RADIOMarch 14, 2023

Mysterious Hawaii lasers UPDATE: What is China DOING there?

Around the same time the China weather balloon made its appearance over the U.S., mysterious, green lasers were spotted in the skies of Hawaii. First, government told us the lasers were part of a routine NASA exercise to measure the size of the earth. But then the story changed. And now, in this clip, Glenn presents more information about what China potentially could’ve been doing with a duel-purpose supersonic sattellite over Hawaii…

Is NATO About to “DECLARE WAR” Against Nuclear Russia?!

The House of Representatives has passed a $95 billion war bill that gives aid to Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan (mostly Ukraine), with the help of Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson. Now, as the bill heads to the Senate, Sen. Mike Lee tells Glenn that “this is an insult to the American people.” But why does it seem like everyone is so set on war? Sen. Lee explains why NATO’s promise to invite Ukraine into the alliance would practically be “declaring war against a nuclear-armed adversary,” Russia.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Mike Lee joins us now, from Washington, DC. There is a vote coming up for Ukraine. And, you know, Mike Lee just loves Vladimir Putin. And so he's against that Ukraine bill. Hello, Mike Lee.

MIKE: Naturally. You know, I don't know how to say good day to you, sir, in Russian. But I'm still working on it.

GLENN: Yeah, right. $95 billion. It only will take 41 senators to stop it.

There are 49 Republicans in the Senate. But you saw what happened in the House. They had Ukrainian flags. It was disgusting, Mike.

MIKE: Yep. Celebrating a foreign flag, on US soil, in a legislative chamber in the United States Senate. Seems odd to me. But not nearly as odd, is the fact that we're shelling out $95 billion with a B. At a time, when we don't have that money. So it's borrowed, which means we're going to print it, which means it's going to contribute even more to inflation. It's already causing Americans to shell out an additional $1,000 every single month, just to put food on the table and keep a roof over their heads. This is an insult to the American people.

When you ask the American people what they want, it's overwhelming, they say no. Look, regardless of what you think about what's going on, in Ukraine. And I intensely dislike Vladimir Putin. I would love for Ukraine to win this battle. But, you know, Glenn, we've spent $113 billion plus on this whirlwind. Why are we spending another $51 billion to that effort, when Europe hasn't stepped up. We have given more than every other nation on earth, combined. And this is in the backyard of our European allies, who, by the way, we've been backfilling their security needs for decades. Through NATO. This is their problem, more immediately, than it is ours.

We shouldn't give a dime. Especially when our own border is not secure.

While we have a 34 and a half trillion dollar debt. And while Europe still hasn't paid up, a sum, not just equal to. But greater than what we put in so far. This is shameful.

GLENN: I heard someone in the House is that I, that their border is our border. No, it's not. No, it's not. Our border is our border.

Their border is their border. I mean, we're not getting any money to protect ourselves. We have a real and present danger, because of our own border.

Everything that I'm reading, I don't even know -- I don't even know what this is about, Mike. Other than, money laundering.

Sending money over there. And it's all going to oligarchs.

We're funding this thing. We're sending the message, that we want war. We are talking about bringing Ukraine in. And making them part of NATO.

Making other states part of NATO.

That is kind of a red line for Vladimir Putin.

And now, I read today. I think it was Poland, that says, they're ready for nuclear missiles in Poland. What do you think Vladimir Putin is going to do?

Exactly what we would do, if you put those in Acapulco.

MIKE: Right. First of all, Glenn, you're wrong about the border issue. We all know that Kyev just a few miles away from Laredo.

So you're mistaken there.

GLENN: Yeah.

MIKE: But, look, the idea of adding Ukraine to NATO, is itself an idea about declaring war. The United States declaring war, against Russia. Because Ukraine, of course, who is at war with Russia.

And if we brought Ukraine into NATO, we would have an Article V obligation to fight Russia. So let's just call this what it is. Those conversations are about declaring war with a nuclear-armed adversary. I know Russia, economically and militarily is not on par with the United States. Nonetheless, their nuclear arsenal is.

Their nuclear arsenal is massive. In part because they have cheated on us like crazy for decades on our nuclear arms treaties.

And consequently, you've got to tread lightly in this area. And nothing says the opposite of tread lightly, quite like declaring war on a nuclear armed adversary.

GLENN: It is insanity. It's insanity.

We are -- we are in so much. If we don't turn this around with elections, in the House, the Senate, and the White House, if -- if we don't turn this around, we're done. We're absolutely -- this is -- these actions are the actions of madmen. Who are -- I mean, if I was being charitable, would say, they're just horribly wrong, at everything they do.

But I -- I mean, I just don't know how to -- how to explain it.

And then the Republicans. I mean, what happened to -- to Johnson. Speaker Johnson.

I've always heard he was a good guy. He was devout. He really understood the Constitution. And he is just like, I mean -- he is part of the borgue.

