RADIOJune 21, 2023

Legal experts DEBATE: Is Donald Trump in ACTUAL DANGER?

Donald Trump was indicted on 37 federal counts earlier this month, becoming the first U.S. president to face such charges. The case centers around Trump’s alleged mishandling of classified documents, which were found at his Mar-a-Lago home. And even though entire situation screams of partisan politics, Trump will likely still have to face the court. So, is he in REAL legal danger? Are these charges ACTUALLY serious? Or is the far-left’s case against him as weak as their current commander-in-chief? In this clip, two legal experts — Judicial Watch’s Michael Bekesha and well-known attorney Alan Dershowitz — both join Glenn to give their own, differing opinions on the Trump case...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Michael Bekesha is on with us. Judicial Watch senior attorney. Michael, how are you?

MICHAEL: I'm good. Thanks for having me.

GLENN: So let's talk about Trump's case. Alan Dershowitz is coming on in a minute. And he's saying, he thinks he's on trouble on this one.

You're saying the opposite.

So explain the case, that they have against Donald Trump. And where you think the bright spots are.

MICHAEL: Yeah. So basically, the prosecution of Donald Trump, with respect to the documents, all started because the national archives. Somebody at the national archives, thought that maybe President Trump had some records that maybe he shouldn't have taken with him. When he left office.

That's how this started. And in the Wall Street Journal, I wrote a piece, talking about a similar case. That Judicial Watch had against the archives, when it came to President Clinton, and his records.

While he was in office, President Clinton created these audio recordings. And on these audio recordings, had all sorts of information. You know, they had conversations with foreign leaders.

It had discussions about cruise missile attacks to get Osama bin Laden.

It had information that would be classified, had it gone through proper channels. But instead, President Clinton kept these tapes in his sock drawer, and decided to take them with him, when he left office.

GLENN: And did he declassify them before he took them?

MICHAEL: He didn't do anything. According to what we know, he simply took them with him. And Judicial Watch wanted the tapes, when they found out about them. We figured, these are presidential records. These are tapes showing President Clinton being president.

So we sued the national archives for the tapes. And in that case, between 2010 and 2012, the Justice Department, the Obama Justice Department, took the position that whatever President Clinton took with him, were not presidential records. They were personal records. And there's nothing that they could do to get them back.

In 2012, the district court here in -- in DC, agreed with the government.

And the judge in that case said, the soul -- it is the sole responsibility of the president, to decide, what records are personal.

What records are presidential.

And once they are taken out of the White House, there's nothing that the court could do to get them back.

GLENN: Now, is that because -- I'm just trying to play devil's advocate.

Is that because these were tapes that he made. And not top secret documents.

Even though, they may have contained top secret information. But he made the tapes.

MICHAEL: You know, it doesn't -- Glenn, it doesn't really make a difference.

GLENN: Okay.

MICHAEL: Not only -- it wasn't as though President Clinton was pressing record. And going out and buying the tapes.

You know, based on, he was doing this along with a historian. And based on the historian's discussions about it. What he's told the public. The White House operation staff, helped schedule the interviews, helped prepare the tapes, probably went out and purchased the tapes.

And so the only thing that President Clinton did was place the tapes at the end of the session, into a sock drawer. And that's very similar to what president -- documents. If you look at the indictment, paragraph two, says while he was president, Trump placed documents in boxes. Paragraph four says, when President Trump left office, he took those boxes with him.

To me, it's not a sock drawer. But it was boxes. It was the same process. President Trump decided what he wanted to keep. What episode to leave.

And he took what he wanted to keep with him, when he left office.

GLENN: Okay. So help me out on this.

Again, I want to ask tough questions. Because I don't know legally where this is headed.

Except, all the way around, trouble.

Trump's defense, is that his actions were protected under the presidential records act. But that act excludes, and I'm quoting, any documentary materials that are official records of an agency.

So the indictment alleges that he had the information about our nuclear program. Defense. Weapon's capabilities. Potential vulnerabilities.

Of the US and our allies.

Is it -- is it your view that these kinds of documents are protected under the PRA, because of the Bill Clinton.

Or is there more?

