RADIOMay 30, 2024

How Trump’s Jury Was Transformed Into a DANGEROUS Commission

The jury in former president Donald Trump’s New York hush money trial is deliberating on whether to convict him. But there are some major issues: For one, the judge didn’t give the jury a printed copy of the jury instructions — something Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey says he has “never” seen before. Plus, the jury doesn’t even have to agree on WHAT crime Trump committed. Attorney General Bailey joins Glenn to explain why this is dangerous: This isn’t the American justice system. The judge has created a “roving commission” more akin to the system the British used to jail dissenters in the colonial era.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: The judge in President Trump's hush money trial, told the jury, that they don't even have to agree on the crime. They could all think, you know, I think his hair is a crime.

You know, four of them. I think his suntan is a crime. And four of them can say, I think, you know, he falsified checks. Whatever.

Whatever they think the crime is! Because it wasn't really defined.

Even if they don't agree on the crime, if 12 of them thinks he committed some crime, well, then he's guilty. I've never heard that before.

I've served on a jury. I've served on a jury with multiple counts.

We had to discuss each count!

And we found this person guilty on some counts. And not on others.

It would have been the easiest thing ever. We could have been done in ten minutes! If all we had to do was just, hey. These seven counts on this guy. Does everybody agree, he did one of them?

Yeah. Okay. We're out of here.

Is this normal? Andrew Bailey is here. He's the Missouri attorney general. Kind of knows the law.

Attorney General Bailey, welcome to the program.
ANDREW: Thanks for having me on.

GLENN: So, again, I don't know the law. But this does not seem like the American way of I couldn't wait if had our courts. Am I wrong?

ANDREW: No. You are absolutely right. This reeks of desperation by the prosecutor and the judge to obtain a conviction. If people were not previously convince that had this was an elicit witch hunt prosecution. They should be so now.

This is insane. Look, since 2020, the United States Supreme Court has said that jury unanimity under criminal law is required under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution. It was not always that way. There were two states prior to 2020, that did not require jury unanimity under the Sixth Amendment criminal trials. Louisiana and Oregon for lesser offenses.

And the Supreme Court fixed that in 2020. And so for this prosecutor and this judge to say, hey, whatever you think. Go ahead and do whatever you want. It violates the Sixth Amendment. It violates the president's due process rights. Because how many folks know how to offer a defense, if he doesn't even know what the -- the target crime is.

That he's -- that is an element of the office for which he's charged. It also empowers the jury to be a roving commission.

And, again, that reeks of desperation. They don't care. They will throw everything against the wall.

This is not giving the jury instructions, and convict them of something, whatever you want.

GLENN: Well, there is -- 32 charges. Thirty-two counts. Thirty-four counts. So if two of them believe, you know, he's guilty on 29, and two of them believe something else.

But they don't agree on the same counts. How is that justice?

ANDREW: No. I think that's absolutely right. And, again, it creates a roving commission. And that violates the basic constitutional tenants that underpin the due process clause of the Sixth Amendment rights to a jury trial. That's been incorporated against the state, and certainly at least since 2020.

And again, I think it's desperate. It's throw everything against the wall. It also reminds me of, there was a Roman emperor who used to nail the walls to the highest points on the columns. So the Roman citizens wouldn't be able to read them. That's a lot what this is like. The judge is saying to the jury, I will charge you to find a crime. Any crime you want. And I'm not going to let you read the jury instructions.

Trust me. You guys go back and convict him on something they want to convict them on.

GLENN: Okay. So tell me what the jury instructions mean. And why would he not print. Because I understand also, that it is clearly printed all the time. So --

ANDREW: That's right. I would never try a case, where you didn't give the jury, the jury instructions. Why would you not want to. Again, that's the law. Judges determine law. Juries determine facts. And it's up to the jury, to apply the facts to the law.

And so in closing arguments, the prosecutor gets up and says, here's the elements of the offense. Here's the evidence that proves each of these elements. And it's like a checklist. Then you tick down it. Then you show them the verdict form.

And say, this is how you find them guilty.

