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

To our veterans...

Americans are bad at saying "thank you." So, this Veterans Day, Glenn wanted to take the time to make it clear: "Your country remembers you. Your country needs you. And your country is grateful in a way that language will never quite capture. Thank you."

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Hello, America. It's Veterans Day, and I want to start there in 60 seconds. First, debt is like gravity. It pulls. It pulls back on you constantly, until one day you realize, you're not moving forward anymore. And the worst part of it, most of it is just accepted. We call it normal. We make the minimum payments. We don't -- the rates come down. And we keep spinning that same old wheel, wondering why we're tired all the time. But it doesn't have to be that way.

American Financing is helping people all over the country restructure their mortgage. You know, pay off high-interest debt. And regain real financial freedom.

They're family-owned. They work for you. Not the banks. Their mortgage consultants don't earn commissions. They take the time to listen and build a plan that actually fits your life.

And it will help you keep more of what you earned.

Because every dollar you save. Is a piece of your life you're getting back. It's American Financing.

They're helping you keep more of it. And in a world where everything is getting more and more expensive, that kind of control isn't just smart, it's a little bit liberating and empowering.

The start of something much, much better. Please, call American Financing at 800-906-2440. 800-906-2440. Or you can go to AmericanFinancing.net. That's AmericanFinancing.net.
(music)

VOICE: NMLS 182334. NMLSConsumerAccess.org. APR rates in the five, starts at 6.799 percent for well-qualified borrowers. Call 800-906-2440 for details about credit costs and terms.

GLENN: It's Veteran's Day, and I want to speak to one person, right now.

You!

The one who raised a hand and swore an oath that didn't end when your enlistment did. It was an oath that was older than your commanding officer. Older than the branch you served in. Older than even the nation itself. Because what you swore to defend was not a government. Unlike every other oath that every military man takes all over the world, you swore an oath to an idea.

And today, in a country that sometimes feels dizzy from spinning arguments, I think we should pause and anchor ourselves again to you.

To the men and women who tethered this republic to reality, when the storms came.

We have an amazing story.

If you really know the story of Lexington when the farmers left their plows and damp fields. Because liberty whispered their names.

They met at their church. Their preacher met them out.

They didn't have a chance of them winning.

I think of the -- the Marines who fought through the gas and the mud until the Germans called them devil dogs.

The beaches of Normandy, where boys who had never even see France saw eternity in a single morning on a single beach!

And the men who fought in Korea. And Vietnam. Kuwait. Fallujah. The Skies over Baghdad.

Every generation has a chapter that is written in blood and grit, and it was written by people who never asked for a statue. All they wanted was a chance to come home! And some didn't. And their stories end on foreign soil or carved into white markers in rows so straight, it almost breaks you.

But their gift to us, never ends.

At least, as long as we remember them and you.

Because every -- every free breath we take is borrowed from them! And you. If you're a veteran listening right now, maybe you came home to a grateful nation. Maybe you quietly slipped into civilian life, wondering if anybody saw the weight that you were carrying.

No matter your circumstance, know this: You need to know this.

Millions see you! Millions are grateful. You changed the destiny of my children. And they will never know your name.

You changed my life, in ways you will never understand.

I wouldn't be able to be here, and say these things if it weren't for you!

We take -- we take all of this so lightly. It was you that stood between tyranny and who those couldn't defend themselves.

Have you kept the promise. Most citizens like me. We never make. We never have to make.

Because always did. And you continue to do so.

It's amazing to me, when you are off into war, most times, not every time, we think about you all the time.

We want to give you the very best when you're at war. And then you come home, and then, eh, and you have the worst of our health care. I mean, at least mine was go to Canada to get the health care. I don't know if it's any better up there!

We're not really good at saying thank you. Let me just take just a second, to say it plainly and clearly to you. Thank you. Thank you for walking into the unknown when the rest of us stayed home. I don't know what your motivation was, when you joined. But thank you for believing that liberty was worth more than comfort.

