RADIOSeptember 02, 2024

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.

Has THIS Islamist organization BROKEN state laws for YEARS?!

A new report accuses CAIR Action, the political arm of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, of breaking state laws with its political activism. Glenn Beck reviews this story...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So let me go over what is -- what's happening with -- with CAIR.

You know, the Founding Fathers were obsessed over accountability.

Because they knew one thing. You know, they did. They must get suggestions from people on, you know, through tweets. They studied every single system of government.

Every single republic that survived. That didn't survive.

Why didn't it survive?

They studied all forms of government. They were trying to come up with something that could -- could set people free.

And they -- they worked really hard on putting our checks and balances in place, because they knew, once power slips into the shadows. They knew, once power slips into the shadows, once influence becomes unmoored from law, what rises is not a republic.

It's a machine. And that's what you're seeing right now. We're not living in a republic. We're living in a machine.

We -- I think we're staring at one of the largest unregulated political machines operating in the United States ever! Okay.

There have been a couple of groups that are doing sweeping investigations, two watchdog groups. One of them is NCRI and the Intelligent Advocacy Network.

And they have concluded now that the political arm of CAIR, he known as CAIR action, has been operating nationwide with no legal authority, to do the things it has been doing for years now.

They're not allowed to raise money. They've been raising money. Coordinating political campaigns.

Not allowed to do it. Endorsing candidates. Not allowed to do it, they're doing it. Mobilizing voters, shaping policy, functioning as a national advocacy network.

They don't have the legal authority to do any of it. And no one has said anything.

Now, according to the report, CAIR action doesn't just have a paperwork problem.

Investigators found, state by state, that it lacks the license, the registrations. The charitable authorizations, required to legally solicit money.

Excuse me. Or conduct political activity, in any of the 22 states in which it operates. Think of that!

I know how serious this is, because I remember what it took to get the license in each and every state, for Mercury One.

So we could operate. We could raise money. We could do things in those states. It's a lot of work. And if you don't do it, you go to jail. And they find out pretty quickly.

Okay?

22 states, they operate not one, zero legal authorization.

In Washington, DC, the city where CAIR action is incorporated, the department of licensing and consumer protection told investigators, they have no record of CAIR action ever obtaining the basic business license required to solicit funds or to operate.

Imagine how long would you last in business, especially if you were controversial.

How long would you remain in business, if you never had a business license?

You think somebody would figure that out?

In a sooner time than I don't know. A couple of decades!

This report means, that the organization if true, is engaging in unlicensed inner state solicitation.

It has exposed itself to allegations as serious as deceptive solicitation. Wire fraud and false statements to the IRS. These are big things.

And this is not political rhetoric.

Are these phrases written in black and white. In the law.

And by investigators. In California, one of CAIR's most active hubs. The state attorney general has said, the state attorney general of California has said, same pattern here!

The state of California, to say, yep. That's what's happening here.

CAIR action has never registered with California's charitable registry.

Never filed the required CT1 form. And has no authorization whatsoever to request donations. But they've been doing it in California anyway.

Fundraising, selling memberships. Issuing endorsements. Mobilizing voters. All of that has been done by CAIR action. There's no record of any license. Any permission, ever. Going to CAIR. From California. That's according to their attorney general.

Wow!

That's pretty remarkable, huh? How does that happen?

It's not just the coast. It is also happening to the Midwest, the South, the Mountain West. Every state hosting its own CAIR action fundraising page, complete with the donate now and become a member portal, despite no trace of the legal filings required to operate. That's bad!

Now, here's where the stakes rise.

Because CAIR action presents itself openly, as the political arm of CAIR National.

Investigators are now warning that any unauthorized fundraising or political activity.

Could become CAIR's national responsibility as well.

So, in other words, the parent, CAIR itself, might be held responsible.

Meaning, this is want just a rogue subdivision.

This could implicate the entire National Organization of CAIR.

Now, this is happening at the same time it's coming under national scrutiny. It's also Texas.

And I think Florida have designated the group a foreign terrorist organization. Members of Congress are now asking the IRS, the Treasury, the Department of Education to investigate all of its partnerships, all of its financing, all of its influence operations. I mean, I think they're going to be in trouble.

How long have we been saying this?

But every time, I have pointed out anything about CAIR, I have been called an Islamophobe, which shuts everything down. That is a word, developed by people like CAIR, to shut people down, so you'll never look into them.

So what happens next?

First of all, the reports have to hold up.

Regulators now have an obligation. Not a choice. An obligation to act!

State attorneys general in these 22 states, they might pursue fines, injunctions, criminal referrals.

All of them need to take action!

