‘Don’t be FOOLED’: What’s REALLY in the Senate's new ‘border’ bill
RADIO

‘Don’t be FOOLED’: What’s REALLY in the Senate's new ‘border’ bill

Members of the Senate have reached a “bipartisan border deal.” But is it really bipartisan? And is it really a border deal? Glenn lays out what’s actually in the bill, which Glenn believes is better described as a “multi-billion-dollar war package” that continues to fund the war in Ukraine. Plus, Glenn breaks down what Biden’s new “emergency powers” would be … and they’re insane.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: There's a lot going on.

Let me start with the border news over the weekend, and continue to heat up. Let me give you a few of the touch points here. More governors traveled to the Texas/Mexico border on Sunday. To show their solidarity with governor Abbott and the federal government.

Speeches were given directly at ground zero. And the media is dubbing it Civil War 2.0.

So they were surrounded bit Texas national guard. Military vehicles. Loads of razor wire. Right in Shelby Park and Eagle Pass, Texas.

Now, over on the federal level, the Senate appears to have come to an agreement on they say it's a border bill. But we'll get into the details in a second. It's actually a multi-billion dollar war package. Do not be fooled by the name "border bill."

It's not. Now, it does have some stuff to do with the border. Depending on who you talk to. It's both amazing for the border. And the worst piece of legislation in history. It's weird how something can be both of those things.

Could it also possibly be that all of the border news happening right now is just a song and dance?

Could it be that no one is actually interested at all in solving the border problem?

All the world is, but a stage. And we are merely its players. Yes.

Yes. Yes. That's what's happening.

For decades now, the border has been enormous political Capitol for both sides in Washington, DC.

Republicans love it. Democrats love it.

And they never really cared about the impacts to our communities. And to our states.

Why would they suddenly start caring about it now?

Well, because it's so bad. Uh-huh.

So we sent our Blaze originals documentary team down with the border, convoy.

And, boy, did they learn a lot.

They were with the convoy. But the convoy led them to all kinds of other discoveries. With about the standoff at the border between the state and the feds.

We found something shocking, that no one is talking about.

We're being duped by all sides.

Here's one piece I can give you today.

Consider this: Did you hear about a -- a secret meeting?

Did you hear that while reports of record amounts of illegals were pouring over our border -- this was in December -- Secretary of State Blinken held a secret meeting with Mexican officials, in Mexico City.

Now, it was reported that he traveled there.

But the full context of the meeting, were not disclosed.

We have no idea. Why is that?

Was there an agreement that was made?

Were concessions handed over?

If so, what did we give up?

Why isn't this meeting discussed in the media, when they talk about Civil War, 2.0. Or when the Senate hails a landmark border deal.

What happened in Mexico?

Could all of this just be a charade for the people?

Our Blaze orange documentary team might have the real answer for you. The full report is coming out in a couple of weeks. But we will have more on this, on our Wednesday night TV special. This is all breaking news. In -- in our world.

And we'll give you all of the full tails, as we -- as we gather everything. And make sure it's all buttoned up.

Now, the senators revealed 118 billion-dollar emergency National Security Supplemental Appropriations Act.

Wow! So it's an emergency, and it's about national security!

So what did we get?

Well, 118 billion-dollar national security supplemental -- supplemental appropriations act.

Would give $60 billion in aid to Ukraine.

Wait. Wait. What?

So it's 118 billion.

Half of it goes to -- I thought -- wait. Wait. Emergency national security.

Supplemental bill. I thought that national emergency was the border?

Because wasn't that why he needed emergency powers?

The border?

So half the money goes to aid Ukraine. They also allocated $20 billion into securing the US southern border.

Okay. So say. Wait. So three times the amount, goes to Ukraine.

Also, $20 billion for the border. $14 billion in security assistance to Israel.

And just to make it all fair. $10 billion in humanitarian assistance for civilians caught in the conflict zones of Gaza.

Oh, well, that's -- okay. Wait. What?

Four and a half billion. Or almost 5 billion to support key regional partners in the Indo-Pacific to deter China.

Two and a half billion dollars to support US Central Command operations in the Red Sea.

2.3 billion for Ukrainians. And other refugees displaced.

400 million for the nonprofit security grant program, which helps nonprofits in places of worship, to make its security enhancements.

Uh-huh. Uh-huh. It would also require the Department of Homeland Security to nearly shut down the border.

Now, listen to this. Nearly shut down the border.

What does that mean exactly?

Well, it means that we're not going to shut down the border.

But nearly do it. Now, not today. But that -- they can do that, if the migrant crossers, increase more than 5,000 a day.

On any given week. Or if the average daily encounters reach $4,000. 4,000 people a day, this a one-week span.

So if there's 4,000 people, for six days, they can't shut down the border.

I'm sorry. They can't nearly shut down the border.

At a rate of 5,000 illegal immigrants entering the country, that would mean more than 1.8 million illegal aliens would be coming into the country every year.

But remember, I haven't gotten to the nearly shut down the border.

This is their solution today. To let in an additional 2 million people come in across our border.

Okay. We're a little sick of the 4 million, I think. We're a little sick. Let's slow it down. Let's just do 2 million. Oh, okay.

Now, Chris Murphy from the -- the Democrat from the great set of Connecticut. I mean that, being here. It's a lovely, lovely state. What they've done with the trash, is just wonderful. It really is. A requirement of the president to funnel asylum claims to the land ports of entry when more than 5,000 people cross a day. This is what Murphy is saying, on X. The border never closes. But claims must be processed at the ports. This allows for more and more orderly humane asylum processing system.

Got that? So if it's more than 5,000 a day, then they have to be processed at the ports. That's the nearly closing the border.

