RADIO

10 steps to protect YOUR money from MASSIVE, coming changes

Thanks to the Great Reset, massive changes to our financial institutions are around the corner. Some of those changes — like the implementation of ESG scores — have already begun. It’s time to protect YOUR money, your future, and your family. So, in this clip, Glenn outlines simple steps you can take TODAY to ensure your finances are as safe as possible.

Would Kamala Harris Use the 25th Amendment Against Biden?
RADIO

Would Kamala Harris Use the 25th Amendment Against Biden?

Recent comments from special counsel Robert Hur have got people talking: Will President Biden be removed from office using the 25th Amendment? Is his mental agility actually deteriorating — and if it is, will Democrats do anything? Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO) joins Glenn to discuss the possibility, as well as an often-overlooked fact: Vice President Kamala Harris would have to initiate the 25th Amendment removal procedure and Biden’s Cabinet would have to agree. Sen. Schmitt also discusses the possibility that the Senate will remove DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas from office: “He’s obviously lied before Congress.”

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Welcome, Senator Schmidt.

How are you?

ERIC: I'm good, Glenn. How are you?

GLENN: Good. I have a couple things to ask you. One that everyone is asking. And I'm sorry that I have to bring this up.

But is there any relation between you and John Jacob Jingleheimerschmidt?

ERIC: Well, his name is my name too.

GLENN: Okay. All right. Good.
(laughter)
Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Good.

So the -- first of all, let's start with the Mayorkas thing. It's coming now to the Senate. Late February. According to Schumer.

And, I mean, I think there's plenty of reasons for him to be impeached.

One is just -- just lying to the American people, over and over again.

In front of Congress.

Under testimony. Under oath. That the border was secure when it clearly wasn't.

But is this going anywhere in the Senate.

ERIC: We'll see. Schumer issued a statement yesterday, the process when it comes over, the House managers will literally walk it over. It's received by the Senate. What's supposed to happen, all the senators that are immediately sworn in as jurors.

And we act as jurors in the trial. Now, I suppose Schumer can try some sort of -- some trickery to sort of table it or dismiss it, or something.

The way it's supposed to work. We're supposed to hear evidence, and ultimately make a decision. Now it would take a supermajority, not a simple majority, to convict.

GLENN: Right.

ERIC: So we'll see if the Democrats ultimately sort of, you know, rally here. But I do think there's a lot at play.

I mean, one of the things, in this debate, about this border security. So-called border security bill, which is a total disaster. It actually made things worse. And weakens our immigration laws. One of the things on the books right now, is ability for parole, right? You can parole people in the United States. It's supposed to be extraordinary. It's supposed to be individualized. A case-by-case sort of basis. You know, Mayorkas in this administration, have paroled an entire class of people, just because they're from a particular part of the country. That's a clear violation of the law. He obviously lied before Congress. And so we'll see what those articles and impeachment looked like, and then as jurors make a decision make a decision based on the facts and the evidence in, you know, upholding our oath.

GLENN: So there has been so much going on. I mean, I listened to the news this morning.

And it is all about the different cases, against Donald Trump.

We have -- I mean, law fair is the way of the future, it seems.

ERIC: You know, this is -- I wish the Democrats would take their blue jerseys off for a minute. And look at this, in a way of, how does this affect our republic long-term?

We have never, Glenn, never seen anything like this.

I think Trump Derangement Syndrome is real. These people have completely lost their minds. And are willing to do almost anything, to not allow the American people to send Donald Trump back to the White House. Because I think that's exactly what would happen.

And I think he will win in November. I think they know that. And I think that that's why this desperation in DC is playing out. Whether it's kicked him off the ballot. I think that case was argued early last week, before the Supreme Court. I would expect them to rule quickly on that. And hopefully, voice unanimously. There's just no legal basis, for him to be thrown off by the state of Colorado. Or any state.

Which is not. That's one piece of it. And then trying to throw this guy in jail, for the rest of his life. It's totally -- totally insane.

This is the kind of stuff, Glenn. If it were happening somewhere else, you know, our State Department would be warning us about it.

This is banana republic kind of stuff.

GLENN: Yeah. All right.

So let me switch to the 20th Fifth Amendment.

