RADIOMay 27, 2022

LEAKED China audio unveils possible plan to INVADE Taiwan

Is China preparing to invade Taiwan? Leaked audio that appears to be legit would seem to point to that as a strong possibility. Jason Buttrill joined Glenn to discuss and analyze what the timetable might be. It may not be tomorrow but it's happening soon... ish.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Jason Buttrill is with us. He is the main writer, researcher for the Glenn Beck television program.

And he is also our national security expert. He was with naval intelligence for a long time. And can tell us about a new audio tape that has come out of China. Smuggled out of China. That apparently shows that they are preparing for an invasion of Taiwan.

I've got several questions on this. First, Jason, why don't you bring everybody up to speed, on what it is, what they're saying.

JASON: Well, so first a quick little correction. You say naval intelligence. I'm about to invade your office, because Marine Corps intelligence.

GLENN: Same thing. You're on boats.

JASON: Bigger.

(laughter)

GLENN: My apologies. My apologies to every marine. Just said it to set him off. Go ahead.

JASON: Yeah. So this is -- this is -- like a council meeting of their war mobilization.

So I want to make that clarification. Because this does appear to be legitimate. They are talking about a massive war mobilization effort, on basically this is theory crafting. What do we need to do?

So where do we need to get conscripts. How do we retrofit ships to get the amount? Which they're guessing in this meeting, will take about 953 ships, which is oddly very specific.

And they also talk about 140,000 soldiers. They're talking about private companies, that need to be utilized. Yeah. I say private in air quotes. Public/private. Nobody.

GLENN: Yeah, no, it's a partnership. It's a public partnership. It's what we will be soon. But go ahead.

JASON: 140,000 soldiers. They just go on. Very good detail. It goes on for about 56 minutes. I've looked at some of the -- well, I've looked at all the nations. I've matched up all the faces. These are real people. This does appear to be legitimate. I do want to say though, that they're just one part of this massive -- you know -- you know, structure that's within China. That's looking at invading Taiwan. And make no mistake. Invading Taiwan is a national security necessity for China. They will try it eventually. When is up to, you know, interpretation. I think they're still very far off. At least ten years off.

GLENN: Yeah. Now, wait a minute. Hang on just a second. And I think anybody in the intelligence community. Because I've talked to several of them. Would agree with you. We're at least five years off. Between five and ten. Is this different than what we do with the pentagon?

I mean, we should have a plan on, you know, invading Canada, in case they went crazy. That's what they should do, is have a plan for anything. Is that what this is?

JASON: Yes. I think that's what this is. But it has a little more teeth. So when I was in the intelligence community, we did a lot of war gaming. You know, for multiple different countries stop we had to plan in place. If it was -- you know, we needed.

I think the difference here is that this is their -- let's say, it was our national security imperative, that we invade Cuba. And we -- and everyone knew we were going to do it at some point. Then this would be a lot more worrisome. That showed we were this far ahead in the planning. That's a different tear. They will do this soon. They will, in the future.

GLENN: Yeah. So soon for the Chinese, which could be 500 years away.

Let me ask you the next obvious question. In a state, that has total surveillance, total surveillance, and records of everybody, cell phone, what it's doing. Where it's been.

Who smuggled this out? How did it get out? And is it intentionally let out?

JASON: Yeah. Yeah. So there's -- so I was kind of getting to this a little bit earlier. But there's multiple different factions that are looking at this. There's the war mobilization faction like this. Like, their job is to make sure that if we do this, we're prepared to do it. Now, there are other factions in the Communist Party, that are like, are you looking at the geopolitical perspective right now. Are you looking at what's happening in Russia with Ukraine.

We're trying to get our economy going the way it's been going, the past ten, 15 years. That's not going to happen. That's a full stop. Everything they want to get done. What's -- can you imagine what happens to (inaudible), if what happens to Russia happens to them? It completely goes away.

So there are those factions in the CCP. That say, wait a minute. Let's take a step back. Yes. We agree. We have to do this in the future. But this is not something we should be thinking about in the near term.

GLENN: Do you really think it goes -- do you really think that all goes away?

If they take Taiwan, and somebody doesn't blow up the high-tech plants, they control like 99 percent of every chip, and most importantly, the hardest chips to make. That's all in Taiwan.

You really think that, you know, countries fold all the time, because they need something.

JASON: Yeah.

