RADIODecember 09, 2024

Does the SHOCKING Daniel Penny Verdict Mean Justice is BACK in NYC?

A jury has found former marine Daniel Penny NOT GUILTY of criminally negligent homicide in the death of Jordan Neely. Glenn and Stu are shocked, especially since the jury couldn’t decide whether to convict him of second-degree manslaughter. But while this is a good outcome for justice, Glenn and Stu argue that it isn’t a perfect outcome: This case should have never gone to trial in the first place! The guys explain why Penny should have been seen as a hero, especially by those in New York City who know how subways work. Plus, they discuss how the leftist BLM crowds will react to the verdict.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Well, the Daniel Penny verdict has come out, and he has now been found "not guilty."

STU: Yes!

GLENN: Thank God.

STU: Thank God there's some justice.

GLENN: What's weird. First of all, the judge, I think broke the law. I think the judge and what's his name? The district attorney up there, in New York. Really, they should be disbarred. What they did in this particular case, was wrong.

When you have multiple counts, and you're hung on the first count.

You don't go to the second count.

You -- you declare a mistrial.

But the judge, because of -- is it Alvin Bragg?

STU: He's the DA.

GLENN: Yeah. The DA. Alvin Bragg went and said, we will accept that they're hung on that.

Just have them consider the lesser charge.

Well, that's not the way it works.

You don't do that.

And he was just trying to get them to convict.

And somehow or another, they went back today, with very little time.

And found him 12-zero.

Not guilty.

Which is weird, that they were hung, on the more serious charge.

STU: More serious charge. Yeah.

GLENN: I think it's like, guys, it's Christmas.

I've got to go shopping.

Just all right. Whatever.

I mean, honestly, it might have been that.

I don't know why, on the lesser charge, they didn't have a hard time

STU: Someone was sharing, one of the courtroom drawings of the jury.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: And one of the people was wearing a mask.

And they were saying, this has to be the person, who is holding this up. It kind of does make sense. I don't know if it actually is accurate.

GLENN: Either that or it was the guy who shot the United Health Care guy.

What a great place to hide out. Hiding in the jury box.

STU: Yeah. He's great.

Fascinating thing. You know, not exactly a banner year for Alvin Bragg.

He's had a rough one. Really, an embarrassment in every single way.

GLENN: No, he really has. I honestly don't know why he's not being recalled. Other than it's New York.

STU: Even in California, they've been recalling these guys. They've been defeating them in elections.

And this approach of we only go after the good guys, and let all the bad guys go.

It's not an approach, the American people are comfortable with.

That's something, I think -- it's a message we --

GLENN: I don't even know how the Good Samaritan law just didn't apply to him.

He obviously was not trying to kill the guy.

STU: Obviously.

And they knew that.

You could see it in the interview afterward.

GLENN: Right.

STU: Quite clear.

GLENN: So how did the Good Samaritan law not apply?

STU: What version of New York has of that law, precisely.

And obviously, I think --

GLENN: Oh, it's probably a good Samaritan law, if you're a Good Samaritan. And you're trying to cause harm, but it's on a white person.

STU: Yeah. I would not be surprised, if that's exactly how it's written.

GLENN: And you are somebody who is in any of the other categories, then it's --

STU: That's how it's applied.

GLENN: That is how it's applied.

STU: Right?

GLENN: By the way, the threats are being issued now.

After the jury finds him guilty.

And activists --

STU: Not guilty.

GLENN: Yeah. Not guilty.

And they are also -- activists are in the streets of New York, right now. Protesting. That he wasn't --

STU: It's very difficult to even understand. I mean, because some of the people who he was protecting on the subway, were people of color, if you will.

GLENN: Yeah. There wasn't -- I don't think there was anyone on the subway, that wasn't happy about it too. They were all -- everybody in the car were like, thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

STU: Yeah, they may not have been happy that he died. And I don't think anyone was, including Daniel Penny. Right?

But they saw this as a clear, legitimate threat to their well-being. As they clarified in their testimony, it was not yet another one of these crazy people on the subway if you've been in New York City.

And this is a weird -- I think it's a weird experience for anyone who has never been there or worked there as we have.

But it's like, very much a normal part of your life, to go on the subway.

And have a crazy person get on the subway, and do something crazy, while you're on the subway. In an enclosed metal tube.

It's a weird experience.

And you get really used to kind of looking at your shoes.

And looking the other way. And acting like this thing, that would have been the story you told your friends, every single day, if you live in any other city.

You just ignore it. And act like it's not happening.

GLENN: I'm trying to remember the comedian, that has the special happy face. He's so funny.

He talks about, just getting on the subway in New York.

Just trying not to get high on crack.

He's like, somebody comes in, in the subway.

And they're smoking crack.

And somebody is like, hey, you can't do that here. Like the guy cares.

Oh, my gosh. This is so unlike me.

Oh, there's a child here, I'm so embarrassed. And you just try not to get high on crack!

STU: Right, it always reminded me of how gun-free zones were really stupid.

In that, the people who were coming to murder, don't care about the gun-free zones.

The people who are coming to smoke crack on the subway. They don't care about your subway crack laws.

GLENN: They don't care. They don't care.

