RADIOOctober 04, 2023

Pelosi’s Head of Security Likely PERJURED Himself With Jan 6 LIE | Blaze Media EXCLUSIVE

How much of the January 6th "evidence" that our justice system used to convict Americans has been a lie? Investigative reporter Steve Baker has done a year-long deep dive into the CCTV footage and REAL facts of Jan. 6 and has released his first report with Blaze Media. Baker joins Glenn to reveal the evidence that former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's head of security, U.S. Capitol Police Special Agent David Lazarus, gave false testimony about his whereabouts during a key encounter with members of the Oath Keepers. If this false testimony led to the imprisonment of Americans, what else have we been lied to about?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Steve baker has been on the program, a few times. And he is a -- an investigative reporter, that has been doing some work and it's now exposed on TheBlaze.com.

He has been working on the January 6th puzzle for a while now. And his efforts had been frustrated, over and over again, by the politics in Washington when he's just trying to find the truth.

The story that has just been released this morning.

Did Pelosi's security chief perjure himself in the Oath Keeper's trial? Has wide, wide consequences.

Welcome, Steve. How are you?

STEVE: Glenn, I am living proof, that a man can live on coffee alone.

GLENN: You started this a year ago, today.

STEVE: It was one year ago, yesterday.

October 3rd. During the oath keeper's trial. Was the first cent that there was something wrong.

Something happened in the trial. First thing that morning. When the lead prosecuting attorney, Jeffrey Nessler, assistant U.S. attorney, approached the lectern and the bench. And said to Judge Mehta, we have a problem. He said, we have a rogue attorney that is about to release some FBI 302s. These are interviews of one of the characters in this story, that we release this morning. And that if he does that, this is going to -- these are sealed documents, that are not publicly available, and we can't have that. And Judge Mehta did something, that I've never seen before.

And I don't know anyone in the media room where I was sitting in, had ever seen this before.

He actually directed the media pool, to put out a tweet, and threaten this particular attorney and let him know, that if he released those sealed documents, we would have him held in contempt of court.

And right then, I went, what are in those documents?

GLENN: So what was in those documents?

STEVE: They're still sealed. But I will tell you, the documents themselves were actually the FBI interviews of one of these Capitol police officers. And the primary problem that the government has with those documents, is that the testimony was changed. His testimony about his interaction with the Oath Keepers. Which in the first testimony, he revealed to be a positive interaction. That the Oath Keepers were lined up between him. And the more agitated protesters.

And assisted him in keeping them off of him.

And helping him de-escalate.

That was in May of '21, that interview.

In August of '21, this officer was brought back in, and the testimony was changed into an aggravated, contentious event with the Oath Keepers.

And as well as the creation of a second event, to explain the first FBI interview that never happened.

GLENN: So it is amazing to me.

Reading your story, it is so well laid out. However, what makes this different. It's not he said/she said. Or he said/he said.

It's because you had permission to go into the 14,000 hours, of videotape. You knew what you were looking for.

Right?

And in the story, you knew what time it even happened. Because the testimony was gunshots. You know, gunfire.

And so that marked it, at a certain time, when they -- they shot an innocent.

So tell me about what you found.

What the story was in the -- the testimony. And then what you found in the tape.

STEVE: Well, the story in the testimony from special agent. Now, this is Capitol Police special agent David Lazarus.

Is that when he heard the gunshots, at 243, 244, broadcasted over the radio, that shots had been fired.

That he was down in the tunnels, escorting senators from the Rayburn Building to the other Senate office buildings. And that's quite a long distance away from the House chamber, where allegedly these shots were fired. He said, at that moment, at 244, he began turning around and heading back. Well, because we knew what to look for, we immediately went there and we started working our way backwards.

And we found him in the tunnels, at that time.

The problem with it, is that when he emerged from the Senate building tunnels, and the subway system below the Capitol.

And, by the way, Glenn, these were videos that were never released to the defense attorneys in this trial.

GLENN: If we were living in normal times, the people that had been convicted, with any of the testimony, in -- revolving around these guys, they would be released. Any other time in American history, they would be released.

Because this is perjury. And somebody set this up. Somebody.

STEVE: And we're working on that trail as well.

GLENN: Good.

STEVE: But going back to Lazarus, so he emerges. And comes back into camera frames, on the Capitol TVs with absolute proof of the exact time, down to the second, of when he emerged back in the camera.

