RADIOOctober 06, 2022

The UNDENIABLE evidence for a Joe BIden impeachment

The mainstream media fact checkers claim there is ‘no credible evidence’ that Joe BIden played a role in his family’s business activities overseas, but that claim is LUDICROUS, Peter Schweizer tells Glenn. In fact, Schweizer — a Biden family expert and author of ‘Red Handed’ — tells Glenn there is a CLEAR impeachment case against the president because of his involvement. In this clip, Schweizer details to Glenn the undeniable evidence against Joe. Plus, he predicts what could happen to the Republican Party if they take control of Congress next year and STILL fail to hold those involved in the Biden family scandals responsible…

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Peter Schweizer is joining us now. He is with the government accountability institute. He's the president. Also, the author of red-handed, and the co-host of the drilldown.

Peter, how are you?

PETER: I'm great, Glenn. Always terrific to be with you. Thanks for having me.

GLENN: You bet. So I don't even know where to begin on this. Can we start with the Tony Bobulinski thing?

PETER: Sure. Absolutely.

GLENN: PolitiFact. We investigated the claims of Tony Bobulinski, a former business partner of Hunter Biden on Fox News this week. There is no credible evidence that Joe Biden played a role in his family foreign business activities.
(laughter)

PETER: Yeah. It's -- it's pretty remarkable. PolitiFact is saying that. When Hunter Biden has acknowledged that his dad played a role. Joe Biden has acknowledged that he played a role. James Biden, who is Joe Biden's brother, acknowledges that his brother played a role. And, of course, you have in black and white, the communications that Tony Bobulinski, released and turned over to the FBI, that shows Joe Biden's playing a role. So this is another example of these fact-checking organizations, digging their own graves.

They have zero credibility. And they're going to die on this hill. Which let them do it. It just means that people take them less seriously, than they do already.

GLENN: So help me out. Give me some -- of give me some of the hard evidence, that shows that Joe was absolutely involved.

PETER: Well, first of all, you have the communications, and the communications specifically say, that Joe Biden was involved. And so what does that mean?

Well, they would make -- they would have conversations, and Hunter would refer to the big guy.

And Tony Bobulinski has released these messages, would contact the other business partners. Would bring them into deal with the Bidens. And in the communications, he would say, who is the big guy?

And they would say, who is the big guy? And they would say, that's Joe Biden. They're very sensitive about it. So it was acknowledged that way.

You have the communications about the so-called SPC deal. This is the Chinese energy company, with Chairman Yi that Tony was brought into.

You have the 10 percent for the big guy. Well, the big guy is the word that was used in all the other communications, for talking about Joe Biden.

So that's all explicit in Tony Bobulinski's communications. You have communications from Hunter Biden on the laptop, that have been released. There's ones where they wanted to do business deals overseas.

And Hunter Biden texted his business partners and said, I run by my dad. And my dad is going to help.

To me, it's patently ludicrous, to even be arguing and discussing about this anymore. You can have a conversational about how deeply he was involved, and I would argue, it's pretty deep.

You could have a conversation, that says, well, I don't think he was really knowing everything that's going on.

But the notion that Joe Biden was ignorant of all of this. That he didn't know anything about it. That he didn't benefit financially.

That's a big settlement. It's not settled by Peter Schweizer or Tony Bobulinski.

It's settled by the actual communications, where there's Hunter's laptop, or the communications, that Tony Bobulinski had with Hunter and with his business partners.

GLENN: Do you think there's enough evidence that it is a clear, almost open-and-shut case, for impeachment?

PETER: I do, yes. And I do think, on a couple of levels.

First of all, let's remember, this is about corruption. But it's about something, I would argue, that is even more troubling and damaging than that.

And this is, I hope, what will be the point number one, if the Republicans take the house and investigate the subpoena Hunter Biden. Point number one needs to be not just that they got this some $31 million from these Chinese entities. But who were the actual businessmen that sent the money.

Chairman Yi of CEFC has direct ties to Chinese intelligence. Again, it's not debatable. You looked at his bio. You look at who you worked for. He was linked to Chinese intelligence. You look at other money that was transferred.

There was a gentleman who transferred $5 million to Hunter Biden. He was at the exact same time, business partners with the vice minister of the ministry of state security, whose job was recruiting foreigners to spy on China.

GLENN: Unbelievable.

PETER: So to me, Glenn, the question is, corruption, absolutely. The question is, explain to me, Hunter Biden and Joe Biden, how your family -- it's not just Hunter. Your family got $31 million from four Chinese businessmen, with links to Chinese intelligence.

You did no discernible service in return. And what did the Chinese get out of the deal? They did not send you $31 million, because they think you're nice guys. That should be issue number one. This is a question of compromise -- kompromat, as they used to say in the Cold War. And that they question foreign intelligence penetration of the First Family of the United States. That's issue number one, as far as I'm concerned.

