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

AI bots are experiencing BRAIN ROT... and it’s happening to all of us

Are we destroying our minds with endless scrolling? Glenn reveals some shocking new evidence that Large Language Models (AI) trained on the same viral, low-quality internet junk we consume every day are experiencing rapid cognitive collapse — reasoning plummets, long-term memory vanishes, and even dark, narcissistic traits emerge. Worst of all? Even when scientists try to “detox” the AI with high-quality data, the damage is permanent. If we don’t choose to feed our minds better content — real books, deep conversation, silence, and reflection — we risk becoming a society that can’t think deeply, care deeply, or live freely… and we might be too far gone to even notice.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: The average person spends two hours and 21 minutes a day, on social media.

That's the average person! Two hours 21 minutes a day on social media.

Approximately 141 minutes every single day, scrolling.

The average American!

Our on screen time, overall, the average American spends six hours 38 minutes, every day, on screens, connected to the internet!

Oh, my gosh. Wow! Time just gone! Just vanished into -- into, what? Updates? Scrolls? What is it that we're reading?

Seriously, are we -- we exercising our soul with deep thought? Do you know that leash reading in the US has fallen?

Only 16 percent of Americans age 15-plus read for their own enjoyment on an average day? Fifteen [sic]. That number was almost 30 percent in 2003. Fewer books: US adults in 2021 said they read on average 12.6 books a year, down from 15 in 2002 to 2016.

So we're losing reading skills. We're losing deeper thought. We're losing hours of conversation. We're losing how many hours of reflection? At least minutes, maybe 100 minutes.

Our attention spans. How long can you focus on something?

You know, the second screen was different. When we first started TheBlaze, I talked about doing a second screen. Technology, and it wasn't because you couldn't watch something. They're now talking about taking your TV show or your -- your Netflix show, and dumbing it down so much because people are watching or they're scrolling while they're watching the TV. And so they can't follow a complex story line. Oh, my gosh!

We are just going to be stupid slugs. Everything that we're doing online is fracturing attention, memory, and sustained reasoning. And so at what point does this become an epidemic? At what point our are our minds starving for any kind of nutrition as we feed them calories of noise? Now let me tell you the real story. AI is holding a mirror up for us.

There's a new study that came out. LLMs can get brain rot. Okay? That caught my eye. Large language models, LLMs. They are trained on junk web content. So viral, shallow, high engagement stuff.

And all it does is it's just cataloging all this stuff and just consuming all of this stuff that we're scrolling through every day, okay? Do you know what's happening to the LLM?

It's experiencing cognitive decline. It can't -- its reasoning ability is dropping. Falling through the floor. Long context memory, gone!

And dark personality traits, psychopathic tendencies and narcissism has increased. This is within AI. Okay? And when the junk content ratio rose from zero to 100 percent, if you're just scrolling for junk, the reasoning benchmark falls from 75 percent to almost 55 percent.

Its ability to understand long -- you know, long form context, falls from 85 percent, to about 50 percent.

Now, here's the scariest part, they caught this and they're like, holy cow.

Look at what's happening to the large language model. It's completely decaying.

You know, we're just doing it for a year now, and look what's happened. It's not reasoning anymore. It's turning dark. It can't understand long form content anymore.

Let's get it off that!

Let's start putting good, clean stuff into it.

Even after retraining on clean high-quality data, the models never recover the baseline capacity.

Okay?

The rot remains!

As a man or now as a machine thinketh, so he becomes.

I just -- I've been blown away by this study, for the last few weeks. It came out a couple of weeks ago. I had it on my desk, and I wanted to tell you about it. And I just haven't had time.

And I just keep thinking. This is a machine. This is not our brain. This is -- this is a machine that is -- is using the same kind of crap.

I mean, what happens if you don't monitor what you think?

Or worse what?

When we stop thinking?

AI is teaching us a lesson. And I guarantee. This study has been out for weeks!

Never heard it, did you? Nobody is talking about it. It's screaming at us, "Hey, learn a lesson!"

