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

Did Hunter Biden CUT A DEAL for his guilty plea?

Hunter Biden has entered a guilty plea in his federal tax case, claiming that he doesn’t want to cause his family any more stress. But Glenn isn’t buying it. Why would Hunter suddenly plead guilty — after his Alford plea was rejected — and face jail time? What would have come out during his trial that the Biden family wants to hide? What are the odds that he cut a deal with his father, Joe Biden, that either he or Kamala Harris would pardon him? And how many times do the media and Democrats have to lie to you?! They spent years insisting that Hunter Biden was innocent and that his laptop was fake. Their lies drove families apart! And now, will anyone face consequences?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Hunter Biden's trial in California, ended were it started yesterday.

Because he was charged with nine tax charges.

And he was facing, you know, a long, long time at prison. And he decided, you know what, let's just cut to the chase. I did it, your honor. And he said, you know, after, you know, after the last five years. Where I've really sobered up.

I realized that I have to make amends. And so I'm just going to -- I'm just going to tell you that I did it.

The judge said, wait. Wait. Wait.

So you're agreeing that you committed every element of every crime. Yes. Yes, your honor. I do.

Because I really feel I have learned my lesson, and I should pay for my crimes. Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

So after five years, of denying all of this. Putting us through this horrendous ordeal, the first time it comes out yesterday and says, yeah. Yeah, I did it.

What? Hang on. What's his name?

Who is this? Who is this?

Hello!

STU: Hi. Hello.

GLENN: Yes. Hello.

STU: Glenn. Yes. Alan Newman.

GLENN: Alan Newman, hi. How are you?

STU: Heard the attorneys first talking about the story, and wanted to contribute to the conversation. Make sure they got the facts accurately. You seem to be skeptical of what went on yesterday.

GLENN: Well, it seems kind of odd, that, you know, he spent five years saying, he didn't do any of these things.

And then he goes to trial.

And he says, all right. All right. I did it.

STU: Yes.

Yes. He -- well, he's guilty of these crimes.

And he wants to take response...

GLENN: He what? Hello.

STU: He wants to take responsibility for his actions.

GLENN: Are you -- are you okay?

STU: Hunter Biden has spent his entire adult years trying to make good for the things that he did.

And he's now in a time in his life, season, where he's able to do that.

And we just think it's a wonderful thing to...

GLENN: Wait a minute. Hold on just a second. What are you laughing about?

STU: Look, it's -- we wanted to make sure the legal system was created with the respect of --

GLENN: Are you all right? Are you all right?

STU: The American people deserve the truth.
(laughter)

GLENN: So this -- so this -- so this is all on the up and up. He feels really, really bad.

STU: Hunter has had a --

GLENN: Hello.

STU: Biden is a loving father.
(laughter)

GLENN: And this -- and this -- hang on just a second. I'm talked to Hunter Biden's attorney.

In case you haven't learned, he suddenly decided he was guilty of all charges. This doesn't have anything to do with him just counting on his dad or Kamala to -- to pardon him, does it?

STU: Oh. Absolutely not, again.

We've never even considered.

GLENN: All right. All right. We -- we -- we thank Hunter Biden's attorney for joining us on today's program.

No, no, no. I mean, I don't think that's a problem. Hang up the phone.
(laughter)
All right. So -- so we've wasted all of this money. All of this time. How many times do they have to, really, honestly, lie to you?

How many times do they have to lie to you?

He didn't do any of those tax crimes. He was absolutely innocent. The laptop wasn't real. He wasn't working for the Chinese. Oh. The Dad had no idea.

Nobody in the family was enriching themselves. How many times does this administration -- does Kamala Harris and the Democrats and the media, how many times do they need to lie to America? Look them dead in the eye and lie to them, before they wake up? How many millions of dollars have we wasted? How much airtime has been wasted?

How many -- how many families have been driven apart, because of these lies?

And now, spit in your face. Oh, yeah. I did them.

Second spit in your face. And I'm not going to pay for it.

I'm going to get away with it.

I'm going to go to prison for a very long time. It's not just the lies. It's the fact that they -- they just think you're this stupid. You would never allow a friend to do this to you. You would certainly never let a guardian do this to you.

You would never let an employee do this to you. Why do you allow this to continue to happen?

Why America, why?

