RADIOOctober 04, 2023

Pelosi’s Head of Security Likely PERJURED Himself With Jan 6 LIE | Blaze Media EXCLUSIVE

How much of the January 6th "evidence" that our justice system used to convict Americans has been a lie? Investigative reporter Steve Baker has done a year-long deep dive into the CCTV footage and REAL facts of Jan. 6 and has released his first report with Blaze Media. Baker joins Glenn to reveal the evidence that former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's head of security, U.S. Capitol Police Special Agent David Lazarus, gave false testimony about his whereabouts during a key encounter with members of the Oath Keepers. If this false testimony led to the imprisonment of Americans, what else have we been lied to about?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Steve baker has been on the program, a few times. And he is a -- an investigative reporter, that has been doing some work and it's now exposed on TheBlaze.com.

He has been working on the January 6th puzzle for a while now. And his efforts had been frustrated, over and over again, by the politics in Washington when he's just trying to find the truth.

The story that has just been released this morning.

Did Pelosi's security chief perjure himself in the Oath Keeper's trial? Has wide, wide consequences.

Welcome, Steve. How are you?

STEVE: Glenn, I am living proof, that a man can live on coffee alone.

GLENN: You started this a year ago, today.

STEVE: It was one year ago, yesterday.

October 3rd. During the oath keeper's trial. Was the first cent that there was something wrong.

Something happened in the trial. First thing that morning. When the lead prosecuting attorney, Jeffrey Nessler, assistant U.S. attorney, approached the lectern and the bench. And said to Judge Mehta, we have a problem. He said, we have a rogue attorney that is about to release some FBI 302s. These are interviews of one of the characters in this story, that we release this morning. And that if he does that, this is going to -- these are sealed documents, that are not publicly available, and we can't have that. And Judge Mehta did something, that I've never seen before.

And I don't know anyone in the media room where I was sitting in, had ever seen this before.

He actually directed the media pool, to put out a tweet, and threaten this particular attorney and let him know, that if he released those sealed documents, we would have him held in contempt of court.

And right then, I went, what are in those documents?

GLENN: So what was in those documents?

STEVE: They're still sealed. But I will tell you, the documents themselves were actually the FBI interviews of one of these Capitol police officers. And the primary problem that the government has with those documents, is that the testimony was changed. His testimony about his interaction with the Oath Keepers. Which in the first testimony, he revealed to be a positive interaction. That the Oath Keepers were lined up between him. And the more agitated protesters.

And assisted him in keeping them off of him.

And helping him de-escalate.

That was in May of '21, that interview.

In August of '21, this officer was brought back in, and the testimony was changed into an aggravated, contentious event with the Oath Keepers.

And as well as the creation of a second event, to explain the first FBI interview that never happened.

GLENN: So it is amazing to me.

Reading your story, it is so well laid out. However, what makes this different. It's not he said/she said. Or he said/he said.

It's because you had permission to go into the 14,000 hours, of videotape. You knew what you were looking for.

Right?

And in the story, you knew what time it even happened. Because the testimony was gunshots. You know, gunfire.

And so that marked it, at a certain time, when they -- they shot an innocent.

So tell me about what you found.

What the story was in the -- the testimony. And then what you found in the tape.

STEVE: Well, the story in the testimony from special agent. Now, this is Capitol Police special agent David Lazarus.

Is that when he heard the gunshots, at 243, 244, broadcasted over the radio, that shots had been fired.

That he was down in the tunnels, escorting senators from the Rayburn Building to the other Senate office buildings. And that's quite a long distance away from the House chamber, where allegedly these shots were fired. He said, at that moment, at 244, he began turning around and heading back. Well, because we knew what to look for, we immediately went there and we started working our way backwards.

And we found him in the tunnels, at that time.

The problem with it, is that when he emerged from the Senate building tunnels, and the subway system below the Capitol.

And, by the way, Glenn, these were videos that were never released to the defense attorneys in this trial.