STU: They don't care. So the people who were actually testifying in the trial.

Made clear distinction between that normal part of New York life of someone coming on the subway.

And acting a little crazy, and maybe a little threatening. And what this guy was doing.

They said, they really believed they were in danger. And I think that was the correct assumption.

He was saying, he didn't care what the -- you know, if you went to prison for life, he was going to kill people. He was threatening them directly.

The fact that Daniel Penny stopped that.

Or God forbid, whatever it could have become, from happening, means he should be treated as a hero, not as someone who is on trial.

And the fact that this came out right, is a good conciliatory prize, but not the right outcome.

GLENN: It is.

Was it Bernie Goetz?

Who was the one who shot the guy on the subway?

STU: Bernie Goetz is one of them.

GLENN: What happened to him?

STU: He got off too, if I remember correctly.

GLENN: Isn't it weird, it's the same out of control city?

Where somebody is just -- you know, everybody knows, they're afraid on the subway.

Everybody knows, crime is everywhere.
And nobody does anything.

And Bernhard Goetz took a gun on the subway, shot a guy of control. Went through the same thing and was found innocent. I believe.

STU: And it was -- it was more -- I would say, more controversial than this one.

GLENN: Oh, yeah.

Because he was carrying a gun.

STU: Right. And he was actually -- he was, firm right, convicted of carrying an illegal firearm. Firearm. He was not supposed to have without a permit. But that's all he was -- that's all he got.

GLENN: Right.

STU: In this case, this is quite clear.

And, you know, it's disturbing, the way that he was interviewed. He's interviewed as if the police were his friend. And they were trying to suss all this out.

In a positive way. I didn't like that at all.

GLENN: You said a couple of things that stuck out to me a couple weeks ago.

You said, I finally get, the police are not your friends. Do not talk to the police without your attorney.

STU: Yeah. I've always been, you know, I have great interactions with police. I think that's still the norm. But you don't know.

STU: You don't know.

Popping into my head. Is Jeff Fisher. Host of a podcast here on Blaze -- TheBlaze podcast network.

And he always says this. He carries a card with him. That gives you the outline of don't talk to the police.

You know, they're not your friends. He has a whole little six-step plan. You are ever talked to.

GLENN: Is it written in crayon?

STU: No. It's not his writing.

It's just his card. He just has so much legal trouble. He has to have it with him at all times. I remember him showing it to me at times. All right. Most interactions. It's totally fine to talk to police.

After watching that with Penny, I was like, gosh. If you do something right -- if God forbid, you have to use your Second Amendment rights in personal defense.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

STU: I wouldn't say word one, to the police.

Not because I don't think the police are trustworthy. I think they are. But there's a system around it.

And, frankly, you can't trust anybody.

And there's a system around it. That will churn that into, a -- you know, something where you are a racist. Or you are -- I don't know what they're going to say about you.

The best thing is, just zip it.

GLENN: If the government wants to get you, they will get you. They will get you.

STU: Yeah. I think that's true.

They hold all of the cards.

STU: Especially in a place like New York.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

STU: Especially.

If you're a conservative living in New York. It's -- I don't know how you do it.

GLENN: I don't know why you do it. Honestly.

STU: You did it.

GLENN: I did it.

STU: Years ago. But you did it.

I don't think things were nearly as bad. When you were there.

I don't think they were great.

GLENN: Do you remember the process of trying to get a gun?

My life was at stake.

You know, all the time. Had to have six security guys with me. You know, in rotation. All the time.

Sometimes all six of them.

And couldn't get a -- couldn't get a -- no. The judge just didn't think it was necessary, that my threats were credible.

It's like, here's -- remember the end of miracle on 34th Street. I want that proof on my desk. And they came in with all the bags of letters from Santa Claus. That's kind of like the way I felt like.

Oh, I can bring you the proof.

What are you talking about?

It's insane.

STU: Let me give you another movie, that tells the same story.

It's a United Health Care CEO walking to work.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: You think you don't need protection in that city. This poor guy just walking to work, with a wife and two kids. Just gets executed in the streets. And most of the city seems to be cheering on the murderer.

And, you know, in a world like that, you don't need protection in that city?

Of course, you do. There's a great -- I think it's like a flowchart in one of your books. I can't remember which one was it.

Might have been arguing with the idiots.

It's one of the earlier ones from the guns.
How to buy a gun in New York.

GLENN: Yeah. It was --

STU: I want to say, argue winning idiots. Inconvenient Book, maybe. I don't remember.

Oh, you have one of them. You can flip through it. There is -- if there's a gun chapter. Probably it's in there.

But there's a flowchart on how to get one in New York.

And it was actually a person who was Kevin. Who was a coauthor of the book, who actually tried to do it and went through the entire process.

It is insanity. Insanity. It's step after step after step.

Submitting paperwork.

Going back. Resubmitting it.

Over and over and over again.

And it's like to the point where they know actually in reality, what you're doing.

They know they're on the -- they should approve it. But they do everything they can, to did know it.

It's similar to what they're accusing health care companies of.

GLENN: It's exactly the same.

They just wear you out.

STU: Yeah. They just wear you out. It's years.

GLENN: Until you're like, I can't.