They tried to do this to Donald Trump. And the media brought on experts. And everything else.

How senile Donald Trump was getting, et cetera, et cetera.

Obviously, not true.

This one, you can see.

I mean, this is not a conspiracy at all.

This isn't made up.

This, you can witness firsthand. And it is terrifying, as a citizen, to watch a man, in charge.

But I don't know if he's actually in charge. I don't know who is running the White House.

But normally, no matter who it was, right or left. I would be raising the same alarm saying, this is dangerous.

But we also have a replacement, who Kamala Harris is -- I don't know if she would be any better.

You know, she would at least be alert and there.

But I don't know how good she would be.

But the 25th Amendment has to be invoked by the vice president. Right?

And the cabinet?

GLENN: That's right. The majority of the cabinet. So the president under the 25th Amendment, can do it his or her herself. I mean, that's not going to happen.

Or initiated by the vice president. Voted by a majority of cabinet members, essentially.

And then that goes to the House and the Senate. Now, there's a little back and forth, theoretically, that's played out between the president saying, no.

I am confident. No. You're not confident.

And ultimately, it would go to the House and the Senate for a two-thirds vote, ultimately, to remove or temporarily transfer, powers, to the vice president.

So it's obviously -- it's an extraordinary kind of thing to have happen.

Because you have someone, you know, elected to be president.

So that's why you have that kind of high bar and that high threshold.

However, I don't think, Glenn, we have not seen anything like this. I mean, the president -- you know, in these interviews. As it relates to the document case. Couldn't remember when he was vice president.

Couldn't remember the years, in which he served as vice president of the United States.

People see this playing out every day, as he struggles to get through sentences. Walking from place to place.

You know, falling. All of these sorts of things. In very plain view.

And, by the way, I don't take any pleasure in that. There's no joy in that.

GLENN: No. Sad.

ERIC: You know -- yeah, it's sad.

And that trajectory of age and decline is not the same for everybody. But clearly, you see a precipitous decline now in his capabilities. And that deposition was probably a case in point.

Which is why we need to see a full transfer to that.

Because there are only bits and pieces, in that report that came out.

It's not good. It's a real problem.

To your earlier point, Kamala Harris is a nightmare. And a total ideologue. Who is not all that bright.

But if you're talking about --

GLENN: She's competent.

ERIC: Yeah. She's mentally competent.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah. You know, the only time we have seen something like this, it was kept under wraps. And it was Woodrow Wilson.

But they hid it. They hid it from Congress.

But once his own party. I think he was in hiding at the White House for like a year.

And his wife was actually signing all of the things, from the White House.

And once his own party, the democratic party found out, they said, you're done.

You're not running for reelection. Because he -- she was planning on him running for reelection.

You're not running for reelection. Or we expose the whole thing.

And it was -- it was about this time.

That they had come to them.

It was this close, I think to an election. When they finally came to them.

I don't think -- is there anybody -- I mean, do you hear senators talk about this?

On the other side?

And say, this is dangerous?

ERIC: Yeah. I think that they -- they will tell you that this was not the same Joe Biden.

Certainly, that they served with.

Some people that served with him. Or even just a few years ago.

It's just not. It's not. It's obvious. To your point. With Woodrow Wilson. Who I would argue, is probably our worst president in American history.

GLENN: Oh. Give me the Valentine's Day music, will you? This guy shot an arrow through my heart. That was my Valentine's Day gift from you, wasn't it?

ERIC: Yes. Woodrow Wilson is terrible. But, yeah --

GLENN: Yeah.
(laughter)

ERIC: But, yeah. His wife was essentially doing everything at the very end. And it's amazing, that in 20th century America that actually happened.

So, yeah. People get it. People see it.

You know, people who serve with them. People who have been in the Oval Office.

Talking with him.

Right now. It's really a mess.

But I don't know if anybody can go.

There's betting odds of whether he'll end up being the nominee.

He's not willingly giving this up.

He's running. Now, I think the Obama's have a lot to do with what's actually going on in the White House.

And I know there's a theory, that Michelle Obama could be put in place, at the convention.

GLENN: Hang on. Start the music again.

You may be singing music to my ears again. Go ahead. What's going to happen there?

