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

How Somalis in Minnesota are FUNNELING Tax Dollars to Terror Groups

Minnesota is facing what may be the largest welfare fraud scheme in American history. Christopher Rufo joins Glenn Beck to expose how Somali-run networks siphoned hundreds of millions in taxpayer funds through fake child-care and food programs, money that federal officials say was funneled through Somalia’s Hawala system, where Al-Shabaab takes its cut. Rufo reveals how state leaders protected these networks, how political incentives and “suicidal empathy” blinded Minnesota’s institutions, and why the corruption spreading through the welfare system is far more widespread than anyone wants to admit. This is not just a crime story... It’s a warning about immigration policy, cultural incompatibility, and the collapse of accountability in modern liberal states.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So I first ran into Chris Rufo, oh, I don't even know how many lifetimes ago. He was working for the city journal. And he was starting to uncover things. And he started to do investigations on things he cared about. And all of a sudden, he's one of the best investigative reporters out there.

Extraordinarily credible.

Right almost every single time.

And he is joining us, at the Blaze. He is the host now of his own TV show. Rufo and Lomez.

And he is the guy who broke the story a couple weeks ago. About the Minnesota taxpayers who are funding a terrorist group. Al-Shabaab. I don't know. Is that a problem?

Can I ask you, am I more outraged?

And I haven't paid any Minnesota tax. Am I more outraged than the people of Minnesota?

I mean, I know there's origins up there. So Norwegians are like, yeah, sure. I mean, you know, they don't seem to get very excited about. And they're very, you know, socialized and everything else. They're very big heart. Blah, blah, blah. And they don't seem to -- you know, Swedish, Norwegian, you know. But is there any point where they're outraged? Is there any point where they're like, you know what, this socialization thing is good, but not like this? This socialized, hey, let's help everybody, but not like this. I mean, you have a billion dollars taken from the taxpayers. A billion.

Is -- and I don't hear anything from the people of -- I mean, if you're -- if you were taken for a billion dollars and your money -- you knew was being taken away from children who need food, they were faking all kinds of health issues for other children, and so taking money away from real autistic programs and then putting it in and sending it to a terror group. Wouldn't you be kind of pissed?

Because I know I would be.

Are the people in Minnesota pissed about it?

I don't know.

I mean, I don't think. If it was my state. I don't think the governor would be in the governor's office. But maybe that's just had he. Christopher Rufo joins me now.

Chris, we were just talking about -- thank you for not only this story, but all the stories and things you have exposed over the years. Thank you for doing all of the hard work, and being credible the whole time.

It doesn't -- am I more outraged by this story than the people of Minneapolis? Because they don't seem to have a problem with it. Is it just me?

JASON: It's even more bizarre, actually. You're outraged about the proper thing to be outraged about. Which is that a group that is a recent arrival was permitted, or asylum, refugee status into the United States. Has now systematically looted the Treasury of the state of Minnesota. But Minnesota politicians are also outraged, but they're outraged that we notice this.

And that we've called this out. And that we're saying, this is not okay. So you have the mayor of Minneapolis, speaking in Somali, saying that he will do whatever he can.

GLENN: Unbelievable.

CHRIS: Do whatever he can to shelter the Somali community from any criticism at all.

And, I mean, find this borderline suicidal. And the Scandinavian. Kind of the Scandinavian founding culture of Minnesota, is just being statistically exploited. And they seem to have no ability to even defend themselves against it.

GLENN: Yeah. I mean, what's happened to Sweden is happening in -- you know, in -- in Minnesota.

It's just -- they take the kindness and the socialized everything. And they just absolutely abuse it, until there is nothing left.

And, you know, I don't -- let me ask the question.

And I want to be really careful here. Because I -- and I know you're not.

Nobody is reasonably saying this. That all Somalis just want to rip us off. Not true. I think there's probably a lot of people that wanted to get away from Somalia, because it is an absolutely corrupt system.

And now, our politicians are just recreating, you know, what they had in Somalia. And I can't believe that everybody from Somalia and Minnesota is for that.

But when you -- when you look at where they came from, that is the way their government works.

