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

What America Would Look Like if Hillary Had Won the Election

December 27, 2016
Staff

WRITER

With Glenn on vacation, entrepreneur and former police officer John Cardillo filled in on The Glenn Beck Program Tuesday. Townhall columnist Kurt Schlichter joined him to discuss what America might look like if Hillary Clinton had won the election.

"Every day I wake up giggling and smiling at the utter rejection and humiliation of Hillary Clinton, and with a sense of exhilaration at the giant bullet America dodged," Schlichter said.

Listen to the segment or read the transcript below.

JOHN: Now, I don't know if you're like me, but one of the shows I really enjoy, one of the television shows I really enjoy -- it's actually on Amazon, I'll just call it Amazon on demand or Amazon digital streaming. Is The Man In the High Castle, which is a great show. Some people don't like it. I find it really interesting. I binge watch it. And if you don't know what it's about -- it's about -- if Germany and Japan had won World War II. Germany controls the eastern part of the United States. Their headquarters in New York City. The Nazis do. And the Japanese empire controls the west coast, with their headquarters in San Francisco. So I watched season two. And I think season two launched -- they released season two, December 16th. Well, three days after that, Kurt Schlichter, Townhall columnist, did a story that I call The Woman With the High Collar. And it was entitled The Terrifying Aftermath of Hillary's Election Victory. If Hillary Clinton -- what America would look like if Hillary Clinton had won the presidential election. And Kurt Schlichter joins me now to discuss -- you know, Kurt, you scared me with this. You know, Man In the High Castle is a little bit depressing. You wonder what might have been. Then three days later you put this in my face.

KURT: Well, you know, I'm always there for you, John.

JOHN: You are. You are.

So tell us a little bit about what America would look like if we had Madam Clinton of being inaugurated in three weeks.

KURT: I don't even like you saying that. I have a terrible cold right now, and you've made me feel worse.

Look, every day I wake up giggling and smiling at the utter rejection and humiliation of Hillary Clinton. And with a sense of exhilaration at the giant bullet America dodged because that -- we -- we -- we told that daughter (phonetic) and corrupt monster, go back to Chappaqua. Just think about what would have happened if she had won. First of all, I think we'd all be choking on her smugness. The smugness in the media. The smugness issuing from her, of just the -- the utter -- utter hate and contempt they'd express for the rest of us. We'd be written out of the game.

JOHN: Let me ask you, Kurt, do you think they would be preaching unity and reaching across the aisle and concessions and -- and we need the White House to understand that there's another half of America, or would they be saying? Elections have consequences, again, deal with it.

KURT: Let me think about the track record of the last eight years. Yeah, I'll go with option two.

JOHN: Yeah.

KURT: Can you imagine the stream of leftist monsters she would be appointing?

JOHN: Well, that's the thing.

KURT: Oh, climate change weirdos. Anti-DOJ people. Forget every investigating any corruption anymore.

JOHN: But the Supreme Court -- you're an attorney -- yeah, you're a trial attorney and you're a legal scholar, the Supreme Court, I argue, the Supreme Court would have been tipped from 25 to 35 years, depending on the age of somebody she appointed.

Because, look, if Trump say nominates a Ted Cruz, right? What is Cruz? 45 years old. He's a healthy guy. Cruz could conceivably sit on the court for 35 years.

KURT: Oh, I would love that.

JOHN: How terrifying is that if Hillary appointed a 45-year-old far left radical?

KURT: Look. Just think of what we would have. You know, discovering a constitutional requirement that we all, you know, chip in to pay for long-term abortions.

JOHN: Yeah.

KURT: How about the Second Amendment. Nope. How about the First Amendment?

JOHN: That would be gone.

KURT: Oh, well, there are exceptions now. Stuff like that.

JOHN: As an attorney, what do you think -- and you've been a great satirist of the political process. I'm speaking with Townhall columnist Kurt Schlichter, who is also a trial lawyer, and I should note, a retired colonel in the United States Army, served 27 years. You know, Kurt, what do you think that a left -- a Hillary Clinton-appointed Supreme Court, had she won, thank God she didn't -- what do you think the top three agenda items they would have gone after? Would have been. I think Second Amendment, First Amendment.

KURT: Yeah, Second Amendment definitely. First Amendment.

You have to understand, she keeps talking about Citizens United. Citizens United was a case brought to determine whether the government could criminally prosecute you for putting out a movie critical of -- wait for it -- Hillary Clinton.

Now, here's Hillary Clinton's argument. The government has the power, despite the First Amendment, to put you in jail if you put out a movie criticizing her. Let's roll that around in our heads for a minute.

JOHN: You know what's interesting, I never heard that on CNN.

KURT: No. You never heard that. I was on with some leftist on some show. And, you know, being a lawyer and having a legal background, I said, do you know what Citizens United was?

It's about money.

Well, let me ask you something: If Citizens United resolved in your favor, what do you think the appropriate jail sentence for someone putting a movie critical of Hillary Clinton, that Hillary Clinton like should be? And she gives me this blank stare. And I'm like, "You do know what Citizens United is about. You do know that the solicitor general of the United States went up and heard you before the United States Supreme Court that the government could ban a book."

JOHN: Right. But what people were told -- and you know this. You and I have discussed this on my show. People were told -- the American public was sold by the DNC's cohorts in the media, that Citizens United was all about big bad rich corporations run by Republican conservatives, being able to donate to political campaigns. That's what most Americans believe that citizens united is about. Prior to it, you could only make an individual contribution to a hard money campaign. Now corporations can do it.

