. And we can do it.

You, but they all go insane. But nothing to worry about. Their science.

Does that sound spooky at all to you, Stu.

STU: Not at all. That honestly sounded like a promo for like an underground promotional campaign for a sci-fi film.

Like, it didn't even seem real.

Left’s Playbook REVEALED in PATHETIC NYT Hit Piece on Alito

Left’s Playbook REVEALED in PATHETIC NYT Hit Piece on Alito

The New York Times is once again freaking out about Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito. Lat time, it was over an upside-down American flag that Alito’s wife flew over their house. But now, Alito flew a – GASP! – “Appeal to Heaven” pine tree flag outside his New Jersey beach home. This flag, the Times insists, is a popular symbol among Jan. 6 “insurrectionists.” But Glenn gives the New York Times a much-needed history lesson on both flags. Spoiler alert: They’re not “insurrection” flags. But why is the Times going after Alito NOW? Glenn explains how this hit piece reveals the Left’s playbook…


Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: I don't know about you, Stu.

But I am gravely, gravely concerned, that we have somebody, anybody, let alone a Supreme Court justice who would fly a flag upside down.

I don't know what that means. Other than, we all have to kill each other for Donald Trump. But he did that. And now, he's flown another flag at his beach house. That has to stop.

STU: Yes. Well, the upside down flag, as we know, is a symbol of January 6th, Glenn. That is what it is. It's in the headline of the New York Times.

Sure, down in the paragraph of 18, they mentioned dozens of groups have been using this for a long time. To show distress for the country.

GLENN: Well, I hate to point this out.

But it does -- it's exactly, if your ship is in trouble, and you're at sea, you fly your flag upside down as a symbol, that we're in distress.

We're sinking. We've been taken over. Whatever it is. We're out of refreshments.

And you fly your flag upside down.
It means ship in distress. If you fly it -- this is all flag code, by the way. If you fly it upside down on your home or your building or whatever, it is a symbol that the nation is in distress.

Now, I haven't noticed. Any kind of advertise tress.

You know, I -- I just haven't noticed, if there's any problems that seem like, gee.

We should concentrate on that. Or maybe even bend a knee. And appeal to heaven.

But he did. He apparently thinks that the nation is in distress.

STU: Well, at least his wife did.

Which is seemingly who actually flew the flag upside down.

And also --

GLENN: Those damn wives, you know what I mean?

STU: And then also, I think in the days after January 6th, I think no matter what side of the argument you're on. The idea that the nation was in distress is probably a good take.

GLENN: You know, I don't know if people remember this. But everyone, including now some of the people that were just walking around the Capitol. They found this abhorrent.

They found what happened. It was -- it was -- it was not the darkest day, since the Civil War. It was maybe the darkest day since the left, in the 1980s.

Set off a bomb, inside the Capitol. That was a pretty dark day, and it was akin to that.

STU: Maybe the darkest day since a Bernie Sanders campaign volunteer tried to assassinate 20 percent of the elected Republicans in Washington.

GLENN: Thank you.

STU: There's a lot of dark days you can point to. I don't know.

GLENN: Yeah, it wasn't a good day.

Nobody was proud of what was going on. At least I was. And all of my friends looked at that and said, that's not who we are.

And, yeah. I don't care if you're a Republican or a Democrat.

We were all offended by that. But the media has made this into, Republicans just loved it.

And that's just not true.

Anyway, anyone -- anyone -- you know, Democrats, if you really felt the way, I felt on January 6th. Which I think you did.

You could have flown your flag upside down because it shows a nation in distress.

And that's clear on that day, no matter who you voted for, the nation was in distress. The republic was at stake.

Can we all agree to that?

Now, they're trying to tie that to January 6th, and make that a symbol of January 6th.

It is not. When you tie it to January 6th, you now destroy another tradition of America.

I have flown my flag upside down before. I don't remember what was going on in the world. But there was something going on in the world. And I flew my flag upside down for about a week.

Now, I happened to have a flagpole that's in the mountains, and nobody would see it. But my family saw it. And I flew it upstairs.

I have also committed the crime that we now know, Justice Alito's beach house. They also flew another flag last summer.

First of all, they flew a 2022 Philly's flag. I don't -- I think we all are quite aware of the Philly's connection to January 6th.

But they then flew the appeal to heaven flag. Uh-huh.

