RADIOApril 29, 2024

The BIGGEST Issue With Trump’s SCOTUS Immunity Case

Former president Donald Trump is battling multiple legal challenges. But everything could change if the Supreme Court rules that he has full presidential immunity. However, there’s a big issue. Former Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Andrew McCarthy joins Glenn to explain why he believes the Court may NOT grant Trump full immunity. Plus, Andrew weighs in on whether Trump has a chance of moving his trials away from New York and Washington, D.C. and why former presidents haven’t been taken to court before.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Andy McCarthy, a National Review contributing editor, the Institute's Senior fellow, and a former chief assistant US attorney general. We won't hold this against him.

He was a former US attorney in the -- in the district of Manhattan.

So we'll just leave that alone.

Andy, how are you?

ANDY: Glenn, I'm doing great. How are you?

GLENN: Very, very good.

So let's start with the big story. I think, and that is the Supreme Court.

And what they were arguing last week, can you give me your honest take on what -- what this is really about for the future. Beyond Donald Trump. And how you think this will affect what is happening with Donald Trump.

ANDY: Glenn, I think it's important that you frame a question that way. Because it seemed to me.

And I reread the transcript over the weekend.

After listening to the oral argument.

The court is a lot more concerned, about the presidency, than about Trump.

GLENN: Sure. Should be.

ANDY: Yeah.

And it's -- it's an important point make. Because a lot of the coverage, has been this hysteria over whether, you know, the Trump packed Supreme Court is in the tank for him.

And they're going to get rid of Jack Smith's prosecution.

I don't think that will happen at all.

It's possible that Smith won't get his case to trial.

Depending on what the court does.

What I think the court is going to do, is send the case back to judge chuck in. Who was the trial judge in Washington. With instructions to sort out what things in the indictment against Trump are what you would call official acts, that might arguably be immune from prosecution, because they go to the core responsibility of the presidency.

And what are private acts or private wrongs. That he would not have immunity for, even though they have been enduring his presidency.

But the -- the upshot of the questioning, of the lawyers. Including Trump's lawyer, and this is particularly by Justice Barron. Justice Kagan. Trump's lawyer admitted that there's a lot of conduct charged in the indictment, that is private conduct, that really wouldn't be covered by an immunity claim.

Even though Trump has been saying a lot of stuff about absolute, complete immunity. And I think the concessions he made in the argument, that is John Sauer. Trump's lawyer, would be enough. If Smith was willing to tailor his indictment, down to the things that Sauer conceded, they could go ahead with the trial on just those acts.

He would lose a lot of evidence, but he probably should.

GLENN: So what are some of the acts that could fall under -- you know, private, and so you could prosecute. And what are the acts that are the president, and you don't prosecute?

ANDY: Yeah. So the one bright line that we can take away from this. Is that there seems to be consensus, that there is a -- a divide between office seeking, and the carrying out of the duties of an office.

So if something is purely in the nature of trying to get reelected. That's deemed to be private. Because it's not part of the duty, of the presidency.

It would be the same for anyone who was seeking office. Whether that person was an incumbent or not.

And then there were other things, that are clearly presidential.

So just to give some solid examples. That came out of the argument. Trump's lawyer conceded, that if Trump made a private scheme with private lawyers to get electors, designated for him and to supply documents to the Congress. Suggesting that they were the authentic, actually slate of electors, designated by the state.

That would be private conduct.

Because it's -- it's purely office seeking. And he carried it out, only with private lawyers.

On the other hand, there's an allegation in the indictment, that Trump tried to use the justice department. To signal to states, that there were serious concerns about fraud. And consider both removing the attorney general, when he got pushback. And considered sending a letter, that they never sent from the Justice Department to the state of Georgia, to tell them, you know, that they needed to do more scrutiny over what happened in the popular election. Trump argued very strongly. And I think the court will probably go along with this. That that is the president's control over the Justice Department, is -- is purely a presidential act, that has no part in a criminal prosecution.

GLENN: Correct.

ANDY: On those are the kinds of things that they are talking about sorting out.

GLENN: When Trump sat another group of electors, or tried to. That's what -- that's what the friends of Dershowitz did. I don't remember all of the attorneys. In the 2000 election.

That's what they were recommending, to be done. You have to do that. Or you have no case.

ANDY: Yeah. Well, let me just be clear, Glenn. They're not saying that Trump wouldn't have a defense at trial.

What we're talking about now is purely immunity. That is who he got the trial from happening in the first place. I think there's significant defenses to the fraudulent electors playing. Beginning with the fact that the electors themselves, didn't think they were fraudulent. They thought they were contingent.

They thought they were basically sitting in as a slate of electors, in the event that Trump prevailed either in the state courts or in the state legislature, to throw out the popular election. Then that would activate.

But they weren't trying to fool anyone into saying, that they were the actual electors that had been certified by the state.

