RADIOMay 05, 2022

Why Putin may be ‘MORE LIKELY’ to use nukes against Ukraine

Author and former Navy SEAL Jack Carr knows a little something about Russia. With several published thriller novels that focus on geopolitical issues, he’s certainly done his research. So, he joins Glenn to war-game possible scenarios from the current situation in Ukraine. He explains why Putin’s original drive to invade Ukraine may have been to grow his military; plus, Carr explains the reason why Putin may be ‘a little more likely’ to use nukes: ‘[Russia is] an animal in a corner and it’s fight or flight…they’re in survival.’

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: All right. Jack Carr is with us. Hello, jack, how are you?

JACK: Great. Thank you for having me on. I really appreciate it.

GLENN: You bet. I can't wait. How excited are you for terminal list to come out with, Pratt?

JACK: Well, I'm fired up. Because they could really take your material, and do anything they want with it, which is why they usually like to get rid of the authors right away, yelling, you've ruined my vision.

But having been involved from the get-go, and Amazon was so supportive. And I think we got what all that people talk about, being woke. All that out there. It will be very refreshing for people between New York and Los Angeles. I think we crushed it, and Chris certainly did, Glenn. Maybe Bill Sniper. James Race. Angelon Coop (all phonetic) was the director. I mean, everybody came together. And it is dark, it is gritty, it is violent, it is authentic. And they do not set the bar.

GLENN: What an endorsement. It's dark. It's gritty. It's violent. You're going to love it.

All right. So, Jack, I wanted to have you on. Because something feels wrong with this Russia/Ukraine situation. And it seems like everybody is preparing -- if I were a fiction writer, I would be looking at all of these things that are hang. And I would say, yeah. I'm just doing a little foreshadowing. They're starting to build up for war. They're letting people know. I'm letting the reader know.

It just seems like they're going places, that I don't think would be a good place to go. As a fiction writer, and somebody who lives in this world, and I -- and I love talking to fiction writers, especially about geopolitical things.

Because you can't write things that don't make sense. Because nobody would believe it.

So you have to be based in reality. As a fiction writer. Where do you think we're going?

JACK: Well, if I had written what's actually happening in the world today. Whether it's Russia. Ukraine. The girl from Afghanistan.

Whether it's our own country right here. If I had written these things ten years ago. It wouldn't be a political thriller. It would go into the dystopian category. Perhaps even the science fiction category.

GLENN: Ten years ago, I think if you would have written what's happening today, ten years ago, you would have been laughed at. I mean, nobody would buy the book. And I think people would go, that's ridiculous. It would never happen.

GLENN: Exactly. This could never happen in this country.

This is too unrealistic. That's what the reviews on Amazon would say. But these things are happening. In fact, when we look at just Ukraine and Russia, I mean, it didn't take -- you didn't have to be a genius. You didn't have to be a geopolitical strategist. To look at it.

Apply some common sense, to NATO, Ukraine, and Russia, and predict what was going to happen. My second book, True Believer, I have a -- I have a false flag type of an operation to get Russia to invade Ukraine, as part of the story line.

And I just studied the situation, and needed to figure out how to make that happen. And lo and behold, that has happened. But the research that I did, that really -- you could see that coming, because of the decline of the ethnic Russian population since the end of the Cold War. And really, they could only field an army, up to about 20 -- 2022, and then they were either going to have to invade Ukraine. But then that has the largest population of ethnic Russians, outside of Russia. So for our senior level leaders, not to come to that same conclusion, after looking at it, with a little bit of common sense, is -- it shouldn't be shocking. But it is.

Because we rely on those leaders to make those good, strategic decisions. And they've proven time and time again, they're incapable of doing so.

GLENN: So wait a minute.

So you say, the reason they're having a hard time is, they don't -- they think get more troops. And you're saying, that that's one of the reasons why you think they invaded Ukraine. So they could have ethnic Russians to fight.

JACK: That's right. So just looking at those -- at those numbers, and that's -- you really have two generations of ethnic Russians, being a population that can sustain a military, and in much smaller numbers, past 2022.

