RADIOMay 30, 2024

How Trump’s Jury Was Transformed Into a DANGEROUS Commission

The jury in former president Donald Trump’s New York hush money trial is deliberating on whether to convict him. But there are some major issues: For one, the judge didn’t give the jury a printed copy of the jury instructions — something Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey says he has “never” seen before. Plus, the jury doesn’t even have to agree on WHAT crime Trump committed. Attorney General Bailey joins Glenn to explain why this is dangerous: This isn’t the American justice system. The judge has created a “roving commission” more akin to the system the British used to jail dissenters in the colonial era.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: The judge in President Trump's hush money trial, told the jury, that they don't even have to agree on the crime. They could all think, you know, I think his hair is a crime.

You know, four of them. I think his suntan is a crime. And four of them can say, I think, you know, he falsified checks. Whatever.

Whatever they think the crime is! Because it wasn't really defined.

Even if they don't agree on the crime, if 12 of them thinks he committed some crime, well, then he's guilty. I've never heard that before.

I've served on a jury. I've served on a jury with multiple counts.

We had to discuss each count!

And we found this person guilty on some counts. And not on others.

It would have been the easiest thing ever. We could have been done in ten minutes! If all we had to do was just, hey. These seven counts on this guy. Does everybody agree, he did one of them?

Yeah. Okay. We're out of here.

Is this normal? Andrew Bailey is here. He's the Missouri attorney general. Kind of knows the law.

Attorney General Bailey, welcome to the program.
ANDREW: Thanks for having me on.

GLENN: So, again, I don't know the law. But this does not seem like the American way of I couldn't wait if had our courts. Am I wrong?

ANDREW: No. You are absolutely right. This reeks of desperation by the prosecutor and the judge to obtain a conviction. If people were not previously convince that had this was an elicit witch hunt prosecution. They should be so now.

This is insane. Look, since 2020, the United States Supreme Court has said that jury unanimity under criminal law is required under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution. It was not always that way. There were two states prior to 2020, that did not require jury unanimity under the Sixth Amendment criminal trials. Louisiana and Oregon for lesser offenses.

And the Supreme Court fixed that in 2020. And so for this prosecutor and this judge to say, hey, whatever you think. Go ahead and do whatever you want. It violates the Sixth Amendment. It violates the president's due process rights. Because how many folks know how to offer a defense, if he doesn't even know what the -- the target crime is.

That he's -- that is an element of the office for which he's charged. It also empowers the jury to be a roving commission.

And, again, that reeks of desperation. They don't care. They will throw everything against the wall.

This is not giving the jury instructions, and convict them of something, whatever you want.

GLENN: Well, there is -- 32 charges. Thirty-two counts. Thirty-four counts. So if two of them believe, you know, he's guilty on 29, and two of them believe something else.

But they don't agree on the same counts. How is that justice?

ANDREW: No. I think that's absolutely right. And, again, it creates a roving commission. And that violates the basic constitutional tenants that underpin the due process clause of the Sixth Amendment rights to a jury trial. That's been incorporated against the state, and certainly at least since 2020.

And again, I think it's desperate. It's throw everything against the wall. It also reminds me of, there was a Roman emperor who used to nail the walls to the highest points on the columns. So the Roman citizens wouldn't be able to read them. That's a lot what this is like. The judge is saying to the jury, I will charge you to find a crime. Any crime you want. And I'm not going to let you read the jury instructions.

Trust me. You guys go back and convict him on something they want to convict them on.

GLENN: Okay. So tell me what the jury instructions mean. And why would he not print. Because I understand also, that it is clearly printed all the time. So --

ANDREW: That's right. I would never try a case, where you didn't give the jury, the jury instructions. Why would you not want to. Again, that's the law. Judges determine law. Juries determine facts. And it's up to the jury, to apply the facts to the law.

And so in closing arguments, the prosecutor gets up and says, here's the elements of the offense. Here's the evidence that proves each of these elements. And it's like a checklist. Then you tick down it. Then you show them the verdict form.

And say, this is how you find them guilty.

And if you're the defense, you stand up and say, the state didn't prove this! They didn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt of that. And it etches in the jury's mind, what to look for, in that instruction packet, when they go back in delivery. But how is the jury supposed to look back to the law, if they can't see the law in front?

GLENN: Also, may I ask, when -- when the -- oh, shoot.

He did something. Oh, in the closing arguments, for the prosecution. Didn't they introduce new evidence or evidence that wasn't presented, and he let it ride?

ANDREW: Completely objectionable. It should have been stricken from the record. And the jury should have been admonished to ignore that. It's called facts not in evidence.

It's one of the first objections you learn in any evidence class in law school, and to have the prosecutor for the state of New York. Matthew Colangelo, Alvin Bragg. Having that team stand up and testify, as if they're witnesses. The fact that it has not been introduced. It's completely impermissible. It demonstrates an abuse of the judge's discretion. It should have been stricken from the record.

But, again, I will go back to this idea of a roving commission. The -- think about our experience under colonial England.

Where general warrants were issued by magistrates, and the British soldiers could search your home and quarter in your home for no basis whatsoever, just on any -- any level of suspicion.