ERIC: Michelle Obama could be playing -- you know, at the last minute here. We'll see. But Joe Biden is not -- is not willingly going softly into that good night.

GLENN: No. No.

So if he doesn't -- I mean, they're trapped. They're really trapped.

Because there's no way that guy will win. I mean, he'll be -- think about how fast he's declined recently to now.

Imagine from now until November. From November to January, I just don't think the guy is going to make it.

ERIC: Yeah. I agree. So there's two things outside of a typical -- like if you're comparing President Trump's record to Joe Biden's record. You would say, hey, look, we have a secure border.

We had wage growth, across all socioeconomic levels. We're energy dominant.

A lot of great things were happening, right? You didn't like them, whatever.

But the truth is, America was doing great then. We had no wars. That's what America was for his presidency.

All that stuff is very different now, under Joe Biden.

So under a typical campaign, people will compare, I think Trump wins, anyway.

You have a couple things happening now that are very different. One I think is this law fair, it's backfired.

We talked about it earlier.

It's really backfired. People see it. They know it's dangerous.

And I think that will be a motivation for people to say, we're not going to allow that to happen in this country.

There's no way, we will be able to descend in this third world banana republic. Where you're eliminating -- disenfranchising millions of people that way. And secondly, there's this competency thing. People see it.

And if you're an independent voter, and you haven't made up your mind.

Compare those two -- you know, the schedule that Donald Trump has.

Because his energy, versus, what you see now. From Joe Biden.

Is a stark contrast. And I think that's why.

Especially in states like Michigan.

You're seeing this polling. I think that's part of it.

GLENN: Senator Eric Schmidt. One of the good guys in Washington, DC.

Thank you for everything that you do and have done, and will continue to do. God bless you. Thank you.

ERIC: God bless you.

THIS DOESN'T ADD UP: Did Putin Dissenter Alexei Navalny REALLY Die 'Accidentally'?
RADIO

THIS DOESN'T ADD UP: Did Putin Dissenter Alexei Navalny REALLY Die 'Accidentally'?

Putin opposition leader Alexei Navalny has allegedly died in a Russian prison. But Glenn and Stu aren't buying the official narrative. Did Navalny really just love going for walks ... in the Siberian arctic ... in the winter ... and just randomly pass out once he got back inside? Did Putin's guards really do all they could to resuscitate him? Sadly, his death is all too unsurprising.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: I know. Navalny, you remember him?

STU: I do.

GLENN: He was probably the most prominent opposition leader of Putin in Russia. And the Russian courts found him guilty of all kinds of things.

There were a lot of charges against Navalny. And they finally got that guy, and put him away. Can you imagine?

STU: Super legitimate legal process that led to that.

GLENN: Imagine what it's like to live in Russia. Aren't you glad you live here?

So we told you a couple weeks ago, he was taken from, I think it was in Moscow. And he was taken in the middle of the night.

Some place. His attorney didn't know where he was, for like two weeks.

Finally, they say, we took him to the Polar Wolf Arctic Penal Colony.

Now, this is a place, it's in the Arctic Circle.

And there is no escape, because you go outside, and you die.

So I didn't think, this was good. For him. You know, I don't think anybody thought, oh, well, he's going to kick back. I think there were some people that thought, he didn't even make it there. You know, somehow or another. Oh, just, he caught a cold. It was breezy in his head. They found a hole in his head.

But he was out walking -- ready?

He was out walking last Friday, in the Polar Wolf Arctic Penal Colony. Apparently, he liked to go outside and walk.

Now, does that sound like something in the wintertime, Stu, that you would recommend?


STU: You know, no. I would not.

And it's -- I'm not a fan of exercise generally. But I think this is the type of exercise you should avoid, for sure.

GLENN: Yeah. It's, again, in the Arctic Circle.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: So he apparently just loved to walk outside, and they let him.

And they said, that, you know, 47 years old.

He's the guy who went after the corruption, and opulence of the crooks and thieves of Russia's elites.

And Putin.

And they said, he just went outside.

Went outside for a walk.

And then he came back in. And he felt unwell.

And then, you know, they brought him back to the cell. And he fell unconscious almost immediately.