Thank you for the nights you didn't sleep. Thank you for the holidays you missed. Thank you for the kids you didn't see born because you were someplace else.

Thank you for the friends you still mourn. That's why you did it.

Because you're a brotherhood.

Thank you and all your brothers.

Thank you for every scar. The ones we can see, and the ones we will never see.

Thank you -- thank all the families. Thank you for what you've done. The quiet platoon behind every soldier and sailor and airman and Marine and Coast Guardsman, because you served too.

Freedom has always been a family burden. And look at what those families are like. They're usually remarkable!

We live in a world right now that feels -- feels really loud and divided. And suspicious.

And it is!

But, I mean, wanted to take a minute on this day, and let everything just be quiet.

Gratitude has a way of silencing nonsense.

And I want you to know, how grateful I am.

So before we got back into the headlines again, before the noise rises back up, let me end this with the only words that really matter, to every veteran of the United States armed forces. Your country remembers you. Your country needs you. And your country is grateful in a way, language will never quite capture.

Thank you!

Is this the REAL reason Democrats ended the shutdown?

Buried in a recent New York Times op-ed about the end of the government shutdown is the quietest confession you’ll ever hear from the elites: "Why can’t Republicans just accept reality? These [Obamacare] healthcare subsidies are working." But who are they working for? Healthcare prices are still incredibly high! Glenn reminds us what "subsidies" really are: money "borrowed" from the future to hide the failures of the present, and lining the insurance companies' pockets.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So is the shutdown over? I mean, it has to go to the House, and now the House is saying that they're not going to pass it.

STU: Well, the House should be -- I don't think there's any real belief that they won't pass it. The hurdle was the Senate. And they got through the Senate. Now we get to watch the ongoing democratic Civil War, about whether or not Chuck Schumer will be removed or not.

GLENN: It's crazy. It is crazy.

So, you know, let me go through something that came in from the New York Times. What were the Democrats thinking?

It starts out, in this op-ed, back in September, when I was reporting an article, Democrats should shut down the government, I kept hearing the same warning from veterans of past shutdown fights.

President controls the bully pulpit, and parts of the government will stay open, and he decides what parts close.

It's very, very hard for the opposition party to win a shutdown. Blah, blah.

Now they have brokered a deal over the weekend, as the Senate Democrats broke ranks and negotiated a deal to end the shutdown, and return for, if we're being honest, very little according to the New York Times.

The guts of the deal are this. Food assistance, both SNAP and WIC will get a bit more funding. There will be a few more modest concessions on spending levels elsewhere in the government.

Laid off federal workers will be rehired, and furloughed federal workers will be given back pay.

Most of the government is funded, only until the end of January. Get ready, we'll be doing this again.

The deal does nothing to extend the aspiring affordable care tax credits, which Democrats essentially have shut down the government for, in the first place. First of all, it's not the affordable care tax credit.

That's -- that's not why you shut it down.
There are tax credits, yes.

But this is different. These were the government subsidies. Leave it to the New York Times. Let me lay this really clear. Democrats demanded a continuation of the enhanced subsidies for the American care act. Okay?

They were temporarily expanded during the pandemic. These were not the tax credits. These were extra subsidies stuffed into the 2021 American rescue plan, as an emergency measure. Remember, the one, we had to pass this in the middle of the night. And nobody could read it. Well, that's what it was in it. And these subsidies lowered the premiums more than usual. Expanded the eligibility far above the original ACA income caps. And was always designed to be temporary just for COVID.

So if you were in COVID, and I lost your job, and you didn't have health care or whatever, you could get on the ACA.

Even though, you're -- you're -- your salary was higher than it would be accepted.

Normally. You could get on it.

But once -- once they created this, Washington does what Washington always does, and they won't let it go.

Okay.

It's not the tax credit. To understand why this shutdown will end with such a whimper, you need to understand the strange role the ACA subsidies played in it. Democrats said the shutdown was about subsidies. But for most of them, it wasn't. This is the New York Times saying this.