GLENN: All right. I want to switch topics, and I want to go with what senator -- I mean, what secretary Granholm said. We have to make this happen for our own energy independence and national security. She's talking about getting America off of, quote, Russian nuclear supplies.

I'm going to talk to Peter about that. Give me 60 seconds. We'll be back in the conversation.

JEFFY: American Financing. NMLS 182334. Www.NMLSconsumeraccess.org.

GLENN: All right. If you haven't started, you know, working to make your financial house more resilient. Today is the day. You need to take a look at your high-interest debt. You need to find every way possible you need to save money. The economy will not be forgiving right now. That's just the way it will be right now.

For your sake and the sake of your family, you've got to make sure you've done everything you can. And sometimes, there's some options there, that you maybe don't know about. That's why you need help from people you can trust. I want you to call American Financing today. Don't wait. Do it today.

This is a company that's helping a lot of people just like you, with home loan options, for over two decades.

They actually care about helping you save money. Whether it's refinancing your mortgage for a lower fixed rate, or providing other types of loans, or even just helping you find ways to raise your credit score, which is incredibly important right now.

American Financing will see you through it. Don't take my word for it, find out yourself.

Call them now. AmericanFinancing.net. 800-906-2440. 800-906-2440.

It's AmericanFinancing.net. Ten-second station ID.
(music)

GLENN: Russia's dominance in the global nuclear fuel market, presents a massive challenge for Washington.

Secretary of Energy, Jennifer Granholm said, President Biden is redoubling his efforts to break the U.S. reliance on Russian nuclear fuel.

Indicating domestic uranium enrichment capacity, could be increased with upcoming key legislation. We're going to get congressional support in a bipartisan way for us to make our own fuel supply cycle chain, independent.

Certainly, independent of Russia.

We have to make this happen for our own independence. And for our national security.

Peter, what's the problem with that story?

What -- what is missing in that story?

PETER: Well, what's missing in that story, Glenn. Is one of the big reasons, that we are so dependent on Russian uranium now.

And let's remember, when the Biden administration said, we're not going to take any Russian oil. Because of their invasion of Ukraine, they excluded cutting off the supply of Russian uranium. Because we're so dependent on it. So how did we get this state?

One of the reasons is this deal, we talked about on your program, several years ago. Uranium one.

This was a nuclear uranium company, that was initially controlled by a Canadian, named Frank Giustra, who was a big Bill Clinton donor.

And they went over to Kazakhstan, to meet with President Nasir, the head of that country.

And said, look, we want to buy all these lucrative minds that you have. Producing uranium in your country. Give them to us. I'm a Canadian. This is a former president of the United States.

And we'll take good care of it. Just to adopt those minds. Purchase them. Paid some hundred million dollars to the Clinton Foundation, for Bill showing up.

Here's the problem: Giustra then flipped and sold those mines, as well as minds that he controlled in the United States. To who?

To Rosatom, the Soviet state-owned uranium company, that now dominates the market. So we have a situation, where part of the reason, that we are so dependent on Russian uranium. Part of the reason, they've been able to almost effectively corner the global market. Is because -- is because Bill Clinton helped facilitate this deal, that gave Russia control over uranium minds in the United States.

But even more importantly, some of the most powerful and lucrative, and proficient uranium minds in Kazakhstan.

And that is why we're over a barrel today.

Frank juster made a lot of money in the deal.

Bill Clinton, and Clinton made a lot of money in the deal. The problem is the American people got screwed, because it enhanced our dependence on Russian uranium. And that's where we are today.

GLENN: And if I'm not mistaken, because it's been a while since I've looked at this story.

It was all kind of done hush, hush. Just kind of rushed through the committees. It should have never gone through.

Because it is a -- a national risk, to put everything there.

And Hillary Clinton said, oh. I didn't. I didn't. I wasn't involved in this at all. I don't know.

I just know that the government found that it wouldn't be putting our government at risk. And our nation at risk. So, you know, we're going to go through with it.

Didn't this story happen something like that?

PETER: Yeah. Yeah. So this deal, the sale of uranium one, which was an American uranium company to the Russian state-owned company. Rosatom, required approval by the federal government body and the Obama administration called CFIUS, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.

And you would think, this is a pretty big deal, right?

Are we really going to put Putin in charge of all this uranium?

The deal went through quickly.

Hillary Clinton of course has a seat on CFIUS. She claims she doesn't remember anything about it. And you have all these other actors of the Clinton era. And some currently of the Biden administration, that were involved. Involved, Glenn.

So remember John Podesta, who was an adviser to the Clintons. His brother Tony Podesta, was actually a lobbyist, for uranium one. On these kinds of deals.

You had John Podesta himself, that was involved in energy companies, that were backed by Russian-state owned firms.

