RADIOJanuary 18, 2024

Does Biden's new SECRET COURT reveal a partnership to SPY ON YOU?!

Just when you thought the news couldn't get any crazier, Glenn reads a report from Politico on a new secret surveillance court that Biden's attorney general recently staffed. Included in the panel of judges ... former AG Eric Holder of all people. But the story gets more insane. At first, the "Data Protection Review Court" appears to be related to the "lucrative transatlantic data trade" between companies. But then, Politico starts mentioning intelligence agencies, surveillance practices, and visas being denied. Plus, apparently, the court's location is secret, its decisions are kept secret, and plaintiffs aren't even allowed to go to the court. Is this an admission of an international public-private partnership to spy on Americans via European agencies, and vice versa?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: This comes from politico today. In a deal to let companies, and I would like you to stop me, when you don't understand something, or you think you can explain it, Stu. Okay?

STU: Okay.

GLENN: All right.

This one is a wild one. In a deal to let companies keep trading transatlantic data, the White House built an opaque new forum, that could affect national security, and privacy rights, without any paper trail.

STU: I mean, there's a lot of questions in that paragraph. But usually the opening one, setting you up for the explanation.

So perhaps I should wait a second.

GLENN: At an undetermined date, in an undisclosed location, the Biden administration began operating a secretive new court, to protect European's privacy rights under US law.

Known officially as the data protection review court, it was authorized in an October 2022 executive order, to fix a collision of European and American law. That had been blocking the lucrative flow of consumer data, between American and European companies, for three years.

Now, this is because Europe has just put in a very strong privacy law.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: And they're enforcing those things.

Well, we have a problem exchanging data now, because of their private laws.

The court's eight judges. Eight judges were named last November, including, oh. Attorney general Eric Holder. He's trustworthy.

STU: Oh, good.

GLENN: Its existence has allowed companies to resume the lucrative does with the blessing of EU officials.

STU: What is the lucrative transatlantic data trade?

GLENN: I don't know.

They say that it's companies. But then, it -- then -- just listen to the whole story. I mean, they say that's companies trading data.

Or like, for instance, Facebook having servers here. With European at that time on their servers.

STU: Okay. So you could argue, maybe that this needs to be sorted out, because there's nothing nefarious going on here.

It's just -- it's just --

GLENN: Why the secrecy.

STU: Very strange.

Also, did we have -- we cover the news every day. Did we have a new bill, that created this?

Was there a new discussion?

Was there a debate?

GLENN: No. Executive order. A dictate.

STU: A dictate from -- create new courts?

GLENN: New courts. New courts.

STU: Wow. Okay.

GLENN: The next sentence -- because you understand clearly what we're talking about, right?

The next sentence of this article is the details get blurry after that.

STU: Okay. So what we just had, was the in-focus part. Okay.

GLENN: Yes. That's crystal clear. It will get a little blurry now.

The court's location is a secret.

The Department of Justice will not say if it's taken a case yet.

STU: Why -- why would you hide the location of a court that is overseeing data transfers?

GLENN: Hmm.

STU: What on earth?

Why would that need to be a secretive location?

GLENN: No idea.

Though, the court has a clear mandate ensuring European's their privacy rights under US law. Its decisions will also be kept a secret from both the EU resident's petitioning the court, and the federal agencies tasked with following the law.

STU: Wait. Wait.

So someone in the EU comes to the American court, that the --

GLENN: The secret court.

STU: That they don't know where the location is.

GLENN: Right. I don't know how to contact them. Don't know anything.

STU: So when that happens. Which I assume it would be very infrequently.

When they don't, they go through some sort of case. And then they don't get to know the result of the case?

GLENN: Well, it's not only that. Plaintiffs are also not allowed to appear in person. And are represented --

STU: How could they. They don't know where it is?

GLENN: Right. And they're represented by a special advocate appointed by the US attorney general.

