Donald Trump's lawyer explains charges: ‘There IS NO CRIME!’
RADIO

Donald Trump's lawyer explains charges: ‘There IS NO CRIME!’

What EXACTLY are the charges being brought against Donald Trump in New York? Well, they’re hard to explain because for the most part…THEY MAKE NO SENSE! In this clip, Glenn is joined by Joe Tacopina, an attorney for the former president who will represent him in this case. Tacopina answers all of Glenn’s questions, and he explains why there IS NO CRIME to discuss. Plus, he explains why he took the case to begin with and why it shows that ‘rule of law is in danger in this country.’

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: He's just to save time, one of the most respected high stakes trial attorneys in America.

Joe Tacopina, and he joins us now. Joe, thank you so much for coming on.

JOE: Thanks, Glenn. I'll also tell you right off the bat, I don't think I can be able to help you. I heard you say, maybe I can help you figure out -- I can't help you at all. I really -- I can't figure it out for the life of me.

GLENN: Okay. So is this a -- when he was charged with, what? Thirty-four, 35 felonies, it's the same charge -- I said to the audience this morning, it's like if I said about my producer, that in an attempt to cover up a crime, Stu committed a crime. And saying that 35 times, and never defining what the crime was.

JOE: Boy, that's a pretty great assessment of this charge against him, I will tell you that..

Never say what the crime is. There's a legal requirement to do that.

They charged him -- this is a misdemeanor.

Falsifying business records. Which, Glenn, he didn't get close to that happening.

There's no falsified business records. If you want to go down that road, it's a misdemeanor.

The statute of limitations is long gone on that.

It would then have to cobble that together with another crime, which would also be another misdemeanor, to make it a felony.

So, in other words, to aid and abet or conceal another crime. And of course, who knows what the other crime was. Maybe it's drunk driving or something. Who knows.

But it's most likely violation of federal election laws. Because this was a federal campaign. And if you know anything about federal election laws, and apparently, he doesn't. It's very clear, that this is not something that falls under a violation of the Federal Election Commissions laws.

It's just not. And that's why they never berate charges against them.

That's why -- this is a personal expenditure. A personal civil suit that was settled. Like when Bill Clinton paid Paula Jones, $800,000 for alleged sexual assault. Not like a consensual relationship.

That was the same thing. Never was he charged with a crime.

Hillary Clinton apparently, you know, spent $100,000+ on the Steele dossier, right?

For her campaign. She used campaign money for that. Then used campaign money for that.

And you know what they classified that as? This is going to be ironic as everything. Legal expenses. Which obviously, you want.

So what does the FEC do?

She doesn't get indicted like Donald Trump does. She paid a fine of $100,000. You know, her campaign. So it's really -- the double standards are so -- so incredibly obvious to anyone, with a brain. And the fact that we hear -- is only because this man is running for president again. This happens to be a leading Republican contender. And the fact that Donald J. Trump --

GLENN: Okay. So let me just tick off a couple of quick questions. And see if you can help me answer.

With campaign finance. Is it the FEC turned -- passed this down. Said there was nothing there.

So is it possible that they're checking the Constitution. And Bragg is like, wait a minute. We're the ones that actually run the elections.

The state owns it. So he's coming up with some state campaign violation.

JOE: Yeah. It's not a state campaign. But even if he did identify it -- say we were talking about it.

And here's the bottom line: Regardless of whatever the -- the -- you know, twisted legal theory is: There is no crime.

GLENN: Okay.

JOE: Donald Trump actually did everything right here.

Here's someone who tried to extort money from him, okay?

For a consensual relationship, she claims. Although, later she said, she never had an affair with him, and Donald Trump adequately denies it.

But then said, I -- I need that money, or I go to the press. Okay. Extortion 101.

Then -- then he pays that money with personal funds, to resolve it. And, by the way, he only did that after his lawyer, the convicted fraudster and liar Michael Cohen resolved this without President Trump's (inaudible). He took down a loan. A home equity loan to finance this -- this civil settlement. And then -- and then later, billed Donald Trump for it.

He is the one who signed the settlement agreement. Donald Trump didn't even sign this agreement with Stormy Daniels.

And then later today -- and that's just to appease and get closer to Donald Trump.

He wanted to be in the White House in the worst way.

GLENN: Okay. So let me go to the crime then, that they say, the other thing they're throwing around is that this is a tax crime.

JOE: Tax crime.

GLENN: You haven't heard that one yet?

JOE: I've heard it. But let me hear what they --

GLENN: From what I understand, they're saying that Donald Trump I think overpaid his taxes, because he paid attorney's fees to Cohen, and that included the whatever it was. 130,000. Or whatever that payoff was.

STU: Paid him -- in a retainer, instead of paying him a reimbursement for the --

GLENN: Right. So he actually paid payroll taxes. Or paid the -- you know, paid the taxes that you would pay, you know, if you're paying an employee.

JOE: So, Glenn, I know how smart you are. And I'm a big fan of yours. Do you understand how much you stuttered during that --

GLENN: No. No. There's no way to make sense of it. I'm just trying to understand what they're saying.

JOE: Right. Exactly.

I know. I know. It's so hard to even articulate it. It's like, what?