And if you're the defense, you stand up and say, the state didn't prove this! They didn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt of that. And it etches in the jury's mind, what to look for, in that instruction packet, when they go back in delivery. But how is the jury supposed to look back to the law, if they can't see the law in front?

GLENN: Also, may I ask, when -- when the -- oh, shoot.

He did something. Oh, in the closing arguments, for the prosecution. Didn't they introduce new evidence or evidence that wasn't presented, and he let it ride?

ANDREW: Completely objectionable. It should have been stricken from the record. And the jury should have been admonished to ignore that. It's called facts not in evidence.

It's one of the first objections you learn in any evidence class in law school, and to have the prosecutor for the state of New York. Matthew Colangelo, Alvin Bragg. Having that team stand up and testify, as if they're witnesses. The fact that it has not been introduced. It's completely impermissible. It demonstrates an abuse of the judge's discretion. It should have been stricken from the record.

But, again, I will go back to this idea of a roving commission. The -- think about our experience under colonial England.

Where general warrants were issued by magistrates, and the British soldiers could search your home and quarter in your home for no basis whatsoever, just on any -- any level of suspicion.

And you didn't even have to be charged with an actual offense. That you would then be able to defend against.

They, allegations were sufficient to jail you. And so the Founders erected these Constitutional barriers, that kind of government intrusion into our individual liberties.

And again, the Sixth Amendment requires your anonymity which has been violated here. It also prevents the due process clause. It prevents a roving commission, where the law is so abstract. That the jury can roam freely through the evidence. And choose any fact it wants to create liability.
That is not -- again, that is not what this country is founded upon, that violates the Constitutional rights. And it's to demonstrate. This was never about a legally valid conviction. There's never about an actual crime.

There was never a crime. It's always about taking President Trump off the campaign trail, and that has been violating all of our rights.

GLENN: Okay. So -- so, Andrew, I'm -- I'm thinking about why this guy would do this. Because I would imagine with be this is a slam dunk, overturn.

Wouldn't it be?

ANDREW: Yeah. Absolutely. Absolutely.

It should have been dismissed at the state's evidence for failure to actually prosecute a criminal defense. Failure to offer, prove beyond a reasonable doubt on some of the elements. It then should have been dismissed once again, disclosed of all the evidence. This shouldn't have even gone to the jury.

And the fact that they have now rigged the jury process, to avoid the anonymity requirement, and to create this roving commission.

It's just once again, just one more piece of evidence to prove, the witch hunt nature of this prosecution.

GLENN: So do you believe this was done possibly. Excuse me.

Do you believe this was done possibly, because they just want the none name after. And then just dispute. Well, it was some conservative court that overturned it.

You know, we know the truth. And that's the only reason I can think of -- why you would do this. Why would a judge want to be overturned, especially when it is so clearly going to be overturned.

ANDREW: Glenn, I think you're absolutely right.

I think two other points to make here. The process and the timing.

This is a crucial period. Where President Trump needs to be courting the electorate and republic. Instead, he's tied down in a Manhattan courtroom.

But secondly, think about how long an appeal takes. That doesn't happen overnight. To the extent he's convicted, to the extent they obtain an illegal illicit conviction this week or next, sentencing will be pushed out 45 to 60 days at most. And then an appeal will take a year or more.

And so this takes us in. Even if President Trump is elected president, this will haunt him and this will undermine the first few years of his administration.

GLENN: This is just nuts.

ANDREW: They poisoned the well we will be drinking from for years now.

GLENN: I mean, you want to talk about the end of the republic. It's this kind of stuff that ends the republic. You don't. And because it's not just about him.

This goes back to what Stalin created. What the king. King George created.

Find me the man, I'll find you the crime.

You know, it -- it -- there is no justice, if things like this happen. One last question: I served on a jury once. And it was a serious case. But not a -- not a murder or anything else.

But it was -- it was, you know, abuse of a wife.

And we had, I don't know how many charges. And we kept calling the judge in. Because we thought the judge was, you know, our friend. And fair.

And we would ask him. And he would say, I can't tell you that. I can't tell you that.

Here are the instructions. You would have to go. And we would call him back in.