STU: Okay. So --

GLENN: Okay. So --

STU: I have a problem with my data. And I go to this court, that I don't know where it is.

GLENN: Right. And you can't actually go to the court.

STU: I can't actually -- not physically going.

I contact them. They create a case. They assign an advocate for me, to argue the case.

But I can't know where it is, when it's going on, and what the outcome is?

GLENN: Yes.

STU: Okay. Perfect.

GLENN: This is just to restore some trust. Critics worry, that it will tie the hands of intelligence agencies, with an unusual power.

It can make binding decisions on surveillance practices, with federal agencies, which won't be able to challenge those decisions.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: Now, I thought this was about corporate data transfers.

STU: Yeah. What does this have to do with intelligence agencies?

GLENN: Until there's some clarity on how that will operate, I think you would expect the intelligence agency to be nervous about what it might mean, especially since it's not even clear what its caseload might even look like.

For the European citizens, it's supposed to help.

The picture is just as murky.

Private advocates argue that it will be nearly impossible for European residents to bring cases, given that they will have to know that they're being surveilled to file a complaint!

STU: Right.

GLENN: Quote, I don't think anyone sitting around in Spain, is unhappy about his visa being denied.

And is going to a -- is going to think that it could be based on data transfers to the US. And go through this process.

STU: Wait a minute. I thought --

GLENN: I know.

STU: I thought we were talking about corporations trading data.

What would that have to do with a Visa being denied from the government.

GLENN: It's weird, huh.

STU: It feels like, and you tell me if I'm wrong here.

It feels like, what's actually happening. That companies, let's say, in the United States, are capturing data and then EU governments are buying the data from the companies in the United States.

Or, the opposite. Right.

Where --

GLENN: It's illegal for us to spy on Europeans.

I mean, on Americans.

And it's illegal for them to spy on Europeans.

So we spy on the Europeans, they spy on the Americans.

STU: And it goes through companies, that are just in an international data trade?

Which is, quote, unquote, lucrative.

GLENN: Correct.

For the business community, however, the court has already done its first job.

Its very existence allowed EU regulators to finally bless the resumption of the cross border data transfers.

STU: Oh, good.

GLENN: Now. I'm not kidding.

Here's the next sentence. What happens next, or perhaps is already happening, is far less clear.

STU: So -- the part before this was the clear part.

GLENN: No. No.

STU: I thought two parts before --

GLENN: Two parts before, was the clear part. Then it got murky.

STU: Murky or blurry.

GLENN: Blurry. And now it gets even less clear.

STU: Got it. So now you can't even see light at this point.

GLENN: No. Uh-uh. Uh-uh.

The data protection review court is a solution to a transatlantic problem, that had deviled, much of corporate America, and big tech companies in particular.

The global trade in personal data, is large and growing up to $7.1 trillion, between the US and the EU alone.

But governed by legal regimes that differ sharply above borders.

The private data of Europeans. Now, again, we're back to the corporations.

Right.

Next paragraph, the private data of European citizens, can legally be surveilled by US intelligence agencies.

But unlike Americans. Europeans have no recourse, under American law.

If agencies overreach.

Again, I thought -- is this an example of a public private partnership.

STU: Yeah. That's what I'm wondering.

It seems like they're going around these rules. By creating, a -- an entity.

GLENN: Yep.

STU: Within some new industry. Where they can make these data transfers occur, without them going legally from government to government.

GLENN: As Europe began to implemented stringent 2018 data privacy law, that the imbalance set badly with EU authorities.

And in both a 2015 and 2020 ruling, a European court barred companies outright from transferring or processing EU citizen's data in the US, or at least until the citizens had a way to pursue their rights.

So they can now take the data out. They couldn't before.

But now that they've done this secret court, they can take the data out.

Because apparently, people in Europe. Will know when they're being surveilled.

When their at that time has been used against them.

And they'll have a secret court to go. And they -- they -- you know, that's their recourse.