GLENN: If we were living in normal times, the people that had been convicted, with any of the testimony, in -- revolving around these guys, they would be released. Any other time in American history, they would be released.

Because this is perjury. And somebody set this up. Somebody.

STEVE: And we're working on that trail as well.

GLENN: Good.

STEVE: But going back to Lazarus, so he emerges. And comes back into camera frames, on the Capitol TVs with absolute proof of the exact time, down to the second, of when he emerged back in the camera.

He even passes under an analogue clock in the subway, at exactly this moment.

And it's at 2:48 p.m.

When he finally reaches the other side of the tunnels from the Senate office buildings. And when that happens, the oath keeper Officer Dunn encounter is almost already over by then.

He's nowhere near it. And he still has a long way to go. And then we were able to triangulate. Because he will go out of camera frame for a while. Then he'll enter camera frame again from another camera.

And then he's down another hall. And then he enters another hallway. Then he goes up on the Senate side. Then by the time he reaches the bottom of the stairs, that lead up to the rotunda, and it's in a little area, variously called the mini rotunda or the Speaker's lobby. When he reaches the bottom of those stairs, it's now 2:56:45 p.m. and the Oath Keepers are long gone.

GLENN: Okay. So now, let me give you the exact verbiage from the testimony in the court case.

Lazarus, the guy you've just been talking about -- explained that one rioter asked, who are you? Who are you? Then according to the trial testimony, he testified. And, you know, one attempted to. I mean, I had my lanyard on, with my ID on it. And, one, they were videotaping, and one attempted to pull at my ID. And I kind of grabbed it back, and looked to make sure it was still there. And then I saw an opening.

So there's just kind of like -- I walked fast, to get into the office. And check on the staff again.

He then detailed description of what took place. What Lazarus described, as a very antagonistic in three or four times, that he passed by these Oath Keepers. Every time I interacted or came by, yes, it was very antagonistic. He said this under oath.

When he was then shown in court, a -- a video clip of four Oath Keepers, standing in front of Dunn, Lazarus was asked, are these the individuals you observed?

Yes. Yes.

At any point in these three or four interactions, in this space, at you observe any sort of anything, but antagonistic conversation?

No that's correct.

Here's the problem: They were already out of the building. At the time we know, them on camera, we have the videotape.

The Oath Keepers had been gone for almost ten minutes.

STEVE: It was not quite ten minutes. But when you're in the Capitol video room, viewing this.

We can put multiple cameras on the screen, at the same time. And then we hit one button, and it synced all those cameras to the exact time line. So we're able to watch Lazarus moving through the building in one quadrant of the screen. Then we can watch when the Oath Keepers leave. So as the Oath Keepers leave, and they're walking out through the Rotunda, about to exit through the Columbus doors on the east side.

It wasn't until that moment, that finally Lazarus reaches that area, where in great detail in the trial. And we have the trial transcripts, obviously.

In great detail, he describes what he saw. It just did not happen.

GLENN: So this was a -- an important part of the trial, right?

STEVE: It was a huge part of the trial. Because the one thing that the government was absolutely intent upon doing, was not allowing anything that could be exculpatory. Or anything that pointed the Oath Keepers in a positive light. And this wasn't the only positive interaction that Oath Keepers had with law enforcement that day.

You've interviewed Lieutenant Tarik Johnson. Lieutenant Tarik Johnson, used two Oath Keepers. Literally recruited them to help rescue another 16 officers out of a dangerous situation.

GLENN: Right. Right.

STEVE: That was never allowed in the trial.

GLENN: So and I learned something from the article. Let me see if I can find it here.

I had no idea. Oath Keepers. Seditious.

Blah, blah. Federal prosecutors claimed, while they were inside the Capitol, members of the group were involved in contentious interaction.

I don't know where it is now. But you talk about the Oath Keepers. How they've never -- they've never had to hear.