He even passes under an analogue clock in the subway, at exactly this moment.

And it's at 2:48 p.m.

When he finally reaches the other side of the tunnels from the Senate office buildings. And when that happens, the oath keeper Officer Dunn encounter is almost already over by then.

He's nowhere near it. And he still has a long way to go. And then we were able to triangulate. Because he will go out of camera frame for a while. Then he'll enter camera frame again from another camera.

And then he's down another hall. And then he enters another hallway. Then he goes up on the Senate side. Then by the time he reaches the bottom of the stairs, that lead up to the rotunda, and it's in a little area, variously called the mini rotunda or the Speaker's lobby. When he reaches the bottom of those stairs, it's now 2:56:45 p.m. and the Oath Keepers are long gone.

GLENN: Okay. So now, let me give you the exact verbiage from the testimony in the court case.

Lazarus, the guy you've just been talking about -- explained that one rioter asked, who are you? Who are you? Then according to the trial testimony, he testified. And, you know, one attempted to. I mean, I had my lanyard on, with my ID on it. And, one, they were videotaping, and one attempted to pull at my ID. And I kind of grabbed it back, and looked to make sure it was still there. And then I saw an opening.

So there's just kind of like -- I walked fast, to get into the office. And check on the staff again.

He then detailed description of what took place. What Lazarus described, as a very antagonistic in three or four times, that he passed by these Oath Keepers. Every time I interacted or came by, yes, it was very antagonistic. He said this under oath.

When he was then shown in court, a -- a video clip of four Oath Keepers, standing in front of Dunn, Lazarus was asked, are these the individuals you observed?

Yes. Yes.

At any point in these three or four interactions, in this space, at you observe any sort of anything, but antagonistic conversation?

No that's correct.

Here's the problem: They were already out of the building. At the time we know, them on camera, we have the videotape.

The Oath Keepers had been gone for almost ten minutes.

STEVE: It was not quite ten minutes. But when you're in the Capitol video room, viewing this.

We can put multiple cameras on the screen, at the same time. And then we hit one button, and it synced all those cameras to the exact time line. So we're able to watch Lazarus moving through the building in one quadrant of the screen. Then we can watch when the Oath Keepers leave. So as the Oath Keepers leave, and they're walking out through the Rotunda, about to exit through the Columbus doors on the east side.

It wasn't until that moment, that finally Lazarus reaches that area, where in great detail in the trial. And we have the trial transcripts, obviously.

In great detail, he describes what he saw. It just did not happen.

GLENN: So this was a -- an important part of the trial, right?

STEVE: It was a huge part of the trial. Because the one thing that the government was absolutely intent upon doing, was not allowing anything that could be exculpatory. Or anything that pointed the Oath Keepers in a positive light. And this wasn't the only positive interaction that Oath Keepers had with law enforcement that day.

You've interviewed Lieutenant Tarik Johnson. Lieutenant Tarik Johnson, used two Oath Keepers. Literally recruited them to help rescue another 16 officers out of a dangerous situation.

GLENN: Right. Right.

STEVE: That was never allowed in the trial.

GLENN: So and I learned something from the article. Let me see if I can find it here.

I had no idea. Oath Keepers. Seditious.

Blah, blah. Federal prosecutors claimed, while they were inside the Capitol, members of the group were involved in contentious interaction.

I don't know where it is now. But you talk about the Oath Keepers. How they've never -- they've never had to hear.

Thirty-five thousand due's paying members, had more than a decade's worth of spotless record, providing disaster relief and security during riots and other large events.

They have never once been accused or charged with a crime. In thousands of operations.

I had no idea.

STEVE: One of the things that the government could not do in that trial. They could not counter that little piece of information. And, of course, it didn't matter in front of a DC jury.

The DC jury, it was fait accompli, for day one and in terms of what the outcome of that trial was going to be.

But one of the things that the defense did successfully present is the fact that in years and years and years of disaster relief operations, security details, and all kinds of -- other times when they actually went and were recruited and hired by minority businesses, like in Ferguson.

Like in Louisville, Kentucky. And those rights. Where they were recruited by minority businesses. To come help us to protect our businesses.

The defense was rather able to show some of those videos.

But the one thing that the government could not prove. That at any time, since 2009, when the Oath Keepers were founded, that there had ever been a single time where an Oath Keeper had committed violence in any of those operations, or ever had committed a crime. Or any charges had ever been filed.