MIKE: Well, he's Churchill. CNN literally -- literally called him Winston Churchill.

He had his Winston Churchill moment.

GLENN: Wait. Wait.

Let me give you the CNN headline.

By passing Ukraine aid, Johnson became an unlikely Churchill.

MIKE: Yeah. Last I checked, Glenn, Winston Churchill defended and protected his country while it was under attack, and threatened with invasion. He didn't send America -- British treasure to another continent and call that border security for his own home country.

This is absolutely crazy. But this is part of the fantasy land that we live in.

A lot of these guys, want to think of themselves as Churchill. And they think, this is the way to do it.

By printing money we don't have. And putting on the backs of hard-working Americans. Who are made incrementally poorer, and a lot less safe, every time we do crap like this.

GLENN: All right. So we want you to call your senator today.

Call your senator.

You call all 50 or 49 senators from the Republicans.

And respectfully, nicely. Kindly.

Tell them, not to spend this money, in Ukraine.

And I will tell you, I have talked to a lot of people. There are more and more good guys up on Capitol Hill.

They're still outnumbered. But there are more really good dependable guys.

And I hear from them every time.

When the audience calls, it makes a difference.

So please call. And -- and tell them, no! No more spending money on Ukraine!

No!

Spend it on our border.

Keep us safe. What are you doing? Stop it.

One other thing I want to talk to you about, Mike. Is I don't understand. The president just doled out, I think it was another $7 billion in the last couple of days. On relieving student debt.

30 percent of that money, I think is going to people that make over $300,000 a year.

What the hell -- how -- how do you -- when somebody says no to the Supreme Court and does it anyway, and says, I know I don't have this power.

And the Supreme Court just told me, I have this power.

But I'm not stopping.

What has to happen, to get a president who thinks he's just the king, from spending our money and giving it to people, who don't deserve it!

They -- they took out the loan. Not me.

MIKE: Yeah. So in the first place, I think the most obvious answer is, don't elect to the presidency, someone who is manifestly unfit for office.

There's also a deeper question. That we all need to assess, which is, decades of congressional forfeiture, of fundamentally legislative authority, to the executive branch.

Have to a degree empowered this kind of action.

Whenever we enact vague loosy-goosy language that gives a degree of discretion, to the president. And the bureaucrats who work under him, in the executive branch.

Who are handing over a loaded gun, to people who we have to assume, will from time to time, behave as imbeciles. And so we've got reverse that trend.

And, yes, it's lawless what he's doing. He tried to do it under a the different legal theory. A while back. And was shot down by the Supreme Court.

But as soon as that happened, it's a sad commentary, on the law in our country. Without a hint of hesitation. He just said, okay.

Well, I'll find another legal mechanism, by which I could do it.

I believe he had the authority to do it. Last time, I don't think he had the authority to do it this time. But we have to clean up our laws, so that we get rid of any kind of vague delegation of power of the president.

Because they can't be trusted. This is why we can't have nice things. And this is why presidents shouldn't be given vast discretion.

GLENN: On both sides.

STU: Senator, isn't it true. I mean, when you have a thing like the student loan situation. Where he's ignoring the Supreme Court.
And just trying to jam all this through.

He did this with the -- with the eviction moratorium as well. Aren't these examples of specifically what the Founders were talking about, when they were introducing the idea of impeachment? I mean, I understand the pragmatic limitations of that politically, with something like this.

But isn't this, shouldn't this be included in the impeachment inquiry?

MIKE: Yes, without question. And, Stu, you are right. Except, remember, with the new definition of impeachment that we had after last week, basically nothing is impeachable.

I mean, you can lie to Congress, knowingly, intentionally, under oath.

And according to new Senate precedent set by Senate Democrats last week, that's not impeachable. So too, if you take legislative authority that commands you to do X, and not Y. And you instead do Y and not X.

And that is also not impeachable. So it begs the question. What is impeachable anymore?

I don't know. According to the Senate Democrats, nothing is. So this is really troubling. Yet another reason why we have to focus on who we elect as president. I hope we elect Donald Trump as president this fall. And I hope we elect a new raft of lawmakers, not just Republicans, but Republicans who understand the vital pressing need to right size our federal government, to restore the vertical protection of federalism, and the horizontal separation of powers.

There is no other way to save our republic than that. And yet, that gets if a terror, too, little attention from Republicans these days.

Because they're just too damn busy, spending money on wars that aren't ours with money we don't have.

GLENN: Mike, 30 seconds.

Any comment on the Trump case going on in New York right now?

MIKE: This is just a sad display of lawfare, of the weaponization of our legal system. There isn't anybody who thinks this would be going on, were he not the presidential frontrunner from the Republican Party.

They would never be doing it. And so speaking of things that need to go differently in elections, I hope that the people of New York will see this as the embarrassment to the Empire State that it is. And see that this as something that does not bode well.