Uh-huh. Uh-huh. I'm going to let that sit with you for a while.

The flag that was the design came from George Washington.

And it's an appeal to heaven.

You know, so that's -- at least in the summer months, to fly that, I think we all know what he was saying, right?

Maybe, appeal to heaven. Maybe that would be it. By the way, let me just tell you a little bit about that flag. In case you don't know.

That's the flag with the pine tree, which is white. It's also red. Which I will get to in a second. But it's a white one, and it says appeal to heaven.

It has a pine tree on it. That was a symbol of New England since the 16th century.

Why? Because New England had big pine trees.

Why was that important?

Because they could build ships. And build them for England, or whoever.

And ship giant mass, which were hard to find, because nobody had the giant pine trees, that New England had.

So they would build these masts out of the trees.

And they would sell them. So it was a big business this the first place. So that's one reason the pine tree was there.

But also, after warring for decades, the leaders of five nations, the Seneca, the Kyuga, the Onedega, Oneida, and Mohawks. They had been warring with each other forever.

But there was a great leader. He was called the great peacemaker. He was with the Iroquois.

He convinced all of them to bury their weapons under a pine tree. The great peacemaker did that. So it is also the symbol of the tree of peace.

Isn't that interesting?

Now, it was so crazy, that symbol. That it actually was on the -- the currency, in the 17th century. So the 1600s. Also, it was on the coinage, produced by the Massachusetts bay colony.

And it became the symbol of the colonial iron resistance, as well as a multi-tribal support for independence.

Yeah. Now, where did that come from? Because it says on an appeal to heaven. Well, it's kind of interesting.

It comes from -- now, this, Stu. Buckle up. Because I'm about to mention a true rattle. And this will tell you everything you know. The phrase appeal to heaven, is an expression of the right. The right of revolution.

And that right of revolution. And the appeal to heaven, comes directly from that outrageous killer, John Locke.

STU: Wow!

That -- you want to talk about a controversial figure. I mean, this is --

GLENN: It's John Locke, right?

STU: If you like John Locke. You might like the enlightenment.

GLENN: Yeah. You might. You might. You might.

STU: And then how far does that go?

GLENN: So let me just -- let me just -- I have more.

Let me just boil this down.

This flag is first assigned as the people tree as trade. It's also a sign of peace among the Indians.

It is then added to that, the appeal to heaven, comes from John Locke.

And what he wrote, in 1690. It was -- was a -- a refute of the theory of the define right of kings.

So, I mean, everybody loves having a king, right?

Sure, of course. So this is an antiking flag. Now, when I say antiking, what I mean is, not necessarily a revolution.

You have a right to a revolution. But here's what this means.

And I quote. Where the body of people or any single man is deprived of their right. Or is under the exercise of a power without right. In other words, the divine right of the kings.

I'm king. So I make up all the rights. Because God tells me. If you were living under an exercise of power without right and have no appeal on earth. Meaning, you can't go to a judge. You can't go to anybody. Because of the divine right of kings!

I have no way to have anyone protect my right. Then you have the liberty to appeal to heaven. Huh.

How very controversial in the United States of America.

Now, let me tell you another reason why I believe Alito has an appeal to heaven, I always interpreted that flag as an appeal to heaven for common sense and for help. Please, Lord, help us.

And it would go right along with an upside down nag. Now, wouldn't it?

We're in distress. Can we please look to God, and beg for his mercy and guidance?

How unbelievably controversial is that? To say, from the people who tell us, democracy is about to be lost. To fly a flag that says, we're a nation in distress.

Now, you may not believe in God. But a lot of us do believe in God. And a lot of us now look at these problems. This distress, and say, there is no other answer, but to appeal to God for mercy and guidance.

So that might be the reason he flew those flags. Also, let me just tell you something else: Do you know what Alito did, a couple of summers back?

Do you know what he did? Do you know, Stu?

STU: I mean, I know it's bad. But, no. I don't know specifically what it is.

GLENN: Yes. It's horrible.

He's the guy that wrote the Dobbs' decision.

STU: Oh, no.

GLENN: Okay. So there's reason number one for the attack.

But also, let's look at it from Alito's point of view.

That decision was leaked, and led to people in the streets, trying to -- in front of their houses. Trying to kill Supreme Court justices.

I think he might also have another reason for saying it's a nation in distress.

