Best of the Program with Larry Sharpe | 10/1/18

The Blaze Radio Network.

On demand.

Welcome to the podcast.

So it was an interesting show today.

There was a lot of Kavanaugh stuff.

Obviously, we could go Kavanaugh 24-7 right now.

It's the huge story, and we went through a lot of the details, the inconsistencies.

There's a new letter out from the prosecutor who was, you know, her resume is amazing.

It's not some right-wing, evil, conservative resume.

And she's one of the people who

questioned the witnesses during the Kavanaugh hearings.

This is a situation where she's now released kind of her final view on this, and it is not positive to the accusations against Kavanaugh.

Kavanaugh comes off looking like there's just not much of a case against him.

We go into the details of that today.

Also, talk to Giancarlos Sopo.

He's a Democrat who, I don't know, if you're like me, you have these moments where you're like, how can there be no Democrats who are standing up and saying, look, I don't like Kavanaugh.

I don't think he's going to rule the way I want him to rule, but this is ridiculous.

How come we have not heard more of that from just a normal, sane Democrat?

Well, we've got one for you today.

You're going to hear that from John Carlos Sobo.

He goes into the details as to why this is happening and where it's coming from.

It's kind of scary.

And we talked to Larry Sharp, who's running for governor of New York.

He's a libertarian candidate, and he talks a little bit about the Kavanaugh thing as well.

It's nice to hear people who aren't looking at this from a partisan perspective hitting

what seems to be the same viewpoint.

And we talk about a brand new podcast, which you right now should go subscribe to.

It is called Chewing the Fat with Jeff Fisher.

Jeffy comes on and talks about his new podcast, which launches today.

So if you're listening to this podcast, take a second, go over, search Chewing the Fat with Jeff Fisher, and click on Jeffy's wonderful, beautiful face and click subscribe.

You're going to get that every single day, Jeffy's very unique viewpoints on the world.

So do that.

We'll talk to Jeffy about what's coming up on that.

And, you know, Kanye West, his comments, his appearance on Saturday Night Live was crazy.

We'll get into that as well.

It's all today on the podcast.

You're listening to the best of the Glen Beck program.

It's Monday, October 1st.

Glenn Beck.

Hey, some good news, California.

Things in your state are going to get even better.

You now have to have women on the board of directors for

your company.

If you've got all men out of luck, government's going to tell you that's not enough now in California.

Yes, yes, they're just helping you.

And net neutrality has returned to California.

Governor Jerry Brown just signed into law, more or less, the same Obama-era law that regulated the internet on a federal level.

So now,

by the way, California, do you know why it costs you so much money to pump gas into your car?

In California, you can go right across state lines.

It's a lot cheaper.

Have you ever noticed that?

Yeah, when you travel elsewhere, it's not because we have gas ferries.

It's because the government doesn't tell us that we need super special blends that only exist in California.

That's why you pay so much.

But don't worry about it.

I'm sure this will be completely different when you just regulate the internet differently.

Before we get into the dumpster fire that is this, let's take a look at the state of California.

The People's Republic of California Stan,

I'm just saying, I think they hate having business done within their borders.

Is there any other way to look at this?

I just despise business.

It is literally you against the state and you, the American business owner, caught behind the iron curtain of California.

They have now responded with unprecedented rulings.

Companies are hightailing it out of California like never before.

They've just passed Proposition 30 in 2012.

That was the last straw, I think, for many businesses.

And can I tell you something?

Californians, you're thinking about moving?

You can't believe how crowded and the traffic here is even worse than California.

Don't come to Texas.

It's awful here.

We're really bad.

It's nothing but rednecks and hillbillies.

Don't move to Texas.

Here's an idea.

Fix your own state.

You were just hit with six billion dollars in new taxes.

That kicked off the mass corporate exos out of the Sunshine State and here to Texas.

The companies included Carls Jr., Toyota, Jacobs Engineering, Occidental Petroleum,

Chevron, Kubota Tractors, Nestle's.

Any more you can think of?

Because they're coming in by the day here.

Since 2008, some analysts have calculated that up to 10,000 companies have left California.

I always wanted to grow up in California.

I mean, when I was growing up, I always wanted to live in California.

Just wanted to live in San Diego.

My whole life, working, KFMB, San Diego.

16 years old.

That's all I wanted.

You couldn't get me to California.

California?

Really?

It's no longer what the West used to be.

California was the place that people went for opportunity.

People would pack up their entire family and

they would brave the hostile Indian country to reach California in search of prosperity.

Now it's just the opposite.

People are packing their bags and heading to the center of the country.

Again, don't move to Texas or Utah.

You're wrecking both of them.

And now, net neutrality.

It threatens California's biggest asset, Silicon Valley.

What are you going to do, California, when big

tech and internet companies surrounding the Bay Area pack their bags?

They've already spent the past year lobbying heavily against this new state net neutrality law because no matter how hard the left tries to sell net neutrality as a law that protects consumers, what it really does is open the gateway to full government regulation of the internet.

Are you a dreamer?