If you have a business in New York. I -- I wonder how long you can handle this, knowing that, you know, sure, Donald Trump is the target today. Who will be next?

GLENN: Yeah. And they can take a misdemeanor and make it into a felony.

A misdemeanor that the statute of limitations has run out on. And somehow or another, make that a felony, and bring that into court.

No one is safe. No one is safe.

Thank you so much, Mike. I appreciate it.

Senator, Mike Lee.

3 Signs that Anti-Jewish ATROCITIES are Becoming Mainstream

The pro-Palestine, anti-Israel protests are getting out of hand. Glenn reviews 3 stories that prove just how mainstream these often-times anti-Jewish, demonstrations and beliefs are becoming: The United Nations Division for Palestinian Rights advertised "5 ways to take action for Tax Day" if people don't want their tax dollars to "fund genocide"; a group called Palestine Action has called on activists to surveil and violently vandalize businesses connected to the "Israeli weapons industry"; and a cop in London threatened to arrest a man for crossing a road during a pro-Palestine protest because his "openly Jewish" appearance could "antagonize" the crowd. In the name of "tolerance," we're "tolerating the REAL problem," Glenn says. So, is anyone looking into these acts of hate? Or are they still too focused on Trump supporters?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: You know, Stu, I've been thinking. Now, hear me out on this theory.

I'm thinking that maybe Americans. Now, this has never been said before, that I know of.

Do you think Americans just have an unusual fear, a heightened unusual fear of Tiki torches. Hear me out.

STU: This is a theory I've never heard before.

GLENN: Right. It's a first year.

Hear me out. When you have a gathering of Nazis, and they're screaming, death to the Jews.

STU: Jews will not replace us, I believe was the big --

GLENN: Yeah. Okay.

So you have the Tiki torches. We freak out.

But when you have the Palestinians say, kill all the Jews, and nobody freaks out.

They don't have Tiki torches.

STU: Oh!

That's -- that is an interesting difference.

GLENN: It might just be, I don't know. Because I've always go to of Tiki torches, as something you brought, that parents would have brought around the pool for a luau or something. You know, they got like, hey, we have a fresh pineapple. Let's have a luau. And so they would have a luau around the pool. I would like to do an experiment at your house, Stu. Let's see if we can get a bunch of Nazis to go with Tiki torches, and stand around your pool. Just to say, you know, if you like pineapple.

STU: Because then you wouldn't know if it was a racist protest or a luau. You wouldn't know. That's interesting.

GLENN: Yeah. You wouldn't know. You wouldn't know. So I think, is it the Tiki torches that are the difference here between the Nazis?

STU: We have some citronella situations, where they're supposed to help chase the mosquitoes away.

Maybe the American people are just sensitive to those same types of issues. Maybe they're scared away by the Tiki Torches.

GLENN: Maybe. Because I don't understand what's going on.

STU: But you didn't like the, every day should be October 7th chance this weekend?

GLENN: No, I didn't, I didn't.

STU: It didn't say necessarily, it was that thing on October 7th. They could have --

GLENN: It could have been the convert.

STU: Things that occurred on October 7th, you know.

GLENN: Sure. Should have been. Don't think it was. A little Nazi for my taste. A little too Nazi for my taste, but they didn't have Tiki torches.

Hey, by the way, we were just talking about the surveillance that the government is doing with foreigners and Americans getting scooped up. I'll bet you, none of that is going to happen to any of those proud, proud Palestinian protesters. They're not going to get scooped up. No!

Not at all.

By the way, I find it fascinating that the UN, the United Nations, the division for Palestinian rights and geoaction news, reportedly has given an update on the Civil Society Organization's concerning the Palestinian issues. So they're just putting out this information, and they're pointing to the US campaign for Palestinian rights. Lists ways to take action for tax day. So the United Nations put out a little flier there. Just you know Palestinian rights. And put together a little helpful list, if you wanted to take action.

Let me just show you what was in this. Instructions on how some protesters who didn't want their tax dollars to fund genocide. This is from the UN, could disrupt a free Palestine.

Second item on the list, pointed to a user hyperlink for protesters who wanted to engage in a coordinated multi-city economic blockade, to free Palestine.

You know what is not under investigation by our FBI?

These people.

The state laid -- the site laid out specifically how participants could be most effective with their disruptions. The proposal states that in each city, quote, will identify and blockade major choke points on the economy. Focusing on points of production and circulation, with the aim of causing the most economic impact as the port shutdowns did in recent months in Oakland, California, and Melbourne, Australia, just a few examples.

There's this need, quoting, from a shift of symbolic actions to those that cause pain to the economy.

Still quoting, as Yemen is bombed to secure global trade, and billions of dollars are sent to the Zionist war machine, we must recognize that the global economy is complicit in genocide, and together, we will coordinate to disrupt and blockade economic, logistical hubs, and the flow of Capitol.