So in 2014, Peter Zeihan wrote a book, called The Accidental Superpower, which looks at geography, demographics, in world history, when it comes to the nation states and the world powers.

And that's the conclusion he came to in that book. Which is one of the things I used in that second novel. But there are, of course, supporting factors. But that's a big one.

And that also ties into the nuclear question.

Because if you have someone who believes that their population, their country is not going to be around, in two generations, and they can't even field an army, past right about now. Well, it makes using maybe a taxable nuclear weapon, at least threaten to do so.

But maybe even using it, a little more likely. Because they're an animal in a corner, and it's fight or flight, and it's survival. It's not -- they don't look at it, as an option. As we do, do this. We don't do this. Hey, if we don't do this, we're dead anyway.

So we have to put ourselves in the enemy's shoes, and to anticipate what they're going to do. And we continually do not do that in this country, for whatever reason.

GLENN: I have to tell you, that's some of the best commentary I've heard on what's happening in Ukraine, already. And we've been talking to you, in just a couple of minutes. I haven't heard any of that. I've heard about the lack of military.

But I have no idea that we knew this from the gets go.

So when you have this situation. And you have Putin. I'm sure you've done enough research, just for your own novels. On Putin. And how things work over there.

A couple of questions. First, they think he's sick. May have cancer. They're saying, that maybe he's going under the knife. And will be, you know, under. And they don't know how long he will be incapacitated. If I'm Putin, I'm wondering if I'm going to be safe when they put me out. Or if they might accidentally turn that knob up a little bit.

GLENN: Oh, yes. This was something in the Cold War, that was at the forefront of senior level Russian official's minds, when they had to go under the knife, when they had to be put under. And they had security in those rooms. Not just because of an assassination or something along those lines by doctors. And the CIA payroll. Or arrival in the political or military space. But because coming out of that anesthesia. So when they're coming out of that, there's a certain time period within where you're not lucid. You know what that feels like. You're coming out of that. And, well, maybe a doctor on the CIA payroll can ask you a few questions at that point in time. And filter that back to the CIA. So that was something in the Cold War, that was at the forefront when any of those guys would have to go under the knife for a medical procedure. So I am sure that Putin is thinking about that. And of course, he knows his history betters than we do.

History in Russia. It's not infrequent, when we look at world history.

So I'm sure that he's thinking about that. And surrounding himself with people he thinks are trustworthy, to ensure that he's either not killed during that time frame, or is not asked questions during that time frame about his strategy vis-à-vis Ukraine, or the rest of the world, or his intent to use or not use nuclear weapons.

GLENN: Could you have any idea who would replace him. Let's say he ties on the table.

Do you have any idea?

JACK: I do not. There's always a military leader waiting in the wings, it seems. But who that is, I'm not sure.

And, you know, in these situations, or just when you're looking at authoritarian dictatorships. Orthopedic -- or countries. Like that. Senior level leaders oftentimes are not getting the best information.

Because it is not healthy to bring that bad news to -- to a dictator. Because oftentimes, it's off with your head. Or off to the gulag. It's a strange position to be in. Obviously, with our war in Iraq.

Where he actually did have a capability. That he did not.

And Putin is probably in that same position.

GLENN: Do you -- what do you make of their -- the story -- it came out, I think yesterday. Pictures of what they call the Flying Kremlin. It's a plane, that they haven't seen it in the air, I think since 2010 or 2011.

And it's been flying around Russia. And it is the -- the nuclear plane. Something needs to go on.

You know, air force one. That everything can be run from that plane, in case of a nuclear war.

Do you think that's just telling that --

JACK: Yeah. That seems interesting. I didn't see that story. But oftentimes, these things are done to send a message. And they might -- just to say, hey, we have this capabilities. And to get to us take or not take a certain -- a certain action. So for Putin to say, he's moving nuclear weapons into a certain position. Well, they're probably already there. Or this plane is flying around. If the Russian military. If their capabilities are what we've seen in Ukraine, thus far.

Then we overestimate it, as did a lot of those generals, probably because they didn't want to get their heads lopped off by saying, they weren't as capable as they've been projecting or advertising. But flying a plane like that is probably the same -- the same thing as, hey, we're moving nuclear weapons into a nuclear position. Just in case we need to use them. So that sends a message to the left, to discontinue support of Ukraine, or get us to take a certain action.

