RADIOJuly 18, 2024

Biden's Message of Unity is a LIE if He Doesn't Do THIS For Trump

After the attempted assassination of Donald Trump, Democrats including President Biden called for unity and a lowering of the political temperature. But do they really mean it? Senator Mike Lee joins Glenn and Stu to reveal the one thing Biden could do to prove that he’s serious: “It’s really cute for the media and for people on the Left to tell us to take the temperature down when they themselves do quite the opposite of that…The best thing that they could do to take down the temperature would be to end the political lawfare.” Plus, Glenn and Sen. Lee discuss the clear differences between this RNC and previous years.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Let me tell you about Senator Mike Lee, who is joining us now. The good senator from Utah. Mike, I don't -- are you at the RNC convention this week?

MIKE: I am. Very much so. It's good to be here.

STU: Thank you so much, Senator, appreciate that. Glenn is having a little bit of audio trouble, and cannot hear anything. So we're going to pick this up from -- it's been a heck of a take. It's been a heck of a week, as you may have noticed.

Senator, we're at the RNC, and what we're getting just after a terrible, terrible weekend, and weekend that changed the country for a very long time. We're getting an idea, from every source, right now, to attic temperature down.

And, of course, this is a good instinct.

I know something that I think you agree with.

But do you agree with the -- the messaging here from the media, who I think has participated in rationing the temperature up quite a bit over the past few years.

MIKE: It's really cute for the media and for people on the left, to tell us to take the temperature down, when they themselves do quite the opposite of that. And then nitpick at every single stage, what Republicans do, what nonprogressives do.

Look, the best thing that they could do, to take down the temperature, would be to end, for example, the political lawfare.

I have said from the beginning, that President Biden really wanted to do that.

He could call for the criminal charges against his political opponent. To be dismissed.

You know, he can do that directly for the federal charges. For the state charges. He could call upon the governors of New York and Georgia, to do that.

That was a better signal than anything I could think of. And, look, it's not going to cost them anything anyway.

Because the way things are going with the Florida charges being dismissed, with the likelihood that the other cases will run into trouble anyway.
It's not panning out the way they had hoped.

It doesn't look like there's a credible path for them to be able to lock him up before November anyway. He would get some credibility, I would think, by doing that.

But instead, the left continues by saying, yeah, Republicans got to change their messaging. And they nitpick at anything, any Republican says, by highlighting the differences between the parties as a reason why we're doing it wrong.

GLENN: So, Mike, Keith Olbermann just came out yesterday. And said, the judge in the Florida case, needs to be arrested by Merrick Garland, even if you have to make up charges. There's nothing like made-up charges to save a democracy.

But what is it, they're definitely going to take this to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. Is -- do you know anything about the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, and how this might play.

MIKE: Well, look, the judge was right to dismiss those charges. Justice Thomas pointed out some very legitimate reasons why Jack Smith's appointment would pass Constitutional muster. I think he's right. I think the district judge was right to do this. It's very difficult to predict how the 11th Circuit might respond to this.

But I think if the 11th Circuit held this correctly under the law, they are going to affirm that decision.

And in any event, the idea that Keith HEP Olbermann would say that, and I've not heard that until now. It's disgusting.

That is -- it doesn't get much more Third World dictatorish, than that.

It doesn't get much more state-owned media than that. For a media figure to come out and suggest that a judge making a ruling should be arrested, even if it's necessary, based on trumped up, contrived, nonexistent legal charges.

GLENN: So, Mike, yesterday, when -- when I was watching the convention. Before Trump got in there.

It had a sense of joy to it, that I have not -- I mean, it was the happy warrior. It was Reagan 1984.

Ask it at least connected with me. I don't know what it felt like on the floor. And then when Donald Trump walked out, he seemed different. Is it just me?

What did it feel like in the room?

MIKE: He seems much more somber.

He seems shaken, but reinvigorated by the support that he's getting. And I think that shows.

And I think it's impossible for him to have gone through that experience. Nearly getting killed.

It almost being possible to not feel that.

To feel something had changed.

And perhaps, even on kind of the spiritual level, to have felt like he had a mission, and a purpose for which he had been preserved. And that's my sense of things.

GLENN: It is -- does it feel like to you, that we've turned a page, and we're in a different chapter now of this American story?

MIKE: Absolutely. Now, particularly, as it relates to this election cycle. My sense is that on the left, there are -- there are still some weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth going on as to this election. But I think they've almost ripped it off now. They're almost to the point now that -- where they're realizing, this is a lost cause.

Because whether they stick with President Biden or try to cast him off, for someone else. There's so many political problems with that happen.

There's not really a good outcome. But regardless, now that President Trump has been attacked like this. And shot. There's so much sympathy. That naturally goes out to have.

I don't like to use the word unbeatable, because we don't tempt fate. But it's target to feel a little bit like that.

GLENN: Are you hearing that from your colleagues on the other side of the aisle?

MIKE: No. They don't say it. They don't say it out loud. But there are -- there's very much a sense of -- I don't know. It's not quite resignation.

But there's less fight in them.

They don't really have a clear path anymore.

All along, they've been relying on all sorts of things. To demonize Donald Trump. With media. Demonize him further, through the lawfare against him. There were very much looking forward to the perp walk moment where they could cuff him, arrest him, and take him into custody.

And they've thought that that was going to be their big shining moment. And now with the immunity ruling, with yesterday's ruling. From U.S. District Court for the southern district of Florida.

And the -- more recent developments with Trump. Being shot.

Nog none of those things are panning out for them well. And it almost seems like they've all backfired for him. Because again, the public sympathy is turning toward Trump.

GLENN: So it looks like, when Lester Holt asked who was in charge of Secret Service, that the president didn't even really know who was in charge of the Secret Service.

MIKE: He mis-gendered her. He mis-gendered her. He said I -- the head of the Secret Service, it's a woman. So that really raises all kinds of questions, as to whether he knows or is in touch with who is running the Secret Service or not. And I think we know the answer to that now.