Here's. Let me just say this. He never made a tax filing with those documents that they claimed were false because he never took a tax deduction. So, again, we live -- seriously, when you talk about selective prosecution. He -- he actually overpaid taxes for someone else. Therefore, it's a tax crime.

GLENN: No.

JOE: A lot of this people in the country are charged with crimes for overpaying their taxes. I mean, that's another legal theory.

That's very novel. I mean, it just gets better and better and better. It's really -- you know, it's a joke.

GLENN: Okay. So this would be a joke, if I thought we could get fair trials.

But I'm not sure you can get a fair trial in New York.

He has been -- Donald Trump is the worst -- he went from the king of New York, to the worst -- you know, worst than Hitler and Mengele combined, to New Yorkers. In New York City.

Plus, you have a judge, that should have recused himself. I mean, the actual information on the judge and his daughter, is staggering.

Can he be -- can you get a change of venue, or at least a new judge?

JOE: Look, here is the thing. We are going to be making ferocious motions in this case. They're going to cover every angle, to get this ridiculous case to be thrown out of court. It doesn't belong in court.

We are going to obviously consider whatever legal motions, including a recusal, change of venue, if they're appropriate.

GLENN: Is it appropriate, don't you think the recusal of the judge? I mean, that's a conflict of interest like crazy.

JOE: You would think. And these facts came out, you know, yesterday. Apparently, his daughter works for the vice president.

GLENN: Oh. And -- yeah.

JOE: Again, again, we have to be very methodical in our attacks here. We don't want to do anything with a knee-jerk reaction. We don't want to make emotional decisions. And we'll do all the research and everything we need to do. We have obviously several months to make these -- these motions.

And we're going to take our time and do them right. Because you have one bite at this apple.

And there is no scenario, where we're going to miss anything.

And any angle that we can take that -- that legitimizes our legal attacks on this case, have known to be successful. I don't just this case is ever going to see a jury, Glenn. I really don't.

They shouldn't see a jury -- but that would -- you know, but we would need to have intellectually honest judges to make sure that that happens. And hopeful, that we'll have one here.

GLENN: I talked to Andy McCarthy here, former prosecutor.

And he said, I always know it's a weak case. When you start to repeat the same charges.

And you just keep stacking him on.

He said, that's the first thing you're state in law school. Don't do that.

That's crazy. Have you ever seen the same charge, 34, 35 times?

Is this unprecedented or not?

JOE: No. It's not really unprecedented.

But I agree with Andy. It's a sign of weakness.

There have been several indictments, that they stack up charges. It's one act.

It's one scenario.


It's one factual scenario, that they're alleging as a crime, that's not a crime.

Understand, if Donald Trump, if this were truly a campaign expenditure, okay?

Donald Trump would have the right to pay with campaign funds. Because it would be a campaign expenditure, right?

It's not.

He wouldn't be able to pay with campaign funds.

But if you, Glenn, for a second understand, the amount of people that will be paying from Donald Trump's scalp, had he paid this personal settlement with campaign funds -- I mean, they would be losing their mind. They would be saying, that's a fraud. It's not a campaign. It's personal. So he was damned if he did, damned if he didn't.

GLENN: Yes. Correct.

They pushed the next -- I guess the next trial date is -- is January 24th, right smack in the middle of the Iowa Caucus. Is that unprecedented to wait that long?

GLENN: That was a coincidence. I'm sure. Sure of it. Sure of it.

Well, no. It's not.

It actually should be longer.

When they have a case of this complexity, and, you know, this -- it's a case of pressure in many ways.

You know, what I will say is this: We have a situation, where we have to do motion.

We're not packing courts of the federal court. This should not be a trial in January. We want the trial to be pushed off further. Because we have to make sure we're touching every base here. And fighting on every legal point, that we could bring forth to challenge the suspicious indictment.

So there's no Russia to get the trial here. Again, I'm hopeful, we don't even get to that point. I really am.

A trial doesn't really happen within a couple of months.

This is a case where we don't even go back to court, until the next status conference. And this isn't a motion until December.

GLENN: I have to ask you this question: Because I've had a very good legal firm for quite some time. And they were the best on freedom of speech issues.


And they've dropped me. Because, you know, they have Google and everybody else.

And while they didn't say that, they just said, you know, we've got some other clients. And we just have to really -- I've been with them for 15 years. I know exactly what was going on.

You -- in reading, you know, your history, you're an amazing attorney. But this is -- let me ask this question: Humanitarian of the year, Reverend Al Sharpton's national action network. Man of the year award from New York State commission for social justice.

You are positioned in a place, where a New York attorney probably should be. You're taking on the enemy, Donald Trump, as your client. Are you not concerned?

I mean, thank you for being John Adams.

But are you not concerned about flushing your career down the toilet, in New York?

JOE: No. No, no, no.

Now, listen, I follow my own Constitution.

My knees don't buckle, Glenn. I do what I think is right.

When I took this case, it's because I realized how outrageous it was. And the rule of law is a danger in this country.

And for me, if I didn't have the courage to take this case, then I'm good for nothing.

If you can't be willing to fight something like this. And for that exact reason, I'm not one of those billing corporate law firms, where I know a lot of firms were in Texas. Because they were worried about the pull with other clients.

What I did was, look, I represented a lot of people who are politically opposite to Donald Trump. Right?

