BLOGJuly 12, 2017

If Colluding With Russia Isn't a Crime, What Is It?

Is it a crime to meet with people on the promise of foreign interference with an election?

Glenn opened up the floor to callers on radio Wednesday to see what TheBlaze audience thinks of Donald Trump, Jr.’s emails planning a meeting to get damaging information on Hillary Clinton from the Russian state.

A story in the New York Times on Monday claimed that the younger Trump had emails about meeting with the “crown prosecutor of Russia” to learn “highly sensitive” information about Clinton because the Russian government wanted to support his campaign. On Tuesday, Trump, Jr. himself tweeted screenshots of the emails verifying that the story was accurate.

Glenn reminded people that it’s important not to wear a “term jersey” if you want to share a nuanced perspective; the country doesn’t necessarily need to hear more from people who are deeply loyal only based on partisan lines.

In today’s political discourse, people are often reactionary and subjective. Can principled people remain consistent and identify right and wrong in political scandals?

“We have to get to a place to where we ask ourselves in advance of a scandal, ‘Does it matter?’” Glenn said.

Enjoy the complimentary clip or read the transcript for details.

GLENN: Hello, America. And welcome to the Glenn Beck Program. Glad that you are here. Donald Trump said yesterday that his son was open, transparent, and innocent. He also said he was -- what was it? A very classy boy. What was the first thing that he said? Something like that.

STU: He's a high-quality guy or something.

GLENN: High-quality. Big, beautiful doors at his house. High-quality.

Which was -- I thought was a funny -- very Trump statement. He did come out later and say that he was open, transparent, and innocent.

Okay. Open and transparent, no. But he did release the document yesterday, about halfway through this program, that showed the emails. But that is because -- it's important to remember -- the New York Times -- whoever is leaking these, which is a conversation we have to have. Who leaked this email?

Who had a copy of this email? Who leaked this email to the New York Times? How did they get that?

Hmm. Donald Trump Jr. had told us that Kushner and Manafort had no idea what the meeting was about. But if you look at the email chain, in the CC was Kushner and Manafort. So is it possible that one of them leaked this email, knowing that it was coming out, and, you know, a couple of weeks ago, knowing that they had already told the FBI about this email and so, at some point the investigation is going to lead to this, I want to make sure I look like I'm clean.

Manafort if you know -- Manafort, in the New York Times and from the -- the KGB woman or the woman who is definitely not KGB, she said Manafort was just -- he was just looking at his Blackberry or his i Pad the whole time. He wasn't even paying attention. And Kushner, he left within two minutes. So both of those were -- were kind of cleared in some sort of way by the Russian woman.

I know that Donald Jr. tried to clear them, but unfortunately his email had the CC to both of them. So they both knew what this meeting was all about.

That's not exactly -- what was it? Open and transparent. And, you know, when you release something because the feds are going to release it or the press is going to release it within a few minutes, it doesn't really count, "Oh, I wanted to get it out there." You did a good job because now people are able to say, "Hey, he released this. It didn't come from the news." But it also works against you if you've been on the front lines saying, "Fake news. Fake news. Fake news." Because we can easily say, "It's not fake news. He released this."

So the questions we have to ask are, if this isn't a crime, if this isn't something that you're going to go to jail for, this is really just a sin. And is this a sin of, what? Is it a sin of commission or omission?

Is this a sin of -- of impeachable status? Or is this just a sin that we all forgive and move on. Or is this something that we all defend?

And that's where we have to look. And I want to talk to you, not as a guy who -- I want to hear from you. I don't want to tell you what to think. I really want to have a conversation with you. Because I want to know how you are thinking. I want to know how you are viewing this. I want to give you a chance to vent. I want to give you a chance to reason and think. So the conversation that I'd like to have with you is one where I am pushing and prodding and asking questions, but I'm going to do that on both sides.

I don't want to hear from people who are wearing a team jersey. If you are strongly Never Trump, strongly Always Trump, strongly, you know, one side or another. I really want to hear from people who are struggling with this or have made up their mind one way or another, that can help others. But you're not just a robot on, I got to get Donald Trump out, I got to keep Donald Trump in. I want to talk to real people.

Here's what I -- here's what I want to preface this with: Before this election, I said, we have to know -- we have to -- we have to get to a place to where we ask ourself in advance of a scandal. Does it matter?

And this comes from the Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton debacle of the '90.

Does this matter? Here's what happened in the '90s. As you remember, the left said, "He didn't." We said, yes, he did.

No, he didn't.

Yes, he did.

No, he didn't.

Yes, he did.

No, he didn't. For about eight months. And then all of a sudden it was revealed that, "Oh, my gosh. Yes, he did."

Then what did they do?

It doesn't matter.

Yes, it does.

No, it doesn't.

Yes, it does.

Then why were we arguing about this for so long?

Well, it matters to him personally. This is a personal sin. This doesn't have anything to do with him being president.

Yes, it does. The president can't lie to the American people.

It was a personal lie. It doesn't matter. Yes, it does. No, it doesn't. Yes, it does. Oh, my gosh.

Now, I want to talk to you about the aftereffects. You most likely argued that a sin about sex in a marriage doesn't matter. And so what happened was, we went through about eight months or a year, maybe two, of arguing about is oral sex, sex? Depends on what the definition of "is" is. The damage that this did to the credibility -- the reason why Hillary Clinton lost is because we didn't teach the Clintons a lesson then.

If Hillary Clinton would have said, "You know, the truth does matter," if she would have come out -- I said this when it was happening, if Hillary Clinton would have taken her luggage and put it in front of the White House and said, "He's still my president, but he's not my husband right now. We may get back together. No man should ever treat a woman like that. The truth does matter." Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton's life would be a lot different. And Hillary Clinton may have been president in 2000. Because she would have had credibility. And perhaps she would have learned -- perhaps, because we are talking about the Clintons -- perhaps she would have learned that doing -- standing up for the truth pays off.

But instead, her supporters said, "Oh, it doesn't matter. We love you anyway. You guys can get things done." And so the truth didn't matter.

Now, how has this affected our kids? Pat, do you have that stat of --

PAT: I don't have it in front of me, but it seems to me that it was about 80 percent of 12-year-olds in 2009 or 2010 that didn't believe oral sex was sex.

GLENN: Right. It is meaningless to them. And they really don't believe that oral sex is sex, and they are embracing it. What one generation tolerates, the next embraces.

