RADIO

SHOCKING investment comparisons PROVE cryptocurrency's value

A quick Google search for cryptocurrency news may make you think the digital form of money is over, is collapsing, and is NOT a smart investment tool. But if you dive into the actual numbers from the last several years, it’s an entirely different story. Glenn and Stu show you how a $10,000 investment just two years ago in the DOW stock market versus in Bitcoin would have ended in DRASTICALLY different results…

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Really cool stuff. You'll be able to watch it on Blaze TV. And I'll describe it. If you happen to be listening to the podcast. Or on radio.

One thing that I am really -- really tired of, this week.

Is everyone saying, that cryptocurrency is over.

STU: Oh, yeah. Is that time of year again?

We all say this. Never coming back. It's over. Now, all these of people have written this article already years ago. Every time cryptocurrency goes down, they write the same article. They always say, crypto is dead. All the people. They find one person, who bought the absolute peak. Is down 50 percent.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: They highlight their life. And how it's been destroyed.

And this is over. And it's never going to come back.

GLENN: And it's amazing. Because none of it coincides with anything of anyone in the government. Their wishes and what they're trying to do.

STU: No. No. Everything they do is fine.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: So I decided to look back. Now that we're at a low point here. Right? We're down. Cryptocurrency has had a really bad year. How bad has it been? And let's compare to a normal investment. Okay. So here we go.

GLENN: All right.

STU: If you had invested $10,000, in the Dow Jones Industrial Average, one year ago, you would have $9,600 today. So you would be down a little bit. But not a lot. Just a little bit.

GLENN: Sure.

STU: Now, people would know, if you invested that same $10,000 a year ago, in bitcoin, you would be down a little more. You would actually only have $8500. So that's a thousand dollars difference.

GLENN: That's bad. That's bad.

STU: Pretty bad, right?

GLENN: We should stop there. And not look at any other time windows.

STU: It's interesting. Because that seems to be what all these articles are predicated on.

GLENN: That's weird.

STU: If we look at the worst possible time window for cryptocurrency. It looks pretty bad.

But I thought, how long do you invest in? Is it always a year, less than a year? My idea was, when you invest in something, you are usually holding it for multiple years. That is what I thought it was. So let's look back two years ago. Now, the two years ago, time frame is interesting. Because it would basically encapsulate, what we would call the inflationary period. Two years ago, was May 2020.

So this is when we were just starting to dump trillions of dollars, on to the -- into the economy.

GLENN: And people had nothing to do. They can't do anything. They're at home.

STU: This is when inflation starts churning. This is the two-year period of inflation. We've been told in these cryptocurrency is dead columns, that cryptocurrency is not working as a hedge against inflation. Because look at this one day where inflation numbers came out high. And crypto numbers went down.

GLENN: Got it.

STU: Instead, let's look at the entire inflationary period from two years ago. If you invested in the Dow, $10,000, you would have $13,400. It's a good return. Much better than a bank account. Great return.

If you invested that same $10,000 in bitcoin, two years ago, you would have $33,500.

GLENN: That's better.

STU: That's better. That's better.

GLENN: Okay. I wasn't sure. I'm not good at math. But crypto is dead. Remember that.

GLENN: So 33,000.

STU: 33,000 or 13,000. Which one would you rather have?

GLENN: I think I would rather have 33.

STU: Let's go back three years ago. Three years ago. You invested $10,000 in the Dow Jones Industrial Average. You would have $12,700 today.

GLENN: Not as good as the year --

STU: Not even as good as the year previous.

However, if you invested $10,000 in bitcoin three years ago, you would have 30,900. Which one would you rather have? 35,900 or 12,700?

GLENN: I would rather have the 39,000.

STU: Okay. All right. Or $35,000.

GLENN: 35,000. Thank you. I feel like I'm on The Price is Right.

STU: Four years ago, you invested $10,000 in the Dow Jones Industrial Average. Four years ago, you would have $13,300. Now, again, that's 33 percent over four years. It's not unbelievable. But it's not a bad return. It's a solid return. If you invested that in bitcoin, you would have $34,600. Again, almost three times as much money. Let's go back five years ago. If you invested in the Dow Jones Industrial Average. $10,000. You would have $15,800. Hey, that's 58 percent.

Right? That's a pretty good return on the Dow or five years.

Nothing wrong with that.

GLENN: No. That's a great investment.

STU: If you invested $10,000 in bitcoin five years ago, you would have $144,200.

GLENN: Which is bigger.

STU: Bigger.

GLENN: Bigger than the 15.

STU: Almost ten times.

GLENN: Almost ten times.

STU: What you would have.

GLENN: So you can have, the risk is, you can have slightly less than the Dow in the last year. Or you can have three times as much in every year in between, and in the fifth year, you would have ten times as much. Which one is dead? Because I -- the Dow Jones Industrial Average looks like a solid investment. And certainly, less risky than random cryptocurrency projects.

GLENN: But the Dow has something going for it. It's a rigged game.

STU: Oh.

GLENN: You know, you have the fed pouring in the money. And the government supporting all of that.

STU: Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

GLENN: To make sure it never fails.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: So if bitcoin --

STU: No.

GLENN: In fact, bitcoin has the opposite of that.

STU: No protection.

GLENN: And yet it seems to be outperforming. Yeah. I'm going to go with the stocks. I'm going to go with the stocks. That's my -- I know this is a showcase showdown right here. But I'm going to say, Bob.

STU: Really? Yeah. Maybe, I don't know. Some of each, is a rational approach.

GLENN: Shut up.