Do you know what they're doing right now?

They're Trump proofing the DOJ. This is a story from John Solomon and Just the News.

They're hiring, using a hiring authority, that is outside of the normal competitive process for hiring career officials. Normally to be hired is a career civil service job.

You have to list it in USAjobs.gov. Then they have several candidate. They go through them. They go through a competitive process, to choose these people.

Then the DOJ hires from that. But the DOJ uses a process outside of that. The noncompetitive process.

And they're hiring hundreds of attorneys, into areas that will be vital to protecting the Biden-Harris administration policies from a Trump administration or another future administration.

So what they've done, is they've taken everything that they wanted, and they are codifying it now. By putting attorneys all around it, that Trump cannot fire. I've got to tell you, if Trump gets in, I really want him to utter these words. Just -- just for me. It may not make a difference for anybody else. But just for me.

I really want him to say, I've dealt in real estate my entire life. So I'm pretty good at speculating housing prices and what's going to be a value and what's not.

You know that 5 million-dollar house that you have in the Washington area?

It's going to be worth dog crap very soon, because I am firing so many people. Housing is going to be plentiful, in the Tristate area.

Jeez! He's going to have to fire so many people, and they're going to fight. And they're going to say, oh, this is Draconian. I love that word. Because I use it every day.

Don't you use Draconian, Stu. Almost every day, in your everyday life.

STU: Absolutely, again. I make sure I use it five, ten minutes a day.

GLENN: It's Draconian. It's Draconian. You mean like Dracula?

They're already sucking the blood out of our neck.

What are you talking about? Anyway, so we have that to look forward to.

By the way, a top Department of Justice spokesperson, in New York, was caught on a hidden camera. Ripping Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney. You know, the one that went after Donald Trump.

Now, this is the chief spokesperson, for the southern part of New York. This is -- this is New York City.

Chief spokesperson for the Justice Department. And the Manhattan US attorney's office.

Okay. He was, you know, trying to, I don't know. Romance a woman and impress a woman, he says.

And he said, I've got to tell you, this case, that Bragg brought up. It's nonsense. It's nonsense. He said, he had known Bragg for 15 years. Previously worked for him. Described the unprecedented hush money case against Trump, as a perversion of justice.

Listen to the bit of this tape from Steven Crowder's people.

I don't have the cuts in front of me. Just play the -- just play the cuts of the district attorney.

Or the -- the spokesperson.

STU: I think they're a little mystified as to which clips you're looking for.

GLENN: Yeah. I'm sorry. We have a advertise connect between the meetings sometimes, and the show. Sorry about that.

So he goes on, and he says, you know, this case is nonsense. This is a perversion of justice.

Then he goes on to say. You, you know, he just wants to be something.

I don't know.

A mayor. I'm not sure what he wants to be.

But I know he's just not happy being the mayor of New York county.

Before he decided to prosecute Trump, did you know who he was?

Well, you do now.

So he said, wait a minute. Hang on. Hang on just a second.

Do we have his attorney on the phone.

We have his attorney on the phone.

Because what he said was, he didn't he was just trying to impress a girl. And it was -- it was not -- it was nothing that -- hello.

Who is this?

STU: Hi, Glenn, Alan Newman.

GLENN: Alan, you're back.

STU: Yes. As you mentioned, just trying to impress a girl. And that -- that's all.

GLENN: So when he said, it's a perversion of justice.

STU: Perversion of -- I came up with that one, yeah.

GLENN: You -- he didn't mean that. He was just trying to impress a girl.

STU: Well, he meant it, but, well, he -- well, he was trying to impress -- we've all said things to the ladies.

GLENN: Well, we've never --

STU: Glenn, sometimes -- every once in a while, we've all stepped up.

GLENN: No.

He said, at the federal level, I work, there's a 90-day rule, where you can't make any decisions on cases that are going to affect an election, within 90 days of the election. But the rule does not apply at the state level. Because the state level, it's like the F-ing Wild West. They're like idiots. They don't care. They're all political.

To put it mildly, it's a mockery of I couldn't wait. This whole thing is disgusting. They're just out to get Trump.

STU: Glenn, it's -- it's a travesty.

GLENN: It's a travesty.

STU: It's a sham. It's a mockery.

GLENN: It's a --

STU: It's a travashamockery.

