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

Trump's Tariffs EXPLAINED: Will Canada Cave Like Mexico?

Did Donald Trump start a trade war with Mexico and Canada, or is it all part of his negotiation strategy? Mexico has already agreed to help improve border security. But Canada has pushed back against Trump’s promise to slap 25% tariffs on many Canadian goods. Glenn explains what Justin Trudeau doesn’t seem to understand: This isn’t about “punishing” Canada. It’s about national security and getting the best deal for Americans.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: All right. Welcome to the program. Donald Trump just got off the phone with Justin Trudeau.

Apparently, they're going to talk again at 3:00 this afternoon.

But he's not -- he's not going -- he's not going light on Justin, which I'm very happy about. Canada, immure -- I'm sorry. When we're there too.
-- I don't want to feel like we're pointing out Canada going, you guys suck! We sucked too. We just woke up and changed leadership.

And we're -- we are going in a different direction. Because we've learned the same things you know. Okay? You know it!

This can't continue this way. Right?

STU: Yeah. The one. I have several issues with some of these policies.

One that I do, is really -- a little bothersome to me. Trudeau is so unpopular, in Canada. So on the way out.

Now there's this nationalist Canadian thing going on. Where they're --

GLENN: Wait a minute. Trudeau is becoming a nationalist?

STU: It's hilarious. He's now getting the benefits of the support, of people who are just rallying around him mindlessly.

Whether the policy is right or not. I just don't like good things happening to Justin Trudeau.

I don't know if that's part --

GLENN: That was an unforeseen consequence.

STU: We will see, obviously, with where this lands, much more important than not.

GLENN: Here's the thing. We have a president that is not actually trying to destroy us.

STU: Yeah. That's true.

Whether you like this policy or not, when it comes to tariffs. You know that the motivation behind it is to make the country better. And I don't know if it's always the motivation behind these policies, when we've seen previous presidents go after them.

Obviously, a lot of Democrats have gone after similar policies. I think a lot of times, their motivations have been much, much worse.

So at least we've got good motivations behind this.

I mean, I think Trump is looking at this and saying, he thinks this will work long-term. I think most clearly, you pointed this out, Glenn, with Panama. With Colombia. Most clearly, he believes they're going to back down from this eventually.

And give us concessions. And I think that's probably the most likely outcome.

GLENN: That seems to be what's happening with Panama.

STU: Yeah, definitely happened with Colombia.

It does seem to be, we are the big boys on the block. And Donald Trump is not only familiar with that fact, but also comfortable with it, unlike other presidents. He's comfortable with us being the big boys on the block.

He's comfortable with us being the world power. That's okay in his eyes. It's okay in my eyes. It's okay in your eyes.

GLENN: As long as you don't become a big bully. I mean, listen to what Justin Trudeau said.

Let's go to cut three, please.

VOICE: Now is also the time to choose Canada. There are many ways for you to do your part. It might mean checking the labels at the supermarket. And picking Canadian-made products. It might mean opting for Canadian rye over Kentucky bourbon, or foregoing Florida orange juice altogether. It might be changing your vacation plans to stay here in Canada and explore the many national and provincial parks, historical sites, these tourist destinations our great country has to offer.

STU: Useless job, yeah.

GLENN: I know he is. I know he is.

STU: He's using this to turn around his own political fortunes. Which is infuriating. He doesn't care about any of this other stuff. He's motivated by his own political interest here.

GLENN: Here's cut six.

VOICE: I think Canadians are a little perplexed as to why our closest friends and neighbors are choosing to target us, instead of so many other challenging parts of the world.

I don't think there's a lot of Americans who wake up in the morning saying, oh. Damn Canada! Oh, we should really go after Canada.

GLENN: You're right!

Why were you targeting us? Why -- why was your -- your number two in command that just quit, why was she targeting people here for, you know, giving to a freedom movement in Canada?

I mean, it's not like you've been our best friend, Justin.

STU: No, he's been horrible.

GLENN: Terrible. But Canadians are great. I love Canadians, and I love Canada. And Canada should love Canada.

STU: Sure.

GLENN: And you should be concerned about what the state of your country is in.

You know, look at your immigration problems. Look at what's happening to your country.

That's what started all of this.

Is the fentanyl coming across our borders. Both north and south.

And the illegals. Stop it. Stop it.

And the great way to stop it is to make sure you stop it at your borders.

