RADIO

Does the Supreme Court TRULY not know who LEAKED Roe v Wade?

The Supreme Court has investigated the Roe v Wade leak, and it announced earlier this week that it was not able to identify the person (or people) responsible. But that’s an outcome Pat and Stu have a hard time believing. So, they provide their own theory as to who MAY have been involved (purely spectacle!). No matter who was responsible, do YOU believe the Supreme Court has no idea who was behind this all?!

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

PAT: So the investigation into who leaked the information on the Roe v. Wade decision.

Who leaked that?

They've investigated it, and could not figure it out. I can't believe it. I can't believe that's what they came back with.

STU: That's incredible.

PAT: It is -- can it really be that hard to figure it out?

STU: I mean, just think about this for a second?

How does this document, get into the hands. Was it political that actually printed it?

How does it get into their hands. It wasn't like a reprint, where someone typed it all out.

Like, for example, you're in front of the computer. You see it there. You're some staffer. You take photos of the computer screen. They can see the text.

This was the actual document.

PAT: Yeah. Yeah.

STU: So this document must have been either pulled off a drive. Sent by email or some other form.

Or printed out. And a physical copy removed from the Supreme Court offices. That's pretty much it.

PAT: Either way.

STU: Or a hack. Which is, they did not completely rule that out. But they did not see any evidence of a hack.

PAT: So which ever method they used, there's going to be traces left behind that you can track. So how did they not track it back to the person who did it? Incredible.

STU: I would think so. Now, maybe they were so loose with this stuff, that, you know, a bunch of different people had copies of the document. And one of them brought it home and made a photocopy, and that was it. You know, it's possible. But if so, that's a real problem, with security in the Supreme Court.

I mean, I --

PAT: No kidding.

STU: Again, I'm just flabbergasted how this is all available. It should not be possible to do. Any digital way would be traced, you would think. If you're on the system of the Supreme Court, you have this document. Unless they're just emailing it around to a million different people. How could this get out?

And then the fact that they can't come up with anything. No -- no leads. Nothing. No information.

PAT: Uh-huh.

STU: They really came up with a giant zilch.

PAT: After almost a year of not knowing who this is. What happened. And everybody is waiting, kind of with bated breath, to find out.

Okay. When are we --

STU: Almost immediately.

PAT: Yeah. Before the actual decision came out. Before they officially released it. I thought, they will find this person. And we will know soon. And we still don't. What was it? March? March when that happened?

Or May. It was either March or May.

And hard to believe, that here we are, going into February.

Yeah. We investigated, couldn't find anything. Huh.

STU: So let me ask you an important question. Are we there?

Are we at the point, where we could get to start to wildly speculate with conspiracy theories? Can I do it? Is it okay? Is the okay time?

PAT: Yes. So do you have a wild conspiracy theory?

STU: I do have one. Would you like to hear it?

PAT: Okay. I would love to hear it.

STU: Okay. If let's say, not an aide, not an intern, not a -- just somebody who -- the janitor, who works Supreme Court. If it wasn't one of those people. And let's just say, it was an actual Supreme Court justice who just emailed it out of their account to somebody. To Politico, directly.

And let us just -- just for speculation here, since that's what we're doing.

Let's say that person's name was Sonia Sotomayor. Let's just say.

PAT: Okay. You're just picking a name out of the nine.

STU: A name. I could have said John Smith, but Sonia Sotomayor.

PAT: But you didn't. And John Smith isn't a Supreme Court justice, so that wouldn't have made sense.

STU: It wouldn't have made sense. But I just came up with the first name that popped into my head.

PAT: Okay. That was the one. Not Clarence Thomas.

STU: No.

PAT: Not --

STU: No. Sonia Sotomayor. That's the name that fits this particularly wild example.

PAT: Not John Roberts. Okay.

STU: Let's say Sonia Sotomayor emailed from her Gmail, to Politico, and they just put it in their publication.

And after this investigation, that's exactly what they found.

Let's just say that happened.