I can't tell you that. Here are the instructions. And we couldn't agree on all of the counts. And so we ended up, I think on maybe two counts out of eight. Or something like that.

Because we were split.

If we would have been able to say. Oh, you four want this. And you four think that case.

And that four think this. We would have been out of there by now.

Does it say anything, that they have such a wide berth to agree on anything?

And it -- it takes them a while to get through this. I mean, I would have been done. We would honestly, if we had those instructions, we would have been done the first day.

ANDREW: Yeah. That's right. I mean, that's why jury anonymity is so important to our constitutional structure, to our individual rights.

You know, and also the due process clause. To prevent that kind of roving commission. The prosecution here is best summed up as, there is no crime. So let's see how much garbage we can throw on a wall. See if any of it sticks. And try to convince someone that it's criminal behavior. And the judge is going to collude with us. Not allow the jury to see the law. And then agree that, yeah, you are a roving commission. Anything that you want to find that is criminal, it's a grab bag. You pick it. You choose it. You don't have to agree. Let's get out of here with the conviction as fast as we can.

It undermines the credibility of our criminal justice system. I also think it's dripping with irony, that this is happening in a state like New York, where they're not prosecuting actual criminals. This is a state the prides itself on criminal justice reform and bail for everyone. Cashless bail for everyone. And one standard of justice, as Alvin Bragg launched on his website.

How can he even look himself in the mirror and keep a straight face with that kind of nonsense going on.

GLENN: I know I promised one last question. But, again, one last question.

The jury just sent the judge a note. They want to reread the instructions, beginning with how they should consider facts and what inferences can be drawn. What have what do you take from that?

ANDREW: I think it's problematic. It means that they know they don't have direct evidence to prove some of the elements of the event. But remember, there are two attorneys on that jury. And those attorneys are telling them, look, we don't need direct evidence.

Circumstantial evidence which includes reasonable inferences is sufficient to obtain a conviction stop it means they're stretching.

And I think it's a reasonable inference for us and outsiders to draw.

If those attorneys are inviting them to stretch and use circumstantial evidence to try to find any crime.

GLENN: Jeez. Thank you so much.

Andrew, I appreciate it. Andrew Bailey. The Missouri attorney general. I -- I really appreciate it.

Thank you.

ANDREW: Appreciate you having me on. Thank you.

GLENN: You bet.

Why RFK Jr.’s Former Running Mate OPPOSES Casey Means for Surgeon General

President Trump’s nomination of Dr. Casey Means for Surgeon General had many MAHA fans cheering. But RFK Jr.’s former running mate, BlazeTV host Nicole Shanahan, has major reservations. She joins Glenn, who has been a fan of Casey, to explain why she believes there are stronger candidates. Means, Shanahan claims, may have “conflicts of interest” because of the “biometric harvesting company” she founded and its close ties to Silicon Valley. Shanahan also questions whether RFK Jr. is playing “political 4D chess,” or if she was lied to when she was promised that the Means siblings wouldn’t be in government. Is RFK Jr. reporting to someone other than Trump? Shanahan explains why she believes it’s possible.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Nicole Shanahan. Nicole, how are you?

NICOLE: Glenn, how are you doing?

GLENN: I am very good. It's great to have you here.

So I want to ask you, the Surgeon General thing, are you for Casey Means? Or not for Casey Means?

NICOLE: Well, I will tell you who I am for, Glenn.

GLENN: Okay.

NICOLE: I'm for all of those Americans. Those hundreds of thousands of doctors, seeking truth, honesty, and dignity in our medical system once again. That is what I'm for. That is what propels MAHA into existence.

That's what propels Bobby Kennedy into the position of running for president of the United States. That's why I joined the campaign. It really is about listening to this group of doctors that did the right thing during the COVID pandemic.

That spoke up, when it was dangerous to speak up.

That lost their licenses. And so when I hear from that base, concern or research. About individuals, in and around MAHA.

I have to listen to them.

And I do listen to them.

Because oftentimes, they are right. They're brave, and they're principled. So the concern I've been hearing from that group of people is that MAHA -- you know, any movement. MAGA had this issue too of infiltration by different groups that are more self-serving, than they are for the movement itself.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

NICOLE: And so just one example, Casey Means is a founder of a company that does biometric harvesting. She's very close with many of the big data biometric harvesting companies.