That being said, I spoke to some of them. I let them know. This is -- you know, it's something I believe in. And, look, I'm a litigator. And that's what I do. I litigate. I'm not a campaign lawyer. I'm not out there doing things that would be against what I would do as a civil litigator. I do the same thing.

I litigate. I don't get involved in collateral issues. I fight the case. And make sure that justice prevails.

GLENN: Sure. I mean, we used to agree on the Bill of Rights. And I don't just we do anymore.

JOE: No, no, no. And it's amazing that the justice system is being weaponized the way it is. We have crossed a Rubicon, that is going to be forever, forever damaging to this country.

And that's what scares the hell out of me.

Now -- Donald Trump, today or tomorrow, if some Democrat in Texas who -- Republican prosecutor says, you know what, I used to live in New York. I'm going to use the power of my office, to prosecutorial discretion -- which is powerful.

I'll leave it to him.

GLENN: Joe, there's no -- I mean, there have been crimes committed, by Hunter Biden in three different states, that are -- that are red states.

Why wouldn't the district attorney take those on?

JOE: Exactly. And that's -- and that's the point.

It's a political play here. And that's what really, really troubles me.

It's -- it's -- you know, I watched him try yesterday, that this was just something he would do against, any -- any person.

GLENN: Yes.

JOE: You charge people with falsifying business records. Which is a misdemeanor.

You know, 70 years later, which the statute of limitations would be gone on.

And tying it to a federal election campaign violation when you're a state prosecutor.

Federal authorities that said, there's no violation for him.

Yeah, well, timing has to do that absolutely.

I mean, I hear this disingenuous things. Is that false business charges all the time? Yeah, false business racketeering charges based on what?

I mean, it's so disingenuous, it's not even funny.

GLENN: Joe, I hope you're right, that this will never see a courtroom or a jury. We wish you the best. Pass on our best to Donald Trump.

Thank you, Joe Tacopina. He's the attorney for Donald Trump. And a good, a really good attorney.

I feel good having this guy represent Donald Trump.

"It Is By Design": What the Elites' "Class War" Did to YOUR Wealth
TV

"It Is By Design": What the Elites' "Class War" Did to YOUR Wealth

The household wealth of average Americans is disappearing while the government and top 1% elites are sucking it up like a giant vacuum. It’s the theft of a nation - an all-out class war - and the middle class is now on life support. Meanwhile, much of America is focused on culture wars that are meant to divide us and keep us distracted. So, Glenn exposes the even bigger threat that Americans are facing "by design": "You will own nothing, and you will like it." Plus, Glenn explains how it's all connected to China's increased purchasing of farmland and businesses in America and the Biden administration's attempt to sell parts of our National Parks.

See the FULL GlennTV episode here

Who Doomed the Petrodollar: America or Saudi Arabia?
RADIO

Who Doomed the Petrodollar: America or Saudi Arabia?

There has been a lot of confusion lately about Saudi Arabia allegedly ending a 50-year-deal with the United States. The "deal" tied oil sales to the US dollar. But many have claimed that the deal never actually existed. So, what's really going on here and should Americans be worried? Financial expert Carol Roth joins Glenn to break it all down, including why she believes the United States and our Federal Reserve are really to blame for the petrodollar's destruction. Plus, Carol explains why the Biden administration can insist the economy has never been better, although our wallets can tell the opposite is true.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Before we get to Carol, I want to give you some highlights from this Blaze media. And TheBlaze.com story.

Biden's phony numbers mask true economic pain. The official government numbers in the US economy have been contradictory and confusing for quite a while now.

What is clear upon closer examination, is that the federal government's overspending and overregulation are doing serious damage to the economy.

And we have yet to see the worst results of those policies.

The unemployment increase, seems to contradict recent signs that the economy has been weakening. In addition to the conflicting rise in unemployment. Other signs of deterioration. Include stagnant retail sales.

A slowing of consumer spending. Weak industrial product. Manufacturing orders. Increasing consumer debt.

Depressed by new housing starts. Falling annual earnings of full-time employees. And rising commodity prices. The Federal Reserve chairman, Jerome Powell, knitted, he believes the White House has been cooking the books.

This is the fed chair. Stating last week, you have payroll jobs, still coming in strong.

Even though, there's an argument, they may be a bit overstated. The only job growth, in the US, is for illegal aliens. Listen to that.

The only job growth in the US, are for those illegal aliens, who will work for below minimum wage. Which also explains why inflation hasn't spiked in the past year, as millions of illegal aliens were hired.

Legally resident American workers saw no job increase in the past year. And unlawful residents, willing to accept wages Americans can't are dragging everything down in the wage category.

With employment continues for American workers stagnant at best, the job market is another indicator that the economic growth is slowing, and the Federal Reserve should lower interest rates to reduce its suppression of economic activity.

However, they decided not to. Because it will -- it will spike inflation again.

The markets have already priced three expected interest rate reductions for the year.

However, suggesting a correction is in order.

Even so, the stock market stayed steady after the fed's interest rate announcement with the Dow falling slightly.

And the S&P 500 and NASDAQ, rising to new record highs.

Economist Robert Genetski. Genetski, calculates that the S&P 500 is currently overvalued by 34 percent.

If investors decide the market is near peak and start selling, taking their profits before prices, fall. There is more trouble.

This overspending continues from the federal government, as well.

