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

WARNING: This British FAILURE could spread across the Western world

The United Kingdom is now arresting over 12,000 people a year for "speech crimes" and is debating doing away with trial by jury for many crimes. Glenn Beck warns that if this can be done in the birthplace of these principles (under the Magna Carta), it can happen to the entire West if we don't END this insanity now!

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So let me just start here. Because there is -- there is another story that is out in our newsletter today, that talks about how people of college age are freaking out, after Charlie Kirk's death. They don't want anything controversial on campus.

I mean, that's the reason why colleges and universities had protection of free speech, in the first place.

Was to be controversial. To be able to say the things that nobody wants you to say.

And it's really important.

But let me -- let me first remind people of what the Magna Carta is.

It's 1215? The Magna Carta is Latin for the great chart.

Had it not some magnanimous gift from the king.

The king. King John from England. He was -- he was losing a battle. France was just cleaning England's clock.

The baryons and all the lords and the ladies. Said, you know, this king sucks a lot. This king sucks a lot.

And we've got to stop him. Because he's destroying everything.

And he -- he had lost most of the land, to France. And then he started just imposing huge taxes on everybody. And -- and because nobody in the lower class had any -- this all happened with the lords and the ladies. And they were like, enough. Enough. Enough.

You're abusing your royal power.

Well, nobody had ever said that before. That just didn't happen. He had a divine right. He's the king. But in England, they said, no.

You still have to be moral. You have certain laws, and you can't just do these things.

And so what they did, is they got him to agree to the great charter, the Magna Carta. And it placed the king under the law. Before that, the king was the law. So now the king is under the law: It created the principle of due process. Never before did we have that.

You can't be imprisoned, punishment or stripped of property, except by the lawful judgment of your peers or the law of the land. So this creates jury trials. It creates habeas corpus. Protection from arbitrary arrests. All of these things. The government now has to justify itself in a court of law.

That's revolutionary, okay? It also limited taxation without consent. Which we interpreted later as no taxation without representation. Rule of law. Jury trials. Rights of the accused.

Limits on government. Protection of property. Accountability of leaders. All of that comes from the Magna Carta. Okay?

That gave birth, 500 years later, to us and our ideas. Okay?

Now, England, the birthplace of the Magna Carta is now thinking about getting rid of jury trials and arresting more than 12,000 people every year for what they call speech crimes. 12,000!
Now, I want you to think about that.

In Russia, in the same year this stat came out. The latest year that we have, 2023. In 2023, Russia arrested 4,000 people for speech crimes against the Russian military for Ukraine.

4,000 in Russia, 12,000 in England.

The number I saw. We don't have all the numbers. But the number I saw that were arrested for speech crimes in China was 120.

Okay?

Not for violence. Not for theft.

Not for treason.

12,000 in England for words.

Okay. Now, well, that's going on, now the Prime Minister is floating the idea of eliminating, if not most, many jury trials.

It will only be for murder, manslaughter, oh, and something else like that.

Okay?

So, in other words, if you're like, I believe you should be able to read the Bible in your own language, in your own home, Tisdale.

You don't get any hope. You don't get a jury trial. You get the court. You get the king trying you, not a jury of your peers.

This goes against the Magna Carta, the lawful judgment of your peers. Okay?

That's the safeguard that stands between you and an out-of-control state. This is the first and ancient firewall against tyranny. It is what makes England, England.

And if England of all places, tosses that aside, what does the word "free" mean anymore?

Okay? What does it mean? You can't speak, and then you have no jury -- trial of your peers. Wait. What? First of all, understand this: A nation that polices speech is not free!

A nation that dissolves juries is not just unfree, it's prepping for something worse!

Because the entire architecture of the western world, the liberty that we have, rests on a single radical belief.

The truth does not need a king. The truth shall set you free. Who? Is it not what. Who is the truth? Okay.

No king, but Christ. Because Christ is the truth. That's the Western world!

A person's conscience does not need a permit. Speech does not need a bureaucrat's approval before it leaves your lips! That's the West.

That's what built the world. What took it from darkness, to today.

Freedom is not granted we the state. Freedom preexists government.

Government's only legitimate job is to protect it!

Now, here's the dark little secret, that every single tyrant, and every politician knows today. If you control speech, you control thought. If you control thought, you control people.

If you control people, you don't ever have to worry about controlling the government because no one will ever challenge you again!

