RADIONovember 13, 2024

Could Trump BOOST the economy by raising tariffs and abolishing the income tax?

During his appearance on The Joe Rogan Experience, Donald Trump floated the idea of abolishing the income tax. This would go hand-in-hand with his plan to raise tariffs, especially on China. Glenn, who has historically been against heavy tariffs, may have been won over by Trump’s explanation. But he wanted to speak with an economics expert to see if the math really added up. Heritage Foundation Visiting Fellow Peter St. Onge joins the program to break down how tariffs work, whether Trump’s plan would boost the economy, and what he must do if he wants to raise enough support to repeal the 16th Amendment.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Oh, yeah.

Oh, yeah. Hmm. Now, we've got a guy, I think he's -- I think -- I think his last name says everything.

Peter St. Onge, which I believe is French!
(music)
STU: What is happening?

GLENN: Sexy, sexy tax and tariff talk from the Heritage Foundation. A visiting fellow. We have Peter St. Onge.

How are you, Peter?

PETER: I'm great. I appreciate that. It is sexy.

GLENN: Yeah. I know. Everybody says it. Everybody says it. So without getting it too steamy in here.

Let's go over the tariffs.

Because I've always been against tariffs. However, I might be wrong.

PETER: Right.

GLENN: Donald Trump is making a good case, when he's talking about getting rid of the income tax. Because tariff -- tariffs will raise the prices of things. Especially, if he does it the way he's talking about doing it.

But if he is getting rid of, or lowering the income tax to, you know, 10 percent, it's such a boon for the economy. That we could make up that deficit, and become a very powerful nation again.

Tell many I'm wrong.

PETER: I think that's absolutely correct.

Yeah. I feel like you're absolutely right.

You know, the vast majority of economists, Glenn, they go after tariffs. And I think they're looking at the trees for the forest here, because if you replace a tariff, which is basically a sales tax. But it's one that focus on his imported goods.

If you replace that with either reducing or in our dream scenario, abolishing the entire income tax. It's absolute rocket fuel for the economy. The reason is because --

GLENN: He just said abolish the income tax. Pay attention, Sara. He just said abolish income tax. Oh, yeah.
(music)
All right. Go ahead.

PETER: Right.

The background music. So, yeah. And he actually started floated abolishing it with Joe Rogan a couple weeks ago. No tax on tips. Then no tax on overtime. No tax on first responders. No tax on Social Security. And it was kind of like he was really flirting with just breaking up with the income tax altogether.

And when he was on there with Rogan, that's exactly what he did. He said, you know, maybe we should go back to the 1800s, when, you know, it was before we had an income tax. Before we had a Fed.

And back then, the federal government had to live off tariffs. And that was the greatest period, not only of economic growth, but of cultural achievement.

It's astounding, what we -- everything Elon Musk does, was invented in the 1880s. Computers.
Rockets.

What's his -- Hyperloop. Every single thing. And it was really the golden age of humanity.

And the key there, we did not have an income tax. We did not have a regulatory state.

We did not have a Fed. So if Trump can take us back there. And all we have to do is an 8 percent sales tax on Chinese socks.

That is the deal of the century.

GLENN: Okay. Let's go over this.

Who pays the tariffs?

American companies or the foreign company?

PETER: Interestingly, during you Trump's first term. He put tariffs on China. And China actually paid up 80 percent of those. So it would issue subsidies to Chinese exporters so they could maintain market share and keep their prices low. So the Chinese government paid the tariffs.

GLENN: Hmm.

I like that.

PETER: So if he does that again, he's talking about hitting China with something like 60 percent tariffs.

And between a ten and 20 percent tariff for everyone else. Now, given Trump's style, he is not going to come and use it across the board. He is going to come and use that as a club.

Right?

So the Europeans, specifically. They act like a fortress. They are brutal to outsiders.

If you want to export something to Europe, they will put you over a barrel. You remember, a couple years ago, the first thing the European Union did was sat them down. And said, nice economy you've got here. Would be a shame if something happened to it. We're going to need a payment from you every single year.

It is literally the Mafia. They do that to Norway. It's all these countries have to fork over billions of dollars to get access to the European market. Now, imagine if we did that. Imagine if we called up Mexico or Canada. And said, hey, listen. We've got this beautiful economy. You guys are settling into it. Hey, why don't you write me a check for 50 billion to keep access? That's exactly what the Europeans do.

So the first thing Trump is probably going to do, given what he did last time. Is he'll call up Europe, and he will do the exact same thing.

You know, I have a 20 percent tariff burning a hole in my pocket. I need you to do some things for me.

But, anyway, even if he does end up applying those to all foreigners, the Europeans are not going to cover the exporters because they're in a deep fiscal hole.

They don't have the money. They're already bankrupt. They're not going to do what China did.