Oh! Okay. Well, that sounds really bad. This is what -- you know, Lankford came out. And he was like, everybody was saying, this is much worse than what we said it was going to be. I challenge the people that come up to me and tell me, what is worse?

Well, you know, he's kind of right. Remember when the media was saying, oh, it has none of that stuff in the bill. That's an outrageous -- that is disinformation. That those things were in the bill.

Yeah. Lankford is probably not worse. You've confirmed everything that we said was in it, that you all were saying, wait until you find out what's inside the bill.

Because that's not in the bill. It's in the bill!

Oh, my gosh.

You know, when people like Lankford, who needs friends?

Seriously, who needs friends?

I'm a little confused. I'm going to have to get with the speaker's team on -- to find out what part would be worse, than what we had expected, based on the actual text!

It's not worse! It is the text that we said it was, and you said it wasn't. Oh, my gosh. Stu, can you just take over for a second. Because I'm going to have an aneurysm.

STU: Yeah. On that point, you're totally right. There was this pushback, on people negotiating and Lankford being key in this room. Saying, oh, you guys are just acting off of rumors.

You're acting off of internet posts. You're acting off of false reporting about what's in this bill. I would never allow this to be in this bill. Then they released the text of the bill.

And I mean, to the number. Almost every single part of it is exactly what was reported.

I mean, it's bizarre.

I will say, when you get to the point of, talking about it being worse, I would include this. In the worst subscription.

Tell me if you agree with this. There is a provision in the bill, that would allow the president. You know, you might be -- you may not know. Joe Biden is currently the president of the United States.

Okay. So this would be under his authority. There's a provision in his bill, that would allow the president to suspend the shutdown authority. It says, quote, it authorizes the president to suspend the border emergency on an emergency basis.

For up to 45 days, if it's in the national interests.

So what do you think happens when we get across this 5,000 barrier?

Every time, he at least suspends it for 45 days, and God only knows if he can do it consecutively in perpetuity. That's probably what will wind up happening. Though, I'm not sure about that detail.

Look, Glenn, you look at the bill. And there are things in there. That would theoretically make the situation a little bit better.

There's asylum improvements that I think could be part of an eventual bill.

GLENN: Yeah. I mean, why even discuss.

It's a nonstarter because of things like this.

According to the bill, if you cross the border, illegally. You get arrested.

And then Department of Homeland Security, they decide, that you're entitled to protection. They're now able to give you automatic -- automatic employment authorization.

STU: Yeah. Until you have your asylum hearing. Now, a couple of parts, in addition to that. They say the asylum hearings will come fast. So no more 2030 court dates. Do you believe that?

I mean, this is the problem. I don't believe that. Now, if they -- they say it will supposedly bring this down to months, instead of years, for asylum.

That would be a legitimate improvement on what we have --

GLENN: Except, I don't think it's by judges.

I think it's by the Department of Homeland Security, is it not?

STU: I think it's by the US citizenship and immigration services. It kind of shifts a lot of it, at least over there.

But again, do I believe that they will actually accomplish that?

No. They also have tougher asylum requirements. And this could be a legitimate one, Glenn.

But think about this in a real country, that does the -- the things they say they do.

They would include three bars to eligibility. Okay?

Number one. Criminal history. So if you have criminal history, no asylum for you. Okay. Totally legitimate.

Number two, could they have resettled in another country on the way to the US.

Yeah. Okay. If you actually implemented it, that would be a great improvement. Number three, could they have settled somewhere else in their country. Okay. Perfect. That would be a legitimate thing to do.

That would be an improvement over our system. And it would be a rational way to decipher these claims.

No one believes they are going to do these things. No one believes that this is actually going to happen. When they're ignoring dozens and dozens of other laws that are already on the books. Why would we believe that they would suddenly just implement this one part of this one law that would improve the system.

And they have no trust for the people. And they have no national reason to be trusted. And that is a bigger part of this problem.

Not to mention, they put in there, that the US -- or, the president of the United States, could just suspend the authority.

So at some points, they say. It's required, to shut the border down.

At the same time, to say, he has a 45 window to supplement this at any point.

GLENN: Yeah.

His emergency power is to shut this bill down at any time.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: If he feels it's in an emergency or in our best interest, he can shut this bill down.

We all thought he was saying he needed emergency power to shut the border down. He's not. And their response is, well, he's nearly shutting it down.

Only 1.8 million people can come across the border in a year. Only 1.8.

STU: Right. Now, they are pushing back against that number. You know, the way they are wording it is that it doesn't mean they're allowed in. 5,000 are not allowed in. They are saying that, single adults would be detained.

And families would be released via ATD, Glenn.

Alternatives to detention.

GLENN: Ah.

STU: A little ATD going on.

GLENN: Yeah. A little ATD.

STU: To me, even if you're detaining them in the United States, you're still letting them into the United States.

GLENN: And we're feeding and clothing and caring for people. That we shouldn't be feeding, caring or clothing.

I mean, this is just insane.

STU: The expansion of the detention capacity is only 16,000.

So, again, this is a few days under this system. Where else -- where do people go again? We will be in the same crisis situation all over again.

Does the CIA WANT World War III? This Ukrainian Admission Suggests So
RADIO

Does the CIA WANT World War III? This Ukrainian Admission Suggests So

Many Americans have felt for a while now that, for some reason, Western leaders don’t want the war in Ukraine to end — and might even want it to turn into World War III. Glenn reads an article from the New York Times that sheds light on that possibility. In the article (which keeps reporting on alleged “secrets” that military leaders wouldn’t usually want leaked to Russia), Ukrainian military officials admit that the CIA has been funding a spy base in Ukraine. And for the past 10 years, the CIA has been using Ukraine as an important “intelligence partner” to spy on Russia. Paired with the news that Hungary is suddenly okay with allowing Sweden to join NATO, Glenn is left with only one conclusion: “There is a game being played here that I really don’t like.”

