RADIOApril 22, 2024

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.

TN Attorney General EXPLAINS why Supreme Court should BAN trans hormones for kids

The Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments over a Tennessee law that bans doctors from giving transgender puberty blockers or hormone treatments to minors (or, as supporters call it, "gender-affirming care"). Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti, who argued for the law in front of the Supreme Court, joins Glenn to review what happened, what’s coming next, and what evidence he has that these procedures should be banned for kids.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Many of us look at transgender care, as butchering.

As insanity. As something that honestly returns to the Weimar republic of the 1920s.

This has been around for a while, and it's junk science. And it's dangerous to our children. Look, you're an adult, you can do what you want, I guess.

But when children are affected. That's what's in front of the Supreme Court, and the guy who brought this case to the Supreme Court, is the Tennessee attorney general.

Mr. Attorney General, Jonathan, how are you, sir?

JONATHAN: Great. Great. Thanks for having me on.

GLENN: So I listened to the case. And I don't know how you your head didn't explode with some of the questions that were coming from some of those on the left. Sotomayor for one. But overall, how did you feel it went?

JONATHAN: I think we did a great job of getting our points across. I mean, it went on for two and a half hours or so.

The court asked a lot of questions. They're clearly thinking hard about this.

It will be a long time, before we get our opinion. I think we did everything we could, to win this case. I feel really good about our part about this.

And now it's up to the justices.

GLENN: You know, there was a -- well, first of all, tell me exactly what the case was.

What does it actually cover, and what will it do, if it's decided in -- in favor of Tennessee?

JONATHAN: So we have a law in Tennessee, a journal assembly law that prohibits giving juveniles puberty blocker, hormone treatments, or surgery for the purpose of gender transition. Surgery was not an issue in this case.

So this was just about whether the Constitution presents the state from banning puberty blockers or treatments for the purpose of gender transition.

So if we win, our kids will remain in effect, and kids won't be able to be subject to that in Tennessee.

Potentially, depending on how we win, it could mean that all laws dealing with gender identity, are reviewed under a rational basis standard.

Which gives the people's elected representatives, a lot more latitude. As to how they regulate.

GLENN: You know, when you were -- when you were discussing this, and it was Justice Sotomayor that said, every medication has, you know, side effect.

Even aspirin has side effects.

I don't know how you took that question seriously.

But you answered it very well.

Explain to the average person, why this is so different, than anything else, that is prescribed for kids.

JONATHAN: Every systematic analysis of the evidence shows little to no benefit for kids.

From these treatments for gender dysphoria.
Meanwhile, the risks are enormous. They face losing fertility for the rest of their lives, never being able to have children.

They risk having -- kids don't know what they're giving up. They risk tumors and blood clots and cognitive disorders and bone density disorders. All sorts of serious life-long medical complications.
And, meanwhile, the evidence is, this doesn't help them.

You're talking about very severe physical interventions for psychological

Problems.

With no evidence, that it's helping them with the psychological problems.

And so we're looking at a situation, where kids are really at risk.

Where there's not a good medical reason for putting them at risk.

And whether these people say, the Constitution prohibits the state from protecting kids. Even where the evidence is so powerfully in opposition to allowing this to happen, going forward.

GLENN: I think it was Justice Souter who asked the opposite side. What -- you know, you said that the -- the science backs this up.

Well, now we have all this new science, that is coming out.

You want to where a that statement?

What -- what has happened since you started this process, to the evidence, that's coming out, from everywhere now?

VOICE: So there was a lot of evidence beforehand, but the review in England is a large-scale, long-term study by an extremely respected pediatrician, that looked really hard at these issues. It's controversial around the world. You know, England is not a red state. It's not Tennessee. They were making these procedures widely available to kids for a while.

And they looked at the evidence, and they determined that they should not be doing that. That the evidence showed, that this was hurting kids.

They should severely restrict access.

And they did.

And the report gets into it thoroughly.

It's discussed with a lot of specificity with the court.

It shows there's no redemption in suicide. Which is one of the things we constantly hear.