Especially, since every single Supreme Court justice knows who leaked the decision.

Every single one of them. Review everybody in the Washington, who is -- who was part of the Supreme Court. Was part of the investigation. They all know who leaked the decision.

But no one paid the price.

If there's no judge, that can judge you on earth, because they're unrighteous, and not doing the things that they're supposed to be doing. Under the Bill of Rights.

You appeal to heaven, and according to that great, scandalous monster, John Locke.

That's your right.

Now, I'm going to take a quick break. And then I'm going to compare him, to someone else. That is, oh, so beloved.

And, of course, they don't like it, they don't like Alito, because his wife new a flag, and there are all these judges.

He would have to recuse himself now from everything.

Because, well, his wife had an opinion. And he flew a flag that sent an appeal to heaven.

Now, let me give you this from 2016.

Donald Trump is a faker. He has no consistency about him. He says whatever comes to his head at the moment. He really has an ego. How has he want to be away with not turning over his taxes?

I can't imagine what this place would be like.

I can't imagine what the country would be, with Donald Trump as our president.

2016, during the election, Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Hmm. That seems like she was involved and nobody was calling for her to recuse herself on anything. 2012, I love this one.

At one point, we talked about the lack of Medicaid funding for abortions for poor women. Because of 1980 Supreme Court decision, called Harris versus McRae.

She then said, that really surprised me. Frankly, I really thought at the time, that Roe was decided where there was a concern about population growth and particularly in the growth of populations, that we don't want to have too many of. So that Roe was then going to be set up for Medicaid abortion for funding.

So here in 2012, Ruth Bader Ginsburg is talking about eugenics, and getting rid of the growth of populations, that we don't want to have too many of.

I wish she was around, so I could ask her: Which population she meant. Is it black? Is it Hispanic?

Is it white? Who do you put in the ovens? Who is it that you sterilize?

Who is it that you wipe out, Ruth Bader Ginsburg?

So don't start with Justice Alito.

And if you want to fix the problem, if you really want to fix the problem, then name the leaker.

But you can't do that. Because I have a feel, it's a Supreme Court justice.

How Tulsi Gabbard Went from Bernie Sanders Supporter to Possible Trump VP Pick

How Tulsi Gabbard Went from Bernie Sanders Supporter to Possible Trump VP Pick

How did former Democratic congresswoman and presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard go from endorsing Bernie Sanders to allegedly being on Donald Trump’s vice-presidential shortlist? Tulsi, who recently released her newest book, "For Love of Country," joins Glenn to explain what all changed. She addresses the rumors about whether she’s talked to Trump about being VP and whether she’d join his administration as Secretary of Defense. Plus, she lays out the 2 most critical questions that voters should be asking when choosing between Trump and Biden in the election.


Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Tulsi Gabbard, welcome to the program, how are you?

TULSI: Very good, my friend. How are you?

GLENN: I am good. I am good.

Are you in Hawaii? Right now.

TULSI: I'm in Virginia, today.

GLENN: Okay.

TULSI: And tomorrow. And Texas the day after. I'm on the road, living out of a suitcase.

GLENN: Oh, boy.

Okay. First of all, you're on a short list.

And I'm not going to ask you anything other than, have you had a conversation with him, about being vice president?

TULSI: I've spoken to him. I will talk about what we've spoken about. I have met and spoken to him.

GLENN: That's fine. Would you serve in any capacity in a Trump administration?

TULSI: I would serve in a capacity where I felt that I could actually be effective in helping to get our country back on track, both in domestic policy, and foreign policy.

GLENN: So, Tulsi, you know I respect you. I really like you.

We disagree on things. You were a former Bernie Sanders supporter.

You know, but I also know, you love the Constitution.

And America.

And the country.

And just finding somebody who loves America, is very hard to find right now.

Can you help me out on understanding the Bernie Sanders to, you know, I would be willing to serve in a Trump administration.

TULSI: Of course. I'm glad you asked. Because it is on its face, kind of a -- a big mental -- a mental leap. But when you actually look at the reason, when I made that announcement, back in 2016, to resign as vice chair of the DNC, so that I could get involved in that democratic presidential primary, I focused on one thing.

I announced my endorsement of Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton, around foreign policy.

Bernie Sanders of today is even the different now, than he was back then. On this -- on some of these foreign policy issues.