In the first eight months of the current fiscal year, the current government has already accumulated more than $1.2 trillion, in additional debt.

With a staggering deficit of $348 billion last month alone.

Investors were reportedly believed the US economy is about to enjoy a significant expansion, because of AI.

That's boosting the stock markets. The shares in tech companies. Chip makers. And even utilities.

The government's stimulus injection may be waning, and the Fed's interest rate hikes are starting to bite, as indicated by the slowing housing and manufacturing production.

Higher interest rates hinder business from investing in production and consumers from spending on goods.

That support those businesses. Additionally, the Biden administration has implemented a regulatory program, that will directly cost the economy 3.95 trillion dollars in 2025.

And indirectly result in a staggering 75.05 trillion, in opportunity costs, for 2025, alone.

That might take a bite, no matter what AI is going to do.

Carol Roth is here with us.

Carol. Are we beginning to see all of the signs of the wheels coming off of this thing?

CAROL: I think we've been seeing the signs of the wheels coming off of this thing for quite some time.

And they're sort of hanging on by a thread.

Now, certainly, a lot of the numbers that are put forth. Are meant to window dress, and say, oh, no.

The wheels are still turning. And they're doing just fine. And they will last for a while.

We have seen cracks, and when you peel back the onion. And you look at things like the deficit to GDP, which are about two times the historic average at a time when they're telling us, there's an expansion. We know there's something wrong.

Because normally, when you have an expanding economy, that means you're taking in more revenue at the government level. And that means you're running less of a deficit because you have more money input.

What's happening now is the Biden administration has flipped that on their head. And they're using deficits to window dress the appearance, that we have growth.

And we're seeing that start to crack. Because even that, you know, window dressed growth is starting to come down.

We saw the first quarter GDP come in, almost a percentage point lower than expectations.

A first reading. The second reading was even lower.

So now, as of the second reading. We're at 1.3 percent. For the first quarter. And we're expecting a third reading.

And things keep getting revised and revised.

So all of the, you know, appearances that they're putting forth. And to make it seem like everything is looking great.

We've seen those cracks. And they're just becoming larger and larger.

GLENN: So do you think that there's any way possible, that anything, excuse the pun here, Trumps the economy.

I mean, they always say in elections.

You know, it's the economy, stupid.

And no matter how you window dress this.

Everyone knows, I don't have as much money, or my money doesn't go as far as it used to. And I'm having a hard time keeping up.

At almost every level, this is happening.

VOICE: So this is an interesting question.

There was a Monmouth poll, that came out yesterday.

That showed, far and away.

That the economy was the biggest issue.

You know, number one issue on people's minds.

But there's a disconnect by party. And obviously, when you have the -- the Republican side, and I would think to some extent. The independents as well.

There's more of a connection with the -- with the fiscal reality that's going on. And it becomes, you know, we believe so afford literally four more years of that.

There's a disconnect from the Democrats who don't believe in mass and reality anyway.

And so even though, they may be hurting, personally. They're going to make excuses. And say that it's for, you know, any sort of litany of other reasons. And it doesn't have anything to do with these specific policies, that we know have driven these outcomes.

You know, there's weather it's things like the American rescue plan. And they direct stimulus. That's literally called stimulus.

That overstimulated the economy. And caused inflation.

They're going to tell you, oh, no. Look, inflation has come down. Even though, they're still going to the same grocery stores, the same gas stations. Having to pay the same rent. And they're believing and buying into the gaslighting.

So that's my concern.

Is when you have so many people who are decoupled from reality. And can fed the propaganda that's gaslighting. And they're willing to -- basically, you know, they're cults. That that is not going to show up in the polls. The way that it should. If we were operating, you know, with some sort of normal baseline.

GLENN: Carol, I'm going to take a quick break, early here.

Because I don't want to interrupt you on this petrodollar thing.

Because I have seen stories that say, this is true.

Stories that say it wasn't true. I don't think there ever was a -- there wasn't a concrete deal. It was more of a handshake with Saudi Arabia. With the petrodollar. Wasn't it?

Or did we have a written deal?

CAROL: That's right. So I was surprised when I saw this as well. You know, I wrote about this in You'll Own Nothing. We have a whole chapter on it.

And there was a deal put in place. But never once did I come across anything that said, we have a specific expiration. But we know deals that, you know, are made. Can be shifted and changed at any point in time.

And I think that's the point we want to talk about.

GLENN: Correct.

Okay. So we'll do that next.

Because the petrodollar. If the world goes off the petrodollar.

That is -- that is the beginning of the end of the dollar.

It's just a matter of time. And what are people replacing? It with?

And so far, central banks are not replacing it with any currency at all.

We'll talk about it here, in just a second.

Okay.

So, Carol, explain why the petrodollar is so important.

VOICE: All right. So there's this story that was going around last week. That the Saudis had ended this agreement, that had been put in place in the '70s.

So what happened was that when the US went off the gold standard, they were very concerned over what was going to happen. So they created this secret delegation, that went to Saudi Arabia.

As part of a diplomatic chore. And there was a lot of chaos going on at that time. Not only did we go off the gold standard.

There was an oil embargo put in place by the Arab oil exporters. That set the price of oil sky-high.

So the big objective, was basically, they -- the US didn't want crude oil.

You know, energy. Which is obviously really what fueled growth around the world, to become an economic weapon.