Creating a new Google or Apple inside your garage?

Well, in California, you're not going to have that opportunity.

In fact, you already don't.

Microsoft says Bill Gates couldn't do what he did.

Now with the laws that are on the books,

you will never have the freedom that

Larry Page or Sergey Brin enjoyed.

The mighty state of California will put its boot on your throat and choke the innovation right out of you.

But don't worry.

As they have their boot on your throat,

they'll talk to you about how fair it is.

The call for freedom and prosperity is no longer go west, young man.

You can't certainly say go east, because if you go too far, you run into the same damn craziness.

Just on another coast with a bunch of snow.

There's just a few bastions of freedom left in the country.

We're all huddled and squeezed directly in the middle.

Google, Facebook, Amazon, Flyover Nation

Well, I would like to say they're waiting for you, but I don't know if they are really waiting for you.

I don't know if you'll be welcome in those communities over uh either.

Of course, you'll just move all of your people into the center of the country, and then you'll destroy the center of the country like you have the coasts.

Congratulations, California.

You just took one more step at turning the once once great state of California into the formerly great city of Detroit.

It's Monday, October 1st.

You're listening to the Glembeck program.

I got something last night.

Have you seen the copy?

By the way, hello, Stu.

Have you seen the copy of

Rachel Mitchell's memo?

Yeah, I'm reading a little bit about it.

Okay.

Pretty amazing.

This is really amazing.

Now, remember, Rachel Mitchell is the Maricopa County Sex Crimes Prosecutor.

She is the one who interviewed Kavanaugh's accuser, Christina Ford.

She was the woman that

was made fun of on Saturday Night Live this weekend.

She, well, she was a highly respected advocate for sexual abuse victims.

She has 25 years experience.

She's not political at all.

In fact, she was recognized by Barack Obama's head of Homeland Security as the sexual assault prosecutor of the year.

Let me say that again.

The woman that the Republicans selected

to dig in and find out whether or not Dr.

Ford's claims were legitimate or not was Barack Obama's head of Homeland Security Sexual Assault Prosecutor of the Year.

So she's not a Democratic hack.

And also not a defense attorney, right?

She's a prosecutor.

Yes.

She tries to prove these things true.

She goes in, her expertise is on old crimes.

To be able to go in and say, all right, how did this happen?

And be able to put it together to make sure that the prosecution can win?

All right.

Before I continue and tell you what's in her memo, let me just preface it with this.

You're not going to see any, CNN's not going to be leading with this.

New York Times is not going to have this on the front page, but it should.

The reason why they won't is because it is devastating for Senate Democrats.

Left-wing activists, the media, this is absolutely devastating to you.

I want you to know, if you're easily triggered, you might want to turn off the radio for just a minute.

Here's what she wrote.

Quote,

here's my bottom line.

A he said, she said case is incredibly difficult to prove.

But this case is even weaker than that, end quote.

So I've been saying he said, she said, that's pretty difficult.

She said the same thing.

That's not what she's saying this isn't even a he said she said case it's weaker than that

dr ford identified other witnesses to the event and those witnesses i'm still quoting have either refuted her allegations or failed to corroborate them She then adds, I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the committee.

I don't think a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case not to the court,

not for prosecution, but before the committee.

Nor do I believe that this evidence is sufficient to satisfy the preponderance of evidence standard, end quote.

It's pretty significant, don't you think?

Yes.

Again, like, she's being portrayed as this Republican hack to go after this

poor woman because she was a girl.

You mean Barack Obama's

Barack Obama's

Homeland Security prosecutor, Sex Crimes of the Year?

They picked someone who should have incredible amounts of credibility, even with the left.

Yes.

So she's saying that

it won't stand up in court, wouldn't no prosecutor would even bring it, and no prosecutor should even bring this to the committee.

This explains, in my opinion, why

it was leaked in the final hour.

Because everyone who saw this knew exactly what it was.

Now,

she explains why.

She says, Ford has significantly changed her story several times in recent months in ways that are shady, have not been explained, and defy common sense.

Okay, wait a minute.

It may look like she's credible,

but based on what she said, not how she looked,

if you are looking at what she said, her story falls apart.

The most glaring issue with Dr.

Ford's story is that she has given four different dates for when the attack occurred.

And we're not talking about the difference of a few days.

This is from her memo.

According to the Washington Post, the 2013 notes from her therapy session lists the attacks of having occurred when she was in her late teens.

Fast forward five years, July 6th of this year, in a text message to the Washington Post reporter, Ford said the attack happened in the mid-1980s.

This would be consistent with her therapist's notes since Ford was born in late November 1966 and would have been in her late teens from 1984 through 1986.

But then something changed.

Three weeks later, in a July 30th letter to Senator Dianne Feinstein's office, the date of attack changed to the early 80s.

Now, you might say, what difference does it make?

Well, if you say you're in your late teens, 16, 17, 18, 19,

you're in high school, so you're 17 or 18, late teens.

You've been saying mid-80s.

Anytime you've ever talked about this, before it became political, mid-80s, late teens.