When you feed nothing but lone nutrient attention-hooking, high engagement junk, the capacity to reason, to remember, and to care degrades.

Aren't we seeing this now? Do people care as much as they used to?

Nope! Can they reason?

Nope!

Can they remember what happened yesterday?

Nope. My gosh, don't worry about AI taking over, controlling us. Programming our lives. Look at ourselves. We've already -- we've already signed over our lives to an algorithm.

We're studying AI brain rot!

But is anybody studying, you know, brain, brain rot?

Maybe -- maybe we do recognize it. Maybe we do recognize it. But, you know, we're too apathetic to wean ourselves off the digital era.

It's hard. It is hard. But when the nature of what we ingest for body and mind becomes shallow, the body suffers. But mind sinks deeper.

And we live in an age where we might be less full of nourishment, but full of distraction.

We talk less. We actually listen less. We read fewer books.

You know, where our minds just flit instead of dive. Our attention span, it's almost gone. And make no mistake, this is not just a matter of convenience or lifestyle. This is creeping into the structure of who we are, individually, and collectively.

What is this going to do to -- to our children?

I mean, even if we stopped right now, and we wanted to change, we -- according to the brain rot study.

We won't get that baseline back. Do we pass this stuff on?

Is it getting to a point, to where we're just pumping out morons.

I mean, we're already doing that. I mean, really pumping out morons.

At what point is this an epidemic, where anybody even recognizes it?

When -- when is it where our ability to think critically is so diminished, we cannot be a free people?

Are we there yet?

I told you earlier, I went to the bookstore yesterday. My son and I went to the bookstore.

And I was like, we're getting books!

Because I haven't read. I've been reading online.

It's not the same. It's just not the same.

You've got -- you can't remember. Because you remember sometimes with your fingers. You remember where it is in the book. You know, I can never find anything digitally. I can never find where it is in the pook. I'm -- I'm looking for it.

I can't find it. But I know right where those facts are, if I'm reading a physical copy of a book. And, you know, deep reading. Quiet reflection. Sustained dialogue. Pretty rare! Pretty rare! Our mental health, our social health!

You know, kind of going down. You know, civic health. I wrote it. A little bit. I think we all agree with that.

Even when artificial intelligence trained on junk content degrade in reason, we still feed ourselves the same thing.

Are we going to keep doing that? Or are we going to choose to do something different?

Well, first thing, we have to get people to understand it.

Can we really?

Can we get people to actually listen to this?

And then engage again, in thoughtful reading and conversation. And meaningful silence.

It starts with awareness.

And then choice. What do you permit -- what are you going to put into your body?

What do you permit into your mind?

Otherwise, one day, we'll all look around. And we will realize.

We didn't just lose time. We lost the capacity to deeply think. Deeply connect.

Deeply live.

And then maybe again, maybe we're so stupid and shallow, we won't know.

I'm happy. Are you happy?

What was the question?

What are you saying?

Maybe that's -- maybe that's -- maybe that's a better life!

I love my family!

I don't know who my family is, but I love them! Politics. I don't vote. I haven't voted for a long time. Look at -- (laughter) TikTok! TikTok! TikTok! Okay?

It's up to us, America.

Rep. Chip Roy EXPOSES How Radical Islamic Cells are Spreading Across America

Texas officials are warning that foreign ideological networks, including CAIR, the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates, and Sharia-aligned organizations, have already embedded themselves inside the state through political activism, funding pipelines, mosque expansion, Sharia courts, and aggressive community influence. Glenn Beck and Rep. Chip Roy explain why Texas is now the frontline of a coordinated movement that uses nonprofit status, immigration loopholes, campus activism, and foreign funding to undermine U.S. law and cultural stability. As Europe reels from decades of the same mistakes, Texas is declaring these groups a threat and moving to shut them down, but the question remains: Will America act in time to stop the network that’s already operating inside the country?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So, Chip, when you saw this come from the governor, you and I have talked about things like this for a long time. This -- this -- we should have done this with CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood, a long time ago!