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: I want you to listen to this story from the New York Times. And just help me out a bit, will you?

STU: Sure. Of course.

GLENN: Nestled in a tense forest. The Ukrainian military base appears abandoned and destroyed.

Its command center, a burned out husk, a casualty of a Russian missile barrage early in the war.

But that is only what's above ground. Not far away, a secret passageway descends to a subterranean bunker, where teams of Ukrainian soldiers track Russian spy satellites and eavesdrops on communications and conversations between Russian commanders.

On one screen, a red line followed the route of an explosive drone, as they threaded through the Russian air defenses. From the point in central Ukraine, to target in the Russian city of Rostov.

Now, Stu.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: I don't think this is a secret. When it's in the New York Times.

But my first question here is: Why would the New York Times be talking about something that's just a few yards away, from a military base.

It's probably not hard to narrow this down. From a military base. Where there's hardened bunkers. Tracking everything.

And sending the drones, that they're trying to stop. Why would the in this put that in there?

STU: It seems --

GLENN: A good story?

STU: It seems like a bad move, if Ukraine to be victorious in a war. You wouldn't necessarily want to tip your hands to a Russian. You're right, they don't 79 to give specifics, exactly. Again, this is something they probably pretty easily can narrow down.

So, yeah. Why would you do this?

GLENN: So now, the next paragraph comes in.

The Russian underground -- sorry, the underground bunker, built to replace the destroyed command center, in the months after Russia's invasion, is a secret -- it's not secret. If I am reading about it in the New York -- is a secret nerve center of the Ukrainian military. Paragraph, but there's also one more secret, that now that we're printing it, it's no longer a secret.

The base is almost fully financed and partially equipped by the CIA.

General Sernie DeVoreski (phonetic) said 110 percent. Really? 110 percent?

That's true?

It took root, a decade ago. Coming together, in fits and starts, under three very different US presidents.

Pushing forward by key individuals, who often took daring risks.

It had transformed Ukraine. Whose intelligence agencies were long seen as thoroughly compromised by Russia. Into one of Washington's most trust and had important intelligence partners against the Kremlin today.

The CIA helped train a new generation of Ukrainian spies, who operate inside of Russia. Across Europe. And in Cuba. And other places, where the Russians have a large presence.

Well, that's helpful.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: Can we reveal the knock list too?

The relationship is so engrained, that the CIA officers remained at a remote location in western Ukraine. When the Biden administration evacuated US personnel in the weeks before Russia invaded.

During the invasion, the officers relayed critical intelligence. Including where Russia was planning strikes, and which weapon systems they would use.

The Russian head of the -- or sorry. The head of the Ukrainian domestic intelligence agencies, said, without the CIA, it would have been -- there would be no way for us to resist the Russians. Or to beat them.

Oh. Now, Stu. Why would the New York Times print this?

STU: Maybe they're desirous of World War III. Huh.

STU: One potential explanation. Like you're trying to spark a flame that will result in all of us being lit on fire. And a fire explosion, across the entire globe.

GLENN: What would make you to jump to something like that?

STU: Well, it seems like, if what you're -- if the basic argument is, actually, we've been spying on Russia, through Ukraine this entire time.

And these suspicions of Vladimir Putin, that the West is using Ukraine, for these types of purposes, are well -- have a pretty viable foundation of truth.

That seems to be a terrible, terrible thing to be throwing into the New York Times.

Now, look, I would assume, the Russian military is aware of a lot of these things already. Obviously, it's their job and their business.

But I don't think drawing more attention to it, say good idea.

GLENN: So let me ask you: It's implied.

And pretty much everybody knows.

That Russia and China are hacking into our systems. That Russia has hacked into our power grid, et cetera, et cetera.

But what does Putin say about it, and the Russian media?

STU: Nothing.

GLENN: Not true. That's not true. We don't do that.

Okay. What if it came out in Pravda. And it quoted the head of the operation, in Russia. And it said, absolutely. We are targeting their critical infrastructure for years now. We have them on the ropes.

And you know who told us all of this? Canada. Canada has been working with us to make sure the Niagara Falls power plant is the first to fall.

What would we do?

We are headed for World War III.

Let me give you a couple of stories, that show, that this is wanted by too many people.

This is from the Financial Times, this weekend.

Jens Stoltenberg said that there was no doubt that Ukraine would join NATO, as Western leaders gathered in Kyiv to pledge support and mark the second anniversary of Russia's full-scale invasion.

The NATO chief said on Saturday, that Russia president Vladimir Putin started this war, because he wanted to close NATO's door.

But he has achieved the exact opposite.

That Ukraine is now closer to NATO than ever before.

Huh. He said, NATO is helping Kyiv to make its forces more and more interoperable. Ukraine will join NATO. It's not a question of if. But of when.

He insisted.

Okay. Let's see. So on the same weekend. We have NATO.

What Putin said, was the real problem.

They were going to expand NATO. To places like Ukraine.

Yes. We're going to do that. We're going to do that now.

And also, that's the same weekend, that the New York Times reports their secret underground bunkers are run by the CIA.

Okay.

STU: Great.

GLENN: Now. If, again, this was about Canada.

And -- and Russia said, they're expanding their presence.

And they will put military in Canada, on our border. And they admitted to, you know, doing secret operations with Canada.

To be able to destroy us. What would we do?

Mr. Orbán came out.

Victor Orban of Hungary. He declared an end to the month's long spat with Sweden over the expansion of NATO. Saying, that a visit by his Swedish counterparts had rebuilt trust and paved the way for Hungarian parliament to vote on Monday. That's yesterday. To ratify the Nordic nation's membership in NATO.