This is why it is so essential for any side to go, you can't talk to them.

Don't talk to them. Don't listen. Don't question.

You can't hear that. No. They can say whatever they want. But I have a right to refute it. That's why free speech has to be absolute. Not mostly free.

Not free unless it makes Billy over there cry and uncomfortable.

No. I'm sorry, Billy. You don't like it. Refute it.

Freedom that depends on somebody else's freedoms is not freedom!

Freedom that requires government approval is not freedom! Freedom that can be revoked because a bureaucrat doesn't like your tone is not freedom. Once speech becomes conditional, everything become conditional. Your rights, your property, your conscience, your place in society. Because you only live by permission! Never by principle!

We live by principles. Not people!

Who is actually free?

Who is actually free?

The England that once declared the king himself to be subject of law, or the England that now arrests a man because he's posted the wrong meme?

12,000 people!

Can't find one in 2023 that was arrested for that in America. Not one. The England that gave us John Locke, the philosopher of natural rights. Is that person free?

Or the England that now warns citizens that context doesn't matter, if their words cause someone, anyone, emotional harm.

Britain is about loss. But this is not just a British problem. This is the canary in the coal mine for the entire west.

Because these are the people that came up with it. When the mother country forgets its own legacy, jury trials and freedom of speech. When the random that once stared down monarchs now cowers before hashtags and activists and speech tribunals, than somewhere deep inside the Western soul, a light is flickering.

We must remember here, before that same darkness reaches our shores. Because it's already coming on to our beaches. It's already there. There is no such thing as partial liberty. Freedom of speech is the First Amendment for a reason!

It is the guardrail for every other right!

If you lose the First Amendment, you've lost freedom. And if you lose the Second Amendment, you've lost the ability to defend that first freedom.
It's number one for a reason!

You must be allowed to speak, to gather.

To have a free press!

To question your government. You must have those abilities. You must be able to say, especially about government, the worst things about your government! And question them.

And demand answers. To petition them.

That's all in the First Amendment.

It is the pressure valve that prevents so it's from blowing itself up.

The more we contain speech. The more we say, don't talk about. Don't talk about. Can't say that. Can't say that.

The more the pressure builds up. The more likely we blow ourselves up.

It's the mechanism where the powerless can speak to the powerful.

It's the shield that protects dissenters. Unpopular thinkers, prophets, reformers. And, yes, even the offensive.

Look, there are, quote, unquote, historians now who are getting all kinds of bullcrap about Hitler and everything else.

None of that is true. I don't want to silence them. They have a right to say it.

I have a right to say you're wrong! And show you the evidence of what makes them wrong.

That's the way it works. England is about to forget all of this!

They are truly the birthplace of these kinds of ideas, and those ideas led to our idea of real freedom!

No king!

If they forget this, we cannot -- we believe so -- because there won't be anywhere else in the world to go.

The lesson of history, the lesson that history whispers quietly at first. Then louder. And then finally. And we're about at this point, with a scream!

Is that when a state describes which words are allowed, it will eventually decide which thoughts are allowed. Which beliefs are allowed.

Which citizens are allowed.

In the end, in the end, the prisons don't need bars.

The cell will be in your own mind!

Do you understand that, America?
Do your kids understand that?

We don't even know what it means to be free. I thought this weekend, a lot about as opposed to truth shall set you free.

Thought about a lot. In fact, maybe I'll talk to you about it in a minute or so.

Because I don't think people understand what it means to be free.

We think everybody in the world is free. They're not!

And you're about to really find that out!

You want to be tree, or do you want to be safe? Because you cannot have both.

When safety is defined by those who fear your liberty. It's over!

We used to be people who would explore. We were people that crossed the oceans when everyone said we couldn't. We -- we went to space when everyone said, it's impossible. We crossed mountains that no one had ever crossed. We forged -- we forged a nation of really different people. And lived side by side for so long, yes. With bloodshed from time to time. But generally, in ways that nobody had ever done before. Freedom. Freedom is grand. But it's really dangerous. It's messy. Freedom offends you, a lot. Get over it.

Real freedom, real freedom is the only thing that has ever allowed the human spirit to rise above a king. Above a tyrant. Above the mob. Above the bureaucrats. Real freedom that belongs to you. Given to you by God. And that's what they're about to lose in England. The Magna Carta. The simple idea. No man. Not even a king. No man is above the law. Do we have that here?