Instead, under -- I believe, it started really under George Bush. But then it just got worse and worse and worse.

We were letting CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood and everyone else, into our Department of Homeland Security. I mean, decades ago.

Tell me a little bit about why it's important. What Texas did.

And then let's follow it up with enforcement of that.

CHIP: Yeah. Well, first of all, you and I have talked about this for a long time, as I think I've talked to you on your show, it was the last substantive conversation I had with Charlie Kirk. Because it was very clear to me. It was clear on to him.

I think it was clear to you.

That our side, for way too long.

Even today. Thebe it's waking up. Have been asleep with the war on the left, that has been in process for decades.

Everybody is walking to London. They're waking up to Paris.

They're seeing now Dearborn. And Minneapolis.

And, oh, my gosh. Mamdani. Wait a minute. There's a problem in Texas too.

Some of us have been saying that for a while, and going back all the way to the Holy Land Foundation. Right? The Holy Land Foundation which was a Dallas/Ft. Worth issue, 25 years ago.

You and I talked about that last time. For listeners to understand how long this has gone back. You have unindicted coconspirators, associated with the Holy Land Foundation that are not tied to CAIR.

You have CAIR celebrating October 7th. You have all sorts of indications. In fact, the story yesterday in the New York Post.

Our friend Amy and her organization, they helped break that story, and having it out in the world. About the extent to which CAIR is tied, and their financial ties to the dispute issues on campuses.

All of the -- the connections that they have got with the radical terrorism, that we have to connect all of those dots.

And now, for the governor. I think, appropriately, you know, they've been targeting. They passed something in the legislature next spring.

We have to be much more aggressive. The governor is right to be aggressive here. This will have increased scrutiny and tools, and now I have to dive into exactly what those tools are, with respect to what it opens up to on the state level.

But the mere statement by the governor that both -- obviously, dealing with the Muslim Brotherhood. But CAIR. That CAIR is, in fact, an organization that we should treat as such is so critically important. Because it's masquerading as some, you know, oh, the councilman. You know, of American Islamic relations are -- it's crazy.

Like it's -- and the idea that they should get tax breaks is insane.

Which is why I introduced legislation to introduce their tax benefits.

That's the bear minimum.

I can tell you, but I can't go too far into it. Lots of really good conversations are occurring with the appropriate official law enforcement entities in Washington, to follow the money.

We've got to follow the money. I believe that there's a criminal organization, that is connecting all of these dots. You and I talked about that before.

It's not just the Islam issue. The Islamification of America, but also the Soros DAs, the open borders, Antifa. Southern Poverty Law Center. And, by the way, SPLC is now putting a target on me, because I'm daring to speak out about this.

It's all connected. It's all connected, Glenn.

GLENN: So what is it the state can do?

I mean, first of all, I think for anybody who doesn't understand, and, Texans, wake up!

If you lose Texas, you lose the West!

As Texas goes, so goes America.

And as America goes. So go the rest of the world.

And, you know, if you're looking at Dearborn. You're looking at, you know, these places in Minnesota.

And you're seeing that.

And you think that's not related to you.
It is worse in Texas. The numbers in Texas are staggering! And what they're -- I mean, just what's happening in the small little town that -- my studios are in.

It's the most diverse ZIP code in America. Las Colinas, Texas.

And I've been ringing this bell for 12 years when I first got there.

I started doing stuff on the Sharia law. The movement to bring Sharia law to Las Colinas, Texas.

And, Chip, I got to send you a copy of this interview I just did. I did it with the imams in the -- the biggest mosque in Las Colinas.

And one of them halfway through just blurted out, yeah, we all agree, hands should be chopped off if you steal. And I just let him go for a while. And it was clear, Sharia law is happening.

And now they have put these Sharia courts into place, to has come things. Because, well, it's their right to has come it as a religion.

No. No. No.

Not when it comes to usurping the Constitution of Texas or the United States of America. And that's happening now in Texas!