And they knew they knew, okay. Well, now we're off the gold standard.

We had the currency. Wouldn't it be great to have somebody to finance their deficits?

So what they did, is they went to the Saudis. And they said, well, look, you come. You take -- you're going to agree to basically price oil in dollars.

And that's -- around the world, oil is going to be priced in dollars. And you will have all this excess money.

We want you to plow that back into US treasuries. Everything that you get in. We want to you plow that back into treasuries?

Why did they want that? Because that obviously helped the US finance their deficits at a very cheap rate.

He said with be okay. We'll do that. What we want in return, basically some economic and military support. And so they made this -- this deal. That was brokered.

The interesting part is there was a secret piece of it, and that was that the Saudis did not want everyone to know, that they had this huge Treasury stockpile. So for more than four --

GLENN: Why?

Wait. Wait. Wait.

Why didn't they?

CAROL: Because they must want everyone to know that this was sort of the underpinnings of the deals of how closely they were in bed, with the US.

GLENN: Okay. With the US. Okay.

CAROL: And that this is what they did. So this was actually uncovered by a Bloomberg report.

So for 41 years, what the US Treasury did when they broke out what central banks held the US Treasury, and you can go see if China holds this. Japan holds this.

They lumped Saudi Arabia in with 14 other nations. So basically, you could see, oh. We cut this special deal, and now it looks like now, that there's all this wonderful demand for treasuries around the world.

And it was kind of unclear that there was this alliance going on.

So what does that do? It creates a massive demand for the Treasury, because not only are the Saudis in there as huge buyers, but when you have -- you know, sort of a de facto basis. The oil price in US dollars. Then every other central bank will also want to make sure that they have a stockpile of a dollar equivalent security. That if they need dollars, they can cash in.

Of course, as opposed to holding actual dollars. When you hold the Treasury you do get some income. Or you get an interest rate. So basically, this has created huge demand for Treasuries. It means that the interest was artificially suppressed by that demand. And that the US government was able to finance their deficits.

It also meant that trade around the world, was done, you know, US dollars. So not only are these central banks, holding them in the reserves. There's all this trade that's happening in US dollars.

So this actually worked out for quite some time.

The Fed holding basically the world's reserve currency. And managing it. They held the US dollar fairly stable. When you saw the price of gas go up. That they would loosen monetary policy.

And when it was too low. They would tighten it, that they would stay in some sort of a range. Sometimes that was at odds with what was going on domestically.

But as the holder of the world's reserve currency, that was their job.

GLENN: Hang on just a second. Stop for just a second.

I just want to make the point: This is right now, where we're about to see the change, and it's not happening now. It's already happened.

We -- when we got off the gold standard. We promised the world, we will never put ourselves, you know, absolutely first. And go off, and do crazy spending.

And, you know, just break everything for America.

And that's why, it was at odds, sometimes. The fed's policies.

Were at odds.

With the United States policy.

Or -- or -- wants and needs.

Because they had to balance it for the world.

And then what happened, Carol?

CAROL: Yes. So for the economic wonks out there, that's called the Triffin dilemma. You sometimes have to make these tradeoffs between what happens domestically and what happens internationally.

What happened, if we come back to today, is that the Fed has managed to hold the dollar, not stable.

Either for the world, or domestically. So it's not like they even made the tradeoff.

They just abandoned it altogether. But going back to 2005, they decided when the price of oil shot up due to China's increase in demand.

Hurricane Katrina, a whole bunch of things. That they just weren't going to play this game anymore, and that's when things started to crack.

Then we had the Great Recession financial crisis, and so on and so forth.

And the US government continuing to run these huge deficits.

And just, you know, creating a really challenging situation, economically.

So the big issue, if you are these countries around the world. That now have everything priced in dollars.

All your major commodities.

It's not just oil.

It's then extending into food.

Everybody is trading into dollars.

When you have these huge swings in the dollar, that means, that threatens as a nation.

Because now you may not be able to afford energy.

Or you may not be able to afford your food for your country.

That's a national security issue.

GLENN: Forty seconds.

CAROL: Countries are getting sick of that. We weaponize the US dollar. And at the end of the day, they're starting to move away from it. Which threatens our ability to have cheap financing and our standard of living.

GLENN: And so the Saudis did not break a deal.

We've broken the deal long ago.

And they're just all doing what would normally be done. It's no longer good for me.

It's got to be good for both of us.

And so they didn't stop the deal. They're just naturally moving away.

And it's -- the money is going to gold, not other currencies at this point. Correct?

CAROL: Correct. You got it. You nailed it.

These 15 Lines From “1984” Are No Longer Fiction
RADIO

These 15 Lines From “1984” Are No Longer Fiction

Glenn has been warning for a while now that George Orwell’s dystopian novel, “1984,” reads like a newspaper today. Well, he recently stumbled upon an article that lays it all out. Glenn reviews the article from The Federalist, “15 Times 2024 Was Orwell’s 1984,” that shows just how dystopian our society has gotten: "That is where we are, America. We are living in 1984."

You can read the full article HERE: https://thefederalist.com/2024/06/19/...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Let's say, hello, and welcome back to Stu Burguiere. hello, Stu.

STU: Hey, Glenn, how are you?

PAT: Good. Nice to have you. Nice to have you here.