It was about Trump's authoritarianism. It was about showing their base and themselves, that they could fight back. It was about treating an abnormal political moment, abnormally.

The ACA subsidies emerged as the shutdown demand because they could keep the caucus sufficiently united. They put Democrats on the right side of public opinion, even though self-identified MAGA voters wanted the subsidies extended.

And they held the quivering Senate coalition together. You shut the government down, with the Democratic caucus that you have, not with the Democratic caucus that you want.

But the shutdown was built on a cracked foundation. There were Senate Democrats who didn't want a shutdown at all. There were Senate Democrats who did want a shutdown. But thought it was strange to make their demands so narrow. Was winning on health care premiums really winning the right fight?

Shouldn't Democrats really vote to fund the government, turning towards authoritarianism, as long as health insurance subsidies are preserved? And what if winning the health care fight was actually a political gift to Trump. Now, this is the New York Times.

Absent a fix, the average health insurance premium for 20 million Americans were more than double. The premium shock will hit red states really hard.

Trump's long time pollster had released a survey of competitive house districts. Showing that letting the tax credits expire. Might be lethal to Republican effort to see hold the House. Why were the Democrats fighting so hard to neutralize their best issue in 2026. The political logic of this shutdown fight was inverted. If Democrats got tax credits extended, if they won. They would be solving a huge electoral problem for the Republicans. If Republicans successfully allowed the tax credits to expire if they won, which would be handing the Democrats a cudgel which would beat them in the next elections. This is unbelievable!

I mean, they're saying -- they're saying it out loud. You know what I mean?

They go on in this, to say, you know. Quote, why can't Republicans just accept reality. These health care subsidies are working.

No. They're not. No, they're not.

They are propping. Okay?

They're scaffolding. Holding up a structure that was never sound.

They were a COVID-era brace jammed under a tottering wall. And now, the same architects who swore the House -- the House was safe. They're telling you the splintered wood was actually part of the design. What?

This is the power the mainstream media has. The press still has over mainstream Americans. It's kind of like a hypnotic choke hold.

You say the word subsidy enough times with the right sad piano music under it, and suddenly, we forget what subsidies are. Here's what subsidies are, gang!

Money borrowed from the Chinese. But we're not on the hook for it. We're not on the hook for it.

Money borrowed from the Chinese, from the future, to hide the failures of the present on decisions that were made in the past. Okay?

And now we're told, if we don't just keep borrowing forever, America will collapse. No. What collapses is this crazy illusion. Let's be clear about something the op-ed never will admit. The Affordable Care Act didn't fail because of Republicans. It failed because math is a stubborn thing because insurance is not health care.

Because a program bent around bureaucrats and middlemen will always cost more and deliver less!
We have been subsidizing the symptoms. We never treated the disease here. And now, when a shutdown touches those subsidies, suddenly we're told the sky is cracking. TikTok is flooded with panic videos scripted by algorithms that can't really be trusted.

The influencers don't even know what they're defending. They just know fear pays better than the truth. And here the truth. The system was failing long before Trump. Long before Biden. Long before COVID. And maybe, just maybe, this moment is not a crisis, but an opening.

You know, I've said this for months now.

The greatest political opportunity of our lifetime now, is health care reform! Real, actual reform.

Not another Washington quick fix. Not more subsidiary easy or anything else. Not a Band-Aid over a bullet wound. But the Republicans won't do anything about it. I believe, and I say this without hesitation, I think. That Trump and RFK Jr. together may be the only combination force in American politics with the will to take a flamethrower to the bureaucracy, that is choking doctors and nurses. The pharmaceutical lobby, the insurance labyrinth, the 50 states wrapped in 50 different versions of red tape. All of it has to be confronted. And here's why Trump can't afford to miss this: If he solves even a quarter of this problem, if he can find the way to lower costs, if he increases access. If he frees the market to actually work across state lines, he'll not only win in 2026.

He'll be launching a momentum, that will carry Vance into the presidency in 2028.

This is the key here!