And the issue with Taiwan, looking at the economic perspective, it's almost mutually assured destruction. If you go after Taiwan. You're also critically damaging the Chinese economy. They do a massive amount of business with Taiwan. It's almost like an Achilles' heel that kind of shoves this invasion way down the line, because China is just not ready for it right now.

They don't have a purely, you know, domestic economy. It's purely based off of exports. Purely based off of exports.

And massive amounts of Taiwan. So they're just not ready. I do believe the United States -- I don't think that they can take Taiwan. Not as long as the United States navy is what it is. In the -- I do not believe they can do it. And look at what these numbers.

What they're talking about. 140,000 soldiers. Over 20 airfields and docks. 953 ships. That is -- look at the mobilization that happened in Russia and Ukraine. We were able to see that, you know, months ahead of schedule. This amount of mobilization. I mean, they're going to start, six months later, they'll be ready.

So what will happen, once this starts going down. The United States navy is going to push massive amounts of hardware, you know. Multiple fleets into that area.

GLENN: If we have the fuel. If we had the fuel.

JASON: Start blocking everything off. Yeah. That's right.

GLENN: So did you read my Davos, EF executive summary that I got?

JASON: Yes.

GLENN: Okay. Can we go through this a bit?

Because Al Gore spoke at the Davos meeting yesterday. He was part of the panel, turning up the heat on green washing. And during the panel, Al Gore and other panelists lamented the fact that far too many companies pledged to lower their carbon emissions, but only a small percentage actually followed through with their commitment. It's what they call green washing. So his solution to dealing with the inaccurate reporting of CO2 conditions. A network of satellites that can track CO2 emissions, down to an incredibly detailed level.

He says, according to an S&P report, on more than 5,000 companies. Only 37 percent had any emissions target at all, for scope number one and scope number two emissions. Only 24 percent have net zero targets. And of the companies that have set emission targets. Less than half are aligned with the science-based approach. To even 2 degrees. Much less 1.5 degrees. 58 percent of the companies don't even report their scope, three emissions.

Let alone have a plan to reduce them. And in a recent poll, 1500 business executives from 16 cubs. Only 36 percent said their companies have tools to measure the progress on sustainability.

So he says, green washing is a major obstacle to solve the climate crisis, made up of falsehoods, clever PR. And it's got to stop.

Al Gore then shares the exciting news. We're about to enter the age of radical transparency.

Now, just hear this. And, Jason, chime in at any time. Entering an age of radical transparency. Not for you to be able to see into the government. Not for you to see into the elites. But for the elites to see into everything in your life. He said, I've been among those who have formed a new coalition called climate trace. Which stands for tracking realtime atmospheric carbon emissions. He says, it's a coalition of artificial intelligence. Technology companies. NGOs. And universities. Using data from 300 existing satellites from multiple countries. Ground, sea, and airbased sensors, and internet data streams, to machine learning. To create algorithms for every single sector and subsector of the economy.

This October will publish the world's first inventory of exactly where the greenhouse gas emissions are coming from. And in what amounts. He said, it's going to make a dramatic difference. So investors, supply chain managers, NGOs, prioritizing their campaigning activities, financial institutions. If they want to know where the emissions are coming from upstream and downstream, it's all going to be laid out for the world to see.

That's a little frightening.

JASON: Radical transparency. Why do you have to always add the word radical to everything? Come on, man. Yeah. This is not surprising to me. Next week, we will be talking about on the Glenn Beck special. About a lot of the executive orders. A lot of the transformation. Which already has gone down in the bureaucracy. Which they call, a, quote, all of government approach. Which a lot of us didn't pay attention to. But the more we've been looking into it. It is shocking the amount of the alphabetic bureaucratic agencies that are already moving in that direction.

So if they're talking about private companies, using satellites to do this, do we not think that, you know, the Department of Homeland Security is not already doing this as well?

GLENN: All of them are.

JASON: I mean, in their own words. That's their main priority right now. A couple of weeks ago, the FCC, just issued out sweeping new proposals on mandating -- I'm sorry. Public companies. To disclose their climate footprint and their carbon emissions. And it's hilarious that they even have to mandate it. Because there are groups, that we have a letter, directly from one of the biggest banks in the country. That says, they're already doing this. They say, we applaud you in you. Making it official. We've all been doing this now for several years. They're already doing it. They don't even have to green washing, whatever. A lot of these companies are already on board. Did you see the second half of those notes, Glenn, the first movers coalition?