So give me. Give the person who is not necessarily paying attention some idea of what is coming and is here already in Texas.

JASON: Well, first of all, you know, you've got an explosive growth of the mosques that are growing in Texas.

We have over 300 and counting. More being planted in Texas, every day, than any other state in the union. You've got the Islamic center down in Houston, which is 150,000 square feet. That has major issues.

You noticed. I saw that imam down in Houston, going, well, you can't take this on the shelf.

They're trying to take over and change what should be done down here with the implementation of Sharia. There are activist Sharia courts in Texas, which the government rightly yesterday said, they're going to shut down, because they're in conflict with Texas law. And notably, what he's doing with the Declaration.

The governor is making very clear, that he connect the dots with the legislation, that the legislature passed.

With that declaration to say, no land and can be acquired with anybody associated with these organizations.

Now, again, I think this is the tip of the spear.

I think -- I don't mean this negatively. It's kind of obvious. Let's go after these guys. But there are myriad organizations that these will go after and shut down.

Let's be clear. I don't even know why we are allowing any foreign nationals to own Texas land.

GLENN: I don't either.

CHIP: Literally, let's just be very aggressive, and very clear.

I don't why massive corporations are owning our land, by the way. Separate issue, but all related. I'm bothered also by boardrooms in New York buying up our ranches and meat packing plants and everything else.

GLENN: Me too.

CHIP: Because, again, it's all related. The red/green alliance, the Marxist Islamic issue is all connected to root out and destroy western civilization. So that is to say, what the governor did is really critically important. It is a step so that we can go stop some of these things in these enclaves like Epic City.

But we need to be much more aggressive. And, again, I introduced legislation as you know to vet people for Sharia law and adherence to Sharia law when we're admitting them to the United States.

But today, I'm filing a bill called The Pause Act, to pause all immigration, until we have sorted our crap out, until we dealt with H-1Bs. Until we got rid of diversity and -- diversity chain migration. So we dealt with the veto, which, by the way, we need to challenge, which is the Supreme Court case thing that says we must educate illegal children. Until we've dealt with birthright citizenship. Until we've cleaned up our mess.

Until we've put in place, standards for not admitting people that are inherent to Sharia Law. Why are we importing more people?

Let's put Americans to work. Let's stop destroying our culture. Let's freeze it in Texas. Let's do exactly what the governor is doing, and more!

STU: Did you see what's happening in Germany?

In Germany, one of their ministers said, there's no longer a problem in Syria. The war is over. It's peaceful. Everyone in Germany who came for refugee status to Germany, you're all going home. Now, they're not going to do it. However, they did strip citizenship from a Serbian immigrant who praised Hamas as heroes. And this same minister came out and said, you know, your citizenship has to be contingent on shared systems of values.

And they're starting, at least to talk about stepping -- stepping up.

I think this is the right thing to do. Have we thought about -- have we thought about if you have refugee status, and your part of the world has now calmed down going, get out. Go home.

CHIP: Absolutely, we should do that. We have been talking about that, and the need to reverse, frankly, the abuse. There's two elements, okay? The reversal of the abuse of asylum, parole, refugee laws that were abused. Right?

You had people coming in, who really weren't in need of refugee status. Or weren't actually qualified for asylum. And they were abusing paroles on a case-by-case basis. So there's that whole mess. Then when you have a legitimate case for asylum or for refugee status, then we should review those. And say, okay. Guess what? They have calmed down. You can go back! Those are very specific provisions and laws.

You know, they're designed for that specific persecution, or very specific situations in war and otherwise. And when that's no longer the case, then you no longer have the reason to have that qualified status in the United States. So we should address that.

But let's remember, Glenn, I think it's so important, that we have to understand. Like, we're talking about the Muslim Brotherhood. I don't have it right in front of me. But I read that the proclamation by the governor. He was pointing out, that, you know, when that organization was founded like 100 years ago, or something.

Early last century. That it was founded. It was very specific about jihad. And very specific about jihad being an obligation.