PAT: Okay.

STU: This would be incredibly damaging to the Supreme Court.

PAT: Yeah. Wouldn't it?

STU: Because it's not just some aid trying to get attention.

Or trying -- this is some -- the reveal of such pathetic and blatant ideology, that the person who would do such a thing should not even be on the Supreme Court in the first place.

PAT: Should be impeached from the US Supreme Court. Yes.

STU: And I think, let's just say you had an institutionalist, like John Roberts. We'll call -- again, making up names. A John Roberts.

PAT: And it just so happened, that a John Roberts, happens to be the -- the chief justice of the US Supreme Court.

STU: Are you serious? I didn't know that.

PAT: So it's weird that you picked that name.

STU: I don't follow it. So let's just say, that when the investigation came back. The person who -- maybe was in charge.

John Roberts says, this would do too much damage to the court. We need to just throw this in the trash.

PAT: Hmm.

STU: I'm not saying, that that happened.

Because as I said, we are in a complete speculation period here. We're just making up conspiracy theories.

And to be true about it, I don't have evidence that this occurred. I want to make sure --

PAT: No. There is speculation around those lines.

STU: There is speculation around those lines. And I do not find it completely implausible, that that's what happened.

PAT: I don't find it at all implausible. It's more plausible than, yeah. We just -- we couldn't find anything. We couldn't find anybody. I don't know what happened. It's more plausible than that.

STU: It really is.

You know, from the beginning, I -- I was -- very, very suspicious of Sotomayor and her aides right off the bat. You know, she's, again, in the a different category than other liberal justices. She is an idiot.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: She is not -- she is not the same -- she's not in the same universe, as Elena Kagan, who is very liberal, but very smart.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: You know, this is --

PAT: And Kagan has made some rulings or been part of rulings, that have really surprised me, a couple of times.

But that almost happens, with the liberals in the court.

STU: Totally. That's exactly what this situation is.

She's an embarrassment.

She really is. She's an embarrassment to the court. Sotomayor. Not Kagan. Again, is liberal.

But respectfully. You can respect Elena Kagan and have some credibility.

You can't do that with Sonia Sotomayor. She's terrible. She's your run-of-the-mill, boilerplate, Huffington Post editor that's working on the Supreme Court.

She is just -- that's who she is. And, you know, it's -- it's embarrassing. It's embarrassing.

And so it fits exactly with what you would think Sotomayor would do in this situation. Having no respect for the institution. Just a liberal activist, who found herself in a lifetime appointment, in a job, she should not have.

That's who Sonia Sotomayor is. I don't know if Ketanji Brown Jackson is that. I don't think she is. I don't know that she's maybe as talented or intellectual as Elena Kagan.

But she seems to be smarter than Sonia Sotomayor by, you know, leaps and bounds. Again, Sonia Sotomayor is special. And she is unique.

PAT: In her terribleness? She's special in her terribleness.

STU: Yes. She is unique. She's not the normal liberal judge. You can't just put them all together. She is different.

And I don't know. Speculating on her bending the rules, I don't think is crazy. Speculating on her thinking in her head, oh, well, this cause is too important. I must do something. Blah, blah.

She's an activist. That's who she is. And so I -- I don't think any of that is without -- without reason. It's not wild speculation from the point of, there's no reason to believe it. Like, if you were to say. There are some people saying, I think it was Alito. Why the hell would Alito do this?

This makes no sense. Why the hell would Samuel Alito ruin his own ruling? It doesn't make any sense at all. They keep trying to come up with justifications why a conservative would do this. And no one should do it.

If a conservative did do it, first of all, it's a really dumb move, because you put the entire thing at risk. Okay. If that happened, those people should be punished as well.

I just -- again, it's complete speculation. But Sonia Sotomayor, probably just emailed this to politico.

I --

PAT: I wouldn't be surprised.

STU: It's one of those theories, I would not be surprised by at all.

PAT: Yeah. It definitely could have happened.