The IRS, needs to take action. Investigate tax exempt fraud. Treasury Department may review foreign influence or money flow violations.

Anything coming from overseas.

Oh, I can't imagine it. They're so buttoned up, right now.

DC regulators may determine whether CAIR actions entire fundraising operation has been unlawful from the beginning.

But here's the deeper question. And it's not bureaucratic. This one is constitutional.

Can the United States tolerate an influence machine, that operates outside of the legal framework, designed to prevent corruption, foreign leverage, and untraceable money?

If I hear one more time, talking about how AIPAC has just got to be investigated. Fine. Investigate.

I'm not against it.

Investigate.

Why aren't you saying anything about CAIR?

It feels like it might be a tool in the hands of a foreign operation.

Why aren't you saying anything about this?

Because here it is! It's not like, hey. I wonder why.

This is it! This is it! This isn't about silencing CAIR. Muslim Americans are -- that are full citizens, they have every right to speak. Every right to vote. Every right to organize. Participate in public life. No question! They can disagree with me, all they want.

But no organization. None! Not mine. Not yours. Not theirs. None. Should operate a nationwide political network, in the shadows and be immune from all of the guardrails that every other group must follow!

That's called a fourth branch of government!

That's how a fourth branch goes.

By the way, CAIR has placed all kinds of people in our Department of Homeland Security. Et cetera, et cetera. This organization has done it!

This is -- you cannot have a fourth branch of government.

They must abide by the laws.

No -- you can't have a branch that nobody elected. Nobody oversees.

Nobody holds accountable.

We talked about this yesterday, on yesterday's podcast. So what needs to happen is total transparency. CAIR action has to release its filings. Its donor structure. Its compliance records, if they exist. Equal enforcement under the law. I don't want them prosecuted in special ways.

Look, if AIPAC is doing the same thing. AIPAC should be prosecuted exactly the same way.
I want it equal. I want constitutional rule.

If conservatives, if Catholics, pro-Israel, environmental, Second Amendment groups, if they have to comply by the state law, so does CAIR action.

And if CAIR action has to do it, so do the Second Amendment groups and environmentalists, and pro-Israel and conservative groups. The law cannot be selective. It can't be!

I don't know how that's controversial in today's world. But somehow or another, they will find a way.

The Feds have to review all of this. If the report is accurate, the IRS and the Treasury have to determine whether false statements or unlicensed interstate solicitations have occurred.

Americans deserve to know what exactly, who is influencing our elections. Who is shaping our policy? Who is raising money in their state?

Especially physical the organization claims political authority, that it doesn't legally possess.

Because history will teach us one unchanging lesson. When a republic stops enforcing its own laws, someone else will always step in to fill that vacuum because power abhors a vacuum!

Unregulated, political power abhors a free people. So while it's about CAIR, it's not about Muslim Americans. It's not about religion.

As always, at least on this program, we try to make it about the rule of law.

One standard for everyone or no standard at all!

And that more than anything, will determine whether or not our institutions remain worthy of the freedom and responsibility that we have entrusted to them.

Glenn Beck WARNS Democrats Will Return with VENGEANCE in 2026 | Glenn TV | Ep 473

America is entering a year of historic upheaval from Charlie Kirk’s assassination and the spiritual shock that followed, to Trump’s tariff revolution, China’s rare-earth war, collapsing energy grids, AI displacement, and the looming fights over Taiwan and Venezuela. Glenn sits down with BlazeTV hosts ‪@deaceshow‬ and ‪@lizwheeler‬ along with his head researcher Jason Buttrill, to break down the biggest stories of 2025. Plus, they each give their most explosive prediction for 2026 that could shape our politics, economy, national security, and civil rights in ways Americans have never experienced before.

Trump Just SHATTERED the “Expert Class” - And the Deep State is in Total Panic

For nearly a century, Washington DC has been ruled by an unelected “expert class” operating as an unconstitutional fourth branch of government — accountable to no one, removable by no president, and shielded from all consequences. Glenn breaks down why Trump’s firing of the Federal Trade Commissioner could finally dismantle the 1935 precedent that empowered technocrats, how Ketanji Brown Jackson exposed the Supreme Court’s embrace of expert rule, and why America cannot survive a government run by people who never face the voters and never pay for their failures.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Okay. So President Donald Trump fired the federal trade commissioner Rebecca Slaughter. Federal Trade Commission is an administrative position. I mean, this is under -- the head of the federal trade commission is a cabinet member.

And if the justices uphold Trump's firing of Slaughter, that will overturn a precedent that was horrible, that was set in 1935. Remember, 1935, we're flirting with fascism. You know, everybody thinks. Because they haven't seen the horrors of fascism yet.

