Three Things You Need to Know - October 24, 2017

October 24, 2017

WRITER

The hypocrisy of ESPN with the 'Barstool Sports' Experiment.

You can’t have morals or principles only when it’s convenient.

Less than two weeks ago, ESPN announced a deal with Barstool Sports to produce a weekly late-night TV show based on Barstool’s popular podcast called “Pardon My Take.” Barstool Sports, is an online media company that focuses on sports, entertainment, politics and news through comedy. They use crude humor to make fun of everything, and specialize in blatantly sexist content.

Employees at Barstool Sports even have to sign an agreement that they won’t object to “offensive speech,” including conduct and speech that “openly and explicitly relates to sex, as well as race, sexual orientation, gender, national origin, religion, disability and age.”

Now remember, ESPN is the company that fired commentators for saying “chink in the armor” and “guerilla tactics.” ESPN is at the insane end of oversensitivity, yet they made a deal to produce a show with the least sensitive guys in sports.

Someone didn’t think this through.

After the first episode aired, ESPN announced yesterday that they’re canceling the Barstool Van Talk show, citing concerns about “Barstool content.” That’s right, ESPN struck a deal to produce the show and now they have concerns about Barstool’s content. Right.

That’s not what happened. Harvey Weinstein happened. ESPN knew what kind of content Barstool produces and ESPN wanted that, which is why they scheduled the show in late night. In fact, ESPN needed it, they’re grasping for anything to help stem the tide of viewers fleeing from cable. But the ink was still drying on their contract with Barstool when the Harvey Weinstein scandal broke.

ESPN didn’t suddenly grow a conscience – they got caught making a show with unapologetic sexists and now they’re trying to save face.

You can’t have morals or principles only when it’s convenient. That’s not how morals and principles work. You either have them or you don’t. When you try to have it both ways, you’re completely inauthentic and people can see right through you.

The trial of Kate Steinle's killer is underway.

The selfie captured an idyllic moment in time.

The smiling faces of a father, daughter, and family friend shined in the California sun. But this happy picture instantly brought sadness to the courtroom. The photograph was taken only moments before Kate Steinle was killed by a bullet to the back.

“She was having trouble breathing and I couldn’t figure out what happened,” her father said, his lower lip trembling uncontrollably.

Kate couldn’t have known it as the time, but her fate was sealed when she simply passed by a homeless man on Pier 14 in San Francisco. The trial of the homeless man accused of shooting Kate, Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, started yesterday. He has pleaded not guilty to second-degree murder. His lawyers argue that the shooting was an accident — that Garcia Zarate fired recklessly into the crowd and a single shot ricocheted off the pier into Steinle’s back.

But the prosecution claims Garcia Zarate knew exactly what he was doing.

They claim he was spinning around in a chair on the pier, aimed towards Kate with the gun and fired.

But it really doesn’t matter if it was an accident or not.

Kate Steinle is still dead.

The Steinle family will forever mourn the loss of their daughter.

All because Garcia Zarate should have never been on Pier 14 that bright summer day. He should have never had that stolen Sig Sauer that he claims he found on the pier. He should have never been in this country to begin with.

If our immigration laws were actually enforced, Kate Steinle might still be alive today. Instead, she has become an example of the very real and tragic consequences of our broken immigration system.

Our prayers go out to the Steinle family as the trial continues and we can only hope that justice will prevail.

Russia targeted this political family... and it wasn't the Trumps.

The threat from Russia is real, but it has absolutely nothing to do with Donald Trump.

Before it was sexy to talk about collusion or interference in the election campaign, our old friends, the Russians, had their sights set on something BIG. Putin was pulling out all the stops to find out what the new “Russia Reset” was going to look like. Russian espionage measures included everything from legal lobbying efforts to deploying “The Americans” style deep cover sleeper agents.

What if I were to tell you that a wealthy American family, with aspirations for the Oval Office, had been targeted by Russian Intelligence? Not only were they targeted, but high-ranking members of their staff were actively being infiltrated. They even took what looked to be bribes from Kremlin connected banks in Moscow. Why did it look like a bribe? Because it actually affected US policy towards Russia.

Tell that story to almost anyone here in the United States and they’ll think you’re talking about the Trumps. ALL of the above happened in 2009 and 2010 in a Russian plan to infiltrate Bill and Hillary Clinton.

An FBI counterintelligence investigation revealed that Russians were using American companies to gain access to high ranking people close to Hillary Clinton. They also revealed that Kremlin connected money given to Bill came suspiciously close to meetings Hillary had in Moscow regarding several issues Moscow had an interest in. The Uranium One scandal was one of them.