Who can do that? Who can do that?

STU: I will say, this is not a paid commercial.

Good time to think about a Byrna launcher.

Because that is legal in all 50 states. Again, check your local laws just to be sure. Triple sure.

I know it's legal in states. I don't know if cities have it. Be sure. Be careful.

Make sure you check.

That is exactly the type of thing that the Byrna launcher is --

GLENN: This is something that I don't understand.

And again, not a commercial.

I don't understand why those aren't in every school.

In every school in America.

Why aren't those in schools?

STU: They're non-lethal.

GLENN: Non-lethal. So you won't kill any of the children.

You might make some of them cry with tear gas. You don't have to be a good shot.

You can put your hand just outside the door. And aim it down the hallway. Towards the guy who is shooting.

And if you're here -- within 6 feet. It will stop him.

It's going to put him in tear gas, and give everybody a chance to pile on that guy

STU: Yeah. I don't understand it either.

GLENN: You're not going to kill any children. Why would -- it's almost as if somebody doesn't want to solve this. Because that is -- that is the solution, is a Byrna launcher.

STU: Yeah. It's at least -- a great part of it, at the very least.

And it -- it's available. It's affordable.

GLENN: If you're ever on a school board, you should suggest that.

The REAL Reason Democrats are TERRIFIED of Elon Musk & DOGE

Democrats are mad that President Trump is trusting Elon Musk with so much. Glenn explains why it’s dumb for them to whine about Elon being an “unelected billionaire” and getting rid of USAID – which isn’t even an “aid” agency. Plus, Glenn reviews how Democrats tried to force a security guard to let them into the Department of Education: “It’s quite amazing how these people are so freaked out. They’ve got to cover their tracks!”

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So Bret Baier asked Donald Trump if he trusts Elon Musk. Cut nine.

DONALD: I don't know if it's kickbacks, or what's going on.

Look, I ran on it, and the people want me to find it, and I've had a great help with Elon Musk, who has been terrific.

VOICE: You say you trust him?

DONALD: Trustee Elon, oh, he's not gaining anything.

In fact, I wonder how he can devote the time into it, he's so into it.

But I told him to do that. Then I will tell him, very soon, like maybe in 24 hours, to go check the Department of Education. He will find the same thing.

Then I will go to the military. Let's check the military. We will find billions. Hundreds of billions of dollars of fraud and abuse. And, you know, the people elected me on that.

GLENN: He's absolutely right about this. I don't know how everybody is squealing.

First of all, you know, he's an unelected bureaucrat. Well, almost all bureaucrats are.

I don't know if you --

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: If you follow that. But, you know, the Treasury Secretary, is also somebody who, you know, wasn't voted in.

Unelected bureaucrat.

He was appointed by the president to do this.

And we're going to -- we're going to find out about what's happening with this judge. See if it's overruled. Did you hear about what happened with the judge over the weekend, with the Treasury Department?

PAT: Yeah. Where they blocked going into the treasury books. Which --

GLENN: It was so -- it was so poorly written, that they didn't even differentiate between Elon Musk's people, and the Treasury secretary.

PAT: Right.

GLENN: So as it's written, the Treasury secretary can't even look at any of the data.

PAT: It's incredible.

He also, the judge who did the block.

Also didn't mention what law they're violating. He just said, it's violating the law. What law is being violated here?

GLENN: What law? What law?

PAT: This is a person appointed by the president to look into this.

So I don't see how that could violate any laws.

GLENN: No. No.

I mean, and who is not for looking into all of this stuff?

Honestly, I mean, you know, I can't wait until he gets to the Pentagon. Because how are the Democrats going to say, that we somehow or another, are, you know -- we don't care about national defense? We care about national defense!

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: I also care about fraud. You know, it's -- the same thing with all of this stuff about aid.

First of all, aid, USAID, it's not aid. It's AID. Okay? It is for international development. That's what that's for.

It's not an aid program. Or an aid agency.

We have aid agencies. That's not one of them.

This is soft power.

And, quite honestly, it is from the beginning, been a CIA operation.

So how are -- I'm not against aid.

I'm against corruption. And I'm also against a lot of this soft power being done, that nobody knows about.

Why are we just finding out about this stuff?

And what we going to find in the Pentagon, oh, my gosh. We're going to find really bad stuff in the Pentagon. Really bad.

PAT: And none of us is against aid. It's just the aid that is being dispersed to people that you mentioned isn't aid.

And the other thing, it's not government agencies, that should be doing this.

It's individuals who are tasked with charity.

GLENN: No!

PAT: And helping others.

We're the ones, individual choice. To -- we shouldn't be forced!

Once you're forced into it, it's not charity anyway.

GLENN: No. It's not.

PAT: So I don't understand how all of the responsibility for aid worldwide is now on the US government.

That's not the way it's supposed to be.

GLENN: Nope. Nope.

And I don't know if you saw this.

But the NIH. They're going crazy now.

Because the NIH. When Trump's people first came in.

They said, we're going to cut the maximum indirect cost rate for research institutions.

Now, most people read that. And they don't even understand what that is. That means, how much of this is going?

How much of 1 dollar is going actually to the program, of research, and how much is going for overhead?