Thirty-five thousand due's paying members, had more than a decade's worth of spotless record, providing disaster relief and security during riots and other large events.

They have never once been accused or charged with a crime. In thousands of operations.

I had no idea.

STEVE: One of the things that the government could not do in that trial. They could not counter that little piece of information. And, of course, it didn't matter in front of a DC jury.

The DC jury, it was fait accompli, for day one and in terms of what the outcome of that trial was going to be.

But one of the things that the defense did successfully present is the fact that in years and years and years of disaster relief operations, security details, and all kinds of -- other times when they actually went and were recruited and hired by minority businesses, like in Ferguson.

Like in Louisville, Kentucky. And those rights. Where they were recruited by minority businesses. To come help us to protect our businesses.

The defense was rather able to show some of those videos.

But the one thing that the government could not prove. That at any time, since 2009, when the Oath Keepers were founded, that there had ever been a single time where an Oath Keeper had committed violence in any of those operations, or ever had committed a crime. Or any charges had ever been filed.

GLENN: And when you think of the Oath Keepers.

You think, oh, they're just really bad.

Isn't that remarkable? How that has been portrayed and carried by the press?

Okay. So there's obviously some sort of conspiracy here.

Because these guys, they don't -- they're both saying the same story.

But it seems to switch, where one is saying, no. I saw them at the top of the stairs.

And the other guy is saying, no. I saw them at the top of the stairs.

They couldn't even get their story right.

STEVE: Yeah. It's inexplicable, that the editor of Harry Dunn's forthcoming book did not check the trial transcripts. Because when Lazarus -- special agent. Nancy Pelosi's head of security. Tells his version of events. He says, when he runs to the top of the stairs, that he sees this large, imposing figure.

Because Dunn is six-seven. Three hundred pounds, plus all the gear he had on. And he sees this large opposing -- imposing figure in a contentious -- yeah. Moment with these Oath Keepers that were giving him the business. All right?

And that's his testimony. In Dunn's book, he explains, that when he ran to the top of that stairs and reached that stairwell landing at the top, that Lazarus was already there.

And he was being confronted by protesters.

GLENN: Okay. So the questions that we need to ask, and what this actually means. I'm afraid. Stu was talking about it this morning. That at any other time. Any other time, in American history, this case would be thrown out now.

They would -- they would file a charge. Got to throw this case out.

And it would be done. And people would care.

I'm not sure people care. I mean, that's where our justice system is.

It only moves because somebody says something. Somebody -- the American people just won't take it.

I wonder what the -- I wonder what the real fallout of this will be. And you probably have a good idea.

GLENN: Okay. What is next in this?

And I know you talked to people in Congress. But is this going to move anything in DC?

STEVE: I can tell you, that not only working with weaponization committee investigators on this story, as well as the high-ranking staffers, I can't get into specific on the record details.

That there will be talks about hearings. And we know what hearings result in. Far too often.

GLENN: Yeah.

STEVE: But there has to be something next.

Because, Glenn, this is -- this is literally an existential threat to our republic. What is taking place, in our courts right now. In DC.

GLENN: This is our government not getting it wrong.

This is our government setting American citizens up. Withholding evidence, that is exculpatory.

Sentencing them to long sentences.

And apparently, several people are involved in this.

This is -- this is as bad as it gets.

STEVE: Even in one of the specific Oath Keeper's cases, during his sentencing hearing. This is the Oath Keeper, Ken Harrelson, who you can see in video, holding the crowd back from Officer Dunn. He literally has his hands extended, and he's holding them back. As they were agitating and trying to get it done.

And there's four Oath Keepers lined up, with their backs turned to Dunn. He's at the top of the stairwell, holding an M4 rifle. And these guys are holding them back.

And -- and his case, particularly, Judge Mehta and his sentencing hearing, actually said these words.

Mr. Harrelson, I do not believe you're the man that the government has made you out to be. If I could speak to Mehta right now -- Judge Mehta, I would tell them, now we know that he is not the man who the government made him out to be. And you need to send him home.