Let's go true a couple of things here. I was reading a story about Donald Trump getting ready to go to the debate next week.

And he's preparing and people are speculating. Why would he ever accept?

Why would he -- so you think Donald Trump is not going to accept all of the baby conditions that Joe Biden has set for the -- for the debate?

Of course he will.

He's not going to be set. They won't say to him. Oh, well, we wanted to debate.

But he wouldn't. He'll do it. And he will do pretty well.

But Joe Biden is going to do better than he probably would, in any other format. And Donald Trump said, they'll probably pump him up.

Now, I don't know if -- I don't know if that is true. But it sure explains the performance of let's say, the State of the Union address. Where he was vigorous.

He was like, whoa!

Who is this guy?

I believe, and we won't know for decades, but I believe they are juicing him, on important nights.

This is not new, this shouldn't come as a conspiracy theory or a shock to anybody.

They did it with JFK, and they're -- they did it with FDR. In fact, FDR is probably the closest parallel to Joe Biden. FDR, the war was going well.

We're starting to turn the tides on -- on Germany. But we hadn't gone on to D-Day yet.

I'm sorry. FDR comes back from the meeting with Stalin.

And Churchill in Tehran. And as he comes back, he's got a really bad violent cough.

He starts to lose weight. He's constantly fatigued. His daughter Anna was so freaked out by all of it. That she pressed the doctors. Please, could you please have him see a cardiologist, at Bethesda. So he went in to Bethesda hospital, for examination.

And when he came out. Everything was great. No. The president is in perfect health. However, according to the medical notes, that were published, six decades later, that doctor diagnosed him with reduced lung capacity. Hypertension. Or high blood pressure.

Which we didn't have a way to treat back then. Acute bronchitis.

And most seriously, acute congestive heart failure. So now, they're not treating him, because we didn't have the medication.

The only treatment was regulating a patient's lifestyle. And, you know, herbal drugs. And then telling him, don't drink alcohol.

Tobacco. Don't do any of that. So that means in May of 1944. A month before D-Day. The daily schedule of the US. Unbeknownst to the American people, was only four hours a day.

He could only work and be involved four hours a day.

Now, he did that for a while. And he started to improve a little bit. But in July, of 1944, he had another doctor examine him. And said, he's not going to survive the term.

And he's got another full-term coming up.

And there's an election. And I don't think he will make it for the entire full-term in office.

Panel of experts were called in. They all examined.

And they all agreed. He's not going to make it.

Okay?

Did the American people know that?

No!

They didn't. It was too important to the country, to make sure that he looked strong and vigorous.

Well, what do you think is happening with Joe Biden?

Do you honestly think that things that have been done before, are not being done right now?

And what's disturbing about it, is these people work for us.

Now, I understand, maybe. Perhaps. In war. Although, no. I don't. No, I don't.

I need a president that is vigorous.
And if a president is not vigorous, especially at a time of war, I don't know if you're paying attention to what's going on in the world. But we are growing ever so close, to nuclear war.

There was a -- what was it. Oh, it was one of the former Soviet satellite states. And the president came out, and he's like, look, you can think, whatever you want about the United States. Or whatever you want about Russia.

But we're out of this. Because. Both cannot back away from this. And I think we're months away from a nuclear war. And somebody has to stand up and say, get to the peace table.

And it's -- it's very compelling. Very compelling to listen to him. So should we know about the President's health? Of course we should. But we won't.

Because we are living in the days of 1984. Listen to these 15 things, that Monroe Harlis (phonetic) pointed out in the Federalist. Fifteen ways that 1984 is 2024. Quote, from the book, the party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final and most essential command. Have you seen this? Have you seen the party demand you to reject your eyes and ears? All the time.

We're seeing it all the time. Two, endless wars. Quote, they add nothing to the wealth of the world, since whatever they produce is used for purposes of war. And the object of war is always to be in a better position in which to wage another war. End quote.

Have you seen the video of Joe Biden talking about American weapons being used for direct strikes inside of Russia?

And why -- why -- why do some people speculate, that the real purpose of this is to get rid of all our own old weapons so we can make new weapons, which will be better in the next war.

Doesn't this sound exactly like 1984. Number three, separating babies from mothers at birth. Quote, from the book, already we're breaking down the habits of the revolution which have survived from before the revolution.

Children will be taken from their mothers at birth, as one takes eggs from a hen. What exactly is the issue here?

Well, the issue is: The well-being of a child.

A living, breathing human, who was created for the sole purpose of being sold and ripped away from her mom.

This is -- this is something that is happening through surrogacy. And honestly, later in life, it is happening, because of political correctness.

Four, hatred of purity and goodness. I hate purity. I hate good is not.

I don't want virtue to exist anywhere. I want everyone to be corrupt to the bones. End quote.

Well, did -- did anybody see what -- what happened to Butker for being a Christian?

They tore him apart. Condemned him. Ray Rice. Nothing compared.

Five, the news lies. One knows the news is all lies anyway, from 1984.

Yeah. Well, what do we think? Do we all know that the news is nothing, but a lie? And now the news is saying, they are fighting advertise information?

Six, the destruction of the family. The sex impulse was dangerous to the party. And the party had to turn it to account. They had played a similar trick with the instinct of parenthood. The children on the other happened were systematically turned against their parents and taught to spy on them and report their deviations. The family had become, in fact, an extension of the thought police.