If you don't let kids do this. They will kill themselves.

We don't want kids to kill themselves.

The evidence is doing these life altering interventions doesn't make a difference.

You know, they just looked at a lot of evidence from a lot of kids.

And it showed what we already knew.

Which is that there's no benefit to justify these radical interventions.

GLENN: So what does this mean, if it comes you out, the way we hope it does?

Does this have any effect on bathrooms and -- and -- and sports, or anything else?

JONATHAN: It really depends on what the court does.

There's a way that we could win. That's at that only deals with kid's transitions. Or there's a way that we could win that's broader. The court says the gender identity issues do not rise to the level of intermediate scrutiny of the Constitution.

In which case, a lot of the litigation of what we're facing with bathrooms. And school sports.

All the things that people have sued over. Are pretty easy to solve.

GLENN: Did you see any indication that any of the judges were leaning that way.

Were there any questions that made you -- gave you any indication that that was possible, or probable?

JONATHAN: It's -- there are -- there are indications that the justices are thinking about it. There were questions about sports that came up.
But I don't know whether that means, they're thinking about issuing a broad opinion, or they're just concerned about, you know, the potential effects.

And, you know, they want to think through exactly how this is going to play out. Because there's no constitutional law from the Supreme Court, on gender identity stuff.

We have one case about a very narrow, very he specifically worded statute.

And the lower courts have been all over the place. They need guidance. They need clarity on this issue.

GLENN: You know, you can't go into a tattoo parlor, if you're young, without parental -- parental permission.

You can't buy a gun, at 12, or 16.

You can't get married. There's all these laws, because we know, there -- you're not mentally prepared to make those kinds of decisions.

How does that logic not work for this issue?

JONATHAN: You know, there's this argument that it's sex discrimination.

Therefore, the Constitution provides a heightened level of scrutiny.

But we have done this forever.

To treat people differently based on their age. Kids can't consent to things that will have lifelong consequences.

Whether it's entering a contract or smoking a cigarette, the consequences for these procedures are so much more profound, and we think we have a strong argument that the state should be able to regulate this. Particularly, given the evidence, that it makes no difference. That it does not help. And it increases the risk of all these different horrible outcomes for the kids.

GLENN: The other side just seems, quite honestly.

And I don't mean to slam people. They seem unhinged.

I want you to listen.

This is a mom standing outside the Supreme Court building while you're arguing the case.

Listen to what she said about her child. Cut four.

VOICE: What motivated to you come out today?

VOICE: We're supporting our child violet.

And her access to the medical care that she needs.

VOICE: Yeah. We're here for her rights. And her ability to be who she is. And she's not going to let anybody silence her. And we're not going to stand in her way.

VOICE: And what age do you think most trans kids determine that they're trans?

VOICE: Mila told us, when she was one and a half. She's been telling us since she could speak.

So she knew since birth.

GLENN: Eighteen months? Eighteen months, she knew?

JONATHAN: Wow. That -- I have a 3-year-old. Last week, she told me she was a pirate.

Like, that's a true story, by the way. Gender dysphoria is a real thing. And it's really hard for kids to deal with it.

We have seen an explosion on these cases, that sure looks like something weird is going on.

And we -- I don't see how it doesn't come out, eventually, that there's massive over diagnosis.

In England, the doctors had over a 4,000 percent increase in the number of girls seeking hormone treatments.

And, you know, the evidence is very, very strong. That the large, large majority of kids, who have any sort of gender identity confusion grow out of it, unless they're put out on medications.

For most kids, this is a passing thing. It doesn't mean that it's not hard for them. Adolescence is really hard, and I have to think gender confusion makes it that much harder.

But most of them are going to grow out of it. And for all of them, the evidence of a benefit is minimal at best.

GLENN: Well, we'll be praying for the Supreme Court, and I thank you so much for you filing suit. And trying to get this corrected.

It's -- it's truly madness.

I don't -- you know, I don't -- I don't care what you do, as an adult.

I mean, I actually do. But it's not my business if you're an adult.

But if you can't decide things like smoking, drinking.