GLENN: Have you talked to their attorneys yet? The Oath Keepers?

STEVE: I talk to them every day.

GLENN: And now that this is out and you're able to prove this, are they going to move?

STEVE: Obviously, they're in transition from their trial representation to their different legal teams. That will be representing them in appeal.

GLENN: Right.

STEVE: But these guys are -- are --

GLENN: Hot.

STEVE: They're hot. And, of course, they -- they -- they all know how this was set up. And this is where the next part of this story is going. Is that, look, we know -- we know that there was the equivalent of a star chamber set up, like, how will we get these guys?

And we see the process and the pattern of events of how they led to that, as well as here. Absolute proof of the creation and manipulation of testimony. And of something that never happened. And presented in that trial.

GLENN: This story, is a year's worth of a man's life.

You must read it by Steve Baker. Did Pelosi's Security Chief perjure himself in the Oath Keeper's trial. It's only part one of a series, that Steve is working on.

And you'll find it from Blaze Media, at TheBlaze.com.

Has THIS Islamist organization BROKEN state laws for YEARS?!

A new report accuses CAIR Action, the political arm of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, of breaking state laws with its political activism. Glenn Beck reviews this story...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So let me go over what is -- what's happening with -- with CAIR.

You know, the Founding Fathers were obsessed over accountability.

Because they knew one thing. You know, they did. They must get suggestions from people on, you know, through tweets. They studied every single system of government.

Every single republic that survived. That didn't survive.

Why didn't it survive?

They studied all forms of government. They were trying to come up with something that could -- could set people free.

And they -- they worked really hard on putting our checks and balances in place, because they knew, once power slips into the shadows. They knew, once power slips into the shadows, once influence becomes unmoored from law, what rises is not a republic.

It's a machine. And that's what you're seeing right now. We're not living in a republic. We're living in a machine.

We -- I think we're staring at one of the largest unregulated political machines operating in the United States ever! Okay.

There have been a couple of groups that are doing sweeping investigations, two watchdog groups. One of them is NCRI and the Intelligent Advocacy Network.

And they have concluded now that the political arm of CAIR, he known as CAIR action, has been operating nationwide with no legal authority, to do the things it has been doing for years now.

They're not allowed to raise money. They've been raising money. Coordinating political campaigns.

Not allowed to do it. Endorsing candidates. Not allowed to do it, they're doing it. Mobilizing voters, shaping policy, functioning as a national advocacy network.

They don't have the legal authority to do any of it. And no one has said anything.

Now, according to the report, CAIR action doesn't just have a paperwork problem.

Investigators found, state by state, that it lacks the license, the registrations. The charitable authorizations, required to legally solicit money.

Excuse me. Or conduct political activity, in any of the 22 states in which it operates. Think of that!

I know how serious this is, because I remember what it took to get the license in each and every state, for Mercury One.

So we could operate. We could raise money. We could do things in those states. It's a lot of work. And if you don't do it, you go to jail. And they find out pretty quickly.

Okay?

22 states, they operate not one, zero legal authorization.

In Washington, DC, the city where CAIR action is incorporated, the department of licensing and consumer protection told investigators, they have no record of CAIR action ever obtaining the basic business license required to solicit funds or to operate.

Imagine how long would you last in business, especially if you were controversial.

How long would you remain in business, if you never had a business license?

You think somebody would figure that out?

In a sooner time than I don't know. A couple of decades!

This report means, that the organization if true, is engaging in unlicensed inner state solicitation.

It has exposed itself to allegations as serious as deceptive solicitation. Wire fraud and false statements to the IRS. These are big things.

And this is not political rhetoric.

Are these phrases written in black and white. In the law.

And by investigators. In California, one of CAIR's most active hubs. The state attorney general has said, the state attorney general of California has said, same pattern here!

The state of California, to say, yep. That's what's happening here.

CAIR action has never registered with California's charitable registry.