But he has to remember something Washington has long forgotten. The people he's negotiating with, they don't want a deal. They don't fear collapse.

They come it. They have been playing a slow motion Colour Revolution. One that the company has to be impoverished. Has to be frightened. And has to be divided to accept the new power structures.

Colour Revolutions only work if your people are hungry, if they're afraid, and they believe the people in the head of the government are authoritarian.

When that happens, you can have a Colour Revolution. And every day, America does not break. Every day, the economy still stands. Every day, people wake up and realize their lives are not as hopeless as the media insists.

The revolutionaries lose their leverage. So the shutdown is not the crisis.

The crisis is the addiction to government medicine. So here's the battle line that matters, I think, most right now: While the press spins, you know, panic, Trump has to gather the brightest minds. The innovators, the disrupters. The people who build things, rather than manage decline. That's what he does best. You know, if Elon Musk could do for NASA, what Washington could not. Then why can't we find. Maybe even get Elon Musk. Why can't we unleash the same kind of thinking on health care.

It's time for radical thinking!

Imagine a system where your doctor spends more time listening, than actually checking boxes.

Imagine competition across state lines. Imagine prices that behave like normal prices because the market is finally allowed to work and government doesn't have its finger on the scale.

Imagine freeing the nurses and the physicians from the paperwork prisons they're in. And letting them practice medicine again.

This isn't utopian. That's just uncaptured America. The America before the bureaucratic glacier, settled over absolutely everything in our lives.

Trump is the one that can do this. He's -- he's hitting home runs, grand slams, all -- all the time.

All the time.

Health care is the crack in the wall, where sunlight is still getting through. If you solve this, if you solve the pressure and you -- you lower the pressure on the engine behind the Colour Revolution, you win!

You win. I'm not even talking about election.

You save the republic.

You solve this.

And you solve the fear that drives half of our political dysfunction.

Washington thinks the shutdown is a battlefield. It's not!

The battlefield is health care. The future is decided there. And the man who breaks that system open. And let's Americans breathe again, will shape this country for a generation.

And the only guy to do it, is Donald Trump.

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

They're WATCHING You... The Terrifying Truth about Phone Surveillance

What if your phone knows what you’ll do before you do? Glenn Beck and former Navy SEAL Erik Prince expose the terrifying reality of modern surveillance, from the government’s secret data networks to Big Tech’s behavioral tracking systems. A global “surveillance capitalism” industry has been born, merging private corporations with intelligence agencies. Today, every app, ad, and algorithm harvests your movements, conversations, and even your thoughts. This conversation reveals how smartphones have become digital soldiers quartered in your home, and how privacy, freedom, and free will are vanishing in the age of data control.

Watch the FULL Interview HERE

The harsh truth about America's ailing economy

Glenn Beck warns that America’s economy is suffering from a deeper disease... one that can’t be cured by printing money, free checks, or political spin. With inflation rising, housing unaffordable, and healthcare collapsing under government control, Beck argues the nation faces a “cancer” that only painful but honest reform can heal. He and Stu Burguiere break down why short-term fixes like subsidies and stimulus will only fuel the crisis, and why the only real solution lies in deregulation, competition, and courage. Will Americans endure the hard medicine needed to save the nation, or turn to socialism out of desperation?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Welcome to the Glenn Beck Program.

Stu does not share my -- my optimism. And I -- you know, I think that's too strong of a word. I'm not optimistic.

I am hopeful that someone in Washington, on our side understands what we're facing here. That health care is the biggest win!

It's the biggest win. And totally winnable.

STU: Yeah. And I do think -- if -- you know, if it was the top priority of Donald Trump. I think, he would be able to move Republicans toward trying to come up with something, I guess.

But I don't show much optimism on that. Because as I was going through that whole scenario, it wasn't just that we said these rates would go up, and that the Affordable Care Act wouldn't be affordable and gave all of the reasons that wound up playing out with risk pools and everything else.

And it wasn't also that we would say, hey. They're going to try to solve this by more government subsidiary easy. And more dependence on government.