We're ready to fight for each other, to give our lives for one another. He said. Really?

The sudden warming of relations between the two countries, followed a decision by Sweden to provide Hungary with four Swedish-made Gripen fighter jets, in addition to the 14 its Air Force already uses. And a promise that Saab, the maker of the warplanes will open an artificial intelligence research center in Hungary.

Okay. So that's -- that's good. That's good.

Why are we headed toward war?

Why?

STU: By the way, Sweden -- or Hungary did approve that in Sweden. That -- what you mentioned, 188 to six.

GLENN: Yeah. I believe Hungary was the one saying, let's not piss off the bear. Why would we be talking about expanding NATO?

I believe I've heard Orbán say those very things. Why would we do that?

Four jets? Really? That's all it took, was four jets?

I don't think so. I don't think so.

There's a game being played here, that, I really don't like.

And our country is becoming a little crazy. Let me give you this story.

The Iranian-backed Hamas terrorist group, praised a far left extremist, who lit himself on fire, outside of the Israeli embassy, in Washington, DC.

On Sunday.

And used his death to promote Islamic terrorist propaganda.

Aaron Bushnell, a low level software engineer, with the US Air Force, screamed free Palestine, as flames engulfed his body, after he -- doused himself, with a flammable liquid.

And then lit himself on fire. He later died, from injuries.

Bushnell repeated terrorist propaganda in the moments leading up to the incident. Falsely claiming that what was happening inside Gaza was genocide. And calling Israel colonizers.

Now, that sounds like a far left radical, doesn't it?

Oh, I forgot. We're not looking for hard left radicals.

In the military. Only those Christian nationalists and those who want to have insurrection in the United States.

Now, here's why this is so bad.

Let me -- let me take you first, to what Cornell West tweeted.

Let us never forget the extraordinary courage, and commitment of brother, Aaron Bushnell who can died for truth and justice.

I pray for his precious loved ones.

Let us rededicate ourselves to genuine solidarity with the Palestinians. Undergoing genocidal attacks in real time.

I want you to mark this place, in time. Right now.

This truly is a mile-marker.

This makes Aaron into some kind of suicide bomber. When, you know, they'll be rewarded in heaven.

We are not a culture that rewards suicide, or suicide acts. Suicidal acts. Especially for politics. Instead of one of the 50,000 plus Americans who committed suicide in the last year, instead of mourning another lost life -- lost to mental illness.

We are confusing suicide with martyrdom. Those who kill themselves for ideology should not be praised. But that's exactly what Hamas said, that's exactly what Cornell West said.

Praising ideology, over human life.

That's not a Rubicon we care to cross.

But we're crossing it right now.

How Democrats Could Plan Their Own January 6 “Insurrection” if Trump Wins
RADIO

How Democrats Could Plan Their Own January 6 “Insurrection” if Trump Wins

Democrats will apparently stop at nothing to keep Donald Trump from becoming president again. Glenn and Stu review a report from The Atlantic that describes how some Democrats are even weighing the option of refusing to certify a Trump win — ironically, on January 6th, 2025. After years of calling Republicans insurrectionists for suggesting the same thing back in 2021, Democrats are now suggesting what, by their own definition, would be an insurrection against the will of the people. Glenn and Stu review the argument, which is tied to whether the Supreme Court will allow Colorado to remove Trump from the ballot.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Headline. How Democrats could disqualify Trump if the Supreme Court does it.

Without clear guidance from the court, House Democrats suggest that they may not certify a Trump win on January 6th.

PAT: Oh, yeah. I saw that. Isn't that an insurrection. Isn't that what we've decided. That's an insurrection.

GLENN: On January -- you've got to be kidding me.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Near the end of the Supreme Court oral arguments about whether Colorado could exclude former President Trump from its ballot, as an insurrectionist. The attorney representing votes from the state, offered a warning to the justice.

One, evoking the January 6th riot, that it had set the case in motion.

By this point in the hearing, they made it clear they did not like the idea of allowing a single state to kick Trump out, over the presidential race.

So they didn't appear comfortable with the court doing so either.

Sensing that Trump would likely stay on the ballot, the attorney, Jason Murray. Said if the Supreme Court didn't resolve the question of Trump's eligibility. It would come back with a vengeance, after the election.

When Congress meets once again to count and certify the votes of the electoral college.

It will come back with a vengeance on January 6th.

PAT: That's incredible.

GLENN: Are you kidding me?

And this with Fani. Fani. But -- but Willis.

She is -- she is coming in -- if -- if there's no law in Georgia.

There's no law in -- in New York.

No law in DC.
And they decide, on January 6th. To come back with a vengeance. You know there will be demonstrations.

All over. And then they overturn the election. What the hell has been happening the last four years?

STU: And that's obviously a major concern. And that's why I think, for me, the Fani Willis story is interesting.

I like more than anything else, picked apart their hilarious stories. Which are hilarious to me.

At the end of the day, the political implications are interesting.

If you look at the polls, you have a certain section of people who were voting for Trump.

Who say, if he was convicted of a felony, he -- they will not vote for him

Now, do you believe that?

I am skeptical of that claim. I am skeptical of somebody saying, they're voting for Trump now.

If he gets convicted of a felony, my belief is, they will find a way to talk themselves out of the felony really mattering and will vote for Trump anyway.

PAT: Unless they're Democrats. Now, Democrats could easily be saying that.

STU: Right.

PAT: Of course, they're saying that.

STU: Independents.

People in the middle. People who don't follow this stuff every day.

If there's a high-profile case, like this Fani Willis situation.