Everybody thinks fascism is neat, blah, blah. So what they do is they say that this is an independent person. And the president can't fire them. Because they're, you know, an independent agency.

Well, wait. That would make a fourth branch of government. Our Constitution is really clear.

There is no such thing as a fourth branch of government. Right?

So that's what they're deciding. Now, here is Ketanji Brown Jackson, who is talking about how we really need to listen to the experts. Cut four.

VOICE: Because presidents have accepted that there could be both an understanding of Congress and the presidency. That it is in the best interest of the American people to have certain kinds of issues, handled by experts. Who, and I think you -- in your colloquy, Justice Kagan, have identified the fact that these boards are not only experts, but they're also nonpartisan. So the -- the seats are actually distributed in such a way, that we are presumably eliminating political influence because we're trying to get to science and data and actual facts, related to how these decisions are made.

And so the real risk, I think, of allowing non- -- of allowing these kinds of decisions to be made by the president, of saying, everybody can just be removed when I come in, is that we will get away from those very important policy considerations.

VOICE: We will get away from US policy considerations, and it will create opportunities for all kinds of problems that Congress and prior presidents wanted to avoid, risks that flow inevitably, just given human nature, the realities of the world that we live in.

GLENN: Okay.

Now, remember, what she's saying here is, we have to have experts.

We have to have experts. We have to have experts that don't really answer to anybody. Okay?

They're appointed. And then they're just there. This from a, quote, judicial expert, who cannot define a woman, because she's not a doctor.
She's not a scientist.

She needs an expert to define a woman.
That's how insane her thinking is. Okay?

Now, I would just like to ask the Supreme Court, when you want things run by experts, do you mean things like the State Department, or the counsel of foreign relations, that have gotten us into these endless war wars for 100 years?

Because these are the things that Woodrow Wilson wanted. He wanted the country run by experts.

Okay. So is it like the Council of Foreign Relations, that keep getting us into these endless wars.

Or is it more like the Fed, that directs our fiscal policy, that has driven us into $38 trillion of at the time. We have all powerful banks. That strangely all belong to the fed. And endless bailouts for those banks. Are those the experts that you're talking about?

Or are you talking about the experts that are doctors, that gave the country sterilizations, lobotomies, transgender surgeries. You know, or should we listen to the experts, like the ones that are now speaking in Illinois, to get us death on demand like Canada has, with their MAID assisted suicide, which is now the third largest killer in Canada. MAID, assisted suicide, third largest killer in Canada. Experts are saying, we now need it here, and they're pushing for it in Illinois. Or should we listen to the experts? And I think many of them are the same experts strangely, that brought us COVID. Yeah. That was an expert thing. They were trying to protect us. Because they need to do this for our protection. So direct from the labs in China with the help of the American experts like Fauci. We almost put the world out.

Should we listen to those guys?

Or the experts that brought us masking, and Home Depot is absolutely safe. But Ace Hardware wants to kill grandma. Which are the experts that we want? That we want to make sure that we have in our lives? That they don't answer, or can't be fired by anybody. Because I'm pretty full up on the experts, myself. I don't know.

But you're right. These experts would keep the president in check, and they would keep Congress in check. And you in check!

And the Supreme Court, which would be really great. You know, and you know who else they would keep in check? The people.

So, wow, it seems like we would just be a nation run by experts, and our Constitution would be out the window, because that's a fourth branch!

And if you don't believe me, that, you know, these experts never pay a price. Can you name a single expert?

Give me a name of an expert, that gave us any of the things that I just told you about.

Give me the name. I mean, give me the name of one of them. Give me the name of one of them that went to jail. Give me the name of one expert that has been discredited.

You know, where your name will be mud in this town. Do you know where that came from?

Your name is going to be mud. It's not M-U-D. It's M-U-D-D, that comes from Dr. Samuel Mudd. Okay? He was a docks man. He was an expert. He was that set John Wilkes Booth' broken leg. He made crutches. He let him stay there for a while. He claimed he didn't know him, but he did know him.

In fact, one of the reasons they proved it.

Is because when he pulled the boots off -- when he pulled both of his boots off, right there, in the back, you couldn't have missed it. It said "John Wilkes Booth."

He's like, I have no idea who he was.

Yeah. Well, you knew him in advance. This was a predetermined outpost where he could stay. It's clear you could know him.

The guy was still discredited, we still use his name today. Your name will be mud in this town.

And we think that it's like dirt, mixed with water kind of mud. No, it's M-U-D-D, Dr. Mudd. The expert that was so discredited, went to jail, paid for his part of the assassination of -- of Lincoln.

