RADIOMarch 27, 2023

EXPLAINED: How the Fed’s FedNow program WILL end in a CBDC

The Federal Reserve’s new service for banks, called FedNow, promises increased flexibility, faster transactions, and instant payments with one, small cost: The potential END to your financial freedom. In this clip, Glenn is joined by Justin Haskins, co-author of their new book, ‘Dark Future.’ Haskins explains how — despite what the Federal Reserve may say — this new service is NOT an alternative to a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC)…rather, it’s a giant stepping stone toward it. Watch Glenn tackle this topic further in his upcoming Glenn TV Wednesday Night Special, airing on YouTube and BlazeTV.com on March 29th.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Justin Haskins is with us. Justin is the -- he's with the socialism research center, at the Heartland Institute, where he is the director. He has been working tirelessly on stopping socialism.

He is also -- he was one of our main contributors to our Arguing With Socialists book.

He is also my coauthor of the book, The Great Reset. And our fourth coming book. We're all going to die.

I'm not sure exactly -- what did we name it, Justin?

That was my working title for quite some time.

JUSTIN: Are we telling people? Is this the first time?

GLENN: I don't know. Can we?

Check Amazon, see if it's up for sale.
If it's up for sale, we'll announce it. It's supposed to be in the next few days.

JUSTIN: The name of the book.

GLENN: Don't say it. Don't say it.

So, Justin, you wrote to me something kind of disturbing.

Last hour, I played these happy little commercials from the Federal Reserve about the Fed Now.

It's a new service for all of the banks, which will -- which will make the transfer of funds, you know, whether you're out shopping or you're a business owner, or you're doing bank-to-bank transactions.

You just run everything through the Federal Reserve, and it will happen fast. And I thought --

JUSTIN: Yeah. Isn't that exciting?

GLENN: Very exciting. Now, they're claiming that this is the alternative to a CBDC, which is a Central Bank Digital Currency.

It doesn't really sound so much like an alternative, as much as, I don't know, a system to run that on.

JUSTIN: Yeah. Basically, this is -- this is like Jason Buttrill, your head researcher. Because he and I are now best friends. We exchange emails all the time.

He came up with this great analogy.

This is like the drug dealer, who is new on the block. And he will not just start injecting people with heroin. That's not how you sell lots of drugs. That's not how you do it.

First, you get them hooked.

You just give them a little taste. And then after they get a little taste, now they're hooked. Then you can start really pushing the hard stuff. That's what this is all about.

The Federal Reserve is basically a drug pusher. Okay?

And this is the start of it.

Normally, regular folks like you and me, and people in the audience, we don't interact with the fed. We're not used to that.

We don't like the fed.

We don't trust them very much. And so what they want to say is, just have a little taste. You'll see. It will be great.

Just have a little taste. This is a steppingstone to a CBDC.

This is our first interaction to using the fed directly.

So that we can become more comfortable with it. So it's normalized. And then after this, you'll get a central bank digital currency.

We already know this, because there's a billion government reports talking about how they'll design it, what it will look like.

Why people should use it.

What the principles should be, behind it. All of that kind of stuff.

So we know a CBDC is coming. This is just the first step in that process, to try to normalize people interacting directly with the fed in this sort of high-tech instant transfer payment portal.

GLENN: So we've been talking about the uniform commercial code, which is complicated. And it's -- it's usually nothing anyone should ever have to think about. However, they have included central bank digital currency as the new definition of money.

But money makes us think of money, that you can take from the bank. That you own it. You get paid. You get to do what you want with it.

But central bank digital currency, is not really money. Correct?

JUSTIN: Yeah. What's happening in more than 20 states across the country right now, and it's going to happen in all 50 states eventually. Is lawmakers are looking at updating the Uniform Commercial Code so that a foundation is being laid for a future central bank digital currency.

And not just any kind of central bank digital currency, but a central bank digital currency that is programmable, trackable. That you won't have any privacy with the things that you're doing with the CBDC, that it can be controlled and manipulated. This kind of thing is being manipulated into the code. They don't use the world central bank digital currency. But they outline it, in such a way so that that has to be what they're talking about. So it's not creating the CBDC. That's not what this is aiming to do. It's just laying the foundation to make it easier to use it in certain kinds of commercial transactions.

