RADIOAugust 12, 2024

Did Kamala Harris ILLEGALLY Inherit Biden’s Campaign Money?

Federal Election Commission Chairman Sean Cooksey joins Glenn to weigh in on a major question about the 2024 election: Was it legal for Kamala Harris to inherit Joe Biden’s entire election campaign, including his multi-million-dollar war chest? While Cooksey can’t comment on any possible investigations, he calls the situation “completely unprecedented” and explains why he believes “It's something that is going to have to go through an FEC process, and maybe a court process too to get to the bottom of it.” Plus, Glenn asks Cooksey to weigh in on claims of illegal straw donor schemes revolving around the left-wing fundraising platform ActBlue.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Sean Cooksey is the Federal Election Commission chairperson. I really appreciate you coming on, Chairman, and helping us figure out exactly what is going on.

We want to start with this situation. How do you transfer money from one person to another? Legally? Can you do that?

SEAN: Well, thanks for having me on, Glenn. And you're right. We talked about that at the top.

Which is that it's a completely unprecedented situation. We haven't had anything like this happen for at least 50 years. To have a presidential nominee, drop out just a few weeks before the convention, before he's been formerly nominated and hand over his entire campaign operation, including millions of dollars, cash on hand, to a different candidate. To his vice presidential nominee, although she hasn't been formerly nominated yet.

It's really no surprise that this race is a lot of legal questions. Again, a completely novel situation.

Some experts have tried to argue, that this is permissible. But a lot of election experts have raised a lot of big questions about this. Some have said, it is unlawful. That you can't just switch the name on a committee and give it over to another person without that being an illegal transfer. It's something that is going to have to go through an FEC process, and maybe a court process too to get to the bottom of it.

GLENN: So I know, that for my charity, let's say. If I raise money, and it is designated for, let's say, hurricanes. I can only use that money to help people recover from the hurricane.

I cannot transfer it to another, and even if it's a bigger emergency, legally, I can't move that money. To any other place.

It's the same kind of thing with this, isn't it?

SEAN: I mean, it's a big question. What these donors were told. And what they thought they were given to. To your point. All these people were giving money, they thought to reelect Joe Biden as president. And now they're being told, no. Actually, this money is going to a completely different candidate. That you may or may not really approve of. One of the big questions that happens under the FEC guidance is whether donors in that kind of situation are entitled to a refund. Or to have the campaign be required to ask their permission, to redesignate it.

I think one of the big problems though, is really just the lack of time on the clock. Where a situation where, the election is less than 13 weeks away, at this point.

GLENN: Jeez.

SEAN: And the wheels of government move so slow. I'm concerned that really none of this is going to be resolved before Election Day.

GLENN: And it won't really matter, after Election Day, will it?

SEAN: I mean, I think for all intents and purposes, right.

Any fine or any unwinding that happens, after the fact. Israel will not really do anything to change the vote count on Election Day.

GLENN: So the money she got from the Biden/Harris campaign. They transfer it over. But is that really -- that's really not that important. Compared to what she's raising now.

I mean, she's raising money hand over fist.

Like I've never seen before.

SEAN: No. I think that's a fair point, about why maybe at the end of the day, this won't matter much.

I mean, reportedly both the Harris committee, and the Trump committee, right?

Are raising hundreds of millions of dollars every month. They have to report that to the FEC. Every month on the 20th. So, for example, in a little bit less than two weeks here.

We'll get the hard numbers on what they raised in July.

Harris Committee, I believe, reported over $300 million raised. So it may be the case, that whatever cash was left over from the Biden committee, doesn't make a big difference at the end of the take.

GLENN: We're talking to the Federal Election Commission chairperson. He's the guy who is at the SEC, that is -- or at the FEC, that is making sure all the money is on the up and up.

And everything is played by the rules.

His name is Sean Cooksey. And, Sean, to be fair to them, you could make the case, that when I gave money to Biden/Harris.

A lot of people would say, I was just giving it, because I didn't want Donald Trump.

And Harris was part of that team.

And if Joe Biden would have died.

Wouldn't the money have gone to her anyway?

VOICE: Well, I think the big problem with that possibility, is that this happened before the convention.

One of the big sorted of open questions is what happened, when she's on the paperwork. It's called, you know -- they call her the vice presidential nominee.

But she really hasn't gone through the role -- she hasn't been nominated by the convention yet.

In that case, you know, it would have also been possible for Joe Biden to switch vice presidential nominees. And things would be very different.

I think, again, it will have to go through some court process, ultimately, at the end of the day. To get that settled.

And I don't think that will happen before the election unfortunately.

GLENN: So I don't know if this is your purview.

Or if you can comment on this.

But this is the first time that I have seen in American history, where the democratic process didn't really happen.

I mean, it happened.

People went to vote. But they didn't vote for her, to be president.

And it was -- you know, really funky.

I think a lot of people on the democratic side.

Wanted a different candidate.

But the DNC shut it down.

And then at the last minute, they say this was a grassroots movement.

But it appeared to me, at least, a coup. You know, he's not going to leave. He's not going to leave. They give him a deadline of Sunday.

Deadline for what? He's already made his decision. Then Sunday, at the very last minute, he changes his mind. And then Barack Obama comes out and says, we will see how this Democratic process works, and there were no votes.

It was just going to the -- the electors, and the superdelegates. And that's just the party.

It -- I mean, it is -- there's -- is this totally funky?

Is this legal?

The way this has happened.

SEAN: I think you're right. It's absolutely not a grassroots nomination process. I think it's really the exact opposite of that.