GLENN: Can you get a fair trial on that? If indeed he has to go to court?

ANDY: Well, I think it's tough for him to get a fair trial, in Washington.

GLENN: Why isn't -- why can't someone make the case here?

Why can't his people make the case? That you can't get a fair trial, with the jury pool in New York, or in Washington, DC.

ANDY: I think Trump's problem is he's too famous in some ways.

The problem is that unlike almost any other defendant, he goes and says, one of the things that they can always says about him. He's the most famous guy in the world. And no matter where you have the case, you have the same pretrial publicity problems. And they kind of reject out of hand, the thought that because a jurisdiction votes substantially against Trump as a political matter.

That means they can't be fair to him as a legal matter.

You know, you can -- you can debate that all you want. About whether that's a sensible distinction to draw or not.

But it's a distinction the courts draw.

GLENN: Okay. What do you think is come downtown pike on this?

Based on -- go ahead.

ANDY: Yeah. I think they will send the case back to Judge Chutkan with instructions to go through the indictment and figure out, what's a public act and what's a private act.

If Smith wants to fight on that, then he's never going to get to trial, prior to Election Day. Which, of course, is his aim.

Because this would still be a live immunity claim, and immunity is one of the few things that you can actually appeal pre-trial. So I don't see how he would get to trial. But I do think Smith, if he wants to. And if it's that important to him to get to trial, quickly. He could say, you know what, I will dispense with all of the acts that you say are immunized, official, presidential acts. And we will just go to the trial on the private stuff.

It would be a weaker case for him.

But it wouldn't be an unwinnable case.

GLENN: And what is the punishment?

ANDY: Well, that's an interesting question. Because that may depend on another Supreme Course case this term. The one they argued, a week before on the obstruction statute, that is key to Trump's case.

That obstruction statute has a 20-year penalty. And it's the two main counts in the indictment against Trump.

The other two counts only have five-year penalties. So if the Supreme Court says that it rejects the way the Justice Department has been using the obstruction statute. Which it might. Then that would require probably a big overhaul of Smith's case. Because those charges are very important to him.

But if the court upholds that statute. Which it also might. Then you are looking at a potential of, you know, 40 years imprisonment.

Now, he won't get 40 years. But statutorily, there would be 40 years imprisonment.

On those charges. And I think ten on the other two. The other two are fraud on the United States. And the civil rights charge.

So he would be looking at, you know, statutorily 50 years imprisonment. Which would indicate, under the sentencing guidelines, that he would get, I would think. You know, four or five, six years.

Of a sentence. If he gets convicted on those charges.

GLENN: Unbelievable. You know, last week, the Biden administration was making the case, well, Donald Trump is the on me one that has ever broken the law. That's why we've never had this before. That's such crap, and we all know it.

Why haven't we had this problem before?

ANDY: I think a lot of the criminal -- the potential prosecutable criminal conduct has come up, late in presidential terms. Like, for example, with Clinton.

The pardon scandal happened as he was going out the door. And I was in the Justice Department, at the time.

There was -- there was over a year of pretty intense debate within the Justice Department, about whether he ought to be charged with bribery or not. In connection with those pardons.

But I think there's -- maybe this has changed now.

But there's always been a current of like, when a new administration comes in. Particularly if it's a new administration of a different party. They don't want to revisit what happened, with the last guy.

They want to just go ahead, on their own stuff.

This whole idea, we're looking forward. We're not looking back. That certainly had a lot to do with why the Bush Justice Department didn't prosecute Clinton.

And I think with Obama, there was a lot of rhetoric, during the 2008 campaign, about war crimes against Bush and all that stuff.

But when they got into power. They not only weren't interested in prosecuting anyone on war crimes. They reopened the CIA investigation. But then they closed it.

But they actually ended up adopting a lot of Bush/Cheney counterterrorism.

You know, I think, there's a lot of rhetorical campaign stuff about how, you know, lock her up.

And we will put these guys in jail.

But it doesn't come to pass. I actually think Trump is serious about it, this time. Because they've seen what they've done to have.

That's why I thought it was amusing in the Supreme Court argument. For the government lawyers to get up and say, you know, you don't have to worry about this.

This is just generous with Trump, it will never happen again.

And in the meantime, Trump is ahead in the polls. And he's running as the retribution candidate. He's promised he's going to do this stuff, right?

So -- so it's an amazing time to be alive, right?

Andy, tell me about how Alvin Brag's doing, so far.

ANDY: It's a terrible case. I think -- I wrote a column about this today, called How Judge Merchan is Orchestrating Trump's Conviction.

And I was reminded of, you know, the fact that Trump when he was a young guy, learned a lot about litigation from Roy Cohen.

And, you know, what Cohen used to say, his first principle of hardball litigation was, don't tell me what the law is, tell me who the judge is.

And I think Trump knows that. He knows it very well.