And the prison said, quote, all unnecessary, resuscitation measures were carried out. Which did not yield positive results.

STU: You're kidding me.

GLENN: No. And I am sure they strapped electric wires to him. And beat his chest. That's not the way we would put it here.

I'm sorry. But so Putin was told about the death.

And he said, hmm.

STU: All broken up.

GLENN: All broken up.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: I think he might have been a little sad.

He didn't get to throw this guy from a window.

STU: Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

You know, it's a huge shocker. That this happened.

I was really surprised.

The most surprising death of all time.

GLENN: Yeah. And I don't think anything else could be said. Except this.

When I first was told the story, I heard them say, yeah. He was on a walk. At the Polar Wolf. And I didn't know that was the name of the prison. And I just -- I misheard them. I thought he said, he was on a walk on the polar roof, arctic penal colony.

STU: And just kept walking? Forgot to take a left-hand turn?

GLENN: Yeah, I thought, that's really not -- in any way, shape, or form, you're in Russia. Don't walk on the roof.

They have a problem. I don't know if they're all slippery or what. But a lot of people fall from the roof.

STU: Imagine the balls of this guy.

In the middle of all this going on.

He has no fear at all, for any repercussions.

As to his actions of just killing people. That oppose him.

Has no -- all of the -- the microscopes that are on every one of his actions right now. Does not care at all.

I mean, it's incredible.

GLENN: Yeah, a little bit. A little bit.

Did Fani Willis Admit TOO MUCH In Her Misconduct Testimony?
RADIO

Did Fani Willis Admit TOO MUCH In Her Misconduct Testimony?

District Attorney Fani Willis testified in defense of herself on Thursday in a misconduct hearing … and it probably wasn’t a good decision. Willis took the stand to push back against an attempt to disqualify her from heading Georgia’s election interference case against former president Donald Trump. But she may have revealed TOO MUCH about her alleged affair and her practice of keeping large sums of cash at home. Glenn and Stu review the “incredible” testimony.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So I don't know the last time I enjoyed a court case, as much as the one -- as much as the Fani Willis court case yesterday.

Fani Willis, in case you don't know, she's the woman that is going after Donald Trump.

In Atlanta. And she's fantastic. Just love this.

So apparently, she was having an affair, with one of her underlings. And I don't know if he was under let's just leave it at that. Having an affair. And paying all kinds of money. In fact, a lot more than anybody else on her staff. In that -- in that role.

But he was such an expert.

And they found out that, you know, those two were having an affair. And he was cheating on his wife.

And -- and it looks like, there's some ethics problems there.

So now she's in court, because her credibility is shot. And the Trump people have said, she really needs to be removed from this case. Because she's got, you know, ulterior motives. And there's another agenda going on, et cetera, et cetera.

So do you see it yesterday, Stu.

STU: Oh, yes.

Oh. I sure did, Glenn. I watched every second of it, I could ingest. It was incredible.

GLENN: Yeah. It was -- it was -- it was good.

The first thing that I saw, was he gets up on the stand. And he's testifying, that, well, he must lie to the court, during his divorce proceedings.

You know, he just got divorced, when was it?

Last year. No. This year, right?

STU: It was very recent, yeah.

GLENN: Very recent. Maybe it was early. Or late last year.

But he got -- he got a divorce. And all this came up in the divorce court.

That he was having an affair with Fani Willis.

Well, he denied that this court.

And when asked about it, he said, well, it's because his marriage had -- what is it?

STU: Irreconcilable differences?

GLENN: Yeah. And he couldn't -- so his marriage was over. So he considered his marriage over, when he was having an affair.

STU: See, I consider my marriage over, on Friday nights, and Saturday nights.

And then it repicks back up on Sunday.

GLENN: I like that.

STU: Is that a new thing?

You can name when your marriage is over. And it's not cheating.

GLENN: No. Our marriage was over at that point.

STU: I remember Bill Clinton being -- hey, yeah. When she's under the desk, the marriage is over.

And then we flip the switch back on for public appearances.

GLENN: I've never heard that excuse before.

STU: I like that. I like that.

GLENN: Okay. So he did that.

And then apparently, he was reimbursed for all the vacancies and everything else. Play cut three, please.

