Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

How the Benghazi Movie Could Affect the 2016 Election

January 14, 2016
Ted Tuttle

Editor

Glenn watched a screening of 13 Hours, which opens Friday, and recommended everybody to go see it. The movie details the grim hours when the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was attacked by Islamic militants on September 11–12, 2012.

"What’s really tragic is, you’re not going to see a damn Democrat anywhere near this movie," Glenn said on radio Thursday. "It does not get into politics at all."

That being said, Glenn pointed out the movie offers hints about Hillary Clinton's mistakes throughout and following the ordeal, despite not mentioning her by name.

"If you can get Democrats to come see this movie, then all you have to do is when you get out of the parking lot, you just play that little clip of Hillary where she says, 'What difference does it make?'" Glenn said. "You play that, and they'll go out of their minds."

On his TV show Thursday at 5pm ET, Glenn will be interviewing some of the heroes who were on the ground during the Benghazi attack.

"You will see who they are and how they were treated at the beginning before there was any problem," Glenn said. "I know the stories of people in government, that's the way they treat these guys, like absolute garbage."

Check out the trailer for 13 Hours below.

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/embed/4CJBuUwd0Os?showinfo=0;rel=0;fs=1 </p><p> expand=1]

Listen to the segment with Glenn discussing the movie on The Glenn Beck Program.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors.

GLENN: Last night, I saw a screening of 13 Hours, which opens Friday. And everybody should see it. And what's really tragic is, you're not going to see a damn Democrat anywhere near this movie. And not because it takes down the president because it doesn't at all. It does not get into politics at all.

STU: You did say that it doesn't mention the president at all. And it does.

JEFFY: At the beginning.

STU: The only thing that it does about the president in the entire movie, that I noticed -- there is a quick mention at the very beginning, you're right, Jeffy -- but there's one in the middle where they say the time he was briefed.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: And it's just a passing mention of when he was briefed. But I'll tell you, it's not in the end of the movie.

JEFFY: No, it's early.

STU: It's pretty early in the situation that he knows about this.

GLENN: And afterwards, you see the CIA people calling for help and saying, "Help us. Help us. Help us." And you see the military -- one of the disturbing scenes is -- and it's just real quick. I mean, the only mentions where they're indicting people is, you see hours into this -- you'll see at the very beginning, they're ready to scramble the warplanes. I mean, the minute it happens, you see the military spring in action. Where are the planes? Where are the ships? Let's go. Stand ready. Let's wait for the command.

JEFFY: And that's when you're two or three hours of the 13 hours, and that's when POTUS is being briefed.

GLENN: Yeah. Yes.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Then they will just clip -- for me, one of the lasting images -- and it's only on screen for maybe about four seconds -- are the fighter jets on the tarmac with the canopy open --

JEFFY: Yeah. Yes.

GLENN: -- and the pilots standing next to their jet, ready to go.

STU: Waiting to get in and go.

GLENN: Just waiting to go.

STU: And there was an audible groan in the theater when that happened.

JEFFY: No kidding.

GLENN: There are a few things -- honestly, this movie will shake you to your core. It really will. It really will.

And anybody who knows the story of Benghazi, and if you paid attention to what the White House said and what they said they did -- I think what it was is, when they sent the first drone over, they said, you know -- I remember the White House saying, "We didn't know what was going on. We were getting phone calls and sketching information." Bullcrap. You had a drone over -- over the embassy. We know that. We know that.

And I remember saying for weeks, "There was no drone in the area? There was not a single drone in the sky?" Yeah, there were drones in the sky. They knew. They were watching. They were watching the whole time. And that was one of the infuriating things is when they were watching, and they could see the entire thing. And they never showed this. But you know that -- the president wasn't. He was sleeping. But you know that everybody in the situation room was watching these guys die.

How somebody didn't go -- honestly, I would have gone to prison. How somebody didn't walk up to the president and grab him by the collar and say, "What the hell is wrong with you, man? What is wrong with you?"

STU: Yeah, there's not a moment in this movie where you see Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama pick up the phone and say, "Oh, I don't care about those people," and hang up.

GLENN: Nope. Nope.