But the official ruling, yeah. We can't find anybody who did this. So hmm. Okay. That's really weird that there was no trace.

STU: Incredible.

PAT: Someone really good did this.

STU: I keep coming back to this, Pat. No one relates to this more than you. Every time Pat Gray rolls through a stop sign, there is a cop there to catch him doing it. Right?

PAT: Yes. Yes.

STU: Right? This is what's happened. Pat has been pulled over 16 times.

PAT: Just since we've been back here in Texas, just in Dallas. Yeah. Uh-huh. Sixteen times.

STU: And honestly, your pace has slowed at the beginning. It was like eight times in the first year. It was really a lot.

PAT: I think it literally right around there. It really was.

STU: It's incredible.

But that's what happens in my life. If I mess something up, if I speed, if I roll through a stoplight.

PAT: You get caught.

STU: One day, Pat. I was coming back from a dinner. You know, it was relatively late at night on a Friday night.

Came back home. Streets are empty. Not a lot of people are around.

Pull up to a light. Now, do I roll through it a little bit while I'm taking my right?

Yeah. Probably. Maybe a little bit. And the reason I know that is because about a week later, I got a picture from the police officer in the mail, that said, you blew through this light. And then it linked -- this is real. Linked to a video of me rolling through a stop sign, taking a right on red, with no one around.

PAT: Yeah. We stopped that in Texas, by the way, which is awesome.

STU: Oh, they did stop that?

PAT: Yeah. They don't use the red light -- they don't use the cameras at the lights anymore.

STU: Good. No wonder I haven't been getting tickets lately. I didn't know that.

PAT: Yeah. So you don't have to worry about that anymore.

STU: But if I can get caught doing that, number one, how does no one find out this ruling? And number two, how does Hunter Biden get away with having sex with 900 prostitutes while doing crack on camera. How do these things happen?

PAT: Right. And how does Joe Biden get away with saying, I've never talked to anybody about business with Hunter, including -- I've never talked to Hunter about his businesses.

I don't even know what he did. I don't know what he does. How does he make a living?

I don't know. And now even CNN is admitting, yeah, he -- he had meetings with -- with business associates of Hunter Biden.

Well, thank you, finally, for verifying that.

Because we've been saying that for several years now. Really amazing.

STU: Do we have that report, Sara? We played it in the four-minute buzz. And, yes, they did say that. But I was actually impressed by CNN, for going into some depth on this. You know --

PAT: Kind of amazing.

STU: There is a change at some level at CNN. We can maybe taken this a little bit today.

Something is going on there. I think they're actually trying to be better. Which is a big statement, from me. And for --

PAT: What's the name -- is it Chris Lick? Did he -- he said from the beginning, he was going to try to make changes because he didn't like the bias. And he was going to get rid of the bias.

STU: Yes. And, of course, we all looked at him and said, we don't believe you.

RADIO

This Russian nuke warning is HORRIFIC… for an UNEXPECTED reason

Glenn Beck reviews a video of Aleksandr Dugin, known as “Putin’s brain,” warning that nuclear war is inevitable. But this warning from Russia is absolutely terrifying for another reason: it’s NOT REAL …

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

Operation Fast and Furious: The TRUE Story of How the Feds were Running Guns into Mexico

The Border Crisis has been ongoing for years, and one of the biggest scandals was the ATF “gunwalking” scandal known as Operation Fast and Furious which occurred during when Barack Obama was President. Glenn Beck talks with John Dodson, the whistleblower who revealed the scandal to get the facts about what happened and why it was a flawed operation from its inception.
Watch the FULL Interview HERE

VIDEOS

Glenn Beck & Piers Morgan REACT to Trump's Iran Strike & What Comes Next

Glenn Beck joins Piers Morgan to react to President Trump's decision to strike Iran's Nuclear Facilities and what could come next with the conflict. Is this just the start of a larger conflict involving Iran, Israel and the United States, or will this move by Trump put at least a temporary end to the brewing tensions?