VOICE: You said in the affidavit that you roughly shared travel, though. Correct?

VOICE: Yes, ma'am.

VOICE: Okay. So this roughly shared travel, you're saying she reimbursed you.

VOICE: She did.

VOICE: And where did you deposit the money she reimbursed you?

VOICE: It was cash. She didn't -- she didn't give me checks.

STU: I think this is so obvious.

VOICE: She gave you cash for her share of all --

VOICE: Mr. Schaffer, you'll step out, if you do that again.

STU: Someone laughed.

VOICE: And so all of the vacations that she took, she paid you cash for?

VOICE: Yes, ma'am.

VOICE: And you purchased all these vacancies on your business credit card, correct?

VOICE: Yes, ma'am.

VOICE: And you included those deductions on your taxes, correct?

VOICE: No, ma'am.

STU: There's so much here. We're deep in it at this point. But just to think about what they're saying here.

Because if you back up a little bit, the reason why this is an issue. And why this was brought up by one of the codefendants, as well as Donald Trump and Giuliani and all the other guys. A smaller reason that nobody ever talked about.

The reason it was brought up. If they're having an affair, he's making hundreds of thousands of dollars from this trial. Fani.

Fani Willis is motivated to continue this trial for as long as possible, because her boyfriend is getting all this cash. So instead of having a pursuit of justice.

You have a pursuit of your own financial benefit. Because the longer this goes on. The more assignments this guy gets, the more money he gets.

And then they go on vacations together, which he's paying for. This is the accusation.

If that's the case, maybe the motivation here is to not get us to justice here for the people of Georgia.

But maybe to make sure she gets to Belize and Aruba and Miami, and all the other vacations they discussed during this.

So that's the reason why this is important, partially.

The other part is that they said, the relationship didn't start to 2022. And if it started before that, they lied to the court.

That's a whole other problem.

GLENN: There's plenty of problems here.

There's plenty of problems.

STU: Their excuse for this.

That we're supposed to believe.

They actually are telling us, we should believe this excuse.

Is that Wade buys expensive vacations to Aruba and a bunch of different places. He puts it on his business credit card. And then they go on the vacancies. They spend all this money. Napa Valley.

Thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars on these vacations. And then she shows up, and just hands him $4,000 in cash, which in turn, he never deposits into his bank account.

We are supposed to believe that there's no record of any of this happening. Because, of course, it's all happening. There's no cash. There's no Venmo. No cash app. No checks. Nothing.

It's all cash. They happen he takes the cash. And never deposits any of it into his bank account.

GLENN: He said, he may have given some of it to his children.

STU: Of course. Yeah.


GLENN: May have done that.

STU: Now, of course, it's important to understand how human beings act. And this series of events, has never occurred between two human beings in American history.

There's never been a case ever in history, where a man bought something on his business card for $8,000, and then when he showed up for the vacation, his girlfriend paid him back $4,000 in cash, which he never deposited. This has never occurred in the history of human interaction.

GLENN: Well, are you done can?

STU: No! I can keep going for hours on this. It's fascinating.

GLENN: I mean, you have no idea.

You have no idea what it means to be a black woman.

STU: Apparently not. Apparently not.

GLENN: You have no idea what it means to be a black woman.

STU: This was her excuse, by the way, Glenn. What you're saying here, is not a joke.

This is really what she said.

GLENN: No. This is not a joke, Stu.

I've got it from the Washington Post. She explained, the two split the cost. With Willis paying him back in cash, thousands of dollars in cash.

At the time, many businesses only accepted electronic payments, and many people never carried cash.

Why Willis was handing over wads of untraceable dollars.

He began many sentences with, well, here's the thing. And by the time, he reached to the end of the sentence, there was no thing there.

Now, remember, this is the Washington Post.
Okay?

But then, then Wade sat in the witness chair, his gray plaid three-piece suit, with his white French cuff shirt. Gold cufflinks. And powder blue pocket square.

He grimaced and smiled, and repeatedly referenced his wife's affair as his cause for filing for divorce in 2021, even though no one had asked him why he split with his wife.

But rather, when he started his relationship with Willis. But the two have said the romance began, after he became a special prosecutor. Afterwards.

