Is THIS why Harvard PROTECTED President Gay from plagiarism scandal?
RADIO

Is THIS why Harvard PROTECTED President Gay from plagiarism scandal?

The Harvard board has promised to let Harvard president Claudine Gay keep her job, despite multiple scandals. On one hand, she has been criticized for failing to say that calls for Jewish genocide violate Harvard's policies. And then, there's her plagiarism scandal. But is this just a random attack dug up by conservatives trying to take her down? Washington Free Beacon staff writer Aaron Sibarium joins Glenn to explain why this is not the case at all. Harvard has known about President Gay's plagiarism scandal for months — and even hired "the best defamation law firm in the country" to try and shut the media's reporting efforts down. But why go through all this trouble to protect her? Aaron explains his theory and also breaks down why these alleged instances of plagiarism are so serious.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: There's a couple of things going on with -- with a woman that runs Harv

And one of them is, hey. I have to have a room with -- with color crayons. And comic books, so you can read a comic book, and then, you know, color a happy tree. Because you feel like you're being, you know -- you have microaggressions all around you.

Stopping free speech everywhere, unless you're calling for, you know, the death of Jews.

Then, I guess, hey.

You know, free speech.

It's crazy!

But there's something else that has now been brought up, that I think people knew about in the Harvard world.

But didn't say anything.

And that is the fact that its president Claudine Gay, broke Harvard's own code of conduct on plagiarism.

And it's a pretty significant amount of plagiarism.

Including her doctoral dissertation.

Parts of it were wholly plagiarized.

And she never credited anybody.

Now, here's why this matters: You plagiarize something. I don't really care.

You plagiarize something in a book. And claim it's yours.

Okay. I care. Because that's stealing from somebody else. You plagiarize in a university. Well, you're setting the standards, and trying to hold those standards of academic excellence and honesty. And if the person who is at the top is known to have plagiarized. How do you tell the students, we're going to kick you out?

This has nothing to do with her testimony, but it has everything to do with how corrupt our -- our universities are. How morally corrupt they are.

We have Aaron Sibarium on with us now.

He wrote a great piece for the Washington free beacon. And we wanted to talk to him about this.

You went to Yale. And you were the editor of the Yale Daily News. So you know something about Ivy League, and plagiarism.

Not really celebrated, is it?

AARON: No, Glenn. It is not. It is not celebrated. And, in fact, I would say that generally, at you all of these standards to get a lecture thing, it doesn't matter how small. It doesn't matter if it's unintentional. Even if you do it with the best intentions, it's still a serious problem. You should double-check your work to make sure absolutely nothing is plagiarized. That is what Harvard tells the students in a very long document that outlines its policy very clearly. It's no fewer than five times indicates that intent is irrelevant. Any language or even just ideas or content from someone else, and don't cite them, it's plagiarism. And according to the letter of the Harvard plagiarism policies, A, they clearly violated them.

GLENN: Yeah, and like significant.

I mean, you in your article go threw it. We don't have to go threw it here. But it's significant. Why does this matter?

AARON: Well, look, people do make mistakes.

And if this were -- if this was what we found out of a corpus of, say, a hundred or 200 peer-reviewed papers, one of which had won a noble prize. He might say, okay. A few paragraphs here or a there. It's the overall content. It's not such a big deal.

I think it's worth emphasizing that she had published in total, 11 peer-reviewed articles. Eleven in the past two decades. That is a really, really small number for any academic I think at a prestigious university. But especially for the academic that the university chooses to elevate to its position.

So you're not talking about a few instances of maybe perilous citations or plagiarism. How to have 100 papers. You're talking about it out of 11 papers. Right?

So we found -- so there have been, you know, 11 peer-reviewed articles. Two of them. We found examples of plagiarism.

Then a dissertation. Then another thing that she wrote. That is in another peer-reviewed journal.

So this starts to amount to a pretty substantial percentage of her academic output. That contained at least some plagiarized material.

So as a percentage thing, I think it's not actually the best way to look at it.

It's not just a couple mistakes here or there. It seems to be a pattern. And a pattern that is fairly consistent throughout two decades of relatively meager scholarly output. Meager scholarly output.

GLENN: So this is not anything new. It's my understanding it's kind of been known and kicked around for a while, but just kept quiet and didn't matter. Is that true?