Where one of the big accusations against Trump blows up spectacularly. I think it will give a lot of people, okay.

They got him on this. Maybe they get him on the documents case, later on.

But in people's minds. It will be cemented. That a lot of this was just crazy political attacks. And that's what Trump politically needs to convince people of.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: He needs to be able to get people over that line, this actually was unfair. Certainly, this has worked with Republican primary voters.

But, remember, he can't win this election with just Republican primary voters. He has to win it with people in the middle, and those people who are vulnerable to the mainstream media's narratives here.

If you have one of these big accusations blow up like this, it may just give him a pass on all of them.

GLENN: Well, I think that -- I mean, I'm only taking this from the left and the Democrats.

So maybe it's not true, but I've heard since Bill Clinton, that when you persecute somebody like this and you're unfair, and you use the court system to go after him.

What happens? With the black population, Pat. According to their story line.

PAT: That they're sensitive to it.

GLENN: And they will -- they will rally around that person. Okay?

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: So Trump has been saying, you know. This -- this might actually hurt them in the end with African-Americans.

MSNBC had a whole segment with somebody who was like, this is an outrage. What a racist thing to say.

The chyron at the bottom of the screen said, Trump claims indictment appeal to black voters.

Trump claims that?

Well, I don't know.

I've learned that from the DNC.

PAT: Back in the '90s. Absolutely.

GLENN: And the only reason you were going after Barack Obama was because you were black.

Our first black president was only black because he was involved in a scandal, and everybody went after him.

So now you know what it is like to be a black man.

I don't know which one it is. Which one is it?

I'm hoping that scandals don't appeal to blacks. I'm hoping the truth appeals to blacks.

But I've been taught. We've all been taught, dutifully, by the mainstream media and by the DNC. That, no, no, no. You don't understand.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: So if you happen to be black and listening. You have something to say. And I would love to know.

Which is it?

Because that changes the dynamic, if that's true.

STU: Hmm. It's just amazing that they keep trying to put people in these categories. And deal with them like this.

GLENN: I know.

STU: Deal with them as individuals.

GLENN: I wouldn't have brought that up, if it wasn't for MSNBC.

I'm looking at this chyron, like, wait. But that's what you've been saying forever.

STU: Right. That is 100 percent what they've been saying. It's how they treat the world.

They treat world with this weird prism of race, all the time. Everything is seen through that.

It's the most important thing about each and every one of us.

And look, it's a built-in defense for people like Fani Willis. When she goes to the black church. She says, the reason they persecute me, is because I'm black.

Even though, she knew she had lied, she went to church and lied even more.

And also used her own, quote, unquote, people.

As a defense mechanism, to the lies, she knew she was already making, to a court.

GLENN: It's really amazing. How you can lie and lie and lie to people.

And the media will be lied to.

And they'll report on those lies.

Then expose those lies.

They'll be exposed as lies.

And everybody just keeps listening to the liars.

PAT: They'll be complicit. And it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter.

Why Fani Willis CANNOT Dismiss the Phone Records That Accuse Her of Perjury
RADIO

Why Fani Willis CANNOT Dismiss the Phone Records That Accuse Her of Perjury

It’s been quite the week for Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis. While she and her special prosecutor “friend” insist that they were not in a relationship before he was hired, phone records recently submitted by former president Donald Trump suggest otherwise. Glenn and Stu discuss what the records found, why Fani Willis, as an attorney, cannot discredit them, and if she has any way to argue herself out of a perjury charge.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Sorry. I was analyzing my voice there, when I got a little lost. Because my voice was gone over the weekend.

I have -- I mean, I swear to you. There's no reason for me to do this job.

I don't know why I have this job, I don't.

I have vocal cords that go at the drop of a hat. And so --

STU: There any health problems that you have yet to acquire?

GLENN: I don't have ALS. That I know of. That I know of. I don't have ALS.

STU: That's good. There you go.

GLENN: All right. And I really need my voice today. Because Fani Willis.

STU: Oh. Fanny.

GLENN: Now, in case you don't remember, Fani Willis is the prosecutor. She is the DA that is making this case, about Donald Trump, you know, trying to steal the election. Yada, yada.

Well, there's a little problem there. Because somebody found out, that she was paying one of the expert witnesses and investigators, an awful lot of money.

He was making like -- I think almost twice as much, right?

STU: As some of the other experts.

GLENN: Yes. Some of the other people. So people started looking into that.

And then the rumor came into this investigator. That they were having an affair. And they were going on lavish trips together. And so they wondered, wow.

Hmm. I mean, is something going on here, that, you know, might lack some professionalism.

Yes. And then, it -- there became this little squabble of, when did you hire him?

Did you hire him before, or after this case.

What -- what -- what is that?

There was also a divorce going on.

And he was getting a divorce. This prosecutor.

He was getting a divorce. And it came up in the divorce trial, that those two were having an affair.

And he said, no. I've never had an affair in my marriage. Okay.

Well, that wasn't true. But he got on the stand and said, well, it depends on -- I'm not kidding.

I'm not making this up. Depends on how you define marriage. In my head, we were divorced for a long time.

Okay. Not usually the way we do that. But okay.

Redefine some more things about marriage. So the problem is, they swore under oath, several times.

That they didn't have a relationship. At all prior to 20 --

STU: Well, again, this was a big part of the testimony.

GLENN: Yeah. I know.

STU: Do you mean romantic relationship. Or relationship as if they met each other.

GLENN: Look it up. Do we have any porn music? That kind of a relationship. You know what I mean? Okay. This kind.
(music)

STU: Yeah. I could see how --

GLENN: Ding-dong, pizza delivery, all right?

STU: All right. So they had a -- they admitted to the relationship after he was hired. I believe he was hired in November of 2021. So they -- I think said the relationship started in early 2022.