GLENN: Yeah. Let me take a break, and come back on this. This is something that John Kerry talked about. The first movers coalition. That is the public/private partnership, that the White House announced a few months ago.

GLENN: This is the Glenn Beck Program. All right. So John Kerry, we're back with Jason Buttrill. And he is talking to us about the World Economic Forum. And Davos. Day three. Jason. The first movers coalition. This is John Kerry, yesterday. Talking about, you know, when we first got together a year ago, with Joe Biden. He announced 35 companies, that were coming in on the first movers. A public/private partner ship with the White House.

And now it's up to 55 companies. What does that mean?

JASON: And this was just the 55 companies that are publicly announcing that they're in this public/private.

GLENN: Correct.

JASON: We know there are far more than just 55.

GLENN: Well, no, but these 55. $9 trillion in worth. And these 55 represent 50 percent of all global GDP.

JASON: It's insane.

GLENN: That's a little crazy.

JASON: This is, again, something we will highlight in our show next week. It's a must watch show. You have to next week. But we will highlight some of the wordings they used, in Biden barrage of executive orders.

And reading some of this stuff, it's just blowing my mind. They're stating, and this coalition is all part of this.

Is they're intentionally trying to manipulate the markets. They don't care. I mean, they're trying to manipulate the markets. They know the United States government is actually the largest purchaser of goods in the entire world. In the entire world. So they're directing all these companies to judge on board what the federal government is already doing. Which is intentionally, only buying certain things that they agree with. Like only things they consider hoe carbon footprint. If you work in some of these industries, that are considered high carbon footprint. Or your social and governance is not on par than what they want. Then they are trying to intentional manipulate the market. To drive you out of business. Or, you know, if your business goes out. Then you are intentional driven out of a job. They really do not care. But that's what this is about. They're intentionally trying to manipulate the market. And radically transform the economy.

GLENN: And that's --

JASON: Not only the United States economy. The global economy.

GLENN: And that's the lie that Biden keeps saying, you know, none of his stuff is affecting the gas price.

JASON: Yeah.

GLENN: All of his stuff, including from the World Economic Forum and The Great Reset. That's the point of the great reset. Is to get rid of fossil fuels and oil and gas. And we're going to pay an extraordinary price in human lives, in starvation. Wealth. And progress. This is so dangerous. What they are doing right now.

We'll have all of those. Thank you, Jason. We'll have all of this. And updates on what every agency is doing. And wait until we tell you what FEMA is doing, next Wednesday, on the Glenn Beck special. Next Wednesday. Join us at BlazeTV.com/Glenn.

When did Trump become COOL AGAIN?!

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

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

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

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

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

And now it seems to be back.

Right. They like this guy.

GLENN: This is who he used to be.

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

You know what I mean?

STU: No. Yeah. Makes sense.

GLENN: It's nuts.

It's so crazy, that Joe and Mika.

STU: Oh, yeah.

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

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

GLENN: I know. I know.

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

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

Maybe some interesting tweets, I will say, afterward.

It is interesting.

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

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

Where people in sports are doing this.

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

And I was trying to understand.

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

And they were hiding it.

And now they're coming out of hiding it.

Which is a plausible explanation.

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

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

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

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

And you think it's funny.

And you're making offensive jokes.

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

STU: All those things.

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

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

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

GLENN: Oh, yeah.

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

I think it's involved in that.

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

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

STU: Yeah.

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

STU: No. Not at all.

GLENN: You weren't?

STU: Not even remotely close.

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

STU: Okay.

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

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

GLENN: And the choir.

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

But I was playing sports all the time.

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

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

GLENN: All right. All right.

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

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

STU: Giant lockers are cool.
(laughter)

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

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

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

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

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

GLENN: So for a reason, it happens.

STU: Right.

GLENN: Maybe this is just me. Okay?

It probably just is me.

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

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

She's not a conservative. Okay?

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

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Vivek Ramaswamy, not a conservative.

Close.

STU: He was a Libertarian.

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

GLENN: Okay. So that's the pack.

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

STU: Sure.

GLENN: With the cool kids.

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

STU: Hmm.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will say, can we start here?

How about no more lifelong Democrats appointed to big positions?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now, let me flip this on you.

We're looking for disrupters. Okay?

Tulsi Gabbard was a disruptor in the Democratic Party.