So I think this is great. Hey. Justice Department.

Nothing to see. I don't need to say this to you. You know, nothing to see there.

Nothing to see there. Whatsoever. By the way, new document, also has -- has been given to the investigative journalist up in Canada. You know, we saw the breakdown of society.

You know, the UN. This is another one. This is an underground manual, created by Palestinian action.

It's a network of groups, that use what they call direct action against individuals and organizations who are believed to support Israel.

The manual, this is another manual, urges the sales to pick your target.

Anyone who enables and profits from the Israeli's weapons industry. Palestinian action then calls on some members to prepare for action. And do what it refers to as recce. R-E-C-C-E. Reconnaissance, is that what you mean? Even advising borrowing someone's dog for a walk, to avoid looking suspicious.

STU: Well, you don't want to look suspicious, Glenn.

GLENN: Right. Can I borrow your dog for a walk? Hey, free dog walking!

STU: That wouldn't be suspicious?

GLENN: No. No. Extremists are counseled to map out where closed-circuit cameras are located, as well as fencing, barbed wire, access points, alarms, and how far the police are from the target. Next, the pamphlet describes to sell -- to be advised to plan action, among the suggestion action. Smashing windows. Exterior equipment. Blocking company's internal pipes. Including using concrete. As anti-Israel protesters did on the railroad tracks in Toronto.

Last week, that was great. This will cause disruptions for the target. Break-ins are also advised by Palestinian action, because breaking in to your target, and damaging the contents inside, is obviously a very effective tactic. This thing goes on and on and on.

It says, at the end, in all caps. Palestinian action warns, taking action, never leave anything behind.

Absolutely nothing. Apart from the paint and the destruction.

The police may try to forensically analyze any items which are left. So don't leave anything. By the way, you should have untraceable burner phones. Oh.

If caught, Palestinian action members are give up the names of lawyers to represent them. Apparently at no cost. And the assistance of, quote, our dedicated support team throughout your entire legal process. End quote.

STU: Oh, that's nice.

GLENN: So I'm -- I'm wondering. I'm wondering, if there's any -- anybody at all, thinking about this?

STU: I think that came from the Toronto star, which is obviously the -- when you're thinking about this type of thing.

You think, I don't know.

Maybe the New York Times. The Washington Post.

GLENN: No. No.

STU: The LA Times would be really interested, in uncovering a document like this, that is advocating this type of things.

GLENN: No. They won't. I just gave you two. One from the Toronto star. Another from the UN.

Hello. Hello.

Nobody. Nobody is interested in this. So please don't talk to me about, oh, my gosh, the United States is in such danger.

Yes. When you close the border. And make sure we don't have, you know, half a million people coming in every 90 days. You let me know. Then I'll take you seriously.

When you start investigating people that are -- that are organizing paying for, and encouraging these kinds of Nazi rallies. When you -- you know what, once you start calling them Nazi rallies, I'll take you seriously.

Otherwise, I think you're actually part of the rob. And here. I want you to listen. What British police said to this Jewish man. It's Saturday. The Sabbath. He's coming back.

He does this every Saturday. He walks.

And here's what the British police said to him, because there were Palestinians around.

He's trying to -- I -- I don't want to stay here. I want to lease as a Jewish man. When the crowd is gone. He can go.

I'll escort you.

No, sir. You're not. I don't want to antagonize anyone. I just don't want to walk across the street. And at the moment, sir, you're quite openly Jewish. This is a pro-Palestinian march.

I'm not accusing you. But I'm worried about the reaction to your presence.

I just want to make sure you're safe. So that no one attacks you.

That's all. I would like that too. But your sergeant told me, because I'm Jewish, it's antagonistic to the crowd. And dangerous.

I'm not saying that. He just said that.
(music)

VOICE: On every Saturday, you probably know it. Your colleagues know it.

VOICE: It changes every single week. (inaudible).

VOICE: And now, look at the number of police around him. Look around.

GLENN: Probably 20 policeman around him. And he's like, I'm -- I'm told that it's completely safe for the Jews to walk around. I should have nothing to worry about. And yet, here I am. They're shouting me. Shoving me. And I'm surrounded by cops.

So they're going to escort him out.

He doesn't want any of that to happen.

He says, you're -- the cop says, you're causing a breach of peace. Because you're standing here.

Your presence here is antagonizing a large group of people. So we're going to arrest you. Because your presence is antagonizing them.

STU: Huh?

GLENN: Now. They didn't do anything to the people that were surrounding him. Calling him vermin.

Calling for the death of Jews.

They did nothing.

But he's the problem. Again, this is tolerating!

You're tolerating the real problem!