GLENN: And when you think of the Oath Keepers.

You think, oh, they're just really bad.

Isn't that remarkable? How that has been portrayed and carried by the press?

Okay. So there's obviously some sort of conspiracy here.

Because these guys, they don't -- they're both saying the same story.

But it seems to switch, where one is saying, no. I saw them at the top of the stairs.

And the other guy is saying, no. I saw them at the top of the stairs.

They couldn't even get their story right.

STEVE: Yeah. It's inexplicable, that the editor of Harry Dunn's forthcoming book did not check the trial transcripts. Because when Lazarus -- special agent. Nancy Pelosi's head of security. Tells his version of events. He says, when he runs to the top of the stairs, that he sees this large, imposing figure.

Because Dunn is six-seven. Three hundred pounds, plus all the gear he had on. And he sees this large opposing -- imposing figure in a contentious -- yeah. Moment with these Oath Keepers that were giving him the business. All right?

And that's his testimony. In Dunn's book, he explains, that when he ran to the top of that stairs and reached that stairwell landing at the top, that Lazarus was already there.

And he was being confronted by protesters.

GLENN: Okay. So the questions that we need to ask, and what this actually means. I'm afraid. Stu was talking about it this morning. That at any other time. Any other time, in American history, this case would be thrown out now.

They would -- they would file a charge. Got to throw this case out.

And it would be done. And people would care.

I'm not sure people care. I mean, that's where our justice system is.

It only moves because somebody says something. Somebody -- the American people just won't take it.

I wonder what the -- I wonder what the real fallout of this will be. And you probably have a good idea.

GLENN: Okay. What is next in this?

And I know you talked to people in Congress. But is this going to move anything in DC?

STEVE: I can tell you, that not only working with weaponization committee investigators on this story, as well as the high-ranking staffers, I can't get into specific on the record details.

That there will be talks about hearings. And we know what hearings result in. Far too often.

GLENN: Yeah.

STEVE: But there has to be something next.

Because, Glenn, this is -- this is literally an existential threat to our republic. What is taking place, in our courts right now. In DC.

GLENN: This is our government not getting it wrong.

This is our government setting American citizens up. Withholding evidence, that is exculpatory.

Sentencing them to long sentences.

And apparently, several people are involved in this.

This is -- this is as bad as it gets.

STEVE: Even in one of the specific Oath Keeper's cases, during his sentencing hearing. This is the Oath Keeper, Ken Harrelson, who you can see in video, holding the crowd back from Officer Dunn. He literally has his hands extended, and he's holding them back. As they were agitating and trying to get it done.

And there's four Oath Keepers lined up, with their backs turned to Dunn. He's at the top of the stairwell, holding an M4 rifle. And these guys are holding them back.

And -- and his case, particularly, Judge Mehta and his sentencing hearing, actually said these words.

Mr. Harrelson, I do not believe you're the man that the government has made you out to be. If I could speak to Mehta right now -- Judge Mehta, I would tell them, now we know that he is not the man who the government made him out to be. And you need to send him home.

GLENN: Have you talked to their attorneys yet? The Oath Keepers?

STEVE: I talk to them every day.

GLENN: And now that this is out and you're able to prove this, are they going to move?

STEVE: Obviously, they're in transition from their trial representation to their different legal teams. That will be representing them in appeal.

GLENN: Right.

STEVE: But these guys are -- are --

GLENN: Hot.

STEVE: They're hot. And, of course, they -- they -- they all know how this was set up. And this is where the next part of this story is going. Is that, look, we know -- we know that there was the equivalent of a star chamber set up, like, how will we get these guys?

And we see the process and the pattern of events of how they led to that, as well as here. Absolute proof of the creation and manipulation of testimony. And of something that never happened. And presented in that trial.

GLENN: This story, is a year's worth of a man's life.

You must read it by Steve Baker. Did Pelosi's Security Chief perjure himself in the Oath Keeper's trial. It's only part one of a series, that Steve is working on.

And you'll find it from Blaze Media, at TheBlaze.com.

Did the U.S. Government TELEPORT Malaysia Airlines Flight 370?!

A decade ago, Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 disappeared without a trace. Now, some are claiming this was a cover-up — by the U.S. GOVERNMENT! Glenn speaks with one of those people, investigative journalist Ashton Forbes, who claims that he has video evidence of what really happened. The alleged footage, which he claims was leaked from within the government, depicts a plane disappearing into what could be a worm hole created by three rotating orbs. Ashton lays out the science that he believes explains this … but does the government really have this game-changing technology? Glenn lets you decide …

Biden Sent HOW MANY Migrants to THIS Red State?!