Right.

And if that obligation comes from Allah. And that's for everybody adherent to Islam, in the eyes of the Muslim Brotherhood. And so understand what's happening!

And people need to realize that. Because this is -- everybody wants to go and say, well, you know, we can't talk about the First Amendment.

Bull! That is not true. Okay?

First of all, we can talk about it because of the First Amendment. Second of all, we can talk about it, because, yes. You can believe what you want. Right?

Our Constitution. Our Bill of Rights says that. But when you are turning that into a political movement, designed very specifically. To undermine our country.

And you undermine the rule of law. Then, no.

You do not have a right to do that. You certainly don't have a right to be admitted into our country.

And we need to recognize that and address it, or we're going to lose. And then we're going to be like Germany. And we're going to be like London or we're going to be like Paris. And we will be looking around going, what do we do now?

Right? We have 10 percent of the population, and growing. And, you know, 1500 seats in elected officials throughout the United Kingdom.

You've got 85 jurisdictions in Scotland, where they can choose Sharia law instead of -- as an alternative to Scottish law. We can't get to that point.

We have to stop this right now.

The Bubba Effect: Is America headed for collapse?

America just crossed a constitutional red line — and Glenn Beck breaks down why this moment may be the one historians look back on as the final warning before national fracture. From Congress signaling military insubordination, to judges erasing separation-of-powers, to a cultural class obsessed with ideology instead of safeguarding the republic, the “Bubba Effect” is now in full force. Glenn explains why collapsing institutions, media silence, and public distrust are creating a perfect storm — and why citizenship, not rage, is the only path to restoring the republic. Are we witnessing the moment America snaps, or the moment Americans finally wake up?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Welcome to the Glenn Beck Program.

We're glad you're here. I want to talk to you today. Today's theme of the show is the Bubba Effect. Because it's here. And we are seeing it in full force. I will show it to you in Dearborn, Michigan. I will show it to you with Nick Fuentes. I will show it to you, with Epstein.

And I just showed it to you, a different kind of the Bubba Effect, institutional Bubba Effect. With that statement that came out, you know, telling the troops to, you know, disown, you know, the president. Or don't -- don't follow orders.

Question orders.

And you should do that. And that is something they're taught in the military. But they're taught within the system.

You know, it's not just that they made a message to the military.

They sent that message.

Imagine if the Duma would have sent that message to Putin. And we received it, and saw it. We would be like, their government is fall apart.

Their military is falling apart.

Look at this. What message is that sending to China and Russia and all their allies.

It's bad. It's very bad. There is a moment in every republic. Every empire. Every nation. The historians will look back and say, yep. That was it.

That was the biggest warning. That was the last warning.

And I think we are living in that moment right now.

When Congress told active duty military to ignore the orders of the commander-in-chief, you've got a problem.

When you can't get a federal judge impeached, because he approved something that has never been done in American history.

Granting one branch of the government, the right to secretly surveil the other without notice.

You have to -- constitutionally, you must notify you're under surveillance.

Okay?

If they're doing a mass thing. You have to notify.

Because that's a second branch!

Otherwise, you break up the branches, okay?

These are not political stories.

These are constitutional earthquakes.

And no one is talking about them! So now the question is: What now?

What has to happen, if the republic has to survive the stress of these fractures. That everybody seems to be creating or dancing on.

Let me outline it plainly here. Because all of us have a role. One, Congress. Congress, you have to discipline your own. If lawmakers can publicly encourage military resistance without consequence, then Congress has surrendered its moral authority.

You cannot police the executive branch. You can't oversee the intelligence agencies. You can't demand transparency, if you cannot police your own members.

Censure is not vengeance. It's maintenance. It's routine. It's necessary.
Constitutional maintenance. And if Congress refuses to do it, then the precedent remains. It gets worse.

And history shows us, no nation survives a politicized military. Ever!

Two, the military.

You to have restate the -- the chain of command.

Publicly and immediately. The Joint Chiefs don't need a press conference. They don't need hearings. They just need to say, the United States armed forces obey all lawful orders of the president.