Never filed the required CT1 form. And has no authorization whatsoever to request donations. But they've been doing it in California anyway.

Fundraising, selling memberships. Issuing endorsements. Mobilizing voters. All of that has been done by CAIR action. There's no record of any license. Any permission, ever. Going to CAIR. From California. That's according to their attorney general.

Wow!

That's pretty remarkable, huh? How does that happen?

It's not just the coast. It is also happening to the Midwest, the South, the Mountain West. Every state hosting its own CAIR action fundraising page, complete with the donate now and become a member portal, despite no trace of the legal filings required to operate. That's bad!

Now, here's where the stakes rise.

Because CAIR action presents itself openly, as the political arm of CAIR National.

Investigators are now warning that any unauthorized fundraising or political activity.

Could become CAIR's national responsibility as well.

So, in other words, the parent, CAIR itself, might be held responsible.

Meaning, this is want just a rogue subdivision.

This could implicate the entire National Organization of CAIR.

Now, this is happening at the same time it's coming under national scrutiny. It's also Texas.

And I think Florida have designated the group a foreign terrorist organization. Members of Congress are now asking the IRS, the Treasury, the Department of Education to investigate all of its partnerships, all of its financing, all of its influence operations. I mean, I think they're going to be in trouble.

How long have we been saying this?

But every time, I have pointed out anything about CAIR, I have been called an Islamophobe, which shuts everything down. That is a word, developed by people like CAIR, to shut people down, so you'll never look into them.

So what happens next?

First of all, the reports have to hold up.

Regulators now have an obligation. Not a choice. An obligation to act!

State attorneys general in these 22 states, they might pursue fines, injunctions, criminal referrals.

All of them need to take action!

The IRS, needs to take action. Investigate tax exempt fraud. Treasury Department may review foreign influence or money flow violations.

Anything coming from overseas.

Oh, I can't imagine it. They're so buttoned up, right now.

DC regulators may determine whether CAIR actions entire fundraising operation has been unlawful from the beginning.

But here's the deeper question. And it's not bureaucratic. This one is constitutional.

Can the United States tolerate an influence machine, that operates outside of the legal framework, designed to prevent corruption, foreign leverage, and untraceable money?

If I hear one more time, talking about how AIPAC has just got to be investigated. Fine. Investigate.

I'm not against it.

Investigate.

Why aren't you saying anything about CAIR?

It feels like it might be a tool in the hands of a foreign operation.

Why aren't you saying anything about this?

Because here it is! It's not like, hey. I wonder why.

This is it! This is it! This isn't about silencing CAIR. Muslim Americans are -- that are full citizens, they have every right to speak. Every right to vote. Every right to organize. Participate in public life. No question! They can disagree with me, all they want.

But no organization. None! Not mine. Not yours. Not theirs. None. Should operate a nationwide political network, in the shadows and be immune from all of the guardrails that every other group must follow!

That's called a fourth branch of government!

That's how a fourth branch goes.

By the way, CAIR has placed all kinds of people in our Department of Homeland Security. Et cetera, et cetera. This organization has done it!

This is -- you cannot have a fourth branch of government.

They must abide by the laws.

No -- you can't have a branch that nobody elected. Nobody oversees.

Nobody holds accountable.

We talked about this yesterday, on yesterday's podcast. So what needs to happen is total transparency. CAIR action has to release its filings. Its donor structure. Its compliance records, if they exist. Equal enforcement under the law. I don't want them prosecuted in special ways.

Look, if AIPAC is doing the same thing. AIPAC should be prosecuted exactly the same way.
I want it equal. I want constitutional rule.

If conservatives, if Catholics, pro-Israel, environmental, Second Amendment groups, if they have to comply by the state law, so does CAIR action.

And if CAIR action has to do it, so do the Second Amendment groups and environmentalists, and pro-Israel and conservative groups. The law cannot be selective. It can't be!

I don't know how that's controversial in today's world. But somehow or another, they will find a way.