The Clinton case and the Trump case are so similar, but the latter got all the media attention. The truth is that the Russians have been targeting us for a long time. Not only is the threat real, it’s getting worse. It’s not about Trump now and it wasn’t about the Clinton’s then. We’re the ones that have made this a partisan issue, not the Russians. The United States is under attack, and we better start acting like it.

MORE 3 THINGS

What happens if Trump wins from prison?

Rob Kim / Contributor | Getty Images

If Donald Trump is sentenced to prison time, it will be the first time in American history that a former president and active presidential candidate is thrown behind bars. Nobody knows for sure what exactly will happen.

With the election only a few months away, the left is working overtime to come up with any means of beating Trump, including tying him up in court or even throwing him in jail. Glenn recently had former U.S. DoJ Assistant Attorney General and Center for Renewing America senior fellow Jeff Clark on his show to discuss the recent resurrection of the classified documents case against Trump and what that could mean for the upcoming election. Clark explains that despite the immunity ruling from the Supreme Court this summer, he thinks there is a decent chance of a prison sentence.

What would that even look like if it happened? This is a completely unprecedented series of events and virtually every step is filled with potential unknowns. Would the Secret Service protect him in prison? What if he won from his jail cell? How would the American people respond? While no one can be certain for sure, here's what Glenn and Jeff Clark speculate might happen:

Jail time

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Contributor | Getty Images

Can they even put a former president in prison? Jeff Clark seemed to think they can, and he brought up that New York County District Attorney, Alvin Bragg, had been talking with the New York jail system about making accommodations for Trump and the Secret Service assigned to protect him. Clark said he believes that if they sentence him before the election, Trump could be made to serve out his sentence until his inauguration, assuming he wins. After his inauguration, Clark said Trump's imprisonment would have to be suspended or canceled, as his constitutional duty as president would preempt the conviction by New York State.

House arrest

BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

Another possibility is that Trump could be placed under house arrest instead of imprisoned. This would make more sense from a security standpoint—it would be easier to protect Trump in his own home versus in prison. But, this would deny the Left the satisfaction of actually locking Trump behind bars, so it seems less likely. Either in prison or under house arrest, the effect is the same, Trump would be kept off the campaign trail during the most crucial leg of the election. It doesn't matter which way you spin it—this seems like election interference. Glenn even floated the idea of campaigning on behalf of Trump to help combat the injustice.

Public outrage

Jon Cherry / Stringer | Getty Images

It is clear to many Americans that this whole charade is little more than a thinly-veiled attempt to keep Trump out of office by any means necessary. If this attempt at lawfare succeeds, and Trump is thrown in jail, the American people likely will not have it. Any doubt that America has become a Banana Republic will be put to rest. How will anyone trust in any sort of official proceedings or elections ever again? One can only imagine what the reaction will be. If the past is any indication, it's unlikely to be peaceful.

POLL: What topics do YOU want Trump and Harris to debate?

Montinique Monroe / Stringer, Win McNamee / Staff | Getty Images

Does Kamala Harris stand a chance against Donald Trump in a debate?

Next week, during the second presidential debate, we will find out. The debate is scheduled for September 10th and will be hosted by ABC anchors David Muir and Linsey Davis. This will be the second presidential debate, but the first for VP Kamala Harris, and will feature the same rules as the first debate. The rules are: no notes, no chairs, no live audience, and the debater's microphone will only be turned on when it is his or her turn to speak.

This will be the first time Trump and Harris clash face-to-face, and the outcome could have a massive effect on the outcome of the election. Trump has been preparing by ramping up his campaign schedule. He plans to hold multiple rallies and speak at several events across the next several days. He wants to be prepared to face any question that might come his way, and meeting and interacting with both voters and the press seems to be Trump's preferred preparation approach.

With the multitude of issues plaguing our nation, there are a lot of potential topics that could be brought up. From the economy to the ongoing "lawfare" being waged against the former president, what topics do YOU want Harris and Trump to debate?

The economy (and why the Biden-Harris administration hasn't fixed it yet)

The Southern Border crisis (and Kamala's performance as border czar)

Climate change (and how Trump pulled out of the Paris Agreement)

The "lawfare" being waged against Trump (and what Trump would do if he were thrown in prison)

Voting and election security (and how to deal with the possibility that illegal immigrants are voting)

3 ways the Constitution foils progressive authoritarianism

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Contributor, Kevin Dietsch / Staff, Pool / Pool | Getty Images

This is why it is important to understand our history.