GLENN: So the idea that this could happen. And honestly, no one would even have the honor, to step down.

It's another case where something horrible has happened, and no accountability. Is there going to be accountability on this?

MIKE: But there will be an accountability. It's -- it's unfortunate. But the accountability doesn't seem to be coming, because as you pointed out, this thing happened on Saturday. And we absolutely should have seen some accountability, by now.

Even though, it's only Tuesday. But with each passing hour, that nothing happens. It seems less likely during this administration.

But I can assure you with the way things are going. We're going to have most likely, Republican control of the Senate and the House and the White House this year. So I can absolutely assure you, that by then, we will have robust, aggressive investigations. And we will be able to figure out what happened here.

But in the meantime, just basic conversations that I've been having, that I'm sure you have been having, Glenn.

With people who know what they're doing in this area. With current and former Secret Service agents that I know, and people who have sharp shooter experience from the military or otherwise.

Have had conversation after conversation with experts in this area. Who point out things like, look, it is the most elementary point of securing an area, that you don't allow an elevated perch only 148 yards away from the place where you're supposed to be protecting someone.

You don't allow that to go unintended. To go -- you also don't ignore multiple observations, by multiple attendees. Saying, hey. There's a guy with a rifle on that roof.

Somebody ought to check that out.

The minute they were made aware of that.

The president should have been kept off the stage. Or if he was already on the stage, removed immediately.

Until they neutralized the threat.

It's also difficult to understand, why it is that there were so many requests made apparently, from President Trump's campaign for increased security, when they didn't provide it. They just didn't offer that. And that's unfortunate. So it's kind of a perfect storm, in some ways.

Some of it was an unfortunate asset of circumstances.

My understanding is Jill Biden. Vice president Harris. Former President Trump, were all in Pennsylvania, on the same day.

And the Secret Service is stretched thin.

That too, is something we have to look at. Glenn, if they're stretched that thin, maybe we need to restructure the Secret Service.

Maybe, just maybe, we should look at the fact that the Secret Service ought to be devoted entirely to dignitary protection. My understanding is that at any given moment, most of the human resources are devoted to the investigation of financial crimes.

That things like counterfeiting and stuff like that, had been historically part of their mission. Look, the mission of the Secret Service, is kind of a dog's breakfast.

It reminds me a little bit of a union, that Homer Simpson belongs to in the Simpsons. It's like the union of nuclear power plant workers, valet dancers, and patriot chefs.

This -- this odd combination of things that have nothing to do with each other. Maybe the Secret Service needs once in a while, to just about dignitary protection.

GLENN: Well, I -- as somebody who has spent a lot of time with Secret Service, and I admire some of the Secret Service agents, even those though that are just Treasury agents. When they come to town, when a Donald Trump or a dignitary comes to town, these guys are called off their desk, and they're put in the line of duty. And they're not trained for that. I mean, maybe they're trained.

But they're not prepared for it. They're desk people. And it's a totally different mindset, from -- from a desk person, to somebody who has to put their body in the way. And absorb a bullet.

Mike, the thing that you hope you will see, or we will see, this week, from the RNC?

MIKE: Okay. One of the things I want to hear. I haven't heard yet. I hope and expect that it's copping coming.

We hear a lot of talks that sound like a little bit of a diagnosis of the problem. Without a prescription for the cure. I want to hear as much detail as possible. About what it is, that we're going to do to get at the ailment. And by the ailment. I mean first and foremost, the ailment within. And the ailment surrounding the ailment infecting our government. Our federal government.

I -- I want to hear some fairly specific plans about what we're going to do to deweaponize the platform, that is the United States government. I want to hear plans about tax reform, about regulatory reform.

Plans that talk about how it is that we're going to shift power back to the American people, where it belongs.

GLENN: Was it significant to you, that -- what's-his-face?

Turtle head. Stu. That he was -- McConnell was booed yesterday?

MIKE: You know, things like that happen from time to time. And you hate to see that. Any person going through that. I think there are some people who don't like him, and they make their minds known, yesterday, loud and clear.

I don't know whether that's exactly the most productive way of going about it. But it is what it is. I was a little surprised to see it.

GLENN: Yeah. Well, there you are. I'm a better Christian that you, says Mike Lee. (laughter)
Thanks a lot, Mike Lee. I appreciate it. Thank you. All right. Good to talk to you, my friend.

EXPLAINED: What happens if Trump wins from PRISON?

Special counsel Jack Smith has revived his classified documents case against Donald Trump. But why is he doing this so close to the election? Will the Supreme Court's immunity ruling apply here? And what would happen if Trump wins the election from prison? Former U.S. DoJ Assistant Attorney General and Center for Renewing America senior fellow Jeff Clark joins Glenn to break it all down: “I would not be surprised if [this judge] sentenced President Trump to prison.” But he also explains why he believes the American people will see through the Left’s attempt to “criminalize politics” and realize that we have become a banana republic.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Jeff Clark, he is a senior fellow at the center for renewing America. And he knows this case, quite well.

The case against Trump. The latest indictment filed against special counsel Jack Smith.

Jeff, I have been trying to understand this story.

It's very complex. Can you just break it down for dummies, like me?

JEFF: Glenn, thanks for having me.

And, you know, you're definitely underestimating yourself, Glenn, but hopefully I can help the audience to understand the case.

GLENN: Okay.

JEFF: So, look, obviously this case was filed a way back.

And it's resulted in several important decisions, first as the district court, and then in the DC circuit, holding that President Trump was not immune.

You know, they tried to last that argument out of the lower courts, especially with this ridiculous SEAL team six hypothetical.

The idea that President Trump could order Seal Team Six to assassinate his political rivals.

And so the argument goes. You know, because that would not make any sense.