The Feds have to review all of this. If the report is accurate, the IRS and the Treasury have to determine whether false statements or unlicensed interstate solicitations have occurred.

Americans deserve to know what exactly, who is influencing our elections. Who is shaping our policy? Who is raising money in their state?

Especially physical the organization claims political authority, that it doesn't legally possess.

Because history will teach us one unchanging lesson. When a republic stops enforcing its own laws, someone else will always step in to fill that vacuum because power abhors a vacuum!

Unregulated, political power abhors a free people. So while it's about CAIR, it's not about Muslim Americans. It's not about religion.

As always, at least on this program, we try to make it about the rule of law.

One standard for everyone or no standard at all!

And that more than anything, will determine whether or not our institutions remain worthy of the freedom and responsibility that we have entrusted to them.

Glenn Beck WARNS Democrats Will Return with VENGEANCE in 2026 | Glenn TV | Ep 473

America is entering a year of historic upheaval from Charlie Kirk’s assassination and the spiritual shock that followed, to Trump’s tariff revolution, China’s rare-earth war, collapsing energy grids, AI displacement, and the looming fights over Taiwan and Venezuela. Glenn sits down with BlazeTV hosts ‪@deaceshow‬ and ‪@lizwheeler‬ along with his head researcher Jason Buttrill, to break down the biggest stories of 2025. Plus, they each give their most explosive prediction for 2026 that could shape our politics, economy, national security, and civil rights in ways Americans have never experienced before.

Trump Just SHATTERED the “Expert Class” - And the Deep State is in Total Panic

For nearly a century, Washington DC has been ruled by an unelected “expert class” operating as an unconstitutional fourth branch of government — accountable to no one, removable by no president, and shielded from all consequences. Glenn breaks down why Trump’s firing of the Federal Trade Commissioner could finally dismantle the 1935 precedent that empowered technocrats, how Ketanji Brown Jackson exposed the Supreme Court’s embrace of expert rule, and why America cannot survive a government run by people who never face the voters and never pay for their failures.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Okay. So President Donald Trump fired the federal trade commissioner Rebecca Slaughter. Federal Trade Commission is an administrative position. I mean, this is under -- the head of the federal trade commission is a cabinet member.

And if the justices uphold Trump's firing of Slaughter, that will overturn a precedent that was horrible, that was set in 1935. Remember, 1935, we're flirting with fascism. You know, everybody thinks. Because they haven't seen the horrors of fascism yet.

Everybody thinks fascism is neat, blah, blah. So what they do is they say that this is an independent person. And the president can't fire them. Because they're, you know, an independent agency.

Well, wait. That would make a fourth branch of government. Our Constitution is really clear.

There is no such thing as a fourth branch of government. Right?

So that's what they're deciding. Now, here is Ketanji Brown Jackson, who is talking about how we really need to listen to the experts. Cut four.

VOICE: Because presidents have accepted that there could be both an understanding of Congress and the presidency. That it is in the best interest of the American people to have certain kinds of issues, handled by experts. Who, and I think you -- in your colloquy, Justice Kagan, have identified the fact that these boards are not only experts, but they're also nonpartisan. So the -- the seats are actually distributed in such a way, that we are presumably eliminating political influence because we're trying to get to science and data and actual facts, related to how these decisions are made.

And so the real risk, I think, of allowing non- -- of allowing these kinds of decisions to be made by the president, of saying, everybody can just be removed when I come in, is that we will get away from those very important policy considerations.

VOICE: We will get away from US policy considerations, and it will create opportunities for all kinds of problems that Congress and prior presidents wanted to avoid, risks that flow inevitably, just given human nature, the realities of the world that we live in.

GLENN: Okay.

Now, remember, what she's saying here is, we have to have experts.

We have to have experts. We have to have experts that don't really answer to anybody. Okay?

They're appointed. And then they're just there. This from a, quote, judicial expert, who cannot define a woman, because she's not a doctor.
She's not a scientist.