They won't know if anything has been done.

STU: It seems like, in five years. When they find out, they've been doing it for a long time. Well, nobody asked in court. We got that court set up.

Nobody ever showed up. It's weird. We had like no cases for five years. It seems like no one had a problem with what's going on, I guess.

GLENN: So I don't know who appointed the judges. But the one who announced the judges is Merrick Garland.

STU: I think it said earlier in the article, at the age, he was the one who did it.

GLENN: Oh, good.

So it was Garland. Four of them have deep rooted experience with classified information.

From their previous careers, in the NSA, and national security council.

STU: Oh, good.

GLENN: Or the Department of Justice.

Oh!

STU: Perfect.

GLENN: Okay.

STU: I see no problems in those arenas at all, lately.

GLENN: No. When intelligence agencies are, you know, the watchdogs of themselves.

What could possibly go wrong?

STU: Yeah. What could go wrong? They're the experts in themselves.

GLENN: Experts believe the intelligence community is cautiously waiting for the court's decisions, with the hopes that there won't be new restrictions imposed on its operations.

The judge's final authority, however, creates a degree of concern.

That finality, could create an unanticipated problem for the administration, according to some intelligence experts.

They believe the court could not just constrain the government's spying activity. In specific cases.

But set precedence that cut against the administration's policy.

Of what?

Of spying on you!

We're talking about a secret court. A secret agency.

Whose location, we don't know.

We know nothing about it.

We know -- we have no idea what court cases are going through.

And it could -- they're worried that it could set a precedent, to cut against the administration policy.

Of what?

I thought we were talking about corporate data transfers.

STU: And protecting Europeans.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

STU: Why would this --

GLENN: The executive order's language, however, specified the court's ruling should apply only to the individual case, that they are hearing.

Which we won't know.

Nor will the people who brought the case.

STU: How could it apply to other cases, if no one knows what the result is?

GLENN: Though experts believe decisions could still create an unofficial precedence for other surveillance operations. Again, surveillance operations.

STU: I thought it was like, you know, corporations. Some handbag company. Is trading data. With some department stores from overseas. I thought that's -- we're not talking about it. Sounds lucrative.

GLENN: No, we're not.

A citizen compliant, first has to shuttle between an EU data protection official, and the US office of the Director of National Intelligence.

Which will decide whether there was a civil rights violation from the data collection.

So the national intelligence agency, is going to decide, whether or not that's even worth bringing up to the court.

Regardless of the results, the response to the initial complaint, will neither confirm nor did know that the EU resident was under US surveillance.

This is insanity. If you don't think our government is building -- a secret court on surveillance?

That you don't have access to?

If you don't think that we are living in a time where this administration, and past administrations, have been building a -- a cage for you, where they know absolutely everything about you.

You're -- you're fooling yourself.

And you don't have a way to stop it.

I mean, well, you could, of course, apply. You'll find that in the blue pages, I'm sure, in your -- in your phone book.

STU: But it sounds worrisome.

But at the end of the day, remember, Eric Holder is there to watch the process.

GLENN: Amen, brother.

Thank you for that ray of sunshine.

EXCLUSIVE: Chip Roy Explains His FIERY Rejection of Spending Bill

According to the media, there’s a big fight going on between Republicans over the House’s new slimmed-down continuing resolution spending bill. Some, including President-elect Donald Trump, wanted the bill to pass. But others, like Texas Representative Chip Roy, argued that it still wasn’t ready. However, is the Republican “unity coalition” really crumbling, like the media claims? Rep. Chip Roy joins Glenn to explain what’s really going on. He argues that he IS trying to give Trump and DOGE a 100-day “runway” to fix the country. But he makes the case that, by increasing the debt ceiling by $5 trillion without agreeing on other cuts, this bill gives bad actors the ability to be an “obstacle” to Trump’s agenda further down the line. Plus, he reveals to Glenn that he believes some of these bad actors LEAKED false information about his stance to Mar-a-Lago.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN:

I think we have a great opportunity today. To show you how to have a -- tough conversation, with friends, friends. Where you deeply disagree on something.