Therefore, he can't have any form of immunity. And I always thought that hypothetical was totally ridiculous, when the case eventually reached the Supreme Court. In a case called Trump v. United States, which was decided by the Supreme Court. Six to three, most of it, on July 1st of this year.

GLENN: Right.

JEFF: They gave that argument, short trip too. And they held, consistent with the fact, that every branch of government, has some form of immunity. That the president of the United States, and the one that was just applied to Donald Trump, it was applied to all presidents of the United States. Have to have, you know, a set of immunities. And the immunities they decided that he had, were basically a -- in a trichotomy.

So the first tier is that the president exercises his core executive powers.

You know, the things that are at the heart of being president. He is absolutely immune from those.

Full stop. Then second, per anything else that he does. Which is not within his core powers.

So that would include things like speaking, using the president's bully pulpit.

He's immune to the outer boundaries of his office. As long as it has the nexus to his official duties, which a lot of things do. And that there he has presumptive immunity. And in order to overcome it, you have to show that it would really make no impingement or inroads into the executive power. You know, to -- to be able to pierce that immunity. So that's also a very strong form of immunity.

GLENN: But that would be something like he's saying, you know, WWE is real. And somebody sues him. And says, it's not real.

It has nothing to do with the presidency. Right?

JEFF: Exactly right. So it certainly -- to my mind, let's take the speech, that he gave, you know, outside the -- the White House. On January 6th. He was clearly talking about matters of public concern, which the president can express himself on. And I think that that is presumptively immune. And I think to tell a president that he could not set out his views about an election, would be an inroads into the presidency. And therefore, he would also be immune for that.

GLENN: Yeah.

JEFF: So the left category, and the trichotomy is a category for which a president would not be immune, Glenn. That's the category of -- of an unofficial act. An act in a private capacity.

And so, after the Supreme Court's decision on July 1st, you know, it -- it kind of goes down each step. It steps down to the Court of Appeals level.

And they remand it back to the district court to Judge Chutkan.

And then Judge Chutkan started to set proceedings. More -- more on that in a minute.

And then what's ultimately come, once she now has jurisdiction back in the case, is that Jack Smith was off to the side, working with an entirely different grand jury, and he got this superseding indictment that came out yesterday.

And in -- in a phrase, what that indictment is, you know, new indictment. Meet the old indictment. You know, it's just the same as that old indictment.

He's just reformulated to try to make it consistent with and fit everything into the third box.

The box of everything President Trump did. That he had indicted before.

The first time. Is actually -- as opposed to a set of official acts.

And therefore, Jack Smith argues, he's not immune.

GLENN: So are they doing this, to smear him yet again. So late in the campaign.

Or is this a plan just in case he wins, they think this will keep him out of office?

JEFF: I think, Glenn, that they're doing it for all of those reasons. Right? Because they absolutely want to block him any way they can.
So this is election interference. There's no way you should be issuing a new indictment like this, using a new grand jury.

This close to a major presidential election. Especially --

GLENN: Correct.

JEFF: And it also shows me that this was being concealed. So what happens is that the court was told.

Because it was ready to go. Trying to set deadlines to try to march back toward a trial.

And Jack Smith made a filing. The last couple of weeks. Saying, no. No. No. Hold on. I need more time.

We're doing consultations inside the Justice Department.

Well, I'm sure they were doing consultations inside the Justice Department. But that's not the real reason. It's now clear, that the real reason is that he was actually in secret grand jury proceedings, getting this superseding indictment.

GLENN: Jeez.

JEFF: And the media, right? The media has been all over, watching the DC courthouse.

I mean, back in the real height of this, a year ago, you know, no one could walk into the courthouse, even if it was for an entirely different reason.

And not have the media report X, Y, Z. You know, this person went in. They must be going to the grand jury. Or there was speculation. But for this proceeding, for some reason, it surprised someone.

All the mainstream media, purported to say, well, Jack Smith was just consulting inside the Justice Department.

I think that that was essentially running a cover story for the fact that they were conveniently not -- purporting not to watch the courthouse.

Because they would have seen the prosecutors, regularly going to the grand jury to get this new indictment. And yet there was entire radio silence on that, until the surprise of yesterday.

GLENN: So what is supposedly new in this one, that changes the ground?

JEFF: It's not. It's essentially just a reformulation, right?

So the original indictment started out by saying, you know, Donald Trump, president of United States. You know, from -- from these dates, to candidate Trump.

So everything has been reframed. In the light of trying to fit it into the third box of being a private unofficial act.

GLENN: Person.

JEFF: Yeah. And otherwise, it's the same. It's the same four counts. There are -- even, you know, particularly remarkable to me, Glenn. Is not just that they have the -- trying to repackage the allegations, right? To go against Trump in his private capacity.

But the fact that two of the allegations were to this statute -- 28. I'm sorry. 18USC1512.

And that statute went to the Supreme Court, also this past term, involving the January 6ers. And the Supreme Court decided that -- that 1512C2, about obstruction with official proceeding, which I'm sure you and many of our your listeners would have heard of. You know, a statute, that really, they stretched to try to apply to January 6th. Even though they didn't. The Supreme Court held, that it did not apply to the January 6ers. And it remanded.

So, you know, Jack Smith has never said aye. He's still using 1512. Many commentators thought that after the Supreme Court's Fischer decision, that's the one about 1512C2, that he would drop the 1512 counts. And he would just go with the conspiracy counts.

Two conspiracy counts. There's 118USC371, conspiracy to defraud the US.

And then the second conspiracy count is a conspiracy against civil rights. But, no. He's using exactly the same four counts that he used before.

That's why I say, you know, the new indictment is really the same as the old indictment.

GLENN: I have to tell you, I don't think the Rosenbergs went through this kind of trial and tribulation. That Donald Trump. I've never seen anybody treated like they treat Donald Trump.

Never. What -- what the courts have done to him, what the prosecutors have done to him, in these cherry-picked courthouses and districts is absolutely obscene.