Give me the name of one of the experts in the last 100 years, that has brought us any of the trials and the tribulations. The things that have almost brought us to our knees. Give me the name of one of them. Can't!

Because once an expert class, they don't answer to anyone. So they never go to jail.

Wow! Doesn't that sound familiar. People never going to jail!

There's a rant that's going around right now, that I did in 2020. And everybody is like, see. He's talking about Pam Bondi.

No, no. I got to play this for you, a little later on in the program. But I want to get to the experts and what the Constitution actually says about that. Because you don't need my opinion. What you need are the actual facts. So you can stand up and say, yeah. I think Ketanji Brown Jackson is an idiot. Okay?

And she's really not an expert on anything. Especially the Constitution. You need the facts, on what the Founders said. Because the Founders would be absolutely against what they did in 1935.

Because that just -- what does it do?

It just sets up a fourth branch of government.

EXPLAINED: Why the Warner-Netflix/Paramount Merger is DANGEROUS for All of Us

The biggest media merger in modern history is unfolding, and Glenn Beck warns it’s the most dangerous consolidation of power America has faced in decades. With six corporations already controlling 90% of the nation’s news and entertainment, a Warner-Netflix or Warner-Paramount megacorporation would create an unstoppable information cartel. Glenn exposes how “too big to fail” thinking is repeating itself, how global elites and “experts” are tightening their grip, and why handing our entire cultural narrative to a handful of companies is a direct threat to freedom. The hour is late — and the stakes couldn’t be higher.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: By the way, it's never good when you consolidate power. It's never good.

And what is going on now, with this Netflix Warner Brothers paramount stuff, I don't care if Larry Ellison is a conservative or not.

No one should have that much power.

I did a show, gosh, four years ago. I don't even remember when I did it.

We looked it up. In the 1980s. 19 percent of American media was owned by over 50 companies.

Forty years later, 90 percent of the media is watched and controlled by six companies.

National Amusements, the Red Stone Family controls CBS, CMT, MTV, Nickelodeon, gaming and internet. Simon & Schuster Books. That's all one.

Disney, ABC, ESPN, History Channel, Marvel, Star Wars, video games and print.

TimeWarner controls CNN, Warner Brothers, HBO, Turner, video games, internet, and print media like TIME. Comcast, MSNBC, NBC.

CNBC, Telemundo, the Internet.

New Corp. Fox. National Geographic. Ton of others. Sony, with a ton of movies, music and more. The big six. They're valued at nearly $500 billion.

Now, this is something I put together five years ago. So I don't even know. This is probably not even valid even today.

And now we're talking about Netflix, Warner Brothers. Paramount, into all of these one giant corporation. It's wrong! It's wrong!

We can't keep putting all -- everything into the hands of just a few! It's what's killing us!

We've got to spread this around. We can't -- the government cannot okay mergers like this.

They're big enough he has

What happened -- what happened when the banks went under, or almost went under in '08. What did they say the problem was?

They said the banks are too big to fail.

Too big to fail.

Because they were providing all of the services, everybody needs. All the time. And there's only a handful of them.

So if they fall, then everything falls.

Right?

That was the problem. So what did we do to fix it?

We made them bigger!

We let them merge with other banks, and gobble up other things!

And started taking on the local banks.

And so now, your banks that were too big to fail. Are now even bigger. And their failure would be even worse!

What is wrong with us?

Seriously, we're not this stupid.

We're not this stupid.

I think we're just this comfortable.

We just think the experts have a plan. No. The experts don't have a plan.

Their plan is stupid. Their plan is to make it bigger.

Every time it fails. Make it bigger. Push it up.

Make it more global.

No. Haven't you seen what the entire world is like?

The entire world is over-leveraged. The entire world is on the edge.

The entire world is being redesigned.
So what do we do? We don't allow them to make things bigger! We need to start taking more individual and local control of things. They're making it bigger. Which will make the problem bigger. And make the problem so big, you won't be able to do anything about it, because all the experts. All of the heads. They'll all -- there will be six of them. And they will all be sitting in one room.

And they will all be making the instigations. And with them, making those decisions will be all the heads of all the countries around the world, that you're not going to have a say in any of that. They're already trying to do it with the WEF.

But if -- if the Supreme Court says, no, experts matter. And the president can't fire them. You will not have any control over anything!

We're at this place, where we can back out. We can turn around.

We can do it.

It's not too late. But the hour is growing very late.

I don't know about you, I don't like being this.

Up to the edge, you know what I mean?

I would rather have lots of breathing room, between me and the edge of the cliff.

But we don't have that anymore.

Everything has to be done right.

And we have to pay attention.

And the worst thing we can do is make things bigger.

Dream big, think small.