STU: But you see they got wind of this early enough, that if they made it a priority, it would have stopped. If they made it a priority, if they said, "I don't care what's happening. Stop all the meetings. I'm going to stay up an extra half an hour past my bedtime." Whatever they had to do and made it a priority, the outcome would have been different.

JEFFY: Yeah.

GLENN: I think that's overreaching. They didn't even have to make it a priority. All they had to say was, "Get them. Get them. Go save them." We're the United States of America. They were on the back of pickup trucks. As the president likes to say all the time, "What, a bunch of guys on the back of the pickup -- you just got your ass kicked by a bunch of guys on the back of pickup trucks because somebody had a different agenda. And I don't know what that agenda was. But it wasn't doing the right thing.

So let's talk a little bit about -- first of all, Jeffy, we haven't heard what you thought about it.

JEFFY: I enjoyed the heck out of it. And I enjoyed that it was the story of Benghazi. And if you don't know the backstory, it's a good war movie.

GLENN: Sure.

JEFFY: It's a good battle movie. If you don't know the backstory. Knowing the backstory like Stu said and you, you're angry and you're frustrated. You want somebody to do the right thing. You want somebody to say, "It doesn't matter that we were running guns and people will know, save them."

GLENN: You've got to get people to go see this movie. Because if you can get Democrats to come see this movie, then all you have to do is when you get out of the parking lot, you just play that little clip of Hillary where she says, "What difference does it make, if it was a bunch of guys who were having a party in the middle of the night."

JEFFY: Right.

GLENN: You play that, and they'll go out of their minds. They'll go out of their minds.

STU: Yeah. And Jeffy is right. If it's a story that is not telling something that's true, it's just a good war movie. The fact that it's telling you something that is true, it's in a lot of ways difficult to watch. Because you're living through an experience that is -- that your country let people down that were fighting for it.

JEFFY: Yep.

GLENN: Here's one of the things that's really powerful and so true and the reason why I'm so ashamed. Is at the end -- not at the end, but at some point during the war scene where they know they're going to die, they just assume they're all going to die, and one of them says, "Why am I here? Why am I even here? I volunteered to come over here. I'm going to die in a country I don't even care about for a cause I don't even understand."

And he says, "I volunteered at the beginning because I believed in something." And the other guy looked at him and says, "All those things, those are all long gone." And it's true. It's true. Every one of our soldiers, I don't know what you're fighting for. And they don't know what they're fighting for. What are you doing?

And it really rang so true to me. So here's a hard thing. I got to talk to these guys tonight at 5:00.

STU: Wow.

GLENN: I don't even -- I mean, I get weird in front of guys like this, especially when they're real heroes. Marcus Luttrell is one of my good friends. He's like a brother. Just love him. I'm so awkward around him. I'm so awkward around him. Because I have so much respect for him. I get weird like that. In a weird way, it's like Michael Buble, I have so much respect of what he does as a performer and everything else, I get weird around him. It happens every time around heroes like this.

I'm so awkward. And I thought of this last night as we were in the car driving home, I said, "What am I going to say to these guys? What am I possibly going to say to these guys?"

"Hey, I'm sorry. Hey, you were great." What do you say? I mean, I've got a billion questions. A billion questions.

JEFFY: It's going to be a long show.

STU: Yeah, that would be a long show.

I'd like to get their reaction on how the administration and Democrats, in particular, Hillary Clinton supporters in particular are trying to challenge their -- their series of events. Because they're basically trying to say none of this happened. They didn't tell them to stand down. You know, that these guys are -- I mean, they're basically accusing them of being liars.

And, you know, they're -- they're saying, "Wait a minute. We didn't even get interviewed for these commissions that they say supposedly proved that there were -- that none of this stuff happened. We didn't get interviewed for them. They didn't even come to us, the people in the middle of the battle, and interview us about it." You know, the way they're treating them is despicable, and I would love to hear their reaction on that because it has to be infuriating.

You go through this situation, and when the same group of people, basically, accuse you of being nothing and disparage you the entire time, and then afterwards, after you save their lives, they're still essentially doing it.