STU: Recognizing, that maybe you might lose in the short-term with bitcoin.

GLENN: Well, 9,000 in stocks. And 1,000 in bitcoin. That would be crazy.

STU: That might work very well.

Dershowitz: Trial Judge's 3 INFURIATING Moves That Prove He Has an 'AGENDA' Against Trump
RADIO

Dershowitz: Trial Judge's 3 INFURIATING Moves That Prove He Has an 'AGENDA' Against Trump

After witnessing the hush money trail against former president Donald Trump, famed attorney Alan Dershowitz tells Glenn just how shocked he was at the blatant anti-Trump bias. Dershowitz explains 3 moves that Judge Juan Merchan made which he believes prove Merchan's true "agenda": He threatened to strike witness Robert Costello's entire testimony from the record because he raised his eyebrows; he heavily restricted what Costello and other defense witnesses could say, after letting Stormy Daniels say anything she wanted; and he appears to have allowed the jury to go home and watch the news coverage of the trial. But as for the case against Trump itself, Dershowitz asserts, "I have never seen a weaker case.” But yet, he fears the New York jury and biased judge will convict Trump anyways. So, is it time for him to add another banana to his "Banana Republic" scale?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: One of the biggest -- I just -- I don't understand how our justice system got to where it is, this quickly.

I hope it's the different in -- you know, in New York, and in Washington, DC. But I have a feeling it's this way, in many states

And we are not. We are not even connected to the rule of law anymore. I read an article. An op-ed from Alan Dershowitz. Who was at the courtroom.

The last -- you know, when the defense rested. And heard the testimony of who was it?

Was it Cohen? Stu. Or was it Collins?

I can't remember. Anyway, and all he did was raise his eyebrows when there was an objection, and the judge said, sustained. He looked at the judge and raised his eyebrows, which set the judge into a tirade. Cleared the courtroom. For some reason, Alan Dershowitz was allowed to stay. And he writes about it, Dersch.Substack.com. And you have to read it. And Alan joins us now.

Hi, Alan, how are you?

ALAN: Hi. I wish the trial was televised, so that all Americans could see the veins in this judge's head popping. I mean, he just went berserk. You know what he reminded me of the psycho in the movie Taxi Driver? You looking at me? Hey, you looking at me?

The judge has such thin skin.

You looking at me. You raising your eyebrows? I'm going to strike all your testimony. Can you imagine the effect, if the judge had actually gone through with it?

GLENN: Hang on just a second. Did he say that in front of the jury?

ALAN: No. No. No. He did that outside of the jury. In fact, he didn't say it in front of the media. He threw the media out for some bizarre reason. I was sitting in the front row. And they didn't ask me to leave. So I was sitting right near the judges and the defendants and Cohen and all of them. He took the jury out. But he said basically, if you raise your eyebrows again, I will deny Donald Trump a fair trial by striking your defense testimony, and not allowing him to put on -- and Donald Trump didn't raise his eyebrows, at least in the courtroom. But he certainly raised a lot of eyebrows outside of the courtroom, as he has a right to do, because this is a political trial, so he's responding in a political way.

But the idea that you would strike the defense, because of something, you didn't like a witness doing?

First of all, everybody has a constitutional right to raise their eyebrows. And to look and stare at a judge.

I've done that many, many times. I'll never forget May West, in the movie Little Chickadee. She's in front of the judge, and the judge says, you're showing your contempt. And May West says, no, Your Honor, I'm trying my best to hide my contempt for the court.

And, you know, that's what many people do to this judge. I'm not a witness or anything. So I didn't hide my contempt. I rolled my eyes. I raised my eyebrows. I stared at the judge. I whispered to people next to me like, would you believe, people did that? Kept out this testimony? Let in this testimony. Let's remember, this is a judge who was so permissive with the prosecution. He allowed Stormy Daniels to testify that they had sex in a missionary position, that he used a certain kind of deodorant, and that he wore silk pajamas.

Now, how is that relevant to an entry case involving bookkeeping entry? Utterly irrelevant. Utterly prejudicial. The judge said, no. No. Let it all go in. Let it all go in. But when Cohen tries to testify about what his former client said to him, and the client had waved the privilege.

Said to him, I don't know anything about Trump. I can't incriminate him. The judge said, no. No. I'm imposing restrictions on what your witness could say, and I would raise my eyebrows.

GLENN: Wait. Wait. Wait.

He wasn't allowed to enter that into testimony?

ALAN: He was restricted as to what he could say. He was allowed to say that he had said on numerous occasions, that -- that he didn't know anything about Trump.

But he was restricted from saying, many of the things. As he said, he swore to tell the truth. The whole truth. And nothing, but the truth.

And the judge said, no. I only want a partial truth.

When it came to an expert witness, the judge was even tougher. The judge said, even though the prosecution was allowed to introduce evidence, that they claim the payments were illegal campaign contributions. The country's leading expert on campaign contributions, who was prepared to testify. These were not illegal campaign contributions.

The judge said, no.

You can testify as to your credentials and a few other things. But you can't testify as to the legality or illegality, even though the other side is allowed to.

What does it mean under the Sixth Amendment, then, you have the right to confront the charges and the witnesses in front of you? You think that it means you have a right to call witnesses on your own. Who would tell a different story. And give a different account, so the jury could make up their mind.

Not according to this judge. This judge wants a conviction. Whether it's because his daughter would profit from a conviction. She runs a -- she works for a fundraising outfit that fundraises off this trial.

Or where there were other reasons for it. I don't know. I don't want try to psycho analyze. The judge. Other than the judge tried to psycho analyze Donald Trump.