He had a hard time with the time line of his relationship. He drank lots of water. Dabbed his face. And sniffed even more vigorously.

Then they talk about how they started, you know, giving all of the -- giving all of the money.

Willis lectured the gathered attorneys. On the philosophy of behind keeping cash on hand.

Her father taught her that cash was king.

And a woman should always be financially self-reliant.

And so, yes, she had stashes of cash, that she had accumulated over time.

And she used it to reimburse wade.

She dipped into it, before a trip, so she could pay taxi drivers, or barter with vendors.

Her description of her father's advice was a compressed version of a very complicated history and modern day habit.

She didn't go into the discomfort that some black people have with financial institutions. Or the way in which banks have made it more difficult for black people to do business with them.

She didn't mention more older people believe in keeping ready cash, that a significant percentage of black and Hispanic Americans use cash for their predominant payment method. She didn't have to.

She simply talked about what her father had told her to do, as a matter of independence and power. I don't need any man to foot my bills, Willis said.

Wow.

STU: You got. By the way, she kept bringing up the dad.

Like, my dad would be disappointed that I only had $40,000 at my house. Just okay. By the way, the dad, a former Black Panther. In case you were interested, why he was so motivated to have cash.

He was a former Black Panther. A little note, as the -- the possible --

GLENN: Listen to the way you're framing this.

STU: Yeah. I am framing it, as someone with a very extreme group. The history of that.

GLENN: Well, let me play the counter point here.

And point out what the New York Times said.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Willis sat in the witness chair for hours.

Or more precisely, she reclined in the chair.

Woman explaining how men defined relationships. And how they would end them.

She did so, while wearing a fuchsia dress. And a single strand of beads around her neck. Her hair was styled in the soft shoulder length curls, and her eye makeup was precise and intentional.

Shush. This is journalism. She was a singular, bright shot, surrounded by a black-robed judge. And lawyers, mostly in somber suits.

Only Willis and her main inquisitor merchant, who wore a cobalt blue dress under a white blazer, stood out in the room of sobriety.

Willis walked into court, as a woman on the ropes. Some would say, the hearing was a mess of her own making. Others, might believe the whole mess is a extraction for more important matters.

But either way, Willis fought back with gob-smacking fury.

Defiant in power pink. And --

STU: Incredible. By the way, I think that's the same story that ends this way.

The hearing resumes on Friday. Ms. Willis is expected to take the stand for more grilling.

The defense lawyers will likely crowd again on to one side of the packed courtroom. They are, in aggregate, a sea of boxy wool suits and white male faces.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

STU: What the hell kind of coverage?

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

STU: An aggregate sea of white faces.

What the hell is this?

It's like, they just hired Ibram Kendi to cover the trial. What is going on?

It's embarrassing.

GLENN: Well, here's one thing: We will get back to the actual testimony, because it's funny.

Let me just give you something that I found useful to understand what happened yesterday.

Megyn Kelly said yesterday on X. Watching the Fani Willis, Nathan Wade hearing, they are toast. Capitalized "toast."

One, her former close friend testified that the romantic relationship began well prior to when Fani hired her.

By years, which means they lied to the court.

Two, Wade claimed Fani reimbursed him for all the expensive trips, but no record of that. Because it was all in cash. O-M-G.

He definitely got caught lying on his earlier court submissions in divorce court.

And attempted to say the reason he falsely swore he had no receipts.

Was because he had only credit card statements.

Well, I mean, hello, she writes. I have secondhand embarrassment.

Credit card statement. That is a receipt, you dope.

He testified, he had no records of it.

And then yesterday, it was. You don't have credit card statements?

Well, yeah. I have that.

But that's not a receipt.

Or I'm sorry. I didn't know we were talking to a third grader.

STU: Of course. Obviously, I guarantee he submitted credit card statements for purchases. Expense reports at his office.

I guarantee he's done that. As every other person who has ever given an expense report has done.

It's just so bad.

And, Glenn, like you mentioned. The friend who said, this started in 2019.

Which would be basically the whole thing is blown up. If they lied about the starting part of this affair.

That was the second witness who came in, and called by -- by the defense.

To -- to testify to this fact.

The first one that came in, was one of his attorneys.