But there was a very clear contract between Hillary Clinton, the queen of warmongers. And Bernie Sanders, who has for a long time, largely been more of a noninterventionist.

And I was frustrated because as an officer of the DNC, I couldn't, you know, according to the rules, get involved or speak out publicly.

But as you remember, Glenn, people were saying Hillary Clinton was the most qualified person to ever run for president in the history of our country.

But, of course -- I know. I still laugh when I think about that.

GLENN: Yeah.

TULSI: And it wasn't just her campaign people who were saying this. It was supposedly serious people on, you know, the different cable shows. And the broadcast news shows.

And the Meet the Press type shows.

But they never went behind. Okay. She held this title and that title and that title.

It would never go into what her record actually was. The kinds of decisions that she made.

The things that she influenced and urged President Obama to do as Secretary of State.

And for me, as an American citizen, as a soldier and a veteran of various wars and conflicts, I felt strongly about the fact that Hillary Clinton would be the most dangerous president and commander-in-chief for our country. Our freedom, our security, and our liberty.

And so I took the opportunity to make that endorsement of Bernie Sanders, around that issue, so that I could have a platform to call her out directly to the American people. So that at a minimum, they could make a more informed decision, about who they wanted, to be the democratic presidential nominee for that time.

GLENN: So the -- that explains an awful lot.

The State Department, you know, has been off the rails for a hundred years. They're very warmongering. What's happening in Ukraine is obscene.

And strangely, I think since Ronald Reagan and I think even more so than Ronald Reagan. But it was a different time.

Donald Trump is the least -- he understands peace through strength, but he is the least likely to go to war.

And yet, the left keeps saying, he's a warmonger.

TULSI: It's their tried and true tactic. And you see them doing this, not only with an issue with seriousness as war and peace.

But you also see how they're doing it around democracy. You know, they're claiming, he will be the dictator in chief, or this will be the last election that's held if he wins. And so on and so forth.

And yet, we look at how they're weaponizing the Department of Justice. All they're doing to both target and prosecute, throwing everything and the kitchen sink at Donald Trump.

But also going after everyday Americans, whose names will never be in the headlines. Because they are the, quote, unquote, political opposition.

The undermining of free speech. The undermining of the rule of law.

And yet, they cloak all of this. And try to distract and deflect attention from the American people, and the reality of how they are destroying their democracy, right before their very eyes. And they do so, by saying, Donald Trump is the biggest enemy of democracy.

They are the doing same thing around foreign policy. The thing that I'm urging Americans to do across the country. Both through my book, love of country, but also in every platform or speech, where people will have me. Is to look at the facts. This is the first time in our lifetimes, we've had a presidential election, where we actually have two people who served in the White House, with a very real record, for us to examine.

GLENN: Compare.

TULSI: And take the emotions aside. People have strong feelings, one way or another.

And there's -- and that's what a lot of the Democrats and Biden people focus on. Because they're afraid that we will actually compare and contrast their record on border security, on education, on fairness for women and girls in sports and education, on the economy and inflation.

You know, they'll -- on criminal justice reform.

Something the Democrats claim to be for.

And also, of course, first and foremost. Foreign policy.

Ask how secure is our country today. And where are our taxpayer dollars being dedicated?

In each of these areas and more, there's a very clear contrast, between President Biden and President Trump. And to me, what it all comes down to. Are the two most core critical questions.

As you pointed out, are rooted in the Constitution. Is number one, who -- who actually has served the interests of the American people, and our country.

And our ability to live in a safe, free, peaceful, and prosperous society?

And number two, who has -- who has either defended or assaulted our fundamental rights and freedoms that are enshrined in the Constitution?

Freedom of speech. Freedom of expression. Freedom of religion.

Our civil liberties are guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment. And, again, when you look at these metrics, there is -- there is no question, about the difference between President Biden and President Trump.

GLENN: Let me ask you, why should somebody, and I don't mean this just to you. I mean, this for anybody.

Even Joe Biden, Donald Trump.

Why should we believe, when we have not seen one for a very long time?

And when they do believe this, they're called extremists.

Why should we believe anybody, or you, that you actually -- your oath of office would mean what it says? That you will protect the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?

TULSI: I think with anybody and everyone, it is -- it is -- you know, going back to the old adage, trust but verify. We have to hold people accountable, and that is true of me and of anyone asking for the trust and confidence of the American people. I think part of that is recognizing that as the world changes. As the country changes, there has to be room for people to learn and grow from these changing circumstances.