Why did it change?

And how how did it change within a span of three weeks?

She changes the date by a couple of years?

It gets better.

This is again, I'm quoting, I'm quoting the

report.

It gets better.

One week later, when she goes to take a polygraph test with her lawyers, she was asked to write down a statement describing the events.

In that statement, Ford wrote, the alleged

attack happened in the early 1980s.

But then something strange happens.

If you look at her written testimony for the lie detector test, she scratches out the early 1980s and leaves it the 1980s.

Perhaps because she knew early 1980s was false?

And it was fresh in her mind and might set off the polygraph.

Then finally, by mid-September, on her first on-the-record interview with the Washington Post, Ford narrowed the date of the attack down to the summer of 1982.

So let me recap.

Dr.

Ford provided four different dates over the span of a couple of weeks for what was supposedly one of the most traumatic and important events of her life.

Why is this significant?

Well, because if the attack happened when she was in her late teens or in the mid-80s, as she first told the Washington Post and her therapist, Brett Kavanaugh would have been 300 miles away at Yale University as a full-time student.

So it couldn't have happened in the mid-1980s or in her late teens.

There's more in the memo, and we'll get to it.

But this is a bombshell that no one will discuss.

It not only discredits Ford's allegation against Brett Kavanaugh, it obliterates it.

It casts serious doubts over her testimony.

Now, maybe the FBI finds some new groundbreaking evidence.

But this allegation should be considered debunked.

The Democrats know this.

The media knows this.

And that's why they are shifting gears.

Have you noticed now they're talking not about Ford?

Now they're talking about,

was he lying about teenage fart jokes?

I'm not making that up.

Was he lying about fart jokes and drinking games?

They tried to make him a rapist.

Then they tried to make him a gang rapist.

That argument is losing.

Now they're going to make him look like a liar.

It's pathetic.

It's dishonorable.

It's un-American.

And none of us should fall for this.

Senate Democrats,

the American people see what this is look at the polling numbers this is a sham

it's an it's an attempted coup of the United States and the Supreme Court under the guise of the hashtag me too movement

you need to speak and stand right now

and if you don't

I think the American people will speak and stand in November

The best of the Glenbeck program.

Our Addicted Outrage tour begins, when is it August 25th or something?

Yeah, August is a good month to start.

I mean, start off.

It's a little delayed.

Wait about 10 months and then start a tour.

That's what we're going to do.

It's already passed.

Well, we can start next August.

Okay, no, October.

October 25th,

26th and 27th, we're in Texas.

November 1st in Virginia.

November 2nd in Pennsylvania, as well as the 3rd.

Then we got Cleveland on the 4th, Kansas City, Evansville, Tulsa, Tampa, and

December in Orlando.

Do you notice that those groups of dates, they all center around the midterm election?

We are going to have a lot to discuss on tour,

and it'll be a great place to hang out and have some fun.

Grab your tickets now for the Addicted Addicted Outrage tour.

We're coming to a city near you.

You can find them online at glenbeck.com/slash tour.

Glenbeck.com/slash tour.

All right.

We're talking about the Kavanaugh thing.

And

I want to talk to those people

who I think are reasonable,

who can look at Ford and see her testimony and say, okay,

so

why wouldn't we just do the FBI thing?

Okay.

In a reasonable world,

you're absolutely right.

In a reasonable world, you're right.

But this is not about Ford.

And this is not about making sure that these charges stick.

It's why as soon as this happened,

as soon as Jeff Flake said, no, no, wait a minute, hang on.

We want an FBI investigation.

As soon as that happened, the narrative changed.

Now they're going after and saying he lied about drinking beer.

Okay.

He was, for the love of Pete, people.

So this is just a.

And the accusation is that he wasn't blackout drunk.

I know.

How would you confirm he was?

I know.

I know.

It's ridiculous.

I know.

So

we'll get into that later because as an alcoholic, I got a lot to say on that one.

But

they've changed the narrative and they are playing the American people.

And and here's how it's working.

What they've done is they've turned this into something that is more than Kavanaugh.

Look, if Kavanaugh is a guy who did this, I don't want him on the Supreme Court.

None of us do.

Nobody does.

That's a bad thing.

But you can't just smear somebody.

You have to have some evidence.

So, because of the lack of evidence, what they've done is they've not made this about Kavanaugh.

They've instead made this about victims.

Evidence, play the elevator encounter with Jeff Flake.

Please stop.

This woman has obviously a horrible experience in her life.

So when she hears an accuser, she immediately believes the accuser.

Well, that's not reasonable.

She's obviously very, very upset because of what happened to her.

And she wants to send a message that that's not right.

I agree with that.

But that's not the standard of justice or the way we get justice.

Let me take you to a real-life scenario.

I didn't understand America when OJ was let go.

I didn't understand it.

I had no, what is happening?

How can the African-American community be cheering this guy?

Well, it's very easy.

Once you're away from it emotionally and you actually look into it, it's easy.

What was happening was African-Americans were feeling that there was no justice in America.