But you know that their intent is good. They know my intent is good. Or our intent is good.

And we actually have the same end goal, but we disagree on the path. And we're going to walk away friends.

Chip Roy is joining us today. And, Chip, I love you. And I always will. And I agree with your, we've got to cut spending. We have to. But Liz Wheeler is with me. And we've been talking about it all morning. It's the -- the -- the -- the system of DOGE and Trump, the call-out to the world, in saying, you've got to surrender the Capitol. You know, the bad guys are in and about to take all the money.

Surround, and tell them, come out with your hands up. And that happened. And we scored a massive win, in an entirely new way.

Ask then you stood on principle, one we both agree with.

And it failed!

And so here's -- here's what Liz and I were talking about. Here's what we want to say to you.

And then get your response.

LIZ: Hi, Congressman Roy, this is the way I see it. I want your take on it. I love you. I think you're one of the best members of Congress. I disagree with you on the process that's happening. And I think that is the difference. The process. We elected Donald Trump to be a disruptor. Because Republican members of Congress for decades have been telling they're fiscal conservatives. They want to decrease the debt SEAL. It hasn't happened.

It hasn't -- it hasn't been done. And so Donald Trump comes in with Elon Musk, and uses this DOGE process to first identify these pieces of garbage in the first 1500-page bill. And take those things to the people. We took them to members of Congress. Congress said, okay. We'll listen to you.

So that new process was very effective.

And my question to you is: Once that process was proved to be effective. Which I think is exciting and wonderful.

How do we bridge this divide, with you, to say, okay.

Let's put some faith in this new process. And trust Elon Musk and Donald Trump and the Dow Jones process, to eventually address the debt ceiling, but get this done right now?

GLENN: And not blind trust. Chip.

CHIP: So appreciate you guys. Appreciate being on the show. Particular order. I have to go through a couple of things.

GLENN: Yep.

CHIP: Number one, it's important to remember that my job and my duty is to the Constitution, to God, and the people I represent. I told them, when I came to Washington, I would not -- I would not let the credit card and the debt ceiling and the borrowing of the United States without the spending restraints necessary to offset it.

GLENN: Okay.

CHIP: Right now, all we have are promises and ideas and notions. What I know, that neither of you respectfully no, and that none of your listeners respectfully no are the people that are in the room, that I was in with yesterday. And the day before, who are recalcitrant.

And do not want to do the spending cuts that we need to do.

That I believe the president and the DOGE guys. And everybody want to do.

My job, is to force that through the meat grinder. To demand that we do our damn job. Okay?

GLENN: Okay. So hang on. Okay. So wait. Wait. You're right. You're right. You're right. Go ahead.

CHIP: Number thee, when we were going through the bill, I'm glad the bill dropped from 1,550 pages to 116 pages. Three-quarters of Twitter or X or whatever you want to call it, have been out there spreading false facts that we supported a bad bill and didn't like the better bill.

That's not true. But let's be Lear. The 1400 pages that were cut out. It's a panacea.

There were some good stuff in there. There were some bad stuff in there. There was a lot of disinformation.

There wasn't a $70,000 pay raise. There was a 3,000-dollar pay raise.

I didn't support any pay raise. I didn't support a lot of the stuff in there.

But there's a lot of misinformation. And here's the thing: The 116 pages that were left, and I opposed violently the first bill. I was leading the charge on fighting and killing the first bill.

GLENN: And I love you.

LIZ: The second bill for 116 pages. Turned off -- turned off the pay go requirement. That we slash 1.7 trillion automatically.

And added a 5 trillion that are increase.

My view was, I could not support that, without a clear understanding of what cuts we would get, in mandatory spending next year. And undo any of the Inflation Reduction Act.