MICHAEL: There's more. The fact that the presidential records act talks about agency records is really -- is really a red herring.

Because as the courts -- the DC appellate court here found that really, the focus is, are the records received by the president?

Once the president receives a record from the agency, it's no longer just an agency record. It's now a record received by the president.

So it has a different status. I mean, just imagine. It doesn't make sense, that once a president. The president gets a record from the agency. Is it like a library book, and he has to return it within 21 days.

Absolutely not.

It's his record.

And under law, he can do what he wants with it.

GLENN: Right. And there are exceptions.

No, no, no. It is treated that way, with things like the nuclear code.

He has access to that. But it's in a football, held by the member of a Department of Defense. That's with him all the time.

So there are some records, that do have to be signed in and signed out, right?

MICHAEL: Well, maybe. The question is: What is allowed by the Constitution? And these are questions that have never really been addressed. The president of the United States is commander-in-chief. Everything in the executive branch flows from him. So there is one question on, what limitations can Congress place on the commander-in-chief? But there's also a question of whether or not Congress can mandate or require, another branch of government to do something.

And so there are strong arguments, that if the presidential records act, is what some folks say it is.

Then that would be unconstitutional, because it's placing burdens on the office of the president, that is not allowed.

The other question under the Espionage Act, is authorization.

While -- while someone is in office, while President Trump was in office, he was authorized to maintain that information. To maintain those documents.

If you went into the Oval Office, he could show you that document. Because he had slight authorization to do what he wanted with it.

So the question is: Did he authorize himself by -- to take those records with him when he left?

GLENN: Well, hang on just a second. Because he does have the ability to declassify. But even according to his own words, in the indictment, there's a transcript of a conversation where he holds up a classified document to somebody. And somebody writing a book about him. See, as president, I could have declassified it. Well, now I can't. So this is still a secret.

So he knew that he possessed something secret. He knew that he hadn't chosen to declassify it as president.

And now he's showing it to a member of the press. Not as president.

MICHAEL: Right. And the question there. And I think it's facts that, again, indictments are just one side of every fact.

And I don't know the fact. You don't know the facts. The American public don't know the facts.

But the question is, whatever document he had in his hand, to how did he get into his hand?

And I think we need what we need to do and what the public needs to wait. Is to wait until all the facts come out.

To see whether or not he was, in fact, authorized to still have that record. And maybe the facts will show that he wasn't.

You know, I keep thinking, if President Trump, after he had left office, somehow got access to records, he must have access to, when he was president. That would be where a problem may lie.

GLENN: Right.

MICHAEL: But if the records were in his possession while he was this office. And he took affirmative steps to maintain those records when he left, there are real constitutional legal questions about whether or not that was authorized.

GLENN: Okay. Let me give you a statement from Bill Barr.

And I'm sorry. I'm just playing devil's advocate. Both sides. I will hit Alan with the same thing.

Both sides hard. Because I want to ask the questions. That people aren't asking. But I think the American people are asking.

There's a statement from -- not one of my favorite people in the world.

A former attorney general Bill Barr. And I want to give you a chance to respond to it.

He said, quote, I think this counts under the Espionage Act, that he willfully retained those documents are solid counts. They gave him every opportunity to return those documents.

They acted with restraint. They acted very deferential with him. And they were very patient. They talked to him for almost a year to try to get those documents. And he jerked them around.

They finally went to a subpoena. And what did he do according to the government. He lied. And obstructed that subpoena.

And when they did a search, they found a lot more documents.

There are official records. They're not his personal records. Battle plans for an attack on another country. Defense Department documents about our capabilities. In no universe, Donald J. Trump, do these belong. Or are personal documents of Donald J. Trump.

MICHAEL: There's a lot there.

To begin with, the end part. The Obama Justice Department, would disagree. So would the federal court, that concluded, that once a president leaves office, it is assumed that the president chose to take those records. Had designated them as personal.

And that there was nothing that could be done about it. And so just because former Attorney General Barr doesn't think those records should have been taken, doesn't mean that lawfully, they couldn't have been taken.

The other interesting part is Attorney General Barr seems to focus a lot on the fact that President Trump may have not -- all the records that he had been asked to turn over.