GLENN: Right. After he was hired.

STU: Yeah. After he was hired.

And so the -- of course, they went to work to say, wait a minute. It seems like it started way where that. Including a testimony from someone. One of her best friends at the time.

GLENN: Right. And then somebody else that said, attorney-client privilege. That's like Fifth. We know what you're saying. Sit down.

STU: One of his attorneys was asked about this. And obviously they wouldn't have asked him about this, if they didn't know what the answer was. But he couldn't -- he was able to get out of it, with attorney/client privilege.

However, the other witness said they had been together since at least 2019. Now, of course, this is important. Because the accusation here is that she's trying to extend this, and do as much as they can. To get as much money in this guy's pocket as possible. In other words, her goal is not justice here.

Her goal is to enrich this guy, who in turn was enriching her. Right?

Now, if their answer was immediately, look, the guy is the best in the business.

Yeah, we had an affair. It had nothing to do with this.

We've been dating since 2019, but it doesn't matter. Because, you know, I knew he did great work. That's why I brought him on this case. It had nothing to do with this case. They probably skate scot-free on this. But because of his divorce. They don't go down on that road. They decide instead, to deny everything. And that leads to some problems.

GLENN: Some little problems. So it was really, he said/she said stuff. And you didn't have any evidence except it seemed pretty obvious.

Nobody in their right mind, could buy their excuses. But if you want to have no shadow of a doubt. You don't really have any evidence. Right?

STU: Remember their excuses too. That they went on multiple, expensive trips. That he paid for on his business credit card. Okay?

His business credit card. He paid for those trips. Then they're -- their story is, after they returned, she took some amount, thousands and thousands of dollars.

Each time, out of her glob of cash, she keeps at her house. That there are no records of. And she takes the thousands of dollars. And gives it to him, to pay back for her part of the travel. Remember, they're dating at this point.

For her part of the travel, and then he takes it, and then never deposits it into his bank account.

He just -- I guess what keeps it in his glove box and pays for gas, every time, in cash.

GLENN: Well, I mean, it's his business credit card.

He went into the business and said, here, I owe you this, and just gave them lots of cash.

STU: Well, of course there would be a record of that. So that's not what happened.

GLENN: Well, unless the accountant at the business, doesn't -- we don't count cash coming in. We just put it in. No. This drawer, right here.

STU: Oh, yeah.

Well, again, if you had -- if he paid in cash for the trips. This might be kind of believable.

Even though, it's never happened before.

GLENN: No. No.

STU: This interaction between two people, in a romantic relationship, has never occurred.

GLENN: Okay. So now, apparently, there's something called phone records.

STU: What?

GLENN: Yes.

STU: What does that mean?

GLENN: Well, it means they can track your location by triangulating your location.

Now, this is -- it's kind of interesting.

That the phone records show, they had a lot of late-night phone calls.

Well, that kind of came in. And ding-dong.

Pizza.

You know, he was playing the pizza deliver guy.

STU: He was. Look, sometimes, pizzas do get delivered late at night.

And other times, people look under the box.

GLENN: So they -- hmm.

So over 2,000 voice calls.

And just under 12,000 interactions were changed.

STU: Wait. It's 12,000 text messages.

GLENN: Yeah. 12,000.

STU: 2,000 voice calls. Can you think of anything more annoying than receiving 2,000 voice calls, from anyone.

Let alone Fani Willis.

Thank God.

GLENN: I wonder if Tania and I -- hazard pay. I wonder if Tania and I have had 2,000 calls back to each other and 12,000 text messages.

There's no way.

STU: What was the period, again?

It's a year.

GLENN: It was January to November. Not a year. Ten months.

STU: Okay. I talk to my wife, on the phone, I'm trying to think.

Let's go crazy and say twice a day. I mean, I live with her. Right?

So I see her at home in the morning. And I see her at night.

And during the day, there's a couple of times she might call or a text.

I could probably count up a month of our text.

To see how much was exchanged.

But there's no way it's a thousand.

GLENN: So I don't carry a phone.

But I have an i Pad that I text. And Tania probably texts me two or three times a day. Maximum. Maximum.

STU: Right. That sounds about right.

I mean, again, I don't know. Interactions, it's a little bit -- it's a little bit -- honestly, the text messages. Some people text a lot. Some people write small text messages.

And some people give you the emoji reactions to them. I don't know what counts in there. So 12,000, maybe that's understandable.

Two thousand voice calls in ten months! I know -- I bet I have not made 2,000 phone calls in ten months, if you combined every call I've made.

GLENN: Now. Even if -- even if the 12,000 text messages, were just doing the salsa dancer emoji.

STU: Is there a salsa dancer emoji?

GLENN: Yeah. You've never seen that?

STU: I've never seen an emoji.

GLENN: Yeah. So there's the salsa dancer, and I don't know what the salsa dancer is supposed to represent. I have no idea.

So maybe that's the code. Salsa dancer. You know what I mean? It's like, hey. Let's hook up. Salsa dancer.

STU: Right. They have their own language.

GLENN: If there's 12,000 salsa dancers, we know something is going on. Because, I mean, what does that mean? That's code --

STU: Would you be surprised if we saw a lot of eggplants and peaches?

GLENN: I don't. I don't know what those mean.

STU: 8,000 of the 12,000 were eggplants or peaches.

Why -- I guarantee you, they would be like, look, have you ever had this -- this authentic native dish, that has both peaches and eggplants.

We kept making it. That's all.

They will go to any length to lie about this, at this point.

GLENN: Oh, they are done.

So here's what she said. So you know, they have him, how many times?

Forty-five times. Thirty-five occasion.