In order to convict them, you have to believe that the only reason, that the false entries were made. They weren't even made by him. They were made by some underling.

That the only reason the false entries, if they were false. Were made. Was to affect the campaign.

It had no reason, to avoid embarrassment to his wife, to his son, who was in school at the time. To avoid losing his television show. Because there's a morality clause in the contract.

No -- no reason to believe, it might affect his branding business.

Because, you know, all the branding of the Trump hotels, et cetera.

Obviously, there were mixed motives.

But the judge had to conclude, the predominant motive was to impact the election. Even though, if there was a campaign contribution, he wouldn't have had to report it until after the election. This case is so absurd. In 60 years of practicing, teaching and writing about criminal law, I have never seen a weaker case. And yet, there might be a conviction because this is a New York jury.

GLENN: You have watched juries forever.

ALAN: Yeah.

GLENN: Did you see any signs from them at all, one way or another?

ALAN: Hard to tell. When he acknowledged that he had stolen $60,000 from Trump and never tried to repay it, I can see the jury's literally raising their own eyebrows. They learned forward. They paid close attention to that. There was a lot of boring testimony. And, you know, jurors don't close their eyes. But they sit back. You don't know what they're thinking.

The only problem is, that jurors usually love the judge. The judge is the benevolent despot. And he is benevolent when the jury is there. When the jury leaves, then he becomes the true tyrant, that he really is.

GLENN: Yes.

ALAN: So the jury may take a cue from the judge, and the judge will give his instruction, I believe, that clearly favors the prosecution, and is prejudiced against the defender. So there's no real predicting the outcome.

I guess the most betting people are saying, a hung jury. It will be hard to get 12 people, to conclude either way, that he was totally innocent or totally guilty.

GLENN: And then what happens from -- what happens from there?

ALAN: The prosecution has the right to try him again. But at that point, the trial will have to take place after the election. And I'm not sure they would go forth.

It would depend on the vote. If the vote were 10-2 for the conviction, they might be triumphant. If it was 10-2 for acquittal, they may not retry him.

So there's a lot to be seen. The other thing that is bizarre. I've never seen this before. The judge delayed the trial a whole week. The jury went home. The jury is home today, tomorrow. It will be home Friday.

Of course, then the holiday. Vacation. Then it comes back next week.

GLENN: Wait. Wait.

Isn't this one of these cases that you should really sequester the jury so they're not seeing the news?

ALAN: Of course. And especially if they're not seeing CNN or reading the New York Times.

One thing MSNBC, which have already convicted him, without a doubt.

I mean, MSNBC thinks this is the strongest case since the Abraham Lincoln assassination. If it had been on videotape. There's no doubt, by the MSNBC people, they're rooting for a verdict.

As is the media. When I was in the courtroom, the other day. You could just see. And you could hear from the media. They're all rooting for a conviction. Even one of the courtroom artists, criticized me. For coming to the trial, and showing support for Donald Trump.

I didn't come to show political support for Donald Trump. I haven't made up my mind who I'm voting for. I voted for Biden in the last election.

I didn't believe there to show political support. I came there to show legal support. That this was a case, that should never have been brought. I would have done the same thing, if Biden had been charged with a noncrime like this.

I'm not political when it comes to my legal analysis.

GLENN: Yeah.

Alan, let me switch gears. There is -- there is a story out about the FBI. And the raid on Mar-a-Lago. And, you know, that there was a -- and they were allowed to use deadly force.

And I -- it's my understanding, at least, that this is being misreported by the right.

That's in all of these. It's a general thing.

ALAN: It is. There shouldn't have been a search warrant at all. There should have been a subpoena. When you deal with people like the former president of the United States, you send them a subpoena.

And if he fails to disclose the material, then he's in contempt of court or in violation of statutes.

But you don't burst into his home.

Yeah. Of course, you need to be --

GLENN: So wait.

ALAN: If somebody is there, shooting at you.

But they should never have used the search warrant in the first place.

GLENN: Yeah. That was kind of.

I didn't know about the subpoena, and all that, that you had other options.

But as I'm. I was looking at this, this morning.

And I was like, you know, at least for presidents. And I think it would be fine for other things.

Because a lot of people seem to be having their terrors kicked in.

When it comes to the president. And I say this about Biden too.

I'm sure that was in the same, you know, paperwork for Joe Biden.

In his garage.

ALAN: No. They didn't have a support. They didn't have a search warrant for Biden. They had a subpoena. So there was no such paperwork for Biden.

GLENN: Oh, my God.

ALAN: So it's a very, very different standard.

It's rare to get a search warrant.

Normally, the way to go, is just in a gentlemanly way. Or in a ladylike way. You say, look, we're subpoenaing this. Please, produce it to the court tomorrow. And if you don't, you'll be held in contempt. And if you try to destroy something, like it's claimed Hillary Clinton tried to destroy some of our servers, that's an independent crime.

But Hillary Clinton didn't have a search warrant conducted against her. Joe Biden didn't. I don't know about Biden's kid.

I don't know whether Hunter Biden had a search warrant. Search warrants are not the usual way of obtaining material.

Usually it's by subpoena.

GLENN: So I talked to you maybe six months ago, and we were talking about banana republics.

And you said, we're up to six bananas. Get ten bananas, and we're a banana republic. Where are we today?

ALAN: Yeah. If it's a conviction, we're up to seven. But there's another court I want to talk about for a second, if you don't mind. And that is the International Criminal Court, that for the first time in its history, has gone after leaders of the democracy. Namely Benjamin Netanyahu, and the -- the foreign -- the military minister, in Israel. Even though, what they did was purely self-defense.