GLENN: So people know, and this is what you really have to understand. This is not like Bitcoin.

Bitcoin is such a danger, because you get to do with it, what you want to do with it.

And the Federal Reserve is not aware of anything, and can't do anything.

You have the ultimate power with your money. The opposite is true with the fed coin, that they will be introducing. And this is what makes it so dangerous. Not just the tracking.

They're not -- they will not just know absolutely everything that you spend. But Justin said a key word that most people don't really understand. It's programmable. Meaning, it is programmable for the individual. So, in other words, if the government decides that they're going to -- you know, we need to get -- we need to cut down on fat, fat, fatties. Then my digital coin, will not allow me to buy fatty foods. I wouldn't be able to go to McDonald's. I'm using this as an example. There's not anything in the works to do this.

Except, this is what programmable means. They can program it, so if they say, you know what, nobody is going to work. You're not an essential employee.

Your coin will not buy gas.

So you can go to -- try to fill up. But when you put your digital card in the fed, it will say denied. And you won't have any way, other than that card, to be able to buy what you need. It's absolute control of your life.

JUSTIN: Yes. That is exactly right.

And there actually have been things. Statements that have been made by the Biden administration itself. Where it is said, as part of its reports, studying CBDCs and the benefits of it. And how it would be designed.

If they were to make a CBDC, even though they've haven't committed to doing that exactly. They have done all of the groundwork for it.

They've said flatout, that a CBDC needs to account for climate change. It needs to have financial inclusion built into it.

It needs to have equity built into it.

It needs to have concerns about pollution, built into it. They have worked with hundreds of stakeholders. And we all know what that means. Nonprofit groups. And labor organizations and others.

GLENN: Community activists.

JUSTIN: To help design the CBDC. So why are they doing all of that? Because it is going to be programmed, so that you can use it in certain ways, so that it can be prohibited in other ways.

And it can change on a dime. See, that's the other important thing.

It's not -- when it's programmable, they can change the rules whenever they want. It's not as though, they set the rules at the beginning, and that's the rules forever.

They can change the rules as they go. That's the threat of a programmable currency. So it's a huge threat to liberty.

GLENN: And all they will concentrate on is the one fact, and mark my words, this is the way it's going to happen.

We'll have a banking collapse.

Because there's a banking collapse, that will cause the dollar to skyrocket in inflation, possibly hyperinflation. Because you won't be able to have a supply chain anymore.

So many people will be unemployed. There's so much money awash, that if you want to buy something, well, you have 100 bucks?

Yeah. I'll buy that for $100. And it might be something that was worth $4 before the collapse.

And people will pay it. Hyperinflation will go crazy.

The fed will say, look, we have to stop it. Inflation is too much.

We will give you digital currency. It's already in a bank with your name.

All you have to do is sign in, and it will give you the money. And that is what will change inflation.

How do we know about that? Because we wrote about it, in a arguing -- I believe it was in Arguing with Socialists. A chapter we almost didn't put in about Modern Monetary theory. And Modern Monetary theory, is what we're operating on.

We can spend as much money as we want, don't worry about inflation. If they have digital control of everyone's spending.

JUSTIN: Right. Exactly right. We talked about it both in Arguing with Socialists and The Great Reset.

It's a huge part of both socialist plans and Great Reset's elites plans. And those are not necessarily the same group. But there's no doubt about it, that that's the goal.

So why are there 20-some-odd states in the United States right now? Many of them are red states. Texas, Kentucky, Arizona, Oklahoma, North Dakota, Missouri, Montana, Arkansas, et cetera.

Why are they all doing whatever they possibly can, on the UCC code, updating it to make it at least a little bit easier for a CBDC to be utilized in the future. When a CBDC doesn't even exist yet.

Why would they be doing that? That is a really, really important question. But it's much worse than everything we've said so far.

And that's -- having worked with these lawmakers across the country. We have started to discover things in the UCC.

In the commercial code, that are incredibly, incredibly disturbing. Things that most of us just didn't realize were true. And if CBDC's happen, we're in for a world of hurt, that we didn't see coming.

And the reason for that, is under commercial code. When you take money, like if you have cash right now, under the current code. And you go to the bank, and you put money into the bank.