Now, remember, I know how you feel about your kids. I know how you feel about your life. I know how you're feeling now about, I haven't had a raise. I haven't had a job. I can't afford my insurance. I'm under attack with my children. I can't even send them to school.

Right. Right. So I can't tell you -- I can't tell you what you need to do. You need to do what you need to do.

But for me, if we lose the younger generation -- it's not even Generation X. I have something that we probably won't get around to, today. A new study on generation Z. Have you seen generation Z? They are a direct result of the Tea Party. I'm convinced of it.

They are a direct result of how bad the government has gotten and how we have infused things into them, because of the Tea Party, standing up for what is right and standing up for smaller government and the truth and transparency.

Generation Z is not like Generation X. And there's a new study out that says, Democrats, be warned, generation Z is not in your roundhouse. They're not with you.

So what we do with our children right now makes all the difference in the world. Now, we know how it worked out on oral sex. An unattended -- an unintended consequence. We thought we would teach our children about lies, and perhaps we did. But what we actually taught them was sex is meaningless. Oral sex is meaningless. It means nothing.

And they learned that just from us arguing back and forth. I don't know what they're going to learn from this. But I know they're going to watch us and they're going to learn something. And so I want to be really, really careful before we engage in arguments. It's why I'd like to -- I'd like to turn down the volume of this and have a reasonable conversation. And that's why I've asked for people with no teams. If you're on a team, that's fine, as long as you can turn the passion down. Because I don't want to add to the name-calling and the passion, because I don't want to set -- begin to set the example for our children, before we really know what we're doing. Because we don't have all the facts right yet.

And I'm more concerned about the children, our children, and what we're teaching them. Because we all know, if we lose our children, we're toast. We already know what the left is teaching their children. We already know what the institutions are teaching our children. We're the last hope with our children.

RADIO

Why Glenn is SKEPTICAL about the "HACKED" Matt Gaetz investigation testimony

Who could have seen it coming?! A "hacker" has reportedly gained access to testimony from the congressional investigation into former Representative and current Trump Attorney General pick Matt Gaetz. Glenn and Stu review this shocking story and how it definitely WASN'T leaked by some Democratic staffer or lawmaker. Plus, they discuss the odds that this is eventually leaked and whether the allegations against Gaetz are even credible.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Okay. All right.

Hackers. I've got to tell you, I'm upset. But I don't think I'm as upset as the Democrats are.

STU: Oh, of course.

GLENN: They've got to be really upset.

STU: What you know they're saying? Dagnabbit. These hackers.

GLENN: Dagnabbit. They're not saying Jiminy Cricket, are they?

STU: They're saying Jiminy Cricket.

GLENN: It's that bad. It's that bad.

STU: These hackers. First, they get that Dobbs decision, and that gets leaked. And now this?

I mean, the Democrats have got to be very disappointed with that.

Now, I may have said the other day. That there was zero chance this would not be leaked.
(laughter)

That there's no chance --

GLENN: Well, it wasn't leaked though. It wasn't leaked.

STU: It's not like -- it has nothing to do with my previous statement. Because this was a hacker. A hacker who is just like, where should I go?

I want to get that Matt Gaetz report.

GLENN: I bet it's secure. I bet there's no way of me getting it for political purposes. You know what I mean?

STU: Right. And I want to be clear.

This definitely was not a congressional employee of some sort. We know it's a hacker.

GLENN: It's a hacker.

We have no idea who could have gotten into this.

STU: Right.

GLENN: I bet we've already called the cell phone companies. We can't triangulate any of that. All that is corrupted.

STU: Well, we do have a name. Do you want to know the name?

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah. I do.

STU: The information was downloaded by a person using the name Atlem Beasley (phonetic) At 1:23 p.m. on Monday.

GLENN: Not of the Beasley clan!

STU: Of the Beasley clan.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. Those Beasleys are vicious, and pernicious hackers.

STU: Uh-huh. Hackers. The Beasleys.

Now, we don't know what the name means. Obviously, I would assume not their real name. Lawyer connected to the case, sent an email to the address associated with Atlem Beasley.

Only to be informed that by an automated reply, the recipient doesn't exist. They just don't know who this person could be.

GLENN: Man!

STU: It's just so disappointing.

GLENN: You know what is really amazing, how we have all of this technology, that can track and listen and find anything. Every keystroke, reported. But we can't find this hacker.

STU: But we do know almost immediately, that it was hacked. You know, it's funny. Because someone will come in and hack, you know, some -- some cell phone providers information. Millions. Billions. Of records, go out.

Of millions of people. And we won't know about it for six months.

The next day! We have learned, all about this hack. It's almost like someone who knew about the hack, was able to immediately get that information to the New York Times.

GLENN: That's crazy.

STU: Oh, these hackers. They're getting more and more shifty by the day.

GLENN: Oh, man. Do we know where Sotomayor might have been.

Oh, I didn't.

STU: No, it's a good question. Anybody can be as guilty as the next person. Bring up Sotomayor. Equally impossibly as guilty as anyone else.

The janitor here at the Blaze may have done it, or Sonia Sotomayor.

GLENN: Sonia Sotomayor, who definitely had nothing to do with the leak of Dobbs. Nothing.

STU: No. No.

GLENN: I don't mean to imply that at all.

STU: No. No.

GLENN: She is just as upset as anybody else about that.

That leaking of the Dobbs decision.

STU: She's probably upset about this Gaetz decision too.

GLENN: She's probably like, oh, those hackers.

STU: The dagnabbit. They got us again.

GLENN: Yeah. Jim any Christmas.

STU: It's really disappointing that this continues to happen. Of course, I'm sure a hacker just knows where to go, to find this information.

Certainly, maybe someone who is involved in this ethics report. Would have the exact knowledge of where -- where this file lived.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

STU: But the hacking though.

GLENN: The hacking. Yeah.

STU: You know, it's probably more hacking than anything else.

GLENN: It's not somebody on the inside.

STU: Not somebody on the inside.

GLENN: It wouldn't be somebody like a Supreme Court justice Sotomayor that did that.

STU: No. First of all, absolutely not. On the Dobbs thing.

GLENN: As we know.

STU: I would be stunned to hear that she or someone from her office was involved in that.

GLENN: There was no one.

Well, when they checked everybody else.

STU: A magnifying glass and everything else.

GLENN: Well, they couldn't check the justices. They couldn't have done it.

They're outraged. They're outraged.