From them coming into your country!

That's -- that's really what this is about.

STU: Right. And that's what's clear here.

You know, Trump always says tariffs are his favorite word.

You've talked to him privately about that.

GLENN: I disagree with him on that happen.

STU: A way, I don't think that's exactly what he means.

Tariffs are good, to the extent that they get something else done. Right?

They're not good in and of themselves.

They're just taxes in and of themselves.

They do raise prices on us. The calculation however is, will the pain, that is applied to both sides as Trump has outwardly stated. And it's important to be fair to him.

A lot of people are saying, he's not saying this.

He's saying, there will be pain.

Those are his word. There will be pain on us.

The calculation is, the pain on us, will be the pain less on them.

And they will give first. And then he will get what he wants, outside of the tariffs.

That's the calculation here.

I mean, it is a risky one at times. And, you know, these -- you can call it a trade war or not.

But the bottom line is, when we escalate them, then they escalate. It's -- you could say it's not a trade war. But it kind of is.

I mean, it's a trade competition, if you feel more comfortable with those terms.

But the bottom line is, we believe we're going to win it. That's what he's saying!

And he believes we will win it. And at the end of the day, we get concessions that improve the country. The proof is going to be in the pudding on that.

Will it work? As you pointed out, it has worked kind of with Panama, so far, it seems like.

It's worked kind of with Columbia. It's going to work with some of these countries, it will be more difficult with a country like China.

I think what we saw in his first term.

Was a renegotiation of NAFTA, which basically became the US embassy. Right?

GLENN: Which he still doesn't like. It was the best he could do.

STU: It was the best he could do at the time.

He's I guess not happy with it now.

Because, you know, you're not allowed to put new tariffs either one of these countries in that agreement, which he negotiated. But he wants something better. I mean, how can we be upset with a president who wants something better for the country?

It -- it's just a question as to whether it works or not. The guy -- the Dallas Mavericks traded Luka Doncic this weekend.

The DM came out and said, you'll have to judge me as to how it turns out. We will!

Right? Congratulations, we will!

GLENN: In fact, we kind of already have.

STU: Well, that one, we already have.

That's probably a bad example.

That's exactly what will happen. If this works, and you get something out of it.

People will probably be okay with it, even if it is short-term pain.

Generally speaking, though, the American people only have so much tolerance for that.

And Donald Trump has a finally tuned eye for that type of thing. And I'm sure he will walk that line carefully.

GLENN: He does. Oh, yes, he is.

Yes, he is. And like I said, he's not trying to destroy America. He's trying to save America. And I know that's a new concept, to the American people.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: I'm sure it's new to Americans as well. Cut one.

Here's Donald Trump talking about tariffs on Europe.

DONALD: Well, you're asking me a question.

There's a period in here, am I going to oppose tariffs by the European Union? You want the truthful answer, or should I give you a political answer? Absolutely.

STU: He wants stuff, and this is how he gets stuff.

GLENN: Yeah. But what does he want?

STU: I mean, various things from various countries, right?

GLENN: Yeah. He wants. The big things, he wants an end to the World War II order.

Where we are protecting Mercedes Benz. Allowing Mercedes to come in here, and have all kinds of access to our market. And Ford can't.

We don't have that!

We don't have that in Germany.

Why? Because we wanted to make sure the German countries could recover. And all the car companies could recover.

You know, the world is just not a good place without all that citron.

So that's what that is all for.

That's why we did that. And it never changed.

And it's got to change. It's over.

It's got to change. The other thing that absolutely has to change. They have to pay their 5 percent. Into NATO.

You've got to pay it.

STU: That's -- everyone is in this agreement.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: It exists with the terms of the agreement.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

STU: In place. Follow them.

That's not a difficult thing. We're doing a lot more than everyone else, anyway.

Even if we all pay 5 percent, we're the ones footing the bill. We're the ones basically running that organization.

The least you can do is get to whatever that percentage is.

GLENN: Yeah. And that's fine if you don't.

If you don't want to do that, that's fine.

Then the agreement doesn't exist, and we're not going to protect you all the time.

You know, Winston Churchill. He had to beg the United States to come in because the Americans don't want to be involved in everybody else's business. We don't!

Our government, our state department seems to want to.

The military industrial complex wants to. But the American people don't!

So we're totally fine with that, Europe.