That sentence, those exact words, that's the firewall between an American republic, and every failed nation in history.

The silence so far is not reassuring.

Three, the judiciary.

Especially the Supreme Court. Close the door on the book -- the Boasberg case! He opened a door that is so dangerous.

No judge, no matter how noble his intentions, has the authority to rewrite the separation of powers.

If one branch can secretly spy on another, then you have no checks and balances! You had a surveillance government. The Supreme Court must intervene. Not Trump! Not even Congress. But for the survival of coequal branches, if they don't, this is the new normal!

And you don't come back from that one, either! And now, the hardest part, the that one everybody talks about. Nobody does. The role of the cultural leaders and people like me in the media. In a functioning republic, this is supposed to be where the media steps in!

This is where the cultural leaders. The voices, left, right, center, stop obsessing over click bait. And start explaining to the people, what just happened. Why it's unprecedented, why it matters. How we as citizens need to respond. But look around. Do you see anyone in the press doing that?

Do you see anyone in Hollywood, doing that?

Do you see anyone in academia doing that? No. You don't. Because America's cultural class no longer sees its role as the guardian of the republic. Who is the guardian?

They're guardians of ideology. So what do we do?

Well, we do what Americans have always done, when institutionals fail. We step in our self. But if we don't care, that's it.

The Founders never trusted the press.

They trusted the people.

So that's where we are now.

And we all have to model what a responsible media. Or a responsible citizen should be doing.

So let me show you right now, how a responsible broadcaster responds to a constitutional breach.

My fellow Americans. This is not about Donald Trump.

This is not about Democrats. This is not about Republicans.

It's not how you vote.

This is about whether the military stays under civilian authority.

Whether our adversaries overseas are given the indication that we are ripe for the taking. This is about judges, that want to erase the separation of powers!

The separation of power is what has kept this constitutional republic going for all of these years!

Most importantly, this is about whether your children will inherit a functioning republic. And if the mainstream media won't tell you, then I will!

That right there, is the job. To preserve the republic!

So our children and grandchildren and that is what we all should be doing. That's what the press should be doing. That's what the cultural figures should be doing.

You call out the violations of Constitutional order, no matter who benefits. No matter who gets angry. No matter what tribe demands your silence. This is what leadership looks like!

This is wrong! This has never been done before. This breaks Constitutional boundaries.

And it has to be corrected immediately!

Americans, you understand the Bubba Effect is here. And it's everywhere!

You're going to see people that you're like, well, he's really wrong on that! And that's really outrageous. And I don't agree with that.

But at least he's right on this one!

And it will always be to question the system. To break it down.

So what do you do?

Well, you don't riot. You don't panic. You don't is it fair. We're headed into Thanksgiving. Give thanks for the crosses that we bear. Give thanks because our liberty, our freedom, should we decide to keep it, will be more valuable to us.

But you should call your representatives. I'm so sick of calling my representatives. But you should do it anyway.

You need to demand transparency. You need to insist on consequences! Don't normalize what is happening. Well, they're all like that! Stop it!
Stop it.

If that's what you expect, that is what you will get. But understand this: The cure for Constitutional drift is not rage. The answer is not anger. It's not division. It is citizenship!

It's also not apathy. If we sleep through this, the system will break, guaranteed.

But if you wake up, stand up, and insist on boundaries, eventually it will happen! I know you're tired.

I know you don't want to do it anymore. I know you're just desperate for an answer. Because the time is running short.

But now is not the time to act in -- in ways where we dishonor ourselves. In ways where we -- we throw in with a lot. We're like, that's really bad!

But at least they're pointing it out. You point it out! Once you start standing up, once we as a people, all you need is 20 percent! Twenty percent. Anywhere between 15 and 20 percent of the American people. If they understand the Constitution, if they understand the Bill of Rights. If they understand that God has put us in this place, at this time, and each of us have a reason to live!

We're here for a reason!

Everything snaps back into place!