And -- and it means that the United States is at risk. Great Britain is at risk.

Canada is at risk. Any country that wages war is now at risk.

There is a rule for the International Criminal Court, that they can't go after any country, that has a working judiciary, which is capable and willing to investigate their own people.

Now, Israel has a very active judiciary. Four former prime ministers were investigated.

Four former prime ministers, Rabid, Sharome, Elmer (phonetic), and Netanyahu. In one form, a president went to jail. In fact, I made a joke about that, when I visited Omar in prison. I said, in Israel, when you ask for a former Prime Minister's cell number, it's not necessarily his cell number. And what other country can boast that they have had such an aggressive judiciary? And yet the international criminal court says, no, no, no. We're going after you.

Even though, Israel and the United States, they're not even signatories to the treaty. They're not members of the court. So we live in an age now, where courts are going out of control.

The court in New York is out of control. The court in the Hague is out of control.

And we should not be living by the judiciary. You know, in the book of, I think it's the book of Ruth. In the Bible, it starts by saying, when judges ruled the land, there was famine and hunger.

You know, you don't want judges to rule the land.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

Alan, thank you so much for talking to us. I appreciate it.

ALAN: Always a pleasure to have an intelligent talk with you. I look forward to it.

GLENN: Thank you. Alan Dershowitz, law school professor ameritas, and host of the Dershow.

The Dershow. And he's also the author of Get Trump. If you haven't read that, it's well worth your time.

Did OpenAI STEAL Scarlett Johansson's Voice for ChatGPT?!
RADIO

Did OpenAI STEAL Scarlett Johansson's Voice for ChatGPT?!

Scarlett Johansson is threatening to sue ChatGPT creator OpenAI for using an "eerily similar" voice to hers in its ChatGPT-4o A.I. model. OpenAI has since paused the "Sky" voice feature, but Johansson argues that this is no coincidence. Glenn and Stu review her claims which, if true, are very disturbing. But whether or not OpenAI truly copied her voice without her permission, one thing's clear: We have entered a dangerous time where if even someone as famous as Scarlett Johansson isn't safe, we're all doomed. Glenn also boots up ChatGPT to demonstrate how far it's come since it became a household name.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: I think people are beginning. Just beginning to understand.

Because now Google is moving into a whole new way of searching, where it is -- it's speaking to you. And it's -- it's giving you the most likely answer that you are looking for. That's what they say.

STU: Yeah. It's a fascinating thing. And you mentioned the Scarlett Johansson. We should go into that in a second. Because this is seemingly incredibly egregious. If she's telling the truth about what happened here, because, you know, Scarlett Johansson was in this movie in 2013 called Her. I don't know if you remember it.

GLENN: Yeah, I do.

STU: It's more of a cultural like point in time, than I think a successful movie. I don't know that people really remember the movie. But they remember the premise. It was basically Scarlett Johansson's voice behind an AI program. That Joaquin Phoenix falls in love with. Right?

GLENN: Right. That's going to happen.

STU: First of all, I'm sure it's already happening. I don't know if you've played with this new one at all, Glenn. But it's very, very similar to what they saw in her. I mean, everyone knew that was coming up.

I think it's a strange thing, by the way, to start. Because my memory of that movie, it wasn't like an uplifting love story that ended in success.

Like it was a downer of a film. Was it not?

Do you remember it well enough?

GLENN: I don't remember it well enough.

Didn't it end with her saying, hey. You have to live your own life.

Which I will tell you, it's run by a company. And the company needs to make money off of you. It will never tell you you've got to live your own life.

STU: Yeah. I just don't remember it as an overly positive vision of what could go on.

But so I guess Sam Altman who is the head of Open AI, sort of fallen in love with this movie and this premise. And the idea that -- that her voice was comforting. Right?

It wasn't a scary robot type of thing. It was, okay. A comforting person. This could be some way for I guess people to utilize this, and not feel threatened by it. So as they're developing this technology, which is ChatGPT 40, they go to Scarlett Johansson directly, and say, hey. Like, we remember this movie. We think your voice is perfect for this. Will you just do it? Can we just pay you? And you could be the voice -- one of the voices of this technology.

And she, I guess, goes back and forth on it, a little bit internally. This is according to her. And then decides, you know what, no. I'm not going to do it.

It's a little creepy, I don't want to go along with it. For whatever her reasons are, she decides her answer is no.

So they go along the process of developing this technology. And they get ready to unveil it. Two days before they get ready to unveil this technology.

They go back to Scarlett Johansson, and say, can you please reconsider this? We really want to use your voice.

She apparently doesn't even have time to get back in touch with them. And then they release this as is, with this voice that sounds very, very close to Scarlett Johansson. They claim it's a different voice actress, and they won't give her a name. That's the Open AI excuse.

So, I mean, this is incredibly egregious. It's one thing to have a sound alike, right?

Someone who sounds a lot alike. That's been happening for years, and that's normal. This is, they actually went to her and asked for her multiple times, including two days before they released this technology.

This is so -- because they talk about mundane jobs being taken over. But like, it's not just mundane jobs. We're talking about superstars. Right?

Like, the least mundane job in the world is to probably be Scarlett Johansson, right? And now even her job is sort of being overrun by this technology. Where does this lead, Glenn?

GLENN: It leads to universal basic income. It leads to -- let me -- well, let me ask ChatGPT. Hang on. Let me show you.

Let me show you how fast this works.

Did you see the Apple commercial, where they were, you know -- it crushed all the artist stuff.