It is so rife with corruption. Is this something that is being imported, or is this just a handful of bad guys?

CHRIS: Well, it's a little bit of both. And as you said, we have to be careful and precise as we think about it. What's happening, obviously, not every Somali is participating in these fraud schemes.

GLENN: Correct.

CHRIS: But it's true that many, many, many, many -- an extraordinarily high percentage of people in the Somali community were participating in these schemes, prosecutors have told me that there are dozens of these schemes that have been perpetrated. And some of them are involving dozens and in some cases hundreds of families. And so we're talking about a very high percentage of the population. But the -- the point is this: Related to immigration. We always have had an immigration system that makes group level analysis.

And so small ease, for example, for many decades, now, have been given special privileges, in America's immigration system.

You have special status for asylum, for refugee programs. And so we have rewarded Somalis on the basis of -- of a group identity.

And I think that it's totally fair to say, hey. Wait a minute.

We can't take everyone from around the world. We have to prioritize by group.

We can't judge every single human being around the world as an individual.

And the reality is that the Somali community is not coming as individuals. They're coming as a community. And so you can say, you know, there are absolutely great people. Wonderful Somalis.

The incredible Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a Somali.
Incredible woman.

GLENN: Incredible.

CHRIS: But the fact is that they're bringing the cultural systems from Somalia to the United States, and they are just fundamentally incompatible. That's the brass tacks. The bottom line. The end of the story.

And -- and what I was looking for and hoping for, was that Somali leaders would stand up and say, what's happening in our community is wrong.
We're going to work with. We're going to work with law enforcement to stamp out this corruption within our own house. But instead, they have gone just the opposite. They are promising that members of their communities. No criticism. And should operate with impunity.

GLENN: Tim Walz and even the mayor. How do they survive this?

CHRIS: Here's -- here's the actual, sad truth. I know conservatives are waiting for the backlash to sweep away these corrupt leaders and these feckless and incompetent politicians. But there's something about liberal culture, where no amount of chaos, corruption, crime, murder, you know, theft, can dissuade them from their core beliefs that our society is bad. And as a form of penance or -- or -- or kind of self-flagellation. We have to accept any amount of crime, provided that it's committed by people who can check the identity boxes. And so I'm actually pessimistic, and skeptical of the idea that Minnesota voters are going to rise up. And command that this corruption stop.

GLENN: You know, I remember Michele Bachmann came to my apartment when I was living in New York City, probably about 2008, maybe '9. And she sat me down and she said, Glenn, you have to pay attention to what's happening to my State Department, in Minnesota.

And I said, what do you mean?

She said, they're moving whole communities into Minnesota. And she's like -- and I said, communities. What do you mean?

She said, Somalis.

And I'm like, why would they be moving to Minnesota? What?

You miss being surrounded by feet of snow for six months out of the year? And she said, no. She said, it is the State Department.

It's like they selected, you know, Minnesota, and moved people in as a communist community.

Was this -- was this done. I mean, I'm having a hard time separating.

Like USAID.

I know what that is. We all know what that is. This is corruption. And they knew exactly what they were doing.

Is this incompetence, just corruption?

Is there planning involved in this.

Is this, you know, I hate America so much.

Cloward and Piven.

What is this?

GLENN: So there are two arguments that have been floated to answer, this an attempt to answer this question.

The first argument is that the left knows how to gain power. And by importing dependent foreign groups into the -- into the populace, they have a client that can provide them with votes. In exchange for patronaging. Or in this case, corruption.

And that is a strategy to amplify their own domestic political power. The other hypothesis. And I think for me, the more persuasive hypothesis. Is that this is just simple, liberal, naivete. And a kind of suicidal empathy, where they are blind to the consequences of their own actions.

They judge on inputs rather than outputs. And for them, the measure is how compassionate they can be.

And any imposition of limits or consequences is seen as a violation of core liberal principles. You know, it might be a combination of the two. But I don't -- you know, again, barring evidence that emerges, I would assume that it's more the latter than the former.

GLENN: How do we know for sure that money went to Al-Shabaab?