Joe Biden's current energy envoy, who is negotiating some of these deals involving oil and uranium. This guy named Amos Hawkseen (phonetic), he was a lobbyist for a Russian company called Tenex.

GLENN: Jeez.

PETER: Which is basically a sister company for Uranium One.

If you look at Jake Sullivan. Jake Sullivan, who, of course, is the current national security advisor, signed off on Bill Clinton.

When all these deals were going down, Russian entities are paying Bill Clinton inflated speaking fees. Half a million dollars a pop. Who was approving those deals?

A guy named Jake Sullivan, who now happens to be a national security adviser for Joe Biden.

So this is a problem, where, it's not just something for the past. It's something that involves decision makers in the present too.

GLENN: I have to tell you, it's so frustrating. And I think it is for the average person.

You know, any of this stuff would happen with me or you. We would all be in jail.

The Clinton Foundation is so incredibly transparent on its corruption. You know, it goes away when Trump is in office. Just goes away. No. We're shutting it down.

And then lo and behold. Biden gets in. We're opening it up again. Open for business.

All of the people -- I mean, you're either committed to helping people, or you're committed to making money.

And brokering deals. And it is so transparent. Is this thing ever going to be taken care of?

PETER: It's hard to know. I mean, part of the problem, Glenn, as you know, you study Washington. All this time, as I have.

There's ways to do corrupt things in Washington, that are profoundly corrupt.

If you do them the wrong way, you're going to jail. If you're doing them the right way, you can get away with it. So we're dealing with very smart people, who hire very high priced lawyers, to dance around and create subterfuge for what they're really doing.

To give it an air, or veneer, in my mind, of legality. So that's part of the problem with you have inherently.

I think the ultimate solution here is shame and exposure.

And the hope that that is going to lead to actual criminal investigation.

And I think look, coming up in November. We're going to have these elections. The balance of the House of Representatives, and Senate, is in question. And my point is, you have to have independent bodies that are prepared to bring out, what information we know. To hold Hunter Biden to account. It's very clear, the FBI is not going to hold Hunter Biden to account. They're not going to investigate Uranium One.

So it means we have to have congressional committees, with subpoena power doing it.

That's only going to happen, if the Republicans have the majority in the House and Senate.

So a lot of these matters hang in the balance, as to who will be controlling Congress. After the November elections.

GLENN: I just hope there's enough in there, that are not corrupt. That, you know -- they're not -- they're not being blackmailed, to not get involved, or just are like, I'm sitting on the sidelines. Because I don't want my name being brought up at all.

You know, I fear that could happen easily.

PETER: Yeah. And, Glenn, here's the thing. A lot of people are talking about this right now. If we retake the House. We're going to investigate X, Y, and Z. If they fail to do that, that to me, will be the dagger in the heart, basically. Of the Republican Party. And of conservatives.

Because people are fed up with the lip service being paid to -- we're going to hold them into account.

So that's really, I think where the stakes are. And you're quite right.

Just because somebody says, they're going to do it in Washington, you're going to pay a price.

If you start dredging up. And start talking about Chinese deals, involving the first family of the United States.

A lot of other stuff is going to come to the fore. And there's a lot of people on powerful positions on the Republican side, who don't want that to happen, either.

So that's why we have to hold their feet to the fire. I know you've done that. That's what I'm hoping to do. And let's hope the people listening, are prepared to do that.

And let the elected officials know. This matters to them. And this is of profound importance.

GLENN: I've told many officials in Washington, DC, that are Republicans.

I said, you guys have one more shot. This is it. This is it.

If you win the House, and especially if you win the House and the Senate and you aren't standing up and protecting the American people and the Constitution and putting bad guys on trial, and then, cleaning up the FBI and Justice Department, so they can actually put them in jail, if you're not doing that, you are absolutely done. Just like you said. The last chance.

I'm glad to hear you believe that too.
(music)

PETER: Absolutely. Thanks, Glenn. It's always good to be with you.

GLENN: Peter Schweizer. The author of red-handed. And the co-host of the podcast, The Drilldown. Peter Schweizer, president of the Government Accountability Institute.

Wouldn't it be nice, if we had government accountability?

We can bring it back. Vote! Get out and vote.

3 Signs that Anti-Jewish ATROCITIES are Becoming Mainstream

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

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

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

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

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

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

GLENN: Right. It's a first year.

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

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

GLENN: Yeah. Okay.

So you have the Tiki torches. We freak out.

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

They don't have Tiki torches.

STU: Oh!

That's -- that is an interesting difference.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GLENN: It could have been the convert.

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

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

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

Not at all.

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

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

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

You know what is not under investigation by our FBI?

These people.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

STU: That wouldn't be suspicious?

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

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

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

Absolutely nothing. Apart from the paint and the destruction.