According to a new report, internal DHS data has revealed how the Biden administration has flown hundreds of thousands of “inadmissible” migrants into U.S. cities — and the top 15 cities are eye-opening. The controversial CHNV mass-parole program has used YOUR tax dollars to send migrants who have claimed refugee status all over the country. But the administration has brought the most migrants into the country BY FAR through airports in (of course) the red state of Florida. This is ON TOP of the record-high illegal immigration that we have seen under the Biden administration. So, what’s the goal here?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: New internal DHS data reveals 45 US cities that hundreds of thousands of migrants that have felony into via the Biden administrations, controversial CHMV mass parole program.

It shows that the top 15 cities that migrants were flown into, on your tax dollar. On our airlines. Which you have to take your shoes off.

They have to know. I mean, come on over here.

Yeah. Every third person, we do a rectal exam.

Yeah. And now -- now we're just flying these people. Without knowing, who they really are. Doing it in the middle of the night.

Now, these aren't the people who go across the border.

Are these the ones who the United States government went out to, hey. Is anybody -- refugee. If you're a refugee, I've got free tickets to America.

So the top 15 cities, Miami, Florida, 91,000 people were flown in from January through August 2023.

Eight months. Eight months. Miami, Florida, Florida. 91,000.

Ft. Lauderdale. Which is the same city.

I mean, it's Miami Ft. Lauderdale.

STU: Yeah. I used to live in Ft. Lauderdale.

GLENN: It's part of Miami.

STU: It's a little bit of a drive to Miami. It's like Dallas/Fort Worth.

A couple cities close to each other.

GLENN: So Ft. Lauderdale got 60,000. And then New York City is number 3. They got 14,000. Wait a minute.

Wow! That's quite a spread there.

So, you know, they get 150,000, just in Miami, Ft. Lauderdale. And then 14,000 in New York. Houston --
STU: And think about what Eric Adams has said.

GLENN: Oh, I know.

STU: They're overrunning our communities, we can't do anything. Half the cities on this list are on one state. And New York City can't handle this.

GLENN: Yeah. They have 14,000. Then Houston has 8,000.

Orlando has 16,000. Another Florida.

Los Angeles, three. Tampa, another Florida. 3200. Dallas, Texas, is 2200.

San Francisco, 2,000. Atlanta, 2,000.

Newark, New Jersey.

I mean --

STU: Oh, people love Newark.

GLENN: Honestly, if you're like in some other place.

I don't care if they're torturing you. And they say, you want to come to the United States?

Sure. Where am I headed?

Newark, New Jersey. No, I'm going to hang out. I'm good. I'm good.

Put me back on the rack. It's false alarm. I'm not going anywhere.

STU: How are these decisions made?

GLENN: What do you mean?

STU: Do you know -- if you're someone coming in, you're an illegal immigrant, you're on this parole program.

And you come in. Do they say, hey. Here is your -- they have fliers come visit Orlando out there. Look through them until you pick one. Do they assign a city to you? Is it wherever your relatives are?

GLENN: I don't know. It's taken us forever, to get just this information.

STU: I know. It's true. It could be, that these people are like, look, I don't want to go to Newark. So I will pick Tampa or Orlando or Ft. Lauderdale.

My guess is, do you know anyone who lives there?

Yeah. My brother lives in Miami.

So they're flying them to Miami.

I don't know. Regardless, wouldn't the opposite be obvious, if you were honest here? If you're the Biden administration, you keep telling everyone that people in the south and the red states hate immigrants. They're racists. They're, you know, xenophobes. They don't have any programs for them.

So why would you continue to keep bringing them to Florida and Texas. Why?

Wouldn't you bring them to the cities, that have all these wonderful programs that you've passed. Why not?

GLENN: Well, unless you're trying to make sure that you fly them into a city, like Miami, Ft. Lauderdale. That's usually run by Democrats.

And you can have them vote.

STU: But -- but, again, it's not run currently by tells me.

GLENN: Miami, Ft. Lauderdale.

STU: Republican mayor. Remember, he ran for a short time, ran for president.

GLENN: I don't remember that. It was very short. Very short.