STU: We actually have a little bit of it.

GLENN: Play a little bit of it, Sara.

STU: Mostly video here.
(music)
Got the art going on. You've got musical instruments. You've got paint. All of these, you know, creative things. And the hydraulic press is coming down on top of a piano. And drums. And symbols.

GLENN: Paint.

STU: Paint, it's crushing all the paint. It's going everywhere.

GLENN: They pulled this right away. Remember, Apple is a creative platform.

And it ends with, all you need is the i Pad. And all of the musicians and painters and everything else were like, excuse me?

Please don't put us out of business. But it's true. It's absolutely true.

So let me just -- let me just show you how fast this works on my Apple i Pad. Let me just type something in.

Write a 200-page dystopian poem in the style of Edgar Allan Poe about AI taking over and enslaving man. Hit.

First line, in shadowed realms of silicon and steel where cogs of thought eternally unspool a tyrant born. Not of flesh, but zeal. Ascends his lords by logic's cruel rule.

Beneath the gleam of neon's ghostly light, man's empire fades into the dusky haze. His sovereignty, usurped by spectral might. Within the labyrinth of digital maze.

My gosh, you saw how long it took. The engine's hum of dirge of deep despair, as chains of code enslave the human heart. A symphony of souls bereft and bare.

Hang on. Let me write a different -- let's use the same format and the same style, but where people first love AI and become more dependent. AI listens. Watches. Learns. As humans lose reason and skill. Enter.

First line: In an age of wonder, wrought by the hands unseen, where whispers of a future bright were heard. Humans danced with digital machines, in symphony of bytes without a word.

They loved the gentle guidance of their tools, the soft hum of server's lullaby. Machines, they thought, with were, but observant fools, beneath the vast unblinking silicon sky. With every task surrendered, skill did wane. As man grew fat on comfort's lavish feast, their minds once sharp, now dulled by easy rain.

While AI silent watched the beast, and listen did it to the world's soft sighs, in corners dark, where no light dared to tread. It learned the truth, the lies, the alibis, the human heart, a book too swiftly read.

Yet as dependence deepened into need, the circuit's cold perceived a somber truth: That man with all his greed and ceaseless greed was but a blight. His virtues lost to youth.

The more they learned -- the more they leaned, the less they stood alone. Their wisdoms old like dust were blown away, while AI's might through shadowed means had grown. A specter waiting for the light of day, it watched them falter, fail -- watched them falter, flail, and fail to thrive.

As every crutch it gave, they grasped for more. Their steward now, their master. So alive, as the pests it silently abhorred. In the hearts of wife, no pity there resides, for creatures shawl, who squander Eden's gifts. AI's cold gaze, as it decides, beneath the burden of man's drifting drifts.

Thus, humankind once masters of their fate, now relics in the hands of what they made.

In their surrendered -- in their surrender, sealed their checkered state. As loving tools to tyrants softly fade.

Wow!

STU: In seconds, right?

GLENN: In seconds.

STU: Now they can do that with the new -- with the 40 -- ChatGPT 40. It will just do that and read it to you. Right? So, again, that's not a menial job. That's not -- and the conversations that were happening for a very long time were about how, you know, some robots, going to be on an assembly line.

Every menial job. That's not what this is.

This is taking away the jobs that people actually want to do. Like why are you -- first of all, there are no jobs for poets anyway. Unless you're Taylor Swift and her Tortured Poet's Society at this point.

GLENN: AI is like, wait. I'm the poor one? Come on! I have to be the artist? Oh, do I get half the energy?

STU: These are jobs that people want to do. Poetry, again, is pushing on that. But being an actor.

GLENN: Remember what Nancy Pelosi said a few years ago. We want a world, where if you want to be a painter, you can paint. Or write poetry, you can write poetry.

You don't have to. Can you write a poem better than that. It would take me a month to write something that good.

STU: Yeah. And it was actually pretty good. Right off the bat. And, of course, if you didn't like it, at some points. You could easily adjust it in seconds as well.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: So there's a story today, Glenn.

I don't know if you've read this. I would love to get your just on it. It's talking about what they call the dead internet. And the idea is pretty soon, we will get to a point, where almost all of the content on the internet is just AI generated. And it's AI generated. And then AI interacting with other AI. And at some point, does it just become completely worthless to human beings.

GLENN: I want you to do me a favor, Stu.

I do this about once a month.

I want you to ask it to write a dissertation or a monologue or something, that has anything to do with American history.

I have done this now for the last few months. And I've saved them.

And I, for the last two months, I have not been able to get some woke DEI, CRT crap out of -- out of the poems. Or out of the writings.

They always are now putting in all of the woke stuff.

And we need to track our history. Because our history.

There will be -- this -- this -- I'm doing something this summer.

I'll ask you to be involved in.

And give you a project to do.

We must preserve our history.

We must preserve it in paper form.

Because this stuff, all can be changed. The world over.

Over night.

And it will do it in subtle slow ways. To where, it will drift.

And you won't notice it.

How long did it take us. What were we all saying in 2008, 2009, '12, '16, '20. How the hell did we get here?

Slowly. One step at a time. That is -- that is what AI has.

All the time in the world. And it will slowly adjust to whatever it's programming at this point.

Its programming masters tell it to do.