STU: I'm pretty skeptical Sotomayor was capable of actually doing this on her own.

She seems to be incapable of tying her shoes.

GLENN: Yeah. I didn't say she did it on her own.

I didn't even say she did it.

STU: To be clear, that's not what anyone is insinuating.

And in this case, there's definitely no interest.

GLENN: None.

STU: People who don't like Matt Gaetz. Democrats and some Republicans.

No chance that this was a setup, and leaked to the New York Times, specifically, within gosh, 24 hours.

GLENN: Let me ask you. Let me ask you.

Now, a convicted felon claimed that he was paying the legal fees of the accuser of Matt Gaetz. And controlling her.

Okay. A convicted felon.

Now, if you don't know, you know, what this whole report is based on, well, the report -- I mean, well, first of all, they looked into this.

They looked into this.

You know, because there's no reason, anybody at the DOJ would want Gaetz out.

Because, yes, he was effective. He was probably the biggest voice against the corruption at the DOJ.

However, this report was based on something that came years after the DOJ dropped its investigation.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: So they investigated. Heard about it. Investigated. And they were like, oh, my gosh. This could be -- oh, no. Uh-uh. There's nothing to it.

STU: Well, they didn't file charges.

They didn't necessarily say there was nothing to it. They didn't file charges.

GLENN: Well, let's look into this.

And I don't know. Because I haven't seen the leaked report.

Like that was going to tell me anything.

STU: Wait. So you're not the hacker?

There's one person who is not the hacker.

GLENN: I'm sorry. Did I -- the report comes years after the DOJ dropped its investigation into the same claims on the grounds that two central witnesses had serious credibility issues. That's why they dropped it.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: The witnesses had serious credibility issues.

Yet these are the same two central witnesses, the House ethics committee has relied on for its critical report of Gaetz, which has now been hacked.

STU: Ah, the hacking! All this hacking.

GLENN: Yeah. The two witnesses do have some credibility problems. The claims arose from Joel Greenberg, one of the most corrupt Florida politicians of all time.

Among the many things the former seminal county tax collector admitted to, as part of a wide-ranging case for which he's currently serving 11 years in prison.

Was falsely accusing a local politician. An opponent of his, Brian Beaut (phonetic) of having sex with a minor.

STU: Hmm! Interesting. The similarities there.

GLENN: Yeah, it's kind of weird, isn't it?

Greenberg also reportedly attempted to frame his attorney with pornographic images of children.

One New York Times write-up of Greenberg was headlined Like The Tiger.

Like The Tiger King got elected tax collector, according to the Washington Post.

Greenberg admitted to fabricating allegations against a school teacher, a third one, running against him.

Greenberg had sent letters to the school, falsely claiming the teacher had inappropriate sexual relationships with a student. So, I mean, you know, it's a little credibility problem.

STU: A tad. A tad. It's not left to the level of hacking. It's not that type of crime. It's not a hacking level offense. But it does sound pretty bad.

GLENN: You know, it's a good thing we don't have all of our nuclear codes online.

STU: I know. Because people would hack them.

GLENN: Almost anyone could get them. This is going to be -- you'll see, if they ever catch this guy. But they won't. I know they won't. Because they're so hard to find.

Almost as hard as finding somebody who puts a pipe bomb in front of the DNC, RNC. No specific case I'm talking about.

Just using those as an example on January 6th. No date is actually being implied here.

But let's say it was January 6th.

STU: Just one date.

GLENN: You'll never be able to find those guys. Never!

We've looked so hard! Can't find them.

I bet it will be like this with Mr. Beasley.

STU: If only we had hackers to get into the records on that pipe bomb case, then we could learn something.

GLENN: Just had hackers who knew hackers, that would hack into the hackers.

STU: Right. Yes, it's all about the hacking.

Now, this is interesting. In that, it does not appear to have been -- to have been made public at this time.

GLENN: Oh, no. Well, the internet -- the internet is not instant!

STU: No. No.

So I'm sure it won't come out, let's say, between now and the confirmation hearings.

No. It won't be leaked. Because that's not what these hackers wanted apparently.

GLENN: And it's not what these journalists.

STU: They do not.

GLENN: You have to have at least a couple of sources.

Incredible sources.

STU: It would be disappointing. Because hacking would not be journalism.

In fact, they were so skeptical of hacking. They made sure not to report on that Russian disinformation effort on that Hunter Biden laptop.

They wanted to make sure that they couldn't know.

GLENN: Exactly right. There could very well be a political motive behind that.

STU: It could be.

GLENN: Right. We're not going to take that --

STU: We know if these are Russian hackers. It could be. I would say, probably is. I would say, definitely is.

GLENN: Well, I would say definitely not. They're not Russian --

STU: They're not Russian hackers this time?

GLENN: They're not Russian --

STU: This is more of a whistle-blower. Would you say this is more of a whistle-blower feel.

GLENN: I do. This is probably a whistle-blower.

I Russian hacker would be wrong. But a whistle-blower might really be the person that you really need to protect.

As long as he's blowing the whistle on Matt Gaetz. We have to protect him.

Blowing the whistle on, let's say, the hacker that might be under the desk Sotomayor's, you know, office, I'm just saying.

I'm just pick any desk. I shouldn't have said her.

Pick any desk, okay?

Somebody that has a pretty good chance of hacking. Or just releasing information. At other times. Be the Sotomayor.

But just releasing things.

You know, let's say, they're under that desk. That's a whistle-blower that needs to be protected.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: You know, need to protect them.

STU: These whistle-blowers. Not like hackers. They need to be protected. This will be interesting, Glenn.

GLENN: Will it? I wonder how it will end.

STU: I wonder if this will come out. And it's not out yet.

But I feel like there's a possibility these hackers might be so dastardly, that they just might release this to a journalist that has to report on it, because it's now in the public eye.

GLENN: That's good. Well, it will be --

STU: Only choice.

GLENN: It will only be after talking to several inside -- insiders, that have knowledge of the case.

STU: Well, you know --

GLENN: They'll verify.

STU: That's -- it's important to get the whistle-blower's claims out there, Glenn.

That's why, they're always very consistent on this type of information.

GLENN: Do you know -- I'm reading from the New York Times. That even the DOJ was unwilling to exploit the unsubstantiated claims.

STU: Hmm. Yeah.

GLENN: I mean, apart from leaking them to the press.