And I -- I would love to them your point of view, Jeff. I think they will put him in jail in September.

JEFF: Well, I'm actually, Glenn, making preparations to go up there, to be in Judge Merchan's court in Manhattan, on September 18th if the sentencing goes forward.

Look, two days before that time, on September 16th, Judge Merchan is supposed to issue his decision about whether the Supreme Court's immunity decision, Trump v. the US, that I've been talking about.

Whether that essentially requires a new trial to be granted. And I don't see how it couldn't possibly -- you know, you could come to any other conclusion, to the fact that it requires a new trial. Because President Trump is immune for his official acts. And there's even, in addition to the three tiers of immunity that I've described to you.

The Supreme Court created a new exclusionary rule, and said that, in terms of liberation inside the executive branch, are -- are protected. And they cannot be presented in court, as evidence against the president. And so the Alvin Bragg prosecution, it presented precisely such prohibited evidence. It had Hope Hicks in the Oval Office, talking to the president. And testifying about various things.

The jury heard that. And you can't unring that bell. They produced a verdict, based on hearing that evidence.

Alvin Bragg is trying to argue. Oh, it's all harmless error. Right?

We would have gotten that, even if we hadn't presented that evidence. Well, who knows? No one knows that. And I don't believe it. And so he needs a new trial.

So I predict, sadly, you know, for the same reasons you say that the lawfare is just so intense and unprecedented against President Trump. And it really is a dagger at the heart of the republic, that I bet, you know, Judge Merchan is going to go ahead and deny the unite-based motion for a new trial. And then he will do the sentencing. And I actually would not be surprised if he sentenced President Trump, to prison.

And maybe he tries to, you know, soften it a little bit at the end. Just by saying, this sentence wouldn't begin to run until after the election, or something like that.

Or if you really wanted to go full bore, right? You can say, no, you're remanded into custody immediately. Or you're remanded into home confinement immediately. He has a lot of different options.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. I have to tell you, I think the American people will lose their mind.

Both Republican and Democrat. And especially I think independents. I think there are a lot of people who are sick of this. And they will see, this is a banana republic.

JEFF: I agree. It's already gotten to a banana republic level in terms of the level of lawfare directed at President Trump, at myself.

GLENN: Right.

JEFF: You know, at Steve Bannon, and Peter Navarro. You know, all of my folks down in Georgia, with Fani Willis.

GLENN: It's crazy.

JEFF: Now they have a new case out in Arizona, which they're trying to press on. You know, it's relentless.

It really is something that is trying to criminalize politics. And criminalize the ordinary operations of laughter. And pretend that Donald Trump was the chief executive of the United States.

That he -- you know, some unprecedented threat, that requires a level of treatment, that no one has ever gotten before, in the history of our country.

Just take, Glenn, the Mar-a-Lago raid. Right?

What did they do with Vice President Pence and President Biden? They negotiated an agreement to go and search through their -- their homes, right? But did President Trump get that treatment?

No. He got a jackbooted raid. With armed agents. That wouldn't even show the president's lawyer, Christina Bobb at the time, the warrant initially, until she basically had to pry it out of him.

GLENN: Would you hold on just a second, Jeff?

Because I have to take a 60-second break. And then when we come back, I would just like to know, what happens if he go to jail? Can he be president of the United States?

How would that work? Does Secret Service go with him?

What happens? We'll talk about that in 60 seconds. First, getting poor sleep is not just an inconvenience. It absolutely ruins your day, for one thing. That's -- you know, that's not the worst part. It's also terrible for your health. And it can be very dangerous. If you've ever fallen asleep, during driving. Because you have such a terrible night of sleep. Or you've fallen asleep in a meeting. And you're like, I've got to stay awake. You're screaming at yourself, and you just can't do it.

If you're somebody who has difficulty sleeping, either once in a while or all the time, there is something I've taken when I've had sleep issues. And I would like for you to give it a try.

It's all natural. It's called Z Factor. It comes from the makers of Relief Factor. It's a 100 percent drug-free way to help you fall asleep faster, sleep better, and stay asleep longer.

Z Factor, uses a formula of four all natural ingredients to calm your mind. Relax your body, so you can ease into sleep faster, and sleep right through the night.

It's worked for me. It works for my wife. Rediscover the joy of a great night of sleep with Z Factor. Get the best sleep you've ever had. Try Z Factor from Relief Factor, and save 46 percent on your first order.

It's ReliefFactor.com. ReliefFactor.com. Call 800-4-Relief. 800-4-Relief. Ten-second station ID.
(music)
From the Center for Renewing America, he's the senior fellow there. Also, former US DOJ Assistant Attorney General Jeff Clark is with us.

So if they put him in jail, can a president be in jail?

If he -- let's say he wins the election. But he's in jail. What happens?

JEFF: So there are two periods, right? One would be a period, prior to inauguration. There to answer your question, right before the break.

You know, the Secret Service would still protect him.

And, you know, indeed, Alvin Bragg had been talking to the New York jail system, about trying to make accommodations for that.

And then in the period after he's inaugurated, then I think all of the -- any kind of imprisonment would have to be ended for suspended.

It would be what lawyers call preempted by the Constitution since he would be the dully elected and inaugurated president of the United States.

He can't be kept from exercising those functions by a state conviction.

GLENN: That is absolutely unbelievable.

I mean, I don't think our Founders ever -- they -- I don't think they ever saw something like this happening.

I mean, you know, our -- our checks and balances are so far out of whack. And the administrative state is so strong now.

That, you know, almost anything can happen. It is really crazy. Jeff, thank you. Go ahead.

JEFF: Thank you. Yeah. I was going to say, you're absolutely right. The republic is hanging by a thread at this point. Hopefully Judge Merchan will come to his senses. And I think the Supreme Court is always in the background to make this all come out right, like they did in the Trump immunity case on July 1st.