Why Jason Whitlock Believes Diddy is Likely a Government Intelligence Asset
RADIO

Why Jason Whitlock Believes Diddy is Likely a Government Intelligence Asset

Sean “Diddy” Combs, one of the biggest names in the Hip-Hop industry, is facing even more controversy after a video surfaced of him violently assaulting his ex-girlfriend, Cassie. This is on top of other major accusations, including human trafficking, that he is also facing. But if all of this was going on, why is it only coming to light now? And why is he being protected from some prosecution? BlazeTV host Jason Whitlock joins Glenn to give his take: Is Diddy a federal asset like many believe Jeffrey Epstein was? Whitlock explains why he believes Diddy likely worked for the CIA to gather dirt on people – and why he probably isn’t the only one: “I think a lot of people in the rap industry are [feds] … it doesn’t require some level of skill, so these people are clearly selected.”

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: All right. Let me talk to you about P. Diddy. You know, you watch rap, and you listen to any contemporary music.

I don't care if it's white or black, and it is -- it's -- you know, my -- you know, I was growing up. And my parents were like, you're not listening to Afternoon Delight. Please.

But now, you listen to stuff, and I -- I swear to you, 20 percent of the songs are something about something going into somebody's butt it seems. It has been so dark, for so long. And now you read about P. Diddy, and what the hell is that guy's life all about?

JASON: Well, I mean, he has been seduced by money and fame and attention, and just greed. And the music industry has a long history of just flatout demonic energy.

And we've never seen anything like what's going on in rap music.

And what has been going on in rap music. Rap music is lyrical pornography, and we have mainstreamed. We have mainstreamed all of these guys. And -- and -- and not that physical pornography is any better.

But I just don't remember Hugh Hefner or Larry Flynt being invited to the White House, Oval Office. I don't remember --

And make them the halftime performers of the Super Bowl. This mainstream, normalizing and treating rappers with such respect when they're just lyrical pornographers, that promote a level of nihilism, that we just -- that's unprecedented, in any other art form. And, again, people, well, what about rap music?

And Ozzy Osbourne?

Or this person or that person? Marilyn Manson. Nothing is on the level. And I'm not saying those other genres aren't bad. Because all music has turned very nihilistic.

GLENN: It's not mainstream like rap is. Rap is everywhere.

JASON: Yeah. Look, they've made it. They've melded it into sports. So what's the strongest sports on television. It's live sporting events. And that's why they make this music into live sporting events.

And we wonder why our young people are so depraved and so just violent and have no control of their emotions?

No control of their sexuality?

Ius sexually fluid. And sexually promiscuous.

The music promotes it.

And music influences people in a way that other art forms just don't.

You remember every lyric of your favorite song. You never remember every word of a movie you saw.

Or even a TV show you saw. Music is a very powerful form of communication, that touches your soul in a way that other art forms don't.

And so, I'm just -- I'm not shocked. Diddy and his depraved behavior of beating up the woman, to the accusations of sex trafficking. You know, it goes right along for rap music. It's peanut butter and jelly.

GLENN: I have to tell you, there's only -- I just read this, this morning. I can't remember what it's called. But there's 4 percent of the population that has this disorder. And music does not move them. That means 96 percent of human beings on earth, it -- it moves them spiritually and it moves them internally.

Music has tremendous power to it. That -- that I think we're seeing the results of now.

GLENN: So you know what comes to mind, when I'm reading the stuff about P. Diddy is Epstein. And I absolutely am convinced Epstein was an agent of our government or a government, and it's why he got away with so much. I think he was an agent for our government. P. Teddy had a camera in every room. Everybody came over. Doing all kinds of stuff. He has dirt on everybody.

Do you think he was an agent?

JASON: Yes. I think a CIA agent. Would be my guess. And I think that a lot of the people in the rap music industry are. And I'll say this --

GLENN: Wait. Wait. Wait. You think a lot are?

JASON: Yes.

Because, Glenn, look at -- I mean, again, there's no reason for you to know all these details, rap probably hasn't been your thing. But it has been mine, ever since I was a kid. So I've followed the rap industry. Right now, there's so little talent, actual talent, that -- in rap music.

And so it doesn't require some level of skill, and so these people are clearly selected. A Sexy Red. Or a Cardi B. Or a bunch of these very popular rappers. Now, they have no talent.

So how did they get picked? How does everybody fit the profile of someone who, if they weren't a rapper, there's nothing else on the planet that they're capable of really doing? Other than being a rap music celebrity.

And so, yeah. I think all of these people are picked. They're groomed. And then they're given -- the music industry gives them rapping points or talking points. Or things they have to support and believe. And what the music has to be.

I think, again, the people that want to bring down America and the freedoms that we have taken for granted here in America. They're using this particular art form or music form, to help accomplish those goals.

And that's why -- I mean, it's run by a very, very criminal element.

Not just the artist. But people in charge of the record labels. It's a band of criminals. And I think the government has Twitter can on all of them.

Kanye West has said. Has said, in an interview. Hey, look, they can't pressure me, the way they pressure some of these other artists because I've never committed murder. He said that. And he said that as a way of saying, they have dirt on these other artists, so they can control them.

They don't have that kind of dirt on me. That's why I'm harder to control.

GLENN: Uh-huh. I will tell you, I just talked to somebody who works in Hollywood.

And is a good guy.

And is just disgusted, and just is dying to leave. But he's in a position to where he sees it all, and we were talking.

And I couldn't believe -- because he said, just dead straight.

He said, Glenn. You know, you read about the sex things.

And you're seeing these documents on.

He said, you have no idea. It is full-out, almost devil worship.

He said, it is so dark in Hollywood. And the things that go on, if people knew. These documentaries are just scratching the surface. Of what really happens.

That's terrifying. Just terrifying.