GLENN: So how serious do you think this nuke thing is?

I -- you know, we've all grown up, you know, without this fear of nukes. I grew up in the time. You might have too.

Where, you know, we feared what Russia might do. And then it went away. And now, our -- are we really that close to some sort of a nuclear explosion, on -- on earth?

JACK: I mean, the first question is, and I did grow up during the time as well. We thought it was the end of the Cold War. That our main threat now is the proliferation of some of these weapons, going to rotation states. Or super empowered individuals. Or terrorist organizations, or that sort of a thing. But now we're back with a state-on-state, nation-on-nation conflict.

GLENN: Do you think it's serious?

JACK: Well, first the question would have to be, do they have the capabilities?

And the answer to that question is yes. They have about 6,000 both tactical and strategic nuclear weapons. Strategic mean they're gigantic and fly towards us.

Tactical means, they use them on the battlefield, a lot smaller. But still huge, when comparing the two. Something like Hiroshima or Nagasaki, something like that.

But we have a lot less. Nuclear weapons, it doesn't really matter. You know, 1,000 here, 1,000 there.

But when we add all of NATO's nuclear weapons and Russia's, it's about the same. Give or take. It's just shy of 6,000, when we add all of the nuclear weapons to Russia's.

But in this case, it's interesting. If they did do something like that, we have this China. That side. So it makes it a lot harder for China to support Russia, if Russia uses even a tactical nuclear weapon on the battlefield.

So that's an interesting kind of connection here. Because China is right now, Russia's greatest ally. Militarily, trade-wise. And they have -- they have a lot of incentives to stay connected. And using a nuclear weapon would make it a lot more difficult.

GLENN: We're talking to Jack Carr, the fiction writer, the author of In The Blood, which is out right now.

Also one of his other books, The Terminal List is coming out soon, on Netflix.

As a -- as a series, with Chris Pratt. We'll continue our conversation here, in 60 seconds.

(music)

GLENN: If you're carrying a balance on your credit cards, and you're trying to get out of debt. Now is the time to consider a cashout refi of your mortgage. Fed is about to raise the rates again. And I think it's happening this week. What is it?

Today or tomorrow?

And it's going to cost you even more on knowinger credit cards. The equity from knowinger house could help pay that equity off, much faster. And pay a lot less. You don't want to be saddled with a lot of debt right now. And the way things are happening in the economy, it could only get worse. Please, take ten minutes out of your day. Call American Financing. See if they have a solution that will work for you. Their salary-based mortgage consultants can get you a free mortgage review. And let you know all the areas where you could be saving even more money. Call American Financing. They're waiting for your call right now.

800-906-2440. 800-906-2440. Or go to AmericanFinancing.net. Ten-second station ID.

(music)

GLENN: So I just want to war game one more thing with you.

And that is China. You know, I was just reading something. I can't remember where I read it this morning.

But some analysis that -- that the American dollar is going to lose its reserve currency status. You know, in the -- in the coming days, months, years. Whenever.

And China is making a move, to basically have a -- a multi--- or bipolar-powered world.

If we -- Japan looks like it's falling apart, economically.

We're not doing so great. Europe is not doing so great. There's a war going on. If this thing spirals out of control, what's to stop China from taking Taiwan, and then just gobbling the world?

JACK: Right. So they're obviously looking very closely at what was going to happen with Ukraine and Russia. That that didn't happen as fast as most of our strategic level thinkers, leaders, talking heads, anticipated, which was about three, four days. Russia is going to roll through Ukraine. And a lot of that is due to Zelinsky. And I'm still curious as to why Russia did not decapitate that government ahead of time. Take out the leader first. And I think it's because they thought, oh, this was just an actor, like Ronald Reagan, before -- as he first started into politics.

And they just -- they just counted how he could galvanize both his country, and the world, against Russia. So I think that was a strategic level mistake. And they should have anticipated that one.