RADIO

Meet the pro-Intifada candidate NYC Democrats just elected

New York City Democrats just elected 33-year-old Zohran Mamdani, a "socialist Muslim", as the Party's candidate for mayor. But Glenn Beck argues that his radical beliefs are actually communist and Islamist.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

VOICE: Z10852. Something weird is going on. The World Trade Center is on fire.

VOICE: Seriously the top of the building. We're trying to get information.

VOICE: Top level of one of the --

VOICE: To unfold from New York City.

VOICE: A plane crashed just --

VOICE: My sister is in that believe. I hope she's okay. I have to come to New York.

VOICE: It's pandemonium.

VOICE: It's raining papers.

VOICE: Wait a minute! Stop just a second. Why are we -- why are we -- I've got breaking news. Breaking news, yesterday. New York City just elected as their mayoral candidate for the left. And the Democrats, a -- a Muslim radical, who is also a communist!

So, you know, it only took you 25 years. It only took you 25 years, New York, to go completely insane.

Somebody who is -- well, I mean, if I might quote Michael malice today. I am old enough to remember when New Yorkers endured 9/11 instead of voting for it.

But you've got a -- you've got a communist jihadist apologist now.

Who was -- you know, well, CAIR put $100,000 behind his bid for New York City mayor.

So you have somebody who is endorsed by CAIR. That's really good.

He also was somebody who said, you know, he was -- he was for the shooting of the United Health Care CEO.

Said he was looking forward to driving down magnum Joan avenue. I don't know. Sounds like supporting people in the streets. Maybe it's just me.

Then he also said that he was going to globalize the intifada, which I think that's -- maybe -- maybe that's just me.

I mean, what do I know?

Tim Miller who is a podcaster. Asked him a few weeks ago. Asked him about his pro Palestinian slogan. Globalized the intifada. And he said, for me, ultimately, what I hear in so many, is a desperate desire for equality and equal rights, in standing up for Palistinian human rights. Oh, is that what you hear, Mr. CAIR?

Really? Huh, that's interesting.

Right. So globalize the intifada.

I mean, I mean, sure, that's -- I mean well, let me go on.

Because I don't want to take him out of context.

He then delved into the semantics of the intifada, citing the United States Holocaust memorial museum's use of a word for a translation for uprising, in an Arabic version of an article, a museum published about the Warsaw ghetto.

Oh!

So this is just a comparison, about the -- the armed rebellion against the Nazis!

I don't know if that makes me feel better!

I mean, if we're globalizing that.

We're the Nazis in this scenario.

Because I don't think it's the Palestinians.

I certainly don't think it's anybody who is like, hey.

Global jihad. I don't think it's those guys.

Or the Nazis. Who are the Nazis in that?

And it seems, if that's what you mean, then it's not just a harmless kind of slogan about human rights. It is a call for violence on the streets.

Because I don't know if you know, that's what happened when the Jews had their uprising against the Nazis.

I'm just saying!

But, hey, hey, free Palestine.

Oh, that's not what that means, gang. That is not what that means, but don't worry about it. He's just going to be possibly the new mayor.

And that's great. By the way, the Columbia faculty members signed a letter defending Hamas.

They were also among the donors to his mayoral campaign.

So, you know, you don't have anything to worry about.

And his father, who used to work at Columbia. Do you know, Stu?

Is his Dad -- is he still a professor at Columbia University?

He said that -- this violent terror thing of Islam, is not a part of Islam. Now, I've read the Koran, and much of the hadith.

And I'm pretty sure the violence is a part of that. But no.

No. This is something entirely new.

And his father while at Columbia university, wanted everybody to know, that this is actually -- this is something that came out of America!

America is really responsible for this.

And, you know, it really started with the Reagan administration, you know, when he started -- when he started with his very religious terms, to finish the war against the evil empire.

So, you know, that's where -- that's where 9/11 came from.

Is what -- don't worry about it! Don't worry about it!

Because who am I? I'm clearly just -- am I an anti-Semite today, or am I an Islamophobic? I can't remember which one.