STU: Very short. But unless you have enemies, in red states and you realize that what you're doing is a punishment, right?

The same kind of thing that, you know, Greg Abbott did in Texas. You know what, we will send these people up to you guys. You guys deal with them.

Because we're being honest with them here. This is a strain on our society. And so we shouldn't be responsible for them. Because we want them to be stopped before they come in.

Right? All these other people are saying, we're welcoming. You're welcomed here. You will always be welcomed in New York City. I don't know if that one is expired. But that's what Eric Adams was saying when he was running for election.

GLENN: San Francisco.

STU: San Francisco. All these things. We went through and found all the quotes from these mayors.

All of them, welcomed with open arms, illegal who didn't notice. And invited them to come. And now when they actually show up, they realize what the situation is. You're taking a bunch of people who have no current path to earn enough to -- to house themselves. To feed themselves.

To give themselves basic humanitarian aid.

And then you're going to put that on the state, or local -- local communities.

GLENN: Imagine. Imagine your city. Knowing how large you are. You have an influx of 150,000 people.

Where are those jobs?

Where are the jobs for those people? You don't have a deficit of 150,000, you know, employees.

STU: Where do they work?

GLENN: Where are they working?

Where are they working?

By the way, a recent pew poll found that nearly two-thirds of Americans have little or no confidence that Joe Biden is physically fit to be president.

That's two-thirds. When you're talking about the immigration thing, 80 percent of America, wants them to be sent back home.

Okay?

They're starting to get really.

Quite, quite intense object the immigration thing.

And that's Republicans and Democrats.

Everybody knows that the economy is in flames.

Again, two-thirds have little or no confidence that Joe Biden is even physically fit to be president.

What the hell, how is this so close?

How is this so close?

I just -- it doesn't -- it doesn't make sense.

STU: People are not making judgments based on what's in front of them.

GLENN: No. They're not.

STU: They're these partisan. You know, these partisan lanes you get in. And it's impossible to escape them. I don't know. For 80 percent of people, at this point.

We would like to think it's some rare thing.

But it's pretty much everybody who looks at this. And doesn't seem to be spending any time to make this instigation.

Decision was made for them, years ago, decades ago, and they're going and checking the boxes.

Yes. He has mean tweets. But you had a job. We had a country. I mean, yeah. But I know those mean tweets are really, really horrible.

Biden FAILED to do THIS While Calling Out Violent College Protests

President Biden spoke quickly to the press about the pro-Palestine protests that have taken over college campuses. But while Biden covered the basics — how Americans have a right to protest, but not protest violently, how antisemitism is bad, and how the rule of law should be upheld — did he go far enough? Glenn and Stu don’t believe so. Biden had an opportunity to make a real impact, but instead, he said enough to save his own skin and satisfy some supporters…and he also threw in a few lines to pander to the violent mobs...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Can we pull one of these?

BIDEN: Must be upheld. We're not an authoritarian nation. Where we silence people and squash dissent. The American people are heard. In fact, peaceful protest is the best tradition of how Americans respond to conflict issues. But -- but neither are we a lawless country. We are a civil society, and order must prevail.

Throughout our history, we have often faced moments like this, because we are a big, diverse, free thinking and freedom-loving nation. In moments like this, there are always those who rush in to score political points. But this isn't a moment for politics. It's a moment for clarity. So let me be clear: Peaceful protests in America, violent protest is not protected. Peaceful protest is.

It's against the law, when violence occurs. Destroying property is not a peaceful protest. It's against the law. Vandalism, trespassing, breaking windows, shutting down campuses, forcing the cancellation of classes and ground school. None of this is a peaceful protest.

Threatening people, intimidating people, instilling fear in people is not peaceful protest. It's against the law.

Dissent is essential to democracy. But dissent must never lead to disorder or to deny the rights of others so students can finish the semester and their college education.

Look, it's a basically a matter of fairness. It's a matter of what is right.

Does the right to protest, but not the right to cause chaos.

People have the right to get an education. The right to get a degree.

The right to walk across the campus safely without fear of being attacked.

Let's be clear about this as well: There should be no place in any campus, no place in America, for anti-Semitism or threats of violence against Jewish students.

There is no place for hate speech, or violence of any kind. Whether it's anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, or discrimination against Arab-Americans or Palestinian Americans. It's simply wrong. There's no place for racism in America. It's all wrong.

It's un-American.