I think a lot of the problems that we're seeing in a lot of the political divides. And I get it. Trust is earned.

But -- but they're -- in order for there to be progress, we have to allow people to grow and change. Based on the circumstances. You know, we -- we have seen, I think over these last five or six years.

Or especially during the Obama -- I'm sorry. During the Biden administration, we have seen what an increasingly tyrannical government looks like. And we are seeing how our Founding Fathers were so wise in recognizing that our democracy, this form of governance that we have, in this constitutional republic. Through this representative democracy. It's very fragile. And how people in positions of power, are often tempted. And may fall to that temptation. Of abuse of power.

And so we have this system of checks and balances, through three coequal branches of government. We have this system of checks and balances through the Constitution. Our First Amendment and our Second Amendment.

For the power to always favor the voices and the power of the free people and a free society.

I would never have imagined, Glenn, in my lifetime, that we would see such brazen abuse of power.


TULSI: And it's not only just a failure to uphold the Constitution. The Democrat elite are actively destroying the Constitution, in broad daylight.


TULSI: And telling us, no. We don't think the First Amendment is relevant today. Because of misinformation. Disinformation. Hate speech. All of the excuses that they give.

Which are very dangerous. They tell us that, no. The Second Amendment shouldn't apply. And they cite all these different statistics of tragedies that occur in our country.

But ultimately, taking guns away from law-abiding Americans, would not actually prevent those types of tragedies from occurring.

GLENN: Make it more dangerous.

TULSI: It would make it more dangerous. And it's denied the reality that we have faced I think throughout the history of humanity.

If you have a person who seeks to do harm to others, they will find a way to do so.


GLENN: Tulsi.

TULSI: Go ahead.

GLENN: No. You finish your thought please. I don't want to interrupt you.

TULSI: They will find a way to do so. It's incumbent upon us, again, to understand and recognize the seriousness of this moment. And the fact that they are doing all these things because they're afraid of the power of the free people. But we're only powerful if we hold on to that power.

GLENN: I want to ask you one more question. I know we're out of time, for your schedule.

Can I -- sixty seconds more, and then I'll ask you just one more question, if you have time.

Okay. Good. Back with Tulsi Gabbard here just a second.

Tulsi, when you're in town, I would love to do another podcast with you. I find you fascinating. And I actually think you could be a huge help to bringing our country back together. But time is so short here.

I wanted to ask you, you know, one of the things that if I were President Trump, I would actually consider you as a vice presidential candidate to unite the country, you know, after much discussion. But the one thing I would feel comfortable appointing you to, is Secretary of Defense.

Our military is a mess. And it's because we have all of these woke generals and all of these political appointments. They've all risen to the top. The problem is, it doesn't appear to me, below the -- the general and all of their, you know, apparatus around them.

If you were Secretary of Defense, could you clean this up?

Is it fixable?

TULSI: Yes. Yes. Unequivocally, yes.


TULSI: And your diagnosis is correct.
You know, it's not by accident that the kinds of general officers that are rising through the ranks are those who are advocating for these so-called woke CIAs, whatever -- whatever policies. The reason why they've gotten there is because of their civilian leadership. Picking and choosing people, who -- who will not -- I mean, obviously, we have a civilian-led military. Those in uniform will follow the policies that are set by civilian leaders. But these civilian leaders, Secretary Austin, and the different secretaries of each branch of the military.

They are promoting careerists, who have played it safe. Who have done whatever they needed to do, to go along and get along. To rise through the ranks. And have not been in those positions. And have intentionally so. Not been in those combat hardened positions. Where they have to make really tough choices. That may come with some backlash. But that is the definition of leadership.

And I can tell you, I know personally, a number of officers, in different branches of the military, who have been shoved out. And forced to retire, because they happen to be white males. And these are people who over the last 25 years, have deployed every single year in the most harsh combat environments. And made those tough calls between life and death.

There have been investigations because of it. But these are the people that have the kind of experience that will never be replaced. And they are getting shoved out. And they're not getting promoted. Because of this civilian leadership. At the very top of the Department of Defense.

So, yes. As a Secretary of Defense, I would 100 percent, be able to right the course. Fix what has become so broken, within our Department of Defense. And it starts with putting the right leaders, in the right places. To put our country first.