Oh, it's probably both. Anyway, Islamophobia. Let me just explain Islamophobia. I haven't even gotten to the Communist part of it. Which is really, really -- New York, you're in one for hell of a ride. Buckle up.

It will be a fun rollercoaster for you. My gosh, I've never been happier that I've been away are if New York.

Anyway, I just want I to know, there is Islam. And then there is Islamists. Now, an Islamist is somebody who really wants Sharia law.

That's political Islam!

That's not a faith. That's political Islam.

Now, let me make really -- something really clear. Criticizing Islamism, is not Islamophobia. Pointing out the dangers of, oh. I don't know.

Political Islam. The ideology that seeks to use the tools of democracy, ultimately to destroy democracy, is not an attack on Muslims.

No. Uh-uh.

You know why?

Because Muslims are often the first people in line.

The first victims of the ideology.

So let's draw a bright, bright line between Islam as a faith, millions of people can practice that faithfully and peacefully.

It's mostly peaceful, okay?

Then there's the Islamism.

Islamism is something entirely -- that's a political project.

A theocratic political -- oh. Left loves theocracies. They love it.

Of course, you never see a problem with it.

See it when an Islamist is touting it. Anyway, it's not about prayer. It's not about fasting. It's not about spiritual life.

It's all about power. It's about merging of mosque and state. It's about implementing Sharia, not as a personal code of conduct. But as a governing legal system.

And it's -- it's supremacy.

Absolutely. Faith.

Religion.

It's -- there's one thing that's supreme.

It's misogynistic.

Deeply intolerant of all kinds of things.

Descent. Secularism. Other faiths. Even competing interpretations from inside the faith itself.

It will behead them too.

So let's -- let's be honest here for a second.

You know, CAIR should be labeled an international terror organization.

In my opinion. In my opinion.

Oh, does that make me -- that makes me an Islamophobe. I'm sure. I'm sure they will start a campaign against me on being an Islamophobe.

Stand in line, guys. You've been doing it since 2001, okay?

I don't really care. And I don't think the American people. I think that record, all the grooves are worn-out on that one, okay?

This is not a religion we're talking about. When we're talking about Sharia law. And we're talking about globalize the intifada. What does that mean, actually, to globalize it?

Does that mean we now want to do what is happening to Israel? All over the world?

Has the Palestinian plight become our plight you now, as Americans?

That there has to be an intifada here!

Because it's the kind of the same. You know. It's kind of the same over, you know, with what the Palestinians are going through.

Well, it's very much like what the Jews went through with the Nazis.

That's a weird one. That one makes my head hurt. It's very much the same as that. And very much the same as the fight against Donald Trump.

Oh, this is going to be fun. It's fun!

Really fun. You know, the irony here is, the ones that will scream Islamophobia the most, are the ones in the progressive left, the champions of feminism, LGBTQ rights. And secularism.

They're going to -- no. You want -- they're going to stand with the people, who want to kill them first.

See, this is how smart they are!

This is why it's going to work out well, in New York City.

Let me just say. If you have an ounce of common sense, you run a business, you have an ounce of wealth. And I don't mean wealth like, you know, hey, Lovey.

Let's get on the boat for a three-hour tour with a suitcase full of cash. I mean you saved anything, anything, get the hell out of New York City.

I mean, this is about survival. This is about free speech. This is about women's rights.
Religious pluralism. Secular legal systems. Liberal democracy.

But it's also about failed principles of Communism. Okay?

First, you have to call out political Islam for what it is. Okay?

And we have to do it with the clarity that we call out white nationalism.

Got to do it with that. Got to -- you know, the Klan. Really bad people.

Really bad people.

Anybody who is shouting for globalized intifada?

Pretty bad. Pretty bad people.

Okay?

Now, let's get to communism.

Because that's another cool, cool angle of the new Democratic candidate for -- for mayor of New York City.

That I just -- I think is cuddly and cute. Sure, it led to 100 million deaths. But this time, New York is going to be radically different. Oh, did I use the word radical?