STU: Of course. Because really, if you don't file charges against someone for having sex with a 17-year-old.

In a state, where the age of consent is 18.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: Would it be essentially almost the same thing, if you just released the accusation?

GLENN: Well, it would be justice.

STU: Pretty close.

GLENN: It would be justice. Yeah. It would be justice.

STU: I mean, I don't know what happened with this story.

You know, look, there are --

GLENN: What do you mean?

STU: Well, I'm saying, about the Gaetz. The actual truth on the Gaetz thing.

I don't know. He was definitely involved with some shady people. I mean, he was friends with the guy they were talking about.

The unreliable witness. He was with him. Friends with him.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

STU: And he does seem to be completely unreliable as a witness.

GLENN: Well, if I might just say. Show me your friends.

I'll show you your future. Should have picked better friends. It's always a good idea. Always a good idea.

STU: It's always a good idea to pick better friends. And like Gaetz' explanation of this is basically like, well, they have all these Venmo transactions going to these -- we'll call them women. And he says, this is just -- they're exploiting my generosity to some ex-girlfriends. That was his -- his justification for this.

GLENN: So here's the problem. Here's the problem. The DOJ, which we know would love to destroy him.

Okay. And the Democrats, who would love to destroy him. Didn't have enough to bring any charges. Okay?

STU: So that's a lot. That's a lot of information.

GLENN: That's an awful lot.

Now, that doesn't mean he's innocent. It just means, that the people who want to destroy him. And have destroyed people on absolute lies, decided, this one was a little too weak to even charge him.

STU: At least with criminal charges.

GLENN: Yes. So you don't release things, from a hacker. You destroy people, on innuendo, or rumors.

You think somebody broke the law, good!

Then use the law to try them!

STU: And that's pretty much the entire line. Right?

GLENN: Period.

STU: If he had girlfriends who were on the younger side, but still legal. It might go to his judgment. But it wouldn't be a criminal offense.

And so, you know, mark Wayne Mullen. Who is now a senator had an interview where he was saying that everyone has seen Matt Gaetz. And he has shown all the footage of his naked girlfriends.

On the House floor. And he's disgusting. And he uses ED medications, chopped into red bowls or something. I mean, the interview is bizarre.

Just the reason I bring that up is, he just said he's voting to confirm Gaetz. So like I don't know what to believe. I really don't.

GLENN: Well, he's probably Hitler. Or Mussolini.

STU: Or Mussolini.

GLENN: But we're going to make friends with him. We're going to make friends with him. We'll make friends with him. I'll tell you that right now.

youtu.be

RADIO

Will Russia declare WAR on America after Biden let Ukraine fire ATACMS missiles?

President Biden - or whoever is calling the shots - has authorized Ukraine to fire American-made ATACMS missiles into Russia. This happened even after Vladimir Putin said that crossing this red line would mean war with whoever supplied the missiles! So, why would Biden push us closer to World War III just 62 days before Donald Trump takes office? "What Joe Biden did is impeachable," Glenn declares. But will World War III break out? Or will Russia just attack Ukraine even harder, possibly with a tactical nuclear weapon on the battlefield? Glenn's head researcher, Jason Buttrill, joins to discuss.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: All right. So we have Jason Buttrill in with us. And Stu, of course, the executive producer of the program.

And I am your congenial host, Glenn Beck.

Last night, Ukraine did exactly what Putin said, don't do. Two days ago, he signs in a doctrine, saying you use any of these kinds of missiles that are coming from -- even conventional missiles. Coming from, you know, a nuclear-powered nation. We'll consider that an act of war.

And between us, Ukraine, and whichever country that is specifically. Meaning us. It seems like had madness, I think on our side.

And it seems like madness that he would use nukes and respond.

It doesn't say it's a guaranteed use of nukes.

But this gives him reason to believe that this is a NATO strike now.

And so he could strike NATO.

My guess is, he's just going to pound Ukraine.

In some place, where it really hurts them.

That's kind of where I hope the best-case scenario is.

Is just a pounding in Ukraine. Which would be horrible, and horrendous.

However, it's better than striking into a NATO country.

Which we would have to respond then.

I mean, Biden has put us on the brink of World War III. And we might go how this goes in the next 24 hours. We might have a very good idea of whether we'll be in World War III in the next 24 hours.

Jason, do you agree? Disagree? Where am I wrong?

JASON: What's dangerous is that the threat of that is obviously a lot higher this morning.

I think Putin's response will probably be to take out those missiles as quickly as possible.

We know that Russia was planning a larger, deeper attack into Ukraine. Building up troops.

The North Korean troops, allows him to do that.

Because the North Koreans can now guard the lines of communication in the rear. They can guard the facilities in the rear.

The ammo. Depots, all that stuff.

Freeing up the Russian troops, to get to the border.

That's what the establishment defense people on our side have seen. And that's probably why they've said, let's go ahead and fire these missiles. And start taking out those rear areas as quickly as possible to stop that buildup.

That's how they're looking at it. Putin right now is figuring out how to respond. Because now they've green lit that.

We are striking in Russia. The lines behind the border.

Now he's looking at, well, okay. So what would be like an act -- a good response?

Well, the threat of a nuclear weapon is there. That's always been their thing. That's been their thing since the start of the war.

It's a real threat.

GLENN: But it's still madness.

I mean, you would hope there's enough people.

Some people in Russia. And some people in the United States and our own Pentagon would use it. They were thinking. You know what, let's just get it out of the way. But I -- I don't think Putin would nuke a city. Do you?

JASON: No, no, no. Putin is not going to nuke a city. I think a nuclear threat, and the biggest threat will be a tactical nuclear weapon.

GLENN: And what's the difference?

JASON: So tactical nuclear weapon is a low-yield weapon made specifically for the battlefield.

So let's say there's one of them, as you're calling them the ATACMS. I'm going to steal that, by the way, it's awesome.

Let's say there's some ATACMS, surrounded by several battalions of Ukrainian troops. Well, the only way to be for sure they take it out, is to use a tactical low-yield nuclear weapon, that will take out that entire battle space, including the ATACMS. That's probably the more likely scenario, if a nuclear weapon is used.

GLENN: Nobody has ever used a low yield nuclear weapon, have they?

On a battlefield?

JASON: That's a good question. I'm not exactly sure of that. We probably use something very close to the same yield.

GLENN: Close. But we've used them for bunker busters.

But I don't believe they were nuclear.