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

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

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

And I never believed them.

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

Same thing with RFK.

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

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

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

We know thousands of them.

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

STU: I agree with you.

No. You're right.

Mike Johnson is certainly no middle kid.

GLENN: No. He's not.

STU: He was like.

GLENN: He's the --

STU: Is that guy security.

GLENN: It makes me feel good.

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

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

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

GLENN: At least he's what?

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

GLENN: Okay, yeah.

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

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

Steve Baker explains GUILTY PLEA in Jan. 6 case

Blaze Media correspondent Steve Baker and his attorney Bill Shipley join The Glenn Beck Program to explain why Baker pleaded guilty to 4 misdemeanor counts connected to his presence at the Capitol during the Jan. 6 riot. Steve has argued the entire time that he was there as a journalist and did not act violently, and also that the government isn't going after the other 80 or so journalists who were there. He pled guilty, he explains, because he believes that the court wanted to make an example out of him: "The trial is nothing more than a shaming exercise if you're not going to be allowed to present your own case." Baker and Shipley also discuss the possibility of Donald Trump pardoning J6 defendants when he takes office.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Steve Baker and his attorney Bill Shipley joins us. Steve, I hate to do this to you. But we have about six, seven minutes.

So why did you plead guilty?

STEVE: Yeah. It was no more complicated than this. Last Wednesday was my pretrial hearing. And the government basically went into lockstep. Deny, deny, deny mode, that was in lockstep with the court itself.

The last minute hoax that they had, that they would either grant us a dismissal of my case, based on -- or they would at least grant a continuance, which would mean, that during that time, they would also give us the discovery that we had requested on to some 80 to 100 other journalist, media influencers.

Podcasters. Bloggers of all types of media, that passed through those restricted spaces and into the Capitol that day. Why they weren't charging them.

And when the judge laid down the law. And said, no. He was going to -- just basically show his inflexible flexibility.

And I thought, you know what, after that, then the trial is nothing more than a shaming exercise.

If you're not going to be allowed to present your own case.

So I think Bill can speak to that a little bit more clearly.

GLENN: Bill.

BILL: Well, Steve and I had a conversation.

And the head of that hearing.

And I said, Steve, based purely on the facts, I think we can defend this case. But at the end of the day, particularly during that pretrial conference hearing, it became clear, that the government was going to use four comments that Steven made over the course of the day, to in effect, show that Steve had in the government's word, joined the mob.

In other words, Steve was in some respects, taking the government's interpretation of his word.

He was applauding the conduct of the crowd that day. And the government said, that sets him apart from the other 80 journalists. Well, either you think about that. That basically says, any opinion journalist, whose opinion is on the wrong side of what the government deems to be the line of acceptability is, therefore, subject to prosecution.

GLENN: Correct.

BILL: As long as your opinions are on the right side of the line of acceptability, you're fine.

GLENN: So that's a First Amendment right.

BILL: Exactly. But we could not get the court to accept that. I think part of what we were up against was, these were only misdemeanor charges. The court was simply not going to give us the evidence that we were entitled to.

But the difficulty of that particularly kind of defenses. It's almost a concession, that you've actually committed the crime.

And what you're saying is why aren't other people similarly situated being charged with the same crime.

It's a double-edged sword.

And after the election, it was just a matter of, you know, Steve, we can get out of this in such a way, where we write the facts. We decide what we tell the judge, are the facts of the case. Unlike a plea agreement, when you have an agreement with the government, they write the facts. And you're stuck with them. Because the alternative is to go to trial.

GLENN: I will tell you, I pled -- I don't know if I pled guilty, I might have. Pled guilty in a case. Had to surrender and just acquiesce on a case years ago. Involving terrorists. To have.

And somebody -- I had them dead to rights.

Dead to rights. But the government is controlling all of the strings and all of the information. And if you can't get the information, from the government, that they have, and that you know exists. Because you have copies of it.

But the judge says, no. I need to seat official copy. And the government says, well, we're not going to give you the official copy.

You have no place to go. They win every time, if you -- you know, can't get them to cooperate in any way. And give you the information, that they only have.

That's what you're fighting. Right?

BILL: Yeah. And our alternative here would have been to go to the appellate court.

But we could only do that after the district court, the trial court after that case was over. We could go to the appellate court. But, again, we're talking about four misdemeanors.

How much effort are you willing to put in, to go to the appellate court. To try to get this information, that the trial judge has denied you.