She needs an expert to define a woman.
That's how insane her thinking is. Okay?

Now, I would just like to ask the Supreme Court, when you want things run by experts, do you mean things like the State Department, or the counsel of foreign relations, that have gotten us into these endless war wars for 100 years?

Because these are the things that Woodrow Wilson wanted. He wanted the country run by experts.

Okay. So is it like the Council of Foreign Relations, that keep getting us into these endless wars.

Or is it more like the Fed, that directs our fiscal policy, that has driven us into $38 trillion of at the time. We have all powerful banks. That strangely all belong to the fed. And endless bailouts for those banks. Are those the experts that you're talking about?

Or are you talking about the experts that are doctors, that gave the country sterilizations, lobotomies, transgender surgeries. You know, or should we listen to the experts, like the ones that are now speaking in Illinois, to get us death on demand like Canada has, with their MAID assisted suicide, which is now the third largest killer in Canada. MAID, assisted suicide, third largest killer in Canada. Experts are saying, we now need it here, and they're pushing for it in Illinois. Or should we listen to the experts? And I think many of them are the same experts strangely, that brought us COVID. Yeah. That was an expert thing. They were trying to protect us. Because they need to do this for our protection. So direct from the labs in China with the help of the American experts like Fauci. We almost put the world out.

Should we listen to those guys?

Or the experts that brought us masking, and Home Depot is absolutely safe. But Ace Hardware wants to kill grandma. Which are the experts that we want? That we want to make sure that we have in our lives? That they don't answer, or can't be fired by anybody. Because I'm pretty full up on the experts, myself. I don't know.

But you're right. These experts would keep the president in check, and they would keep Congress in check. And you in check!

And the Supreme Court, which would be really great. You know, and you know who else they would keep in check? The people.

So, wow, it seems like we would just be a nation run by experts, and our Constitution would be out the window, because that's a fourth branch!

And if you don't believe me, that, you know, these experts never pay a price. Can you name a single expert?

Give me a name of an expert, that gave us any of the things that I just told you about.

Give me the name. I mean, give me the name of one of them. Give me the name of one of them that went to jail. Give me the name of one expert that has been discredited.

You know, where your name will be mud in this town. Do you know where that came from?

Your name is going to be mud. It's not M-U-D. It's M-U-D-D, that comes from Dr. Samuel Mudd. Okay? He was a docks man. He was an expert. He was that set John Wilkes Booth' broken leg. He made crutches. He let him stay there for a while. He claimed he didn't know him, but he did know him.

In fact, one of the reasons they proved it.

Is because when he pulled the boots off -- when he pulled both of his boots off, right there, in the back, you couldn't have missed it. It said "John Wilkes Booth."

He's like, I have no idea who he was.

Yeah. Well, you knew him in advance. This was a predetermined outpost where he could stay. It's clear you could know him.

The guy was still discredited, we still use his name today. Your name will be mud in this town.

And we think that it's like dirt, mixed with water kind of mud. No, it's M-U-D-D, Dr. Mudd. The expert that was so discredited, went to jail, paid for his part of the assassination of -- of Lincoln.

Give me the name of one of the experts in the last 100 years, that has brought us any of the trials and the tribulations. The things that have almost brought us to our knees. Give me the name of one of them. Can't!

Because once an expert class, they don't answer to anyone. So they never go to jail.

Wow! Doesn't that sound familiar. People never going to jail!

There's a rant that's going around right now, that I did in 2020. And everybody is like, see. He's talking about Pam Bondi.

No, no. I got to play this for you, a little later on in the program. But I want to get to the experts and what the Constitution actually says about that. Because you don't need my opinion. What you need are the actual facts. So you can stand up and say, yeah. I think Ketanji Brown Jackson is an idiot. Okay?

And she's really not an expert on anything. Especially the Constitution. You need the facts, on what the Founders said. Because the Founders would be absolutely against what they did in 1935.