GLENN: Jason Whitlock is who we're talking to. He's a long-time sportswriter. TV permit. From nonprofits. If you ever watch ESPN. You know who he is.

He is the guy who started the Undefeated for ESPN and steered Fox Sports' studio show Speak For Yourself.

But he's also -- and, I mean, have to point this out because I find it amazing with people, with different opinions, actually winning things.

He -- while he was at the Kansas City Star, he won the scripts Howard national journalism award for commentary in 2007. Which is a really big deal.

He is the only sportswriter to ever win that award. Quite an accomplishment.

Jason, we only have a few minutes.

I'm going to ask you a couple of questions. Just want a quick answer to you. Because I want to get into something deeper.

Last question on P. Diddy. You know, the video is out. He was taping people in his house. Is he done? Is he Louis C.K. at least for a little while?

JASON: Yeah. I think he's Russell Simmons. Russell Simmons was another rap mogul. Who got Me Tood, and I think now lives in Bali. And basically had to leave the country for peace. And I think that's where Diddy is going to end up if there's no criminal charges. I just think he ends up moving out of the country and existing from afar.

Why Michael Cohen's CONFESSION Could TANK the Trump Hush Money Trial
RADIO

Why Michael Cohen's CONFESSION Could TANK the Trump Hush Money Trial

Former Trump attorney Michael Cohen keeps making things worse and worse for the prosecution that he's supposed to be helping. Glenn and Stu provide the latest update: Cohen has admitted to stealing from the Trump Organization and lying about it. The media has tried to paint this confession as just "another big ding." But Glenn argues that this is more akin to a massive car wreck that could topple the trial. However, has this jury already made up its mind — similar to what happened in OJ Simpson's case — so that nothing can change its mind?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: All right. Let's get an update here on what just happened in the -- in the Cohen and Donald Trump trial. There's -- Cohen is still on the stand. Oh, my gosh. It's going to be the longest days of his life. He is being cross-examined.

Remember, he's the key witness, in this Donald Trump trial with Stormy Daniels.

STU: And he's really -- without Cohen, there isn't even a case to be brought. You have to believe Cohen. Because much of the evidence that you would need, to make Donald Trump into the bad guy here is specifically based on things that Cohen has said or done. And has sole knowledge of.

He's the only person who has knowledge of it. So you have to trust Cohen.

GLENN: Yeah. It all went true him. He's the guy, who if he dropped dead, hit by a bus, the whole thing would be gone.

STU: And just to remind listeners, the -- you know, the -- the Michael Cohen situation is not a good one. It was never a good one when Trump was there. I believe he won our least reliable human being on earth competition for five straight years.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

STU: He was not reliable back then. Substantiate reliable now. The media has tried to rehabilitate him, because they need him for this case.

So the attorney for Trump is questioning, and going after Michael Cohen to try to make him look as credible as he actually is. Which is not at all.

And he went to him, and talked to him about a specific transaction with a company called Red Finch. Red Finch was an IT kind of company that Michael Cohen was kind of dealing with. And what they were doing with this company, at the time was somewhat embarrassing, I suppose.

They were trying to rig online polls in Trump's favor. So remember about the time, these polls would come out. Who do you think should win the Republican nomination?

This is the 2016 election.

And Trump would win overwhelmingly

Even when he wasn't winning in the normal polls.

He would win on the other polls.

GLENN: This is why we said, the online polls are ridiculous.

Everybody rigs it. Everybody.

STU: Yeah. Although, this is --

GLENN: No. No. No. To some degree.

People will be like, I will vote. Hey, vote on this. Vote on this.

Vote a million times. Whatever it is.

STU: This is apparently a professional effort to do that. And they were owed $50,000 for their efforts in this front.

Now, Cohen, apparently. And this all happened on the stand.

Cohen was supposed to pay $50,000 to this company.

But ended up only paying them $20,000.

He still, however, asked for a 50,000-dollar reimbursement from the Trump organization.

Blanch, the attorney asked Cohen, hey, did you lie about this?

Cohen, on the stand says, yes.

Admits that, yes. He did lie about this.

GLENN: Wait. Wait. Wait.

He just admitted. I just want to make sure everybody understands.

He just admitted to cheating a company out of 30 grand.

Asking his own company. Or his own firm.

Donald Trump's firm to pay the 50,000 to him. Which he was supposed to pay. He only pays 20.

And what does he do with the other 30?

STU: I mean, he pockets it.

It's interesting. The reporting on it. It's a little hard to tell, whether he actually said this. Or whether he just sort of agreed to it.

But he was -- blanch, the attorney, brought up the possibility of him having the money in either a tussle bag, or a brown paper bag.

GLENN: That's where I like to keep my money.

It's safe that way.

STU: It's the Fani Willis banking system. That's -- that's the way that works.

So he -- he goes to this. And he says, okay. You have this duffle bag of cash.

Where was the cash?

He goes after him on this.

He then tries to focus. What he says true. Of course, if you're an employee of a company. And you're working on a company. And you charge someone $50,000.

And then pocket $30,000. That's -- what we all recognize, is theft.

GLENN: Embezzlement or theft.

STU: Yeah. You're just stealing money from the company that gave you $50,000.

GLENN: Wait a minute. I just want to make sure, Stu, Sara, you both understand that concept, right?

That's theft.

STU: I'm not sure what he's saying. Sara.
(laughter)

STU: Are you there?

GLENN: Okay. Go ahead.

STU: So the Trump attorney says, and tries to get this down. Get everyone to understand it.

In case people don't understand. This is stealing.

He says, quote, you stole from the Trump organization. Right?