And to really care more about our troops. Than they care about how many stars they wear on their shoulders. I obviously have very strong feelings about this. Because I still serve.

And I know the mentality impact that this is having on our military. Our morale and their readiness to be able to do their job.

GLENN: Tulsi, next time you're in Dallas, please let me know. I would love to talk more about especially the military and where we're at. Thank you so much. God bless.

TULSI: I look forward to it, Glenn.

GLENN: You bet. Buh-bye.

Dershowitz: Trial Judge's 3 INFURIATING Moves That Prove He Has an 'AGENDA' Against Trump

Dershowitz: Trial Judge's 3 INFURIATING Moves That Prove He Has an 'AGENDA' Against Trump

After witnessing the hush money trail against former president Donald Trump, famed attorney Alan Dershowitz tells Glenn just how shocked he was at the blatant anti-Trump bias. Dershowitz explains 3 moves that Judge Juan Merchan made which he believes prove Merchan's true "agenda": He threatened to strike witness Robert Costello's entire testimony from the record because he raised his eyebrows; he heavily restricted what Costello and other defense witnesses could say, after letting Stormy Daniels say anything she wanted; and he appears to have allowed the jury to go home and watch the news coverage of the trial. But as for the case against Trump itself, Dershowitz asserts, "I have never seen a weaker case.” But yet, he fears the New York jury and biased judge will convict Trump anyways. So, is it time for him to add another banana to his "Banana Republic" scale?


Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: One of the biggest -- I just -- I don't understand how our justice system got to where it is, this quickly.

I hope it's the different in -- you know, in New York, and in Washington, DC. But I have a feeling it's this way, in many states

And we are not. We are not even connected to the rule of law anymore. I read an article. An op-ed from Alan Dershowitz. Who was at the courtroom.

The last -- you know, when the defense rested. And heard the testimony of who was it?

Was it Cohen? Stu. Or was it Collins?

I can't remember. Anyway, and all he did was raise his eyebrows when there was an objection, and the judge said, sustained. He looked at the judge and raised his eyebrows, which set the judge into a tirade. Cleared the courtroom. For some reason, Alan Dershowitz was allowed to stay. And he writes about it, And you have to read it. And Alan joins us now.

Hi, Alan, how are you?

ALAN: Hi. I wish the trial was televised, so that all Americans could see the veins in this judge's head popping. I mean, he just went berserk. You know what he reminded me of the psycho in the movie Taxi Driver? You looking at me? Hey, you looking at me?

The judge has such thin skin.

You looking at me. You raising your eyebrows? I'm going to strike all your testimony. Can you imagine the effect, if the judge had actually gone through with it?

GLENN: Hang on just a second. Did he say that in front of the jury?

ALAN: No. No. No. He did that outside of the jury. In fact, he didn't say it in front of the media. He threw the media out for some bizarre reason. I was sitting in the front row. And they didn't ask me to leave. So I was sitting right near the judges and the defendants and Cohen and all of them. He took the jury out. But he said basically, if you raise your eyebrows again, I will deny Donald Trump a fair trial by striking your defense testimony, and not allowing him to put on -- and Donald Trump didn't raise his eyebrows, at least in the courtroom. But he certainly raised a lot of eyebrows outside of the courtroom, as he has a right to do, because this is a political trial, so he's responding in a political way.

But the idea that you would strike the defense, because of something, you didn't like a witness doing?

First of all, everybody has a constitutional right to raise their eyebrows. And to look and stare at a judge.

I've done that many, many times. I'll never forget May West, in the movie Little Chickadee. She's in front of the judge, and the judge says, you're showing your contempt. And May West says, no, Your Honor, I'm trying my best to hide my contempt for the court.

And, you know, that's what many people do to this judge. I'm not a witness or anything. So I didn't hide my contempt. I rolled my eyes. I raised my eyebrows. I stared at the judge. I whispered to people next to me like, would you believe, people did that? Kept out this testimony? Let in this testimony. Let's remember, this is a judge who was so permissive with the prosecution. He allowed Stormy Daniels to testify that they had sex in a missionary position, that he used a certain kind of deodorant, and that he wore silk pajamas.