You know, be responsible for -- enough with a gun. You certainly should not be able to do things to your body.

That are permanent. And game-changing.

It's insanity. It's insanity.

We have to stop. Jonathan, thank you so much.

JOHN: It's an honor to be on the show. Thanks for having me, and Merry Christmas!

STU: Merry Christmas!

Jonathan Skrmetti. He is the Tennessee Attorney General, who argued just the day before yesterday, at the Supreme Court.

To protect children from gender procedures.

STU: We should, by the way, take what he said, seriously.

If his 3-year-old is about to plunder passing ships. We should report that to maritime authorities.

GLENN: And don't forget the pillaging and the raping.

STU: Yes!

Immediately. We must take it seriously.

GLENN: We must. If we can save one pillage, or -- pillagette -- pillage -- somebody. If we could save one person from being pillaged.

STU: One. Pillaged, uh-huh.

GLENN: We need to act now.

Isn't it worth it? Isn't it worth it?

The TERRRIFYING theory for DRONE sightings near Trump golf course

Mysterious drones have been spotted near the Trump National Golf Club Bedminster in New Jersey and the surrounding areas. The drones, which are large and loud, have reportedly caught the attention of local law enforcement and the FBI. So, who’s controlling them? Glenn explains who he believes are the 2 most likely culprits: Our own government and the Chinese Communist Party. Glenn also discusses a terrifying possibility: drones could drastically change the nature of warfare during the next World War …

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: All right. So let me just start with the -- the drone sightings here for a second.

Because I don't know what's happening.

And, you know, the Department of Homeland Security is Mayorkas. Does anybody think he has any credibility, whatsoever?

He's like, well, I don't know what's going on. Well, you didn't know what was going on on the border, either.

The state police of New Jersey.

The FBI. And I don't know -- I don't know who to believe. I don't know if you can believe.

But apparently, everyone is saying, they don't know what's happening. And there are these -- these drones, that are now flying in for some reason, et cetera, et cetera.

And they were flying over the bed minister golf course. That's Trump's golf course.

They've been flying over Air Force bases. Et cetera, et cetera.

Do we have -- oh. We have a -- we have a clip from New Jersey news.

Listen to this.

PAT: The FAA has placed a temporary restriction on drone flights over Picatinny Arsenal, and over Trump national golf course in Bedminster.

When these drones were first spotted two weeks ago, the Morris County prosecutor's office said they posed no known threat to public safety.

But people want to know. What the heck are they? And what are they doing?

VOICE: It's normal to see red and green lights in December, unless they're coming from mysterious drones in the night sky.

VOICE: That's kind of unsettling. They're not up for 15 minutes. They're up for hours.

Some are very big, probably the size of a car.

VOICE: Mike Walsh says he's seen hundreds of them in the past two weeks from his Randolph backyard, and has the video to prove it.

VOICE: They kind of go slow. They come towards you. Then they'll change direction a little.

They're all going different ways. The drones have been spotted all over Morris County. Morris Town police sent an alert to residents Sunday, saying they are aware of drone activity.

And if the drone crashes or lands, do not approach or handle it. The FBI's Newark field office will only say, it's working with other law enforcement agencies to figure out what's going on.

But at the moment, doesn't have enough information to share.

STU: Hmm. Those are big too.

GLENN: What the hell is that? What is that?

I mean, that could very well be, you know, surveillance on the average American because maybe they're doing police work, or whatever.

STU: It could be.

GLENN: It could be our government doing it. It should not be. But like at the border, we do have drones, that are up in the sky. These are very large. Some of them are very large. You don't. You know, those aren't cheap.

And the very large ones aren't something that I -- I don't think the average person can purchase. Can they?

The really large ones?

STU: I mean, you might be able to purchase them. I know there's a size requirement for registering them.

And, of course, you know, we know that not everyone follows those rules.

But when you have a -- you know, the size is pretty small, to not register those. Those are way over the limit.

GLENN: Right, and they have the red and green lights.

And I don't remember which one means, you know, right and left or whatever.