AARON: Well, yeah, it appears to be true. Because just last night, the New York Post reported that they had many of these examples, confronted Harvard with them. All the way back in October. And Harvard claimed, oh, we addressed this promptly. As soon as it was brought to our attention, we initiated the review. And Dr. Gay requested corrections.

Well, what the Harvard corporation didn't mention is that apparently, they intimidated and maybe even threatened to sue the New York Post for defamation after the New York Post reached out for comment.

So Harvard apparently took this seriously enough, that they thought it was worth hiring the best defamation law firm in the country. God knows how much they were paying them, to send a 15-page intimidation letter. To journalists who were coming to them. For examples of plagiarism.

Clearly, they thought it was worth pulling out the big bucks.

Shelling out a lot of money.

To shut this down. And that was all the way back in October.

GLENN: So why would they do this? To protect -- I mean, why?


AARON: I think that Claudine Gay is an emblematic of the -- of the kind of DEI ideology that is -- that is at Harvard.

You know, some people have focused on her race and gender. And I'm sure, they don't want the -- of firing, yeah, of course.

But I actually think it's more than that. It's that she -- she kind of represents the ideology they already subscribe to, and they don't want the ideology discredited.

And also, I think they haven't gotten as much attention.

She was a very shrewd political operator before she became president. She was sort at the center of a lot of cancellations, right? She helped engineer the bureaucratic administration of votes. The Israeli famous (inaudible) at Harvard. And she helped also strip Ronald Sullivan, Harvard law professor from the administrative post, after Sullivan meets the decision to serve on Harvey Weinstein's defense team. He can't defend the unpopular. That's no longer allowed.

So she -- you know, I think had a -- had a pattern of rewarding friends and punishing enemies. And sort of maneuvered the administration and bureaucratic apparatus, Harvard, around her.

Very strictly. That's a part of how she became president.

And I think that that background may be part of why they're so unwilling to let her go.

The whole kind of institution having some sense been mobilized around her. Kind of put all the places in place.

GLENN: Right. Does it play any role, that her first cousin is Roxanne Gay. Who is a feminist author and New York Times writer, who is absolutely -- absolutely a terrible human being.

AARON: Yeah, honestly, I don't know if that really -- I think they would view this with just about anyone in her position, anyone in her position, anyone with her ideology.

GLENN: Position.

AARON: I mean, and I would say, too, right? They've obviously been under pressure from donors. But they're also under pressure from their own faculty and students. And, you know, you mentioned the -- the testimony she gave where she put in forthrightly -- condemned calls for the genocide of Jews. I think part of the issue is that she couldn't really go up there and say, yeah. We support free speech in all cases. And, in fact, yes, even if you want to call for the genocide of other groups, we will protect that. Because we're so principled.

A, because it wouldn't be true. I mean, we all know it's not true.

And, B, if she would have said that, student activists would have come and tried to burn her house down.

GLENN: Right.

AARON: So they really -- to be fair to her, she is kind of in a rock and a hard place. And no matter what she does, or what Harvard does, some constituency is going to throw a fit.

GLENN: Well, I have to tell you, I do not want to see harm come to anybody. But, gee, if you get nailed by your own policies and your life is tough because you shoveled this poison, and now that poison is coming back to haunt you, you know, I have a hard time. Again, with nobody being hurt, I have a really hard time giving any sympathy to her at all.

AARON: Yeah.

GLENN: Thank you so much. One last question, is this an issue outside of her?

Should this be an issue outside of her testimony?

In other words, is this just being brought up, because there's a mob brought up on the other side, that is saying, hey, she should be fired for this.

Is this a real issue, beyond the anti-Semitism stuff?

AARON: Obviously, anti-Semitism stuff increased scrutiny on her. It would be silly to deny that. But I'm thinking what would be an issue, you know, this -- the plagiarism, isn't quite as severe as -- it's not like data fraud.

Right? There's a guy at Stanford, right? Stepped down amid allegations of data fraud. And that was really curious, right? On its own terms.

I think this would be a scandal on its own. The anti-Semitism stuff, obviously amplifies it and makes it worse.

But, again, I think the real context here is them meager, scholarly record. Right?