CHRIS: Great question. First of all, there have been schemes over the last decade, where counterterrorism officials tell me that every time they're looking at ISIS recruiting, al-Shabaab recruiting, radical Islamist recruiting, Minneapolis always shows up. And, in fact, it's really the epicenter of foreign terror recruitment in the United States of America. But on a particular question of Al-Shabaab, there is the testimony of multiple counterterrorism officials who told us, hey. Some of this money is getting siphoned off. And essentially taxed by the Al-Shabaab terror network. Once it leaves the United States. And goes into the Somali informal banking system. But this is really not in dispute. Even a left-evening group like the foundation for domestic democracy has long noted that Al-Shabaab skins almost all remittance that travel through the country of Somalia.

And, therefore, it stands to reason, if -- if people are stealing from the Minnesota government, sending that money back to Somali, through the remittence system, and Al-Shabaab is taking their cut. We're talking about a significant amount of money, whether it's intentional or unintentional, that the end result is the same. Al-Shabaab is receiving American taxpayer dollars that were stolen and routed through their network.

STU: So how is this stopped?

Because I don't think anything in Minnesota will happen. How's this stop?

It feels honestly. Know better than I do. It feels like the tip of the iceberg. I mean, today, the story from the GAO on Obamacare. That's completely out of control. USAID. This is happening.

I mean, tip of the iceberg. How do we stop this, if our politicians won't do anything in the states?

CHRIS: Well, there's two things that we can do. I think first off, in this particular case. Federal prosecutors have done a great job, uncovering these Somali fraud rings. And implementing prosecutions. And so they really deserved enormous credit.

But the federal government should do much more.

And I would recommend that Health and Human Services. And other departments at the federal level. Start all payments to Minnesota. Until they have a third party audit. Until they get their fraud under control.

And, you know, ultimately, you have to stop giving these people money, if you want them to change their behavior. And so I think a stop payment order on all federal funding to Minnesota programs where there are suspicions of fraud. Will help clean things up fairly quickly.

The reality is, we have a system in the United States. Where it's always a third party payer.

Health insurance, welfare programs. Food stamps, autism services.

Whatever it might be. These are massive third person payer programs. The incentives are, you know, not aligned with people actually enforcing the rules. And they become easy targets for fraudsters.

And so Minnesota used to be famous for honesty, fair dealing, good government.

GLENN: Oh, yeah.
CHRIS: And in just a short number of decades, their reputation has now been completely inverted.

And it is, by all accounts. From all of the research that I've done, I think this is likely the largest statistic welfare fraud scheme, in American history.

The Disturbing RISE of Islam in America | Glenn Beck & Allie Beth Stuckey SOUND the Alarm

America is witnessing cultural changes at a pace few expected, and even fewer are willing to talk about. Glenn Beck and Allie Beth Stuckey expose the growing concern among everyday Americans, especially mothers, as mosques replace churches, schools switch to halal-only menus, neighborhoods lose Christmas traditions, and crime spikes in communities transformed by rapid Islamic immigration. While politicians look away for the sake of power, ordinary families feel silenced, shamed, and increasingly unsafe. Glenn and Allie reveal how secularism failed to hold the line, how progressive politics weaponized empathy, and why many believe the West is approaching a cultural and spiritual breaking point.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: It's amazing to me how this -- the awareness of this Islamic takeover of the west, how quickly it is spreading, and how quickly people are waking up.

I don't know about the politicians. But the average person is really starting to wake up to this. Don't you think?

ALLIE: Absolutely. And, of course, you have been warning about this for years. But I think a lot of people are just seeing it infiltrate their neighborhoods.

There's mosques, where there used to be churches. And office buildings. There are people wearing hijabs. At their elementary schools. Middle school.

People celebrating Christmas and Hanukkah around this. And you're told that you're not allowed to notice this.

And you're certainly not allowed to care about this.

There's no such thing as American culture.

You can't care about sharing the celebrations with your neighbors.

But people do care.

It's very unsettling. And a lot of people are just finding the words and the courage to say something about it.

GLENN: You know, I don't have a problem with, you know, Halal, or kosher, or anything.

I don't have a problem.

But I do have a problem that my kid's school now has to only serve Halal food.