That money is no longer your money. That money is actually now owned by the bank.

GLENN: Hang on just a second.

This is why you -- and this changed. Part of this changed in 2008. You are the lender of last resort, right?

You are the last person in line, to get money, if you have deposited into the bank. Because the bank, when you give them that money, and deposit it. They are then taking that money.

They don't have to ask for permission to loan it out.

They take that money as theirs. And they loan it out.

So what happens to your money?

Well, you don't have money. You -- what you have is a number in the bank, that the bank can now give back to you, or if they go belly-up? Well, then, you lose your money because it wasn't yours anyway. Correct?

JUSTIN: Yes. It's not your money. It's owned by the bank now.

Now, you can go to the bank and say, I want my money back. And then they hand you the money in cash, and you can walk out the door. And that money is yours.

You own that money. But here's the thing about a central bank digital currency: And this is what we're beginning to learn.

How the commercial code deals with that. When you -- you can't put Central Bank Digital Dollars, okay? Digital fed coin. You can't put that in your pocket, and walk out the door. Can you?

It has to be somewhere. It can't be in your actual possession. And because of that --

GLENN: Well, wait. Bitcoin, you can put on a thumb drive. And so you can walk away with it. But digital currency, central bank, no.

JUSTIN: Yes. Correct. They're not going to design it so you can put it into a hard drive or something like that.

But even if -- even if they did, the uniform -- that's why they're updating the uniform commercial code the way they are.

They're putting rules into place, so that you could use a CBDC, even if it is possible to download it on to a hard drive or something like that.

But the layers behind the uniform commercial code, acknowledge in their various meetings and comments and other things, that it's highly unlikely that a CBDC would ever be designed in that way.

It's not -- you will have to put it into some kind of account. So what does that mean?

What it means in effect is that all of the money. All of the CBDC money that exists in society. Will be owned by whoever owns the account.

Which means the fed, or the bank. Or whoever is designated by the Federal Reserve Bank to operate that system.

But you, the individual person, will not own the money.

The money will belong to someone else. It will not belong to you. You will not own it. Under the commercial code, as it is written right now.

Forget about what they're advising it to. Under right now, you would not own any money.

It would all belong to someone else. So forget about whether it's programmable from a design perspective. In practice, it will not be your money anyway.

And so how can you not think of that famous article for the World Economic Forum, we've talked about a thousand times.

In the future, you will own nothing.

And you will have no privacy. Well, it seems like that's what the purpose of this is. So it is not enough to simply kill the UCC bill updates that we're talking about all across the country. That is essential. But we need to do more than that. We need to rewrite that code so that CBDCs cannot be used in a variety of other contexts as well.

GLENN: All right. Stand by. Stand by.

I think that we have to -- we have to really, truly get down to a basic line here, that you have to do in your own state.

And I'm not sure. And I want to talk to Justin. That the UCC code is enough.

And we'll talk about it here, in just 60 seconds.

You know, some people have a hard time falling asleep. I have a hard time falling asleep.

And what? Three times in the last seven days probably. I took Relief Factor sleep. It works wonders for me.

When you -- when you don't get your sleep, you fall asleep in meetings.

Oh, that's really good. When you don't get your sleep, you're not performing at your best. Relief Factor sleep is 100 percent drug-free. It's a blend of natural ingredients.

And it promotes healthy sleep by reducing anxiety and distress and improving mood. Promoting relaxation. My wife and I, we were in Costco yesterday, and we were loading up on, you know, just different medicines and things like that.

And I said, honey, because Rafe used to take melatonin. I said, you want to get some extra melatonin? She said, no, it doesn't work.

Relief Sleep is much better. And it's true. If it doesn't work for you, this is the same kind of thing as melatonin, except it's better, and it's all 100 percent natural ingredients.

So unleash the power of great sleep by calling 800-4-Relief. 800-4-Relief. Do it now. Or go to relieffactor.com.

Read all about it. Try it. It's really remarkable. And you are left refreshed. You don't feel it in your system at all. Dream big, sleep tight. Relief Factor sleep at ReliefFactor.com. Ten-second station ID.
(music)

GLENN: All right. Justin, we have -- we have been talking about the UCC code. And we've been telling people not to allow it to pass. Now you've been working with legislatures, all over the country. And these legislators are telling you, no. There's much more to the code. We have to change it.