Again, I really don't think people would care. I wouldn't care all that much if we had found this and it was in the context of like 200 brilliant peer-reviewed papers. That's not the context.

And I think what it underscores, this woman was clearly not chosen for her scholarly manner.

If that was the criterion, they had a lot of other candidates at Harvard, would have been better.

GLENN: Thank you so much. I appreciate it. Appreciate all your work and all your writing. God bless.

AARON: Thank you.
Don’t Blame JUST the Border Crisis for the Murder of Laken Riley
RADIO

Don’t Blame JUST the Border Crisis for the Murder of Laken Riley

Glenn reviews the murder of Georgia nursing student Laken Riley and the media’s grotesque spinning of the story. The media would rather blame her death on “jogging” than our open border. But Glenn says we shouldn’t JUST blame the flood of illegal immigration. Also at fault are the leftist policies that allowed her suspected killer — an illegal immigrant from Venezuela — to be caught at the border, released, then charged in New York, and released again! Glenn also reviews the media’s panic over former president Donald Trump’s promise to begin mass deportations if he wins the presidency.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: White House spokesman finally commented on a report about Lincoln Riley. Her death late Monday afternoon. They spoke about it.

They just said, the murderer should be held accountable.

We would like to extend our deepest condolences to the family and loved ones of Lake and Hope Riley. People should be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law if they're found to be guilty.

Given this is an active case. I love this. They'll comment on anything. Unless it hurts them. Then it's like, you know, you have to talk to the Justice Department.

I mean, we can't comment at this point.

What about Hunter Biden and his crack cocaine and hooker thing?

You will have to talk to the Justice Department.

What about -- what about Donald Trump and his documents?

That guy is a big, fat liar. And he's spying on America with Russia.

Shouldn't we discuss that?

No. You don't need to go to the Justice Department.

We have that one handled. So, anyway, finally, they said something.

But the reaction from the press has been grotesque.

CNN reported yesterday. In case you don't know.

Lincoln, Riley, she was jogging. She was a university student in Georgia.

She's jogging in the morning.

And she's brutally killed.

And what a surprise. It was an illegal alien. And this time, from Venezuela.

So CNN reports yesterday, quote, there's little evidence leaking in illegal immigration and crime. After the Venezuelan migrant was charged in connection with murder of the 22-year-old Georgia nursing student.

Found dead, Thursday.

University of Georgia campus. Signs of blunt force trauma, after setting out for a jog, in the morning.

The suspect is 26-year-old José Antonio Ibarra. He had crossed into the US illegally near El Paso in September 2022. The -- the Border Patrol caught him at the border. And then just gave him a ticket and released him into the United States.

So he had been stopped, but then, he goes up to New York.

And he got in trouble in New York.

He was arrested last year in New York, by the NYPD.

And charged with acting in a manor to why you are a child less than 17, and a motor vehicle license violation.

They didn't do anything, up in New York.

They just -- they just let him go.

And now -- and now this.

So now, a new poll shows, that many Americans think that there is an influx of illegal immigrants. And that is causing an increase to crime.

And let me just say, that's not true.

That's not true. Well, it's not entirely true. It is the administration's new regulations and guidelines, that are letting all of these people in.

We're having all of these problems because of the new guide lines. And then, on top of that, we have new guide lines issued by all these district attorneys all over the country. That was hired by none other than George Soros.

Good. So we have that going for us. That's what's causing crime.

That we're not enforcing our laws at the border. And then we're not enforcing our laws in our cities.

Our government isn't enforcing the law. Our DAs aren't enforcing the law.

And that's why you have criminals going crazy.

Because they know, I don't -- I'm not going to be charged with anything.

I will be let go. Not a problem. So yesterday, Biden was taken on by Donald Trump, he said, this is -- this is the problem with the Biden administration. And our border.

And everybody went crazy.

By the way, he was charged with malice murder.

Felony murder.

Aggravated battery. Aggravated assault. False imprisonment. Kidnapping. And hindering a 911 call. And concealing the death of another.

I don't know. That seems pretty serious.

So they are not letting him go, this time.

The reason why they let him go last time in New York City. Is because New York City is a sanctuary city.

Hmm. By the way, his brother, also charged on Friday.

For possessing a fraudulent green card, being held in state custody now.