We said all that stuff. And that's what we just talked about.

But other thing we said was that after this thing got passed, the Republicans would bail on opposing it. We would no longer have an opposition. We're now to the part of the story where the right-wing position is just normal Obamacare.

And the left-wing position is new expand, fancy, times ten Obamacare. The question of whether we triple down on Obamacare.

Or double down on it. That's now a conservative position.

GLENN: Okay. So let me give you some hope.

I talked to Dr. Oz. And he said, they're introducing something here in the next couple of months.

Should be, any time now.

And it will be done at the state level. And it will be to stop all the barriers from state to state.

And you get -- you get your -- your -- your funding for different programs if you get rid of those barriers for your insurance companies.

And if you don't, well, you don't get your funding. And so they will be incentivized to do it.

So I do think that there's some thinking about this, that's going on, with RFK and Dr. Oz.

In fact, let's see if we can get them on. Maybe I'll go up to Washington and do a podcast with him.

Because I think this is the big win here. Because if you look, you have to -- you have to change the life of people, in the next 15 months. Twelve months, if you want to win the election!

And if you -- if you want to win with J.D. Vance. You're going to have to do it in the next 18 months, at the very minimum, okay?

It's going to get harder and harder to do it.

So you have -- you have the things. What are the levers the president has in front of him?

Housing. What is the problem with the housing market?

The housing market, there's a couple of problems.

One, we don't have -- we have a shortage of housing. Okay. Because everybody freaked out. You know, 2008, we had a housing glut. Now, maybe we should go to other way.

So we didn't build enough houses. So now we have this giant housing shortage.

So can the president fix this one quickly?

No. Millions of houses need to be built. And how is he going to do it?

Unless there's a land grab, okay?

Unless he opens up federal land, which we saw how that one went. So he can't really fix the housing thing. He could help it, by saying, "Hey, BlackRock, you guys stop buying houses."

But how do you do that?

I mean, is that the right thing to do? I mean, it's the right thing to do for the people. Constitutionally, can you do that?

I don't know. I don't think so.

The next cost that people are feeling. Electricity. What are you going to do with that?

Well, we know that he's building power plants. Or he is -- he is letting the red tape go, on the power plants.

So if you want to build a power plant, you can build a power plant, in record time.

But that, again, is 18, 24, 36 months away. Minimum! Before you have new power plants, where you'll start to see your electricity costs go down. So you can't do that. Food costs. What is he going to do?

Import cheaper food. That's not a good idea.

So what are you -- how do you affect the average person's money? Well, you can send them free money. Which means, we have to print more.

He's going to send free money. It's the money that he's been taking in from the trade barriers.

So he's saying, he's going to send a $2,000 check to people. And that's the first time I've ever seen a check where the money was actually money.

That we had. Not printed money.

But that's all you can do. You can even do that. That's all you can do. Because you can't print money. You can't have a stimulus. Or you will Jack the prices of everything up.

And you're in the same loop over and over and over again.

The only place where the government has the tools, has enough sway, Donald Trump could do this.

To start breaking this thing up.

Is health care. And that could change things pretty much overnight.

Within 12 months, if he acted today, within 12 months, you would start to see prices come down. You would start to see competition.

You would start to see some sort of relief. But what else does he have, Stu. What else can he do, that will change people's lives. And he knows he has to do that.

STU: Well, I mean, I -- generally, I think I agree with most of that.

I think that the health care is one, you could do.

Again, that's something you sign up for on an annual basis.

Even if the prices did drop, it would take a while for that to come in.

The easiest way to do this -- and he's, by the way, done a lot of this -- is deregulation. You know, I think what's happening with some of that. And we're not seeing tons and tons of results from that, is because I think he's doing things on the other side as well.

That are affecting prices the opposite way. So we're not going to see massive drops.

Of course, a lot of this -- there's a lot of big promises that are being made. When you talk about prices coming down, really fast. It's not always achievable.