In Silicon Valley. And this -- I noticed with all these people. You do not want them running in a government position that is responsible for everybody equally. Right?

GLENN: So wait. Wait. Wait.

What is -- what is that?

They're harvesting, what?

NICOLE: Well, so biometric data is anything between heart rate data, to all of the data that is collected from your FitBit or high glucose monitor. It could be labs. It could be -- then there's all the DNA harvesting. And big data that's being done.

So, you know, I think that the base -- MAHA really came from medical freedom. And medical sovereignty.

And the idea that we have to keep conflicts of interests. Out of the government.

And so when I -- you know, see some stuff going on. That we could be doing better.

Right?

Our job.

And I learned this from the MAGA base.

Our job is to ton seek the best possible people. For government, that are truly putting the principles of this country first.

The principles of American sovereignty first.

GLENN: So you wrote yesterday.

It's very strange. It doesn't make any sense. I was promised that if I supported RFK Jr. in the Senate confirmation, that neither of these siblings would be working under HHS or an appointment.

And that people much more qualified would be. I don't know -- I'm sorry.

RFK very clearly lied to me. Or what's going on. It's been clear in recent conversations that he's reporting to someone regularly, who is controlling his decisions, and it isn't President Trump.

With regards to the siblings, there is something very artificial and aggressive about them. Almost as if they were bred and raised as Manchurian assets. Wow!

NICOLE: So keep in mind, I was responding to Dr. Suzanne Humphries.

Who was also expressing very similar sentiment.

GLENN: Concern. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

NICOLE: Concern. There's better candidates.

So what's going on? I also heard from other MDs in the field.

That there was another doctor that RFK had wanted for the position. Very, very qualified doctor.

And -- and, you know, he was caught by surprise as well. By -- by this other choice.

So, you know, there's -- again, they -- they don't call it the swamp for no reason. Right?

GLENN: Right.

NICOLE: And, you know, I'm not officially within the administration at all.

In fact, I decided to take the path of staying an independent --

GLENN: Smart.

NICOLE: -- media person. Which I think -- I think and you know this, Glenn. It's really important that when you are an independent media voice, that you -- you stick by your principles. And that you are not just a mouthpiece for any government organizations.

That you're really on the outside, reflecting back the hopes and wishes of the constituents.

GLENN: Yeah. There's -- it's very hard to do.

I mean, I take stances against the president.

And for the president. You always have to -- you always have to balance, you know, I have my opinion.

And I'm never going to be bought out by anybody.

I'm never. But you also want to make sure that you're being fair to the people that you trust. And I know you have trusted RFK for a very, very long time.

And for what struck me on this. Is, you know, I don't know if RFK lied to me. Which I hope he didn't, or what's going on. It's been clear in recent conversation that he is reporting to someone regularly, who is controlling his decisions.

That's a remarkable thing to say, especially about RFK.

Because he does not strike me as somebody who is afraid of somebody else.

NICOLE: You know, I don't know if it's fear or that he's playing political 4D chess. And, again, they don't call it the swamp for no reason.

It's just, at some point, there's certain decisions, that are worth fighting for.

And I do appreciate what a very complex political environment this is.

GLENN: Oh, yeah.

NICOLE: And I do understand that even within these agencies, there are groups that are intentionally keeping and withholding information from the new leadership.

So, you know, I -- I fully appreciate how complicated it is.

So I fully appreciate how complicated it all is, but there are definitely things that the base is -- is, you know, like, this is an easy one. This could have gone better. Right?

You don't truly -- and, you know, everyone is guessing what precisely this 4D chess is all about. And why these moves are being made. And trying to anticipate the next one.

But it's something that I think that, you know, there's just certain things that indicate that whomever he's giving -- whoever his chess coach is. Could be making some better decisions for him. And --

GLENN: But Casey.

I mean, when I talk to the twins, during -- or after COVID.

They seemed pretty clear on what was bad and what was good.

They -- they both seemed to be good on -- on COVID. And the vaccines. Didn't they?