But a lot of those tariffs, especially the ones from China, are probably going to keep getting paid by China. Because exports to America are what they live on. If they lose that, it's game over.

GLENN: And we should not be empowering them, quite honestly.

Now, here's why. Here's why I have possibly turned around.

I'm willing to listen to tariff talk, because in my -- in my cute little head, I keep thinking that all of the -- when you have an extra 20 or $30,000, that you're pulling in, every year. Whatever it is, you are paying in income tax. And everything -- everything goes down that's made here in America.

If you're not paying that income tax. You have a lot of extra buying power, which means, most of Americans, will spend that.

And will grow our economy, which will put more taxes. Well, we don't have taxes. So that wouldn't work.

How does it work, when you don't have taxes? Go ahead.

PETER: Yeah. So just kind of running into the numbers. The first thing that happens, if you get rid of income tax altogether. So I estimate you get about a 20 percent jump in incomes in the US.

So it would be something like $15,000 for typical families. That's what you get off the bat. The typical family currently has about 18,000 in income tax, and then you knock off about 3,000 for the tariffs.

There's a variety of estimates on that. But that seems to be the cluster. So you get a 15,000 raise, because the economy is growing faster. You get an 18,000 raise because you don't have to send your income tax to the government. People don't realize how much they're paying to the government.

Right? A lot of it is tips. But, anyway, you've got -- what do they call it?

Withholding. So, anyway, that's 33. I call three for the tariffs. 30,000 dollar raise per year, 2500 a month. Now, currently, the median American take home is about 58,000.

Okay. Which is about 76, minus the income tax. So you go from taking home 58, to taking home 88. Right? That is a massive difference.

And that sort of sets the stage.
(music)

GLENN: Hold. Hold on. You go from 58 to 88. Oh, yeah.
(music)
Ding-dong. Pizza deliveryman. Anyway.

STU: Why is that the part you like so much in his movies? It's interesting what he is excited about.

GLENN: All right. Go ahead.

All right.

PETER: No. I love it. And it's true. You know, if you're making 88. You can go to Vegas. And things happen in Vegas.

GLENN: Yeah. Right. Right. Creating jobs.

PETER: Right. Yeah, well, and so that's the fun part, right? Is you mentioned earlier, that if you're not paying income tax, then production in the US is cheaper.

So instead of the Chinese socks coming in -- you know, they used to come in at $6, now they're at $9. Fine. But China is paying for that, so they're probably still coming in at six.

But, meanwhile, American factories can make socks for less, because they are not paying the income tax.

There's a very good chance that we will see a lot of that manufacturing, even if the Chinese government pays for the tariffs.

GLENN: And that means, also because the economy -- we're building factories. We're doing things ourselves, because we can.

Everybody's pay goes up. Because we need more workers. Right?

PETER: Exactly. Exactly. And then there's actually mass deportations, then the socks will actually go American.

So you've got two possibilities, right?

One of them is that China covers the tariffs. In which case, it's a free lunch for us.

China is, what?

Putting us about 500 billion -- well, their share would be -- let's say 300 billion. So that would be fantastic. Thank you very much.

Or China does not cover the tariffs, in which case China is priced out of the market. America pays no income tax, so they're cheaper. By the way, every headquarter on earth would try to move to the United States. If you're paying no income tax on the single biggest economy on earth, everybody will be trying to move here. Including the Chinese companies. The worst-case scenario, the Chinese don't cover it.

They get outcompeted. And it all comes back to America. And if it's only Americans living here, then Americans will be swimming in jobs.

GLENN: I mean, this is just -- this is big.

How -- how much --

PETER: Oh, yeah.

GLENN: He has only floated this on the Rogan show. How real do you think this is? Because I know he loves tariffs. I know he loves tariffs.

PETER: He loves tariffs. And he hates the income tax. So it's beautiful. It's like a -- it's just like the perfect Newton president.

STU: Peter, isn't the complication here, that he can essentially do what he wants with tariffs. But he can't do what he wants with the income tax. And that becomes the heavy lift here?

PETER: Right. So he would need Congress to play ball on the income tax. And Congress is very tight, as we're all discussing at the moment. There's a ton of RINOs over there.

So that's going need to the pressure and the passion that people showed during the campaign, that millions of Americans showed. We have to put that on the RINOs.

GLENN: Yeah. I think that if he did, you know, a tour even. And was just all about income tax. You just have to say to people. You go from 58 to 88 in take home pay. I think a lot of people will be like, you know what, I love that.

STU: I agree. But you're not going to get -- obviously, in theory, you could put it into a reconciliation bill. Right?

At least a massive reduction.

You couldn't -- not a constitutional amendment, unfortunately.

That's what I would prefer.

Repealing the 16th.

GLENN: Yeah. Me too.

But you could capture American's imagination with this.