You're tolerating the views of Nazis! Now, I just -- I'm not going to have time here. But tomorrow, I'm going to go through the history of Columbia university. You know, Columbia university. They were welcoming Nazis in. They had a cap on how many Jews we could have in the college. They have a history of this. Does anybody really care? America, it is so easy to know, if you're on the right side of history, right now.

You do not want to tell your grandchildren or your great-grandchildren, yeah. Your grandma and I did nothing.

When this all came down. We were just too afraid to say anything.

You know, my job was really important.

Yeah. I get that grandpa. But look what that led to, your silence.

The INFURIATING Truth About New York's 34 Counts Against Trump

New York’s hush money trial against former president Donald Trump has begun and the media suggests there’s a “mountain of evidence” against him. But Glenn and Stu reveal the truth: Trump may have 34 counts of falsifying business records against him. But they’re all for ONE payment. So, how can one payment turn into 34 charges? And why is the prosecution relying on known-liar Michael Cohen?! Glenn and Stu break it down and also play a clip of a Democratic congresswoman revealing the real reason why Trump is on trial.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: You know, here's -- here's what you need to say to yourself. When you start listening to, you know, politicians or newscasters. Say, hey. This is really important that you pay attention to this. Because this is what I think. And you'll know who you can trust. Especially in Washington, DC.

If they -- if they're not talking about the government spending, then they're not serious about inflation. Period.

If -- with the border. If they're talking about dangerous things are in America, and we've -- we've got to -- we've got to make sure that we are buttoned up. And things are bad.

And blah, blah, blah. And we have terror. All the red lights are flashing.

But they don't talk about stopping the hemorrhaging at the border. They're not serious.

You talk about FISA. Oh, we have to have extra. Extra super-duper, you know, warrantless searches on Americans. Because it's so dangerous, and you never know if Americans are involved.

But they are not saying anything about the Palestinian Nazis on our streets. That are organized and well-funded.

They're not serious about your security. Period. If the New York Times writes a story that says, yeah. You know what, this Trump trial, well, that's -- it's got a mountain of facts to it. Really? But they don't seem to care that the statute of limitations, is passed.

STU: No mountain of evidence could overwhelm that fact. We're past the statute of limitations.

GLENN: Yeah. Right.

The fact that the DOJ passed on -- I don't know if you know this.

DOJ doesn't like Donald Trump.

STU: What?

GLENN: Yeah. The fact that the federal elections committee also passed on this. And said, there's no crime here.

There's nothing.

He -- even Alvin brag, the prosecutor, passed on this originally.

There's nothing here.

There is no mountain of evidence, that could -- that is standing in the way, of -- of anything, other than a mistrial.

STU: I love how it's like presented as this uphill battle too. It's like, oh, is a mountain of evidence, even enough for this very difficult task they have to do of convicting Donald Trump in Manhattan? Yeah. That's --

GLENN: Did you hear what Jayapal said? What's her name?

STU: Jayapal.

GLENN: Yeah. Jayapal. She came out and said this weekend. Do we have it? Yeah, listen to this.

STU: Oh, good.

VOICE: You know, I go back to the responsibility of Congress here because had the Senate actually gone through with the impeachment of Donald Trump. We would not be in the situation.

STU: Oh.

GLENN: Wait. What?

STU: Wait a minute. What?

I don't understand.

GLENN: We wouldn't be in this situation. Now, she's telling the truth. She's telling the truth.

GLENN: Yes, she is.

Not even under oath. If she's under oath, she will lie. In this case, she's telling the truth.

STU: She is. If they had convicted Trump, and he is eligible to become president of the United States, they would be doing anything of this.

Because they don't actually care. These aren't real. They're just trying to win this election.

GLENN: Give me the New York Times mountain of evidence.

STU: Well, Glenn, as you know, they have 34 counts.

GLENN: Thirty-four counts.

STU: I've forgotten this. This is incredible, going over this stuff, as we're preparing this.

Thirty-four false records accusations here.

GLENN: Wow. So he's forged or put lies in 34 different places, 34 different times.
STU: That's a lot.
GLENN: That's a lot.

STU: Now, when you think about this case, we kind of know the basic structure of it, right? Like, Michael Cohen made payments to these women, to shut them up before the election. Again, this is the accusation. And Trump, now, that's not illegal, by the way.

They're not even saying. They're not even accusing him of being illegal.

GLENN: No. Hush money. It's just hush money. No. But it's not illegal.

STU: You might have problems with that. You might think that's not a good feature for the president of the United States to have.

But you can make that decision at the ballot box. Because they're not even saying that. What they're saying it's false records. What they did was Cohen made these payments to shut up Stormy Daniels and the group.

And then to pay Cohen back, they basically make a -- a BS line in the records, which says, it's additional legal expenses. Or something like that. They market as like a retainer for legal services. Which it was.

It was paying him back for these payments.

Okay. So this is how they get to 34 counts.