That were the strongest bunker buster penetrating bomb that we had, but I don't think it was low-yield nuclear.

JASON: Right.

And that would still be a big international faux pas, if they did something like that. That would be escalatory.

And we would see that. We would probably get word that something like that is about to happen. Because those are heavily monitored. We're seeing them transported to wherever they're being stored.

To launchers, and then the entire world will kind of hold their breath. Well then the question is, how do we respond?

Do we allow them to press the button on it and fire that missile, or do we send actual US assets in, to take out the areas inside Russia, so they don't even have time to press the button.

Then it escalates to a completely different kind of level.

GLENN: Yeah, we're going in the wrong direction. We're going the wrong direction, which is very concerning.

Why would we do this, two days after he said, this will -- even if it's a -- if it's a -- a foreign missile system.

Even if it's nonnuclear.

It will be war, between us and the United States.

He didn't say United States. He said, us and that foreign nuclear power!

Why would we do this? Right after that.

JASON: I still think, I go back to regime survival.

GLENN: Our regime.

JASON: Our regime.

And as far as the DOD, security, military complex. That's how I see this.

I think they are terrified of any change in the status quo over the Trump administration. I think that they would love to see us pushed to a point of no return.

Where, no.

We can't do the things that Trump said he was going to do.

We can't alter, you know, the -- the diplomacy.

And the security posture in that area.

We can't go for a deal. We are locked into this position.

That's how they see it.

And I think they are driving us to this point of no return. Where Trump and his cabinet has no choice. But to continue with business as usual. How it's been the past four years.

That's the way I see it. That's the only way it makes sense.

Two months before they take power.

That's the only thing!

GLENN: So do we expect a response today?

I mean, it would seem natural that they would respond today.

JASON: I think the Russians have to make moves on the ATACMS as soon as possible. Because now you're targeting everything they were planning for an offensive and amassing troops and moving on Ukraine, which is what they're planning to do.

I think you have to take out the immediate threat, which is the ATACMS.

I think you have to do that. So I'm sure they're planning right now, well, how do we get that done?

It's not going to be easy. Because we have some air defense assets.

We put some things in place so they can't do that. So it's not going to be easy. That's when you have the generals over Putin's shoulder.

Saying, well, you know, it doesn't matter if we miss with five conventional missiles, if we get one tactical nuke in there.

Then we make sure that we take out the entire area. That's when things start escalating.

I know -- I personally do not think Putin is stupid enough to go that direction. And that's actually what the old regime is -- our regime is planning on as well.

He's threatened. He knows he can't do it. He's a madman if he does it. They know he's not a madman. He's a bad man. But he's not a madman.

They think he won't do it. So they will continue to push that red line.

There is a point, where as I said, a point of no return. Where they have no choice, and then you're locked into a much deeper conflict.

The question is: Where is that?

GLENN: So, you know, I think the regime change or the regime survival is absolutely valid.

I think -- this is why I said, you know, back when?

September. Whenever, when we were talking about what could happen if Trump won.

Assassination. There could be terrorist strikes here in the United States.

But they also had the war option.

Just embroil us into a war. And collapse it.

I have been worried about that -- that moment, where all of our enemies would say, get them! Now!

Now would be that last time.

As Trump comes into office. Especially with things turning around, where he's kind of the popular guy, where he's starting to turn everybody kind of around.

End this nonsense.

It -- it strikes me as, if I'm the enemy of the United States, we're most vulnerable right now.

But you've got to knock us out.

You better kill the king. Okay?

So wouldn't it be in the bricks nations. You know, this new -- I mean, they are planning on collapsing our economy, anyway.

Wouldn't it be kind of in their -- their -- advantage, to start, embroil us in a war.

Not a nuclear war. But a war.

JASON: Yeah. Wanting to do it. And being able to do it are two entirely different things.

I don't see. It makes perfect sense for them to goad us into a war in the Middle East.

Or goad us into a war let's say in Taiwan or something like that.

Getting us more involved in the Ukraine/Russia world.

Seems way too crazy for them to try to really push. And get us more involved.

I personally don't see that happening. I see them wanting to avoid that as much as possible.

But getting us stuck in another war, in a the different part of the globe. That we will waste, you know, billions and billions. And trillions of dollars on.

I absolutely see that as a strategy. I see them thinking more long-term.

They've been very methodical and careful about it so far. And you're talking about the Chinese, who are probably even higher at the table than the Russians are.

GLENN: Who look like they just cut communication cables.

JASON: That is wild to me.

I don't --

GLENN: Explain what happened, if you don't know.

JASON: So there's multiple communications, cables, that go through that -- what?

GLENN: Finland.

JASON: Sweden. Norway. That area.

GLENN: And Lithuania.

JASON: Yeah.

GLENN: They cut those cables. Now, Lithuania and Finland are Cold War Soviet states.

And, you know, Russia has said, they're ours. They're ours. And they're ours.

And Russia has been saying, no. We will make them NATO countries. Congratulations. They're on our side.

And they've been freaked out by this war. Well, the Chinese ship, we believe it was Chinese.

Went over these cables, right at the same time they were cut. So did the Chinese cut these cables?

Somebody -- I mean, they were cut, by somebody.

Is it a coincidence that they went out, the moment those ships went over those cables?

I don't know. But there's something going on, and then British Airways.

British Airways lost all of their ability to communicate in any way, shape, or form, with the planes and the towers. It was an IT glitch, and grounded planes all over the world.

And, you know, luckily they weren't in the sky, when this glitch happened. But, I mean, Putin has always said, it's not going to be fought with nuclear war.

It will be fought with ones and zeros.

RADIO

Why did MSNBC “Morning Joe” MEET with Trump after YEARS of calling him Hitler?!

The hosts of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski, recently shocked their audience when they admitted that they had met with Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago. Trump spoke well of the meeting, but their leftist audience wasn’t exactly happy. Did Morning Joe, which has bashed Trump as a fascist dictator-wannabe for years, just meet with Hitler 2.0? Or have they been lying the whole time?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So MSNBC, morning show host, Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski revealed this morning, that they had a personal sitdown with the president-elect in Florida, to restart communications.

Scarborough and his wife who repeatedly have bashed the president-elect on the air over the World Series.

I haven't noticed that happen. Said they had a --

STU: Almost didn't. Because they didn't watch.