And as I'm closely watching the rulings. That are being made. And the arguments that the judge is allowing to be made. It's clear, that he has allowed Bragg. And just, so the people understand, this case is indicted as a falsification of business records, that occurred in the months of February through December of 2017.

Those are the only charges in the indictment. The case is being presented to the jury, as a conspiracy from 2015 through 2017, to steal the 2016 election by violations of federal campaign finance law, which Alvin Bragg, as a state prosecutor, has no authority to enforce. And that's the way the case has been framed by the prosecutor.

Based on orders from the judge. And that is the way that they are proceeding, and judge -- and Judge Merchan is allowing the state to prove, that Michael Cohen, pled guilty to two campaign finance offenses. And that David Pecker, the AMI guy, who ran the National Enquirer. That they had a non-prosecution agreement from the Justice Department.

And then paid a fine of $180 of the Federal Election Commission.

For violating federal election law. Now, those -- it's a black letter principle of law. That one person -- let's say person A. His guilty plea is not admissible evidence against person B. Even if A says, A and B acted together.

It's absolutely improper for these -- for this evidence of what Michael Cohen and David Pecker was thinking about the federal election laws. The fact that they made deals with the government. None of that stuff should come in. The judge is letting it in.

And he's not letting Trump explain to the jury, that he, Trump, was not charged by the justice department or the FEC. And the reason is obvious.

Actually expenditures that were cognizable under the federal law.

And he's also not letting Trump call an expert witness to explain campaign lay to the jury.

So what the jury is going to hear about campaign law is going to come from Michael Cohen and David Pecker.

So it's a farce.

GLENN: How is this a fair trial?

If you can't call people -- and you can't let the -- the jury know. Truly, the other side of it?

TRENT: Yeah. Look, it's even more fundamentally unfair than that.

In the United States, under the fifth amendments of the Constitution.

You are entitled, that you will be charged with a felony.

It has to be on the basis of an indictment returned by a grand jury, that explicitly says what the charge is.

The indictment in this case, talks about false bookkeeping in 2017. A case that has been presented to the jury, is a conspiracy to violate the he federal election laws.

It's mind-boggling, that it's being permitted.

GLENN: Wow.

Andy, thank you so much.

I appreciate it.

This would definitely lose in a higher court, don't you think?

ANDY: I do. But I think it will be -- I mean, Harvey Weinstein's conviction just got reversed last week. That was three years.

EXCLUSIVE: Chip Roy Explains His FIERY Rejection of Spending Bill

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

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN:

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

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

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

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

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

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

And it failed!

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

And then get your response.

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

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

So that new process was very effective.

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

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

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

GLENN: And not blind trust. Chip.

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

GLENN: Yep.

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

GLENN: Okay.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GLENN: And I love you.

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

And added a 5 trillion that are increase.

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

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

And everything else. I yield back.

GLENN: Okay. I yield back.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or at least six months.

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

And totally flip this thing.

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

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

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

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

Where do we disagree?

Can you give them --

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

GLENN: Republican. Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

So our job was to force that change.

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

But now I have to now manage that.

GLENN: Right. I know. I know.

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

GLENN: So hang on.

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

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

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

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

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

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

GLENN: Thank you for that, by the way.

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

Is that the one you're talking about?

Or is this another bill that could be another nightmare?

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

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

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

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

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

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

GLENN: Okay.

Chip, thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Okay. Where were we, Liz?

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

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

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

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

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

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

And he's hired 1200 of them.

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

I've got news for you.

Donald Trump is going to cut those positions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There's nothing more un-American than that.

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

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

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

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

Look under your seats.

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

Ugh!

Now...

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

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

Or this is the purpose of this position.

To, quote, promote health equity.

To promote health equity.

What does that mean?

It means racial criminalization in health care.

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

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

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

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

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

It's discrimination.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah. Okay.

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

Slaves need to be free. Okay.

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

Let me limp up to explain this once more.

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

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

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

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

It's already covered!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We would go to jail.

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

We're going to look at everybody.

But we lean towards white people.

Did you have Wheaties for breakfast?

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

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

It's the same thing.

But don't expect the Democrats to get it.

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

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

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

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

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

It's not Kamala Harris.

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

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

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

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

What he really believes.

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

And then he rapes you.

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

And you should elect me.

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

But thank you for telling me who you really are.

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

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

GLENN: Yep. Yep.

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

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

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

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

No!

They have representation. Of all the small towns.

All the farming towns.

Everything else.

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

I think there should be electoral colleges in states now.

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

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

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

Or Idaho!

Or Alabama!

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

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

And we have completely different values than you do.

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

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

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

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

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

But you don't have a case.

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

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

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

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

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

You know, every time. Look at Wyoming.

Jackson Hole now controls Wyoming. Just controls it.

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

All the big cities.

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

That's why we have an electoral college.

And it didn't used to be this way.

But our cities are becoming mega cities.

Almost states in and among themselves.

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

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

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

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