GLENN: Pat, does this sound like Wounded Knee to you at all? It sounds exactly like the same story. The guys who tried to tell the truth, the government just demolished. And anybody who told the lie got the medal.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: No, the Indians did it first -- they all got the Congressional Medal of Honor. The general and I think it was a couple of colonels that said, "That's not what happened. I was there. That's not what happened." Those guys, their careers were destroyed.

PAT: Yeah. And Hillary was just asked last week or the week before, "Well, somebody is lying. It's either you or it's these guys who were actually there that are now on Fox News elsewhere talking about it." And her response was, "It's not me." So she essentially accused them of lying. You know, rather than say, "Well, I wouldn't say anybody is lying. It's just different perspective or whatever."

GLENN: That's why, these guys can make their case. Because, A, you will see who they are and how they were treated at the beginning before there was any problem. And if you don't think that's true -- I mean, I have guys -- I have guys who work for me that have -- have, you know, when they were in the military, they did some of the stuff that these guys -- and they verified that, "Yep. That's the way you're treated. That's the way Hillary Clinton will come in and treat you. That's the way any of them will." So I know the stories of people in government, that's the way they treat these guys, like absolute garbage. So you know that's true.

And the -- to me, the way you know that this -- they're not telling a lie is, there's not one thing in this movie that is on the screen that these guys didn't know. There's not one thing. They didn't say, "Here's what was happening in Washington." They didn't even say why the ambassador was there. They only told it from their perspective. This is what happened on the ground.

So what is going to believe -- I mean, they're not reaching out. What's happening is the administration is reaching out and saying, "They're not telling the truth." Well, you guys weren't on the ground. And all they're doing is telling what happened on the ground.

STU: Yeah, they're the ones being shot at, not you.

GLENN: Right. They were the ones. So I'm going to listen to you about what their story is. Because they're not saying what your story is. You're saying what their story is.

STU: Right.

GLENN: Which one am I going to believe? But, again, that's why you really -- you just really will not get anybody from the left to go see this movie. Because it's an out-and-out indictment on them.

Featured Image: Jack Silva, played by John Krasinski. Photo courtesy thirteenhoursmovie.com.

Top THREE reasons we NEED the Panama Canal

Justin Sullivan / Staff | Getty Images

Is Trump seriously planning a military conquest of the Panama Canal?

In the weeks leading up to the inauguration, Donald Trump launched the Panama Canal into the national spotlight. The canal is one of the most important passages in the world, and its continued operation has been critical for both the U.S. military and economy since its construction.

Since America relinquished sovereignty of the canal, China has asserted its authority in the region. The Chinese Communist Party has been growing its influence in Panama and neighboring Latin American countries, convincing them to join their "Belt and Road Initiative," an effort to poise China as the main economic power in developing nations across the world. Panama in particular is quickly becoming a Chinese puppet state. There are currently over 200,000 Chinese living in Panama, a Chinese company runs two of the canal's five major ports, and another Chinese company provides telecommunication service for a large portion of the canal. The government of Panama has even gone as far as cutting diplomatic ties with Taiwan.

It's clear that the Panama Canal is under serious threat of falling into Chinese hands, but President Trump doesn't intend to let them move in. Here are the top three reasons we need the Panama Canal:

1. The canal was built by the U.S.

Hulton Archive / Stringer | Getty Images

Without the United States, neither Panama nor the Panama Canal would exist. In 1903, after Colombia refused to allow the U.S. to build a canal across the isthmus of Panama, President Teddy Roosevelt devised a controversial plan. He supported a Panamanian independence movement, which swiftly overthrew the local Colombian government. Meanwhile, he stationed a U.S. warship off the coast, preventing Colombia from sending military forces to retake Panama.

The moment Panama declared its independence, the U.S. recognized it and struck a deal with the new government: the U.S. would control the Canal Zone, while Panama would receive $10 million and an annual payment of $250,000. Construction of the canal took over a decade, cost $375 million, and resulted in thousands of American casualties, making it the most expensive U.S. construction project of its time.

Fast forward to 1964 when tensions between the U.S. and Panama over the canal erupted into a riot. President Lyndon B. Johnson decided it was time to transfer control of the canal to Panama. However, this proved more complicated than expected. In 1968, General Omar Torrijos, a known ally of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, seized control of Panama in a coup. Negotiations over the Canal stalled, as many Americans opposed giving such an important asset to a controversial figure. It wasn’t until 1999, following the deployment of 27,000 U.S. troops to facilitate yet another change in power, that the Canal was officially handed over to Panama.