We don't think that's a good idea for you. But, you know, in time, you will learn to defend yourself. And then you will probably get pissed off at the French and start bombing them.

And then we'll be in it all over again. Again, we don't recommend it.

But go ahead. We're not protecting.

What do you think Justin Trudeau will say, if we said, oh, well, you don't want to protect your borders.

Okay. All right.

You want a trade war. Okay.

Well, I think we're done helping your military.

I mean, that's -- we win at the end. Hopefully, we'll never get to that. We win at the end.

STU: They have to know that.

GLENN: Yes, they do. They do.

STU: They have to know that.

I'm not surprised they're retaliating, with the 25 percent tariffs of their own.

Obviously, there are a lot -- we do send a lot of products to Canada as well.

We are the second largest exporter in the world.

GLENN: But --

STU: So we do send products to a lot of these countries. And it will burn those companies. And it will hurt at times.

If these things even get into place. We're not even in place yet.

Would it be surprising at all, if there was a most of negotiating. No.

GLENN: Let me ask you. He was just on the phone with Justin Trudeau just a few minutes ago.

Hung up the phone. What's he doing at 3:00 this afternoon?

Getting back on the gonna Justin Trudeau. This is a negotiation.

GLENN: Yes. Exactly. You can't get too worked about it. Because you don't know where the story ends.

GLENN: We have no idea. We're not the ones negotiating.

Here's what we do know, our negotiator is trying to get the best deal for us.

And he's a businessman. He understands it. Unlike attorneys who run the rest of the world.

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

NEW EVIDENCE: Shroud of Turin Shows Exact Moment of Resurrection?! | The Glenn Beck Podcast | Ep 243

In 2022, a prize of one million dollars was promised to anyone who could recreate the Shroud of Turin. If the Shroud is a forgery, that should be a simple task. Yet, no one has accepted the challenge. “The Shroud of Turin is the most lied about artifact in history,” says distinguished New testament scholar, Pastor, and President of Christian Thinkers Society, Jeremiah J. Johnston, who guides Glenn through a scientific, historic, and theological exploration “beyond the mystery” to the “message of the Shroud.” Discredited and marginalized as a relic only relevant to the Catholic faith, Jeremiah contends that the Shroud of Turin has something to offer every follower of Christ. He reveals what he believes to be the rare blood type of Jesus, the real design of the crown of thorns, and why, in his opinion, Christ was buried at the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. Glenn shares what he saw when given a behind the scenes look at the artifacts housed in the Vatican, and asks Jeremiah whether he is concerned about the AI recreation of the face of Christ. Not only may the Shroud of Turin provide a deeper understanding of the crucifixion, but does it also miraculously uncover the exact moment of Christ’s resurrection? Find out in this paradigm shattering episode of the Glenn Beck Podcast.

Glenn GOES OFF on Senators Trying to Block Trump’s Cabinet Nominees

What's actually going on in Washington, DC? President Trump's cabinet nominees like Tulsi Gabbard, Kash Patel, and RFK Jr. faced hostile confirmation hearings as both Republican and Democratic senators grilled them on insane things. But why would Bernie Sanders, for instance, oppose RFK Jr., a fellow critic of Big Pharma? And why would someone like Doug Burgum get an easy pass to lead the Department of the Interior when climate change is allegedly the biggest crisis we face? It's because these senators don't actually care about "truth," Glenn argues. They care more about preserving themselves and stopping any nominee who will expose their corruption. But the American people have had enough. The truth WILL be revealed. And that's why Trump needs his cabinet ...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: All righty. I have a few things to say.

Let's start with, who is having a hard time getting confirmed?

Okay. Let's just go through the names here in a second.

What's really being discussed here.

Who is under the gun?

Let's start with Pete Hegseth. What is he going to do?

He's going into the Department of Defense. He's looking for those weasels, that have been changing everything in our Defense Department.

Has been culling anybody who disagreed with Joe Biden.

Anybody who thought Donald Trump might be right.

They got rid of all of those people.

Then they committed another atrocity, I believe, for our military.

Demanded that you get the COVID shot, or you were out! It was crimes, incompetence, maybe crimes of incompetence, in Afghanistan, at least. They were trying to control the message. Control the military through DEI.

So Pete Hegseth is a target. Why? Because he's going to find out what's going on. He's going to run investigations. And he's going to stop it.

Okay! Next. FBI DOJ.