GLENN: Okay.

Well, he apparently is pack in the good graces of everybody. Because he said, I regretful made some statements in private, in a social setting. That don't affect my views about two local and state prosecutions. So I guess it's all right.

STU: Yeah. They don't reflect their views at all.

GLENN: Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Newman.

GLENN: Wow. Wow. Wow.

Stu, you weren't around there, strangely for those two phone calls from the attorneys. I don't think there's -- I don't think there's -- I don't think they're spitting in the face of the American public. Do you?

STU: Not at all. No.

This is exactly how justice is supposed to play out.

Especially the way that -- the Hunter Biden one is such a great example of it. It certainly appears, Glenn. That Hunter Biden tried to come in.

He tried to plead. What was it? An Alford plea.

I didn't even recognize the term. It was basically to say, to say you're guilty, without admitting guilt.

Which, I don't know why it's a thing. But that's a thing.

They tried to negotiate that. They said, we're not going to accept that type of plea. Give us a half an hour. And then they just came back, he's just entirely guilty and totally fine with it. Every single thing in my mind. He got a call from daddy.

He called his dad. His dad said, all right. Just plead guilty.

And the second we get past this election, I'll pardon you.

GLENN: And that's absolutely going to happen.

And I remember when Ford did that with Nixon. And, oh, man. Everybody was pissed off. My dad who actually said, you know, Nixon does the same thing that everybody else does. They just got him, because he's a Republican.

I don't know if that's true.

It just didn't feel right to me.

Maybe it is. Now with some of the stuff that we know.

But still, he was pissed at Ford. He was for Nixon.

And he was pissed at Ford. He's like, that was a dirty deal.

That was a deal made, to get him out of the office.

And it was. And the same deal has been made, if, you know, should I die in office. Kamala, you have to pardon every member of my family.

And me.

And if I'm still in office, before I leave, I'm going to pardon everybody in my family.

It is a perversion of justice.

Why would you have to pardon your family, if you didn't do anything the whole time?

This whole time, do you know how much money and energy has been spent?

Do you know how many people have destroyed. Have their reputations destroyed.

Because you said, the laptop wasn't real.

Because you said, none of these charges are real.

You -- you had 50 former CIA and intelligence officials, lie and say this was a Russian operative. A Russian op.

And you threw the election. Trump would have won, according to all polls, had people believed the laptop.

He would have won. So you lied, you cheated. You stole. Then you lied again, to the American people.

You employed 56 people, from the CIA, and intelligence, who we no longer believe anymore. You destroyed the credibility of anybody in intelligence.

Then you had us spend millions of on this. You tore families apart, arguing back and forth, the laptop is not real. You're a conspiracy theorist. All of that stuff.

All of the damage done to our families. All of the damage done to reputations.

All of the money that has been spent. And now you spit in our face and say, yeah. Yeah. I did it.

I did it. And I really -- I'm really, really sorry about it. How dare you. How dare you.
(music)
Damn, America!

Wake up.

FACT CHECK: Are Illegal Immigrants Voting in Our Elections? | Glenn TV | Ep 375

Americans are finally starting the feel the impact of unchecked immigration under the Biden-Harris administration. Venezuelan gangs are terrorizing communities. Illegal immigrants in New York City now account for 75% of arrests in Midtown Manhattan. This isn’t by accident. It’s a globalist plan to overwhelm and collapse our country. Glenn Beck saw this coming back during the Arab Spring. He predicted how the movement would see Islamists, anarchists, Marxists, and progressives all working together. It would cascade throughout Europe and eventually to the United States. Now, in the middle of this chaos, there are two issues that citizens in every Western country — including ours — are being censored over: immigration and elections. Glenn connects the dots and does a deep dive on the data to answer: Are illegal immigrants voting in our elections? And if so, are the numbers meaningful enough to actually choose the next candidate? The numbers in the swing states are shocking! Some of the best work that exposes the White House’s master plan on illegal immigration has been produced by Mike Howell at the Heritage Foundation’s Oversight Project. He joins Glenn to separate fact from fiction on how widespread illegal voting by noncitizens really is and explains why Democrats in Congress really don’t want to pass the SAVE Act. “They’re lying to you. ... Illegal voting is a largely unpoliced matter by design.”