Well, under the Espionage Act, that's irrelevant. So even if he had returned those records. If the espionage is what everybody thinks it is, then President Trump could have still been charged under the Espionage Act.

GLENN: Okay.

MICHAEL: So the idea that it's somehow different because he had the records, really is just showing an emphasis that he's displeased or unhappy with President Trump's actions and has nothing to do with what the law actually is.

GLENN: When Trump was indicted last week, I was on vacation. And I was not paying attention to the news.

And I mentioned it on Monday, when I came back. But I told you, I wanted to really get the best minds on both sides.

And talk to them. And because there's -- there's people who like -- I should say. Have defended Trump.

And may like Trump. But one of those who I think is very credible on this. Because he has defended Trump time and time and time again. Written books about it

Now says, this is real trouble. And his name is Alan Dershowitz.

So I just had, this is no big deal, we can win this.

And he says, there's real trouble. So let's get the real trouble side now from Alan Dershowitz. Hi, Alan. How are you?

ALAN: Hey, how are you? There's real trouble. But that doesn't mean that it cannot be won. This is a very, very, very serious charge. You know, in my book, Get Trump, I predicted all of this. I also predicted the indictment of Hunter Biden on minimal charges in order to nonsense the -- the claim that there's equal justice. But the problem with Donald Trump is illustrated by that plaque, that some people have in their homes, with the stuffed fish on it, that says, if I had only kept my mouth shut, I would still be swimming. All of Trump's problems comes from his own statements. What he said, the most serious one was what he said to a writer, who was writing a book on Meadows, in which he allegedly showed him some classified material. He says, it wasn't. It was just newspapers.

GLENN: Right.

ALAN: You hear it, apparently, rustling.

And I don't know what the facts are. But -- and saying, I could have declassified this, but I didn't. So it's still secret.

That seems like the government was using it as an admission, that he didn't declassify anything. If he hadn't said that, his claim of declassification would be very strong. Then he spoke to his lawyers. Now, I don't think those statements should ever be admissible. Those are the lawyer/client privilege statements. I would be fighting like hell to keep those out. Because I can't talk to my clients anymore, as a result of that ruling.

GLENN: Thank you. So wait. Wait.

I watched enough Perry Mason. And I know that's not actual law.

But if you break the bond of attorney-client privilege, you -- sometimes you're working with a dummy like me. And I'm like, I don't know. What happens if we don't give it to them?

Well, I'm asking for your legal opinion.

ALAN: What if you tell it to a priest? What if you say to a priest, you know, I know this would be a sin. But I'm thinking of perhaps of not giving it over. And the priest says, no. You have to give it over. Or you talk to your doctor. All of these privileges are now at risk as a result of this terrible position.

Made by judges who handpicked by the special prosecutor. Remember the case is in Florida. But this special prosecutor brought these legal motions to compel the lawyers to speak in DC, where he knew he would get him on federal court.

So he was judge shopping. Then he got his favorable rulings. And then he takes the case to Florida.

GLENN: Wow.

ALAN: And I would hope the Florida court would look at that in a very, very critical light because, as I say, I have to tell my clients now. Don't ask me any questions. Because I may have to disclose them. I'm not taking notes anymore with clients. I'm not turning over anything that my clients tell me in confidence, just because some court says -- you know, and then there's this absurd thing of a tainting. Where if you say something that is lawyer-client privilege, the government says, all right. We'll pick some government lawyers, who have lunch every day with the prosecutors, and stand next to them in a urinal every day, and we will allow them to look at the lawyer/client privilege material. Read them. Oh, they promised they won't.

GLENN: No, I don't say anything to the prosecution.

That's what's happening now. And just had the courage to have a decision saying, no. She was going to appoint an independent judge. A former judge. A great judge in New York, to look over the lawyer, client classified materials. The court said, no, no, no.

No, that's special treatment for Trump. No, that's what everybody should get.

GLENN: So the crime -- the crime fraud exception to attorney/client privilege. You don't buy into that here?

ALAN: I buy into it in general, but I have to tell you, I have done 250 cases involving criminal defendants.

I would say in half of them, the conversation included some reference to maybe if I went to Brazil, I couldn't get caught. No, I don't that. You'll get caught. But the client raises all kinds of questions. That's why it's confidential.