Remember, that was paid back over a year. So how do you get to 34 counts when it's basically one payment? Well, first of all, you bring that up. They made 12 payments. So that's 12 counts. Okay?

This is legitimately how they're doing it. Obviously, they're paying him back for one thing. But he separated it into monthly payments, so 12 counts.

GLENN: Wait a minute.

So I would like to hear the jury argument.
You know, I don't think he meant it in June and July.

But the other ten counts, they'll stand, so you have 12 counts. That already sounds horrible.

STU: Right. But it's all it is.

GLENN: Because you wouldn't pick one month, he didn't really mean it. You would have to pick all 12.

He's convicted just there.

12 counts.

STU: Now, technically it was 11.

If I remember right, one of his payments were skipped.

11. So 11 checks. Eleven of the 34 counts.

GLENN: Okay. 11.

STU: You might say, wait a minute. That's totally stretching. Right? It's one payment, broken into 11 times. Okay. That's BS. Secondarily, it's 11 monthly voices Mr. Cohen submitted.

GLENN: So now we're up to 22.
STU: Twenty-two counts. So the 22 counts are eleven times he paid him a check, and the 11 times he invoiced him for those same payments.

So, again, it's still just one payment. They've now worked it into 22 different charges. Okay? You might say. Well, that's completely ridiculous.

They couldn't get more ridiculous than that. Well, when the payments went through in the general ledger for Mr. Trump's trust, they used 12 entries to signify this. So that's the other 12. So it's 11 checks, eleven invoices, and 12 entries into the general ledger. Those are the 34 charges. Come on!

Yeah. Thirty-four. Come on. I mean, anyone could recognize, they're trying to blow this number up to make it look more like it was a real series of criminal activity, rather than just one thing.

This is one payment.

Now, you can absolutely have a problem with that one payment. That is totally fine.

GLENN: But that's not 32.

STU: It is not -- 34.

And that's not how the legal system is supposed to work. There are very clear warnings against prosecutors, throughout our legal history, that say, hey.

Don't inflate cases like this.

Don't try to get the number up there, just so it looks overwhelming to the general public.

Of course, that's what they're doing here.

This is all about the general public. It has nothing to do with him, and his business records.

Come on!

There is no way you can justify this.

Especially after the statute of limitations has already expired.

GLENN: That's unbelievable. Unbelievable.

32 counts.

STU: Thirty-four.

GLENN: No. Thirty-two counts.

I don't count -- I don't count one of the checks. And one of the entries on a different month.

STU: So the April -- July payment.

GLENN: Yes. I thought the entry was -- I thought he meant it, at that point.

STU: That particular one.

GLENN: Yeah. That particular one. So I'm convicting on 32 counts.

I mean --

STU: And then you have Michael Cohen. The guy who will come in here.

And they say, this is an interesting one. That they also frame it, in the New York Times story.

So they say, that aids and friends who lied on Mr. Trump's behalf, will take the withstand to testify against him.

They include David Pecker, the tabloid publisher, who bought and buried damaging stories about Mr. Trump.

Now, Pecker, I don't think he is -- I will say, maybe he will testify against Donald Trump.

Or he will just tell the truth, that they probably did catch and kill these stories. Like it seems like --

GLENN: That's what he did.

STU: There's an incredible amount of evidence. That, again, is not what he's being charged with.

Right? Like, the payments and the ledger entries are what he's being charged with. Not the fact that he wanted to minimize publicity about negative instances right before an election, which, of course, he was trying to do.

GLENN: Stu. Stu.

He was -- he made a mistake. And he was only trying to save his marriage. A man can't lie to save his marriage.

STU: Look.

GLENN: I can --

STU: They're going to -- to try to push all of these angles. Hope Hicks is another one.

Now, hope Hicks is a spokesperson who tried to spin reporters, is her description here.

Now, Hope Hicks. Again, I don't think is going to come out and testify against Donald Trump. In air quotes.

I think she's going to tell the truth about what happened, right?

I don't think anyone is saying that he she has this vendetta against Trump.

Now, Cohen does. Cohen clearly does. Cohen will go farther.

My guess is either than those two by a lot.

He will say anything.

This is what he was known for. When he worked for Trump.

GLENN: This is how he gets a job at MSNBC.

STU: Yeah. And how he got a job with Donald Trump.

Like, he wasn't qualified for that job. He was a nobody. And he was constantly lying about everything when he worked for Donald Trump.

Now he's constantly lying about everything that will please MSNBC. He's been a constant liar, every day he's been alive, since I've been aware of it.

That's been who he has been. He's always done this. In my opinion.

And so he's one of those people, of course that is -- I mean, they're saying, Trump is basically saying, this guy has no credibility.