And we thought the same thing. We offered him refuge. We said, we'll take you out of the country. The way that was asked. And the way that was talked about. It was so casual. It seems as though, we thought, oh, for sure, the leader of the country, will pick up and go. And Russia probably thought the same went thing.

But that did not happen. And now we have the situation we have now. It's actually a war of attrition. And we'll see how that -- how that ends up.

But China and currency, that is a major play here. And a major component of this. That no one is talking about. So I'm glad you are. And China can look at things obviously. They look in decades. They look in centuries. We look at things in a four-year election cycle. Maybe eight years for the real deep thinkers among us. But China can take a breath. And they can see what happened in Ukraine. They can take a breath on Taiwan. And they can -- and they can look at this long-term. And that is the advantages, that they have over us. They have their problems too. They have population problems. One-child policy and coming to fruition. They have lockdowns. Mandates.

A lot of issues to deal with as well, internally. But they can deal with those issues, and take a breath on the strategic front, because we're doing a pretty good job of destroying ourselves from the inside right now. So A little strategic patience on their part really plays into their hands.

GLENN: Talking to Jack Carr.

The author of In the Blood. And The Terminal List, which is coming out on Netflix soon.

I own the Paramount Studios here in Dallas. It was an old movie lot, back in the '80s. And I have some of -- I have an old ship, that was used in a mini-series back in the '80s. And it was Winds of War. You're really now in the best time to be a writer. Because now these movies can be made in episodes. And they don't bastardize the book usually.

JACK: Wow. That's amazing that you have. And I've been there in Chad Prather's show. And I've been there. It was amazing.

GLENN: Let me know next time you're here. I'll take you on a tour. And show you the school stuff that you have.

JACK: Thank you. You have a lot of amazing things there. And that's an incredible book. And if more people read that and willing to remember that, that was their gateway into non-fiction. Studying history. Hopefully a finals lesson going forward in wisdom, we would all be in a better place.

GLENN: Jack Carr, In the Blood is out right now. And coming soon, The Terminal List to Netflix. Please, Jack, let me know next time you're in town. I would love to take you on a quick tour.

God bless you.

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

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

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GLENN: Yeah. Right.

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

DOJ doesn't like Donald Trump.

STU: What?

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

There's nothing.

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

There's nothing here.

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

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

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

STU: Jayapal.

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

STU: Oh, good.

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

STU: Oh.

GLENN: Wait. What?

STU: Wait a minute. What?

I don't understand.

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

GLENN: Yes, she is.

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

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

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

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

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

GLENN: Thirty-four counts.

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

Thirty-four false records accusations here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It was paying him back for these payments.

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

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

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

GLENN: Wait a minute.

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

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

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

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

He's convicted just there.

12 counts.

STU: Now, technically it was 11.

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

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

GLENN: Okay. 11.

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

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

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

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

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

This is one payment.

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

GLENN: But that's not 32.

STU: It is not -- 34.

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

Don't inflate cases like this.

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

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

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

Come on!

There is no way you can justify this.

Especially after the statute of limitations has already expired.

GLENN: That's unbelievable. Unbelievable.

32 counts.

STU: Thirty-four.

GLENN: No. Thirty-two counts.

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

STU: So the April -- July payment.

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

STU: That particular one.

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

I mean --

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

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

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

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

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

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

GLENN: That's what he did.

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

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

GLENN: Stu. Stu.

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

STU: Look.

GLENN: I can --

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

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

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

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

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

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

My guess is either than those two by a lot.

He will say anything.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

STU: Yeah.

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

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

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

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

So they concoct all of this.

STU: Yes.

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

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

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

So now, how do they make it real?

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

GLENN: So what was the other --

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

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

GLENN: Let me bring this to simple terms.

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

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

You know, all those years ago.

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

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

I will not bring up the murder.

STU: No. Right. No.

GLENN: But that's how --

STU: It's connected to the murder.

GLENN: I can get you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill Maher Believes WHAT About Abortion?!

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

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

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

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

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

And we have to have honest conversations.

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

STU: The abortion one?

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

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

STU: Yeah. Really weird.

VOICE: Back to the 19th century.

VOICE: Well.

STU: Clap. Clap.

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

GLENN: Nobody laughs. Nobody laughs.