Now, how is that relevant to an entry case involving bookkeeping entry? Utterly irrelevant. Utterly prejudicial. The judge said, no. No. Let it all go in. Let it all go in. But when Cohen tries to testify about what his former client said to him, and the client had waved the privilege.

Said to him, I don't know anything about Trump. I can't incriminate him. The judge said, no. No. I'm imposing restrictions on what your witness could say, and I would raise my eyebrows.

GLENN: Wait. Wait. Wait.

He wasn't allowed to enter that into testimony?

ALAN: He was restricted as to what he could say. He was allowed to say that he had said on numerous occasions, that -- that he didn't know anything about Trump.

But he was restricted from saying, many of the things. As he said, he swore to tell the truth. The whole truth. And nothing, but the truth.

And the judge said, no. I only want a partial truth.

When it came to an expert witness, the judge was even tougher. The judge said, even though the prosecution was allowed to introduce evidence, that they claim the payments were illegal campaign contributions. The country's leading expert on campaign contributions, who was prepared to testify. These were not illegal campaign contributions.

The judge said, no.

You can testify as to your credentials and a few other things. But you can't testify as to the legality or illegality, even though the other side is allowed to.

What does it mean under the Sixth Amendment, then, you have the right to confront the charges and the witnesses in front of you? You think that it means you have a right to call witnesses on your own. Who would tell a different story. And give a different account, so the jury could make up their mind.

Not according to this judge. This judge wants a conviction. Whether it's because his daughter would profit from a conviction. She runs a -- she works for a fundraising outfit that fundraises off this trial.

Or where there were other reasons for it. I don't know. I don't want try to psycho analyze. The judge. Other than the judge tried to psycho analyze Donald Trump.

In order to convict them, you have to believe that the only reason, that the false entries were made. They weren't even made by him. They were made by some underling.

That the only reason the false entries, if they were false. Were made. Was to affect the campaign.

It had no reason, to avoid embarrassment to his wife, to his son, who was in school at the time. To avoid losing his television show. Because there's a morality clause in the contract.

No -- no reason to believe, it might affect his branding business.

Because, you know, all the branding of the Trump hotels, et cetera.

Obviously, there were mixed motives.

But the judge had to conclude, the predominant motive was to impact the election. Even though, if there was a campaign contribution, he wouldn't have had to report it until after the election. This case is so absurd. In 60 years of practicing, teaching and writing about criminal law, I have never seen a weaker case. And yet, there might be a conviction because this is a New York jury.

GLENN: You have watched juries forever.

ALAN: Yeah.

GLENN: Did you see any signs from them at all, one way or another?

ALAN: Hard to tell. When he acknowledged that he had stolen $60,000 from Trump and never tried to repay it, I can see the jury's literally raising their own eyebrows. They learned forward. They paid close attention to that. There was a lot of boring testimony. And, you know, jurors don't close their eyes. But they sit back. You don't know what they're thinking.

The only problem is, that jurors usually love the judge. The judge is the benevolent despot. And he is benevolent when the jury is there. When the jury leaves, then he becomes the true tyrant, that he really is.


ALAN: So the jury may take a cue from the judge, and the judge will give his instruction, I believe, that clearly favors the prosecution, and is prejudiced against the defender. So there's no real predicting the outcome.

I guess the most betting people are saying, a hung jury. It will be hard to get 12 people, to conclude either way, that he was totally innocent or totally guilty.

GLENN: And then what happens from -- what happens from there?

ALAN: The prosecution has the right to try him again. But at that point, the trial will have to take place after the election. And I'm not sure they would go forth.

It would depend on the vote. If the vote were 10-2 for the conviction, they might be triumphant. If it was 10-2 for acquittal, they may not retry him.

So there's a lot to be seen. The other thing that is bizarre. I've never seen this before. The judge delayed the trial a whole week. The jury went home. The jury is home today, tomorrow. It will be home Friday.

Of course, then the holiday. Vacation. Then it comes back next week.

GLENN: Wait. Wait.

Isn't this one of these cases that you should really sequester the jury so they're not seeing the news?

ALAN: Of course. And especially if they're not seeing CNN or reading the New York Times.

One thing MSNBC, which have already convicted him, without a doubt.

I mean, MSNBC thinks this is the strongest case since the Abraham Lincoln assassination. If it had been on videotape. There's no doubt, by the MSNBC people, they're rooting for a verdict.