Or is my memory --

JEFFY: They talk a great talk.

I will say, I was once a fan of it as well.

It was only after I received many comments from individuals, in and around the transition team.

As well as new research that came up.

And then really, like, you know, when the base expresses these things and provides that degree of inquiry, and it shows that kind of concern.

I think we owe it to them.

GLENN: Yes. I agree. I agree.

ANNA: Yeah.

GLENN: So overall, how do you feel things are going?

NICOLE: I think, again, there's been a lot of focus around food dives. Meanwhile, there's millions of people suffering from vaccine injuries, that still feel very neglected.

So I do think -- I do appreciate the executive order, regarding gain of function and limiting overseas research.

GLENN: And shutting down a dangerous -- and shutting down a very dangerous bio lab here.

NICOLE: Yes. And there are many of these bio labs that are kind of flying under the radar.

GLENN: Right.

NICOLE: So it's a big step in the right decisions sedition. I'm a huge Jay Bhattacharya fan. Probably one of his biggest.

I really am excited for him, as he built out his team.

I hope, he has a very, very strong team around him. In the next coming weeks. Because he's going need to it.

As far as HHS goes, you know, I would love to see Bobby bring in more of those doctors that have been around him for the last ten years, very regularly.

Because these are the individuals that, you know, I -- I trust these people with my life. They have sacrificed everything to do the right thing time and time again.

They are so deeply principled. They will never take a check over helping a patient out.

And they actually do have the answers. So I'm hoping to see more of those people around Bobby too.

GLENN: So I'm wondering because this is the way I feel about a couple of things with the FBI. And Intel.

That if I don't see some people in the next year or so, go to jail, or at least brought in for a fair and honest trial, you know. I don't want to just scoop people up. And just assume that they're guilty.

But build a good, strong case. Bring it to trial.

Have it a fair and honest trial. And let the chips fall where they may.

But if I don't see some prosecution, at least. I think I'm very upset at the G O.J.

Pam Bondi. Head of the FBI. Kash Patel. And I don't -- and I'm trusting them so far, that they are doing that.

Do you feel the same way at all, about -- you know, if you don't see some people who go to jail there, that clearly lied about the vaccines.

If they don't go to jail. You have -- you really haven't fixed anything.

You're just eating around the edges.

NICOLE: Yeah. Yeah. I think that really explains it. And this is why I think it's important to continue to voice those concerns, because they're only going to grow and mount.

And it really is the American people, that were sold this vision of accountability.

And as we want to see it. We have to see it. Anywhere. Several months into the administration now.

HHS, you know, lags behind the Oval Office in terms of getting going.

But they're -- people were seriously injured. There were many crimes committed against the American public.

Crimes committed against our bravest doctors. Crimes committed against children.

We need accountability.

We really, really need to see that.

Because, you know, there's -- there's a preciousness in this moment. We have to -- we have to deliver. This country deserves it.

GLENN: And, I mean, if we're -- if we can't correct the things that, for instance. Washington State. Just passed a law where if there is another pandemic, everybody seems to be, you know, claiming there's another one, right around the corner.

But if there is another pandemic, that they will have absolute control, over what you put into your body. And what you do. That's terrifying.

NICOLE: I do.

And those emergency orders, they will scrutinize them. They have revisions.

GLENN: Washington State just revised it to just codify it. Washington State just codified it. It's crazy.

NICOLE: Yeah. Yeah.

So I would like to see more focus around that, not Red Dye 40 and not Kellogg's.

I'm totally fine leaving Kellogg's alone, in favor of HHS spending. All of its energy. And all of its focus. And all of its leverage, making sure that we are actually properly ready for the next pandemic.

And not to cause the catastrophic harm, that was caused during COVID-19.

GLENN: Nicole Shanahan. She's got the podcast Back To the People. And it's now coming to Blaze Media.

It's the same podcast she's been doing. Now as she says, with a wider reach. Glad to have you.

Nicole, thank you very much.

NICOLE: Thanks, it's a pleasure to come on.

GLENN: We'll talk to you again.