Again, we told you before, any charity that is 85 cents on the dollar. Is one that you start to look at.

If it's 80, 75 cents. You're getting a bad rating for that.

This is 60 cents on the dollar, goes to the management.

Goes to overhead costs.

I want 40 cents on every dollar? You think that's wise?

This is going to save us billions. They're predicting now $9 billion for this project alone. $9 billion.

So go ahead and play cut two, here.

If members of Congress -- peoples cut 12.

This is members of Congress, trying to get into the Department of Education over the weekend.

VOICE: Do they know that --

VOICE: Ask the question again. That's important.

VOICE: Were you told. Are you making the decision to stand in front of the store, on your own behalf. On behalf of the Department of Education.

GLENN: This is the security guard.

VOICE: So everybody is --

VOICE: We're doing our jobs.

GLENN: Okay. So here they are, members of Congress trying to get in, trying to break into the Department of Education. It's closed for the weekend. And they say, they're doing their job. And they're questioning the security guard. Why aren't you letting us in. And all he said, it's not going to happen. Not today. It's not going to happen. You're not going in.

It's quite amazing how these people are so freaked out, they've got to cover their tracks.

I'm convinced that's what it is.

Here's Donald Trump responding to this. Cut 13.

VOICE: Democratic lawmakers trying to get into the Department of Education earlier today.

VOICE: Oh. I see the same ones.

I see Maxine Waters.

A low-life. I see all these people. They don't love our country. They don't love our country.

We want great education. So they ranked 40 countries in education, we're ranked dead last. Dead last.

But the good news is, we're number one in one category. You know what that is? Cost per pupil. We spend more per pupil than any other country in the world.

You look at Norway, Denmark, Sweden, various countries all up and down, Finland. China does very well in education, and then you look at us.

We spend much more money than they do per pupil than any other way. But we spend much more money than they do, and yet we're ranked this year, Biden's last year -- congratulations, Joe. We're ranked dead last. So what I want to see is education -- number one, I like choice. We all like choice.

But beyond choice, long beyond choice, I want to see it go back to the states, where great states who do so well, have no debt, they-re operated brilliantly. They'll be as good as Norway or Denmark or Sweden or any of the other highly ranked countries. They will -- I figure 35 to 38 states will be right at the top.

And the rest will come along. They'll have to come along, competitively. And, by the way, we will be spending --

GLENN: I will tell you -- I will tell you that it feels a little like when the allies marched into Germany, and the Germans were burning all of their documents to hide all the crimes.

It kind of feels a little like that.

Why Did Qualcomm FREAK OUT Over This Glenn Beck Interview?

Why is the big tech giant Qualcomm so nervous about ParkerVision CEO Jeffrey Parker appearing on The Glenn Beck Program? After Parker’s last appearance on Glenn’s show, Qualcomm filed a motion to shut him up and named Glenn over a dozen times. Parker joins Glenn again to give updates on the case and refute some of Qualcomm’s accusations against him.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So a couple of weeks ago, we had a guy on named Jeff Parker. He's the CEO and chairman of ParkerVision. He was making allegations that Qualcomm was in bed with the government, and -- and had screwed ParkerVision. Because what ParkerVision had done is come up with a chip that allows all of our phones and everything else to connect. To Bluetooth. They went into negotiation with Qualcomm.

Had all kinds of NDAs with them. And had to show them the technology. And suddenly, the deal fell apart. And then just a couple years later, Qualcomm comes out with this new amazing technology that can connect everybody's phones and other things to Bluetooth. Huh.

The story only gets more twisted and turned when you run into Eric Holder, and the DOJ. And a jury that says, Qualcomm took this technology and a judge who says, I'm going to sentence Qualcomm and talk about the -- the penalties. And a month later, the judge overturns the jury, and -- and says, no. Qualcomm didn't do anything wrong.

There's some weird stuff going on. Now, here's the update. Qualcomm freaked out about his appearance on this program.

And they filed a cease and desist against Jeff Parker and told him, not to speak out again!

And we called him.

And he said, I'll tell you what, why don't you book me for the show. I'll show you how much ceasing and desisting I'll be doing.

All right. Jeff Parker is with us.

Jeff, how are you, sir?

JEFF: Good morning, Glenn. I'm fine.

GLENN: So let's go over the part just quickly about you sign a cease and desist. All of a sudden, two years later, your technology is introduced by Qualcomm. They pretend, no. What are you talking about? That's not your technology. That's our technology. You take them to court. The jury rules in your favor, unanimous. The judge says, I'm going to apply penalties. Then a couple of weeks after that, Qualcomm has a fundraiser for Barack Obama. The head of Qualcomm has it at his house. Obama shows up. Then a couple of days after that, the DOJ under Eric Holder starts to probe your website. Finish that story.

JEFF: Sure. So thanks for having me back again.

GLENN: You bet.

JEFF: Yeah. So we win a unanimous jury verdict. We come back to the courthouse, after that jury verdict, and the judge hears the parties argue about what should happen next. And after listening to the arguments, the judge says, you know what, there is certainly going to be an ongoing royalty here, which is what Qualcomm would have to pay us for the continued use of our patents and technology.

GLENN: Right.