GLENN: So what is your sentence going to be, Steve? Do you know?

STEVE: Well, they set my sentencing hearing for March the 6th. We don't know. But the judge himself acknowledged in the court date on Tuesday, that we likely would never see each other again.

How about that? He actually acknowledged that. He actually said it twice, in reference to the fact that there is probably going to be pardons going down.

And, therefore, I wouldn't be sentenced. But in that moment, I think the judge made a really critical and unforced error.

Because he decided to go and dress me down, as he would normally do during a sentencing hearing. And since he decided that we probably wouldn't be able to have that hearing in March, he was going to go ahead and take that opportunity to chastise me. What he did, Glenn, is incredible.

And we will have the transcript of this, and we will certainly release it through the Blaze.

That he dressed me down, not for my behavior. But he criticized my actual work as a journalist, because I had used the terms "weaponized DOJ" and I had been critical of the biased court.

GLENN: Wow! Wow!

What a violation of your First Amendment.

All right, Steve, thanks for explaining this. Bill, best of luck. Keep us up to speed. I think you are right. I think Donald Trump is going to come in, and I hope not for everybody.

I mean, there were some people that were really bad actors in this. But most people weren't. And that should be erased from their record entirely.

Thank you, Steve. Appreciate it. God bless. You bet.

Will Donald Trump embrace Bitcoin in 2025?

Bitcoin has seen a major rise after the re-election of Donald Trump. Just a year ago, a Bitcoin was worse under $40,000. Now, that has more than doubled, passing $80k and even $90k. But is this just the beginning. Donald Trump has promised to end the government's plans to release a FedCoin or Central Bank Digital Currency. Will he go as far as instructing the U.S. Treasury to invest in Bitcoin? Glenn and Stu discuss.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Let's see. Have we seen Bitcoin this morning? What is Bitcoin up to?

STU: Last I saw was 82,000. My apologies.

83,000.

GLENN: Wow!

STU: 83,000.

I mean, that is amazing.

By the way, you could have bought it for about three or 4,000, during the beginning of COVID.

So I remember Glenn, a time when this office was buzzing constantly with the -- what wound up being a, quote, unquote, bubble of 19,000.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: And that was in 2017.

GLENN: Yeah. That's not going to come back. It will never get higher than that.

STU: You look at the entire chart of Bitcoin.

That bubble that was end -- that was the game-ender. This is it. It's going to zero.

Every freaking media institution had 100 articles about how it was over. And now -- and then it rose again. And you have the FTX situation happen. And, again, it was all over, and we had to read article after article after article. Now 83,000.

Every single person in history, that bought Bitcoin and has held on to it, is now in the green.

GLENN: By the way, January 23rd of this year, it was $38,505.

STU: Gosh, this year.

GLENN: This year. 38,505.

STU: Incredible.

GLENN: I mean, it has -- I mean -- and, you know what -- you know what this is? The government of the United States, under Donald Trump, him saying, I'm not going to be hostile to you.

I won't be hostile. I'm not -- I'm not going to try to put you out of business. In fact, the government is going to now get hostile, on the idea of a Fed coin. We're not going to let the Federal Reserve do a currency.

No! No more. No more.

There's no Fed coin that will happen. And he wants a Constitutional amendment, but he'll at least pass laws that say, they cannot do that.

That's what -- that's what's giving people confidence. It's not the free market. It's the fact that the free market is just -- there's hope, that it actually works now!

That people can buy what they want to buy. And not fear the government coming in and shutting it all down.

STU: Yeah. And Trump has talked about when the US government comes in contact with Bitcoin. It doesn't just pump it out to the market.

They have about 200,000.

GLENN: Why would they do that?

STU: Hold it. Have a Bitcoin reserve. Certainly, El Salvador has done this. To great effect.

GLENN: We should take -- we spend billions of dollars.

And we -- we just hand out, hey. I mean, found the 6 billion-dollar check, in my -- I left it 234 my suit. I set it out to try cleaning.

They just pinned it to my suit, so I didn't forget I had six billion dollars here. Why don't you take that for your little war. What?

Okay. We find that money. Why haven't we taken $10 billion, and just funneled it all into bitcoin and put it in the Treasury?

Why haven't we taken $50 billion, and then hold it?