And he got out of it, with attorney-client privilege.

So they had a second person, who was going to say it. But was able to get out of it on a technicality. They obviously wouldn't call him, if with he was going to say it.

They now have multiple witnesses. Only one on the record. Saying it would happen in 2019.

So it is like, this is a catastrophe for them.

And everything that you're getting from the coverage is, number one, she's a strong black woman. And number two, she was wearing fuchsia.

GLENN: Yes. But it was beautiful. It was just beautiful. And she stood out in the room, as a bright, bright light.

Why We Should THINK TWICE About the Mysterious ‘National Security Threat’
RADIO

Why We Should THINK TWICE About the Mysterious ‘National Security Threat’

There’s apparently a major national security threat that’s being hidden from the American people … but it sounds a lot like, “Russia, Russia, Russia!” Glenn reviews what we currently know about the threat, which is possibly a Russian plan to put nuclear weapons in space. But should we be concerned? Glenn and Stu point out the odd timing of the warning, which comes as Congress is debating another FISA renewal.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Now, there is a giant warning that came out yesterday.

Excuse me. A giant warning about a national security threat.

It's Russia. Russia, Russia, Russia.

Now, the security threat is a weapon in space. Now, I've heard this story before. It's a space-based weapons system. And Russia apparently has it. And it's a national security threat.

It's a destabilizing foreign capability. And President Joe Biden should declassify all the information about it. Now, sources familiar with the situation, says that Russia wants to you put a nuclear weapon into space. Not to drop a nuclear weapon on to earth. But rather, possibly use it against satellites. It's very concerning. Very sensitive. It's a big deal. Wow.

Okay. So, Stu. Who made this -- who broke this news? What's his name? What's his name?

STU: Mike Turner. Mike Turner. Was it?

GLENN: Oh, yeah. Mike Turner, he's the chairman of the House committee. He would know.

He's also a Russia hawk.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Somebody that, you know, is for all the war and the spending. Against Russia.

So -- but let's not hold that against him. No.

STU: Well, you know, does -- he's -- I mean, my first instinct, hearing this, yesterday, was not that Russia is a good actor. Or that they are not threatening us with terrible weapons of all sorts.

But --

GLENN: They're an enemy.

STU: But the timing of this breaking news, seems a little suspicious, considering, that we are in the middle of this push for funding.

That would push back against Russia.

And it seems like when you're trying to get $60 billion through, this is a very convenient time to release this information.

Again, I'm not downplaying the threat of Russia.

I think it is real.

But that still -- it's hard to -- like, when it first came out. An immediate, imminent threat. Everyone is panicking.

As the leaks come out. Okay. They want to put nuclear weapons in space. But they're not in space currently.

It's not like, look up, here comes a missile. They haven't deployed any of this.

And also, even if they did deploy. It would be a threat against our satellites. It would be incredibly serious. But also not what was pitched at, as initially with the urgent release, and everyone panicking.

I don't know. It seems like the timing of it, is a tad suspicious, no?

GLENN: A little bit. Well, and you think that's because of --

STU: They want it pushed through $60 billion of funding. Of course, to do that, you need to recognize how big of a threat Russia is.

GLENN: All right. So let me give you another completely unrelated story.

Because that was my first thought. And I do think that plays a role.

But listen to this. The House of Representatives, have delayed a vote on reforming the controversial surveillance tool, shortly after lawmakers warned of a national security threat.

The chairman of the House of Representatives' permanent select committee on Wednesday, published a at the same time, requesting Joe Biden declassify information, regarding an unspecified security national threat.

We're all going to die. Congress had been considering a compromise bill to reform Section 702 of the FISA Act, but now the process has been postponed.

Quote, in order to allow Congress more time to reach a consensus on how best to reform FISA in Section 702, while maintaining the integrity of our critical national security programs. The House will consider the reform, and reauthorization bill. At a later date.

The committee has made available to all members of Congress, information concerning a very serious national security threat.

Wow!

Now, here's -- here is let's see.

I think this is Christopher Wray. I don't have the name of the person who said this. Boy, stories are written so horribly now. I wouldn't be surprised if this had something to do with the fact, that FISA is up for review.