The undoing of the student loans. The undoing of the crap with the food stamps.

And everything else. I yield back.

GLENN: Okay. I yield back.

Chip, you're not in a hostile room. We love you. And we agree with your end goals. It's our end goal too. We didn't make that promise that you made to the people that voted for you. So we have more wiggle room here.

But you say -- I think our big difference is, you say, I know the guys in the room.

You're right. You do. And we -- we ceded that earlier today on the show.

You are -- one of us is wrong on trust.

I don't trust any of the weasels in Washington.

But I think Donald Trump and Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy have earned enough trust, to get a grace period, here for the first -- maybe the first year.

Or at least six months.

To turn the economy around, and also reduce the size of the government.

And totally flip this thing.

And I know, as somebody who is -- you know, run a company, mainly into a ground. But run a company, and have to switch it, in the middle, and totally reshuffle. That -- that actually costs money, while you're doing it, to bridge the gap.

Because you have to fill up holes while you're filling in the gap.

You don't trust the people in the room. Neither do we.

But we do trust the system that worked on Wednesday with DOGE and Donald Trump.

Where do we disagree?

Can you give them --

CHIP: We don't disagree. And yesterday morning, I was making that precise argument in a room full of conservatives and then a follow-up room with people who will call it, less conservatives.

GLENN: Republican. Yes.

CHIP: And so we were making this argument. And then someone infamously. Something leaked out of the room, somehow out to Mar-a-Lago. That I was being resistant. Because I was negotiating trying to get the agreement to achieve the objective that you just said. I was trying to get, okay. In fact, yesterday morning, I made the argument to a group of conservatives. We need to give the president runway. We need to give him his first 100 days. We need to appreciate JD, and Vivek, and all the people -- and everybody involved. For the president to achieve the objective.

But to get there. We have to make sure that the guys in the room, that are an obstacle to that, don't have the ability to block it.

Because information flow matters. And when those guys tell the president, they can't achieve X.

Then the president will not achieve X. Our job was to force and demand, guys, we need actual understanding of what the cuts will be.

And because otherwise, we're asking us to accept a 5 trillion-dollar limit in our credit card increase. In exchange for nothing!

Literally, in exchange for nothing, but -- but hope.

So our job was to force that change.

Unfortunately, while I was trying to make the argument that we needed something in order to get the votes, someone leaked that down to Mar-a-Lago, and the president reacted.

But now I have to now manage that.

GLENN: Right. I know. I know.

CHIP: They're trying to enforce change in town.

GLENN: So hang on.

We have to leave this. Because I'm going to run against the clock.

I could talk to you all day about this. You were in a meeting this morning about J.D. Vance. Can you tell us anything about that meeting?

CHIP: That meeting happened, because despite what happened yesterday, I'm trying to get this done. Last night, talking to JD, we worked to get this meeting done. We had some good progress this morning.

But there still remains people concerned about spending. That we can work out, what agreement we can reach. On what spending cuts. We can actually get next year, in exchange for giving the vote on a debt ceiling increase.

So it remains fluid. Progress was made. But we have to keep working on it.

And I left that meeting to talk to you. Soil get an update in a minute.

GLENN: Thank you for that, by the way.

I hear there is a new bill that may be coming today.

Is that the one you're talking about?

Or is this another bill that could be another nightmare?

CHIP: Despite other people leaking crap, I refused. I can't say, because it's not been decided by the speaker.

And it's not right to talk about things they're talking about in private meetings.

GLENN: Yeah, but it's -- it's this speaker. I mean, is he really the speaker anymore, Chip, really?

CHIP: We need to hear what bill we need to get forward. And I can't talk about the private meetings. But, look, I'm going to keep fighting for what I promised people that I represent.

I'm going to fight to cut spending. I am going to represent article one.

I'm going to support the president's agenda, but we've got to do that together.

GLENN: Okay.