So wait a minute.

What. What's up with that?

And that's happening all over Texas. Where Halal is your choice now.

And I just --

ALLIE: Right. Can we have a conversation about this, please?

I think what most people just want. Can we at least have a conversation about what's happening in our country?

ALLIE: Right. You know, I asked my Instagram followers. Vast majority are women. Probably 85 percent stay-at-home moms. And when I asked this question -- my followers were about 850,000 on Instagram. And I just said. Totally open-ended. Wasn't looking for a particular answer.

Hey, what is your biggest concern with America right now?

I was just trying to come up with topics for my show. The number one answer over and over and over again was the spread of Islamic dominance, where they are living, in America, in the West. This is very destabilizing for a lot of people. And they're seeing it, not just affect people far off like we used to. But affect their own neighborhoods and their own schools. And so, you know, usually politicians kind of take a while to wake up to what the populace is really scared of.

We have seen some good action in Texas for sure. But this is a real problem. And it's not just an illegal immigration problem. That's the uncomfortable part of it. This is a cultural issue. This is an immigration issue in general.

So we need the people in Washington and in Austin, to come up with the solutions for the people who are concerned about this.

GLENN: So you said that your audience is concerned because it affects them.

How does it affect them?

ALLIE: Well, I think that they're scared of the violent crime that they've seen in places maybe in their own cities. Certainly in places where Islam has to me natured. When we look at places like Dearborn, Michigan.

When we look at our friends across the pond. That sexual crimes. Violent crimes. All increase, disproportionately when there is a large-scale importation of people from these Muslim majority countries. It doesn't mean they're all like that.

It doesn't mean that they can't be good neighbors.

But this is not only a cultural change. This is not only a shift in how their neighborhoods look and feel and the celebration and things like that.

But this also is potentially a threat to their own safety. Especially the safety of their daughters.

And people care about that.

GLENN: I was talking to somebody who was doing a posts with somebody over in London.

Yesterday. And he was talking about this. And I said, you know, I -- I -- I'm not -- you know, I don't follow the news all the time.

You know, closely like I do in America.

About, you know, the United Kingdom. But what I'm seeing coming out of Ireland. And when you think about Ireland. You think of a very Catholic country.

You know, or a Protestant. A very Christian country.

ALLIE: Right.

GLENN: And they fought wars over their own Christianity.

It is almost completely gone now.

You have to go to the way, way outskirts. You know, the northern part of the island, to find that kind of community. The Irish have almost been completely wiped out.

There's very few churches left. They're all being converted into mosques. And, you know, okay. Well, it passes. Et cetera, et cetera.

But to not notice, and not say, wait a minute.

That is the erasing of an entire people and their culture. And that culture is very important to the West.

ALLIE: Right.

GLENN: Should we not care about that?

ALLIE: Right. Well, certainly progressives care about it, when it comes to, you know, non-British. Non-British countries. Or countries that are not America.

They call that colonialism. They call that imperialism.

But apparently, when Muslims do this, it's fine. But the problem was not for Islam. The problem was secularization. The lesson there is that secularism doesn't whole. Atheism -- agnosticism don't hold.

People are looking for meaning. And eventually, ideology in one religion will win.

And right now, Islam and a lot of countries is winning.

GLENN: Yeah. You know, you wrote a book on toxic empathy.

And I think it's a mistake on this one to say, it is empathy that we have gone down the road.

I think this is -- especially if you look in Minnesota.

They turned a blind eye to what's going on in -- in Minnesota.

And I -- I'll bet you in Michigan as well.

Because if you don't have the Muslim population on your side. You're not going to be elected governor.

You're not going to be mayor. So it's not empathy. It's all politics. Which makes it even more grotesque.

But when I see us turning a blind eye to it. We're now entering the time of suicide. And those who are in power, are the -- the doctors engaging in medical assisted suicide for their country.

They know what they're doing at this point. They're just choosing their power, and hold on to their power for as long as they can.

Do you think toxic empathy at this point is still playing a role in this Islamic, you know, hostile, political takeover?

ALLIE: Yeah, I absolutely do. Now, do I think that's the case for Tim Walz or any of these? You know, probably not.