And it's try. You can name 500 things. From when he worked for Donald Trump. When he had no credibility. A lot of the lies, they know are lies, are because he was lying on behalf of Donald Trump for so many years. And now he's coming out, no. Now I totally change my mind, and all of the things I said before, I can admit are lies.

And, suddenly, the media embraces him for that. It's so transparent.

Like, he should be the type of person that you don't even allow in the courtroom, unless you're convicting him of something.

GLENN: And here's the real problem: Again, all of this is past the statute of limitations.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: The reason why you can't go after Hunter Biden on some of the drug charges. Was it the drug charges?

No, no. Tax charges. Is because it's past the statute of limitations. Which they intentionally have the Justice Department drag it out, so they couldn't charge him with that.

There's corruption. This one, they just didn't file charges. Because the government said there was problem. Even Alvin Bragg the prosecutor, said there was no problem.

So they just waited and waited. They had nothing else. I don't know. Try it.

So they concoct all of this.

STU: Yes.

GLENN: To get past the statute of limitations. There's a mountain, I would like to see them climb.

STU: Yeah, and they will try it. This is, again, to your point. The zombie case side of Bragg's office.

Because they were just waiting and hoping something would come up to make it real. But they knew it wasn't.

So now, how do they make it real?

Well, they say, if it's connected to another crime. If the business record falsification was connected to another crime, that was not past the statute of limitations, then we can turn it into a felony. And then we can --

GLENN: So what was the other --

STU: He wasn't charged with it. So Bragg is assuming a crime, that the DOJ didn't go after Trump for. He's saying, they should have gone after him for it.

Therefore, I can pass through the statute of limitations. Even though -- to bring the crime he's talking about.

GLENN: Let me bring this to simple terms.

Let's say, I want to get you on the same thing, Donald Trump is doing. Okay?

And I say, well, it's past the statute of limitations. But you murdered that woman.

You know, all those years ago.

STU: Right. The payments were connected to my murder. Right?

GLENN: Right. But you were never charged with murder. You were never convicted of murder.

I will not bring up the murder.

STU: No. Right. No.

GLENN: But that's how --

STU: It's connected to the murder.

GLENN: I can get you.

STU: Yeah. Huh. It's a great way. That's exactly what the people in the jury should --

GLENN: This is going to be. This is amazing.

What a magic trick, this will be. To pull off.

But not in New York. Because everyone there, for some strange reason, loved Donald Trump.

And now, that he was president, they hate him. This is the O.J. Simpson trial, in reverse. In reverse.

This guy didn't cut somebody's head off, but because they're so mad at him, they're going to convict him.

Where O.J. he did cut off somebody's head. But the jury was so pissed off at the system, they let him off. There's no difference.

Bill Maher Believes WHAT About Abortion?!

Bill Maher has admitted that he believes abortion is murder…but he also said he’s OKAY with that?! Glenn and Stu break down this unusual take: At least he’s honest, but is that a good thing? And why won’t the GOP be honest and take a real stand? Is being strongly pro-life REALLY an election-killer? Or is that a lie?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: You know, I would love to have a conversation with Bill Maher now. Okay? Bill Maher is -- he's changed.

And he has -- maybe not. He may not have changed any of positions. But I think he takes it more seriously.

And he's not going for -- he's -- I think he's had a change in -- you know, things are getting really serious here.

And we have to have honest conversations.

And for the first time, you know, I -- I look at Bill Maher. Can we play the clip we played last hour?

STU: The abortion one?

GLENN: Yeah. Listen to this, Bill Maher, just recently.

VOICE: The idea that you are fighting the election around this issue, seems to be, you know, just strange.

STU: Yeah. Really weird.

VOICE: Back to the 19th century.

VOICE: Well.

STU: Clap. Clap.

VOICE: None of you believe it's murder. That's why I don't believe --

GLENN: Nobody laughs. Nobody laughs.

VOICE: Or that Trump's plan is, let's leave it to the states. You mean, so killing babies is okay in some states? Like, I can respect the absolutist position. I really can. I -- I scold the left when they say, oh, you know what, they just hate women. People who aren't pro-life. They're pro-choice. They just -- they don't hate women. They just made that up. They think it's murder.

And it kind of is. I'm just okay with that. I am. I mean, there's 8 billion people in the year. I'm sorry. But we won't miss you. That's my position on it.

VOICE: Yeah, exactly.

VOICE: Not your position if you're pro-choice.

VOICE: Is that not your position because you don't like children?

VOICE: No, no, no.

You said you're pro-choice. That's your position too.

VOICE: Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

STU: That's totally true.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

STU: And, by the way, I completely agree with him on his point, the absolutist positions are the only ones that make sense. It doesn't make any sense to ban it at 18 weeks. And say, okay. I guess we banned 1.6 percent of abortions. I think our hands are clean. None of that makes any sense to me. But that's another story.

GLENN: So the reason I bring this up. For the first time, I think I'm getting to where Ronald Reagan was. With "Tip" O'Neill.