I didn't mean to use that. What's radical about this guy?

Nothing. He's just like you!

Well, not exactly.

But let's talk about communism, next!

Now, the new mayoral candidate that's running there in New York City. That so many young people rushed to defend and vote for. He's promising free buses.

That's going to work out.

Where are you going to get the money for free buses.

It's free!

City-run grocery stores.

Oh, rent freezes. And finally somebody has done it. A 30-dollar minimum wage.

So under the banner of equity. And, you know, we will tax the wealthy. And the corporations. You know, we're going to squeeze another $10 billion out of them.

Really?

Because they're going to call a U-Haul.

You know, they will call something like U-Haul. There will be a lot of -- there will be a lot of movers that are like, how do I get the truck back from Texas or Florida back up to New York? Nobody is moving up there.

But he's going to do it.

Now, his vision isn't really new. You know, just -- just tax people, so we could have city-run grocery stores. You know, I remember -- I'm old enough to remember those city-run grocery stores in Moscow.

They were great.

The shelves were empty.

But that's just Moscow.

It worked out completely different in Venezuela.

Where, oh, no.

It didn't. That's right. The grocery store.

They were eating the zoo animals.

But it will be different in New York.

Because they have rent controls too.

And that will just choke the housing supply, but don't worry. As a young family.

You know, you voted for it.

You know better.

It will work this time.

So, you know, I like building ideas, I just don't like usually building on the graves of 100 million people.

But, you know, why not? Why not?

You know, use this dogma.

And this time, it will be different. It's not like it was in China. Where the great leap forward, was a gross -- a gross parody of progress. Venezuela, which was oil rich. One of the richest nations in the hemisphere now sees 90 percent of its population in poverty!

Yeah. Darn it. You know what they did?

They decided to take state control of things.

You know, like grocery stores. And it worked out well. How is that free busing working out in Venezuela?

I just want to -- I just want to know.

Anyway, then you've got the globalize the intifada. Which is going to drop a little violence in, and anti-Semitism in with your communism.

Which is weird!

Because violence and anti-Semitism, always happen. When it -- when it comes to -- when it comes to communism.

This is weird!

I've got to play something for you. Because this has talked about on me earlier this morning.

Oh, wow.

Wait a minute. This is -- this is the whole coalition coming together here.

So this is going to be good. New York, this is going to be great.

It's going to be great for you.

No. He's going to uplift you. Then the social fabric of New York City is just going to be -- just one.

It's going to be fantastic. Don't worry about your 120 billion dollars in debt. Or your 10 billion-dollar deficit that you have right now.

You are going to charge the rich more taxes, and they will stay right there.

They will be like, you know what, that 46 percent in taxes that I'm paying, this is just not enough. It's just not enough.

I need to pay 60 or 70 percent to be able to pay my fair share. So that's good. That's good. That's good.

You know, they're not risking 100 million people. It's just 8 million people.

This time, it's just 8 million people.

But, hey. For those of you in upstate New York. That aren't going to be part of this experiment.

Don't worry, you get to pay for it. Because they'll kick it up to the state. The state will have to subsidize everything. And don't you love it?

Really, don't you want to subsidize the really crazy ideas of New York City?

I mean, why don't you have a -- why don't you have a democratic socialist. A/k/a communist mayor.

Why haven't you done that? Are you not progressive enough? Are you not looking into the future?

Are you stuck in the past?

I don't know. I don't know. The graveyard is pretty big. I have a hard time getting past that one. You know, yeah, so I'm stuck in the past. Because I can't seem to pass that graveyard, and get to be down the path with you. But it's going to be a paradise.

Forget arithmetic. You know, or human nature. This time, it's going to work. It's going to work. So all right!

Wish I lived in this morning.

No wait. Nope. I don't. Nope, I don't.

And Ted Cruz, stop it. Stop writing, hey, come to Texas. No. No. Don't come to Texas. Don't come to Florida. Go to California. It's beautiful this time of year. Go there. Go there.