2. The canal is vital for the U.S. economy

IVAN PISARENKO / Contributor | Getty Images

The U.S. relies heavily on the Panama Canal for commercial shipping. Between 13 and 14 thousand ships use the Panama Canal every year, which is roughly 40 percent of the global cargo ship traffic. Additionally, 72 percent of ships traversing the canal are either heading toward or leaving a U.S. port.

The time ships save using the Panama Canal reduces shipping costs massively. For example, when the canal first opened in 1922, it was estimated that a ship’s journey from Oregon to the UK, was shortened by 42 percent, reducing costs by 31 percent. If the Panama Canal was blocked or destroyed, or if American merchant vessels were denied passage, the effects on the U.S. economy would be tremendous.

3. The canal is a key defense point for the U.S. military

Historical / Contributor | Getty Images

Similarly, the canal is key to the U.S. military and national security. The canal shaves off approximately 8,000 miles of the voyage between the Pacific and the Atlantic. If U.S. Navy ships were denied access in a time of crisis, the extra time required to bypass the canal would be disastrous. Conversely, if the U.S. can keep the Panama Canal from being used by foreign aggressors, it would provide a massive advantage in future conflicts.

A foreign enemy could easily exploit the canal's current vulnerability. This was proven in 2021 when a cargo ship accidentally blocked the Suez Canal for a week, paralyzing global trade. Imagine China intentionally sabotaging the Panama Canal, considering it controls ports on both ends, owns a bridge that spans the Canal, provides its telecom services, and has the second-largest fleet of ships using the route.

TOP 5 takeaways from JD Vance's 'Face the Nation' interview

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

After an eventful first week in office, JD Vance wrapped the week up with a bang of an interview on "Face the Nation."

Last weekend, Vice President Vance joined "Face the Nation" host Margaret Brennan, who drilled Vance on everything from the economy to immigration. Vance clapped back with polite yet cutting responses, and he defended Trump against some of her more accusatory queries.

If there was any lingering doubt that JD Vance wasn't vice presidential (or presidential) material, they have just been blown away. Here are the major takeaways from his electricinterview on Sunday:

1. J.D. Vance defends Trump's cabinet picks

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Brennan opened the interview with a barrage of questions that brought up concerns surrounding some of Trump's cabinet picks, specifically Pete Hegseth and Tulsi Gabbard.

Brennan began by questioning how effective Pete Hegseth could be as Secretary of Defence, given that he was confirmed with a tie in the Senate that VP Vance broke. Vance responded with a quick breakdown of all of the issues the military is currently facing. Vance argued that Hegseth's unpopularity in the Senate results from his being a disruptor.

Brennan also attacked Tulsi Gabbard, calling her unfit for the title of "Director of National Intelligence." Vance defended Gabbard, citing her formidable resume and strong character. Vance also discussed the corruption of our intelligence services, which out-of-control bureaucrats have weaponized against the interests of the American people. He expressed his belief that Gabbard would be the right person to reign in the corruption and return the National Intelligence Service to its intended purpose.

2. J.D. Vance explains how Trump's economic policies will lower consumer prices

Brandon Bell / Staff | Getty Images

Brennan pushed Vance on the economy, specifically questioning when prices for consumer goods would begin to fall. Vance explained that within the plethora of executive orders issued by Trump during his first week in office, many were aimed at bringing more jobs back into America, which will raise wages and lower prices. Other orders will boost energy production, which will reduce energy costs and decrease the costs of goods.

3. J.D. Vance sheds light on needed FEMA reforms

ROBYN BECK / Staff | Getty Images

Brennan drilled Vance on President Trump's proposed FEMA reforms, specifically regarding Trump's suggestion to send states a percentage of federal disaster relief funds so that they can quickly distribute aid rather than wait on federal action. While Brennen argued that FEMA has specialists and resources that states would not have access to, leaving people without aid, Vance argued that recent disasters, like Hurricane Helene, have proven that FEMA's current bureaucratic red tape deprived Americans of immediate aid when they needed it most.