Chip, thank you.

I think we can -- I think we agree, but I await to see what that means to you. Because we may just have to agree to disagree on this.

But I love you. And I still want you to replace Cornyn.

CHIP: The short version is, for inflation's sake, we cannot increase the debt ceiling $5 trillion without knowing what we're getting for it.

And I don't think anybody should disagree with that.

GLENN: But you don't disagree that Elon Musk and Trump and Vivek are serious about gutting the system.

CHIP: I believe that is their objective. I believe there are obstacles to that objective. And I need to know the sincerity of how we deal with those obstacles, both structural, and human. And we have to figure that out. And that's my job.

America's Favorite Villain Is Ready for Nuclear Fallout. Are You? | Glenn TV | Ep 401

In this episode of Glenn TV — a theatrical how-to guide to survive the breakdown of society after a nuclear attack, according to the new movie “Homestead” from Angel Studios. Glenn Beck interviews the movie’s star and executive producer, Neal McDonough, who plays the head of a family trying to survive as society is breaking down in a postapocalyptic world. You’ve probably seen Neal in everything from the hit TV shows “Yellowstone,” “Suits,” and “Justified” to movies like “Captain America,” “Minority Report,” and the groundbreaking mini-series “Band of Brothers.” Glenn asks Neal what it’s like to play a villain so often, how TV and movies are changing, and how he survived Hollywood as a devoted Christian and husband who refuses to do onscreen kissing scenes with any of his female co-stars. They also discuss his battle with alcoholism, what it’s like working the legends like Sylvester Stallone and Kevin Costner, and the cultural craving for Western cinema. Note: Angel Studios is a sponsor of “The Glenn Beck Program.” Get your tickets for “Homestead” at https://Angel.com/Beck.

Biden FLOODED the Government With DEI, But Trump Has ONE Way to Win

With just weeks left in office, President Biden (or whoever’s actually calling the shots) has decided to hire 1,200 DEI officials. Is this part of a plot to undermine Donald Trump’s plans and make it harder for him to rid the government of woke Deep State bureaucrats? Glenn and fellow BlazeTV host ‪@lizwheeler‬ discuss how other Democrats have recently proposed things like this, including a UK-style “shadow cabinet” that would oppose Trump. Liz also gives her advice to Trump on how to deal with these new DEI officials, who will be paid hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars to focus on things like “health equity” …

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Okay. Where were we, Liz?

LIZ: The Biden administration. Although, not Biden. Because he can't tell the difference between a nickel and a dime, trying to sabotage the Trump administration.

GLENN: Yeah. So the latest on this is now Biden is hiring 1200. Biden is not doing it.

But he's hiring 1200 DEI officials, and putting them just under the appointed official. So there will be 1200.

Some of these people make almost $400,000 a year. $400,000 a year! That's your tax dollar!

Will you -- in your -- in your life, your average person, I don't know if you'll ever even -- if you'll ever even pay $400,000 in taxes?

So you could be working your whole life, for that one hire.

And he's hired 1200 of them.

And all he's trying to do is make sure the DEI positions just can't get cut.

I've got news for you.

Donald Trump is going to cut those positions.

He's going to. And it's going to get ugly.

I mean, the ACLU was all over this, saying, oh, we've got plans. We're going to -- we're going to -- this is obscene.

This is absolutely obscene. What the Democrats are trying to do. By thwarting the president.

And honestly, thwarting the will of the American people. Remember the speech that was given by I don't know, some boob from -- well, one of the Carolinas.

I don't want to besmirch the other one for electing a boob. But he was -- he was giving a speech in the well of the Senate. And he said, we need a shadow government. What?

Hold it. You mean a Deep State. Because we already have one of those. And he said. This is a quote.

One of the most obscene things I've ever heard from an elected representative. We failed to make our case. That our policies are better.

Now, in my world, growing up in America, the next sentence is: We need to sit down and talk and find out why we're out of step, with the American people.