The federal arrest affidavit for Diego, the brother who killed the girl. Says that in September '23, Evans County Police charged him with drunken driving and driving without a license.

Oh. So he just did it in New York. And then came down to Georgia.

And he was also later arrested for shoplifting.

And then skipping out on anything having to do with showing up for court.

A majority of Americans now say that a border wall has to be done.

This is the first time since the history of polls, that the majority of Americans say, border wall, please.

Trump says, I'm going to have a massive deportation. He said, it's going to be the largest deportation. If I'm elected, massive deportation. It will be the biggest in -- in history.

Okay. Well, how do people feel about that?

Well, I don't know. But I'll tell you how the Washington Post feels about it.

After hundreds of thousands of Mexican migrants were put on buses, planes, and boats, during the scorching summer of 1954, and sent across the US border, into often unfamiliar part of Mexico.

The head of immigration and naturalization, declared the border secured.

It was the so-called wetback problem. But the military-style campaign, which used the same slur in its name, operation wetback.

Tore families apart. Forcibly uprooted people, in the name of securing the border, experts said.

And sometimes those turned deadly. Now, first of all, can I ask why it was a smear in 1950, to call this operation wetback.

That's because before it became a slur. Operation wetback was called that, because the people that were being deported. Were the people that crossed the Rio Grande. And swam across. Or came across.

And they were wet when they came out. Now it's a slur.

But it wasn't in the 1950s.

Now, former president Donald Trump is using the Eisenhower Era operation as a blueprint for his vision.

It will be the largest domestic deportation in American history. It will remove 10.5 million undocumented people in the United States. Of whom, 23rd have lived in this country for more than a decade.

Now, wait a minute. Hold on just a second. Why is it that we're going after the ones who have lived here for a decade? 10.5 million?

I think we should probably start with the ones that are here, that just came here. And have no reason to be here.

And are causing real problems. You can go with the -- the last 10 million, that have come in. And they aren't the ones who have lived here for a decade.

Got to get them. Because if you don't get them now. What will happen?

The press will say, they've been here for more than a decade. Americans can expect.

This is Donald Trump. Americans can expect, that immediately upon president Trump's return to the Oval Office. He will restore all of his prior policies. Implement brand-new crackdowns that will send shock waves to all the world's criminal smugglers and marshal every federal and state power necessary to institute the deportation operation.

That's a spokesperson from him yesterday. Undocumented illegal immigrants should not get comfortable because very soon, they will be going home. Now, that's what the Trump people said yesterday. The post is saying, that's horrible.

You watch. The number of people come across the border. The more this is publicized.

What he's saying, the number of illegals coming across our border, will go down.

Why?

Because what the president says matters. When Joe Biden said, no. I'm not encouraging people.

I'm not at all. Yes, he was.

Is Donald Trump discouraging people?

Yes, he is. Is that a good thing?

Yes, it is. But when describing the operation on what Trump's plan was built, says the Washington Post, experts commonly land on the same word.

What's that word, Stu?

What do you think it is? What do you think it is?

Experts -- all the experts are saying the same word.

STU: Hmm, gosh. There are so many that pop to mind. But I don't know. What --

GLENN: Inhumane. It's inhumane.

STU: Inhumane. Just inhumane. I'm wondering if they're talking to any experts that agree with, you know, border policies that secure the border.

I wonder.

When Trump hearkens back to that. I have to be really clear what kind of law enforcement campaign, he's threatening to unleash, says Little Hernandez, who holds the Thomas E. Lifka, endowed chair history of UCLA. It's not just mass deportation. It's mass racial banishment.

No. No. If you're coming in from Russia, I want you out. I mean, if you're -- if you're doing it illegally. If you're coming in from China, I want you out.

You're coming in from Sweden, I want you out.

England, I want you out.

If you're coming from Iran, I really want you out.

You're coming from hostile countries. Buh-bye.

If you're coming here just because you're a family trying to better themselves, go through the front door. And, you know what, bring your family, instead of just sending your 20-year-old son. I just think, you know.

We've got enough of angry 20-year-olds. We don't need anymore. If you would like one, if you would like to take an angry teenager, I will gladly invite you to house one of my children. House them. See what happens with that one. If that's what you're really looking for. I can help you in that department.

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.