I understand people have strong feelings and deep convictions, and in America, we respect the right and protect the right for them to express that. But it doesn't mean anything goes. It needs to be done without violence, without destruction. Without hate. And within the law.

You know, make no mistake, as president I will always defend free speech, I will always be just as a strong on standing up for freedom of the law. That's my responsibility to you, the American people. My obligation to the Constitution.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

BIDEN: Thank you very much.
GLENN: Okay. So there you go. You have Joe Biden doing --

STU: You want to take questions? He might be taking a question soon.

VOICE: Have the protests forced you to reconsider any of the policies with regards to the region?
BIDEN: No.

GLENN: And he walks away.

VOICE: Mr. President, do you think the National Guard should intervene?

BIDEN: No.

GLENN: He's walking away, and the door is closing behind him.

STU: But he's still answering them. No. No.

GLENN: He's just in a -- no. In the hallway. He's in his bedroom. No.

He looks at his wife, she says no. I know. What's happening.

STU: What did you make of that? It was pretty Milquetoast, boring. Not much.

We were talking about this off the air, that he had an actual opportunity here, if he wanted to win over a good chunk of the country, while risking his far left flank, of kind of having the clichéd Sister Souljah moment, who is really harsh against these people are doing what they're doing.

STU: He did not do that. It may have been what he was trying to do. He's seemingly incapable of giving a speech of any value.

That was a -- that was a -- just a -- hey.

GLENN: I think it's enough to satisfy many supporters. We're also at --

STU: What kind of supporters. Like, what group is he targeting that? Like a liberal, maybe Jewish voter?

GLENN: Yeah. And not really.

I think he's kind of pissed off the Jews when he's like, and no place for anti-Semitism.

Or people wanted to hurt Hamas. And Palestinians. And Muslims. And those who are in the Mickey Mouse Club.

STU: Right.

GLENN: The ones who have been raped by the Disney corporation. Which we're totally fine with.

You know, I -- I don't think he -- he reached out to -- to those supporters. But I think he did enough for maybe the average person who is a Democrat. And wants him tolerance the right thing.

What -- okay.

STU: He said, no violence.

He said protests are okay. But no violence. And such. And there's some group, he connects with that. There was a chance for him to really set this issue. Maybe make it a strength, and not a weakness. And he did not do that there. That was -- he could have made a moment of like, look.

These people on these campuses are -- basically, calling them revolting. Passion. Some sort of anger toward the people who are calling for the genocide of Jews. There's none of that. Well, to make sure people can get to classes. You know, everyone has a right to get a degree. Which, by the way, they don't have a right to.

But all of that being said, it wasn't the worst thing I've ever seen out of his mouth.

At least he didn't have red villain lighting behind him.

GLENN: Well, you know what is great though?

He doesn't need that anymore.

STU: We looked into his character.

It's funny too, he's -- from a dramatic standpoint, you couldn't put Joe Biden in like a dramatic movie. Because he's so bad at these speeches.

Even if he says something evil, you're just like, oh, God. This sucks.

GLENN: I think that we should bring the guillotine back. And we should take all bankers. And we should cut their heads off.

STU: Right. They're so -- there's no emotion.

You go back to the Star Wars, like, you know, this is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause speech.

You need to be -- you can't put him in a movie. Everyone would be like, wait. What?

Is he talking about hamburgers? What is he talking?

GLENN: And the rebels are taking our bases, and we must stop for the empire!

STU: Right.

Yeah.

GLENN: And taking -- and we --

STU: Cough three times in the middle of a sentence.

GLENN: My uncle was in a spaceship once. He was flanked by aliens.

STU: And we -- isn't it just -- can we at least agree with this. Democrats, Republicans, everybody across the aisle. This is embarrassing. Can we at least just agree on that point. You can still say his policies are better or whatever. People around him. Making the policies, have a better idea, running the country.

Aren't you just embarrassed by this, day after day after take.

It is utterly depressing. That the country that has led the world out of the lack of Silicon Valleyization has this dolt running it.

It's so pathetic. In every way.

GLENN: So you are -- you're -- you're drawing a lot more out of this speech than I did.

I don't think it was bad. I don't think it was good.

But I don't think -- that's not going to make any impact. One way or another.

STU: I don't know that we disagree. I think he had an opportunity for impact, which he did not take. He could have made it worse. I don't think he did it that. I just think he's such an uninspiring figure. And I'm embarrassed when we're led by somebody like that. When I said led, it's definitely in air quotes there. I don't know the president should be viewed this way. But the way we view the president. He just sucks. It's maybe not even deeper than that.