So why -- what is he going to do? What is Kash Patel going to do when he gets into the FBI?

Well, he's going to investigate crimes, the weaponization of the FBI. Also, the way that they protected those in Congress, or those in power.

I.e., the Hunter Biden laptop. I.e., the FISA courts.

So he's looking for bad guys, while also trying to clean it up. Because you can't clean it up, if you don't know who the bad guys are.

Then you have the Director of National Intelligence. And Tulsi Gabbard. She's under fire. Why?

Well, she needs to go in and expose all of the black ops, and those leaking lies to the press. And shoring up lies to the members of Congress.

And rooting out the darkness between the members of Congress, the White House, the military industrial complex, and the intelligence community.

What is RFK? Why is he being challenging?

Because he's going to expose the lies of COVID, the corruption, and corruption with pharmaceutical companies.

He's going after and breaking that all up. These are all big businesses. You know, big businesses, for congressmen and senators. And the government!

This is -- this is the center of public/private partnerships. Okay?

And they all involve people who want to go in and find out the root of what's really going wrong here! So they're all under attack.

But what did the Democrats say, is the existential threat to the republic, and all mankind?

What was it?

STU: Global warming!

GLENN: Global warming. Global warming. Guess who just -- whose nomination just flew by!

Doug Burgum.

STU: Burgumentum, yeah. It sure did fly by.

GLENN: Doug Burgum. That is weird.

STU: You would think for Department of the Interior, the concern for a bunch of people who think global warming is the big concern.

GLENN: What he's going to do is reverse a lot of the things and make coal, gas, oil exploration okay for many parts of the Interior of the United States.

He sailed through!

Now, how does he sail through, if he's just going to be -- his role will be to destroy the opposition to oil, gas, and coal?

Notice what he's not going to be doing. He's not going to be investigating the government.

So forget about what we said about the biggest threat. No, no. The biggest threat seems to be the people who are looking into corruption!

So I was a little outraged. I've been a little outraging all week.

And I want to clarify things. And make very, very clear.

We're talking about threats to our democracy.

That's what they said. And I believe that to be true! We're talking about the rule of lay. Right?

But let's -- let's actually look at what is being said in the so-called confirmation hearings.

On day one, with Bernie Sanders and RFK. America's favorite millionaire socialist was railing about onesies.

Onesies! What? That's the great moral crisis facing this country? While we teeter on the edge of war. While the economy is in free fall. While we have corruption all throughout our government? With COVID and pharmaceuticals. Onesies is the thing you're bringing up?

While the very institutions, he claims to protect, have all been turned into political weapons.
Then when RFK Jr had the audacity, the unmitigated gall to point out, that this self-styled champion of the working class was the single largest recipient of pharmaceutical money in 2020, what happened? What happened?

The old man went -- oh! I knew this was going to come up in my socialist dreams.

What did he do?

He did what they all do. He had to silence RFK.

He had to have him dismissed. He needed to discredit him.

He needed people not to hear what RFK was saying.

The same man who spent decades raging against corporate greed. Suddenly has nothing, but caveats and excuses, when the money was going his way.

Now, I don't think it was. But let's just say, that was a lie about Bernie Sanders!

Let's just say that RFK just made that up.

Okay. What had to happen?

Well, Bernie Sanders needed to be able to clarify. Right?

He needed to be able to say, that's not true. And here's why that's not true.

But he couldn't. Okay? He just had to shout it over what RFK was saying. He had to silence and talk over RFK to stop the accusation.

He needed to defend himself, and explain. That's what would happen in a fair system.

But no one on the receiving end can silence the senators. No one on the receiving end can talk over them, and say, that's a lie! And get the control of the room back, so they can set the record straight. The senators can. See, the questions are akin to, when did you stop beating your wife? And I think that was an actual question for Pete Hegseth, last week. Was it not? When did you stop beating your wife?

These hearings are not advice and consent as the Constitution requires. They are smear, destroy, and delay.

Let's move on to Kash Patel. The man accused, without any evidence, of course, of planning to weaponize the DOJ and FBI. That's laughable!

Who is accusing him of that? The very senators, who have spent the last 20-plus years. Weaponizing the entire government, against the American people.

The same people who oversaw the raids on journalists. The spying on sitting presidents. The suppression of political opponents. The imprisonment of pro-life activists, while violent rioters just walked free.

Are these the people who have the audacity, to clutch their pearls about the politicization about law enforcement?