His was, but we know we're right. So we need a shadow government, to make sure we put our policies in, anyway.

There's nothing more un-American than that.

By the way, Ted Cruz also said, he thinks there's criminal charges that could be lodged against Biden and his administration for the selling of the steel and the walls for the border.

I think so too. I think so too. He'll probably end up blanketing or pardoning everybody that has either lived by a Biden. Or a Democrat.

Worked for the administration. Everybody will get a pardon at the end.

Honestly, it's like, hey. Everybody, Oprah is here.

Look under your seats.

Because you've got a pardon. You've got a pardon. And you've got a pardon.

Ugh!

Now...

PAT: The Department of Health and Human Services on November 15th. This is posted immediately after President Trump has been reelected.

They advertised for the following position. A deputy assistant secretary for Minority Health. With a salary of up to 221 thousand dollars. This is the goal of this position.

Or this is the purpose of this position.

To, quote, promote health equity.

To promote health equity.

What does that mean?

It means racial criminalization in health care.

It means, if you are seeking, I don't know.

Think about during the pandemic. When there was limited resources. Limited beds in the emergency room.

Limited amounts of drugs and therapeutics, that people could access, in order to treat COVID when it's at its worse.

Well, now you will be screened based on the color of your skin.

That's what health equity is. Health equity is a word used to disguise the reality, that it's just -- it's socialism.

It's discrimination.

It requires, a government official to look at you, and make a decision about whether or not you are going to have access to health care that you might need, based on what you look like.

Not based on the severity of your illness. Not based on your ability to pay. Not based on your request for care. But based on the color of your skin. That's not only wrong and immoral and completely absurd, that a bureaucratic in that position would make over $221,000. That's evil. The left likes to pretend, that you're a racist. Or I'm a racist. Just for voting for Donald Trump. This is evil racism. This is the kind of stuff that we eradicated from our country.

And Biden is trying to plant the Trump administration. With these evil little minions before he leaves.

GLENN: I mean, why are we -- why are we surprised?

How many anti-slavery amendments do we have, to the Constitution.

I mean, it's amazing to me. With very few exception, after ten, most of these seem to be like, oh.

Yeah. Okay.

You're so stupid, you don't understand.

Slaves need to be free. Okay.

Then the next amendment is like, okay. All right.

Let me limp up to explain this once more.

That means, they're Americans, and can vote!

How many amendments are -- are just one after another, especially on slavery.

And, by the way, who was it that didn't understand that slaves should be freed? The Democratic Party.

It -- I swear to you, these amendments are just, God, we didn't think you would be this stupid.

It's already covered!

But let's lay it out clearly, for you.

You cannot discriminate by color! By race! By religion.

We thought that had already been covered, but apparently, not.

LIZ: What I would do if I were the Trump transition team. This is obviously a deliberate effort by the Biden administration. Because within the first ten days after the election, 33 of these jobs were posted on government websites.

So this was -- they were like, okay. Trump is coming in. Let's start ceding the deep state with these races. What I would do if I were Trump transition is I would say, we take racial equality, very seriously. We take civil rights very seriously.

In the administration, of the 47th president of the United States, and anybody who engages, especially a government official who engages in racial discrimination will be prosecuted. And prevent these people from even accepting these jobs. Because they will be threatened with legal action if they do.

GLENN: You can make a legal case. A solid, legal case, that that is exactly right. And that's what should be done.

They would be doing that to us, if we were -- if we were discriminating on race. If we were like, you know what, we're only going to hire white people.

We would go to jail.

Oh, you know what. We're just going to shuffle the deck here.

We're going to look at everybody.

But we lean towards white people.

Did you have Wheaties for breakfast?

If you had Wheaties as a childhood, you're in a different category. Okay?

I mean, we would go to jail. We would be shut down.

It's the same thing.

But don't expect the Democrats to get it.