WARNING: The Feds could SEIZE your private land under THIS act

There’s a new law in the works that would drastically harm Americans’ ability to own land. Called the SUSTAINS Act, it would give the USDA the power to monitor “natural processes” and decide who owns “environmental services.” Glenn breaks down what that means: “They are claiming the processes that are on your land. You may not own the air, the trees, the water … nothing! What is your land worth without water?” Glenn also reviews how Kamala Harris' plan to tax investment income could further hurt the economy.

But it’s not too late to STOP this. You can submit public input on the SUSTAINS Act until Sept. 16, 2024, HERE: https://www.federalregister.gov/docum...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: I don't trust anybody anymore.

But I will tell you, we have no country left. I mean, let's just give you some of the headlines from today.

Harris calls for higher taxes, on investment income.

Now, what is that going to do, Stu. Just noodle this with me. She's giving more taxes on investment income.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: What do you think that is.

STU: Some would say, when you tax something, you discourage it. So if you're taxing investments, you're discouraging investments in American companies.

GLENN: Right. Right.

Yeah. But she says, she's only going to be taxing people who have a million dollars or more.

STU: She can say that all she wants. She's lying though.

GLENN: Yeah. I know.

But she's also, just so you know, she's only going after the people who have money to invest.

She's not going to go after the poor people on the investment thing.

STU: Good. Really?

She's not going to hit the people in massive debt with no income on their massive 401(k)s.

GLENN: Right. No. They're not going to.

Great story about workers feeling Bidenomic's pain as job creators fear the worse for Kamala. And this is what -- you know, this is what's happening. If you think your employer is going to be like, you know what, I'm going to add jobs. If Kamala gets in, you're out of your mind.

They're all going to batten down the hatches. By the way, job openings fell more than expected in I couldn't like. Which is huh.

What does that even mean? Hmm?

US Steel shares plunge as Biden/Harris prepare to block Nippon Steel takeover. People familiar with the matter told the Washington Post that President Joe Biden is preparing to announce that he will block the $14.9 billion deal. US shares have fallen now 41 percent this year.

Kamala Harris, the presidential nominee said, US Steel should remain American-owned at American operated. That was during a campaign event in Pittsburgh.

STU: What do you --

GLENN: Well, that would be good. That would be good. I would love that. Is anybody offering that to US Steel?

STU: Not according to US Steel. Which is kind of the issue. Which they say.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

STU: And I'm interested in your thoughts on this. Because it's not China. It's not Russia. This is an ally, a close ally, Japan, who is trying to purchase US Steel. Obviously US Steel being like this iconic company, makes us feel weird.

Has the word US. United States in it.

Their point is like, we are screwed without this deal. We're leaving Pittsburgh. We're firing a bunch of people.

A lot of union jobs go away, if you do not let us go through with this deal. And I can kind of -- I kind of have some understanding of like why you would be hesitant to want US Steel to go into foreign hands.

It kind of makes sense to me.

GLENN: No. I don't think it should.

You have to -- as a country, you can recommend against it.

But do you have a plan to save it?

I mean, do you have a plan?

What is the plan?

No. We're not going to approve that deal. Okay.

Are you working on anything that maybe you get some Americans to pool their money together. And think, you know what, we think this is important.

US Steel. This is critical infrastructure, if we can't make steel in the United States, we're screwed. But don't worry about it. She's got everything under control. And you're not going to have to worry about cars or tractors or things like that.

Because we're all going to be living in 15-minute cities. And if you don't believe me, that you will own nothing. And you will be happy about it. Let me just share this.

The -- who owns the environmental services?

USDA now is monetizing natural processes, under the Sustains Act. So the Sustains Act, we told you about a couple of weeks ago -- we told you, that you had to speak out against this and stop it.

It doesn't look like it's going to be stopped. But there's a free market now, on environmental processes. So, in other words, one environmental process is trees breathe in, carbon dioxide. And they breathe out, air. Okay?

So they take the pollution, and breathe it in.

And then they give us, what we need to live, as they breathe out.

It's kind of a weird thing. I haven't heard anybody talk about that for a long, long time now.

But that's how they survive, and thrive.

But now, for instance. I've planted in the last ten years.

I can't count the number of trees, that I have planted up in a treeless area.

And I may not own those trees now.

If the USDA has their way. And this is already passed. They're just looking at how to implement it.