It's always the black guy that gets blamed.

And then he goes to court and the white system puts him behind bars.

And so they weren't rooting for him.

They wanted anyone to beat the system.

They wanted anyone to prove that a black guy

could go to court and not be guilty.

That's what they wanted.

They wanted a victory against the system.

Totally understandable.

You ask the African-American community now.

Same people.

Did O.J.

Simpson do it?

Yes.

We're all in agreement now.

Now that the emotions are gone, we're all in agreement that O.J.

Simpson was guilty.

So the question is, was justice done?

The answer is clear.

No.

It's not justice.

That's social justice.

That's I want to feel good.

That's social justice, not real justice.

Social justice is evil.

When it is played the way the postmodernist and the progressives are playing it now,

it does not provide any kind of real justice.

That woman who was in the elevator, her plight, I'm sure, was real.

I know I could tell her feelings were real.

And I feel sorry for her.

And I don't know what happened in her case.

I don't even know if it happened here in America or where it happened.

But I will tell you this, in the case of Ford,

we cannot help as a society if you don't ask for help.

If you don't ask anyone in your circle of friends for help,

we can't help you later, especially 35 years later.

We can't help you.

Now, I'm shocked that someone could be as traumatized as Dr.

Ford was and no one in her circle of friends in high school.

Let's say she was a sophomore in high school.

Well, no, she can't be a sophomore.

Could she?

Could she be a sophomore?

She have to be a freshman or a junior?

I'm trying to figure out when Kavanaugh is at Yale and they're both still in school.

But let's just say it was sophomore year.

This happened to her.

This happens to her.

Are you telling me?

that there is no one in her life, no one, her mother, her sister, her best friend, that wasn't told,

but now when told, doesn't go, oh my gosh, I remember.

Yes, it was that summer and all of a sudden you didn't want to go to any parties anymore.

Would you go to a party if you experienced what she experienced?

Would you want to be by yourself at a party?

Would you change fundamentally at parties enough for your best friend to at least now be able to go, I remember that you were really weird that summer.

That didn't happen?

That didn't happen.

Nobody remembers anything.

She doesn't remember the year that it happened.

And as the investigator has pointed out, she's changed this now four or five times.

We can't help you.

You have to tell someone.

You have to tell the police.

We are not the country of the 1940s.

We.

I want to make sure that nobody goes to jail that is innocent.

But you know what that requires?

Not social justice, not believing the accuser, but looking at the facts.

You say you're for prison reform.

And at the same time, you will not look at facts.

You only want to go with the mob mentality.

You only want to go with what is politically correct and deliver social justice.

You say you're against

putting innocent people behind bars and that our justice system is so corrupt that it has put black men behind bars because of white society.

Look at what you're doing right now.

And if you were honest about the way you actually feel, think of the construct that is built by the the left.

All police are really bad people that are going to throw innocent black people in jail.

White people are racist against black people.

How would, let's say, real racist cops and racist women deal with an African-American who they say has assaulted them in the past?

Think of the standard you're creating.

Black people have been victims of this in the past where they were unfairly accused of crimes.

I mean, you can go back to Emmett Till, right?

Like, you can go back.

There's a lot of these things that have happened over the years.

You are asking for that standard to return.

How are you going to react when a black man is accused unfairly about some assault they didn't commit?

Are you going to believe the white woman then?

This standard they are creating is insane, and I feel for the woman in the elevator.

You can tell she's very passionate.

I don't know if it's about politics or not.

I don't know her story.

But the one thing I do know about her story is Brett Kavanaugh wasn't responsible for it.

He had no role in what happened to her.

No, no role, no responsibility.

None.

Now, the argument on the other side is we're only asking for five more days.

We're only asking for five more days.

Well, if everyone was quiet for five days,

that would be something.

Okay, we got five days to look at this.

We have a week.

We have until next Friday to look at it.

But that's not what they're doing.

They've now moved the goalposts.

They're using these seven days to come up with something new to move the goalposts.

He lied about, you know, how much he drank.

No, he.

Oh, my gosh.

All right.

And now they're saying, well, yes, you gave us the FBI investigation, but it's not thorough enough.

It's not enough time.

The only thing here is their delay tactics.

And how you can tell this, and I think we are, and I'll be honest enough to understand this.

If Brett Kavanaugh, let's just say politics fail him and Flake and Collins and Murkowski bail and the vote comes down and he gets voted down, there won't be a soul who gives a crap about this woman's story.

They will all go, they will not even, she will not get a phone call returned because you can still investigate this, by the way.

There is no, there is no statute of limitations on felony sexual assault in Maryland.

They could still go after this.

The second Kavanaugh is not in that seat, they will forget about her and she will be a non-story because they don't care about her story.

It has nothing to do with that.

They're just trying to delay this to try to get it past the election.

Now,

here's the

second point I want to make.

Republicans,

if this falls through and the very next day you don't have a qualified candidate that you're going to put through,

you're out of your mind.