GLENN: Yeah. Had a face-to-face with Trump at his Mar-a-Lago estate on Friday. The first meeting in seven years. After reaching out in the wake of his election win. Five years of political warfare has deeply divided Washington and the country.

We have been as clear as we know now, in expressing our deep concern about the president's acts and words, in the coarsening of the public debate, said Brzezinski, as she opened Monday's show with a stunning revelation.

But nearly 80 million Americans, election denialism, public trials, January 6, were not as important as the issues that moved them, to send Donald Trump back to Washington with their vote.

Joe and I realized, it's time to do something different. I was thinking more of like, I don't know. Morning show waiter and waitress, in the morning time.

You know, at -- there's a couple of diners.

STU: They can go back to the radio show that they put on hiatus many years ago. Because they wanted to add a third hour. They couldn't figure out how to do that.

GLENN: Yeah. We just have to figure out how to do that.

STU: Wait. So this is interesting.

Because -- it's -- it's fascinating. Because he, of course, they loved Trump back in the day.

GLENN: Loved him.

I think they were with him on 2016. Weren't they? On election night. Something like that.

Or maybe for one of the --

STU: Primaries.

I don't know what it was. They had them on all the time. They were good friends with them.

And then he became president.

He got the nomination. They started to oppose him.

He became president. They got into a fight.

I remember Trump tweeting something about her plastic surgery or something.

Like he was -- saying she had botched plastic surgery.

The good old days.

STU: So -- but like I can understand.

There's a rational human thing to do.

Which would allow for something like this.

Like a rational human being, who just went through this election.

And was telling everyone, you know, Donald Trump was a fascist. And when they saw, hey. Wait a minute.

They voted for him.

Maybe I should try to understand him.

Maybe I'm the -- maybe we're the baddies. Like it's one of those moments.

GLENN: Yeah. That's not what they're saying.

STU: That's not what they're saying. Because I think it kind of seems like what they were saying there. I just don't believe it at all from them.

They also have no incentive to do it. Their audience is going to hate this.

GLENN: Well, their audience has dropped by half in the past seven days.

STU: Of course it has. But that's also not shocking.

You know, from six to three people, is not that big -- it sounds dramatic.

GLENN: It was actually two to one.

STU: Two to one. Okay.

GLENN: Yeah. There were two people. And Mika just said, I'm not watching the monitors anymore.

I'm not going to do it.

STU: Because we know the camera people weren't watching.

GLENN: No, they haven't watched that for years.

But anyway, listen to this.

So Joe and I realized, it's time to do something different, which starts with not only talking about Donald Trump.

But also talking with him. Yeah, you've been talking about him for a while now.

The trio talked about abortion, mass deportation, and threats of political retribution.

STU: This is terrifying.

GLENN: We talked about that a good bit. It will come as no surprise to anybody who watches the show, has watched it over the past year. Or the past decade.

That we don't see eye to eye with a lot of the issues. And we told him so.

What we did agree on. Was to restart communications.

STU: What does that mean?

Because there's a famous clip of -- of Joe and Mika, basically asking Donald Trump what he wanted to be asked. During an interview.

GLENN: Yeah. I remember that.

STU: This is back in 2015.

2016.

GLENN: When they were --

STU: When they were buddies.

Basically like, so what does that mean?

Communications.

Like I --

GLENN: I have a feeling, it means that MSNBC, or, you know, Morning Joe hasn't reached out.

Or if they have, they have not gotten a response from Trump.

And so now they're like, okay. Let's talk. Let's at least talk.

STU: What would their need -- what would the need be for Donald Trump to talk to them?

I mean, for him, just pure entertainment purposes. Take the meeting.

It will be funny.

But like, why. For him what would be the purpose of them talking?

I mean, maybe Trump is just -- I can win over some MSNBC viewers. I can bend the media coverage a little bit toward my favor. But I can understand why he wouldn't want to do it. But why would he actually go ahead with it. It's not employing to change it.

GLENN: I don't know. Other than, you know, he -- he doesn't -- nobody does.

Nobody likes being a pariah. You know what I mean?

STU: Yeah. You seem to enjoy it.

GLENN: I really don't. No.

Many things -- this is what Trump said.

It was extremely cordial. And the couple praised his flawless campaign. That's what Fox news reported.

Many things were discussed. I'm quoting the president now. And I very much appreciated the fact that they wanted to have open communication.

In many ways, it was too bad, that it wasn't done too long ago.

They congratulated me on running a great and flawless campaign. One for the history books, which I believe it was.

But it was also a campaign where I worked long and hard, perhaps longer and harder than any other presidential candidate in history.

I believe that too.

STU: Yeah. And we should point out too. A big part of that work was fighting off fake accusations of being Hitler from those people.

So I don't know. I wouldn't have time for them.

He's a better man than I am for entertaining the nonsense.

GLENN: Well, he said, I feel an obligation to the American public and to our country itself, to be open and available with the press. If not treated fairly, however, that will end.

I think as the president, it is NBC.

It's not MSNBC.

So that's like, you know -- you know, it's Kleenex. No. It's actually the people that perforate the box at the top.

That you pull that out. Then you get the Kleenex. I'm not talking to the perforation people.

If I want to deal with Kleenex. I'm going to the people that are making the Kleenex.

So it's MSNBC. The backlash against the pair was swift against social media this morning. With many blasting the duo for their shamelessness. And for bending the knee for arranging face-to-face.

Hitler getting a lot more meeting requests than I thought.

STU: This is so -- this shows and proves how fake that was.

GLENN: I know. You don't meet with Hitler.

STU: Yeah. Joe Biden welcoming you into the White House.

All this back and forth. We'll work together.

We will make sure your transition is as good as possible. Why would you do that for Adolf?

I mean, that's just -- it doesn't make any sense. None of this stuff was actually real.

That whole time.

It's just lies to try to win an election. Byron York said, annals of shamelessness, they call Trump a fascist. And much, much more than 22 days after his Nazi-like rally. They fly to Florida for an audience.

STU: That's so bad. A lot of times I feel like -- sometimes audiences can be very -- can be tough, if you step out at all.

Right?

If you are -- if you take an odd position. This has happened to me. It's happened to you.

You take a position, the audience does not like. They can rip you.

That's good to keep you in line. Sometimes I think it's overdone.

You will disagree with people and you should disagree with people, that you listen to.

I would feel completely lied to, if I were one of their fans.

Now, I don't know they don't have a lot of them. It's hard to know for sure.

GLENN: No. Ever since Joe's mom stopped listening.