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

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

STU: Oh, that's nice.

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

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

You think, I don't know.

Maybe the New York Times. The Washington Post.

GLENN: No. No.

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

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

Hello. Hello.

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

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

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

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

He does this every Saturday. He walks.

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

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

I'll escort you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So they're going to escort him out.

He doesn't want any of that to happen.

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

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

STU: Huh?

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

Calling for the death of Jews.

They did nothing.

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

You're tolerating the real problem!

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

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

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

You know, my job was really important.

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

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

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

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GLENN: Yeah. Right.

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

DOJ doesn't like Donald Trump.

STU: What?

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

There's nothing.

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

There's nothing here.

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

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

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

STU: Jayapal.

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

STU: Oh, good.

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

STU: Oh.

GLENN: Wait. What?

STU: Wait a minute. What?

I don't understand.

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

GLENN: Yes, she is.

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

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

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

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

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

GLENN: Thirty-four counts.

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

Thirty-four false records accusations here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It was paying him back for these payments.

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

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

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

GLENN: Wait a minute.

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

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

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

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

He's convicted just there.

12 counts.

STU: Now, technically it was 11.

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

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

GLENN: Okay. 11.

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

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

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

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

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

This is one payment.

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

GLENN: But that's not 32.

STU: It is not -- 34.

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

Don't inflate cases like this.

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

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

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

Come on!

There is no way you can justify this.

Especially after the statute of limitations has already expired.

GLENN: That's unbelievable. Unbelievable.

32 counts.

STU: Thirty-four.

GLENN: No. Thirty-two counts.

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

STU: So the April -- July payment.

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

STU: That particular one.

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

I mean --

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

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

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

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

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

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

GLENN: That's what he did.

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

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

GLENN: Stu. Stu.

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

STU: Look.

GLENN: I can --

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

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

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

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

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

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

My guess is either than those two by a lot.

He will say anything.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

STU: Yeah.

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

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

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

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

So they concoct all of this.

STU: Yes.

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

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

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

So now, how do they make it real?

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

GLENN: So what was the other --

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

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

GLENN: Let me bring this to simple terms.

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

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

You know, all those years ago.

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

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

I will not bring up the murder.

STU: No. Right. No.

GLENN: But that's how --

STU: It's connected to the murder.

GLENN: I can get you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill Maher Believes WHAT About Abortion?!

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

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

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

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

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

And we have to have honest conversations.

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

STU: The abortion one?

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

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

STU: Yeah. Really weird.

VOICE: Back to the 19th century.

VOICE: Well.

STU: Clap. Clap.

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

GLENN: Nobody laughs. Nobody laughs.

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

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

VOICE: Yeah, exactly.

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

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

VOICE: No, no, no.

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

VOICE: Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

STU: That's totally true.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

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

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

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

And then really go have a beer.

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

STU: Disbar the world.

GLENN: It would. And we would need --

STU: You think the Star Wars cantina was weird?

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

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

Bring the Jack over -- leave the bottle here.

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

STU: They're fake, yeah.

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

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

STU: At least he's being honest.

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

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

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

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

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

It's just strange.

Is it strange?

The ending of life of children?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

STU: Exactly. It's not honest.

GLENN: But it is the way to win.

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

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

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

Which is a concern. Right?

It's a legitimate concern.

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

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

Maybe it is.

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

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

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

None!

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

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

STU: But it should be proposed every single Congress.

GLENN: Yes.

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

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

STU: Yeah.

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

STU: Yeah.

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

And it wasn't popular.

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

Because there is no progress.

Nobody is making progress on this.

They're all just talking a good game.

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

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

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

STU: It's true.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How does this end, in children not dying?

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

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

Republicans are progressives, as well.

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

RFK Jr.: America’s Economic Collapse Will Bring a REVOLUTION | The Glenn Beck Podcast | Ep 217

“There’s going to be a revolution" if the economic destruction of America continues, warns Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The “billionaire boys club” at the World Economic Forum is “arranging the world to shift wealth upwards and to clamp down totalitarian controls on everybody else.” This episode of "The Glenn Beck Podcast" is part of an ongoing series to introduce you to the 2024 presidential candidates. In a discussion ranging from Big Pharma and the Patriot Act to Iran and the Second Amendment, RFK Jr. explains what he would do if he defeated both President Biden and Donald Trump to become America's next president. After agreeing on the current conflict in Israel, Ukraine, COVID-19, the administrative state, and the First Amendment, Glenn presses RFK Jr. on guns, ESG, and some of his past statements on climate change ... including one that directly targeted Glenn. In the end, although they may not agree on everything, they do agree: Democrats, Republicans, and big corporations are ALL a “stage show” largely operating under control of mega investment firms like BlackRock. It's the elites vs. the rest of us.