The secretary is allowed to -- to go in and say, you know what, these trees are really important. That water. You're pumping that water out of your well.

Well, that's not your water. That's part of the environmental process. And we don't think you should pump any of that water.

They will -- well, I can't say this. They will regulate. But they won't own.

They are claiming the processes that are on your land. So you may not own the air. You may not own the tree.

You may not own the water. Nothing.

What is your land worth? Without water.

Especially in the West. What is your land worth without water farmers. What is your land worth, when you can't till the soil yourself, because the minerals and the -- the soil is not really owned by you.

You own the space. But you don't own anything other than -- maybe -- maybe your house, if it's already built.

Who owns that? Well, people like Bill Gates will own that. Bill Cosby will come in and say, I just want to save the planet. So I will just buy up all of this farmland. And I will buy the air. And I will buy the trees. And I am going to buy everything.

So that way, when somebody wants to farm on it, like these farmers that have been farming on it for generations, I can tell them no.

No. Because it will hurt the environment.

And all of this is done, by the Secretary of the USDA. I don't even know who that is.

Do you?

This is why our government is out of control.

Who is to answer for this?

It's all at the Secretary's discretion.

No, thank you. (no, thank you. So the Department of Agriculture and USDA, they have administered the program. And the Secretary -- can you look up the Secretary of Agriculture, Stu, because I don't know who that is. I would like to know what brainiac we have put in on that. But I'm sure they're smarter than all of that put together.

STU: A name from the past. Secretary Tom Vilsack. Remember him?

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: Former senator --

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. I don't know why I remember him. But I do remember him. Yeah. Good. So we have a senator. You know, and senators know so much about farming and land.

You know, and trees. And all of that.

I think that's -- I think that's fantastic. So the new law sets out how the secretary is to determine ownership of the environmental services that are created on private land. Through the federal conservation ram. Contributing entity, the one who contributes the private funding to the conservation program. Is to prescribe the terms of the environmental services. Subject to the approval of the Secretary.

So that's great. That's great.

The landowner really doesn't have anything to say about it.

So don't worry about it. Don't worry about it.

You can live in a city, a 15-minute city. And you're not really going to have a job. Because you don't have to really have a job because you won't own anything. You will just rent it from your overlords. If you think this sounds like hyperbole, read the news!

Read the news. You can get our -- our daily newsletter, which has just the news stories of the day.

And you can find these, and share them with your friends and family.

What do you mean they're monetizing the natural processes under the Sustains Act? This is a way for them to take control of the land, through private/public partnerships. So the public owns the land.

Well, I shouldn't say that. I mean, it's still a private person.

But he's, you know, part of the public.

So he owns the land. And he partners with the government. To control it.

And I think that is exactly the direction we all want to go in. I really don't understand how people -- you know, I understood when it was my word, saying, you know, I feel like this is what's happening.

We're so far beyond that.

When I came out with the book, on the WEF.

And was starting to tell you about how you were going to, you know, own nothing, and be happy.

I could even understand, that you would say, well, that's what all the documents say. But they're not going to do it.

I can't understand your burying your head in the sand, anymore.

There's no excuse for it, anymore.

This is not my opinion. You can do your own homework.

You'll find all of this, being done, not talked about.

But being done.

What else are you waiting for?

What else are your friends and your family and your neighbors waiting for?

We have to start talking to our friends and our family, not about politics.

Not about Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. We need to start talking to them about principles, and the things that are actually happening.

These things are actually happening. The economy is going to the crapper. The -- the jobs going to the crapper.

If they believed in all of these things, why wouldn't they do them right now?

Because they don't believe in turning the economy around.

They don't know how to do it.

And what they're going to do, is put you all back in chains. You will work for the government, how the government wants you to work, where they want you to work.

Where they want to you live. You will own nothing!

By 2030. This election, takes us to 2028. Do you think maybe this is an important election?

Why exposing Epstein List would be Trump's MOST DANGEROUS move

During an interview on the Lex Friedman Podcast, Donald Trump hinted that he would release the Epstein client list if he wins the White House. But would that be the final straw for global elites? Glenn explains why he believes Trump’s life is in danger: the global cabal was blindsided once. They can’t let him win again, especially if he’ll expose everything. And Glenn isn’t the only one who believes this. He reviews a clip of Eric Weinstein, who recently made the same argument on the podcast Modern Wisdom.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Did you hear Eric Weinstein?