But they have the red and green lights on each side. I don't think the ETs are like, you know what, we should follow the standard of putting, you know, the red and green lights on each side. So they know --

STU: Right. People think they're aliens.

GLENN: Some people think that this might be some alien thing. I don't.

STU: Okay. No.

GLENN: I think this is -- I think this is most likely our government.

Second most likely, you know, this is a China balloon.

Balloon. But a drone. This is just another thing that Biden knows about.

But I can't do anything about it anyway. What is it?

STU: Yeah. I don't know. That's a good question. It could theoretically.

You think of like an incoming president, who spends a lot of time, in one of these areas. Maybe they're doing some sort of security setup.

But, I mean, they would just tell us, if that was true. You would think. They would be like, hey. This is the federal government, doing these things.

This is why we're doing it. So I don't know.

GLENN: I mean, I was just at Mar-a-Lago with the president.

There were no drones, that, you know -- that I saw or anybody was talking about.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: They're pretty good at security.

And they would just say, yeah. This is closed airspace.

You would know immediately, when they say that they're closing the airspace. If it's flying over that airspace, then it's obviously hostile.

Or ours!

STU: Yeah. You would -- I mean, I can't imagine. I could be wrong on this, of course.

We've seen some incompetent moments over the past few years.

I can't imagine if you've had hours of hovering over a property, owned by the incoming president, that this wouldn't be noticed and wouldn't be something that they were dealing with, if it wasn't -- if it wasn't the US government.

Right?

That's why that seems to me, the most likely explanation. That it is something that we're doing. For whatever reason.

You could say nefarious or positive.

But they wouldn't just let -- again, they let a guy just get on the roof in the middle of a rally. So, I mean, maybe they would just let.

It seems like they would stop this, if they didn't want those things there.

GLENN: Have you seen the drone fleets in China? Oh, my gosh.

STU: Oh, yeah. You've obviously seen like the drone shows that the -- the ones that are cool, and like for your entertainment.

I mean, you realize, with nefarious ideas, you could do lots of damage, with -- with just those.

GLENN: Oh, the Chinese military drones.

STU: Armies. Yeah.

GLENN: I mean, that are in these gigantic fields, and thousands of them are flying in formation.

I'm telling you, you watch. God forbid we get into World War III.

Our aircraft carriers are going to be the horses of World War I.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: They're just going to be mowed down.

STU: I was watching a documentary. It was a series of nine documentaries.

And this was, I believe, number three?

GLENN: Uh-huh.

STU: Because me and my daughter went through all the Star Wars recently.

And they have that moment, where they go to the planet, where they've just been making all of these clones.

Or was it clones or drones? Two armies.

But it's clone wars, right?

And they just have a zillion of them ready to go. At my moment.

I kind of feel like, that wasn't a crazy sci-fi prediction.

Like, that is really going to be where we are with war, at some point, relatively soon.

Where it's not clones.

But --

GLENN: No. But it will be droids.

STU: It's drones and droids. Right?

And you have those situations, maybe not -- this is another documentary, I once saw.

But this one was -- it was something somebody had fallen.

I don't remember what the name of -- because they had about 12 of those in the series. It was like Morgan Freeman was the president. And they're out there at the lake.

GLENN: Yeah. Something is falling.

STU: Something is falling. At the very beginning. And 100 million drones come over the trees.

And just try to assassinate the president.

GLENN: Absolutely --

STU: Totally real.

GLENN: Totally real.

STU: Could easily happen at any moment.

You know, it --

GLENN: We have that technology.

STU: Yeah. I think a lot of normal people could put that together.

With not that much effort.

I mean, that's terrifying.

You look at what happened in New York, with the guy just walking up behind him.

Who -- you know, what's to stop somebody from doing that type of thing, with the drone? Except, they don't have to be standing there.

GLENN: Have you seen the video of the guy. I know I've shown it two or three years ago. The guy comes on stage. And says, this is the new weapon of war.

And he opens his hand. And it's about the size of a dragonfly. And he's got a mannequin on the other side.