STU: She should just listen to this show, back in the day.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

STU: Sorry. If you're listening today. We love your son. I'm sure he's great.

GLENN: We love him, in the way that Jesus requires us to love him.

STU: Jesus loves the little children. All the little children of the world.

Loyal Morning Joe viewers are furious about the Trump meeting.

Jeff Jarvis.

GLENN: Oh, no. Not Jeff Jarvis.

STU: Yes. The Jeff Jarvis.

GLENN: Wow. Is he upset?

STU: I might have to click on the name Jeff Jarvis. So you know who he is.

GLENN: Of course. And he's a known cool-headed guy.

STU: Oh, really?

Enlighten me so I don't have to -- who is Jeff Jarvis?

GLENN: Jeff Jarvis.

Jeff -- did you ever see the movie from Marvel?

STU: I've seen many movies from Marvel.

GLENN: The Jarvis character was based on him. Very, very smart.

You know, just almost AI-like.

STU: Almost AI-like.

GLENN: He's that calm and collected. And informed.

STU: He says, it's a betrayal of their colleagues. Democracy. And us all.

Which, again, if you're an MSNBC viewer. Wouldn't you feel that way?

What do you mean, you're meeting with Adolf Hitler?

What are you talking about?

You just spent multiple years telling us, he didn't care about democracy. He wanted to destroy the nation.

GLENN: Can I play devil's advocate?

STU: On behalf of Joe and Mika. Or on behalf of Jeff Jarvis.

Who, by the way, is a --

GLENN: Computer AI. Yeah.

STU: I don't know what he --

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: Maybe a professor.

GLENN: Oh, wow. Okay.

STU: There you go.

GLENN: I was more impressed when he was a nonexistent computer from a movie.

The -- the -- play devil's advocate.

STU: Okay.

GLENN: You -- I would meet with -- if I was a journalist, I would meet with Hitler.

I would meet with Klaus Schwab.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: I wouldn't kiss the ring.

But I would want an interview.

STU: Right. But that's not what they got. They got a private meeting. They got a dinner.

GLENN: I guess.

STU: A delicious steak dinner.

GLENN: It required me to also continue to do that. And I wouldn't get that. Unless I kissed the ring, unless I said what I really believed.

The secret here is they don't really believe that. They don't believe that.

STU: They don't believe he's Hitler.

GLENN: No.

STU: Because I think there's an argument to be made. And you kind of hit on this earlier, a little bit.

But there's an argument to be made that if you believe you can go in there, and sweet talk him.

And get him to be a little bit less adversarial toward you, that it's worth doing it.

Right? That's why -- people were always like, why do you talk to reporters when they're writing these stories about you?

Well, it's a good point. Because you never get a good story written about you if you're a conservative. But one of the reasons you do it is try to eliminate the worst parts of it, and to try to actually point them in the right direction of the truth. Most of the time, they don't take that.

But you do it, because they might have something completely false, that someone else said about you. And you can prove that it's inaccurate. And they leave it out of the piece. That happens all the time.

So maybe what they're thinking is, if we go in there and rejuvenate the friendship a little bit, remember the good old days.

GLENN: But who would watch MSNBC?.

STU: That's a great question. Is that the end of it? Because that's a great question as is.

GLENN: I know it is. But let me narrow it down even further. For those who are currently still watching it, why would you continue to watch?

STU: I know.

GLENN: Because you would be like, wait. I don't want to like Hitler. I don't want to be with Hitler lovers.

To meet with him?

STU: There's only two options here.

One is the host you love, is meeting with Hitler.

The other option is they've been lying to you, the entire time.

Why would you ever watch that show again, in either circumstance.

This is why you don't take the meeting.

This is why I'm shocked by the incentives. The incentives for Joe Scarborough here. To keep his little train going.

GLENN: It's up for sale. I think MSNBC is up for sale.

STU: They're talking about that. I think it is up for sale.

Why would you continue -- what incentive do you have really, to do this? You're failing your audience. Everyone is going to hate you and your audience, I think.

GLENN: You're just desperate to hold on.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: And that's -- that's the only reason.

You're desperate to not lose your gig.

STU: But why would that help you?

You would think it would hurt your gig. If you're kissing.

GLENN: It will. But you're trying to inject logic into this.

STU: Right. But let me ask you this. Let me give you another crazy possibility. Is it possible they actually really do believe their rhetoric this whole time.

And they think Trump will actually pull them off the air. They're trying to get on his good side to prevent that?

Because, I mean, Trump has basically said, I will come after --

GLENN: We honestly thought. If we lost, our time would be marked. Because it wasn't just going to be us. It was going to be anybody who disagrees with the regime. That will take us out.

I wouldn't have made lovey-dovey with -- I would have never done that. I wouldn't have gone. You know, I need to see Kamala.

STU: You're not a horrible human being.

So you're not understanding their situation, exactly.

Their situation is a little different. Different incentives and thought processes.

GLENN: Sara, clip that. Because that's the only time. I worked this whole conversation to get him to say, you're not a horrible human being.

STU: Yeah. I was talking to Sara.

What do you mean?

RADIO

When did Trump become COOL AGAIN?!

Glenn woke up after the weekend and suddenly, Donald Trump was cool again! Football players and MMA fighters were doing his dance. The hosts of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” wanted to meet with him! How did this happen so quickly? And should we be concerned? Glenn gives a warning that he hopes won’t come true: Have you ever had a friend who became “cool” and then acted like they didn’t know you? Especially since Trump is surrounded by former Democrats, what are the odds of that happening? And what should conservatives do to make sure it doesn’t?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Gang, I don't know what happened. But like Donald Trump is cool.

STU: I mean, he's -- Donald Trump has always been cool.

There was -- up until 2006 and '15. Like it was denied for many years.

And now it seems to be back.

Right. They like this guy.

GLENN: This is who he used to be.

I can't believe this guy turned this corner so hard. That he's back to the guy who is in home alone.

You know what I mean?

STU: No. Yeah. Makes sense.

GLENN: It's nuts.

It's so crazy, that Joe and Mika.

STU: Oh, yeah.

GLENN: Are flying down to meet with him. To try to restore --

STU: No. They're not. They're just calling him fascist every day for two years.

GLENN: I know. I know.

STU: Now they're going to try to repair the relationship. This is the type of stuff that Trump loves.

Like he loves people groveling like that. That will be adorable, I can't wait for that one.