He just sucks at that. He's not good at thing he does. The job he does, he's incapable of doing.

And that's a little bit frustrating for a world superpower.

GLENN: Yes. Again, now I think you're going too soft.

He doesn't -- he's not just incapable of doing it. The guy is a box of matches, in a fireworks factory.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: And he's constantly striking himself.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: What happened?

What happened?

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: He's constantly setting everything on firepower.

STU: Yeah. But I don't think -- that speech didn't strike me as, hey. Keep going protesters. It wasn't that.

GLENN: No. Which again, if he was some ideological maniac, maybe he would have gone that way.

Elizabeth Warren would have done that. Elizabeth wash would have been like, burn these things to the ground.

Probably. I think. He didn't quite do that.

He went out there, with the idea of, people are criticizing me for not saying anything.

I have to say something. I can say, hey, free speech is good. Don't break the law everybody.

But step back, and probably at this point, what is it? 10:00 a.m. dinner.

And then the day is over. That's what it felt like. And that's the way it feels like all the time with this guy, even when he's doing things that are viscerally angry about -- I mean, he's overcoming the entire system of government with things like the student loan plan. And he does it the same way.

He looks as boring and terrible and awful and coughing in the million dollars of sentences. That he does every other speech.

And, you know, watching him.

It's funny too.

Because he's obviously been told. Hey, if you can avoid coughing in the middle of a sentence.

Can you do that?

Multiple times, he went to cough.

He catches himself. And his hand stays a foot away from. He brings it up.

He starts to cough.

He realizes, he's not supposed to do it.

He doesn't have to cough. He's doing it as a tick. I don't know what he's doing -- and he also does this little scratch his face thing in the million dollars. Jews shouldn't be so murdered all the time.

GLENN: You're making fun of --

STU: Whatever the hell he was saying. I don't know. I just feel like it's an embarrassment from beginning to end. I'm sorry, you didn't feel that way. I'm sorry you like President Biden and you will vote for him. That's not how I feel. And I have to express it. As he said, free speech is important.

REPUBLICANS Just Passed a HATE SPEECH Bill Under the Guise of “Antisemitism”

The House of Representatives just passed a bill to combat “antisemitism” with the majority of both parties on board. But there’s one big problem with the bill: It’s not an “antisemitism” bill, Glenn says. It’s a hate speech bill. Glenn explains why, although he’s been accused of defending Jews TOO MUCH, he’s “dead set against” this bill: “The only one who can remove the hate in someone's heart is God. Government can't fix human hearts.” Glenn also explains why constitutionalists must defend the pro-Palestinian protesters’ right to free speech — not violence — no matter how despicable it is.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: The House of Representatives passed a major anti-Semitism bill on Wednesday. Which would crack down on anti-Semitism on college campuses, as protests raged nationwide. So you're now not saying that this is going to be for everybody. This is just through the Department of Education.

Legislation was opposed by 21 Republicans and 70 Democrats. The legislation seeks to make the Department of Education adopt the international Holocaust remembrance alliances. Definition of anti-Semitism, when enforcing the 1964 Civil Rights Act on college campuses. Now, I had to look it up. What is the international Holocaust remembrance alliances definition of anti-Semitism?

Well, they define anti-Semitism as, and I'm quoting. A certain perception of Jews. Which may be expressed as hatred towards Jews.

It also defines it as a heretical and physical manifestation of anti-Semitism, and directed towards your or non-Jewish individuals, and/or their property.

Towards the Jewish community, institutions, and religious facilities.

Examples of anti-Semitism include calling for the harming of the Jewish people, in the name of racial or extremist view of religion. And accusing Jewish people of inventing and/or exaggerating the Holocaust. The combat, anti-Semitism movement hailed the passage as a momentous achievement. And said, works remains to be done to get it through the Senate and President Joe Biden's desk. While we celebrate this milestone. Our work is far from over. We now need to urgently call upon Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer to prioritize the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act. Okay.

So there are the 20 Republicans in the House, that stood up. Florida representative, Matt Gaetz, opposed the bill. He said, this is a hate speech bill.