And he says, watch what it can do. And he kind of just lifts his hand. And it flies up. And it flies around the audience.

And it has the -- it has the targeting on a screen, behind.

Okay?

And it shows his facial recognition, and then the target is the mannequin, facial recognition.

And it comes so fast. And it just goes exploding, goes through the guy's head.

Through the guy's head. The manakin's head. I mean, that's what's coming. There's no defense against stuff like that.

We are entering such a Brave New World.

And, you know, all the -- all the people that are in charge of this stuff, they all know, but why aren't we being informed of where we are?

STU: Yeah. I mean, because they are developing defenses for this.

And they might be able to come up for a defense for an aircraft carrier, possibly.

Yeah. They are developing those things.

GLENN: What are those ageist?

Ageist guns?

Ageist defense system? That are like 50 cal, and they fire like a thousand rounds a minute, or some crazy thing.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: They can't -- they can't stop us.

STU: No, I don't think it's guns that they're trying it with, right?

There's -- again, I watched another documentary, but it was -- you know, you're talking like microwaves and things like that nature, to disable these things as it comes down.

But that doesn't protect the average person walking down the street.

You know, that might -- you might be able to protect at some level, against those things, when you're -- you're defending the president of the United States.

But when you -- when you're talking about, you know, the other sides of these things, not terrorist attacks. Who knows.

GLENN: Something the size of a fly. That could fly. Somebody opens the door of the West Wing.

And just flies. And then hides.

I mean, imagine.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: We're there.

STU: You think of intelligence operations. You know, think of -- you know, think of what happened with Hezbollah. Right?

With pagers. And what happened when they -- you have officials going to Qatar. And what they think is an Airbnb, and then the whole thing just blows up.

People will have really intricate uses for these, and I think the truth is that a lot of these things end up. We have know idea what happened.

GLENN: Well, here's the other problem.

There's a story today. Marco Rubio is just pissed. So is Rick Scott. With the, you know, cyber security officials. You know, we have that, what is it, CISA? The Cyber Infrastructure Security Agency, or whatever it is.

And it's supposed to protect all of our cyber electronics and everything else. And be detecting things.

Well, you remember when the phone systems just went out, trial?

The global telecommunication systems went out, with several companies.

Well, we now know, that it was China that did that.

So China has infiltrated our telecommunication system. And they shut it down, to show us, we can shut you down. Right now.

CISA doesn't have any answers.

They're like, we -- we don't have any idea, who really it was, or how they did it.

What the hell are you doing?

You can't tell me how our cyber communications -- how our phone systems went down?

What good are you?

How Trump is putting the world ON NOTICE

Axios recently released an article titled “Trump's shadow presidency clouds Biden's final weeks”, and Glenn has a few thoughts: “The only ‘shadow presidency’ that we should be talking about is, who the hell is president right now? It’s not Biden.” Glenn explains why Trump’s actions as President-elect are “promises kept” and a return to common sense. The world is being put on notice that a new sheriff is coming to town. Glenn also reviews some of Trump’s biggest moves, like his tariff threats to Canada and Mexico.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: There's this story in Axios today that just kills me.

Just the headline kills me: Trump's shadow presidency clouds Biden's final weeks.

Here's the only shadow presidency that we should be talking. Who the hell is president right now? It's not him. I don't care what anybody says.
It's not him!

Who is the president of the United States?

Interesting question. Nobody seems to want to talk about.

STU: I mean, it's going so poorly. It's hard to believe it's not him. You know, I've got to -- it kind of seems like central to his governing philosophy.

But I -- I -- I think you're right. It doesn't seem like he's really the president. And, by the way, you mentioned this the other day.

By the way, you mentioned this the other day, where did Kamala Harris go?

Haven't seen her, since I think the day after the election.

GLENN: No. Gone. Just gone. I have no idea. No idea.

Now, Axios says, here's why this matters. There can only be one man that occupies the White House.

Yeah, you're right. You're right.

They go on. Let me quote.

But the norm-busting assertiveness of Donald Trump and his transition team, and the rapidly fading relevance of the presidency in the US. It's something of a two-headed presidency.