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

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

VOICE: Yeah, exactly.

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

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

VOICE: No, no, no.

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

VOICE: Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

STU: That's totally true.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

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

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

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

And then really go have a beer.

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

STU: Disbar the world.

GLENN: It would. And we would need --

STU: You think the Star Wars cantina was weird?

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

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

Bring the Jack over -- leave the bottle here.

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

STU: They're fake, yeah.

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

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

STU: At least he's being honest.

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

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

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

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

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

It's just strange.

Is it strange?

The ending of life of children?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

STU: Exactly. It's not honest.

GLENN: But it is the way to win.

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

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

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

Which is a concern. Right?

It's a legitimate concern.

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

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

Maybe it is.

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

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

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

None!

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

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

STU: But it should be proposed every single Congress.

GLENN: Yes.

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

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

STU: Yeah.

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

STU: Yeah.

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

And it wasn't popular.

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

Because there is no progress.

Nobody is making progress on this.

They're all just talking a good game.

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

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

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

STU: It's true.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How does this end, in children not dying?

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

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

Republicans are progressives, as well.

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

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

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

Bitcoin Halving EXPLAINED: Will This One Be DIFFERENT?

The Bitcoin halving is here, but what is this event and will it be different from previous ones? Glenn and Stu explain what a Bitcoin halving is, what usually happens, and why some believe there won’t be a spike in Bitcoin value this time around. But are they right? Or is it still a good time to buy?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Hey, today is Bitcoin. What they call the havoc. Right?

STU: Happy havoc day, to those who celebrate. Yes. Ten hours away from now, it looks like.

GLENN: It sounds like something that would maybe happen, in -- what was that?

That film happened in Norway. It was like that summer festival.

It's like the halving, and they're all gathered in some beautiful place.

STU: Yes. What was that movie?

What was that? It was very -- it was one I wouldn't watch.

GLENN: It was creepy.

It could have been called the Halving.

Or, you know, When Magic Goes Bad. David Copperfield stars in the Halving. Now, I have to cut this woman in half. And he can't put her back. Maybe I don't --

STU: That would be a good plot. That's not what the halving is for Bitcoin though.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: And you've seen the price go up. There's been various reasons for that over the past year.

The ETFs. Meaning a lot of money is flowing into Bitcoin for the first time, really. That is a big catalyst of it.

The other is the halving, which happens, what? Every four years.

You don't know exactly what will happen. As they get closer and closer, they can specify.

And it will be today, at some point. About ten hours from now.

GLENN: And what does it mean exactly?

STU: Basically, when Bitcoin started. You have to have miners with, who are going to mine the Bitcoin to kind of bring it into availability for everybody.

GLENN: And you knew this would involve minors.

STU: No, it's not like Jeffrey Epstein. Think of a coal miner, except digitally.

GLENN: Different kind of miner. Okay. All right. What are they wearing? Are they wearing pants?

STU: That's not important. That's not important. By the way, Bitcoin miners know they're not wearing pants. They're in their underwear in their mother's basement. At least that's how it started. It was people in their underwear in their mom's basement, basically. And they were mining tons and tons of Bitcoin.

Now, remember, Bitcoin, there will only ever be 21 million of them. They are sort of -- think of them being mined. They are slowly mined, this time, I think we've mined, 2140. I don't know. It's a long way. But the basic idea with the halving, is every four years the reward for the miners gets cut in half. So the reason that's important, is the supply shrinks.

So maybe, you go back years and years and years. There's tons and tons of Bitcoin going on. Getting mined every single day.

Now, that number gets cut in half.

It was like each block, which is about every ten minutes.

Each one of those, it was six Bitcoin. Were freed into the world.

Like released into the world.

Now it's like three. It shrinks every four years. 1.75. 1.5. Or 1.25. It's not exact numbers.

GLENN: Until it gets to zero and there's no more Bitcoin left.

STU: And that's at 21 million Bitcoin. So you are now at -- I think it's six to three, roughly, in this particular halving. And the other part about the halving that has been important to note, is every time, there has been one, over the next six months, there has been a massive increase in the prophesy Bitcoin. Now, will this happen this time? No one knows. Past performance is not indicative of future results, we all know the disclaimer.