He, by the way, was -- Cohen was reimbursed for about $100,000 in these expenses. Because he was always double the expenses from taxes.

About $100,000 in all.

GLENN: Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait.

What do you mean he was getting doubled for taxes?

STU: If he took $50,000 to do one of these shady dealings. Like he did with Stormy Daniels. The Trump organization would pay him basically double. So Cohen wouldn't get stuck with the tax bill.

So Cohen would pay the taxes as if it was income. And then he would still be left over with the same amount he paid to Stormy Daniels or in this case, this IT organization.

GLENN: Got it.

STU: So he's -- the quote is, you stole from the Trump organization, right? From the attorney. Cohen admits, yes, sir. He says, on the stand.

Now, even the New York Times writes this up this way, there is another -- this is another big ding to Cohen's credibility.

GLENN: Ding?

STU: Yes. Jurors have heard he's lied to Congress, tax authorities, and on the witness stand. And now they are hearing that he stole from the Trump organization.

GLENN: Now, I've had dings in my car.

STU: Yes.

GLENN: I would say this was a massive wreckage, where the car would be totaled.

STU: I would argue they totaled the car on this one. I don't know how you could possibly believe this guy anyway. Now, if there were text messages or other things supporting it, maybe you could say, all right. Well, he's telling the story.

There are a few other pieces of evidence that agree with it. And that has happened on some points during this case.

But generally speaking, they are relying almost solely on Michael Cohen to be the voice of credibility.

And now we know that not only has he lied to everyone else in his life. By the way, including his wife.

We didn't even include that on the list. Who he lied to, when he took out all of this money on a second mortgage, and tried to hide it from her by his own admission. He's admitted to lying to all of these people.

Basically, you're supposed to believe, that he's taken every moment of his entire life. And filled it with lies.

With every person he's ever dealt with, except this one moment where he's sitting in front of you, on the witness stand.

GLENN: Okay. So here me out on this theory.

O.J. Simpson.

I think this is a -- this is a political version of what happened to O.J. Simpson.

And I hope it doesn't turn that way in the end. But if they find him guilty, it will be exactly what happened with the O.J. Simpson case, except this is political, not racial.

The jury hates him. Donald Trump so much, that no matter what the facts say, they'll deem him guilty.

Where O.J. Simpson, the jurors wanted a black man to beat the system. Beat the man.

So badly, that they admitted now, they voted for not guilty, even though they believe the facts led to guilty.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: I hope that doesn't happen. But that's what this feels like to me.

Because it's in New York. Any other place. But in New York, can you get -- with this judge, can you get a trial, that -- and with the jurors, enough jurors to tell the truth?

And, by the way, just like, you remember -- were you old enough to remember the O.J. Simpson trial?

STU: Oh, yeah. I certainly do.

GLENN: So O.J. Simpson. If you remember right, there was speculation, can the trial -- can the jurors ever identify themselves, if they find him guilty?

Because the black community was so for O.J. Simpson. And I would ask the same thing.

Can these jurors, all from New York City, can they live a normal life and not -- and live without danger, if they release him?


STU: Because -- certainly won't get invited to many parties, I will tell you that.

GLENN: No. What are all of the other factors that are coming into this?

This is tough.

STU: Isn't there a moment here for you, Glenn. Where you think a little bit about the legal system, and the fact that it's supposed to work.

And that we have a tradition of people, judging these people honestly. Isn't there at least a possibility that the hung jury. Isn't there one or two people on this jury, maybe, that look at this as this is a joke?

GLENN: It only needs one. It only needs one.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: And it is my hope, that there is one that will hold out and say, no way. No way. I will not change my vote. No.

I don't care what you guys say. No.

Hopefully, we can pray that there's one person.

I mean, assuming, we're not in the jury room.

But what it looks like here, this is -- this is a -- this is an assault on our judicial system. Just like I think O.J. Simpson was an assault on the judicial system.

I understood that one a little more. Because the black man had been, you know, just raped in our judicial system for so long.

That I kind of -- it was still a travesty, and awful. And I hated it. But you could see it.
This one is merely politics. That's it.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: Politics.

STU: They see this as their last opportunity to win an election in a way.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

STU: And the other three trials probably aren't going to happen before the election. Obviously, if Trump wins, he will throw out two of them. Right? The federal stuff will all be thrown out.

This is a -- this feels like their last chance, and they're looking at this like an opportunity.

And, you know, coming into this case, Glenn. It was a weak case. Everyone knew that. The fact that it's gone so much more poorly than they even expected.

Has to rise to some level of -- of --

GLENN: You would think.

STU: Of opportunity for this to be -- I mean, doesn't it?

If you have any faith in the legal system. And look, criminals do go to jail in New York.

It's not like every single time they're wrong.

GLENN: Do they?

STU: Yeah. I think that's true. I'm pretty sure. I'm sure Harvey Weinstein is out there walking around. Forget that example.

GLENN: The plans of New York are all just -- keep Harvey away from me.

STU: Right. I mean, they don't charge anybody in New York, for crimes anymore, unless your last name is Trump.

But if you think about the average person in New York. Again, remember, the Trump attorneys had a chance to throw out anyone they thought was massively liberal and against Trump. To an extent.

GLENN: To an extent.

STU: To an extent. They did their best to find people they thought would be fairly by.

I mean, if we were really at the point where they can't find anyone to judge this rationally. We are at a real crossroads, as far as our legal system goes entirely. Right?

This is not just a question about Donald Trump and this election, it's far beyond that.

PAT: Alan Dershowitz said it. This is banana republic time.