May I suggest right now that if Kavanaugh falls through,

you don't have the spine, something comes up, whatever, there is one guy that has already gone through all of the confirmation hearings, one guy who has already had every FBI background check, one guy that everybody in the Senate knows, and that's Mike Lee.

If Kavanaugh goes down in flames Monday morning or Saturday, the president should announce his next Supreme Court justice pick of Mike Lee and you should vote on it next week because there's no need to delay.

He's already had all those FBI background checks and each senator knows exactly who he is.

He's qualified, he's clean

and quick.

You could get that done

long before the election.

If I hear hear the Republicans, if this falls through, oh, we are not prepared.

We weren't prepared for the, I'm going to lose my mind.

You're listening to the best of the Glenn Beck program.

Like listening to this podcast?

If you're not a subscriber, become one now on iTunes.

And while you're there, do us a favor and rate the show.

Brought to you by Home Title Lock today.

If you haven't checked out Home Title Lock yet, you're missing out because it takes a huge thing off of your worry list.

There's a new crime that's called Home Title Fraud.

And basically, people can take control pretty easily of your documents and your mortgage and borrow against it, can sell your house from under you.

And you can't really see it coming unless you have Home Title Lock.

And if you wait, there was one case, I think it was up in Oregon, where this couple didn't know about it for years.

The SWAT team removed them from their house.

Their own house that they owned, free and clear.

They thought somebody had stolen it.

Only one company can take care of this.

Yep, Home Title Lock.

Do what I did, and Glenn did as well.

For pennies a day, Home Title Lock puts a barrier around your home's title and mortgage.

The incident detects anything.

They are on board to shut it down.

Go there, Home Title Lock.

Get your $100 search free with sign-up, home titlelock.com, home title lock.com.

Giancarlo Sopo is on the phone with us.

Giancarlo is

a Democrat.

You still consider yourself a Democrat, Giancarlo?

Yeah, I mean, I have remained the same.

I haven't changed.

I actually take these political quizzes every now and then, and my ideology has stayed the same.

What's happening, though, is that the party itself has gone absolutely insane.

This is not what I signed up for.

Right.

I've been watching you on Twitter, and

you've been one of the only Democrats that have come out and said, this is nuts.

Give me your view and the lay of the land from a Democratic point of view, from your point of view.

Sure.

I think it's perfectly legitimate to oppose Brett Kavanaugh's nomination on the basis of differences in judicial philosophy.

You know, if you believe certain things and he doesn't align with those beliefs, that's fine.

That's what the Democratic process is for.

Now, that being said, you leave it at that, right?

You don't go ahead and try to chop off someone's head and promote these outrageous accusations against them, specifically the one by this woman, Julie Swetnick, who just don't even pass the smell test.

I mean,

they are so absurd.

I actually attended an all-boys Catholic school, too, so I could kind of speak to the culture and how those communities operate.

I mean, the thought that a group of 15-year-olds would be running a gang rape cartel all throughout high school and that nobody would know anything about it up until now is just is ludicrous.

And then, that an adult, this woman must have been like 20 years old at the time that this happened, that she was frequenting parties with high school sophomores for two years.

I know, I know, as high school sophomore myself, oh man, all me and my buddies, we were

the college chicks were all over us.

You know, women, women usually look for a younger man, you know, especially those in high school.

That never happens.

That never happens.

Especially Brett Kavanaugh, who, let's just be clear, the guy sounds like he was a complete dork

when he was in high school.

This is somebody who kept,

you can see on his calendar, he literally has notes of when his parents would ground him.

I mean, this guy was a complete dork in high school.

And he's like the kind of guy who, if he comes home with your daughter or your sister, you'd say, she really did well for herself.

This is great.

I'm really happy.

So the thought that this guy was running a gang rape cartel in the suburbs of Maryland is just asinine on its face.

But the thing is that we have entered, I think that we've abandoned traditional forms of religion and now we're in the church of the social justice, right?

Where we just believe things based on a matter of faith, based on historical patterns of injustices and notions.

And that's what's happening here.

They want to believe that this guy did all these horrible things

because, you know, women have had it raw for many years and there has been a lot of sexism and it still exists.

Therefore, he's guilty, right?

It's very similar to the rationale that we saw in the O.J.

Simpson trial, but almost in reverse.

This is like reliving the OJ case again, where OJ apparently, all the evidence pointed that he was guilty, but he, but like half the country thought he wasn't guilty because the LAPD is allegedly racist, right?

So, you know, Sean Carlo, I just did a monologue on this about a half hour ago that

African Americans rightfully felt that the justice system had gone against the black man for so long.

Here is a black man fighting for his life, and

they wanted him to beat the system.

I don't think at the time they actually believed he was

innocent more than they wanted a black man to beat the system.

You go back and you look at the polls then to the polls now in the african-american community they all know that he killed uh nicole they all know it so what they were doing was saying they were rebelling against a system that was geared against them and they wanted that social justice that's exactly what's happening here

exactly yeah and let me tell you i think um dr ford who testified she's a serious person she's as qualified as a witness as as as someone could possibly want on on the witness stand, right?