You know, the old story was, well, they could just hash it out. And really come at each other.

And then really go have a beer.

Well, I don't want to have a beer with AOC. Or, you know, Joe Biden.

STU: Disbar the world.

GLENN: It would. And we would need --

STU: You think the Star Wars cantina was weird?

Imagine you walk into a bar, and just Glenn Beck and AOC just throwing it back.

GLENN: Yeah. And believe me, if I were in the bar with AOC. I would not be starting with beer. Okay?

Bring the Jack over -- leave the bottle here.

So, anyway, you know, but I -- but that's because they're not honest.

STU: They're fake, yeah.

GLENN: Yeah. He's at least saying the truth. He's saying, look, I don't have a problem with it.

It is murder. It is killing babies. Bit I don't have a problem with that. And nobody likes that point of view. But at least he's being honest.

STU: At least he's being honest.

GLENN: You know, and you can disagree with him, all you want.

But as long as somebody is honest on the other side of the table, I can get along with them forever. It's my problem is, the progressives, because it's built in their name. Progress. Little bit at a time.

And they will -- they will deny their end goal. And because they deny their end goal. You can't talk to them.

You can't -- you have -- you have nothing serious. Nothing serious.

STU: Female voice that starts that clip is a great example of it. Like, I don't understand why they would want to fight an election on this issue.

It's just strange.

Is it strange?

The ending of life of children?

Is that a weird thing for you, to think about? During the election. I mean, I kind of find it weird, that fighting for the right to end lives much children. Is something you want to fight the entire election. But that's why they're doing.

GLENN: That's why they used to say, safe, rare, and legal.

STU: Right. And then they said, screw rare.

GLENN: Right. Because they used to -- they were more honest. Look, it's bad. It's really bad.

STU: We think it's the best of two horrible choices. Right? That's a bad position, and wrong to be --

GLENN: Correct. Now they're saying, it's a great choice. In fact, maybe the choice more people should make.

STU: And in some wisdom, that's more intellectually defensible than the other position.

It's like, if you're going to be Bill Maher. And say, yeah. Killing people is fine.

At least that's consistent. It doesn't make sense to say, I think kill people are wrong. But also, women's rights are the way that I will make this decision on this fetus.

GLENN: But that is the way to win nope it is the way to win.

STU: Exactly. It's not honest.

GLENN: But it is the way to win.

STU: Frankly it's the same thing going on with the Republicans right now.

The idea of having some sort of ban that takes out one or 2 percent of abortions. It's great to put a ceiling on it. Every baby that can actually be born, instead of dying is something that I am going to be happy about.

But at the end of the day, these decisions are being made, because people want to win elections.

Which is a concern. Right?

It's a legitimate concern.

I know a lot of people who believe. You have to stay away from the abortion thing.

It's just. It's an election killer.

Maybe it is.

But at some point, you have to think. Like this is a very basic life-and-death issue.

At some point, you just need to be able to say, hey. Like, I'm not going to fold on that issue.

Like, I don't understand why every single -- every single Congress, there's not a Republican proposing a constitutional amendment, to ban abortion.

None!

What if we take three days off the end, and make it a 22-week and four-day ban. Or whatever they're proposing.

Like, how is there not -- at least -- you know, it may never pass.

STU: But it should be proposed every single Congress.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: And should have a vote, every single Congress. It's not that serious of an issue.

GLENN: That's John Quincy Adams. He went back to Congress, to stop slavery. He was the president, and he went back to Congress to sit as a Congressman, and having to get votes every two years.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: And he sat there. Just to propose an end to all slavery.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: And he did it over and over and over again.

And it wasn't popular.

And he realized, at the end, you can't make -- you're going to have to have a war over this.

Because there is no progress.

Nobody is making progress on this.

They're all just talking a good game.

STU: And it was an issue that was so important, that that was --

GLENN: Yes, and you couldn't get people to talk about it for the same reason.

Nobody wants to think about this. Nobody wants to think about this.

STU: It's true.

GLENN: It's the slavery issue of our day.

STU: You know what, no one wants to think about it.

It's difficult issues you're talking about. Everything from sex, to all these impossible decisions.

And when Democrats have to think about what it really is, they have to face a lot of uncomfortable truths about their position. And what are the Republicans doing right now?

Well, what we should do is make sure no one can think about it. Because what if we lose this election, and I lose my seat.

The Republican response is to take the responsibility away from people on the left, who are advocating for this policy. And hopefully, making it so they don't to have think about it again. How does that change long-term?

Yeah, I got it! Maybe it gets you an extra couple hundred votes in your district. But how does that change things long-term?

How does this end, in children not dying?

Can you explain that? It doesn't seem to even be part of the plan for a lot of these people.

GLENN: It is the progressive way. That is the problem.

Republicans are progressives, as well.