What the podcast he was on. Modern wisdom?

STU: I didn't hear the clip. I was reading about it, though.

GLENN: Okay. You really. This is a good podcast you should probably listen to. A lot of wisdom there. A lot of wisdom.

And it's kind of what we've been saying for a while now.

But I don't know. Eric says it, and it just seems much, much smarter.

It's kind of like, Eric is much, much smarter.

But if he had an English accent, it would be game over.

Everybody would listen to everything he has to say.

So here he is, on Donald Trump. Listen.

VOICE: I don't know whether -- I don't know whether Donald Trump will be allowed to become president.

VOICE: What do you mean by that?

VOICE: I think that there's a remarkable story, and we're in a funny game, which is, are we allowed to say, what that story is?

Because to say it, to analyze it, to say it, is to bring it into view.

I think we don't understand why the censorship is behaving the way it is. We don't understand why it's in the shadows. We don't understand why the news is acting in a bizarre fashion.

So let's just set the stage, believing that was in in February.

There is something that I think Mike Benz is just referred to as the rules-based international order. It's an interlocking series of agreements, tests, and understandings. Explicit understandings.

Clandestine understandings.

About how the most important structures keep the world free of war. And keep markets open.

And there has been a system in place, whether understood explicitly, or behind the scenes, or implicitly. That says, that the purpose of the two American parties, is to prune, the field of populist candidates. So that whatever two candidates, exist in a face-off, are both acceptable to that world order.

So what you're trying to do, from the point of view.

Let's take it from the point of view of, let's say, the State Department, the Intelligence Community, the Defense Department, and major corporations that are -- have to do with international issues, from arms trade to, oh, I don't know, food. They have a series of agreements that are fragile and could be overturned, if a president, entered the Oval Office, who didn't agree with them. And the mood of the country was, why do we pay taxes into these structures?

Why are we hamstrung?

Why aren't we a free people?

So what the two parties would do is they would run primaries. You would have populist candidates, and you would pre-commit the populist candidates to support the candidates who won the primaries. As long as that took place, and you had two candidates that were both acceptable to the international order. That is, they aren't going to rethink NAFTA or NATO or what have you.

We called that democracy. So democracy was the illusion of choice.

What's called magicians choice. Where the choice is -- pick a card. Any card. The magician makes sure the card that you pick, is the one that he knows.

In that situation, you have magician's choice in the primaries. Then you would have the duopoly. Two candidates. Either of which was acceptable. And you could actually afford to hold an election.

And the populace would vote. And that way, the international order wasn't put at risk every four years. Because you can't have alliances, that are subject to the whim of the people in plebiscites. So under that structure, everything was going fine until 2016.

Then the first candidate ever to not hold any position in the military. Or position in government.

In the history of the Republican Party. Or Donald Trump. Broke through the primary structure.

This was a full-court press. Okay. We only have one candidate acceptable to the international order. Donald Trump will be under constant pressure, that he's a loser. He's a wild man. He's an idiot.

And he's under the control of the Russians. And then he was going to be a 20 to one underdog. And then he wins.

And there was no precedent for this. They learned their lesson you cannot afford to have candidates, who are not acceptable to the international order. And continue to have these alliances. This is an unsolved problem.

GLENN: Now. I've been saying for a long time, they're going to kill him.

Because it upsets their plans, and he's the one standing in the way, because he won't play their game. Now, Eric may have expressed this -- expressed this, in a more understandable way. But he's absolutely right.

100 percent right.

And that's why honestly, they're playing the game in the Democratic Party.

Where you didn't get a choice. You didn't have a primary.

You didn't have a primary.

And that's because the president is going to run. But the president can't run. So now, you didn't have a primary, and you have the most unpopular candidate. Ever!

She's never been, she was never popular. She wasn't popular just two months ago.

But now, oh, my gosh, she's hung the moon and the stars.

And we don't know anything about what she plans on doing. Okay.

All right. But she won't upset the international order.

She won't upset the -- the plans, that places like the WEF, and the United Nations. And now all of the western leadership, has come up with.

But you'll notice, those plans are extremely unpopular, with the people, all around the world.

Every -- every Western country now, is in turmoil.

