It’s no secret the left has been trying to destroy Donald Trump ever since he announced his White House candidacy years ago. The FBI raid on his home at Mar-a-Lago seemed to take things to a new level, but we may never know the answers if the INSANELY redacted affidavit released by the DOJ is any indication. But one thing IS clear: some Trump haters are going to new lengths to bring him down. In fact, the left’s latest charge against the former president is so ridiculous it's hard to believe. Glenn and Stu discuss Trump's apparent ‘unlawful storage,’ plus how his alleged misconduct doesn’t even COMPARE to that of a far-left favorite...
Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors
GLENN: Okay. So it's strange. I -- I heard a lot of talk this weekend, of people saying, did you see the -- did you see the Mar-a-Lago affidavit? And I said, no.
And they said, yeah. It was mainly, you know, it was all just black bars. I said, no. I saw that. I didn't see the affidavit. I saw all the black bars.
And there's something new now. The Department of Justice has redacted the reason for redacting the affidavit.
GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.
STU: Seems appropriate.
GLENN: Yeah. The only thing they said, that wasn't redacted there, was agent safety.
Every other -- you know, agent safety. That's because the violent extremists on the right.
GLENN: So Asian safety was not redacted. But every other reason for redacting, was redacted.
STU: So we have absolutely no idea what's in it. But also, no idea, why we can't see things. Right.
GLENN: Yeah. We don't know what's in it. And we also now don't know the reason why, we don't know what's in it.
STU: This is perfect. This is perfect.
GLENN: No, seriously, it's really good.
By the way, the New York Times now, demands criminal prosecution of Donald Trump. Uh-huh.
STU: Are we supposed to care about what the New York Times demands? I don't.
GLENN: No. Not at all. So let me give you this. This one is from, I think it's YouTube. Not YouTube.
Yahoo. There is little left for the Justice Department due, but to decide whether to wait until after the midterms to formerly seek the indictment of a grand jury, for Donald Trump.
STU: Hmm. This is --
GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.
STU: I heard -- I heard someone talking about this whole scandal earlier today. And the phrase they used. I mean this sincerely. The phrase they used, what they were going to charge him with was unlawful storage.
GLENN: Oh, man.
STU: Does anyone think this will have an impact? I'm fascinated by this.
GLENN: Unlawful storage. That is -- that is a death penalty sentence right there.
STU: Again, we're not talking about -- like, a guy getting access to documents he's not supposed to have access to, right? That's not what we're talking about. These are documents -- the man saw with his eyes, while he was president with the United States. So the issue here is, he should have put it in a better closet. He should have put it in a safe. He should have let it be stored at the archives. A storage conflict. This is what's going to take down Donald Trump. The guy who survived all of these other things. Unlawful storage is the thing. That's what they want us to believe today.
GLENN: Well, that's the way we took Al Capone down.
STU: Unlawful storage?
GLENN: Well, no. Tax evasion.
We couldn't get him on the other things, you know. The difference is that Al Capone was actually killing people. Donald Trump hasn't done anything. You just don't like him.
STU: Right. Can I run a couple of scenarios by you?
GLENN: Sure. Yeah.
STU: So I want to boil this down for a second. No one actually cares if Donald Trump has this document. I know it's a controversial thing to say.
GLENN: No. It's not. Maybe for the media.
STU: Maybe for the media. But no one actually cares. The man literally, we are supposed to believe, saw them, and that's why he has them, right?
GLENN: And, by the way, he didn't pack them up. The GEO did. The GEO did. So that's not him or his people.
STU: One of the few things we know about these documents. Is they were put in between newspaper clippings and everything else. And you could say -- so let's start at the bottom. He didn't do anything at all.
Obviously, that does not affect. What we're talking about here is not whether these documents affected the national security. It's just a matter of how it affects Donald Trump's future politics. That's all the story is about. It has nothing to do with whether or not he committed a crime or not. So maybe he did nothing wrong. Obviously, that's not I problem. Next step up, he was reckless -- he shouldn't have had the documents and had them. Right? Let's say he was reckless with the documents, okay?
GLENN: Like, what would be reckless? Like laying them out, putting them on the menu at Mar-a-Lago.