No. Here's what's happened. This is not a shadow presidency. This is promises kept.

Okay? The world is being put on notice right now. There's a new sheriff in town.

I'm not there yet.

But I'm coming.

Now, we can play this two ways. You can understand that the time of insanity is over. And you can start preparing right now, to fix that.

Or when I get into office. Because I have promised the American people, I am going to fix this at lightning speed. I'm giving you the opportunity to get ahead of the curve.

Because Mexico, you don't fix the drug problem, you keep shipping people across your border.

I'm going to put a 25 percent tariff on everything you sell.

I'll cripple your markets.

Okay. Are you threatening? Yeah. I am. I am threatening you.

I mean, that's what I would say if I were the president. Why mess around?

This is what he means, what he says. Tariffs are coming.

So when he calls the new president of Mexico, and says that, it's not a shadow government.

It's somebody saying, this is what's coming.

You want to play ball? Or do you want to be outside?

And he's doing that, with almost everything. I mean, he did it with -- with Trudeau. Yeah. Yeah. I'm going to send up additional helicopters and drones to protect the border.

And I'm -- I'm also going to put tariffs on you, Canada. And I personallily.

I love Canada. You should be the 51st state, okay?

You're not playing -- he's playing hardball with Trudeau.

He's telling Canada. We love you.

We love you. I don't have any problem. Just stop what's coming over the border.

Because we're not doing it anymore. What is the difference between that and when Joe Biden was the elect, and he was saying, we're not going to prosecute anybody?

What's the difference?

The difference is Donald Trump is telling heads of state, return to law and order.

Joe Biden was saying, there's no law and order here! There's no sheriff in town, soon!

On foreign policy. He -- they're criticizing. He's claimed credit for Iran's apparent decision not to retaliate against Israel for its October attack.

Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Who doesn't believe that?

Honestly, who doesn't believe that?

You've gone from Joe Biden, who has made them wealthy again. Give up them everything they want. Opened our coughers. Opened our doors.

Allowed them to get away with anything. And the guy who just four years ago had them on the brink of bankruptcy, had them on the brink of internal revolution. Which would have set a great people free, he's coming back.

Now, you're just one of the mullahs.

You might believe the, you know, 80 or 90, or however many virgins you're getting.

You know, you might think, hey, that's coming.

That's coming my way. Uh-huh. But there's also somebody else around you, that's a little pragmatic. That will go, yeah.

But we may just be blown up, ourselves.

You know, at some point, you ask yourself, I've got a pretty good life.

I'm not -- I mean, we're making some progress. Do I really want the United States to kill me? Do I?

That's what's happening in Iran.

They know. This is -- this is why he is such a great negotiator.

Because everyone knows. Do you know how he bought Mar-a-Lago?

Mar-a-Lago, I will get the numbers wrong. But it was like $30 million.

It had been given to the United States by Merriweather Post in like '70 something, '72.

Been given to the United States government, as the Southern White House.

Okay? And when Jimmy Carter got in. He said, it's too expensive to keep up, we're just going to give it back.

So he gives it back.

Somebody else buys it. I think it was given again to the United States as the Southern White House. They give it back again.

And so Donald Trump buys it. Now, that thing was selling for -- and I will get the numbers wrong. It was selling for $30 million. Something like that.

It was worth so much more now.

But it was $30 million, and $10 million just for the -- just for the furniture.

This was built by E.F. Hutton and his wife, Merriweather Post, who Post -- as in Post cereal. Okay?

So it's a remarkable piece of property.

Donald Trump came in and said, okay. I'm going to buy it. But I won't pay $40 million for it.

Because it will take $40 million at least to get it back in shape. I want it for at least -- I'm making the numbers up. For 10 million. With the furniture.

Or 10 million, and then 2 million for the furniture.

They said, no. How dare you. How dare you.

Okay. So what did he do? He went and bought the little sliver of beach, right across the street from the mansion. That provided the view, to the ocean.

And then he went back, and he said, I just bought this.