Because that just -- what does it do?

It just sets up a fourth branch of government.

EXPLAINED: Why the Warner-Netflix/Paramount Merger is DANGEROUS for All of Us

The biggest media merger in modern history is unfolding, and Glenn Beck warns it’s the most dangerous consolidation of power America has faced in decades. With six corporations already controlling 90% of the nation’s news and entertainment, a Warner-Netflix or Warner-Paramount megacorporation would create an unstoppable information cartel. Glenn exposes how “too big to fail” thinking is repeating itself, how global elites and “experts” are tightening their grip, and why handing our entire cultural narrative to a handful of companies is a direct threat to freedom. The hour is late — and the stakes couldn’t be higher.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: By the way, it's never good when you consolidate power. It's never good.

And what is going on now, with this Netflix Warner Brothers paramount stuff, I don't care if Larry Ellison is a conservative or not.

No one should have that much power.

I did a show, gosh, four years ago. I don't even remember when I did it.

We looked it up. In the 1980s. 19 percent of American media was owned by over 50 companies.

Forty years later, 90 percent of the media is watched and controlled by six companies.

National Amusements, the Red Stone Family controls CBS, CMT, MTV, Nickelodeon, gaming and internet. Simon & Schuster Books. That's all one.

Disney, ABC, ESPN, History Channel, Marvel, Star Wars, video games and print.

TimeWarner controls CNN, Warner Brothers, HBO, Turner, video games, internet, and print media like TIME. Comcast, MSNBC, NBC.

CNBC, Telemundo, the Internet.

New Corp. Fox. National Geographic. Ton of others. Sony, with a ton of movies, music and more. The big six. They're valued at nearly $500 billion.

Now, this is something I put together five years ago. So I don't even know. This is probably not even valid even today.

And now we're talking about Netflix, Warner Brothers. Paramount, into all of these one giant corporation. It's wrong! It's wrong!

We can't keep putting all -- everything into the hands of just a few! It's what's killing us!

We've got to spread this around. We can't -- the government cannot okay mergers like this.

They're big enough he has

What happened -- what happened when the banks went under, or almost went under in '08. What did they say the problem was?

They said the banks are too big to fail.

Too big to fail.

Because they were providing all of the services, everybody needs. All the time. And there's only a handful of them.

So if they fall, then everything falls.

Right?

That was the problem. So what did we do to fix it?

We made them bigger!

We let them merge with other banks, and gobble up other things!

And started taking on the local banks.

And so now, your banks that were too big to fail. Are now even bigger. And their failure would be even worse!

What is wrong with us?

Seriously, we're not this stupid.

We're not this stupid.

I think we're just this comfortable.

We just think the experts have a plan. No. The experts don't have a plan.

Their plan is stupid. Their plan is to make it bigger.

Every time it fails. Make it bigger. Push it up.

Make it more global.

No. Haven't you seen what the entire world is like?

The entire world is over-leveraged. The entire world is on the edge.

The entire world is being redesigned.
So what do we do? We don't allow them to make things bigger! We need to start taking more individual and local control of things. They're making it bigger. Which will make the problem bigger. And make the problem so big, you won't be able to do anything about it, because all the experts. All of the heads. They'll all -- there will be six of them. And they will all be sitting in one room.

And they will all be making the instigations. And with them, making those decisions will be all the heads of all the countries around the world, that you're not going to have a say in any of that. They're already trying to do it with the WEF.

But if -- if the Supreme Court says, no, experts matter. And the president can't fire them. You will not have any control over anything!

We're at this place, where we can back out. We can turn around.

We can do it.

It's not too late. But the hour is growing very late.

I don't know about you, I don't like being this.

Up to the edge, you know what I mean?

I would rather have lots of breathing room, between me and the edge of the cliff.

But we don't have that anymore.

Everything has to be done right.

And we have to pay attention.

And the worst thing we can do is make things bigger.

Dream big, think small.