JEFF: And we are all excited. We leave the courthouse. A few days after that, we have a visit to our website by the White House.
The executive office of the president of the White House.

GLENN: Hmm.

JEFF: Just a few days before that visit, there's a fundraiser at the head of Qualcomm's home. One of the cofounder's homes. Raising money for the DNC.

And after that fundraiser, a few days later, there's this visit from the executive office of the president.

And about a month after that, is when the judge issued his final order, after having indicating before that his final order was going to include royalties. He not only didn't include royalties.

He reversed the jury verdict. And threw the case out.

GLENN: Unbelievable. So Eric Holder was at the DOJ at the time.

You start getting visits at your website, and you can track all of this. You have all of this. Eric Holder and the DOJ start to visit your website, that's only about this litigation. That's the only part they do.

And lo and behold, we find out that Eric Holder before he went to the DOJ, he worked for Qualcomm's largest lobbying firm. When he left the DOJ, guess where he went?

Back to Qualcomm's largest lobbying firm. So you're on the program, you lay all this out.

And now what has happened?

JEFF: Correct. So we're on your program about two weeks ago.

And literally, Glenn, the next day, Qualcomm contacts our attorneys, and they say, if your client doesn't remove his social media, and furthermore agree not to do anymore social media, we will file a motion with the court to gag him, to have this court take down the social media and prevent further conversation.

And, of course, I -- my attorneys are handling a patent case. So they say to me, we're not really experts in First Amendment rights. Freedom of speech rights. Could you please find an attorney who could help you with this?

So I ended up reaching out. And we engaged Marc Kasowitz of his firm. And the Kasowitz firm is a very fine law firm that handles these types of areas and many other areas of law. But Mark --

GLENN: Yeah. He's done a lot of work for Trump, has he not?

JEFF: He has. He has. Mark has handled a lot of president Trump's legal issues over the years. And I approach Mark.

And he heard this request from Qualcomm. And he said, outrageous. He said, this is -- this is ridiculous.

They can't gag you. So a couple days later, Qualcomm, in fact, filed a formal motion with the court that said, take down your social media and stop adding additional social media. And we were actually getting ready to file our opposition, but we first wanted to wait and see what the court was going to do.

And a few days later, the court finding this motion, frankly merit-less. And without any basis for what they're asking for, ruled at the end of last week, just this last Friday.

No. No Qualcomm. You don't get that request. So --

GLENN: Absolutely.

JEFF: So that was good to hear.

GLENN: That's fantastic. That's fantastic.

By the way, I don't have any firsthand knowledge of this.

But I -- I will bet you that our new director of the FBI and our new head of the DOJ saw that Blaze article, that lays all of this out. I'm just saying, that might have happened.

PAT: Well, Glenn, I hope so. Look, what Qualcomm has accused us of, is trying to taint a jury pool. We don't even have a trial date yet, set for this case.

So how are we going to taint a jury pool. But the thing that is really frustrating is the way they characterized our social media. And what we're saying. It's just completely false.

I'll give you an example. So an example of their -- of their characterization is they say, ParkerVision disparages the judicial process in the middle district of Florida and maligns the fairness of the forum.

Namely, ParkerVision impugns Judge Dalton's ruling, in the prior ParkerVision trial, falsely claiming that he improperly reversed the jury's verdict as a result of collusion between Qualcomm and the administration of then president Barack Obama.

Well, let me tell you, that's not true. What ParkerVision is doing is bringing public just facts. We're simply bringing facts. Here's the facts.

The facts are, the Department of Justice has been on our website 37 times.

We discovered shortly before our first trial, all the way until 2022 when I filed a freedom of information act request, asking, hey, Department of Justice. What are you doing on our website? Why are you on our website, so many days at the same time, looking at the same pages as Qualcomm.

Hey. What's this White House visit we had? Why were you only looking at litigation on Qualcomm on our patents? What's that about?

We've never had that fulfilled. So I'm not drawing any conclusions what this means. I'm simply stating the facts. The facts are that these visits happened. And we think we have a right to know, what they're about.

That's what they're asking for.

GLENN: Yeah. They're very suspicious. But that doesn't mean anything happened.

But, you know, there's enough there, not beyond a reasonable doubt. There's enough there, that, you know, we should probably ask some questions here.

JEFF: Yes. Exactly.

GLENN: There was a short seller. Can you tell me about the short seller? Whats his name? Farmwald. What's their name?

JEFF: Yeah, so when Qualcomm accuses us of trying to influence a jury. Again, a date hasn't even been set for a trial. It's pretty rich, Glenn.

Because back in our first trial. There was this persistent short seller. Who had been out posting on the financial message boards. Again and again and again. Trying to drive our stock price down. Our patents are no good. We don't have anything, blah, blah, blah. Well, let me tell you, from the time we filed this case against Qualcomm in 2011, until we won the jury verdict in 2013, over two years, he posted 200 times. Every business day he posted. And he posted predictions. The patents would fall.

They didn't.

The -- the patent case wouldn't go forward.

It did. Oh, even if we won. We would only win ten or $11 million.

He was only off by a factor of 20.

I mean, it went on and on and on.