GLENN: We really do know that disclaimer. You may not know that disclaimer, but we do.
STU: Yes. Very true.

GLENN: The views of Stu are not necessarily those of the host.

STU: This is not financial advice.

Past performance is not indicative of future results. We don't know. We have also had a very large rise over the past year. So some people theorized, it's already built in.

Right?

This time, the rise we've already had, is basically part of what the halving would bring. However, when you look at the charts over the past three or four or five halvings. We've had massive increases. All those times, where all of a sudden, everyone around you, was talking about Bitcoin. Almost all those periods happened between six months.

Three to nine months after a halving.

GLENN: After. Not before.

STU: Well, you've seen some rises before. Generally, speaking, the real pop has happened after.

GLENN: This has been a real pop. This brought us back to where it was.

STU: There's a reason to believe, there's more here. Again, the last one was in 2020. Do you remember the 2021 phenomenon?

Then you had a drop back down. We are now down back to where we were, 2021.

GLENN: Making a case that somebody should buy, just a fraction of Bitcoin.

STU: Okay.

GLENN: I mean, you know, when it first started, and everybody was on board. Everybody was buying Bitcoin.

Because it was like, I have three Bitcoin. You know.

STU: Yep.

GLENN: And now, most people cannot afford to buy -- no.

STU: Of course not. Let me put it this way.

Right now, you would say, Bitcoin, $60,000. Basically, it's only for a millionaire.

Someone who wants tons of money, who will throw into a Bitcoin.

You might say only millionaires can afford that.

You might say something like that. Think of it this way, there are 24.5 million millionaires just in the United States.

GLENN: 24.5 million millionaires.

STU: Yes. Right. Right now, there will never be enough Bitcoin for every millionaire in the United States to own one. That doesn't include millionaires around the world. There are already too many millionaires for just millionaires to get one of these things.

GLENN: How much of it do you think is lost? Permanently, forever, lost.

STU: Permanently. Like, for example, we know the Satoshi's account. Which, the guy who invented Bitcoin. We don't know who it is. Group of people. Or if he's dead. I think they're dead. That's my opinion. He has an account with 1 million of it, in it, that's never moved.

So we basically know, unless this guy reveals himself somehow in the future. Which is not likely, that a million of them are lost. We also know, early on, people were mining these things and getting thousands and tens of thousands of them. And just losing -- turning their computer off. And not thinking they were worth anything.

The estimates are that probably something like a third of them are lost forever. So instead of 21 million, maybe it's 14 million. Maybe it's 15 million.

Somewhere in that vicinity. Now that they're valuable, people are not losing them, of course. At least as often. It's still happening every day.

People screw it up. They lose it.

They send it to the wrong account. That stuff still happens. But you're probably talking about, let's say 15 million, that actually will exist.

You have 24.5 millionaires in the United States. In the world, you have about 60 million millionaires. So if you split up all the Bitcoin in the world, just among millionaires, they can only get a quarter of one each.

Now, if you can put some in there. The idea that these things will go down in value.

Over the very long-term. To me, is unlikely.

And part of that is, at the beginning of this, nobody knew. Right?

Like when I first invested in Bitcoin. And I don't have a lot of money in Bitcoin. But when I first started in Bitcoin. My thought was, I'm going to throw some money in this, let's see what happens.

I have absolutely no idea.

My thought was, there's a good chance. I said this to you, at the time. There's a good chance it goes to zero. It was a total gamble. I had no idea.

I liked the concept of money that can't be inflated and printed. Right?

I like that concept. That's why I was interested in it.

But, I mean, how many multi-trillion dollar industries can you remember going to zero?

I mean, is there any example of this?

GLENN: White star line. This has I don't think they were worth trillions. Right?

Enron was a big company, right?

Don't remember it being worth trillions. Bitcoin's market cap is over a trillion dollars.

GLENN: No. I can't see it going to zero. Unless all the central banks in the world say, not --

STU: It's so resistant to that right now. Though.

GLENN: I know.