I will just build a tall building here, that I will live in.

It will wreck your view. I mean, how much do you think your house will be worth then?

He -- he -- they knew, he meant what he said. I think he got it for $10 million total, with the furniture and the house.

Okay?

He -- he is known, as saying what he means and means what he says.

So when he says, you know, this is going to end, yes. It ends.

So he's -- there's no shadow government here.

It's that the leaders of the world know, he will do it. Unlike every other president that we've had, including him the first time. Americans didn't know, neither did the world.

Will he actually do that? When he -- when he says, yeah. You little guy over there, in North Korea.

I might just have to blow you up. They now know, he'll do it. He'll do it.

So I really don't want to die. Also, they're saying, he's not responsible for the booming stock market right now.

You know, I don't know the stock -- I don't -- the stock market is completely unhinged from anything real.

Okay? It's way overvalued. It's -- it's ridiculous, what's going on.

Because we've been printing money and giving it to the banks. And the banks have been investing in their own companies. And driving the stock market up.

It's ridiculous. It's not real anymore. It's not actual capitalism.

However, the first sign of capitalism, that I have seen, is the bump of the stock market, after Donald Trump was elected.

Because everyone with money knew, they're going to increase our corporate taxes. They're going to increase the -- the regulations on everything we do.

They're going to start -- they're going to continue to pick winners and losers.

They knew.

They had to say, we want to save our money.

And buy as much of our company, as we can.

And hold on. And don't spend any money.

Because we have no idea, what these crazy people will do.

They know what Donald Trump will do.

Because he said it, and he's done it before.

And it may not be in their best interest. But it will be in the best interest of their bottom line. Because he's going to fix the economy for the American people.

Meaning, they will have more money to spend. And he will put the focus on American companies, not foreign companies.

So, yeah. Explain crypto without Donald Trump.

Crypto, has it broken 100,000 yet?

STU: It did yesterday. Yeah. Last night.

GLENN: 100,000.

STU: About 102,000 right now.

GLENN: So what do you think that is?

What do you think that is?

You know, another thing he's responsible for. The pardon of Hunter Biden.

Because -- and the blanket pardon, pardon of, no matter what he's done for ten years, that's happening.

They must just pardon him for the taxes and for the drugs and everything else that he was charged with.

For the first time in history. I don't even know if it's legal. First time in history.

They pardon him for anything he might have done.

From 2014 to December 1st.

Okay? Anything. You find anything -- you did anything wrong. He's pardoned for it.

Why is that? Because radical transparency is coming.

He's not going to go on a witch hunt.

He's going to start exposing the truth by declassifying, what's really been going on.

Biden goes to Angola this week.

And he says, we want to rebuild you.

We're going to give you a billion dollars. And yet, there are still piles of houses, 30 feet high.

In Appalachia.

There are Americans struggling. This isn't a shadow government. This is a complete return to common sense. And the world knows, the next president means it!

Glenn & Panel DEBATE Trump’s 10 Most Controversial Cabinet Picks | Ep 397

The last five years, including the pandemic, have destroyed trust in the federal government. The election handed Trump a mandate to do something about it — to root out the corruption and waste at the heart of this distrust. Trump has not taken the safe path with his Cabinet and agency picks: Kash Patel (FBI), Tulsi Gabbard (DNI), Pete Hegseth (DOD), Pam Bondi (AG), Kristi Noem (Homeland Security), Tom Homan (border czar), RFK Jr. (HHS), Dr. Jay Bhattacharya (NIH), Linda McMahon (Education), Lori Chavez-DeRemer (Labor), and Scott Bessent (Treasury). He has mostly gone for firebrands — nominees who are already sending the establishment into a panic. Will this strategy actually work? Or is the firebrand approach doomed out of the gate? BlazeTV’s Steve Deace, Liz Wheeler, Stu Burguiere, and Jason Buttrill join Glenn along with recovering investment banker Carol Roth and FBI whistleblower Steve Friend to break down the Cabinet controversies and debate these nominees. Will the swamp establishment let them survive the nomination process?