GLENN: Correct.

ALAN: To allow the client to say anything they want.

GLENN: Correct. Isn't it the same reason why we have the presidential confidentiality? When -- when you're talking to the president in the Oval and you're brainstorming, people don't want to say things that are maybe unpopular. Or say things that are maybe crazy in hindsight. But you're brainstorming. I don't want that on the record. I want to have a private conversation.

If you can't have that, you don't really have anything.

ALAN: No. I agree you with. What I taught at Harvard for 50 years. I would say to my students, what you're saying is confidential. And you can be as speculative as you want.

You can say any wild thing about criminal law. You can make statements that you would be ashamed to have made public.

This is for a Socratic discussion. And Socratic discussions is anything goes.

GLENN: The indictment doesn't ever mention the Presidential Records Act.

ALAN: Or espionage. Or the word espionage.

That's being thrown around all over the place.

Yeah.

GLENN: So where is -- because I have gathered from what I've read from you, that this is a serious charge. And he will have a hard time. Why?

It sounds like there's a lot of other legal issues to really go after.

ALAN: There are. That's why it's not a slam-dunk case. That's why the case should never have been brought. Forget about former president.

You don't bring against the man who is running to become the president against the incumbent, head of your party, unless you have a slam-dunk case. Now, I think they have a case.

But it's not a slam-dunk case. There are these legal issues, involving lawyer-client privilege. The government doesn't have the piece of paper that was waved, allegedly in front of the writers. So they have a hard time proving that. They have to deal with the classification issue. It's a winnable case. But it's also a losable case. Whereas the case in New York, is absurd.

The case in New York, the prosecutor should be disciplined for bringing it. In 60 years of this, doing this business, I've never seen a weaker indictment than New York. I cannot say that about the Florida case.

That doesn't mean, it's going to end up with Trump being convicted. Particularly, since the trial is in a fair district, unlike Manhattan.

I love Manhattan. I live in Manhattan. You can't get a fair trial for Donald Trump in Manhattan. Maybe you can in Palm Beach County.

GLENN: Okay. So let me -- let me take you through the crazy scenario, that he goes to trial. In the middle of an election season.

He's convicted, sentenced. What does this look like?

We've never -- we didn't do this with Nixon. We've never did this before. What does this look like?

ALAN: Nobody knows what it looks like. The only thing we know for sure, is he can run for president even if he's president. Eugene V. Debs, Curly became mayor of Boston, while he was in prison. The Constitution specifies only several criteria. And the Constitution means what it says. So you can run.

You can even serve as president. That's not going to happen. The judge will not sentence him to prison. These crimes -- these crimes did not endanger national security. They're not espionage. The media is throwing around the term espionage. The first thing that has to happen, is this trial has to be on television. We, the American people do not trust the media to tell us the truth about the trial. If you watch MSNBC and CNN and read the New York Times, you're going to think it's an open-and-shut case.

If you see other networks, you will see it's an open-and-shut case of innocence. You know, I was a lawyer in the O.J. Simpson case. There was a poll that showed that people who actually watched the trial on television, were not surprised at the verdict.

But people who read about it in the newspapers, was shocked beyond belief.

So we have to be able to see this trial. And the word espionage should not be allowed to be used in the trial by the prosecutor. And if he does use it, there should be a mistrial.

GLENN: Why is this espionage -- where did they even get that?

ALAN: It's the name of the statute. It's as if Congress passed the statute entitled The Child Molestation and Inside and Trading Act.

And they indict somebody for insider trading.

And they go in front of the jury and say, this man has been indicted under the Child Molestation Act.

GLENN: Wow.

ALAN: It's the name of the statute. It was passed in 1917 to go after war resisters, mostly religious people who had a conscientious objection about going to the First World War. And Woodrow Wilson passed the Espionage Act, which had very little to do with espionage. It had mostly to do with dissent and whistle-blowing. And all of the whistle-blowers have been indicted. Under the Espionage Act.

I defended many anti-war protesters, and other dissenters under the Espionage Act. And the government loves to use the word espionage. But there's no allegation here, that led to foreign enemies

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.