Maybe some interesting tweets, I will say, afterward.

It is interesting.

Let me ask you this. I was tossing this around with a friend this weekend.

And we were talking about how like this sort of phenomenon. Right?

Where people in sports are doing this.

And it's become kind of cool, as you know.

And I was trying to understand.

Is it a Donald Trump thing, where people are like, you know, they maybe always thought he was cool.

And they were hiding it.

And now they're coming out of hiding it.

Which is a plausible explanation.

Now, generally the Trump movement. MAGA. Generally. Is just associated with, we don't want to ruin your fun life. Right?

The left is now associated with, you can't say this. Can you imagine being in college in this environment, Glenn? Where you're joking, you're busting on everyone.

You're calling them all these -- you're saying terrible things about them. You're laughing at it. Right?

You're -- you know, you're saying bad things about people, that you don't like.

And you think it's funny.

And you're making offensive jokes.

GLENN: You're a rebel. You're a rebel.

STU: All those things.

The left now says, if you do any of that stuff, you're cancelled. Right?

When we see a clip of a guy playing volleyball and spiking a ball in a woman's face and she's injured, you're now cancelled for criticizing that.

Like just generally associated with all of this has to be this idea that you're taking away, common sense.

GLENN: Oh, yeah.

STU: It's not even like, hey, I agree with his tax policy. Or his border policy.

I think it's involved in that.

GLENN: I think it's a step further than what you're saying, and it's one of my concerns.

So, Stu, we're talking about the cool kids table.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: You strike me as somebody who is a cool kid.

STU: No. Not at all.

GLENN: You weren't?

STU: Not even remotely close.

GLENN: Okay. So -- so -- now, maybe this is the loser table speaking here. Okay?

STU: Okay.

GLENN: But as somebody who was in the drama club.

STU: Okay. I wasn't that guy, though.

GLENN: And the choir.

STU: You know, I was a jock, I guess. But I was not like a cool kid.

But I was playing sports all the time.

GLENN: Yeah. But the cool kids wouldn't beat you up?

STU: That's true. That's true. That's true. That is accurate.

GLENN: All right. All right.

STU: And I saw like a horrible flashback over your head. Something dark.

GLENN: So for those of us who have ever been stuffed into a locker.

STU: Giant lockers are cool.
(laughter)

GLENN: So those who have us who have ever been stuffed in a locker.

Or currently thinking, where can I get a locker to stuff someone else in?

You're sitting at the cool kid's table. Have you ever -- you're sitting at the loser table. Have you ever had a friend who was a good friend, you thought.

And then they fell in the cool kids. And then they acted like they didn't know you.

STU: I've seen many '80s movies had this plot.

GLENN: So for a reason, it happens.

STU: Right.

GLENN: Maybe this is just me. Okay?

It probably just is me.

But I'm seeing him now, being so cool.

And everything happening. But he's surrounded by Tulsi Gabbard.

She's not a conservative. Okay?

Elon Musk. Not a conservative. RFK. Not a conservative.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Vivek Ramaswamy, not a conservative.

Close.

STU: He was a Libertarian.

But he's not a -- he's more of a recent convert if you would.

GLENN: Okay. So that's the pack.

That's the Rat Pack. Okay? And that's cool and everything. And I want those kids at the table.

STU: Sure.

GLENN: With the cool kids.

But I want to make sure that the cool kid doesn't forget his friends at the other table.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: You know, the average American working person, that's like, yeah.

I -- I am not for you banning meat. If RFK wants you to do that.

You know what I mean? I'm -- I'm not -- I'm not for, you know, universal basic income.

I'm -- I'm not for some of the robots taking over the world.

Are we still -- we're still good, right? We're still good.

STU: I have concerns as well, on some of this.

Because, I mean, first of all, like it's a much better approach if you're a Democrat. To befriend Donald Trump. And, you know, support him. And then try to get these things through.

I will say, can we start here?

How about no more lifelong Democrats appointed to big positions?

I'm not saying these people are bad. They might be great. But let's just cap it. Can we cap it, at what are we now?

GLENN: I want to cap it. Just because you're a lifelong Republican, doesn't make me --

STU: You're right. I totally agree with you on that. I'm not saying every lifelong Republican is okay. What I'm saying is, you're looking for a little bit for a needle in a haystack, to find a person who for 50 years, supported far left ideology.

And changed last week? And now they have a major position?

I'm not saying you can't find the needle in a haystack. But I'm getting concerned, we're looking for too many needles.

GLENN: Now, wait a minute. Hang on just a second.

Now, let me flip this on you.

We're looking for disrupters. Okay?

Tulsi Gabbard was a disruptor in the Democratic Party.

She was the one. She didn't believe this stuff.

She was the one who went. You know what, you guys are crazy. And you're coming after me.

And you are you are using all the things against me, that the Republicans say, you use against them.

And I never believed them.

But I'm seeing you do it to me, right now.

Same thing with RFK.

They wanted to disrupt the party. They're disrupters first.

That's what we voted for. We voted for a advertise rupture of this am is.

STU: But you and I know, thousands of conservative disrupters.

We know thousands of them.

GLENN: Yeah. But not necessarily those that would -- you could get a group of them, walk into Madison Square Garden. And everybody go, wow!

STU: I agree with you.

No. You're right.

Mike Johnson is certainly no middle kid.

GLENN: No. He's not.

STU: He was like.

GLENN: He's the --

STU: Is that guy security.

GLENN: It makes me feel good.

STU: Is the security -- what's that guy doing?

GLENN: He's a complete nerd. But he's not on our side either.

STU: Yeah. But at least he -- at least he --

GLENN: At least he's what?

STU: At least he generally has a conservative voting record.

GLENN: Okay, yeah.

STU: Gavin and Musk, there's an arc there. RFK Jr was literally running for president against Donald Trump three months ago. Right?

A guy who has supported every left-wing policy under the sun, like maybe he has perfectly changed. I have very close microscope on that one.

Glenn's Show Prep

If Colluding With Russia Isn't a Crime, What Is It?

Why Glenn is SKEPTICAL about the "HACKED" Matt Gaetz investigation testimony

Transcript

Will Russia declare WAR on America after Biden let Ukraine fire ATACMS missiles?

Transcript

Why did MSNBC “Morning Joe” MEET with Trump after YEARS of calling him Hitler?!

Transcript

When did Trump become COOL AGAIN?!

Transcript