Do I need to give you an example? Seven, political correctness.

Don't you see the whole aim of newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?

In the end, we shall make thought crime literally impossible because there are no words in which to express it.

Producers. Birthing people. Chest feeding. Eight, persecution of political opponents.

Power is a means. It is an end. The object of persecution is persecution.

Reporter, President Trump refers to himself as a political prisoner and blames you directly.

What's your response, sir. He just smiles.

Nine, the innocent are suffering.

How does one man assert his power over another, Winston?

By making him suffer. Exactly barbecue by making him suffer.

Obedience is not enough. Unless he's suffering.

How can you be sure, he's obeying your will and not his own.

How about the 75-year-old Paulette Harlo, who is in poor health.

She also was somebody who -- I believe survived a -- a communist cooperation catch.

She's in prison for two years, for praying outside of an abortion clinic.

Truth is redefined. Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two equal four.

11, hypocrisy from government agencies. The ministry of peace concerns itself with war. The ministry of truth with lies. The ministry of love with torture. And the ministry of plenty with starvation. These contradictions are not accidental. Nor do they result from ordinary hypocrisy.

They are deliberate exercises in double think. Remember, the FBI is a terrorist organization.

It's the American Stasi. It exists entirely to terrorize the American people on behalf of a corrupt and evil regime.

No, no, no.

The FBI is the center of truth.

Contradicting beliefs. Double think means to the -- has the means -- the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one mind simultaneously, accepting both of them.

Just so we're clear here. Democrats who are campaigning against Trump. Based on dubious charges of sexual assault. They engineered.

Are still inviting people like Bill Clinton to headline big ticket events, along with his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Even though that's been well-established, they're still okay with that.

Thirteen, dates altered. Every record has been destroyed or falsified. Every book, rewritten. Every picture has been repainted. Every statue, street building has been renamed.

Every date has been altered.

Well, in an attempt to replace Easter, the most important Christian holiday of the year with Transgender Day. I think, you know, that kind of does it. This is the beginning, and worse is coming.

Fourteen, no trust. We have cut the links between child and parent, between man and man. No man and woman. No one dares trust a wife or a child or a friend any longer. But in the future, there will be no wives. There will be no friends. And statistics are lies.

The fabulous statistics continue to pour out of the telescreen.

As compared with last year, there was more food. More clothes.

More houses. More furniture. More cooking pots.

More fuel. More helicopters. More books. More babies. More of everything. Except for poverty, disease, crime, and insanity.

That is where we are America. We are living in 1984.

Is THIS Why Democrats Want to Draft Our Daughters?
RADIO

Is THIS Why Democrats Want to Draft Our Daughters?

The Democrat-controlled Senate is debating a version of the National Defense Authorization Act that includes a plan to register women for selective service…which would make them eligible for the draft. But Senators like Utah’s Mike Lee are standing up against it. Sen. Lee joins Glenn to explain what’s going on here. Why would the Democrats do this? Are they REALLY that woke? And does it have any chance at passing? Sen. Lee also responds to Republican Sen. Marsha Blackburn’s statements that seem to support registering our daughters for selective service …

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Chris Bedford has a great article out on the Blaze.com today. The Democrat's strange obsession with drafting your daughters.

I don't even understand. I mean, I understood this long ago. It was a way for Democrats, who didn't like war, to kind of, you know, ramp up the odds that we wouldn't go to war, if, you know, we had a draft.

And then we drafted your daughters. Nobody would want to go to war. I get that. Except, the Democrats are now the pro-war party.

So what the hell is happening?

And this just seems to have come out of nowhere. The most outspoken voices on this, are Chip Roy. And Mike Lee. And Mike is -- Mike is with us now. Can you please tell us what is happening with the draft stuff, Mike? Why is this happening?

MIKE: Yeah, look, the draft our daughters agenda has no place in our national defense. I think what they're trying to do. They're trying to engage in this, this sort of radical egalitarian exercise, where for aesthetics purposes, we're deciding to just show how woke we are. How open-minded we are.

GLENN: Do you really think that's -- do you really think that's motivating them at all?

MIKE: Well, yes. Because I can't fathom any other reasons why they would want to do it.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

MIKE: Look, you don't send women to fight. As long as able-bodied men exist and are available to fight, it's a fundamental notion. You don't even have to get to a moral question on this. It's a survival question. To draft our daughter's push, has been something that keeps getting recirculated every two years.

It's failed before every single time. Congress has rightly rejected previous attempts to draft women.

And they're quietly trying to slip it into the NDAA. The National Defense Authorization Act.

It's a bill that Congress passes once a year, to establish priorities for military. But people have already said no to it. It's an underhanded tactic, to include it in the base bill of the defense authorization act.

We should be putting policies like this, revolutionary policy into it.

It's very similar -- what they have been doing -- putting this together, and then ramming it through the Senate floor. Telling us we have no opportunity to amend it once it gets to the floor.

Someone will start sounding the alarm bells now, before it gets to the Senate floor or the House floor saying, absolutely not. The American people are going to take this.

GLENN: Okay. So you said it was a matter of survival. Explain that.

MIKE: Well, okay. So the purpose of having a military and therefore the purpose of having a draft, to staff the military, is to break things and kill people, just to put it very bluntly.