Because they're doing the same thing to them, that they're doing to us. And that is collapse us.

Now, I believe this is to be true, I believe they'll do anything to stop him from winning.

They would put us into chaos. They would put us into Civil War, before they would have him win. They would put us in world war, before they would have him.

And Donald Trump, I just -- please, Mr. President. Please.

They've tried to kill you once. Please.

Don't make it worse. Don't make it worse. Yesterday, he was on a podcast, and he was on the Lex Friedman Podcast. And he got a lot of questions on Lex on foreign policy, et cetera, et cetera. The future going forward.

You know, he started talking about, you know, the Kennedy files. And how the Kennedy files, he kept classified.

Because it was protection of people. Which I'm not sure is exactly accurate.

I don't know what is in the Kennedy file. I have talked to people who have seen it.

And they have led me to believe, that it is not about people. It is about institutions.

But who knows? But Trump said, you know, I probably would not release the Kennedy files. However, Stu, what's the one thing you could say as a presidential candidate, that's pretty much guaranteed that you -- you're dead?

STU: Well, you're going to release the Epstein files.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

STU: And that would be --

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

But I am going to release the Epstein files. And the client list.

It's very strange for a lot of people, that the list of clients, that went to the island has not been made public.

Yeah. It's interesting, isn't it? Said Donald Trump.

It probably will be.

He said, I'll take a look at it, on the client list. But, yeah.

I'm inclined to do the Epstein thing.

I would have no problem with releasing that list.

Okay. All right. All right.

Remember, Donald Trump is definitely not suicidal.

But if they could put him in jail, he might become suicidal. And some cameras might go down.

Oh, my gosh.

STU: It's happened before, Glenn.

GLENN: This is -- oh, it did?

STU: Yeah. It's happened before.

GLENN: Really? But not related to Epstein?

STU: No. A philanthropist. No.

GLENN: The philanthropist. Yeah.

STU: Do we have this clip here, do you want to hear it? Yeah. Here we go.

DONALD: But a lot of big people went to that island.

Fortunately, I was not one of them.

VOICE: It's just very strange for a lot of people. That the list of clients that went to the island, has not been made public.

DONALD: Yeah. It's very interesting, isn't it? Probably will be, by the way.

VOICE: If you're able to -- you would be --

DONALD: I would certainly take a look at it. Now, Kennedy is interesting because it's so many years ago. They do that for danger too. Because, you know, in dangers, certain people, et cetera, et cetera. So Kennedy is very different from the Epstein thing. But, yeah, I would be inclined to do the Epstein. I would have no problem with it.

GLENN: Hmm. Hmm.

It's currently with the FBI. And it's under the control of one person at the FBI.

So what could possibly go wrong with that?

If it disappears, that would be unfortunate, wouldn't it, Stu?

And completely unexpected.

STU: Yeah. It would be shocking. That would be a shocking development. Look, sometimes, people lose documents.

You know --

GLENN: Happens all the time.

GLENN: Oops. I just dropped it in the shredder.

STU: Yeah. My daughter lost her homework, just last week.

And it was a rough day at school.

GLENN: Right. Right.

STU: This happens to people all the time.

There are shredders all over the place.

GLENN: All the time. You sometimes -- sometimes, you get up in the morning. And you almost exit -- I will step in the shower. And you almost step into the shredder. It happens. It happens, all the time.

STU: All the time.

Another example is, you noted yesterday, that your neighbor's property was on fire. What happened if a fire broke out, where that document was.

GLENN: Yeah. What happened? Oh, man. In the safe. In the safe. In the safe at the FBI.

STU: Yeah. Sometimes. Fires can happen anywhere, Glenn. Sometimes there are little fires that start up in safes.

GLENN: I knew we shouldn't have put it in the same safe, where we put the matches and the gremlin. You know.

I don't know what were we thinking?

What were we thinking? Oh, that's too bad.

Some misinformation here, I want to point out. Few fans left divided by major changes to ABC's daytime show, as Whoopi Goldberg and co-host return for a brand-new season.

Just want to give you -- you know, people say it all the time. How do you know when a story is true or not?

This one is pretty easy to point out. Just really in the first few letters. The View fans. There are no fans of the view.

And I would just like to correct that story. And make sure that you know.

We're on top of misinformation.