It always has!

From 1800 to 1868 to 1974.

Institutions bend.

People break. But the Constitution can be restored.

But if -- and only if, you know it, you love it. You never betray it yourself, and you demand it of the people who represent us.

THIS could FINALLY land Epstein’s enablers IN JAIL

New evidence suggests that JPMorgan Chase overlooked 5,000 "yellow ticket" suspiciouos activity flags connected to Jeffrey Epstein, which resulted in #1.$ BILLION in sketchy transactions. Glenn Beck explains why this may be the scandal that finally brings some of Epstein's enablers to justice.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So where does the real story lie with the Epstein story? And I think it's the money, okay?

That's the real story. I'll tell you about the billions who have gone to terrorists from the US and Minnesota taxpayers here in a second.

And when I talk about that, what most people will do, is they'll fight over ICE.

They'll say it's Islamophobia. They'll fight over CAIR. Whatever. USAID, when that went down. Well, that's just about feeding hungry children. It's all misdirection, to get you away from the money. So let me bring this now to Epstein.

When a banker detects suspicious activity, when they see something that looks like money laundering. Human trafficking. Tax evasion. Sending money overseas to terrorists. They don't send a polite note to the supervisor, in hopes somebody reads it.

They are required by federal law, after 9/11, to file what is called a SAR. It's a Suspicious Activity Report.

A SAR.

They have to report that directly to the US Treasury Department. Through FinCEN. Financial center of crimes. Okay?

Once a SAR is filed. The bank isn't even allowed to tell you that they filed it. They just hit send. It's locked. The Treasury is notified. Now, this system like I said, was built after 9/11.

Built after decades of financial corruption.

A system design that no single banker. No single executive. No single billionaire can make illicit money and then have it just disappear offshore.

This is -- this is activated. If you draw $10,000 out, of your account. You are moving $10,000. You get a SAR report. And it goes directly to the Treasury. And when the bank flags something suspicious, it's called -- the SAR is called a yellow ticket. And it's not a suggestion. It's not a memo. It is a federal alert. That triggers monitoring by the Treasury, the FBI, Homeland Security. Depending on what the flags indicate. Now, that you understand that, let me talk to you about Jeffrey Epstein.

Between 2002 and 2016, JPMorgan Chase filed seven SARS. Seven yellow tickets on Epstein. Seven! Over 14 years. Those reports flagged a grand total of $4.3 million in sketchy activity.

Okay. It's all -- you know, it's a decade replace plus, $4 million.

You can make all kinds of excuses for that. Right? But after Epstein died, when the government finally unsealed the sex trafficking details, details that they had held on to for years. JP Morgan Chase suddenly panicked. Because the floodgates suddenly opened. In 2019, two SARS were flagged. Two SARS were sent to the Treasury.

They flagged over 5,000 suspicious wire transfers. We're not talking $4 million.

This is 1.3 billion dollars. Five thousand suspicious activity transfers, and transactions, of 1.3 billion dollars.

Now, let me just say this clearly, so nobody really misses the gravity of this. You do not accidentally forget to report 5,000 suspicious wires.

You don't like, where did we put that $1.3 billion.

Okay. You don't misplace a billion dollars in wires, to foreign banks and Shell companies, connected to then a convicted sex offender under federal investigation. It doesn't happen. It doesn't happen.

It doesn't happen, because a Jr banker made a mistake.

It doesn't happen because the compliance officer was sleepy. It doesn't happen because somebody's inbox was full.

To not report that level of suspicious activities directly to the Treasury, first of all, is against all federal law.

And at a minimum, multiple officers, multiple departments. Multiple signoffs, choosing not to look.

$1.3 billion. 5,000 suspicious activities. Hmm.

Why?

Why did nobody report that?

Well, now, according to internal emails, JP Morgan Chase held off the filing of the SARS. Now, let me ask you this: If you had one suspicious -- if you withdrew $10,000 from your bank, are you really clear that your bank would do what the federal government directs. And I have to report this.