GLENN: Hmm. Jeff Clark, thank you very much. I appreciate it.

You can follow him on Twitter, @JeffClarkUS. @JeffClarkUS. Thanks, Jeff. Appreciate it.

I mean, can you imagine, Stu?

STU: Yeah. I was thinking about that, as you were playing out the situations.

What if -- you putting them in jail, would send a message.

I think, as you pointed out. I think would backfire on them.

Could you see them do House arrest?

So he can't campaign anywhere.

He can't do any rallies. They put an ankle bracelet on him. I don't know. That one, I could see.

Especially if they're losing. I think the more -- the more dire they feel their situation is. The more likely that happens. That he goes to prison.

Because, you know, they will see this as, well, I mean, we've got this other card to play. Why not give it a shot?

We're losing. Right now, I don't think they feel like they're in that situation. I feel like they think they're winning, and why would they shake it up?

GLENN: I have to tell you though, I think if Donald Trump was under House arrest and he couldn't leave his house, first of all, he could do video from his house. I'm sure.

And there would be people like me. You know, I would be willing to take a hiatus and go campaign for the man, if he couldn't campaign himself. And not -- and not because, well, he's a Republican or anything.

Because --

STU: It's wrong.

GLENN: -- this is an American that has been wronged. And we all have to stand up for it.

I mean, they are out of control.

STU: That's going to be fascinating to see.

GLENN: Can you imagine if they win?

Oh, my gosh. Can you imagine how much trouble we're in if they win, Stu.

I mean, everything we've ever talked about, is happening right now.
(music)
As Jeff just said, a republic hangs by a thread. Who is going to rush in and save it?

Well, I will tell you, it will only be good and godly people.

Because it's got to be people of merit, that are trying to find favor in the eyes of God.

And say, we will be a fruitful nation. And we will bear good fruit, otherwise, he will curse us and we will whither on the vine. Quickly.

Allie Beth Stuckey: How pro-lifers should respond to Trump’s abortion & IVF comments

Donald Trump recently said that he doesn’t believe a 6-week limit on abortions is long enough and that the government should offer free IVF treatments. BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey joins Glenn for an honest conversation about this moment that upset many of Trump’s pro-life supporters. They discuss why they believe this shouldn’t keep people from voting for Trump: “The difference between Trump and Kamala Harris is we actually have the opportunity to [grow the pro-life movement] if Donald Trump is president…Harris is openly hostile and vindictive toward pro-lifers…we’re looking at the chilling of pro-life speech…the doubling down of weaponization of the DOJ against pro-life grandmothers [under a President Harris].” Allie also gives her advice for how Trump should handle this issue for the rest of the election.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Well, there's a couple of things that Donald Trump did yesterday, to make news. And I think it's worth taking time to address.

Cut six. Here's Donald Trump on a six-week Florida ban.

VOICE: Overturn Roe. And you want abortion to be a state's rights issue. In Florida, a state you are a resident of. There's abortion-related amendment on the ballot to overturn the six-week ban in Florida. How are you going to vote on that?

DONALD: Well, I think the six-week is too short. There has to be more time, and I told them that I want more weeks.

VOICE: So you'll vote in favor of the amendment?

DONALD: I am voting. I am going to be voting that we need more than six weeks. Look, just so you understand, everybody wanted Roe v. Wade terminated for years. Fifty-two years. I got it done. They wanted it to go back to the states. Exceptions are very important for me, for Ronald Reagan, for others that have navigated this very, very interesting and difficult path.

GLENN: Okay. So why is he doing that know. Everybody thought he was going to be the pro-life president. I never did. I was shocked that Roe vs. Wade was actually overturned. And let's be honest about it. He didn't do that. He appointed the justices that did that.

But I don't think that that was his main thing when he was picking justices on who is going to be pro-life. And then they got the right, you know, verdict, right case, came in. And they gave the right verdict.

But he has always been somebody who is wanting exceptions.

I don't agree with him.

But that's what the vote is all about

Now, I just want to say. Now, I believe. If this is your critical issue, I would ask that you go out, and campaign. And vote in your state.

On the abortion bills.

You're voting for president of the United States.

This is a state issue. He's not going to pass anything, that is a federal law. I just don't see that happening. Maybe he will.

But I will tell you this, if you want to stand for life, if you have Kamala Harris, I believe you will go to jail. I believe, if you speak out, online, it is going to become very Draconian. She is the most shout your abortion president, presidential candidate, we have ever, ever had.

Allie Beth Stucky is with us now to comment on this happen. Allie. Allie, are you there?

ALLIE: Hi, Glenn.

GLENN: Hi. I know we caught you on vacation. I know you're out fishing, which I love. Thanks for hopping on.

ALLIE: Yes. Yes. Thank you so much.

And I agree with everything that you said. Every bit of it. Both Kamala Harris. And Trump's statement.

You know, this is politically miscalculated for Trump. Because the amendment, is probably thankfully going to fail in Florida. And the Trump campaign is coming out now and saying, you know, he must say exactly how he was going to vote.

That's the response that I'm getting on X.

But he did. You know, maybe he didn't mean it. Maybe he'll vote another way. But he did say, he is voting to extend the weeks.

Which would be voting yes on Amendment 4.

Which does allow abortion, through all nine months of pregnancy for virtually any reason in Florida. So it is politically miscalculated, as well as immoral.

GLENN: So how do you -- because I hear people. I just don't think I can vote for Trump now.

And I'm like, are you out of your mind? Do you agree with that?

ALLIE: Right. Right. No.

GLENN: Wait. You don't agree with me. You don't agree what, I mean, said or the people --

ALLIE: Oh, no. I don't agree with not voting for Donald Trump.

GLENN: Okay.