But when you actually start dissecting her testimony, I think as you pointed out earlier, it has tremendous flaws, just

a series of inconsistencies that would make it physically impossible for Brett Kavanaugh to have done this.

Or at least, at the very least, it severely limits the window of opportunity, right?

So the fact that the entire apparatus of the Democratic Party, which I understand how it works, I used to work in communications, in political communications.

So I understand how talking points are circulated and how people get on TV shows.

The fact that everything has been mobilized to support, look, the evidence just isn't there, right?

You don't crucify someone with zero evidence.

And then what they're doing now is that they're moving the goalposts, right?

I saw Lawrence tribe this morning, and he's like tweeting.

This guy's a respected Harvard scholar, right?

Law professor, who's talking about, well, you know, he must have drank when he was in college or whatever.

I mean, who cares?

It's completely irrelevant now.

I mean, I felt like tweeting at him, hey, Lawrence, those goalposts seem kind of heavy.

Let me know if you need help moving them.

So, Giancarlo, we're talking to Giancarlo Sopo.

He is a Democrat who

has not lost his footing with

reason.

So, address people,

address people who are, let's say, a 20-something female that says,

you know, but if there's a chance that this guy did this,

you know,

I don't want that guy on the Supreme Court.

Yes, and there's also a chance that he was D.B.

Cooper, right?

I mean, you have to go by the evidence in the case.

You have to evaluate cases based on the

unique dynamics of that particular situation.

There are other people that are just as qualified.

Why don't we just go?

I mean, this guy, why don't we just go to somebody else?

Well, because

what he's essentially being accused right now, he's essentially on a summary public execution trial of

the worst crime in the United States of America, in our legal system, short of murder.

So the question now is, did he commit this, right?

And there's no evidence to reach that conclusion.

In fact, all of the evidence that has been presented is exculpatory, right?

The guy's calendar clears him, right?

The testimony of his friends clears him.

The absence of evidence also clears him.

So you have to cast that aside.

And then if you want to oppose his nomination based on his judicial record, that's absolutely fine.

That's a debate I'm willing to have with people.

But what we cannot do is become a banana republic where we just start convicting people, you know, air quotes on mere accusations.

That's not the way that This isn't a court of law.

This is not a court of law.

You don't have to have that kind of evidence.

Right.

But

you are absolutely right.

This would not meet any kind of legal standard, but it doesn't even meet a standard of common sense.

Because what you have here is a series of accusations that have been made with zero corroborative evidence, zero independent evidence to back this up.

And then when you actually analyze the

little evidence does exist, which is in the form of testimony of the alleged victim, her testimony, she contradicts herself in ways that are significant.

She changed the timeline of when this happened four times.

So I think people need to cast this aside unless the FBI finds something new.

Well, but that guy, that guy, that guy, you know, the friend, Judge, Mark, Mark Judge, he sure seems like a bad guy.

Why won't he testify?

Well, he is going to testify to the FBI, but what we cannot do is play guilty by association, right?

Mark Judge, I've never met the man.

Nobody, 99% of this country has never met this man, right?

So we're just going off of hearsay right now and based off his own memoirs of somebody who was a very troubled person who had serious drinking issues.

It's not Brett Kavanaugh.

We're not nominating Mark Judge for the Supreme Court.

It's Brett Kavanaugh's the one who's being nominated.

And if people want to take issue with his judicial philosophy, that's fine.

But what we can't do is destroy someone's life, destroy his family.

That guy has like two young daughters.

He coaches basketball for crying out loud, right?

We cannot destroy somebody's life based on mere allegations just because we disagree with them politically or ideologically.

That's insane.

That's what they do in banana republics and in third world countries.

It's not who we are in the United States of America.

Giancarlo Sopo, a Democrat, when we come back, I want to ask you, if you don't mind holding on for a second, Giancarlo, do you have time?

I actually have to run to a meeting.

Oh, okay.

All right.

We'll run to a meeting.

We'll talk some other time.

Thank you so much i really want to i really want to hear from people

uh

that can respond to what i'm hearing from the democrats now which is

um

we just have to stop all of these people the people all the people on the all the people on the right you know we need to break up their dinners you know as i said earlier one one prominent democrat said we should um

what stops us from disturbing people where they sleep well that would be their home because these people are destroying our republic I have one question for people who think that the other side either side is the enemy one question that must be answered

This is the best of the Glen Beck program, and don't forget, rate us on iTunes.

So here we are about a month from the election, and things are changing.

Dynamic change is just over the horizon for our entire country.

And New York is trying to select, are we going to stay the course with Governor Cuomo or are we going to change course?

Now,

The Democrats are basically,

they are Democratic socialists now.

The Republicans, I think, are just the status quo, state by state.

You'd have to look at each.

But in New York, there is another choice.

A guy who seems wildly qualified for the job.

His name is Larry Sharp.

He's a teacher and guest instructor who has taught English, management, business at Yale, Columbia, John Jay College.

He's a Marine Corps veteran.

His professional life, his mother mother was having some issues, and he's like, I got to help her find a job.