STU: Yes. And that was a conservative estimate.

Thirty-five was a conservative estimate about how many times he was there.

GLENN: So they have things like this.

September 11th, through the 12th.

Deeper analysis. We don't need to say that.

Described the attached affidavit from the cell phone tracking.

He left the Dural (phonetic) area, approximately 10:15 p.m.

Traveling directly to and arriving within the geofence located on the Dogwood address, to approximately 10:45.

He left the dogwood address approximately 3:28 a.m. What happens between 10:45 and 3:28 a.m.

I mean, I just...

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Then he leaves there, and he texts Fani at 4:20. Okay.

STU: For the purposes of this, please refer to her as Fani.

GLENN: I'm having a hard time with your peach's remark.

Following a call from Fani Willis at 11:32 p.m. which continues for 40 minutes, leaving the towers located near his residence at East Cobb, at approximately 12:05 a.m.

Ongoing call at 12:38.

STU: He leaves his house to drive to her house, and is on the phone with her the whole way. Right?

Okay. Then he goes -- just, think about this. Then he goes to this area, which includes her home. A very small area between cell phone towers.

Ask. How long does he stay there until? To ever

GLENN: Until 4:45 a.m.

STU: 4:45 a.m.?

Is it really 4:45. I didn't realize it was that long, but he never spent the night, as they both testified. He never spent the night. How would you justify this?

GLENN: You know what makes sense now? Why did the prosecution, when they were talking to him and her. Why did they say, was he ever at where you laid your head?

STU: She used that terminology first in the testimony.

They were trying to say, what about -- she said, I don't even know.

I just kept the cash, wherever I laid my head. Of course, that's always what you do. Let's say you go to a motel. You bring your $50,000 with you. It stays with you, wherever you go.

I know a lot of people operate this way, that are in the mob. Other than that, I don't know. Of anyone who does.


GLENN: So here's what she said, since Friday, since the story broke.

Quote, the records do nothing more than demonstrate, that a special prosecutor, wade's telephone was located somewhere.

STU: Not him. His phone. His phone could have been -- what if it has wings. It was flying around at night. We have no idea.

GLENN: He is. He is a guy, he loves to share.

STU: He's a big sharer.

GLENN: I won't use my phone between 10 o'clock at night. And let's say 4:55 in the morning.

STU: I have unlimited minutes. No one is using them. Why don't you use my phone?

GLENN: Use them. So records do nothing more than demonstrated Special Prosecutor Wade's telephone was located somewhere, within a densely populated, multiple mile radius, where various residents, restaurants, bars, nightclubs, and other businesses are located.

STU: How many of those are located at 4:20 a.m.

GLENN: Well, I would also like to say, how many cases have you tried, on cell phone location?

Because --

STU: This is so bad.

GLENN: What she is -- what she is now arguing against is what's called cell hawk.

And law enforcement and attorneys say, this is the system to triangulate phones.

So everybody who is like Googled in.

How do I get rid of 120-pound sack of meat. And bones.

And then, you know, the girlfriend is missing.

They always are like, yeah. But we have you.

Going to the Home Depot.

Back to your house.

Then to the grave site.

I'm sorry. To that park you were visiting.

You know what I mean?

This is the same thing. So if she discredits this.

How many cases. I mean, because if I were a defense attorney.

And my client had gone to Yale. With this as the linchpin.

Examine she discredits.

I would be like, even the district doctor attorney says, this isn't good. It's really bad.

STU: Do you think she's the type of person who would risk multiple murder investigations of -- just to protect herself, Glenn.

GLENN: Yes. Yes, I do.

So does he.

​How to Heal Our Nation One Grocery Trip at a Time
RADIO

​How to Heal Our Nation One Grocery Trip at a Time

As the world becomes more and more chaotic, we can choose to either be mad or kind. Both are contagious, so what would you rather spread? Glenn reads an article that recounts something we are probably all familiar with: Leaving a grocery store parking lot. The writer recalls a stark distinction between two people: One man who was cursing up a storm and an older man who lent a helping hand and kind words. “Your attitude is a choice,” Glenn says. So, what choice will you make today?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Let me start with something I read on the Blaze today.

It's the Kroger checkout aisle. The woman in front of me has tried three different credit cards so far, and none of them have gone through. A few aisles away, a baby cries until her mom places an i Pad in front of her. She descends lazily, into the virtual world where she'll probably live most of her life.

I'm inspecting the quality of everything in my cart. Seeing if there's anything I could negotiate a discount for, while rethinking that bottle of Kombucha I grabbed. Do I really need that?

The woman bagging my groceries appears to be old enough to have comfortably retired by now. But instead, she's trying to lift my 12-pack of toilet paper into my cart. While I stop and tell her, I can handle that.

Maybe I've just been too wrapped up in my head to really take stock of the sincere moment of connection at the grocery store entrance.

It was just a brief blur of humanity in increasingly disconnected world. When she tells me the total, the cashier gives me a sympathetic look. It adds up fast now, huh. I give her a weak chuckle.

Yeah. Yeah. Sure does. Neither of us say, thanks Biden. But somehow we both know that we're both thinking it. And our smiles just widen a bit.

In the parking lot, there's a man on a speaker phone with somebody he's very angry with. He's shouting profanities into the phone, dropping N-words like he's J. Cole. I know he sees me loading my groceries in the back of my Kia Soul right next to him.

We made eye contact when he yelled into his i Phone about being disrespected.

It's one of the most beautiful Texas afternoons, I've seen in a long time.

There's not one. I mean, literally, not one single cloud in the sky.

The air has maintained the lingering crispness of a colder temperature, as the sun melts the winter away.

Someone cuts me off, in the way out of the parking lot.