It's probably power. It's fear, as you said.

But for the average person, especially for the woman. Especially for the person who has been told that loving your neighbor means just accepting all forms of people, no matter what their behavior is.

Then, yeah. I do think people are more scared of Islamophobia. Or being called an Islamophobe. When they see the Islamification of their neighborhood. In fact, I think that they think their virtue is tied to how much they like Halal.

And how much they accept the -- the building of mosques around their neighborhood.

And so I do think people feel so strongly, that being exclusive or intolerant, in any way, is a sign of being a bad person.

That they won't speak up.

Because the media social incentives for speaking up against Islam, or against policies. Or anything.

It just, it doesn't exist.

The social incentives in the immediate is to be as progressive as possible.

People respond to incentives. So I think that's a big part of what's going on.

GLENN: Love to hear your comments on Trump over the holiday.

Tweeted out, the official United States foreign population stands at 53 million people.

Most of which are on welfare. From failed nations or from prisons. Mental institutions. Gangs or drug cartels. They and their children are supported through massive payments from patriotic American citizens who because of beautiful hearts do not want to openly complain or cause any trouble in any way, shape, or form. They have put up with what's been happening to our country. But it's eating them alive to do so.

Wow. That's not very empathetic, is it?

ALLIE: Right. That's exactly what he's talking about is toxic empathy. He's talking about our compassion as Americans being weaponized against us. The problem, I wouldn't have said it's a problem. But now it's becoming a problem. For conservatives, we're thinking individually.

We're thinking about our family. And we're thinking, okay. Whatever. Just take my taxes. Do what you have to do. I will keep my head down.

I will work hard. I will move further outside the city. I am going to homeschool.

All of this, and kind of be a recluse, as long as my family is safe. As long as I can make money. As long as things are okay here, then I'll be fine.

Well, progressives for the most part, don't think that way.

They think collectively. They are looking to build a coalition. We are just thinking about our family. And about our immediate future. In our local community.

And that's not really a fair fight, when you have someone who is thinking in the big sense of what we're thinking.

And so he's absolutely right. And that is one weakness that we Christians and conservatives have, even if we're right in thinking that way.

It's hurting us now, especially in ideology, in Islam, that means submission. They're looking to conquer. And conservatives in general, we just haven't been thinking that way.

GLENN: I was talking to Jack (inaudible) from the United Kingdom, and I said, how close are you guys to Civil War?

I mean, I see what's going on. And, you know, collapse. And it's bad.

And he said, I think it's beyond saving, except for God.

What came to mind was, yeah. I agree with that. Except, you've become a godless country. I mean, the Church of England just raised the Islamic flag over the Church of England last week.

What God is there?

He said that there was a resurgence of faith, which would be great.

But how do we fix this, Allie?

ALLIE: Gosh, I pray to the Lord, that that is true. That there is some kind of revival that we don't see. It's important to know that God works -- it's not always a headline. It doesn't always go viral.

It seems he's doing one thing. He's actually doing a million things in unseen and unsung words, such as faithful believers, that may not have radio shows, their podcasts, but they are doing God's word.

And so I pray to the Lord, that that is true. I can't imagine like a better signifier that you've been conquered than another ideology raising its flag over your territory. That is literally a sign that you have been conquered. But God. But God can do anything.

We can pray. He works through the prayer of believers.

He works through the obedience of believers. The boldness of evangelism of believers. We can't all change the world.

But we can be faithful with whatever spot of eternity God has providentially placed us in to make it for the glory of God.

To share the gospel. And to speak beauty and truth and goodness into whatever sphere we occupy. That is the responsibility of a Christian.

That is how God has moved mountains for over 2,000 years, and I think he will continue to.

GLENN: Allie Beth, thank you. God bless you.

ALLIE: Thank you very much.

GLENN: You bet.