4. J.D. Vance defends Trump's mass deportations

PIERRE-PHILIPPE MARCOU / Contributor | Getty Images

Vance defended Trump's decision to allow ICE to conduct raids into churches and schools against Brennen's criticisms, arguing that law enforcement should remove a dangerous criminal from a school or church, regardless of their immigration status. He also advocated for Trump's proposed changes to birthright citizenship to prevent illegal immigrants from abusing the constitutional amendment by having "anchor babies" on U.S. soil.

Vance also took a hard stance supporting Trump suspension of admitting Afghan refugees. Brennan argued that Afghan refugees were going through a thorough vetting process and were now being abandoned by the U.S. However, Vance cited the foiled terrorist attack in Oklahoma City during Trump's 2024 campaign that was orchestrated by an Afghan refugee, who was allegedly vetted by federal agents. The vetting process is clearly flawed, and it was a prudent decision to halt the admission of these refugees until further notice.

5. J.D. Vance insists that Trump will still reign in Big Tech

PIERRE-PHILIPPE MARCOU / Contributor | Getty Images

To wrap up the interview, Brennan questioned the Trump administration's stance on Big Tech given the attendance of the industry's biggest names at Trump's inauguration, including Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, Google CEO Sundar Pichai, Apple CEO Tim Cook, and TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew. Vance assured Brennan that Trump is still resolved to curb the power and influence of Big Tech.

Top THREE reasons the U.S. NEEDS Greenland

EMIL STACH / Contributor | Getty Images

Are Trump's repeated promises to claim Greenland for the U.S. just belligerent imperialism or a deft move to secure the future of America?

During his patriotic inaugural address, President Trump reiterated his campaign promise to expand American territories, including securing U.S. control over Greenland. This is not a new idea despite what the mainstream media may claim.

The idea of buying Greenland was originally introduced by progressive hero Woodrow Wilson in 1917 as an attempt to secure the homeland as America was gearing up to enter the First World War. The second attempt came after World War II when President Truman tried to buy the island from Denmark in another attempt to shore up national security, this time against the Soviets. Since then, Trump floated the idea in 2019, which was met with much the same ridicule as now.

The truth is that the acquisition of Greenland represents far more than just an outlet for repressed imperialist desires. It would be one of America's best investments in a long time, which is why we've been eyeballing it for so long. Here are three reasons the U.S. needs Greenland:

Strategic Military Position

THOMAS TRAASDAHL / Contributor | Getty Images

For the majority of the 20th century, Europe was the region from which a foreign attack on American soil could be launched: the Germans for the first half of the century, and the Russians for the second half. On both occasions, Greenland stood between our foreign enemies and the United States.

After the World War II, America was the official military defender of Greenland, per an agreement with Denmark. Under this agreement, the U.S. built Pituffik Air Force Base, a remote base 750 miles north of the Arctic Circle. Due to its location, approximately halfway between D.C. and Moscow, the Pentagon still views Pituffik as a vital component of America's nuclear defense.

The U.S. also built a secret base within the ice cap known as Camp Century. Camp Century was part scientific outpost, part nuclear-tipped ballistic missile silo built in the ice to withstand a direct atomic strike. The nearly two miles of icy tunnels were powered by a nuclear reactor and were designed to survive a nuclear first strike, and return fire. Although abandoned in 1967, Camp Century still symbolizes the strategic importance of Greenland for U.S. security.

Untapped Resources

OLIVIER MORIN / Contributor | Getty Images

While Greenland's population is a mere 56,000, the island has a total landmass nearly three times the size of Texas. According to a 2009 geological assessment, a whopping 30 percent of the Earth's undiscovered natural gas, and 13 percent of its undiscovered oil is locked away beneath Greenland's icy ground. There are also untapped deposits of valuable rare earth metals including copper, graphite, and lithium.

Neither Greenland nor Denmark have any real plans to tap into this immense wealth trapped beneath the ice, but it could prove crucial for ending the West's dependency on China. China has the global market cornered on rare earth minerals- including America. We acquire 72 percent of our rare earth mineral imports from China, making us entirely dependent on them for the manufacturing of many essential goods. Tapping Greenland's natural resources would help free America, and the West, from China's yolk.