I'm going to start a trucking company.

He did.

It was a big success.

And then he's a serial entrepreneur from there.

Larry Sharp, welcome to the program.

Thanks for having me, Glenn.

Appreciate it.

So, Larry, let's talk about what it means to be a libertarian in New York.

Yeah, it's actually a great thing, believe it or not.

I mean, to be full with you, it's the only

party that actually crosses the line.

Right now, we have a situation to where Republicans don't want to vote for Democrats, Democrats don't want to vote for Republicans, and we have 70% of New Yorkers who actually don't vote.

This is actually learned helplessness.

It's an issue where people are saying it doesn't matter.

In fact, most New Yorkers, if you ask them, they're thinking about leaving the state.

We have over 100,000 leaving every single year.

Over a million have left in the past eight years.

You know, I will judge my term by a very simple number, and that is, are there still 100,000 New Yorkers leaving every year?

If so, I failed.

If not, I'm winning.

I'm a business guy, and customers matter.

And as a governor, my customer is my population.

Am I drawing people into my state or am I pushing them away?

And right now, we're pushing them away.

That's what's happening right now.

The Democrats have basically run our state and a statewide level for about 16 years, give or take.

So if they were going to fix this state, they would have already fixed it.

The Republicans, they've been watching this for 16 years.

So my question to any Republican is, where's their plan?

Where's their movement?

Doesn't exist.

I've been doing this for one year, and in one year, I have both a plan and a movement.

They have nothing.

They have the other guy is evil.

I have actual ideas.

I am the only non-establishment candidate in this race, which is why we can win.

And you've seen it.

Non-establishment is the answer.

Left or right, it's the answer.

And I'm one who can actually, you know, I can give the right what they want and the left what they want as long as you don't enforce your will on others.

And that's a limitation.

Amen.

I will tell you, Larry, I think that the

libertarianism

is really dicey because sometimes there's libertarians who are, you're not libertarian enough.

Well, wait a minute.

Isn't that the point?

Yeah, all the time.

And there are those libertarians

that I think the last candidate for president was still kind of big state on many issues.

The great thing about libertarianism is

it allows the individual to be as socially liberal as you want,

but it also requires you to be fiscally responsible because it's turning things back to where they belong into the hands of the people.

So tell me something

in New York State specifically.

We don't want one city running the entire state.

And this is common in many areas, right?

New York State is so varied.

We have mountains as good as Colorado.

We have farmland as good as the Midwest.

We have lakes, we have rivers, we have Niagara Falls, we have New York City, the biggest city in the entire nation.

We have it all in my state.

How in the world can that be run by one city?

It's impossible.

I want to allow counties to be counties and regions to be regions and people to be people.

And it's totally fine.

The issue becomes, why do I want to enforce my will upon you?

I want you to be as conservative or as liberal as you want to be.

People tease me and say, Larry, you're from Queens.

How do you know what's right for upstate?

I don't.

That's the point.

And guess what?

You don't know what's right for me in Queens either.

We're even.

How about I let you be you, you let me be me, and we can all be free together.

What a concept.

It can work.

It has worked.

That's our original idea.

We just haven't done it in a long time.

So, so, Larry, tell me

day one, you're governor of New York.

What do you do?

There are several several things I have to work on, and to be clear about this, when I win this thing, I can win this thing with about 30% or so of the vote because it's a five-way race in New York State, and we are a plurality state, not a majority state.

So we don't require 51%.

There's a runoff.

Whoever has the most.

That's how New York State works.

So I could actually win this thing with 30%.

So it's actually a winnable race.

So assuming that I win this thing, I'm going to have 30%.

30% of the vote for a third party is a mandate that will shock everything.

To be full with you, Glenn, this is the most important single election in the entire nation.

Not as a whole.

There may other things that work more importantly as a whole, but as one single election, if I come in first, it changes the entire nation overnight.

It does.

Not just for the Libertarian Party, but for any third party.

Yeah, no, this is.

It breaks the duopoly.

Yeah, this is, this, I think, if people thought Donald Trump was groundbreaking, a libertarian winning in New York

would be an an earthquake.

I mean, it would just change the political system overnight.

Absolutely.

It is that important.

Even coming in second would shock people, but first would literally change the nation.

It would give every third party a better chance.

It would make better Democrats and better Republicans.

Because right now, Republicans just have to talk about our protection from the Democrat.

They don't have to worry about small business.

They don't have to worry about smaller government.

They don't have to worry about lower taxes.

It's not important.

It's just, I'll protect you from the evil left.

And they'll let this same thing in return.

They don't have to care about civil civil liberties.

They're supposed to be, but they don't.

They're supposed to.

They just go, I'm going to protect you from the evil right.

But when there's a third party there, when libertarians can point the finger and say, Democrats,

what happened to civil liberties?

Republicans, what happened to smaller government?

Now they have to change.

They have to be better.

It will change how everything works.

So day one is I have to recover from the shock.

There will be a massive, a massive culture shock within the state and within the nation.

But something else.