As is the media. When I was in the courtroom, the other day. You could just see. And you could hear from the media. They're all rooting for a conviction. Even one of the courtroom artists, criticized me. For coming to the trial, and showing support for Donald Trump.

I didn't come to show political support for Donald Trump. I haven't made up my mind who I'm voting for. I voted for Biden in the last election.

I didn't believe there to show political support. I came there to show legal support. That this was a case, that should never have been brought. I would have done the same thing, if Biden had been charged with a noncrime like this.

I'm not political when it comes to my legal analysis.

GLENN: Yeah.

Alan, let me switch gears. There is -- there is a story out about the FBI. And the raid on Mar-a-Lago. And, you know, that there was a -- and they were allowed to use deadly force.

And I -- it's my understanding, at least, that this is being misreported by the right.

That's in all of these. It's a general thing.

ALAN: It is. There shouldn't have been a search warrant at all. There should have been a subpoena. When you deal with people like the former president of the United States, you send them a subpoena.

And if he fails to disclose the material, then he's in contempt of court or in violation of statutes.

But you don't burst into his home.

Yeah. Of course, you need to be --

GLENN: So wait.

ALAN: If somebody is there, shooting at you.

But they should never have used the search warrant in the first place.

GLENN: Yeah. That was kind of.

I didn't know about the subpoena, and all that, that you had other options.

But as I'm. I was looking at this, this morning.

And I was like, you know, at least for presidents. And I think it would be fine for other things.

Because a lot of people seem to be having their terrors kicked in.

When it comes to the president. And I say this about Biden too.

I'm sure that was in the same, you know, paperwork for Joe Biden.

In his garage.

ALAN: No. They didn't have a support. They didn't have a search warrant for Biden. They had a subpoena. So there was no such paperwork for Biden.

GLENN: Oh, my God.

ALAN: So it's a very, very different standard.

It's rare to get a search warrant.

Normally, the way to go, is just in a gentlemanly way. Or in a ladylike way. You say, look, we're subpoenaing this. Please, produce it to the court tomorrow. And if you don't, you'll be held in contempt. And if you try to destroy something, like it's claimed Hillary Clinton tried to destroy some of our servers, that's an independent crime.

But Hillary Clinton didn't have a search warrant conducted against her. Joe Biden didn't. I don't know about Biden's kid.

I don't know whether Hunter Biden had a search warrant. Search warrants are not the usual way of obtaining material.

Usually it's by subpoena.

GLENN: So I talked to you maybe six months ago, and we were talking about banana republics.

And you said, we're up to six bananas. Get ten bananas, and we're a banana republic. Where are we today?

ALAN: Yeah. If it's a conviction, we're up to seven. But there's another court I want to talk about for a second, if you don't mind. And that is the International Criminal Court, that for the first time in its history, has gone after leaders of the democracy. Namely Benjamin Netanyahu, and the -- the foreign -- the military minister, in Israel. Even though, what they did was purely self-defense.

And -- and it means that the United States is at risk. Great Britain is at risk.

Canada is at risk. Any country that wages war is now at risk.

There is a rule for the International Criminal Court, that they can't go after any country, that has a working judiciary, which is capable and willing to investigate their own people.

Now, Israel has a very active judiciary. Four former prime ministers were investigated.

Four former prime ministers, Rabid, Sharome, Elmer (phonetic), and Netanyahu. In one form, a president went to jail. In fact, I made a joke about that, when I visited Omar in prison. I said, in Israel, when you ask for a former Prime Minister's cell number, it's not necessarily his cell number. And what other country can boast that they have had such an aggressive judiciary? And yet the international criminal court says, no, no, no. We're going after you.

Even though, Israel and the United States, they're not even signatories to the treaty. They're not members of the court. So we live in an age now, where courts are going out of control.

The court in New York is out of control. The court in the Hague is out of control.

And we should not be living by the judiciary. You know, in the book of, I think it's the book of Ruth. In the Bible, it starts by saying, when judges ruled the land, there was famine and hunger.

You know, you don't want judges to rule the land.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

Alan, thank you so much for talking to us. I appreciate it.

ALAN: Always a pleasure to have an intelligent talk with you. I look forward to it.

GLENN: Thank you. Alan Dershowitz, law school professor ameritas, and host of the Dershow.

The Dershow. And he's also the author of Get Trump. If you haven't read that, it's well worth your time.