And it's going to go to the Treasury. Are you clear that they would do that on you?

Because the answer is, yes, they would. Federal law requires it!

But the bank decided, well, we want to continue to work with Epstein. He's valuable. He's connected. He's a referral engine to some of the richest people in the world.

He had sensitivities according to the bank. Wire transfers to Russian banks. Wire transfers to Shell corporations. Wire transfers from a guy who is engaged in sex trafficking.

Links to top political figures. Relationships with two US presidents. Both of whom Epstein at various times claimed to be very, very close with.

Let me explain: Something that most people don't know. Banks file SARS, suspicious activity reports, to the Treasury, for far less than this.

$10,000. They flag it. A business wires to an unusual location. They flag it!

It's sent to the Treasury. A client sends repetitive round number transfers to an unknown entity. They flag it!

It goes to the Treasury. A wire connected to anything resembling terror or human trafficking or exploitation. They flag it right now.

Banks don't wait for a 5,000 -- for 5,000 suspicious transactions. They don't wait. They file over one!

So how did Epstein get through 5,000 suspicious activity reports without triggering any alarms.

Not because the alarms were broken. Because they weren't. It's because somebody turned them off.

I would like to know who turned those off.
I would like to know, why they were turned off? I would like to know, if it was just the leadership of the bank. I would like to know, that every single one of those bank officers. All the way to the top, go to prison!

Not some slap on the wrist. Not some, well, you're well-connected. So we're going to let this other guy pay for it.

I want all of them in prison. You broke federal law!

Something we all -- all of us have to abide by.

We -- we have had our Treasury. We've had our government snoop into our lives. Watch everything we do. And we're not connected to human trafficking. We're not selling children. We're not convicted felons.

We're not transferring 1.3 billion dollars after we've been convicted.

SARS are not -- these suspicious activity reports, they are not decided by a single teller. They have to pass -- they pass through compliance teams. Risk divisions. Bank lawyers. Federal liaison officers. This isn't one bad apple. It's an entire system. And Senator Wyden, no conservative firebrand, I might point out, is now openly saying what everybody knows privately. JP Morgan Chase should face criminal investigations, and it should go all the way to the top!

And it should not be civil. It should be criminal. Because if you or I did this, if we had sent just a handful suspicious wires, the bank would freeze your account, notify the Treasury, before you could blink!

But Jeffrey Epstein, a billion dollars worth of exceptions. Hmm. Hmm.

Wow. That seems much more important than a stupid birthday card!

Let me ask you this, the question the DOJ doesn't want to touch.

How many people does it take inside a bank to make 5,000 suspicious transactions just vanish for 17 years? Is it five people? Is it ten? Is it a department head, a board member?

Five thousand. 1.3 billion dollars. Was Epstein. Did it happen because Epstein was useful to the powerful?

So nobody wanted to know. Did this happen because others were involved?

Does it really matter what their excuse was?

Here's the terrifying question. If a bank can look the other way on $1.3 billion for a sex trafficker. What else have the banks learned to ignore?

Hmm.

I'm beginning to think the banks are a real problem. Hmm.

There's a new idea.

This story isn't just about Epstein.

This is about the machinery that allowed him to operate. All of the middleman. All of the financial networks. All of the institutions, that treated him like an asset, instead of a criminal.

And I do believe he was an asset. Intelligence asset.

I do believe he was probably an asset to our intelligence. Although, you I hear both sides.

No, no, no. That's not true. Oh, yes. It's definitely true.

I don't know what the truth is. I don't think it's unreasonable to say, he was an asset for a foreign government. Maybe Israel.

Maybe somebody else. I don't know.

But also an asset for us.

That helps all the. Apparently.

We do all kinds of horrible things. Why not?

Senator Wyden says, he wants to follow the money.

Well, good!

For the first time in a long time, maybe the money is finally pointing us somewhere. And it's not just here.

And, by the way, if anybody still believes this ends with one dead man in jail. I don't think you're paying attention!

Because this is where it really leads.