Would it be better just to go for states passing law, that CBDCs can't be used for commerce?

JUSTIN: So it's a really complicated question because there are all sorts of issues related to the Constitution and who has the authority to regulate money.

And whether or not a state can even pass a law, that outright rejects the use of -- of an established form of money, at the federal level.

Because it's a federal responsibility, to coin money.

Of course, there are people who say, well, yeah. But coining money means physical money, not digital money.

And so maybe they are allowed to do it. And so I think there are a lot of open questions about that, that we don't necessarily know.

I think that the most effective thing that legislators can do.

And legislators actually do not know a lot of the things I've told you today. I've gotten that from a lot of UCC lawyers, actually.

But what they need to do. They need to focus first, in my opinion.

I think Americans would be much better off, if lawmakers killed the UCC bills. Okay?

If they killed the UCC bills to update them right now, they would be much better off.

But then they also need to update the UCC and all other state laws that they can possibly find, in ways, that would make it so that a central bank digital currency, is undermined in the state, in financial transactions.

For example, can you use a CBDC? A programmable digital currency, when you're using -- for collateral and a loan, let's say.

Okay?

State laws dictate some of that, and they can undermine that.

They can do things like that, to undermine the use of a CBDC, and I think that's what they have to do.

Democrats STILL don't understand why they lost. Glenn gives 8 reasons

Many Democrats are still not sure why they lost the 2024 election to Donald Trump. Glenn gives them 8 reasons why. But these aren’t stories from the campaign season. These are CURRENT things that the Left is STILL doing! The transgender bathroom fight in Congress between Representative Nancy Mace and Representative-Elect Sarah McBride is a perfect example. As is the sudden defense of illegal immigrants by sanctuary cities, the case against a Christian graphic designer who refused to make a website for a gay wedding, and Jaguar’s new ad.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: All right. So I find this incredible. This is from Yahoo News. Kamala Harris is the top choice of Democrat voters to be the party's nominee for the 2028 presidential election according to a new poll. What!

What?

STU: Do it. Do it.

GLENN: You're right. You're right.

STU: Run it back.

GLENN: Kamala Harris was significantly ahead of Josh Shapiro and Pete Buttigieg.

By the way, can I just say, you know, these -- these people are so unqualified to run any of these departments, that Donald Trump is nominating. Pete Buttigieg, okay?

STU: A person they mocked. The Biden campaign mocked for having no qualifications, then they gave him the transportation secretary. And he became the worse one we ever had.

GLENN: HHS secretary. Who do we get? A guy thinks he's a woman. Come on, guys. Come on, guys.

So they don't know who they lost. And they're now saying -- this is a poll. The majority of Democrats think, they go this way again.

STU: Do it. Do it.

GLENN: Please.

So Katie Couric was on with, oh, what's her name?

From MSNBC. She used to be Jen Saki. She used to be with the White House, and they were talking. They were like, I don't know what happened. I'm so frustrated.

What happened? And Couric said, I think it was her word salads. She just didn't answer any questions.

Well, that's part of it. But could I -- could I just try to boil it down for the Democrats, one last time?

Okay? Let me give you some two-day scenarios. Not in the past. Things that are happening today, that are making you the party of the wigs.

Here we are.

House Democrats are rebuking a proposal for a ban for an incoming transgender lawmaker from using female bathrooms at the Capitol. Calling an effort a distraction from the real work people want to see done. Democrats were quick to blast Nancy Mace, a rape victim.

For her bill that dropped on Monday, which targeted Representative Elect Sarah McBride, a Democrat from Delaware, the first transgender member of Congress.

However, despite outraged posts on social media calling the G.O.P. proposals bullying, several Democratic members are saying that they are better to do things with their time than to respond to a petty move.

They are wanting this guy, who claims to be a woman, to be able to use the congressional women's bathroom. Now, this guy has his own potty, in his office.

So does Nancy mace. So it's not really even a problem. Unless Nancy mace wants to go in, you know, with everybody else. And not use the one in her office. Sometimes that happens, you know.