ALLIE: I still support Donald Trump for a variety of reasons. One of them, for the reason that you said. That, yeah. Donald Trump is not nearly as pro-life as I want him to be. And I want to use whatever political capital we pro-lifers have to push him in the direction of life. The difference between him and Kamala Harris is that we actually have the opportunity to do that if Donald Trump is president. Not only because it's him. But also it's because it's the people that he surrounds himself with. The judges and the justices, that he may appoint.

With Kamala Harris, we not only have no in. We have no influence whatsoever.

But as we've seen, while she was AG of California. While she was even district attorney of San Francisco.

While she was the furthest left senator, when she was in the Senate.

Is that she's openly hostile and vindictive, towards pro-lifers.

Anyone can ask to be the delight, and what that's been like. And so we're looking at the threatening of the 501(c)3 status for every pro-life organization.

We are looking at the chilling of pro had much life speech. We are looking at the continuation of. And the doubling down of weaponizing the DOJ, against pro-life grandmothers. Who is simply sharing the gospel in front of murder mills. So that's Kamala Harris.

Do I wish that Donald Trump were more pro-life and was doing more and was making better decisions?

I wish he would stop talking about it. If he's not going to come out strong on the side of life.

I wish she would not get into the weak conversation. And just say, I will make America the best place on earth for moms and babies. End of story.

He could pivot. That's kind of PR 101.

He should just be doing that. And so I have much more hope, that the Donald Trump presidency, will be much friendlier to the pro-life cause.

GLENN: Oh.

ALLIE: Than Kamala Harris.

GLENN: Yeah. I agree with you. Last question, he came out for IVF. I think you're against IVF.

ALLIE: Well, IVF results in the destruction of millions of embryos every year. I am absolutely for people becoming parents.

I do want more babies. I think that's great, but we have to acknowledge that America is the Wild West of reproductive technology.

There are virtually no restrictions or regulations around the creation of embryos. Those are little image bearers of God.

Life starts at fertilization. They have their own DNA. And I do not want to subsidize IVF. I understand that a lot of the country is not where I am. I don't expect Donald Trump to be where I am on IVF.

But when you start saying that you are going to take the tax dollars of millions of Christians, millions of Catholics, who are against the destruction of those embryos through IVF, and you're going to fund that, that becomes a problem. Again, I just would like him to stop talking about it.

GLENN: Okay. Deal breaker for you?

ALLIE: Is this a deal breaker for me? No. It's not a deal breaker for me. As you, I'm sure will agree, we have so many issues economically, with foreign policy, domestic policy, immigration.

I don't think Donald Trump and the policy that he represents, represents order. And I think Kamala Harris and the policy she represents, represents disorder and chaos.

And I can't do that to my children and my children's children. I've got to try to preserve the good that can be preserved and fought for. And I think it's much more likely to be preserved and fought for in the Donald Trump presidency.

GLENN: Ali, I have to first say to you. I'm so proud of it.

And I'm so happy for your success.

You have become a -- a force to reckon with.

And I just love that.

Because I know you.

It's you. You're being you.

And it's not some show. And that's what makes people a success. You're doing an event in Dallas, September 28th. And I love this. Share the arrows. What exactly is this event?

ALLIE: Yeah. So this is an event for Christian women.

And we are expecting, hopefully about 5,000 Christian women to be there in Dallas, Texas.

It's at a large church there. We have several Christian speakers, apologists, theologians, moms, who are talking about how to contend with this crazy chaotic culture that we live in, through Biblical truth, and through Biblical courage.

We also have another huge speaker. A woman we have not announced yet, who hopefully will be announced soon.

We have worship led by Francesca Battistelli. A woman can come by herself. She can come with her friends. She can come with her female family members. There's going to be lots and lots of like-minded women, and in this very crazy, turbulent election season, he we just need to be able to look around, link arms.

And say, you know what, whatever arrows the enemy will throw at you. They can send them my way too. When we have that kind of solidarity, and courage. We can make a difference.

GLENN: You can see Allie's show on BlazeTV.com/Allie. Also, find out all about Share the Arrows at sharethearrows.com.

She sold thousands of tickets. It's going to be one of those events that we used to hold, where, you know, people came together. And you just make lifelong friends. I think that's kind of the feeling that this is going to give to you as well.

Sharethearrows.com. Allie, thank you so much. God bless. You bet. Go catch some fish.

Inflation, fracking, & stolen valor: The BIGGEST Harris/Walz CNN interview LIES

Kamala Harris and Tim Walz sat down with CNN’s Dana Bash for what was possibly the cringiest interview to ever air…at least for Americans who keep up with the news. But Glenn warns that for those who ONLY watched that interview, it may have been effective. So, Glenn and Stu do CNN’s job for them and debunk all the lies told during this interview: Did Harris really flip-flop on fracking? Did Walz really just mess up his “grammar” when made false claims about his military service? Did Kamala Harris just admit she lied to the American people about the Inflation Reduction Act? Plus, Glenn explains the industry secret behind why CNN’s interview seemed “hard-hitting” at first before it turned into a campaign ad.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Last night, Kamala Harris was on with Dana Bash. And it was interesting. Because I -- I watched it, trying to think of two things.

One, a family member of mine, who is -- doesn't agree with me on what's going on in the country at all. Doesn't see it. You, but doesn't really watch the news, read the news, listen to the news. You know, just is like in their happy little world.

And so I watched it as that family member. And then I watched it as somebody who is really up on things. Okay?

I think if you were really up on things, this -- this interview last night, was so agonizing.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: Because it was -- it was -- I've never heard anything like it. I really haven't -- let me play a couple of cuts here. Here's -- here's Kamala. Cut three.

On why she hasn't fixed the economy while she's in office.

KAMALA: My proposal includes what would be a tax credit of $25,000, for first time home buyers. So they can just have enough to put a downtown on a home, which is part of the American dream and their aspiration.

But do it in a way that allows them to actually get on a path to achieving that goal and that dream.