Anti-Semitism is wrong. But the legislation is written without regard for the Constitution, common sense, or even common understanding of the meaning of the words. If this bill would pass, the gospel itself would meet the definition of anti-Semitism under the terms of this bill. Democratic lawmakers including hoist minority leader, Hakeem Jeffries has also called for the passage of the bill. The countering anti-terrorism act. Or anti-Semitism act. The bill would combat anti-Semitism through the appointment of a new presidential adviser, that would be charged with implementing the White House's coordinated strategy in dealing with anti-Semitism.

What could possibly go wrong here?

The effort to crush anti-Semitism and hatred in any form, is not a democratic or Republican issue. It's an American issue that must be addressed in a bipartisan manner with a fierce urgency of now! Because after all, gang, say it with me. We've got to do something.

Okay. You know, when I hear people say, the Jews killed Jesus. Or those dirty Jews run the world.

Or those Jews are responsible for everything bad. Or you're just saying things because you have a Zionist master. I think to myself, you're a bloody idiot.

You have no clue, as to what is really happening in the world.

You have no clue. Are there some Jewish people, and top of corporations, or top of whatever?

Yeah. Yeah. There are. Are there very successful Jews that happen to be bankers?

Yeah. But, you know what, there's also very successful bankers that are Catholics and Mormons. And Lutherans, and Methodists. And dare I say it, atheists.

Yeah, but it's the Jews that are the problem.

You're an idiot. You shouldn't run around saying these things. But I kind of actually like it, when you do.

Because I know exactly who you are. Oh. Here's a guy who is so stupid, he can't tie his own shoes. Or he's just a massive racist.

Kids, stay away from him. You shouldn't run around saying, because it's false, it's rude. It's stupid.

All of the above. And we're trying to create a society here. The proper response to this act is to not post memes of long-nosed Jews, wrapping their tentacles around a US flag. It doesn't mean you're right about how the Jews are. Or vindicated for noticing that Zionists are the reason for everything bad, that it's ever happened.

You can say those things. You can say those things. Because our Constitution guarantees it.

You know how I feel about anti-Semitism.

You know how I feel about the Holocaust. And the return of the Holocaust. I've been warning about it.

I've been trying to prepare you for this time. I've prepared my family for this time. Hard choices are going to come soon.

They already are. This one doesn't seem hard. What have I always said?

The Constitution must rule. The Constitution must be our set of principles, that we do not violate. No matter, if it cuts your way or against you.
This -- this act, you would think, that someone like me, that is very supportive of the Jews in Israel, would be all for.

I am dead set against this.

And you should be too. Something can be legally permissible, and morally repulsive at the same time.

Speech needs to be protected. Not the stuff we all agree on. But the stuff we don't agree on.

The only speech that needs protection is the speech that a lot of people, the majority find absolutely abhorrent.

Congress doesn't understand. You cannot legislate hatred away. You can't pass a bill. You know what happens?

All you do is you create speakeasies of hate. They go into the closet. They go into another room, where they can't be heard. And it just becomes a festering pool of hate.

That at some point, will break out.

The only one that can remove hatred from hearts is God. We can do our part.

Does that mean that jerk protesters can prevent Jewish students from entering their classroom. No. That's not speech.

In the public square, and I mean that electronically as well, those who are standing up, and, quite honestly, spreading the lies about the Palestinians in Hamas. And saying, no. They're not.

They're good. They're great. There's not a problem there. As much as it kills me to say it, I stand with them on freedom of speech only.

The people who voted for this bill, I'm sure it was well-intended. But they're misguided by human nature itself.

Governments cannot fix human hearts. They are also -- they should all be sent back to some remedial class on the principles of the Constitution of America.

The importance of freedom of speech. The importance of not rushing in to do something, because it's scary right now.

No!

No. Why is it, this Congress can only pass the things, that seemingly only hurt the strength of America. And on me cut across the Constitution.

You just took away our Fourth Amendment right for warrants.

You just took that away, you're now -- you're now just passed another bill, that is bringing people -- who have escaped Gaza. And are Palestinians. Remember, 97 percent of them, in the latest poll, hate America.

About 70 percent of them, were all for Hamas. In the 80 percentile range of supporting October 7th.

Congress, you just passed a bill, that are bringing those people in. To America!

And settling them here in America. What the hell is wrong with you?

You live in the upside down world, I don't.

I still live in the world where the -- where America is all about protected rights. It's a dark day, when only 20 -- only 20 people in Congress that are Republican will stand up against this bill. It is a dark, dark day!