Is America’s Grid a Ticking Time Bomb? Trump’s Energy Secretary REACTS | Glenn TV | Ep 430

President Trump is working hard to right the wrongs of the Biden administration. But did Biden harm our energy grid even more than we thought? While Glenn was on vacation in Italy, two other European countries — Spain and Portugal — suffered one of the biggest blackouts in their history. The mainstream media, as they always do, rushed to blame it on ANYTHING other than the countries’ heavy reliance on unreliable green energy. But Glenn has the receipts and the evidence that leftists tried to make America’s grid just as unreliable. Glenn speaks with Energy Secretary Chris Wright about how the Trump administration is reversing these dangerous policies. Secretary Wright also discusses his department’s discovery that Biden shoveled out $93 BILLION in energy loans after Kamala Harris lost the 2024 election and before Trump could take office. Plus, he comments on Trump’s plans to deal with OPEC, why Trump must refill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and why Trump is planning the biggest energy project in American history to help accommodate AI. But first, Glenn recaps the biggest media lies that he missed while on vacation. Topping the list: Are these elitists like Axios and Jen Psaki finally admitting that they lied about Biden’s cognitive decline, or do they STILL not get that their charade is over?

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

Is the New American Pope Catholic? | Bishop Strickland | The Glenn Beck Podcast | Ep 256

A new pope has been chosen! As the recording of this episode of "The Glenn Beck Podcast" began, white smoke emerged from the Sistine Chapel, signaling the selection of the first American pope. Glenn and Bishop Joseph Strickland react live to the news as the whole world wonders if Cardinal Robert Francis Prevost, now Pope Leo XIV, will continue in the ways of his predecessor Pope Francis or go a more traditional route. Bishop Strickland, who was removed from office by Pope Francis, says the former pope pushed a church “in the world and of the world” and reviews “duplicity,” “corruption,” and potential abuse overlooked by the Vatican, including the infamous McCarrick scandal. The pair discuss the resurgence of the Latin Mass, globalism, the Catholic Church’s approach to homosexuality and gender identity, and whether the Shroud of Turin is an “icon” or a “relic.” As the new pope greets the world, Glenn asks, “If we have a more progressive pope, does that set the Church back?” Bishop Strickland advises that “even if we are disappointed and dismayed,” we must pray and keep our focus on God.

Meta’s AI “Friends” Nightmare: How Zuckerberg’s Latest Move Could Enslave Your Mind

Meta and Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg has a new goal: to give lonely Americans AI “friends.” But Glenn sounds the alarm: this must NEVER happen! Glenn explains the hidden danger in Zuckerberg’s seemingly kindhearted plan: “AI cannot, must not, and will never be your friend.” Opening that door will only give Meta insane levels of potential for manipulation and control over you.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Let's start with this: Mark Zuckerberg. Good guy. I mean, he brought us Facebook.

And, you know, that is the thing that brought all of us together.

Brought out families together. All the people that we lost touch with.

Oh, the world is so much better now that we have Facebook.

So now, he's got another idea. Could we play the clip of Mark Zuckerberg?

VOICE: There's a stat that I honestly think is crazy. The average American has I think it's fewer than three friends. Three people they consider friends. And the average person has demand for meaningfully more. I think it's 15 friends or something.

I guess there's probably at some point, I'm too busy. I can't deal with more people. But the average person wants more connectivity, connection than they have. So, you know, there's a lot of questions that people ask.

Of stuff like, okay. Is this going to replace kind of in person connections or real life connections?

And my default is that the answer to that is probably no.

I think it -- it -- I think that there are all these things that are better kind of about physical connections, when you can have them.

But the reality is that people just don't have the connection when they feel more alone, a lot of the time, than they would like.

GLENN: Hmm. True.

Now, let me ask you. Is there a time when you don't remember feeling so isolated? When you didn't really feel like I don't have any real friends?

When you didn't -- you had real connections with people, instead of a million connections with people that are your friends, but not really your friends?

Can you think of a time, way back in history?

I mean, probably have to go back to the cavemen, to find a time.

Oh. Before Facebook, and social media!

When we weren't all killing ourself, because we have no meaning.

Now, from the people who brought you kill yourself, because you've been on Facebook too much.