And you didn't even have to be charged with an actual offense. That you would then be able to defend against.

They, allegations were sufficient to jail you. And so the Founders erected these Constitutional barriers, that kind of government intrusion into our individual liberties.

And again, the Sixth Amendment requires your anonymity which has been violated here. It also prevents the due process clause. It prevents a roving commission, where the law is so abstract. That the jury can roam freely through the evidence. And choose any fact it wants to create liability.
That is not -- again, that is not what this country is founded upon, that violates the Constitutional rights. And it's to demonstrate. This was never about a legally valid conviction. There's never about an actual crime.

There was never a crime. It's always about taking President Trump off the campaign trail, and that has been violating all of our rights.

GLENN: Okay. So -- so, Andrew, I'm -- I'm thinking about why this guy would do this. Because I would imagine with be this is a slam dunk, overturn.

Wouldn't it be?

ANDREW: Yeah. Absolutely. Absolutely.

It should have been dismissed at the state's evidence for failure to actually prosecute a criminal defense. Failure to offer, prove beyond a reasonable doubt on some of the elements. It then should have been dismissed once again, disclosed of all the evidence. This shouldn't have even gone to the jury.

And the fact that they have now rigged the jury process, to avoid the anonymity requirement, and to create this roving commission.

It's just once again, just one more piece of evidence to prove, the witch hunt nature of this prosecution.

GLENN: So do you believe this was done possibly. Excuse me.

Do you believe this was done possibly, because they just want the none name after. And then just dispute. Well, it was some conservative court that overturned it.

You know, we know the truth. And that's the only reason I can think of -- why you would do this. Why would a judge want to be overturned, especially when it is so clearly going to be overturned.

ANDREW: Glenn, I think you're absolutely right.

I think two other points to make here. The process and the timing.

This is a crucial period. Where President Trump needs to be courting the electorate and republic. Instead, he's tied down in a Manhattan courtroom.

But secondly, think about how long an appeal takes. That doesn't happen overnight. To the extent he's convicted, to the extent they obtain an illegal illicit conviction this week or next, sentencing will be pushed out 45 to 60 days at most. And then an appeal will take a year or more.

And so this takes us in. Even if President Trump is elected president, this will haunt him and this will undermine the first few years of his administration.

GLENN: This is just nuts.

ANDREW: They poisoned the well we will be drinking from for years now.

GLENN: I mean, you want to talk about the end of the republic. It's this kind of stuff that ends the republic. You don't. And because it's not just about him.

This goes back to what Stalin created. What the king. King George created.

Find me the man, I'll find you the crime.

You know, it -- it -- there is no justice, if things like this happen. One last question: I served on a jury once. And it was a serious case. But not a -- not a murder or anything else.

But it was -- it was, you know, abuse of a wife.

And we had, I don't know how many charges. And we kept calling the judge in. Because we thought the judge was, you know, our friend. And fair.

And we would ask him. And he would say, I can't tell you that. I can't tell you that.

Here are the instructions. You would have to go. And we would call him back in.

I can't tell you that. Here are the instructions. And we couldn't agree on all of the counts. And so we ended up, I think on maybe two counts out of eight. Or something like that.

Because we were split.

If we would have been able to say. Oh, you four want this. And you four think that case.

And that four think this. We would have been out of there by now.

Does it say anything, that they have such a wide berth to agree on anything?

And it -- it takes them a while to get through this. I mean, I would have been done. We would honestly, if we had those instructions, we would have been done the first day.

ANDREW: Yeah. That's right. I mean, that's why jury anonymity is so important to our constitutional structure, to our individual rights.

You know, and also the due process clause. To prevent that kind of roving commission. The prosecution here is best summed up as, there is no crime. So let's see how much garbage we can throw on a wall. See if any of it sticks. And try to convince someone that it's criminal behavior. And the judge is going to collude with us. Not allow the jury to see the law. And then agree that, yeah, you are a roving commission. Anything that you want to find that is criminal, it's a grab bag. You pick it. You choose it. You don't have to agree. Let's get out of here with the conviction as fast as we can.

It undermines the credibility of our criminal justice system. I also think it's dripping with irony, that this is happening in a state like New York, where they're not prosecuting actual criminals. This is a state the prides itself on criminal justice reform and bail for everyone. Cashless bail for everyone. And one standard of justice, as Alvin Bragg launched on his website.

How can he even look himself in the mirror and keep a straight face with that kind of nonsense going on.

GLENN: I know I promised one last question. But, again, one last question.

The jury just sent the judge a note. They want to reread the instructions, beginning with how they should consider facts and what inferences can be drawn. What have what do you take from that?

ANDREW: I think it's problematic. It means that they know they don't have direct evidence to prove some of the elements of the event. But remember, there are two attorneys on that jury. And those attorneys are telling them, look, we don't need direct evidence.

Circumstantial evidence which includes reasonable inferences is sufficient to obtain a conviction stop it means they're stretching.

And I think it's a reasonable inference for us and outsiders to draw.