Here's the real punch line. We got to depose this guy. And subpoena his emails, because after Qualcomm lost the case. He filed challenges to our patents. Which we found kind of suspicious.

And guess what we figured out in deposition of this guy?

Guess who he had been working against when we filed this lawsuit against Qualcomm.

GLENN: Qualcomm.

JEFF: Qualcomm.

GLENN: Do we have payments? And how do you mean working?

JEFF: Well, it turns out that Qualcomm was paying some of his lawyer's bills. Because he was worried apparently, about us suing him for something. I mean, if you're not doing something wrong, what are you worried about?

But he was worried about that. So he went to Qualcomm and he said, look, I'm not looking for you to pay me directly. But pay my legal bills. And our attorney said to him, you don't consider that to be some compensation?

No. I don't consider that to be any compensation. The point though --

GLENN: Why would --

JEFF: Yeah.

GLENN: Why would he meet his legal bills? If I'm not mistaken, this is years before -- three years before you knew that they were infringing, right?

JEFF: Yes. So we believe that he actually started communicating with them. Even before we filed our lawsuit.

So there's a lot of fishy things here.

But to keep it to the point of Qualcomm's motion to try to get us to be gagged, it's pretty interesting. That they would be so willing to work with a party, whose only mission was to put out mischaracterizations and falsehoods about ParkerVision. Its patents. Its technology. Et cetera.

But they be they turn around and accuse us of what they were supporting. Back during the time trial.

GLENN: All right. More in just a second. I have a new video, and I want to show you something from the judge in just a second.

First, let tell you about American Financing for just a moment.

What would it look like to be out of debt, especially all of our your high-interest debt? All of the stuff you have to put on your credit card. Even though, that interest rate is 20, 25, 30 percent?

It's not a fantasy to be out of debt. It could be your reality. If you're a homeowner, and you want to get out from under high-interest debt. Give American Financing a call today.

Last year, their salary-based mortgage consultants help customers save an average of $800 a month.

Now, imagine giving yourself a $10,000 raise. That's exactly what they can do for you today, if you start today. You might even be able to delay up to two mortgage payments, which could help you get out even further from that debt.

Don't take my word for it. I want you to do your own homework, as always. Go to American Financing at 800-906-2440. 800-906-2440. Or go to AmericanFinancing.net. That's AmericanFinancing.net. Ten-second station ID.
(music)

VOICE: NMLS 182334. NMLSConsumerAccess.org. APR rates in the five, starts at 6.725 for well-qualified buyers. Call 800-906-2440 for details about credit costs and terms.
(music)

GLENN: All right. Let me see this full screen here, if I can.

So tell me what this is, Jeff. This full screen, that we have up on the monitors.

This is from the judge, is it not?

VOICE: Oh, hold on. Yes. Yes.

GLENN: That's the ruling.

VOICE: Yes. This is the ruling from the judge, correct.

GLENN: My gosh, they are freaked out about you being on this program.

PAT: Wow.

VOICE: Yes. Yes.

PAT: You seem to be all over that document.

Wow!

VOICE: I know.

JEFF: You know, Glenn, the sad thing about it is, he does dismiss their motion, which we're very happy about.

And we thought it was meritless when they filed it. But he does go on, and he talks a little about some of his unhappiness with the things that we say.

And I've already had people call me up and say, what do you think about that?

I said, look, he only has that side of the story. He rules so fast, which we appreciate.

That we didn't even have time to file a reply. So he is simply looking at Qualcomm's reply, and assuming they are telling him the truth, which they're not telling him the truth.

Look, they say, I have no basis for thinking that Qualcomm has taken our technology to China. I mean, you're kidding. Here's an article, Glenn, I found. 2017, New York Times. How this US tech giant is backing China's tech ambitions. Interesting article. People should go read it. 2019. Jenwa Net (phonetic) of Asia. Interview: Qualcomm president says China to lead the world in 5G scale.

Look, I understand why Qualcomm wants to be a big player in China.

It's a big market. But we have to do this smartly.

We can't just put engineering facilities there.

Teach the Chinese how to develop their own products.

And then expect for the long hall, that we're going to be anything other than from the outside looking in.

I mean, their Belt and Road Initiative is being helped by big tech companies right here in the United States.

It's insane.

GLENN: So when do you suppose -- are you going to file and go to court again?

I know you've been waiting for 11 years.

JEFF: Well, we have a case. It is -- it is -- by the way one of the things Qualcomm mischaracterized is in our first video, they say, oh, Jeff Parker says, we've been waiting ten years for our case, I show you indicating that there's something I feel is nefarious.

No, I didn't say anything was nefarious.

GLENN: Right.

JEFF: What I said was it's been a long -- let me tell you why it's in ten years. Qualcomm filed challenges to the validity of our patents. That ate up four years.
Then they had a couple other ridiculous motions, which took the judge a year or two to sort through.

Now we're up to six years. Then we had the pandemic. That's another two years. The point is, it's been a long time. And all we're asking for is our day in court with the jury who can hear our case. And make a decision.

We think we have a compelling case to the jury.

And the judge right now is considering when to set the trial date. We're hoping it's going to be early, early to middle. Maybe this fall, of this year.

But soon. Very soon.

GLENN: Well, we will continue to follow the case. Are you releasing another video?