Do you think no man is above the law? Or do you think there is a class up in the political range, somewhere, that if you're on the right side, don't worry about jail. That's what the Magna Carta tried to stop. That's what we have forgotten even, and they're about to get rid of it entirely.

The modern west is drifting into far more -- far more sinister creed. No man is above offense.

And that is how civilizations fall.

Puttin' the Christ Back in Christmas (Lyric Video)

This song was produced by Glenn Beck using his AI tools.

Lyrics:

Verse 1:

Well, the season's here, and the lights are bright, but they tell me, I can't say Merry Christmas tonight.

They want RamaHanuKwanzMas all in one breath.

Buddy, that phrase is gonna bore me to death.

So, grab some Coco. Let's reclaim this place.

It's the birthday of the baby.

Yeah, remember who that is.

Chorus:

So, I'm putting the Christ back in Christmas.

No microaggression here.

My friend, if words can break you, I'll bless your heart, because that's a battle we can't defend.

Yeah, I'm putting the Christ back in Christmas.

Let common sense unfold. Out with the new, in with the old.

Merry Christmas. Let the truth be told.

Verse 2:

And hey baby, it's cold outside, relax.

It's flirting, not a federal crime.

We used to laugh and dance in snow.

Now they fact-check mistletoe.

They say intent don't matter.

Well, sure it does, ask Santa.

He's judging hearts, not Twitter buzz.

Chorus:

So I'm putting the Christ back in Christmas.

You can keep your outrage warm.

If every jingle is problematic, buddy, that's the real snowstorm.

Yeah, I'm putting the Christ back in Christmas.

Not buying what they sold.

Out with the new, in with the old.

Merry Christmas. Let the truth be told.

Bridge:

They say that greeting is oppressive.

Well, bless my soul.

Who knew if Merry Christmas makes you tremble, the problem ain't the phrase, it's you.

I'll question with boldness. I'll reason with grace, but don't rewrite my holiday to make it a safe space.

So, here's to the manger.

The star in the sky.

The angels who sang up that holy night.

Here's to the story that still brings hope

Even when cultures lost the remote.

Raise your voice, let the bells all ring.

This season was always about one king.

Chorus:

Yeah, I'm putting the Christ back in Christmas.

Let the real good news unfold.

The world may chase the wrapping paper, but the manger holds the gold.

So, I put the Christ back in Christmas from the young to the gray and old.

Out with the new, in with the old.

Merry Christmas. Let the truth be told.

The math behind Europe's cultural shift

Europe’s future isn’t being shaped by politics or ideology... it’s being shaped by math. Glenn Beck and UK insider Peter McIlvenna break down the explosive demographic shift transforming Britain and Europe, where Muslim population growth has surged 111% in 15 years while native birthrates continue to collapse. The result is a predictable, unstoppable replacement of cultural and political power, created not by conquest but by birthrates and the West’s loss of confidence in its own heritage. And the same demographic pattern is now emerging in the United States.

Sharia Courts & Demographic Takeover - America's Growing Problem with Political Islam

Political Islam is expanding into the West through demographic pressure, parallel legal systems, exclusive community structures, and a belief that Western nations are too naïve to stop it — and Glenn Beck breaks down the evidence. From Marco Rubio’s warning that Islamic political movements openly seek dominance over the United States, to a Texas developer boasting about “manipulating kafirs,” to archived footage of imams defending Sharia punishments on American soil, the signs are no longer subtle. Many Muslims reject political Islam and flee from these systems — but by ignoring what is happening in our own backyard, America risks repeating Europe’s collapse. The question isn’t whether Political Islam exists; it’s whether we’re willing to confront what it demands.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Let me start first. Interview yesterday with Sean Hannity. Here's Rubio, talking about the dangers of radicalized Islam.

VOICE: Ultimately, armed radical Islamic movements in the world, identify the West at large, but the United States in particular, as the greatest evil on earth. And every chance they have -- the notion that somehow radical Islam would be comfortable with simple controls and progress in Iraq and Syria is not born out by history.

Radical Islam has shown that their desire is not simply to occupy one part of the world and be happy with their own little caliphate. They want to expand. It's revolutionary in its nature. It seeks to expand and control more territories and more people. And radical Islam has designs openly on the West, on the United States, on Europe. We've seen that for the rest there as well, and they are prepared to conduct acts of terrorism. In the case of Iran, nation state actions, assassinations, murders, you name it.