And so you don't -- you don't put women out there, as long as able-bodied men exist, and are able to fight.

For all sorts of reasons, including the fact that you -- you've got -- that men have this biological advantages in war, that need to be utilized. And it just sends all the wrong messages.
To our own people, and to whatever country or entity that we're fighting.

That our -- our able-bodied men are not all going to go out there.

We will send women instead.

Sends all the wrong messages. And that's not going to work well.

And so, every time people hear this, they need to reiterate their desire. If they feel the same way, they should repeat the phrase, don't draft our daughters. Just don't do it. That goes over pretty well. Once people hear a phrase like that, they tend to back away from it. And we shouldn't let them think that this is just a noncontroversial basic housekeeping. Just, you know, upbidding our legislative book to reflect modern realities. No. This is a fundamental shift, and one that we're not going to fall for.

GLENN: I mean, one I usually don't disagree with, Marsha Blackburn.

She said, this is about opportunity. It's not about combat. It's about their opportunity to serve.

Well, you know, I just found a picture of my grandparents. My grandfather is in a -- a military Marines uniform.

And my grandmother is in a Salvation Army uniform. And, you know, they -- women served all through wars in different capacities.

You can serve, it's just your body is not made for the -- the -- for a war. You can't drag your 200-pound companion off the battlefield if you're a 125-pound woman. You might be able to, but it's not going to be easy.

MIKE: No. Exactly right. And like you, I'm -- normally, I agree with Marsha Blackburn. I had not heard her say that. Let me just respond to this point.

As it's similar to the points that others have made on this front. This is not about opportunity. Opportunities already exist.

Opportunities already abound for people of both sexes to support the military. To be part of the military. To serve in combat or noncombat position, as they may choose.

This is not about that. This is about whether we will use the coercive force of the state. Have the coercive force of the United States government, in order to -- a point of a gun, order someone to take steps that could result in their being drafted. In their being brought up at the point of a gun. To a battlefield somewhere.

We shouldn't do that. We're not going to do that. This is not about opportunity. This is about right/wrong. This is about survival.

GLENN: Right. I am not for a draft in any case.

I think, you know, there's some people who disagree with me, who are in the military.

But I think there's a draft brings people in, that have no desire to be there. No desire to really fight.

I mean, unless we're in World War III, which we could be. Check the clock.

Unless we're in World War III. And the country needs, you know -- I think you always keep to a system, where it's a volunteer army for as long as you possibly can.

Because you get the people who are mentally and physically capable and ready to do it.

MIKE: You're exactly right, Glenn. But this is where you get tricky. Because you're right. And I think most people would agree with you, including most -- many of the people pushing this effort to require women to register with the selective service. What they would say here is, oh, this isn't about the draft. This is just about requiring them to register with the selective service.

Whether or not we actually have a draft. Well, Congress would have to authors that, before we could draft nip.

See, that's where you -- it's -- it's if you get hooked on that one.

You can say, oh, well, I'm not voting to draft women.

I'm just voting to require to register with the selective service. And then next time, if we are facing World War III or some other conflict.

For whatever reason, in order to survive. We've got conscript people involuntarily into the military. It will be automatic, because women will already be registered with the selective service. So that's the decision that we have to look to right now. We have to treat this as, do we want to draft women?

And I believe that among Eric and other people. The answer is a resounding no. And it should be.

GLENN: Let me ask you this.

My sister was freaking out a couple weeks ago.

Because they made it automatic now. We used to have register every mail registered.

When you turned 18. You register for selective service.

And it always freaks you out as a teenager. Wait a minute. I have to, what?

But, you know, we haven't seen a draft since the '60s or '70s. And it's just not -- it's just not in the cards.

But why are all these things changing right now?

What is going on, Mike?

Some people will look at this and go, they'll get us ready for war.

Are they? Or is this just -- what is this?

MIKE: Okay. So I think the best way to understand this. From years ago, at an event post by the Enterprise Institute, I heard someone give a speech about they talked about, ways in which we should be wary of a government, as it becomes more efficient, through technology and otherwise.

Government efficiency can be, sounds like, often is a good thing. He pointed out, that in some areas where civil liberties are confirmed, hyper efficient government poses a greater threat to our liberty. Perhaps this is one of them.

Where, new steps, you go out to take an affirmative step that takes people focused on it, where it happens automatically. They don't even think it through all that much. And perhaps they don't want people thinking about it. They just want to register them on their own. Sort of like a government is efficient in a lot of ways that otherwise would undermine our liberty, with the way that it spies on people. For example, under Section 702 applies that that's an example of another efficiency that undermines our liberty.

We ought to watch out for all of those.

GLENN: Hmm. Mike, thank you so much.

Any just on the Senate race today? In Utah. I know you didn't endorse anybody.

MIKE: Well, yes, I did not endorse that race. I did endorse in the Second Congressional District and the Third Congressional District.

The second I endorsed Colby Jenkins. Who is a fantastic human being. A Green Beret. And I encourage everybody to go and vote for him. Also on the third congressional district in Utah. Dr. Mike Kennedy. Both a doctor and a lawyer, proud public servant, state senator. And somebody who loves the country very much.

So looking forward to the results tonight.

GLENN: All right. Thanks, Mike.

Appreciate it. God bless. All right.