Did you see the new -- or the DNC chair front runner?

The one they're thinking should be the head of the DNC?

He said, the problem with the election is, the convention should have featured pro-Hamas activists.

LIZ: I totally agree. That absolutely should have --
GLENN: At least they would have been honest.
LIZ: Think about how many Democrat voters, and really prominent people too.

I'm talking about Joe Rogan. I'm talking about Elon Musk. I'm talking about RFK Jr. These were fairly hard-core Democrats, who not only converted to being like, okay. We'll tolerate a Republican. Because it's not Joe Biden.

It's not Kamala Harris.

These people are the biggest supporters of President Trump right now, because of that kind of garbage. So DNC, if you are going to be radical, please be honest and tell us.

Thank you. It's just ushering new Republican voters right into our arms.

GLENN: I respect you, more than I respect people like Mike Johnson.

Mike Johnson doesn't tell me what -- he doesn't tell me what he really is.

What he really believes.

He tells me what I want to hear. I don't believe it. Then he's elected. Then he gets in.

And then he rapes you.

You know, I have much more respect for -- for people who are like, yeah. I'm pro-Hamas.

And you should elect me.

Well, I don't think I'm going to do it.

But thank you for telling me who you really are.

LIZ: Yeah. Great. Let's take all of the Democrat members of Congress. And let's Jamaal Bowman them, let's Cori Bush them.

Because as soon as they were honest about being pro-Hamas, voters were like, actually, we're good.

GLENN: Yep. Yep.

By the way, Hochul has come out. And she has now tried to stir up support to end the electoral college.

Because no offense, Wyoming, according to her words, New York voted for Kamala Harris.

You know, it is so dishonest. And this would -- this would have no space, if -- if we were actually teaching you students, what the electoral college is for.

You want to talk about fairness. Here's fairness: Should New York City dictate what all of New York does?

No!

They have representation. Of all the small towns.

All the farming towns.

Everything else.

New York City, should not be the one that tells everyone else, exactly how to live!

I think there should be electoral colleges in states now.

Because the cities are just devouring, all of the communities outside of those mega cities.

The electoral college is to make sure, that New York, California, and let me say, Texas, doesn't run over all of the other states!

And force how they're living in those cities, and those big states. In Wyoming!

Or Idaho!

Or Alabama!

Yeah. I don't have to live like you do in New York City.

I don't want to live like you do in New York City.

And we have completely different values than you do.

We should have a say, and an even, equal seat at the table.

That's why we have the electoral college. And we have the popular vote.

So you can see. And it's usually pretty close.

This time, however, Hochul, you lost the popular vote!

So you don't really have a case here, on the electoral college.

But you don't have a case.

If you're an American, you don't have a case on the electoral college anyway.

LIZ: Wait a second. Have we war gamed the scenario that you just proposed.

If there was an electoral college on the state level in California or on the state level in New York, what would the -- have we actually looked at a map here. If anybody has done this. Tag me on social media.

Because I am fascinated by this idea. I've not thought of this before. But I -- would we actually swing those states Republicans, if there was a state level?

STU: I bet we would. I bet we would.

You know, every time. Look at Wyoming.

Jackson Hole now controls Wyoming. Just controls it.

Who is -- who is so close to controlling Texas?

All the big cities.

You know, you don't have a chance. When these cities grow so large, they tip everything.

That's why we have an electoral college.

And it didn't used to be this way.

But our cities are becoming mega cities.

Almost states in and among themselves.

You -- you have to balance. Otherwise, the farmer and everybody else, that makes your life possible, in a city, gets screwed.

GLENN: And also think about cheating for a second. If you have a popular vote across the whole country, versus an electoral college system, it's a lot easier to impact the outcome of the entire presidential election because you can have one county somewhere with corrupt election officials.

And if they cheat by 10,000 votes, that could change the outcome of the election.

But if you're an electoral college, it doesn't necessarily.