Whatever it takes for them to gain their influence, and ultimately, their domination in different cultures and societies.

That's a clear and eminent threat to the world and to the broader west, especially to the United States who they identify as the chief source of evil on the planet. Okay?

The reason why they hate the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the leadership of the UAE and Bahrain, is because they've allowed the United States to partner with them. That's why they hate them. They consider them infidels for it. They hate Israel.

But they also hate America. And they hate anyone in the world, that we have influence, they seek to attack, including here in the homeland.

If you look at the domestic terrorists, the attacks that have happened here domestically, the overwhelming majority of them have been inspired by radical Islamic viewpoints. That includes the shooting in the Pulse Night Club in Orlando, Florida. That includes the Saudi pilot in Pensacola, my home state. Two attacks.

GLENN: Okay.

So I -- I would like to propose we stop calling it radical Islam. Because it's not radical Islam. It's political Islam. There is religious Islam, and I know a lot of religious Muslims that are good people. Okay? I don't put them in the same category because I don't want Sharia law.

That's political Islam. It's not radical. It's what happens all over the world.

It's not radical, it's political.

You remember, if you're my age. When the wall came down. And we finally got to converse with Russians.

And we always thought -- me growing up. I always thought the Russians.

It's Vladimir. Vladimir. Look, he's spying.

Natasha. He's spying.

Okay. That's what we thought when we were kids.

That's not who the Russians were. The Russians were good people. They were decent people.

They wanted the same kind of things we wanted. We don't agree on everything.

They want to be left alone. Raise their kids. Have a chance at some success and retirement.

Just leave me alone.

Most of us are like that. What happens is, our politicians get in the way. The politicians. The political systems are the ones that are the problem. We don't call it radicalized communism.
It's communism. Okay? It's a political philosophy.
This is a political philosophy.

Political Islam -- it's not radical.

It's just a political philosophy, and that political philosophy, just like communism, wants to dominate the world. Unlike communism, political Islam is so incredibly arrogant. It's inevitable to them. Why? Birthrates.

That's why! Birthrates. And they think we're stupid. And, you know what, so do I! I think we're stupid too. Come on, man. Right? Are we not stupid? We look over at Europe. Are the grand Europeans, that colonized the whole world and are abusing everyone, because they're so sophisticated and so powerful, and everything else. Really are they?

Because look at how dumb they are being right now with their own countries in Europe. They're committing suicide. And so are we.

Now, there's this development that is happening in Texas. Let me -- let me give you an interview, a piece of an interview done by a Muslim developer, of Muslim communities, and -- and how -- and how it actually works.

Listen to these 35 seconds of this interview.

VOICE: The way -- like, you can't make it exclusive, like non-Muslims are not allowed. What we're doing, there's something called a secession fee. I don't know what it's called in Dubai. Like your maintenance fee -- the service fee, to cut the grass, to remove the snow, and whatnot. So that service fee will put that 75 percent of the service fee you're paying, close to (another language).

VOICE: Automatically, if you are a practicing Christian, I would advise you, why help the Muslims? You know. They do their own thing.

Right? So this is the way we're going to put the costs, and our attorney already put it in there.

GLENN: This is the way they manipulate the kafirs. The kafirs are you. The non-Muslim people. The infidels.

And they -- they are manipulating. Because, ha, ha, ha. And why would you do that? That's how they make it an exclusive Muslim community. Okay. And what do you get in those Muslim communities? I want to take you back to 2015.
I had been in Irving, Texas. My studios are in Irving, Texas. And I had been there for maybe three years. And it is the most diverse ZIP code in all of America. Which is a great thing. Except, it's also becoming very, very Islamic.

And that is totally fine, as long as we're not talking political Islam.

Unfortunately, we are. And the religion teaches that you can lie, to an infidel. You can lie if it helps Islam.

Okay.

So I had a couple of imams from the Dallas area, come in, from -- from, you know, where all of this is happening. And I just -- I sat them down. And we just had a great conversation.

I want you to listen to this, what finally came out of the mouth of one of the imams. Listen to this.

VOICE: I'm here. I'm sorry to say, back to the first point. I'm here to discuss an issue with the Islamic Tribunal.

So please, don't -- allow us to have a situation. Maybe, we are ready for any discussion.

VOICE: No. I know that.