STU: We're seeing countries open up. And start accepting it. You know, the United States of America, has now accepted Bitcoin ETFs. That's a huge embrace of this technology.

And look, I don't know. I can't tell you, it won't go down in the future. I would be surprised if it never goes down below these levels again. It probably will.

So you might buy today. And at some point, be down.

A lot of people bought in 2021. And thought, oh, my gosh, I've lost all my money.

Except, now pretty much every person who has ever bought Bitcoin in its history, if they held on to it, is either about even or up.

GLENN: Everybody. Even the people who bought at the very peak.

STU: Everybody. Yeah, unless you bought like a couple of months ago, when it hit 69-70 for a couple of days. There's a few people.

But generally speaking, almost no one who has ever purchased this and kept it, has lost money.

And that's that's quite a statement. Again, what other investments can you point to, that has that type of record?

There's almost none. So I don't know. You don't know what the future holds, but man, this is a technology that has proved itself incredibly resilient.

GLENN: I get really pissed at you, every time we talk about this. Every time.

STU: You get pissed at me.

Why are you pissed at me?

GLENN: Yes, I do. I blame you for bad decisions. Blame you.

STU: Why?

GLENN: I was with Marc Andreessen.

STU: Yes.

GLENN: It might have even been a fraction of a cent.

STU: It was before -- well before I bought it. That's for sure.

Because I remember the conversation.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

And he's going to start some new thing with this new currency.

STU: Yeah. I remember you telling me this, at the time. I fortunately, did not listen.

GLENN: Yeah. Neither did I. Neither did I.

And we could have put hundred dollars in it, at this point.

STU: Oh, my gosh.

$100. Do you know how much that would be worth?

GLENN: It was a fraction of a cent. Wasn't it?

STU: I don't remember if it was that low, but it was really early.

GLENN: It was right as he started the digital wallet.

Coinbase. It was right as he started it.

STU: Gosh. This makes me physically ill.

GLENN: I think he actually told me that before he started it.

Or he may have --

STU: In the middle of making money or whatever.

GLENN: Yeah. He said, do you know anything about Bitcoin. You should invest.

Just take $5,000. And just throw it in this. And I'm like, uh-huh.

And I -- at the time, $5,000 was -- you know.

STU: You would probably be a billionaire.

GLENN: I would be.

STU: I can't imagine how many you would have -- I love this story.

GLENN: Well, look it up. Look it up.

Look up when they opened Coinbase.

And what the price of Bitcoin was. $5,000.

All right. Back in just a second. First, let me tell you about Ruff Greens. It's hard to know what to feed your dog these days. If you walk down the dog food aisle. You'll see hundred different types. Most of them are variations of the same thing.

The majority of dog food is kibble food. That means everything has been sterilized. All the good stuff. All the stuff that your dog really needs, because it has to have a long shelf life. They've cooked all that stuff out.

Your food. You need the same kind of nutrients, many of them that your dog needs.

And so naturopathic Dr. Dennis Black. Came up with this formula. Just for your dog. It has all of the vitamins, minerals, and probiotics, that your to go needs every day. Folks at Ruff Greens are so confident, that your dog will love it. They have a special deal for you. Just go to Ruff Greens. R-U-F-FGreens.com/Beck.

Or call 833-Glenn-33. They'll give you the first trial bag for free. All you pay for is shipping. 833-Glenn-33. Do it now.

Ten-second station ID.
(music)

GLENN: So go ahead.

STU: What?

GLENN: Why he didn't you invest in it? You're always -- you're that kind of guy. You know, I just threw some money in it. Why didn't you --

STU: I mean, I think I did. I just didn't do it as early as that.

Again, I wish I had invested more. Then I wouldn't have to be sitting here with you every day. It would be a dream.

GLENN: If I had a time machine, that's the only thing I would change. And for that reason. I would go back in time.

STU: You would make me -- you actually wouldn't mind making me a billionaire, just so I wouldn't have to be here every day?

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah. That's the kind of guy I am.

STU: How about this, I'll it do for 10 mil right now. Get some financing.