Polar Silk Road

mark peterson / Contributor | Getty Images

In 2018 China launched an ambitious project that aimed to cut the travel time of cargo vessels between its ports and European markets in half. China, in collaboration with Russia, plans on developing new shipping routes through the Arctic Ocean. This bold new strategy, dubbed the "Polar Silk Road," has been made possible thanks to new tech, including a fleet of Russian, nuclear-powered icebreakers, the latest of which is capable of breaking through nearly 10 feet of ice.

With clear waterways from eastern China and Northern Europe, it won't be long before the first cargo ships brave the frigid sea and China looks to the next leg of the journey: the Northwest Passage. The Northwest Passage is the area of sea between Canada and the North Pole that would be an optimal shipping route between America's East Coast and Asia if it wasn't frozen over most of the year. But with new technology, we may be able to overcome the challenges of the ice and open the passage to commercial traffic, and Greenland is positioned directly on the passage's easternmost mouth.

Greenland would quickly become a key location along the Northwestern Passage, acting as a sentinel of the east, with the ability to control traffic through the trade route. If China or Russia were to take control of Greenland, they would dominate the Northwestern Passage, along with the rest of the new northern trade routes.

Is Romania squashing its own 'Trump' candidate?

DANIEL MIHAILESCU / Contributor | Getty Images

This week the streets of Bucharest, the capital of Romania, erupted in protest after the Constitutional Courts annulled the recent first round of the presidential election after the "far-right" candidate won.

The government is lying to you. If you have been listening to Glenn for a long time you already know that, and you also know that if you try to call attention to the lies you get labeled a conspiracy theorist or "far-right." This is not only true in America but across the world. Politicians cheat, steal, and grab power, then lie about all of it. This is the root of countless issues across every government on the planet, and recently Romania has become the latest example of this unfortunate phenomenon.

But what is really happening in Romania? Was this an actual attempt to stamp out someone who would shed light on lies and corruption? Or did the Romanian government put a stop to a genuine bad actor?

The Election

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

On December 6th, 2024, the Romanian Constitutional Court canceled the second round of the presidential election amid claims of Russian interference. The second round of the election would have seen right-wing candidate, Calin Georgescu face off against pro-European centrist Elena Lasconi.

The trouble surrounds Georgescu, who stands accused of using Russian aid to run an unprecedented social media campaign that helped him win an election pollsters claimed he stood no chance of winning. Georgescu's rapid rise in popularity on social media does raise some eyebrows, and to add to the suspicion he declared he had zero campaign spending. On the other hand, Georgescu's supporters claim that his quick rise to stardom and underdog victory is due to the growing resentment for the ever-out-of-touch political elite.

Georgescu's Platform

Andrei Pungovschi / Stringer | Getty Images

Georgescu rose to prominence on a platform many of his detractors have labeled "far-right," "pro-Russian," and "populist" (sound familiar?). His positions include supporting Romanian farmers, increasing Romanian self-reliance, and increasing local energy production. Georgescu has been lauded for his message of hope and vision for the future and his dedication to truth, freedom, and sovereignty.

Georgescu is also a vocal Christian and a supporter of the Romanian Orthodox Church. He has questioned the climate change and COVID-19 narrative as well as NATO and the war in Ukraine, which is how he earned his "Pro-Russian" monicker. Georgescu promised to respect and honor its obligations to the EU and NATO, but only to the extent that they respect Romania and its interests.

What Happens Next?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

After Georgescu's unexpected victory, the Romanian Constitutional Courts annulled the election's first round and scheduled it to restart on May 4th. As of now, it is unclear whether Georgescu will be allowed to participate in the new election. This act by the Constitutional Courts triggered mass protests in the capital, Bucharest, and has caused many Romainians to question the state of democracy within their country.

Many of the protesters are calling what happened a coup and are demanding the election be allowed to continue to the second round. They are also calling for the resignation of current President Klaus Iohannis, who has maintained power thanks to the incomplete elections. Georgescu has officially challenged the court's decision and even made a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights, but it is unclear if his appeal will make any difference.