VOICE: So you have been vice president for three and a half years. The steps that you are talking about now, why haven't you done them already?

STU: Yeah!

KAMALA: Well, first of all, we have to recover as an economy, and we have done that. I am very proud of the work that we have done, that has brought inflation down to less than 3 percent.

The work that we have done to cap the cost of insulin at $35 a month for seniors. Donald Trump said he was going to do a number of things, including allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices, never happened. We did it.

So now, as I travel in the state of Georgia and around our country, the number of seniors that have benefited.

GLENN: Okay. Notice what she's done here. Notice what she's done. She has completely side-stepped. She's a good learner. She completely side-stepped. Why didn't you do anything?

Well, because Donald Trump. We had to fix everything. The economy was in shambles. And, you know, let me tell you about prescription drugs. He says, we negotiated. But we did it.

We didn't do anything.

And him, him, him. And now I can go out, and see people who have insulin. And we don't have any problems.

Wait. What does that have to do with the economy again?

Okay. So she was slippery on absolutely everything.

STU: Oh. I have one more thing on that before we go, Glenn. You took actions to get the nation rate down to 3 percent, from what?

From what? It wasn't -- it wasn't 3 percent, when Donald Trump was in office. It only is down to 3 percent from your terrible regime.

When you had it at 9 percent, sure. It's down from whatever it was. Seven or 9 percent then.

But three percent is almost double what it was when you took over. It's down to double!

That's your argument.

GLENN: And, by the way, the prices never came down. So you're just taking the high prices from the 9 percent, and you're adding three and a half percent, every year, on top of those high prices.

So that's why. That doesn't work with people. Well, inflation is down. No. It's not. No, it's not.

I still can't afford food. That's why. The next thing is, about fracking.

Listen to this one.

STU: Oh, God.

KAMALA: No. And I made that clear on the debate stage in 2020 that I would not ban fracking. As vice president, I did not ban Freddie Mac.

As president, I will not ban fracking.

In 2019, I believe, in a town hall, you said, you were asked. Would you commit to implementing a federal ban on fracking for your first day in office. And there's no question, I'm in favor of banning fracking. So, yes. It changed in that campaign.

In 2020, I made very clear where I stand. We are in 2024, and I've not changed that position, nor will I going forward. I have kept my word, and I will keep my word.

VOICE: What made you change that position at the time?

STU: Yeah.

KAMALA: Well, let's be clear, my values have not. I believe it is very important that we take seriously, what we must do. To --

GLENN: Now, listen to this. Word salad.

KAMALA: In terms of the climate. And to do that, we can do what we have accomplished thus far.

STU: We can do. What?

KAMALA: What we've done to invest by my calculation, over -- probably a trillion dollars over the next ten years, investing in a clean energy economy.

What we've already done, creating over 300,000 new clean energy jobs. That tells me, from my experience, as vice president. We can do it without banning fracking. In fact, Dana. Dana. Excuse me. I cast the tie-breaking vote.

STU: Yeah, you did.

KAMALA: That actually increased leases for fracking.

STU: A lot of tie breaking votes that she didn't answer for.

GLENN: Yeah, a lot of them.

STU: That's an infuriating clip. Infuriating in 150 ways.

GLENN: Also, you cannot be part of the Green New Deal, and not ban fracking. What is she saying?

STU: I would love to know exactly. She did it on the debate stage in 2020. You might remember, of course, she didn't even make it to 2020, in her campaign. Failed before Iowa.

She is talking about the vice presidential -- where she's saying that.

But like, she says she will not change that going forward.

Well, could she have promised that in 2019, too? How the hell will we know, going forward?

She's changed almost everything going forward.

GLENN: So her answer to everything, last night, on the changes. Was very, very clear.

Yes. But my values haven't changed.

Okay. So what are her values? We know what her values are. The earth is number one priority.

Okay. Do whatever we have to do. She was for the green new deal. She even boasted about the green new deal, becoming the Inflation Reduction Act.

And all the things they got through, the Inflation Reduction Act. So they admitted to lying to you, about the Inflation Reduction Act.

It had nothing to do with inflation. It had everything to do with the green new deal.

So lying to you there, and -- and her values. Her values. My values haven't changed.

Well, I've seen your values. I don't like your values. You -- you cannot change -- you cannot remain with the same values, and change your positions 180 degrees.

Why? Unless one of your values is, winning an election. Doing whatever you have to do, to win an election.

STU: That's your only value. That's your only value, Glenn.

GLENN: Yes.

Oh, no. She has some values. Yeah. She has some values.

STU: By the way, Glenn, I will say, give a little credit to Dana Bash. Who actually did ask my question. That was right after -- did you laugh at that?

GLENN: I did.

STU: Because she said, was there some policy or scientific data that you saw, that said, oh, okay. I get it now. We shouldn't ban fracking.

And she basically just didn't answer it. You know, typical nonsense. But there's good -- it was good. I will say, Dana Bash, first third of that interview, not bad.

And then just a giant plane crash after that.

GLENN: All right. So I don't know if I've told this story before. Probably have.

But when I was at Fox, Bill O'Reilly called me into his office. And he said, what are you doing, man?

They are going to kill you. They are going to kill you. And he was talking about the press and the left.

And I said, I don't care. And he said, no. You need to care. You need to care.

He said, or it will be very short-lived. And I said, I'm only planning on being here for two years, Bill. And he said, what is wrong with you? I said, oh, I don't want to do this.

But I'll listen.

So he said, look, I have the audience and I have the corporations, kind of a little afraid of me. When I put their picture up on the no-spin zone. And he said, so here's what we're going to do.

When you say something controversial and everybody is at your throat, he said, you are going to come on to my show. And I will ask you a tough question. And I might even follow it up, with another tough question.

But you need to understand, this is a friendly room, and from here on out, you can say, asked and answered.

What this whole thing was yesterday, was Dana asking tough questions. But knowing, she's walking into a friendly room.