VOICE: We are ready for any point to lead the discussion. But the main point here, we are -- the reason we are here to discuss this issue. What kind of cases, Islam tribunal have.

And we start with the Sharia.

And why the people are afraid from Sharia.

I'm sorry to say, at one point related to this.

It's not just in Sharia law. Not just in Islamic law. It's everywhere.

Who said that just in Islamic law?

That's even Sharia, in Jewish Sharia, in Christian Sharia. In America here, we cut -- we -- we -- we cut it for some reason. So I'm asking you an easy question.

If anyone kill another, he should have got killed by a law, by Islamic law, by -- by -- by governor. By -- he should have got killed.

What is wrong with that?

If a thief, jump to go back house. Scare your wife. Scare your children. Scare your neighbor.

And they did that with our stores, this is the law. The law to cut his head.

Because if he feels my hands were cut because of that. He will think about this 100 times. He will never do it.

And if you do that one time, they will never do it again.

Look at how many millions of dollars Americans here or other states or other -- outside has been for the -- to keep, the criminal in -- in jail. A lot of millions of -- we can see that just -- that's it. Because he did something good in the whole community. And they scare the whole community.

Why not. Back please to the point. Islamic tribunal.

Yes. We never deal with anything of that. We don't have authority for that. We don't have power for that.

GLENN: But you're okay. You seem to be okay with that. If you had the power for that happen.

No. You don't --

JASON: Absolutely not. Absolutely not. We -- as imam said, we have system. We are very organized people.

GLENN: Right.

VOICE: Sorry, for this example. Somebody can -- might add. I should have killed him.

GLENN: Right.

VOICE: I had to take this case to the judge, and the judge have to -- to the governor. There's a system, a procedure, that I have to follow.

So it's not like this -- this guy gets killed. No, no. We have -- I -- I give you just an easy example for leader. This is after prophet Mohammed, peace be upon him. He sent one to Yemen. And he told him, before he leaves, he ask him, almost as a habit. What did you do if the people bring a thief for you?

He said, I will cut his hand. Okay. He said, you do that. Okay. He said, after -- after -- he said, okay. If one person came with me, without work, and I blew it. And I blew it. I will cut your head. Because he has no job. So he -- if you run from the sword or grab something from here, to eat. Nothing happened to you. So but if you have your job and enough income, and you took -- a bunch of children and you have house and you have car. And you -- or a thief from here or there. So this is the law. Not to please, the point with Sharia. I ask people. We are not here to do that at all.

It is not our authority. It's not our power. It's not our job. We have --

GLENN: You've got to stop. You've got to stop. Okay. This is amazing to me. Because you hear how passionate he is, about how logical that is. Okay? I mean, you just have to do it, it just makes sense to everybody, we just cut your hands off.

And the Prophet Muhammad, peace upon him, and he he's preached this forever. I mean, it just works. It just works.

Of course, we wouldn't want to do that. But it just works. I mean, let me tell you about it again. Really?

Really? You don't want that to happen. Because you're in the United States, but you're cool with it everywhere else. Everywhere else.

But here it's different!

But my religion, which requires me to say, peace upon him, after I mention the prophet Muhammad, my religion, which is extraordinarily well-defined.

It has these raise. In political Islam.

That must be done. Because the Koran requires it, in political Islam.

But we're not going -- yeah. We've got our own little laws going on now.

We have our courts.

Who we're never going to go that far. Wait. Wait. You believe in political Islam? Of course I do. But you're not going to do it?

Of course not. But the Koran commands you to do it?

Of course it does.

You follow every dictate in the Koran? Of course I do.

But not that one? Come on. Come on. Does anybody really believe that?

Now, that does not mean Muslims believe that. Many do. Many do not. The ones who do not are the ones who have lived under it, and have escaped here. And want a different kind of Islam.

And by just turning a blind eye to this, because they know how it happens. They saw it in their company. They don't want it happening here.

You know, we just take care of things like marriages. Oh, so when a guy says, I divorce you. I divorce you. I divorce you. You're divorced, and she loses everything. Oh, you mean the kind, if she wants to testify against her husband on adultery, she has to have two witnesses, plus her, because her voice and one other person as a witness does not equal him, because she's not equal to a man. Oh. Okay. All right.

But you have that one. And that's okay. No. It's not okay. It's not okay.

It shouldn't be okay in any western country, period. Should not be okay.

Unfortunately, we're all turning a blind eye to it.