JEFF: We just released another video this morning.

GLENN: Yeah.

JEFF: And that video talks about the benefit of the technology.

Our interaction with Qualcomm. How we took this technology to them.

I hope people will go to against giants. And watch the video.

I think you'll find it highly informative.

GLENN: You'll find it on Twitter. At against underscore giants.

At against underscore giants.

Make sure you check that out. And share it with a friend. Share it with the DOJ.

With the FBI. With anybody that you feel would have interest in this.

I think this is something that should be looked into. And if there was corruption, it needs to be routed out.

People need to go to jail, if they did wrong.

And the -- the patents need to be set right.

If we can't count on our patents as small-business people, which Jeff Parker is and ParkerVision is.

If we can't count that those patents can be held by small people, against these giants!

We've got nothing in America.

We have nothing.

JEFF: Totally.

GLENN: This is David versus Goliath.

And they deserve their fair shake in a courtroom.

Jeffrey, thank you so much.

JEFF: Glenn, thank you for having me back.

GLENN: You bet. ParkerVision.com.

ParkerVision.com.

Did USAID Really Fund Chelsea Clinton’s Wedding? Here's the FACTS

As DOGE continues to expose the many, many ways our government has wasted taxpayer dollars, Glenn gives a warning: “You have to be really careful [what you believe] because we don’t want to wreck our credibility.” While the things DOGE has uncovered have been true, there are also a lot of rumors and misinformation spreading online. Glenn addresses some of those rumors, like the seemingly-unfounded claim that USAID helped fund Chelsea Clinton’s wedding through the Clinton Foundation. We must ask questions, but we can’t jump to conclusions without being sure that we have the real facts. Glenn also addresses some provably true stories of government waste, like how the Pentagon overpays for things and why Glenn supports Trump’s decision to stop minting pennies.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Looking at the DOGE stuff, and I want to talk about this next hour.

We have to be really, really careful. Because I don't know about you, but when I heard that we possibly paid for Chelsea Clinton's wedding.

PAT: Yeah. Do we have that substantiated though?

GLENN: We don't. We don't.

And that's why I want to bring that up.

PAT: You have to be careful with that stuff. A ton.

STU: A lot of stuff coming out online.

And you can't quote this stuff. You have to be really, really careful.

Because we just don't want to, A, wreck our credibility.

And, you know, when we find out that it is absolutely true, that's when we can go and say, round them up!

Let's put them court.

PAT: Yeah. Yeah. There's -- there's a viral chart going around that shows Chelsea Clinton got, I don't know. Something like $84 million from the foundation from the Clinton foundation.

And that 3 million of that went to her wedding.

GLENN: Okay. So I think -- I think they did get $84 million.

PAT: I think that went to the foundation, right?

GLENN: Yeah. It went to the foundation.

Got it for the whole run. For Haiti or whatever.

And, you know, we know they spent $84 million in Haiti.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Because look at the place now.

Oh, it's beautiful he has not it's beautiful.

PAT: Well, we were there, how many years after the earthquake.

And it still looked the same. As if the earthquake had just happened. You remember that?

GLENN: Oh, yeah. And the people from Haiti were saying to us, where is the money?

PAT: Where is the $10 billion? Yeah. Because that could have rebuilt. That could have rebuilt the entire country. 10 billion.

GLENN: About four times. About four times over, I think.

PAT: Yep. Yep.

GLENN: I mean, it is -- Haiti is just -- it's a sad, sad situation.

It's been ripped off by everybody in the world over and over again.

And I think the Clintons are, you know, they kind of lead the way on the -- on the charity for Haiti graft.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: But we don't know anything about that. We do know the Clinton initiative got $84 million.

But we don't know any more than that.

And, you know, honestly, if you're spending your tax dollars, I mean, that's what people have to realize.

Even if it is, you know -- even if it is -- it didn't go to Chelsea's wedding.

Which I would be surprised.

I would be shocked, if they were that bold!

PAT: Yeah.

STU: But, you know, this isn't an effective use of your money.

And people who are looking at it, and saying, well, it was only $5 million.

How much money have you paid your entire life in taxes?

Because I guarantee you, it's not going to be $5 million.

It's not! Very few people to have pay $5 million in their lifetime of taxes.

So that means, that everything that you paid. Everything that you worked for. When you work four months a year, to pay your income tax.

All of that has been wasted, your entire life.

I don't know!

I'm kind of pissed about that.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: I mean, what could you have done with all of that money?

And I -- I just don't -- I don't get people who are, you know, again, like we said, I'm for aid.

I'm absolutely for aid. I'm absolutely for looking at countries, and saying, how can we help you, if it's in our interest, and that's not aid.

That would be development. But I'm not for most of the development that has been happening. I'm not interested in nation building!

You know, so, you know, even if you're for that, are you cool with it going 60 cents on every dollar? To the government officials?

Or to the charitable officials. And only 40 cents of that dollar?

I mean, I'm not happy with that. We've gotten so used to corruption, in our government, on, you know, the Pentagon spent $400 on, you know -- on a toilet seat.

We're so used to that. That we just expect it.

This is not that.

The corruption that we're finding now, is beyond imagination.