When you are a candidate, or somebody who is going to be in the hot seat, you know, this is why Kamala won't do anything on Fox.

You know if you're walking into a friendly room, they'll push you, but not continue to push you.

Okay?

Dana would have never let that question go. With J.D. Vance or Donald Trump, that would have been the entire, what? Eighteen minutes. Would have been the whole thing.

But it wasn't. It was just two pushes. And then I'm off it. And then we're going to do a happy, you know, campaign commercial for you, in the last, you know, five minutes.

So what this was, because you'll notice that Kamala also said, that she doesn't want to deal in the past.

We're about turning the page.

And just -- and just looking towards the future.

We're not going to dwell on the past.

So when somebody asks her about her flip-flop.

I've already asked -- I've already answered that question.

My values have not changed. Let's move on. We have to focus on the future.

They only have to buy a few weeks.

That's it. Was it next week or the week after?

Pennsylvania starts to vote.

If -- if she isn't exposed soon, it will be too late for places like Pennsylvania.

But I'm just, again, not convinced that people believe her about fracking. And people believe her about the economy.

I mean, they might like her, but, again, if you are aware of politics and you know, these aren't good people. These aren't good people. And you can tell that about Donald Trump and J.D. Vance. Politicians aren't good people. We should never trust them.

And you know anything about her policies. You know how radical she really is. And even more so, you know, Tim, the greatest father in the world. Who just drags his kid on stage and says, knock it off.

That was beautiful. He's even more radical. And I don't even know if that's possible. But that's what it appears to be.

But if you don't know that, and you're a low-information voter, and you are not paying attention, but you want to just see who she is. Last night was a home run for you.

Last night was a home run.

And it gives her cover now, to not do another interview.

At least for a long while. Well, I did one.

I'll try to schedule one by the end of September, or sometime in October. When it's too late.

It's fascinating to watch politics. I mean, wish I was watching it in somebody else's country and not mine. Back in just a minute.

Byrna launcher is our sponsor. Unless you live out in the sticks, it's not the pest idea to practice training with your guns out in the backyard. Kind of thing that has a tendency with you having a conversation with the cops, and your neighbors screaming at you.

That's not usually so fun. But you know what you can use, to practice there, is a Byrna launcher. Right?

A Byrna launcher, it feels just like a gun in your hand. It feels exactly, you know, like, you know, any pistol, that you're pulling out.

And you're able to practice. And it's completely silent.

It's less lethal. And that's the way to go. Byrna is the best alternative to deadly force. When you need deadly force, man, I'm telling you. Get a gun.

But if you're in a situation where you can't shoot, or you think, I don't know if I've got this right.

You can shoot a Byrna launcher. And it will hit tear gas. And that will keep that person, you know, on the ground for about 40 minutes.

It's got a 60-foot range.

It's perfect for nonlegal high noon. Or nonlethal high noon.

You can get the launcher. They also have the rifles now, in stock.

Byrna.com. B-Y-R-N-A.com/Glenn. Get 10 percent off your purchase now. It's B-Y-R-N-A.com/Glenn. Check the latest news out, and make sure you get the Byrna launcher. From Byrna.com/Glenn. Ten-second station ID.
(music)
All right. Welcome to the Glenn Beck Program.

I've got to hit Tim Walz on -- one of the worst answers.

I mean, they were bad answers all the way along, if you wanted actual facts.

But listen to this.

This is when he was asked about, you know, I carried a gun in war.

Listen to this.

VOICE: They're just starting to get to know you.

I want to ask you a question about how you've described your service in the national guard.

You said that you carried weapons in war, but you have never deployed actually in a war zone.

A campaign official said that you misspoke. Did you?

Well, first of all, I'm incredibly proud. I've done 24 years of wearing uniform in this country. Equally proud of my service in the public school classroom, whether it's Congress or the governor.

My record speaks for itself. But I think people are coming to get to know me.

I speak like they do. I speak candidly. I wear my emotions on my sleeve. I speak especially passionately about our children being shot at schools. And around guns. So I think people know me. They know where I am. They know where my heart is.

STU: They don't.

GLENN: Listen.

VOICE: My record for over 40 years, speaks for itself.

VOICE: The idea that you said you were in war. Did you misspeak as the campaign has said?

VOICE: Yeah, I said we were talking about a shooting. The ideas of carrying these weapons of war. And my wife, can tell you my grammar is not always correct. But, again, if it's not this, it's an attack on my children --

GLENN: Okay. Stop. Stop.

STU: Slimy.

GLENN: So his grammar isn't that good. I believe he taught English to the Chinese in China. So a grammar thing, probably shouldn't be that big of a problem for you, Tim.

I'm just -- I'm just points that out. I'm just pointing that out.

It was good enough to teach the Chinese in China. Probably good enough to say, I don't know how you make that grammatical re.

Just like the gun, I carried in war.

Hmm. That doesn't seem like a grammar problem.

That seems like a lying problem.

STU: Yeah. Glenn, it's interesting.

Because both you and I. The people might point out the fact that we sort of speak English.

But who knows? It's not always all that close to correct.

But neither of us have ever had a moment, where we've said, we may have been at war, at some point, shooting at the enemy.

That's never slipped out of our mouth.

With all the grammatical mistakes we've made, with over 20 plus years doing the show together.

Neither of us have ever claimed to be Rambo, that just never occurred. I don't wonder why.

GLENN: Well, I mean, I don't know about you. But I'm the Jack the Ripper of the English language. I kill it in an alleyway, almost every hour.

Okay?

But like Stu said, I've never said, you know, like when I was on the moon.

Or when I was in war. Now, I've talked about World War II a lot.

You know, but I've never said, you know, when I killed Hitler.

No. No. Never said that. Never said that.

STU: Not once. It's kind of hard to butcher the language, that much. To where that comes mangled out of your mouth.

Might be a mental problem.

Might be.