I don't have a a career to protect I don't have people to pay back I don't have that so I can actually just do what I want which is amazing I'm assuming that I will be in court my entire four years that's my assumption and I'm fine with that but I have to focus on several things one a complete reboot of education to a complete reboot of how we mandate every local county to pay for things that the people don't want to pay for a thing called unfunded mandates that's how the albany which is our capital in new york state and washington dc control every local county and take the power away from local governments.

Next, I have to create a culture of transparency.

Because the problem with local governments now is they're enforcing the king's will.

So they are not transparent.

They are constantly being bullied.

And I don't want the state government to be, I'm the king and I enforce my will.

I want the state government to be, I will protect your rights of the individual against the local bully.

Sounds like you've read the Constitution.

What is that?

I don't know.

Yeah, I know.

I know.

Don't worry.

It's an old dusty, outdated document.

There we go.

Yes.

New York State, I think we threw it away a while ago.

But yes, that's my point.

I want to make sure that, look, if we focus on the individual more, we will have better individual families, better individual businesses, better individual people who are trying to do their jobs, growth locally.

I want the local communities to provide more value to each community.

We don't do that well in New York State at all.

We have things called regional economic development corporations, which Albany, which is our capital again, decides where the money is spent.

And Alban decides where taxpayer money is spent within an individual county.

How about instead the counties can start their budgets at zero so they can decide what they want?

How about we add new ideas of volunteerism?

How about the concept?

I'll give you two interesting concepts.

One, instead of me focusing on lowering taxes, how about I focus instead on raising money through ways other than taxation and through lowering spending?

Here's one idea that does both of those.

We have bridges right now in New York State, and one of them is named the Mario Cuomo Bridge.

We literally have an Imperial Bridge named after our royal family.

That's embarrassing.

How about instead that bridge is named the Staples Bridge or the Verizon Bridge or the Apple Bridge and we can lease naming rights with the bridge.

We retain the asset.

Again, I'm a business guy.

I'm not giving my asset up.

I'm going to lease naming rights.

No hybrid model that fails every time.

Straight contractual.

That's all.

These are companies that are paying billions of dollars right now, every year on marketing.

They drop $20 million on a stadium name that's used on the weekends.

I got a bridge you can name, and that bridge gets mentioned hundreds of times on every single day during rush hour in a

16-million-person metro area, and hundreds of thousands of cars pass it every single day.

You will easily drop $50 million in that, if not more.

I love that.

Texas, hang on just a second.

Texas, New York's not gonna listen to this guy.

Texas, you should listen to this guy.

This is a good idea.

Yes, absolutely.

But here's the best part.

Now we have them do a maintenance.

Again, we own it, so

we still inspect it.

So damage is still our responsibility.

Their job is just to repair it, right?

They begin to repair it.

What does that mean?

We're not spending money on the repairs, lower spending.

Not just that.

Contracts don't come through Albany, less corruption.

Someone else is spending it, so guess what?

We'll actually fix bridges.

Bridges right now in New York State collapse.

We don't have enough money.

These guys do.

We'll actually have safer bridges, less money, and guess what?

We can stop with tolls.

In New York City, some bridges cost $15 in cost.

I know.

If you're a truck driver, I know from being a truck driver, you pay by the axle.

You're dropping $75 to $100 to cross a bridge.

Less money, less corruption, safer, better service.

Boom, we raise billions of dollars.

This is just one idea, and there are many of them.

No one else talks about them.

This is what we have to work on in New York State.

We can do that.

So, Larry, you are, you it's amazing to me how we

are running

headlong,

just willing to give up everything that we have already,

the freedoms that we have, and embrace democratic socialism.

Yes.

But we won't embrace this very American idea.

How do you get the common sense Democrat and Republican who has been raised in New York, so their mentality is, I mean, this would sell in Texas.

How do you get them in New New York to see, guys, this, this,

it's already selling.

The Democrats think, I'm afraid, so let's just vote Democrat.

The reality of this is, again, 70% of New Yorkers don't vote.

Those who do vote vote because of fear.

We can't have fear be the reason why people vote.

It's simply the wrong answer.

Oh, man.

But I would say that in reality, I'm trying to change this to make it so that people stop voting for the less of two evils and instead vote for someone.

And it is working.

I am actually using, if you've noticed, I'm using non-traditional media.

Traditional media does not want to cover me and polls don't want to deal with me.

But non-traditional media is working and I'm getting out there and people are seeing me, they're responding to me, and this is what's working.

The way to make this happen is through non-traditional media.

And believe it or not, people are getting it.

They actually like it.

I hear all the time people say, Larry, I don't agree with everything you're saying, but you actually answer questions.

You actually have a plan.

And they love it.

And that's what I say.

And look, my plan may be faulty.

Maybe they won't, we can't lease all the bridges.

Maybe we can't raise 50 billion.

Maybe we can only raise 30 billion.

That's still a win.

Yeah, I know.

Okay, so happy with that.

Let me ask you: can I hold you over for one more break?

The Blaze Radio Network

on demand.