The president of the United States. We said this for 100 million years, I feel like again, we're on repeat here. The president of the United States is not the guy that sets prices. That's not his job, right? He doesn't micromanage the economy.
He can do things that can help the economy. I think what's happening now, as you're pointing out. I think this is the desperation a little bit seeping into our politics.

Is that there were -- Trump won the election with a lot of people who had faith in him. Not because he was good on even the border or on -- you know -- you know, trans kids. You know, trans men playing women's sports. It was about -- it was that affordability issue. He was really good on that.

People believed that they would see an economy like they saw in 2018 to 2019, in his first term. And we're just so far, not really seeing that.

Now, there's a lot to unwind. From where Joe Biden was. And the way these prices work. When it comes to inflation. Is not necessarily that prices drop down.

That's what is so devastating about a long-term inflation like the one we got from Joe Biden.

The prices get to a set level.

You don't necessarily bring those prices down. As much as, you slow the increase.

Which is difficult.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

STU: Again, one of the focuses of Trump's economic plan is to try to draw a lot of these products to be made in the United States.

As you point out, that is a long-term process.

You're talking about way after Donald Trump is -- is out of office, before you're seeing the -- what -- the potential theoretical benefits of new factories being built in the United States.

It's going to be to take a long time for that to work, if you believe it's going to work. When you're talking about the other side of that. Which is, you know, increasing prices, based on different taxes and such.

You're -- you're winding up with a situation where you're taking the medicine, and you're waiting for those results to kick in over multiple periods of years.

So I think the way he can do a lot of this stuff.

The best thing he can do in a quick way. Is cutting regulation.

You can cut out a lot of this stuff, to increase the speed of the improvement. Like, you want to build a new power plant. He can cut those things from 12 years, to four!

But that's not going to -- it's not an immediate, you know, economic win.

GLENN: No.

STU: What you're talking about.

GLENN: The country has cancer. That's the problem. The country has cancer.

And we can survive. But it's -- going to take chemotherapy and a long time. And so you can't just go in.

If you have cancer, you can't go in and say, well, you know, you told me yesterday, you were going to start chemotherapy, and I had my first chemotherapy, and I feel worse.

And I'm not getting any better.

"It's been six months, Doc. And I'm not feeling any better."

Yeah. You're not going to feel any better at first. Because it's a serious disease. That's the issue that we're dealing with. The damage -- and we said this under Biden. We said this under the first Trump. We said this under Bush. You know, Reagan was saying this. At some point, the -- the sickness is going to be so bad, that there's not going to be anything that feels good to do. And it's going to get harder and harder to take the medicine.
And unfortunately, you know, everybody wants a quick fix. You know, when Reagan came in. And everything was out of control, you remember what Paul Volcker did?

You remember this, Stu?

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: You weren't old enough. But you know it through history. What did he do?

STU: He had to get rid of inflation. That meant jacking up rates. And that was a painful period.

GLENN: To what? To what?

STU: Eighteen to 20 percent, in that range.

GLENN: I think at the top it was 20 percent interest rates. I remember 19 percent interest rates. Nineteen. People are freaking out over five or six. We had 19 percent interest rates. That stopped everybody from buying. You want to talk about not being able to afford a house.

That was it! But that's what sucked all of that money back in.

Well, you can't do that right now. Because the patient is so sick, you can't -- those interest rates will kill everything. It will kill all the jobs.

The whole thing will collapse. So you can't do that. But we're complaining on 5 percent. You know, and we're wanting them lower and lower and lower and lower.

Well, yes.

I want that too. Because there are signs that jobs are going away. But jobs going away is not just the interest rate. It is also AI and automation.

We are in this really ugly place, that we don't have these honest questions, and really explain to each other, exactly what's -- what all of the forces are. You're going to get socialism.

Because that will seem like the only answer.

Just make it stop. Just make it stop.

Well, okay.

But know what all of the forces are that are causing all of these things.

And there is a way out of it.

It just cannot be done in two years!

It can't be!