She doesn't want a guy in there. She's been raped.

But beyond that, this is not what the American people want to talk about. Okay?

They don't -- they care now. Where they didn't care before. About transgenderism, and all this stuff.

Once you started mutilating our children, once you started forcing people to say, not only is that a woman, but my gosh, one of the most beautiful women.

Have you seen Rachel Levine?

Oh, my gosh, she should be on the cover of Vogue. I look at Melania Trump.

STU: Have you seen Rachel Levine? Every time in my bedroom, there's a poster hanging up over the bed. Of course.

GLENN: Oh, yeah. I don't even look at my wife. I close my eyes and think of Rachel Levine.

Okay. So there's one.

Here's the other one: The woman who was an original founder of La Leche (phonetic). Now, what is La Leche all about? La Leche is all about mothers' breast milk.

That's what they fight for. Mothers' breast milk. Now they've decided to include men as chest feeders.

Well, when guys can start to make mothers' breast milk, let me know.

But what the whole organization is about.

Mothers' milk.

And you're including chest feeders.

Men. Okay. I wonder what happened. How did he win? What happened? How did we lose America.

Example number two.

Chest feeders. Here's another one.

What city can withstand all of the illegals that have come across the border?

Which one can afford it?

Which one is rolling in the dough?

And they're like, you know what, we have so much money. And we're so open hearted, we just want all of them up here. And we're not going to put any of them in jail, ever. Okay.

Which city?

Is it Chicago. I know Chicago. The minorities are now standing up, going, wait a minute. You're giving all these people all this stuff. You never did jack for us, and we're citizens. Okay!

It's not working out, Chicago. And yet you're doubling down now.

After the election. Before the election, we were like, we're going to collapse if this continues to go.

We need Biden to do some common sense -- and that's why we're for him closing the borders. You know, he has less people coming over right now than Donald Trump did.

All right. And they were all for that! Now Donald Trump gets in. And they are -- we're going to -- there's not a policeman in this town.

Because we're all for it.

Are you now! Are you?

Here's what I'm for. If you want to violate federal law. Common sense federal law.

This is not something that's controversial.

What is it? Seventy, 80 percent say, hey. We can't live this way.

Your own people are crying out, for an end to the crime, and to illegal immigration. And to the tax dollars that you are spending.

I say, if you want to go there. Fine. You do whatever you want. You be you, boo. California, Illinois, you keep going. Oh, I'm so proud of you. You're so cute. We know how that's going to end.

Your own people know how that is going to end. But you want to do that, that's fine. I just suggest that you don't get a federal dollar for anything.

You can't do that. I hate that. Really?

Aren't you the same people that were preaching the 55 mile an hour speed limit forever. You're not going to get a dollar of federal funding, unless it's 55 miles an hour. So don't -- that was Jimmy Carter. Don't talk to me. Don't talk to me.

Talk to the hand.

And that's what you are saying to your common sense voters.

Los Angeles. New York.

New York, the -- the mayor of New York was saying, we're going to collapse.

Now, we're not letting a single person -- we love them. Come on over here, I always wanted to give you a big squeeze.

Uh-huh. What else? What else? Now, these are not. I'm not going back to the past.

I'm going to the things that are happening right now.

The public school district in Cherry Hill New Jersey said it mistakenly released the names of close to 100 elementary schools, whose families opted them out of the controversial sex education program last year.

Oopsy. Oopsy. Did we dox them?

We didn't mean to. We keep that file in a super, super-secret place. We keep it over -- it's locked -- nobody is ever going to know. That's going to be super-secret. Did we just release those names? Oh, my gosh.

And I am shocked. I am shocked, that somebody hacked in to the Congress and got those facts on Matt Gaetz.

And now Matt Gaetz is going to be exposed. I am shocked and horrified. Uh-huh.

Are you? So another reason? You weaponized the federal government. You weaponized it.

And every time something happened, you were like, oh, that was a mistake.

Then if you didn't weaponize it, if it's all mistakes, you are the worst!

We cannot stand another day of people running the country that make this many mistakes. Because they're kind of important ones.

Okay. So what else?

Why else it you lose?

Well, I want to tell you about the super hot sexy jaguar. Here is the latest ad for jaguar.