They have no idea that it has anything to do with the First Amendment and production of media projects.

KURT: Well, you know, this is -- that they would allow the government to put people in jail for being critical of the government is not a flaw in the eyes of Hillary Clinton. That is a feature.

JOHN: Right.

KURT: Hillary Clinton is not a believer in freedom. She is not a believer in free expression. She is a leftist totalitarian who hates us.

JOHN: I'm concerned about one thing though. I think I lost some money here. I was going to surprise you here. It was a Christmas present. I bought you a plane ticket to New York with me, and we were going to walk through the woods, looking for Hillary together. I really thought you would enjoy that. But now I'm a little concerned that I might have missed the mark on that one.

(laughter)

KURT: Oh, I like how she's wandering through Whole Foods, taking selfies with random losers. People going, "I cried for so long, Hillary. Now I can't make love to my husband because Trump's won." And their husband is sitting there going, "Yes!"

JOHN: And she's walking through the woods like finding Bigfoot, that reality show. It's like people are out there with GPS and night vision, finding Hillary in the woods of Chappaqua. It is the most bizarre thing.

KURT: How about The Nightmare of Naked and Alone with Hillary. Ugh.

JOHN: Yes.

KURT: That's scarier than anything in Man In the High Castle.

JOHN: Yeah, survivor man, Chappaqua. You're out there with your little GoPro on your little tripod.

KURT: Can you imagine how horrifying it would be? Because this is a woman -- and, again, I have to say it, and I want to be very clear, she and her cohorts hate us. They don't dislike us. They don't find us opponents. They hate us and want to do things to harm us, simply because they can. There is no other reason -- for example, the giant cake baking thing has happened.

JOHN: Right. Right.

KURT: Other than just to rub our faces in their power. And what happens when you rub America's -- Americans' faces in something for long enough. You're a student of history. You're a New Yorker. You were a cop. How do Americans react when you push and push and push?

JOHN: Well, look, it's about power though. You nailed it, right?

Hillary Clinton has had power in some form for 40 years -- 30-some-odd years, right? She was the wife of the attorney general of Arkansas, in a state like Arkansas in the '80s. That's pretty powerful.

Then wife of the governor. That's really powerful. Then went to the White House, which is the ultimate power. I mean, remember that debacle back in the '90s when she mapped out that convoluted Rube Goldberg rendition of health care?

KURT: Oh, yeah.

JOHN: On that whiteboard. And the congressmen were all sitting there like dogs looking at a milk bone dog biscuit, like they were just utterly confused. What in the world is this woman talking about?

And then she kind of disappeared. And -- and -- but what's even worse is Hillary Clinton was Bill Clinton's liaison on the hill, who sold the most radical anti-gay agenda in history, right? Defense of Marriage Act. Freedom Restoration Act. Don't Ask, Don't Tell. And you didn't hear a word about that.

I mean, now, the reinvented Queen Hillary was the champion of gay rights. She sold Bill Clinton's crime bill on the hill. Look, I was a cop. I benefited. I got a new gun. We got new cars. But we also got these Draconian sentences. And we were locking guys up for dumb drug offenses. And our lieutenants were shaking their head, going, "This is the south Bronx, why are we doing this?" That was all Hillary Clinton. And it was always about power. The ability to impose the power of the Clinton regime.

KURT: Absolutely. Absolutely. And I think it frankly would have torn this country apart. Imagine -- I just came back from Texas. Spent a few days there over Christmas with my wife's family. Texas is vibrant. The economy is moving.

JOHN: It's doing great.

KURT: It's doing great. Now, can you imagine when Hillary's EPA says no more fracking. No more oil drilling. We're going to leave it in the ground because of this global warming pagan nonsense.

JOHN: It's so ridiculous. That's what they're afraid of, Kurt. That's what they're afraid of. They're afraid of energy exploration. Because look at North Dakota.

Energy exploration is the quickest path to prosperity and job creation. Really in terms of US industry, it's the quickest path. You pull oil and natural gas out of the ground, you need thousands of bodies to get it to market. Progressives are terrified of that.

KURT: Well, and they can't take any of that power. They don't get the money. They don't get the power.

With these green -- this green nonsense -- the Solyndras, they can reward their friends. They can choose winners and losers. It's more power and more money for them. That's the common -- this is the common key. Remember in the '70s when they were talking about the impending ice age.

JOHN: Yes, I do. I was in school. I was terrified. I went and bought -- I wanted new winter coats for Christmas every year. I didn't even want toys.

KURT: And, of course, their solution was more money and power for liberals.

JOHN: Of course. And, look, it's the same people --

KURT: Same with the ozone hole.

JOHN: Acid rain was the -- yeah, that was big in the late '80s. Early '90s.

You know, Kurt, it's always an absolute -- I feel so much after I talk to you. And after the show, I'm going to give you a call. I'm going to get you to Chappaqua with me. We're going to walk through the woods.

KURT: We should go. We need a camera crew.

JOHN: We got to go. Kurt Schlichter, everybody. Catch him on Townhall.com. The great Colonel Schlichter will be speaking soon my friend.

You've been with John Cardillo. Well, you're still with John Cardillo, sitting in for Glenn Beck. The Glenn Beck Program. We'll be right back.

Featured Image: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

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.