Brings you new AI friends. Oh, this is going to be good.

By the way, you know, that's a crazy stat, I think the average American has, what? Three friends. And they have a capacity for, I don't know. Fifteen or 20. I don't know.

Really think about it right now.

How many true friends, do you have?

How many true friends?

People that when you are down and out, there is nothing -- the whole world is against you!

That that person will actually stand by your side. And go, yeah.

I'm their friend.

And I don't care what you say.

How many? How many do you have?

I think I would count myself lucky if I have three.

Now, I have a lot of consequences.

I have a lot of people who we all think are friends. But as a recovering alcoholic, I've been there.

I've done that. As a recovering alcoholic,
who then also is a conservative and spoke out about the Obama administration, I know who my friends are.
I know who my friends are not.

And I think there's a lot of people that have counterfeit friends.

If you've got. Oh, I've got ten or 15 friends.

Eh.

No, you don't. No, you don't.

I've always grown up thinking, you're lucky, you're lucky, to have three, five, really good friends.

That will walk through anything with you. Do you agree with that, Stu?

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: You've never been there.

STU: For you? Oh, God no. But I'm just saying, generally speaking. No. I think -- I mean, you're describing a great friend. You're describing a really --

GLENN: A real friend.

STU: Yeah. Like someone you know and stick around for multiple decades.

GLENN: Yeah, I have lots of friends. You know what I mean? I have millions of Facebook friends.

STU: Right. Those aren't real.

GLENN: Right. And I have lots of friends. But the ones that are there for you always, no matter what, I have family.

And I have family.

STU: Right.

GLENN: And I have a handful of friends. I would consider you one of those.

STU: Thank you. I would as well.

GLENN: Why?

Remember, I have a drinking problem.

STU: Yeah. A lot of brain cells killed to make that decision.

But I think that you -- yes. I think the only thing that I think I'm drilling down a little bit on to try to understand. When you say, well, I have a lot of friends.

In a way, I think that's what Zuckerberg is talking about.

It's not even necessarily a great friend that you have for multiple decades. And can count on at any time.

Just the mid-level consequences, are drying up for a lot of people.

GLENN: Yeah. And why is that?

Why is that?

Because we don't talk to each other anymore.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: Because of social media.

You know, when this generation says, I don't know.

I just think it's weird. I'm just now in a bar someplace.

And some stranger comes up to me and wants to strike up a conversation. I'm like, hello, weirdo. I don't know!

You think it's less weird to go online?
When people can fake everything!

Thank you, Mark Zuckerberg.

But no thanks. Okay.

STU: And they're just -- to build up on this point for one second.

There's a study that came out, the last 20 years, of how much time do you spend socializing with the people.

Again, that's not with your best friends.

This is just socializing with anyone, a human.

Every single group. Every single group has massive drops.

GLENN: Massive.

STU: Massive drops. Just give you some examples.

Ages. Fifteen to 24-year-olds. Thirty-five-point down.

In 20 years. 35 percent. So a typical 15-year-old, as compared to what they are, in 2003 and 2025, where were the two measurement years?

They're spending 35 percent less time, with other human beings.

GLENN: Okay. Hang on just a second. Can you please stop distracting me? Because I'm trying to figure out why our kids are killing themselves.

STU: No, it's really hard.

GLENN: It's very hard to figure out.

STU: To understand.

And this is the coup de grâce of this entire study, which is, the typical female pet owner spends more time actively engaged with her pet, than she spends face-to-face contact with her friends of her own species.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

STU: That is unbelievable -- not like you're in the same house as your cat.

Right? No. More face-to-face time with your cat!

GLENN: And I've got news for you. If you think your cat is your friend, wait until you die, and your cat is trapped in the house with you and you have no friends to check. They will eat your face.

STU: They will still have a use for you.

GLENN: Yeah. They will have a use foy.

STU: Not the other way around.

GLENN: Okay. Here's why I'm bringing this up today.

This is a lie, that is going to be sold to you, like crazy. And it's going to be wrapped in a beautiful, shiny package. And it's going to have from Mark Zuckerberg and others like him, on the tag.

They want you to believe, that AI and bots can be your friends.