The hypocrisy is so thick, I almost choked to death on it!

And then there's Tulsi Gabbard. God bless Tulsi Gabbard.

When she finally got a chance to speak, she laid it out, plain. Corruption in our intelligence community, is not a theory. It's a fact!

It's a matter of record. It's not even in dispute.

But did anybody talk about that?

No!

Smear, silence, destroy.

Instead, they smeared her. She's a Russian agent.

She's a traitor. She's a spy for Syria. She doesn't care about the Constitution.

These people are so desperate to maintain their stranglehold on power, they will destroy anyone who has -- who has the gall or the opportunity to expose them. They're all rallying around the idea that these people must be stopped, why?

Why did Doug fly through with the Department of Interior, if that's the biggest problem? Because that's not the biggest problem.

They know the biggest problem right now is, they're about to be exposed. So they have got to destroy and delay and stop these people.

They asked her if Edward Snowden was a traitor. They weren't interested in their answer. Because the truth is too dangerous for them. They're not interested in an actual answer on any of these questions.

Here's the truth: Is Edward Snowden a traitor?

Well, I don't know. We could talk about that back and forth.

But I know he shouldn't have ever had to blow the whistle.

Especially to the press.

But it's because of this very committee, senators, it is because of many of you, in fact, you from Colorado, that are questioning me on that!

You were in the Senate, at the time.

Why did -- why didn't -- why wasn't he comfortable coming to you, to blow the whistle.

Why is it he couldn't, become a whistle-blower?

He had to go to the outside press?

See, all of the things that they were doing, that he exposed, I don't like the fact that he exposed them.

Because it hurt the United States. But I'm glad he exposed them. Because what you were doing. What you in Oversight were allowing to happen for years, was against the Constitution.

Was against our rule of law.

So he shouldn't have had to have blown the whistle.

You, all of you, sitting right here on this panel, you're in charge of oversight. You failed!

And you dare question me. Maybe you should do your damn job. Maybe you should stop the unconstitutional surveillance programs, before they ever begin.

These are the people that oversaw the FBI lying to the American people about Hunter Biden's laptop. The laptop that proved the sitting president of the United States and his family took tens of millions of dollars from foreign adversaries, including China!

The same China that is threatening the United States, threatening Taiwan, the same China that these very senators allowed to buy up American farmland and land around our own military bases.

The same China that floods our streets with fentanyl, while their partners in Mexico, butcher Americans, at the same border. While these same senators do nothing, while millions of unknown, undocumented people flood over our borders. And have empowered the cartels.

Don't you dare ask me who the traitor is, Senator!

Don't do it.

Where are you on any of these?

Let me ask you, Senator. Let me all of you.

Who is the traitor here?

Is Edward Snowden the traitor that just has to be executed?

Because treason comes with execution. So is he the traitor here?

Is he the biggest traitor? That happened 15 years ago. Your technology on spying, and corruption, is far beyond anything he ever said!

Is he the traitor? Or is Senator, let me ask you, the president.

President Joe Biden, is he the traitor for taking millions of dollars from our enemy!

Is his family? Did they commit treason? Or is it the people under your oversight, who knowingly spread false information, to protect that family?

Or is it you, Senator? Are you complicit? Are you corrupt, or are you just simply incompetent!

Because it's one of the three. Incompetence. Corruption. Or outright treason. Which is it, Senator. That's what I would like to hear.

Pick one! Because the country is waking up. And the American people are demanding an answer.

And we will get it in the end.

You cannot build this house of lies.

It's already crumbling around. Now would be the time to tell the truth, senator.

Because we're looking for a lot of answers here.

Who was actually executing the duties of the president of the United States, in the last six months?

Maybe the last four years.

I don't know how long. When did you know, Senator? Did you know who was protecting? Who was silencing anyone that was trying to say, maybe we have a problem here? The president is clueless.

By the way, while we're on this topic. Who was responsible for the coup?

To overthrow a president of the United States!

Because that's what it was.

How did that happen?

Who was actually there? Who made that happen? And then selected Harris to be the democratic candidate. Who did that? How did that happen? I'm so interested to know, because none of it is constitutional. And why did, whomever actually came up with the huge list of names for presidential pardons. Include so many of you!

Senators.

So many congressmen, so many people who dared to point the finger my way. Who was in charge of that list. And why are you on those lists?