So it depends. It's hard to know exactly when you talk to him. The Coinbase started in 2012. Coinbase is a little later, when you're talking a fraction of a cent, so it was about ten bucks in 2020 -- when it actually started selling Bitcoin. When Coinbase began that process, it was about ten bucks.

If you spent $5,000 then, you would have had about 500 Bitcoin, which would be worth $32.5 million. Which would be incredibly nice. However, my remembrance of this story was, it was before -- before that. When it was sort of being dreamt up.

So it could have been.

GLENN: It was one of the first times I've ever heard of Bitcoin. And I think I came back to you. And I said, what is Bitcoin?

And you were like, well, people buy pizzas with it.

STU: This is ridiculous history.

GLENN: That's exactly what he said.
STU: I don't think I knew much of anything. I had heard of it. But I didn't know anything about it at that time -- I definitely was not discouraging you in investing $5,000. That's exactly how you remember it.

GLENN: That's exactly how I remember it, Your Honor.

STU: And one fascinating thing I think that really hasn't fully taken -- taken root yet when it comes to the Bitcoin phenomenon.

GLENN: By the way, hang on just a second. I just have to say something. I said at the time. I said that, on the air too.

STU: Oh, really?

We should go back and find it.

We can probably find it.

GLENN: Marc Andreessen. He's at Bitcoin.

Blah, blah, blah. But Warren Buffett. He says, if you don't understand it, you shouldn't invest in it.

STU: Where did you find that?

GLENN: I wonder if anybody. If anybody did it.

What our earliest time was, when we said. Hey, maybe you should throw some money into it.

I don't know if I will do it. If anybody in the audience. Of course, there was somebody that was in the audience.

They're not now.

STU: Showing, they're billionaires.

GLENN: On a yacht someplace.

STU: I think that's one of the things that's most interesting in a societal sense.

That we had a lot of people. Because the early people into Bitcoin. Not like the people necessarily today.

But the early people into Bitcoin. Were people who generally speaking, were ideologically let's say Libertarian.

Or somewhat close to that.

GLENN: Yes. Correct.

STU: And there are now massive amounts of people, who became insanely wealthy over this process. And continue probably to get even wealthier.

And those people who would have probably been marginalized in society, at some level.

Maybe they would of been successful. But would never have that sort of power.

GLENN: No. They're the losers. Loaners. And creeps.

STU: And we've seen.

I mean, Libertarians, will describe themselves this way.

So we've seen now, that many of these people have made an impact. Right?

We've seen a lot of them. Marc Andreessen. Not necessarily, an ideological Libertarian. A lot of these people have risen.

Two of the richest people in the world. Are the Winklevoss twins. The people who had Facebook stolen from them.

GLENN: I think they're fictional characters.

STU: They may be. They were in a movie once. So I don't know.

GLENN: Sure. Anybody can play them. But I think anybody with Winklevoss as their name. And they're twins. I think it's too magical to be real.

STU: It's hard to believe.

GLENN: It is. It is.

Oh, let's call on the Winklevoss twins.

STU: For everything --

GLENN: Show up. Say their names three times.

Hi, we're here to grant any wish, with our magical Bitcoin.

STU: Right. Consider that they basically had Facebook -- in my opinion, Facebook stolen from them. They wound up getting thrown out.

Got some money for it. Were not insanely wealthy.

Wound up not with one, but two giant revolutions of the world.

They were at the founding of almost -- they invested a fortune in Bitcoin, right after that.

And now were multi-billionaires because of it. It's a weird people that wouldn't have normally been at the top of our society. Are now there. And hopefully, they've kept some of these small government routes, through that process.

And maybe they can Friday the country, in a way --

GLENN: No. No. Because when you get that wealthy. What you do, you know, I can get somebody on the phone.

I can make this happen. I don't want a stop sign here.

And I think we should also kill the poor. I will get both of those done. I will call my council member. And, you know, my master at the WEF.

You know what you know I mean?

You start protecting it, and then that all goes to hell.

STU: Maybe. Who knows?

GLENN: We should do what Star Trek did, and abolish all money. Learn how to live in harmony.

STU: That worked out well for them. They were poor in episode.

What are you talking about?

GLENN: How did they pay for those starships? How ridiculous was that?