STU: Yeah. I think that's pretty -- that would be pretty great.

I do think you would have issues with some of these, as you point out. RINO-type republicans, who would complain about all sorts of things.

Including deficit stuff. Right?

They would say, we're going to lose all this income.

GLENN: All right. Let me take a break, and then let's talk about the deficit, Peter. All right? Peter st. Onge. He -- hmm. I'm not going to hold it against him for being French. I mean, somewhere in his past, somebody had sex with a French person. Okay. Let's -- let's move past that. He's with the Heritage Foundation. A visiting fellow.

STU: This is definitely the weirdest interview he's ever done. And he's regretting every minute of this.

GLENN: He's like, this is the end of my career and my credibility.

GLENN: Okay. I think I've got this number from you, Peter.

But a -- tariffs would bring in about 900 billion.

Almost a trillion dollars.

But our -- we're spending now, I don't even know how much.

$4 trillion a year? Some crazy number like that.

So how do you bridge the gap?

PETER: About six and a half.

GLENN: Six and a half. Okay. Good.

STU: There's a bit of a gap.

GLENN: There's a five and a half trillion dollar gap.

PETER: So income tax itself is taking about two and a half trillion.

And then you've got -- what? You've got payroll. You've got excise. Things like gasoline and cigarettes, things like that.

You've got capital gains. Corporate income tax. Those hopefully would be folded into an income tax repeal.

You put it together. You're looking at 2.4 trillion in lost revenue. And then you've got 900 in tariffs. About 1.5.

Now, the economy grows 20 percent, then you're going to get about 500 billion more from payroll tax and from excise. So you're looking at a net loss of 1 trillion. Now, I personally would prefer to get rid of the payroll tax as well.

STU: Yes!

GLENN: Pernicious.

PETER: It's not as bad as the income tax. Because the income tax is on top of it. It also varies on how much you produce. The payroll tax is a flat tax.

So, you know, in a perfect world, we're not taxing work at all. We're taxing bad things, not good things.

In the grand scheme, you know, in the terms of incentives, get rid of income tax first. Then we can have the next conversation, which would be getting rid of the payroll tax. If you're just going to the income tax, you're talking about 2.4 net of the tariffs. Net of the economic growth. You're talking 1 trillion. So you would be cutting 1 trillion out of a budget of about six and a half.

Now, Elon is -- he's talking about his department of government efficiency.

He's floating 2 trillion.

So I haven't seen the math on those.

I don't know where it's coming from.

I agree whole-heartedly.

I'm certain we could get a lot more than that.

It's cutting out the parts of the military, that is part of our country.

Bring them home. Put them on the border. Divert the Navy that patrol our waters. Stop invading other countries.

That would be a very easy 800 billion, if we look at countries like Japan or UK, which the UK has a functioning military. It has a Coast Guard.

Although, it doesn't use it.

About the whole kit. They spend less than hundred billion.

Of course, you can cut welfare for able-bodied people.

Which the government tries very, very hard to hide how much it spends on welfare. But it's easily over a trillion.

The cost of illegals themselves, which very conservatively is about 150 billion a year. Maybe closer to 350 billion by some estimates. Because, again, they're trying to hide the costs.

Pharmaceuticals. Right?

That's going to be coming into focus with RFK here. But there is a ton of waste and corruption in pharmaceutical payments. Those are something like 20 percent of our economy.

But really, you know, if you sort of zoom out, you're very familiar with the Tenth Amendment.

There are precisely four agencies that are authorized. Right? State, justice, defense, treasury with both offices.

So strictly speaking, if we had a Supreme Court, that actually read the common sense language in the Tenth Amendment, almost the entire thing is gone. You would slash everything. Personally, I would keep Social Security and Medicare because they've already been paid for. That's a complicated issue. I think you have to make sure people are protected, because they already got ripped off on the way in. But aside from that, almost everything they do, from DEI, to just -- to the Federal Reserve, all of that is unconstitutional.

You slash that down, and you are -- gosh, you're probably more than 3 trillion down.

GLENN: So do you think we have a shot at doing that?

Is he putting the team in, around him to do something like this?

PETER: So the closest we have, I follow Polymarket very closely. They've got odds on pretty much everything out there. The sort of tip of the spear on income tax repeal is starting with tax on tips.

Right? That was the one that he most clearly promised.

And so that's kind of a proxy for whether we're going to start hacking away at the income tax. So tax on tips, is currently running 38 percent on Polymarket.

That's the number I'm watching. That's encouraging. Because it means, it's not just talk.

That people with capital, believe it's the real.

But for sure, Congress will play ball.

GLENN: Yeah. Thank you so much, Peter. We'll have you on again. Great explanation of this. Peter St. Onge. He's with the Heritage Foundation. You can follow him @PeterStOnge. Good luck spelling Onge. I mean, just saying.

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?