STU: Right. We have $12 billion. Actually I should say, with the new prices, $16 billion of Bitcoin. Currently, in US possession from various investigations. Silk Road being one of the big ones. But various investigations. And we come into contact with it often.

Where there's an investigation, some drug dealer has some bitcoin. Comes into the US possession.

GLENN: We should buy it.

STU: Trump is just saying, hold it.

When -- don't -- the current policy of the US, is when the investigation is finally wrapped up, to just dump it into the market. There's no reason to do that. Why not hold it?

And, you know, this is the type of thing, one of the reasons why we're -- we talked about this so long ago, Glenn?

Was because, it undermines the ability for the US government to constantly print cash forever. Right?

It undermines that. And if you are -- if you were worried about that in the future. Having a policy where you can offset it a little bit.

Is a positive thing.

You want to keep that out of -- you don't want to constantly weaken yourself. This is a way to strengthen your foundations. And, of course, so far, people like Elizabeth Warren have been influencing that policy. Now, the Democrats did come around a little bit to this.

They really -- I guess, I don't know if they wanted crypto money. They actually --

GLENN: I think they wanted all the money.

STU: They wanted all the money, and there's a lot in crypto.

But can you imagine how annoyed Elizabeth Warren is today?

That makes me feel just so good. It makes me feel so good.

GLENN: Oh, you know what also makes me happy? Is the fact that they spent a billion dollars, and now they're 20 million in debt. Her campaign. How is that possible?

STU: How is it possible?

GLENN: How is it possible?

STU: My favorite part of this, Glenn. My favorite part of this is picturing the maxed out Kamala Harris donor.

Someone is like, you know what, democracy is on the line. Hitler is coming into office. I'm putting my full 3500 dollars behind Kamala Harris, taking that step.

You're a maxed-out donor. You will get campaign literature to the end of time, from every candidate from now on. But you are taking that stand! And you know what you accomplished?

You paid for 1/100th of the set that she used to film a sex podcast appearance. That was what your -- your big moment of becoming a maxed out donor paid for like one letter in the sign behind her, as she filmed a sex podcast.

GLENN: Why would she --

STU: Oh, I love it.

GLENN: Why did they build the set for this sex podcast? Why would they do that?

STU: Because she wanted to do it in a hotel, apparently.

Now, this is something that people do, as you know. Like sometimes they don't -- you want to go get a separate studio. You don't want to go across town with all your people.

GLENN: You don't ever spend that kind of money. Ever! Nobody does that.

STU: No.

GLENN: Even -- they gave Harpo a million dollars. Did you know that?

STU: Yes, a million dollars to Harpo.

The -- that's Oprah's production company, because she produced for some of these events, apparently.

GLENN: Yeah, for what?

You know, I've produced interviews with him. With Trump, we didn't get paid. In fact, I would feel dirty, if I had gotten paid for that happen.

STU: Especially if it was something important to you.

GLENN: Right. Yeah, yeah.

STU: If you were saying democracy from Hitler. You would say, actually, we're donating all of our time.

GLENN: If I'm endorsing a candidate, like Donald Trump.

I mean, this -- I didn't make a financial contribution.

The money that this damn election cost me, is eye-bleed.

It's eye-bleed.

STU: Oh, yeah.

GLENN: But that was my -- and it was my choice.

I was like, well. If I want it done, I will have to pay for it. Let's go. Let's do it.

None of these people did. Beyonce.

STU: Yeah. I know. I love it. I love it. They all made a million dollars for walked on the stage.

STU: I love it so much.

I can't even describe how much I love the fact that these celebrities built the campaign out of all this money. I love it. Keep doing it.

There was a clip going around, which was, I don't know. A seven or eight-minute synopsis edited down of MSNBC's election night.

Which is very fun to watch, because there's this incredible optimism. Incredible optimism at the beginning. By the way, Rachel Maddow is the anchor of their election coverage apparently. It's incredible!

Like, she is an obvious conspiracy theorist. At the at least, you could say, she's a hard-core liberal nutjob.

Like, that is -- and no journalist.

GLENN: Imagine me, if I would have anchored the election night for Fox.

STU: Right. They would go crazy. They put Bret Baier in that role.

So, anyway, they are doing this thing.

And at one point, Joy Reid goes on this rant, that it was a perfect, flawless campaign.

And her evidence for this. She has Beyonce. She has the Swifties and the Beehive.

Like that's it! She stops.

Like that's a perfect campaign. The Swifties and the Beehive.