Which is party leaders.

Party elders. Coming together.

To decide, you know, amongst a couple dozen of them. Who they want as their nominee.

In fact, it's really sort of a throw back to the way parties used to nominate presidential candidates.

Right?

Sort of in the proverbial smoke-filled rooms, where they would say, you know, primary be damned. We don't really care what the voters think. We are going to just make this election, as bosses, of who is going to be up for president.

And I think that's really kind of a good summation of what will happen here.

GLENN: And that's still legal to do that?

I mean, do parties get to make their own rules, right?

SEAN: Right. At the end of the day, the parties make their own rules. They chose several decades ago, to really go to primary voting processes. They don't have to do that.

Ultimately, the party decides how they want to select their nominees.

GLENN: Okay. So tonight, we have been following this -- this Act Blue. And all of these organizations, that are raising money for the Democrats.

And to me, and I'm not asking to you comment on this. Nor am I putting words in your mouth. This is me saying this. I've done enough research on the Tides foundation to know how this shell game works.

And they're raising all kinds of dark money through things like Act Blue. And they're setting up all these different organizations.

And I guess you can do that. That's fine. The one thing that is happening right now, is there are reports that they're doing something called smurfing. It's being called smurfing.

And that is, if someone makes a donation of let's say $100,000, all of a sudden, it will show up on the books that they made an 18,000-dollar donation, and they did it in ways that aren't even humanly possible.

And we looked into this, tonight -- I mean, when we show you this, America.

I think you're going to be. You're going to be flabbergasted. James O'Keefe did a recent report, where he highlighted donations to a Cindy Nowe. N-O-W-E of Maryland. She claimed to have not made the majority of the donations.

If you go to the FEC database, on Cindy Nowe of Maryland, the donations through Act Blue do seem suspicious. We're not saying that it's illegal.

We don't know yet. Coincidentally, through an accident, as we were double-checking the work. One of our researchers typed in Cindy Rowe, R-O-W-E, of Massachusetts. And you find the same exact donation pattern, on a Cindy Rowe instead of a Cindy Nowe.

So, yes, James O'Keefe was right about Cindy Nowe.

But the same pattern is there with Cindy Rowe. What makes it even more suspicious, is that the names are nearly identical. Only one difference.

Are you guys looking into these -- these irregularities here? Or these strange instances?

SEAN: Well, you know, as you said, as a matter of law and FEC policy, I can't comment on any investigation the FEC may or may not be doing.

But what I can say, at a general level, that the FEC takes misreporting and straw donor schemes, which is I think another name for what you called smurfing, we take those things extremely seriously.

Those are some of the most serious violations. That we have at the FEC. Where you are misreporting your identity on campaign reports.

Where you're giving someone else money, in order to make a political contribution for you. Those are serious violations. Many people have gone to prison for those kinds of things.

And I know this is an issue that reporters have been focused on. I know it's one that other government agencies are looking into.

The Virginia attorney general, I know, and the committee on how the administration in Congress are looking into this.

I think it's worth watching their work on that issue, and any results that come out of their investigations.

GLENN: And is that because the FEC is -- I mean, you may or may not be investigating it?
But you're so slow. Will it matter, if the FEC picks it up?

SEAN: Well, ultimately, we do move as fast as our resources allow on any enforcement matter. And there's opportunities for private parties to get involved. If we -- if we move too slow, under the statute. Whether something can come out --

GLENN: Wait. Wait. Wait.

What does that mean?

Private parties can get involved. What does that mean?

Under the statute of the FEC, when you file a complaint with the FEC, any private person can file a complaint with the FEC, alleging a violation of campaign finance law.

And under the statute, if the FEC does not act on that complaint. Doesn't give an up-or-down vote, whether this is something that we'll look into or not. Within 120 days, the person who filed the complaint, can then sue.

Saying, we are too slow.

We are not acting on their complaint fast enough.

And ultimately, if it's shown, we're not acting on that complaint fast enough. That person can then file a private lawsuit, to enforce the law themselves.

GLENN: Wow. Wow.

And the -- like the Virginia attorney general, I'm not sure, you know, if you can answer this. Or if you can -- if you even know the answer.

But the attorneys general, they can only look at the -- the potential fraud, that's happening in their state.

So Cindy Rowe in Massachusetts, would have to be the Massachusetts attorney general.

SEAN: I don't know the -- the specific limits on their authority. Certainly, attorneys general have really wide-ranging, you know, subpoena authority, and investigative authority, to launch their own inquiries into their own things.
To start demanding documents and witnesses and interviews.

Whether that could be limited to their own state. It might depend on their state. It might depend on where act blue is located. And sort of where their servers are and things like that, as a sort of jurisdictional perspective. But I think the one thing you do know, Congress has jurisdiction throughout the entire country. And they wouldn't be limited in that kind of way. One last question, and I believe we have to run. Because I have a network break.

But the -- they'll say that this is just all politics. This is just a smear campaign. I don't want to be involved in any of that.

I want to look for real things. Is there enough smoke here, to believe that this is worth questioning? No outcome.

But it is a legitimate line of inquiry.

SEAN: I mean, I think the action sort of speaks for themselves here. When you have multiple agencies. Members of Congress. Attorney general, who have been alerted. And are interested enough, to operationalize their offices.

To or the of get the machinery moving, to get the facts. I think that really speaks -- speaks for itself.

GLENN: This is the Federal Election Commission. The FEC chairman, Sean Cooksey. Sean, thank you so much. God bless.

SEAN: Thank you so much, Glenn.

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.