Is this the reason you're afraid of people that are simply looking for the truth?

Because I want to be crystal clear on what this really is.

I'll continue in 60 seconds.

First, let me tell you about Rob, who wrote in a while back about Relief Factor.

Besides working on his regular job.

Rob built houses on the side for years.

It's a nice side job. That led to horrible hip and back pain. He heard about Relief Factor. Decided to give it a shot. Within 4 days, his pain pretty much subsided.

He continued to get better over time. Rob summed it up, saying. Being pain-free is indescribable. Thank you!

I know the feeling. Relief Factor is a daily supplement that helps your body fight pain naturally by fighting inflammation, which is the source of most of the pain in our bodies.

And, frankly, a lot of our disease. It's 100 percent drug-free, developed by doctors to help reduce or eliminate pain.

And over a million people have tried Relief Factor's Quick Start kit. Seventy percent of them have gone on to order it again and again.

So make 2025, the year of feeling good and living great. Get their thee-week Quick Start for only 19.95. That's less than a dollar a day. 1-800-4-Relief.

1-800-4-Relief. ReliefFactor.com.

Ten-second station ID.
(music)

GLENN: I want to be clear at this point in my rant, of what this is really about. What's really happening in Washington, DC, right now.

This is the Deep State, and all of the corrupt senators, right now, fighting for their survival.

That's all this is.

It is the act of desperate people doing all they can, to stay out of jail. Literally, stay out of jail. You start exposing the corruption in the military-industrial complex.

It goes right to the senators. You start exposing the corruption, and the black ops that are happening in Intel community, it goes right to the senators.

You start exposing what happened next at the DOJ and FBI. It goes right to the senators.

They're all Oversight. Many of them benefited from these things, politically. And in power. They're trying to stay out of jail. This is the ruling class. Democrats and Republicans panicking for the first time in decades, their grip on power is slipping.

Because this president is appointing people in all positions, that are going to go grab it by its roots, and root it out! And show it to the American people. At best, it's -- it's those who have been in bed with the intelligence and military complex.

Who believe at best, that war and American intervention works. Doing all that they can, to keep their secrets and their secret policies, that keep us in these wars, alive.

The problem is: None of their old tricks work. We've had these tricks for over 100 years.

Conspiracy theory. That's a Karl Marx thing. That was used by Woodrow Wilson.

That was used again, by the Soviet Union. And the plants here in the United States.

Call them conspiracy theorists. Discredit them.

Destroy them. You've called us so many names now. We don't believe any of them.

Words don't have any meaning anymore. Your tricks don't work. The smears. The leaks. The media hit jobs.

The fake outrage.

You've played that role too many times. It's a -- no.

It's a Mexican soap opera. A Spanish soap opera. They're so over the top, they're hysterical.

You've played that role too many times.

We know. We know the system is corrupt. We know the game is rigged. And we know there is no moral high ground left for you to stand on.

WEF'S Terrifying Plan to Revive the Great Reset EXPOSED | Ep 409

“By 2030, you will not recognize life on this planet,” Glenn Beck foretells in this episode of Glenn TV. We are at the precipice of a new form of intelligence — but not in human form. There’s a global arms race to find out who will be the first to create artificial general intelligence and then superintelligence. It’s no longer a matter of if it will happen but when and who will pull it off first. The wolves are at the gates. China just unveiled DeepSeek, an AI chatbot that claims it’s on the same level as ChatGPT. Glenn downloaded the Chinese app so you don’t have to, but what he found was dystopian. The other wolf at the gate is the World Economic Forum, which just held its annual gathering in Davos. While this audience helped crush Klaus Schwab’s dreams of a Great Reset and a weaponized ESG system, the WEF elites have a new sinister agenda called the “Collaboration for the Intelligent Age.” Glenn reveals what’s in their plans in their own words. But can the U.S. afford to stay out of the intelligence race while globalist elites plot ahead? Trump put our enemies on notice when he announced the Stargate Project, which got a $500 billion investment in AI infrastructure from Oracle, SoftBank, and OpenAI. This could be the Manhattan Project of our generation, but can we trust the tech titans suddenly flocking to Trump? Big Tech veteran and Brownstone Research CEO Jeff Brown tells Glenn, “No ... they are still actively censoring political content.”

BlazeTV subscribers get exclusive access to Jeff Brown’s entire interview available now at https://get.blazetv.com/glenn/.