Any time you start talking about FISA reform, you know, the Intel community has its way of bringing out the Bogeyman. Oh, that's -- Eli Crane of Arizona.

Huh. Now, that seems kind of important. Because how are things going on the FISA bill?

How are people feeling today, about the FISA bill?

Supposed to come up next week. And congressmen were ready to unleash the dogs from hell. On the FISA bill.

But now, because we have a national security threat. I mean, we've got to continue to spy on Americans.

You know, if we really want to know what's going on in space, with Russia.

Well, you've got to give -- you've got to give me leeway to spy on Americans.

Uh-huh. Now, is it possible that they're doing this?

Yeah. Absolutely.

Is it possible they're way ahead of us?

Of course. Did you hear about the new bombers?

These are great. The new B-52H Stratofortress, came out recently, and, well, it looks exactly like the one in the 1960s.

But, you know, it was -- it was redone. Well, that's not good enough.

We're going to redo the stratobomber. Now we have B-52Js coming out. So we have planes that are about 80 years old. That we are refurbishing, so we can fly them.

So you know, they're going to have something new, called instrument panel.

I don't even know how to describe it.

Instrument panels thousand. Without all the buttons, and the old gauges.

It's going to be like, you're looking at a glass panel. And they're all behind this glass panel.

The 1960, Stratofortress.

So the B-52s, will have that newfangled technology.

I think they call it like a computer screen or something. It's very technical.

So that's -- that's what we're doing.

At the same time, the Biden administration has put $1 million into studies, aimed at denying there are only two genders.

We're more concerned about the two-gender thing, than we are about our own security. We're more concerned about equity and inclusion, than our national security.

God only knows what's happening in the Pentagon now.

God only knows what is happening on our border today.

But you know what is really important. At you hear what happened in Louisville, Texas?

Can we just play this real quick, so you can see it, Stu.

This it is. This it is. That's a male teacher, showing up in a pink dress, pink high heels. And a pink hat. And he's -- he was ready to -- ready to teach. So in drag.

STU: How did that work out?

GLENN: Well, it's Texas. So I'm hoping not too well.

But then again, it's Texas 2024. So who knows. But let's make sure we study this, even more.

We really need to just pay attention to those things

We need to be on the cutting edge, of transitions.

Of gender mutilation surgery.

We have to be on the cutting edge of getting rid of our police.

And reimagining police work, entirely.

We've got to be on the cutting edge of this new idea, that there are no borders.

You know, I don't -- I don't understand how the big issue with Democrats is Joe Biden's mental capability. It's not his mental capability, that has destroyed the country. He's not running this.

He's doing an executive order about once a week now.

Who is writing that?

Because I don't see him going. I've got to -- sporadic.

Writing complex executive orders. Coming up with them.

No. Who is running our country?

We're being destroyed. Bit by bit.


STU: Just -- and, you know, not to put too fine a point on it here.

Are you supposed to wear pink in February. I mean, is that even appropriate.

Is that the right tone?

GLENN: As long as he wasn't wearing white shoes.

STU: Okay. Okay.

GLENN: If he's wearing white shoes, it would be a huge fashion faux pas. Ladies can wear pink. And look at that picture. Yes. Who looks at that and says, that's anything but a woman?

STU: It's funny, because one of the things that keeps happening, the news -- you mentioned the news does not write articles that make sense anymore. I can't even understand what's going on.

GLENN: I can't.

STU: The Houston megachurch situation that happened while I was out.

I was reading a New York Times story about it. And had no idea, about whether an actual man or an actual woman performed the shooting.

Because they kept saying woman, but then they said the male pronoun thing in Paragraph 12.

They eventually got to that after the Palestine thing in paragraph nine.

But like, I couldn't tell if they were saying, it was, actually, a woman. Or if it was a male, who identified as a woman. But they had to call them a woman.

And I went through this entire thing. And you know how I figured it out, Glenn? You know how I figured it out? If it was a woman or not.

I looked at the picture of the person. And immediately knew.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: Knew immediately. It was a woman. Knew immediately what the situation was.

Because as a rational person with eyes. You can tell almost all the time.

So I don't know. It seems like one of those things, if the media was actually honest with us. We wouldn't know what's going on in these situations. But they're not. They're not.