And I realize, I can't blame Biden for that. I used to think the universal test of your humanity was whether or not you put your shopping cart into its designated shopping cart. But I think the bar is significantly lower now.

The new test is if you can handle grocery shopping without cussing somebody out.

I'm not angry because I'm still thinking about the old man I passed at the Kroger entrance. He was wearing a hat that I believe said he was a veteran from the Korean War.

He stopped the young man, whose job it was to pick up the carts that were scattered haphazardly in the parking lot, and return them to the store.

The old man shook the young man's hand. And said something that sounded like, you're doing good work.

I thought maybe he knew the young man.

Maybe it's a neighbor. That works at Kroger.

Maybe these men were neighbors too.

I don't know. It's not a big town.

Or maybe he didn't know him.

Maybe I had misinterpreted the whole scene in my usual distracted rush to get my groceries without collapsing into despair about the price of garlic.

Maybe I've been too wrapped up in my own head, to really take stock in the sincere moment of connection at the grocery store entrance.

It was just a brief blur of humanity in an increasingly connected world. I had a moment, watching the woman if you understood to find a card that wouldn't be declined.

When I thought, maybe I should just offer to pay.

But her card went through right before I acted. But I could only -- I could only trace the impulse back to that old man at the front of that old entrance. He was kind to somebody at the grocery store.

Maybe I could be kind too. I realized while driving the uncrowded Main Street back home. That humanity is equally as contagious as inhumanity.

But significantly less engaging.

I couldn't help, but remember the details of the man yelling into his phone. But the random act of sincerity by the old man, that went almost unregistered by me.

Headlines today are plastered with the end of the world. He killed her. They hate him.

Rarely is there an article about the old man who shook the young man's hand on a Sunday afternoon at the local grocery store.

Or the neighbors who finally escalated their friendship from an occasional hello. To the planning of game night.

The graduate of AA being baptized at church. Or the parents who worked it out, instead of splitting up. The countless stories of people who had every excuse to despair, to lash out, but didn't.

We don't read those stories. But we do live them.

I'm pulling into my the driveway where my husband is waiting to help me unload. We go on a short walk around the neighborhood. Notice everyone who has painted their door, or is having a cookout.

The sun is now setting, in that kind of endless skyway, Texans brag about.

We brag about it, when we get a call from a relative someplace else, asking how we are.

Ah. We're actually doing very well.

This is written by one of the newer members of my staff.

She is a remarkable woman. And when I first hired her, I said to all the other producers, she's not depressed yet.

Keep all of the news away from her.

She just has a way of looking at things, and seeing the good things in life.

And it's not because she doesn't read the news, she does. She just has a different outlook. Because she just -- I think -- as many of my staff do. They walk with God. Try to walk with God.

And somehow or another, she just has some armor on her, that I lack. And I'm a better man. Because I work with her.

And I work with -- I work with the best team ever. Except for Stu.

I go home, and my wife says, how was your day?

Hmm. Usual. Another better day in America.

And we laugh, or we commiserate, because she's been outside in the grocery store.

You know, one of our problems is, in fact, it may be our biggest problem, we're not grateful anymore. We're not grateful for anything, really.

We're not. You know how great we have it, still yet today?

With all of the problems that we have. And we've got big ones.

We're still the luckiest people in the world. Our standard of living is insane. Insane.

Even when we're struggling, we're better off than anybody in Europe.

Take a minute to notice. Don't let the bad things just impact you. Let the good things impact you as well. Maybe if you go to TheBlaze.com and you find this story, fear and loathing in the Kroger parking lot, read that, and then read the comments underneath it.

It's amazing how many were like, oh, yeah. I just saw this.

Or, you know, I'm going to do this. I stand by this audience. It's just different.

Read that article. Share it. Share your just in the comments. Better yet, just do something.

I don't think that guy in the -- in the hat, knew that guy.

I was raised by a dad, who could have fought in Korea.

He joined the Marines. And he was flat-footed. So they kicked him out.

He so wanted to be a marine. But he used to notice, people that were not noticed, all the time.

He was the kind of guy that was so embarrassing when I was growing up.

You know, I was -- we would go into a restaurant, and somebody would be really good. And he would say, can I see your manager?

I'm like, Dad.

And before he would leave, he would always say, you have an amazing server here.

You have an amazing employee. Sometimes, that's more valuable than a tip, I think. I mean, leave a tip. My dad used to leave tips too.

But nobody communicates with each other anymore.

I was in the parking lot of a grocery store, just a couple of weeks ago. I did the same thing with a guy. I was watching him. Young guy.

And he was rounding up all the shopping carts. And I thought, you can't get anybody anymore.

I was at a Popeyes. My wife is still gone, so dad made chicken last night. And I went through the Popeyes. And this guy was brutal. Just brutal. I've never been to a Popeyes where it wasn't a brutal experience. It's kind of like, it's great chicken. You know. They practically throw it at you, you know. But this guy was just awful. Miserable. Miserable.

My daughter, because I forgot my wallet, my daughter paid.

And she had Apple Pay. And this was his response. He just -- he opened up the window and he said, I don't remember. $480, please.

And before we could, you know, respond to the, oh, my -- hey, you're shouting at us. Wow, that's a lot of money for some chicken.

My daughter said, I have Apple Pay.

He said, oh, perfect.

And I'm like, I don't -- why?

Why? It's a choice, your attitude is a choice. How could you choose to be like that all the time?

So this guy was rounding up the shopping carts.

And I thought, man, look at him.

He's, actually, working hard.

And I went up to him too. And I said, hey.

Good job. Thank you. And I helped him push some stuff in.

I don't know if that made a difference in his day. But it did mine.

Just noticing, somebody working hard. Somebody trying to do the right thing.