It's in an elevator full of a guy with a tutu on.

And a guy who looks like he's got breasts. Now he's wearing -- live vivid. Delete ordinary.

Is that male or female?

Is that a male or a female? Or is that the one that used to run our --

STU: That's the luggage dealer.

GLENN: Okay. Okay. Copy nothing.

So so far, we didn't see a car. And that's the end.

And there is no car in the ad. I don't know what they're selling. But it's not a car.

STU: Shockingly, they would do that today.

Three years ago. Maybe I could have seen that.

The fact that they're doing that in 2025.

GLENN: Blue Home Jaguar.

STU: That's a good question, I don't know.

GLENN: I think it's still Ford, isn't it?

Or whoever owns Ford now. It's the same company as Ford. So I don't know. What are you selling?

I thought you were selling cars. When you sell a car --

STU: It's Tata. Or Tata Motors. An Indian automotive manufacturing company that acquired Jaguar Land Rover from Ford in 2008.

GLENN: Oh, okay. All right.

So it's Tatas.

STU: Tatas. You know, watching that, I can understand. Tatas seems like --

GLENN: Yeah, but they're strangely sewn on men, those tatas.

So when you're selling a Jaguar, you're selling it to guys. And you're selling that car based on sex appeal. All right?

Guys, when they can afford a nice jaguar, they're usually having a mid-life crisis.

And they're like, I have to have something sexy that makes me feel young.

And a guy in a dress, doesn't make a guy feel young and hot.

GLENN: Well, a certainly type of guy probably is it.

And I guess that's who they're trying to appeal to. No longer the James Bond type. That's with every spot.

GLENN: Right. Because the majority of people that are buying Jaguars are transgender.

STU: Yes, 85 percent.

GLENN: Yeah. 85 percent. That is -- why are you losing? Because you don't know who your customer is! You have no idea. You are denying who your customer is.

And your customer is like, wait. But I'm -- I thought I was voting for these people that were against these never-ending wars. What?

No. You have completely forgotten who your customer is.

Now, let's go another one.

Colorado has paid now $1.5 million for violating an artist's First Amendment rights, after the SCOTUS case, that just came down.

There was a website design.

And they had to pay this person, $1.5 million. Because they violated the First Amendment rights. Graphic designer.

She was asked to -- as a Christian, major is supposed to be between male and female.

And they wanted, you know, to do a same-sex wedding website. And she said, no.

They targeted her. And then dragged this person through the court, and tried to destroy his life.

So this goes to the weaponization of our justice system.

You're destroying people. Now, I don't know about you. But I know a lot of gay people who are just like, I've had it up to here.

Okay? This is not my agenda. I just want to get along. Just leave me alone!

You know, I'm a normal human being. I'm not for this. And, by the way, let me ask you, who wants somebody to make something for you, that just doesn't have their heart into it.

Doesn't hate you. Just doesn't have their heart into it. You know what that ends up looking like?

That ends up looking like a Jaguar ad. Where, I don't even -- I did this at CNN. I asked somebody at CNN, to write a -- a piece on the strength of Ronald Reagan. It was the week he died.

And I got it. And it was the worst piece of crap. And it was one of our best writers. The worst -- and I called him up, and said, Hal, what the hell happened? Did you just phone one in? He said, Glenn, I worked harder on that one, than I ever have.

He said, I don't like Ronald Reagan. I don't understand why everybody loves him.

I did the best I could.

And I saw -- he really did.

He did. I couldn't be mad at him. He didn't get it.

Why would you want somebody, to make a website for you, that really, truly doesn't get it!

Doesn't get your point of view.

STU: And, of course, that's not what they wanted.

GLENN: No.

STU: They wanted --

GLENN: They wanted everybody to bow down.

STU: Bow down. Get a Lithuania. Whatever it was.

GLENN: Yeah. I'm just going over the things that happened today. Not in the past.

Katie Couric, I don't understand.

Well, give me five more minutes, Katie. And if you don't get it after 5 more minutes, it's because you don't want to get it.

Wow. I haven't even considered that.

You just want to say that you're stupid, and you're brilliant. And you don't really want to find a real answer. It's not an honest search.

That can't be Katie Couric.

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.

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.

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?