It's going to be hard for people to get their arms around, what you're actually looking at.

Because we expect a certain amount of -- unfortunately, a certain amount of corruption.

But nothing like this!

And if you're -- you know, if you are a Democrat and you're inclined, not to believe it.

Okay!

I can understand that.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, for a while.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. And say, I probably would have been skeptical, if Joe Biden -- I would have been skeptical if Joe Biden would have come in and said, we will route out all of the corruption.

I would have thought, well, no.

They're getting rid of anybody who is conservative on corruption.

That's why I'm so excited about the Pentagon because that's going to be a lot of conservative love.

You know what I mean?

So called conservative love. It's just graft and greed and cronyism.

But still, it -- it's -- we're supposed to be in love.

The left is supposed to be in love with aid.

We're supposed to be in love with death. I'm not -- I -- I am not blind to either one of those things.

But go into the Pentagon. I would love to see them take.

At you see the congressman or the senator last week, that held up a bag of bolts, and said, this is about $10 at the store?

It's $10,000, if the Pentagon buys it!

PAT: Jeez.

STU: Where is that money going?

PAT: Incredible.

GLENN: Who is getting that money?
And, you know, you would say, well, they're charging ten thousands of individuals dollars a bolt, because, you know, the aircrafts that they're building.

They're so expensive.

And they can't actually charge the price of what it takes.

No, they're charging us the price with all of the overruns.

All of the hundreds of billions of dollars in overruns.

They're charging us that as well.

So my question is: Where do those billions of dollars end up?

In just the pockets of, what? McDonnell-Douglas?

PAT: Raytheon?

GLENN: Raytheon.

PAT: Congress people?

GLENN: Right!

PAT: You know, a lot. A lot of it -- you know it's winding up in their pocketbooks. Has to be.

GLENN: And you know what really bothers me is, these people are taking our tax dollars. And then they're giving that money, through lobbying. To our politicians. Who are allowing the corruption to happen.

So it's just this giant circular -- I'm just going to leave it at that.

This giant circular, something.

I don't -- I don't know what happens in circles.

But there it is.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: By the way, the other thing that Trump said, first of all, he's getting rid of pennies.

Did you hear that?

Executive order. Thank you!

I mean, you know, takes 3 cents to create 1 cent. What are we doing?

That's the dims thing I've ever, ever seen.

PAT: Yes. Especially when nobody wants pennies. Nobody uses them.

If you ever use cash. And you get pennies back.

You just put it in their take a penny jar, usually.

And don't even want it messing up your pocket.

GLENN: Right. I mean, it's absolutely worthless to the American people.

And it's costing our government 3 cents to make 1 cent.

Finally, the president is -- I mean, all of this stuff is so common sense. That's what's so frustrating about all of this.

Should had it should have been done long ago.

But for some reason, we just couldn't. We've known about the penny thing.

I've known about the penny thing, when it was a cent and a half to make a penny.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: That long ago.

PAT: He's -- he's leaving no stone unturned right now.

You've got the penny thing.

And then he just did the straw situation.

Did you see that?

We're going back to plastic straws.

He signed an executive order, or he is going to. Ending the ridiculous Biden push for paper straws, which don't work. Back to plastic, he tweeted out! Or truthed out.

GLENN: I love that.

PAT: It's just -- it's amazing the things that he's covering, at a breathtaking speed.

GLENN: I love that.

Do we have the CBS anchor trying to explain how Trump's approval ratings are going through the roof? Listen to this. Cut ten.

VOICE: What's driving this?

VOICE: I will keep it simple, Margaret. He's doing what he said he would do in the campaign. There's political value in that. In fact, 70 percent of people say he's doing what he's promised. That's whether they approve of him or not.

Now, there's another part of this that continues over from the campaign. There are words he was described as being tough. Being energetic.

And he still is today, in big majority numbers.

So as people take a look in these first few weeks, there's been a lot of activity. They're getting that general sense of governance. And that's being reflected in these early numbers.

VOICE: So that's perception. What about the actual policies?

VOICE: Well, let's start with the ones that are popular.

Again, these echo the ones we see in the campaign. The idea of deporting those in the country illegally continues to be popular. We saw that in the campaign.

GLENN: 59 percent.

VOICE: Sending troops to the US-Mexico border. Again, majority --

GLENN: 64 percent.

PAT: Wow! Wow.

GLENN: I mean, it is -- and they're just baffled by it. I don't understand. No. Really.

Trump Border Czar WARNS Cartels, Illegal Immigrants, & Anti-ICE Politicians

White House Border Czar Tom Homan joins Glenn with the latest updates to the illegal immigration crackdown. He lays out why he took the job, how the deportations are going so far, and what’s coming next. Homan also explains why he’s “very concerned” about violent threats from the cartels. But he has a warning for them: “If they harm a SINGLE Border Patrol agent or soldier, President Trump is gonna rain hell down on them and I think he'll wipe them off the face of the earth." Plus, Homan has a message for anti-ICE politicians in sanctuary cities: "[Pam Bondi] will have NO PROBLEM if I recommend prosecution of a politician for impeding or knowingly harboring and concealing an illegal alien.”

Watch the FULL episode of Glenn TV HERE