STU: Right. Exactly. Let's say. You're at Mar-a-Lago. Your kid is ordering a grilled cheese. He flips it over, it's supposed to be the maze. But instead, it's a nuclear document. That would be really reckless.
GLENN: Right. Or -- or I could get the ground beef, the sirloin, or the nuclear secrets.
STU: Right. Exactly. That would be bad.
GLENN: Right. Okay. Because then he would technically be selling them, Stu.
STU: If it's just a process argument about documents, there is no impact to our politics, right? The fact that he should have -- let's just say. Let's take the worst case. He should have gone through some other process of declassification or whatever. No one actually cares about that. At all.
It's not -- it's not going to impact our politics. Step it up. Was he reckless with them?
Let's say, like he legitimately put them in some closet, and did not lock the door, which is what they're saying.
GLENN: No. They came down. And asked him to put a lock on, and he did.
STU: And he did.
But I would ask you this: Go try to steal a drink at Mar-a-Lago. Would that be easy? This is the president of the United States' house. They act as if people could walk into any closet and start stealing boxes. This is not likely to occur. While you might say, hey, they should be in a highly classified environment. I get that.
GLENN: Well, look. Hang on. Hang on. I think you're doing too much work here.
STU: Let me give you the last two scenarios. This one I would say, let's just say, he handled them recklessly. I think in our politics, that could escalate to the point of the Hillary Clinton scandal, where the people on the one side of the argument, think it's the worst thing in the world. And the other side does not care at all. It could elevate to that level. The only thing that could actually make any difference to the story, would be if you had evidence, evidence of Donald Trump using these documents for his own personal benefit. I.e., he was selling them to get golf events, at his country clubs, which was actually tossed out there by the left.
GLENN: Wait. Wait. Wait. If Donald Trump -- and this could happen. It didn't with Donald Trump. But it could happen, in theory.
STU: In theory.
GLENN: If Donald Trump said to somebody else in the White House, I want you to go into the skiff. I want you to -- I want you to take pictures of those documents.
GLENN: Then cut the top of them off, so it doesn't say classified or top secret. And then email them to my home.
That would be bad.
STU: Right. And, of course, would be much, much, much more risky than having them in a closet. Anything online, anywhere, would be more risky than having it in Donald Trump's closet, even without a lock.
GLENN: Hey, how do you know it's not a virtual closet? Go ahead.
STU: We don't know. But if you had evidence, that let's say, he was taking documents, that were central to American security. That he was going to use to -- in a political ad, three weeks later, that he didn't decline. I don't know what the scenario would be. But if he found something like that, and found real evidence of that, maybe that would move the needle.
A process crime on documents is not moving -- this is a ridiculous controversy. And I swear the left just wants to talk about Donald Trump, because they think, that's going to help them in some way.
They want to -- they want to get in a fight with them. They want to make it about them versus Donald Trump again. They remember the good old days, back when they were winning midterm elections back in 2018.
They remember the good old days when CNN had eight people watching it.
They remember all these wonderful dreams. So they want to talk about it constantly. But what the hell is the point of this? Like, these are not documents that they stole. He didn't go into a bank vault, and steal documents he didn't see. He literally saw them.
GLENN: He's also the president, and he declassifies anything he wants, unlike the Secretary of State. Anyway, that's a different story. Let me ask you this question, okay?
Same kind of topic. Who do you believe? Who do you trust?
Apparently, a Ukrainian truck driver's daughter named Ina Jacoshovin.
STU: Are you a native speaker?
GLENN: That's the way you pronounce it. Jacoshovin.
STU: I could tell.
GLENN: Who allegedly posed as a Rothschild heiress to gain access to Mar-a-Lago and meet former President Donald Trump, is being accused now of the FBI of having ties to Russian organized crime.
Apparently, this woman, who lives in Ohio.
The FBI said, she was making trips to Mar-a-Lago, to get money from Donald Trump for a children's charity, which actually was a front for organized crime in Russia.
GLENN: So Donald Trump was writing checks to organized crime in Russia. Uh-huh.
STU: Does that --
GLENN: Now, she says, no.
Nothing like that. FBI says, yeah. Everything like that. My question is: Who do you believe? The woman you don't even know anything about, that could have been -- could have been masquerading as a Rothschild, and a Soviet spy.
Or the FBI.
STU: The fact that you have to ask that question is a problem with our institutions.