How a Recent Conversation at Mar-a-Lago moved Glenn Beck to His Core

A deeply emotional conversation at Mar-a-Lago left Glenn Beck shaken, echoing the same chilling feeling he first experienced years ago during a private discussion with Charlie Kirk — long before Charlie’s recent assassination. As Glenn recounts his talk with Dave Rubin about danger, spiritual warfare, and the future of America, he warns that we are entering a moment where good and evil are unmistakably visible. From the overwhelming sense of divine presence at Charlie’s funeral to the rising chaos Glenn believes is driven by darker forces, this time feels less like politics and more like history unfolding in real time. The question now is simple but urgent: in a world losing its mind, which side will you choose — truth and light, or confusion and darkness?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So yesterday, I -- I -- I posted this when I got home. A picture my wife took of Dave and I.

We were kind of backstage at Mar-a-Lago. And we sat there for probably half an hour. And had a really honest conversation about what's happening in the world.

What's coming our way. And, you know, some things that are just concerning to both of us.

And I'm not going to get into all the details. Because I don't have permission to tell you everything that Dave said. I did ask him last night, if I could share some of this with you.

You know, he is -- he is Jewish. He's gay. He's married.

And he has two adopted children.

I mean, what else could -- leper? What else box could you check that would make you less popular in what the world that we're seeing come our way?

And he's a reasonable guy. He's a really reasonable guy. And, you know, when we talked years ago, when he was adopted. He was on the show. And he was like, Glenn. I've got to tell you. I've changed so much.

I don't -- I don't know how to justify -- because I know that it's best to have kids with a mom and a dad. And I believe in that. And I -- you know, I just don't know what to say. He was a guy in conflict when it happened. He's not in conflict now. He loves his children. Loves his children. And they're in a very stable home.

He would tell you not the ideal home. Because that would be a mom and a dad. But a great home.

And he said, I am finding myself in a situation to where, I mean, I just don't know what's coming.

And we talked about it. And I shared with him some things that I thought were coming.

Exactly what I did and I didn't realize it, at the time, until I walked away.

Exactly the way I did with Charlie Kirk.

When Charlie came to me in 2018, 2019, and he said, you've always been ahead of the curve. What's coming next.

And I said, well, I mean, if you just study history, Charlie. There's really two things that are left. One, is assassinations. And the second is war. And he talked about Donald Trump and that -- that they would try to assassinate. And I said, yeah. Honestly, Charlie. I think you and me are on that list too.

I said, one of us could go down in this as well.

We'll be targets as well. And we stood there. And I've told this story a million times. We stood there on the balcony of this hotel.

And we just looked over the ocean for a while. And we were both quiet.

And I think he said, one of us said, I can't believe we're having this conversation, and the other one said, I know. It's like we're in a movie, right? It's not real.

And lo and behold, just a couple years after, a few years later, Charlie is assassinated. David and I were having a conversation, and I said, Dave, I hope I'm wrong. But this is the way things could shape up.

And we talked about it for a while. And just as I was getting ready to walk away, he said, I can't believe we're having this conversation.

It's like we're in a movie. And I said, yeah. I -- I know that feeling. And then I walked away.

And when I got to my wife's side, I said, I'm sorry, I'm just really freaked out because of what Dave said to me.

Because of the last time somebody said that to me was Charlie.

We are living in extraordinary times. Extraordinary times. And we are seeing for the first time, we're seeing good and evil.

We are! We're -- we're seeing -- and in ways we've never seen before. You know, when the assassin tried to kill Charlie, he thought, there would be an equal and opposite reaction to that act.

And it would be that people would either side with him. Or they would rise up and they would start killing, you know, the left. And we would -- we would go into that Civil War thing.

But that's not what happened. An opposite action happened, as a reaction.

But it was not equal.

It was so far beyond equal.

That it was -- that it was clearly divine.

1.5 million people around the world watched. I'm sorry. 1.5 billion people watched that Charlie Kirk funeral. And that Charlie Kirk funeral happened, and if you were there, I don't know if you could feel it while watching it. I -- I imagine you could. But I'm telling you in the room, I've never felt anything like it.

You could feel the spirit there. I mean, it was like God was there. And every time somebody got up and started speaking about politics, you could feel the spirit withdraw. And then they would start talking about, you know, universal principles.

And the spirit would come back to the room.
It was amazing. And I wasn't just the only one feeling it. I had people around me. Elon Musk was two rose behind me.