Over the weekend, the New York Times published a controversial article claiming the Constitution is a danger to the country and a threat to democracy. To those who have taken a high school American government class or have followed Glenn for a while, this claim might seem incongruent with reality. That's because Jennifer Szalai, the author the piece, isn't thinking of the Constitution as it was intended to be—a restraint on government to protect individual rights—but instead as a roadblock that is hindering the installation of a progressive oligarchy.

Glenn recently covered this unbelievable article during his show and revealed the telling critiques Szalai made of our founding document. She called it an "anti-democratic" document and argued it is flawed because Donald Trump used it to become president (sort of like how every other president achieved their office). From here, Szalai went off the deep end and made some suggestions to "fix" the Constitution, including breaking California and other blue states away from the union to create a coastal progressive utopia.

Here are three of the "flaws" Szalai pointed out in the Constitution that interfere with the Left's authoritarian dreams:

1. The Electoral College

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The New York Times article brought up the fact that in 2016 President Trump lost the popular vote but won the Electoral College, and thus won the election. This, as Szalai pointed out, is not democratic. Strictly speaking, she is right. But as Glenn has pointed out time and time again, America is not a democracy! The Founding Fathers did not want the president to be decided by a simple majority of 51 percent of the population. The Electoral College is designed to provide minority groups with a voice, giving them a say in the presidential election. Without the Electoral College, a simple majority would dominate elections and America would fall under the tyranny of the masses.

2. The Supreme Court

OLIVIER DOULIERY / Contributor | Getty Images

President Biden and other progressives have thrown around the idea of reforming the Supreme Court simply because it has made a few rulings they disagree with. Glenn points out that when a country decides to start monkeying around with their high courts, it is usually a sign they are becoming a banana republic. Szalai complained that Trump was allowed to appoint three justices. Two of them were confirmed by senators representing just 44 percent of the population, and they overturned Roe v. Wade. All of this is Constitutional by Szalai's admission, and because she disagreed with it, she argued the whole document should be scrapped.

3. Republicanism

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

To clarify, were not talking about the Republican Party Republicanism, but instead the form of government made up of a collection of elected representatives who govern on the behalf of their constituents. This seems to be a repeat sticking point for liberals, who insist conservatives and Donald Trump are out to destroy "democracy" (a system of government that never existed in America). This mix-up explains Szalai's nonsensical interpretation of how the Constitution functions. She criticized the Constitution as "anti-democratic" and a threat to American democracy. If the Constitution is the nation's framework, and if it is "anti-democratic" then how is it a threat to American democracy? This paradox is easily avoided with the understanding that America isn't a democracy, and it never has been.

Kamala Harris' first interview as nominee: Three SHOCKING policy flips

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

On Thursday, Kamala Harris gave her first interview since Joe Biden stepped down from the race, and it quickly becameclear why she waited so long.

Harris struggled to keep her story straight as CNN's Dana Bash questioned her about recent comments she had made that contradicted her previous policy statements. She kept on repeating that her "values haven't changed," but it is difficult to see how that can be true alongside her radical shift in policy. Either her values have changed or she is lying about her change in policy to win votes. You decide which seems more likely.

During the interview, Harris doubled down on her policy flip on fracking, the border, and even her use of the race card. Here are her top three flip-flops from the interview:

Fracking

Citizens of the Planet / Contributor | Getty Images

In 2019, during the 2020 presidential election, Harris pledged her full support behind a federal ban on fracking during a town hall event. But, during the DNC and again in this recent interview, Harris insisted that she is now opposed to the idea. The idea of banning fracking has been floated for a while now due to environmental concerns surrounding the controversial oil drilling method. Bans on fracking are opposed by many conservatives as it would greatly limit the production of oil in America, thus driving up gas prices across the nation. It seems Harris took this stance to win over moderates and to keep gas prices down, but who knows how she will behave once in office?

Border

PATRICK T. FALLON / Contributor | Getty Images

In her 2020 presidential bid, Harris was all for decriminalizing the border, but now she is singing a different tune. Harris claimed she is determined to secure the border—as if like she had always been a stalwart defender of the southern states. Despite this policy reversal, Harris claimed her values have not changed, which is hard to reconcile. The interviewer even offered Kamala a graceful out by suggesting she had learned more about the situation during her VP tenure, but Kamala insisted she had not changed.

Race

Tasos Katopodis / Stringer | Getty Images

When asked to respond to Trump's comments regarding the sudden emergence of Kamala's black ancestry Kamala simply answered "Same old tired playbook, next question" instead of jumping on the opportunity to play the race card as one might expect. While skipping the critical race theory lecture was refreshing, it came as a shock coming from the candidate representing the "everything is racist" party. Was this just a way to deflect the question back on Trump, or have the Democrats decided the race card isn't working anymore?

Glenn's Show Prep