Everyone around me were talking about, are you all feeling that?

This is amazing.

That was God! Showing up.

So the unequal, but opposite reaction was God working a miracle.

The only way I can understand what's happening, in our world today, where we have gone insane.

We've gone insane.

People that I know have lost their minds. We can't -- suddenly, we can't have conversations about things that have been settled for a very long time.

And suddenly, you're -- you have to be an enemy. That's why, when I talk about these things, I don't want to single out anybody. Because I'm not going to make this personal. I'm not going to make this personal.

I want to make this about the facts. Because the minute we make this personal, then we're immediately enemies of one another. And I don't -- there's one enemy, and it's the author of chaos. And that's who I fight.

God shows up. Now, what's the equal and opposite reaction? Because every action has an equal and opposite reaction. I really believe Satan showed up.

God shows up. We have this resurgence of faith, this explosion. And then Satan shows up.

And all of a sudden, we're talking about insane things. Like, all of a sudden, you know, Jews rule the world. And -- and I hate Israel. And, you know, it's insanity. Insane stuff that we've always known was insane.

We're watching for the first time. We're watching the big boys play.

And we are pawns.

You just have to -- you just have to make sure you're on the right side of the board.

You know, who -- who are you a tool?

Whose hand are you in?

You on the good side, or the dark side?

Because you have to make that decision right now. And the way to make that decision is just to remember what you've always known to be true.

What is true?

When you know those things and you stay anchored in those things, it's going to be okay.

But if it feels like we're living in a movie, in some ways, we are. It just hasn't been made yet. But believe me, there will be movies made about this time.

And about people that you may know. There will be movies made.

How that is portrayed in the end, I'm not sure. But I do know that every time in human history, every time this road has been traveled. There is a winning side.

And the other side destroys itself and its civilization.

So to me, it's pretty clear. But it's for each of us to find.

Just do it peacefully. Make no enemies. Make no enemies.

I remember one time, we were in the throes of just real attacks. On every front.

And I thought, my whole world was coming apart. And it didn't matter what I did. What I said. Where I was. It didn't matter. Just attack, attack, attack, attack.

And I asked the Lord in prayer, you know, help me.

Help me. How do I defeat these enemies?

And once in a while, once if had a great while, I'll feel like he -- that I almost hear him.

And I don't know how to describe it. It's -- it's like I hear the words. But not hear the words. You know, I just know what he's saying.

And sometimes, it's so clear. It's jaw-dropping. And I remember in prayer, and I'm talking about, how do I defeat these enemies, et cetera, et cetera?

And it was so clear. And what I heard was, firmly, stop. These are not enemies of yours. They are enemies of mine.

These are my rights.

And I will solve the problem with my enemies.

You do the right thing.

Okay.

So I don't want to make any more enemies.

Because they're not enemies of mine.

They're his -- his enemies.

Anybody who is standing against the rights of all men, anyone who is standing against the Bill of Rights, the idea that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator. They're not my enemy.

I mean, I view them that way. But they're ultimately his enemy.

I need to remain on his side. That's all I need to do. Remain on his side. And when he tells me to act and tells me what to do, I will do it. And so far, all I know, is make no more enemies.

Just speak the truth plainly. Clearly.

Just keep saying the truth. The things that you have always known that are universally true.

I'll take care of the rest.

WAKE UP: The Islamist Takeover of America Is HALFWAY Complete | Glenn TV | Ep 472

Islamism is advancing inside the U.S. through Minnesota’s massive welfare fraud tied to Al-Shabaab, Sharia-style tribunals in Texas, Muslim Brotherhood campus networks, and failed immigration vetting that led to a CIA-trained Afghan migrant killing a National Guardsman. Glenn Beck ties these stories to the Muslim Brotherhood's 100-year plan to conquer the West, which is reportedly halfway complete. Europe has already lived through this collapse. British writer and podcaster Peter McIlvenna joins to reveal the parallels between Britain and what he saw while visiting Texas, and he reacts to Gov. Greg Abbott and President Trump cracking down on the Muslim Brotherhood.