If those attorneys are inviting them to stretch and use circumstantial evidence to try to find any crime.

GLENN: Jeez. Thank you so much.

Andrew, I appreciate it. Andrew Bailey. The Missouri attorney general. I -- I really appreciate it.

Thank you.

ANDREW: Appreciate you having me on. Thank you.

GLENN: You bet.

Why Trump SHOULD Dismantle USAID

President Trump has faced major backlash from the Left and media over his plan to shut down the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), or at least merge parts of it with the State Department. But Glenn explains why Trump SHOULD either dismantle USAID entirely or let Secretary of State Marco Rubio clean house. This isn’t a “humanitarian aid” organization, Glenn explains. USAID is a CIA front and the reason why the rest of the world hates us. It has been used to influence regime change and force nations to embrace things like transgenderism and abortion. But if Elon Musk, DOGE, Trump, and Rubio succeed in reforming it or dismantling it, the America people are in for a good surprise!

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: All right. Let me tell you about what happened this weekend with DOGE.

This is something that was tucked beneath the political squabbles, and the Grammy night celebrity nonsense.

It is a story far more important than any of our daily distractions. And it makes me, oh, so very happy.

And you'll understand why, in a minute.

This story pulls the curtain back, on who really holds the reins of power in our country. I want to connect a few dots with you, here in the next 40 minutes, or so. We will talk about USAID.
We are going to talk about Elon Musk, Donald Trump, and DOGE.

The Department of Government Efficiency. DOGE and the Trump team are battling it out with USAID. Okay? We cannot let Elon Musk see our books! We are not giving him. Really?

You run an aid program. What's so top secret that you can't let him see it?

This is about control, control over the flow of information, over government secrecy.

And, yes, control over your tax dollars.

So here's the story in a nutshell. In case you didn't know, USAID, the US agency for the International Development, had its Director of Security, Jonathan Voorhees and his deputy, Brian McGill, placed on administrative leave.

Why? Because they refused to grant access to security systems, and systems containing sensitive personnel files, security clearance information, even classified materials, to employees of DOGE.

When Voorhees and McGill said, no, you're not allowed to see any of this. That's when the DOGE team threatened to call in the US marshals. The US marshals over a bureaucratic disagreement? No. Uh-uh.

Remember, this is about something much, much bigger. It's about who controls the machinery of the government, when it comes to foreign influence.

Covert operations. And the shadow games, our government is playing overseas.

So let's start with USAID.

On paper, it sounds great. Right?

The US agency for international development. They're the folks who help develop countries, build schools. And fight diseases.

And support democracy.

First of all, I don't want to be in that business, as a government.

But if you've been paying attention, history will tell you something else.

It's well-known that USAID has been much more than an aid operation.

Since its inception in 1961 -- by the way, can you tell me anything that happened, you know, with the government and overseas, things that was good that happened in the '50s and '60s. Maybe the Peace Corps. Maybe the Peace Corps. But I doubt it.

USAID say covert CIA operation. They do covert black ops, all around the world.

And their money just comes in, and it just -- no. This is aid. Black hole.

Now, this is not a conspiracy theory. This is historic fact. In the Cold War, USAID funded cultural organizations. And student groups.

And agricultural projects. Uh-huh.

They were covers for intelligence gathering. And they have been accused of everything from influencing elections in foreign countries, to helping overthrow governments that didn't align with our interests. Do you want any country doing that?

Don't we have a big problem with other countries influencing our elections? How dare they! Uh-huh.

Black ops. Do you remember the Colour Revolutions in Europe? Yeah. Yeah.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that every employee at USAID is a covert operative. Most, I'm sure, good, decent people trying to do their jobs.

But the agency has always had a dual identity, part humanitarian, part shadow extension of US foreign policy through the CIA.

And that's really the part that I think is interesting here.

Because every nation knows, that this is a CIA front.

Except, the American people. We don't -- we don't know that apparently.

No, no. We're good. You know, it has billions of dollars, in black covert money, flowing through it.

We just -- we just don't know it. Because those with oversight. Can't see the records. President team has just been denied access.

Wait a minute. Who works for who?

This is an aid thing. What do you have that is so very top secret.

So here comes DOGE. The department of government efficiency.

Sounds pretty harmless. Yeah. Like a bunch of accountants, trying to balance the budget. That's all we're trying to do.

But those who are running black ops, know that DOGE has two agendas. And the president has made it very clear.

Yes. Cut the waste. Downsize the government.

But it also has another very specific mission. Except, this isn't a black op.

Again, this mission is right out in the open. Where all missions should be.

They -- their mission is not only to cut the budget.

But to break up the entrenched bureaucracies, that have been running Washington like their own personal fiefdoms.

Trump's goal was to drain the swamp. And DOGE is supposed to be one of the tools that is headed by Elon Musk, to drain that swamp.

Now, I personally like it for a couple of reasons. Elon Musk is one of the world's greatest minds. I mean, when he goes into his own companies, he sits with every employee for about five minutes.

And just says, what are you working on, this week.

And if they don't have something that he feels is really moving the company forward, you're not necessary.

You're fired. Okay.

He has a knack for cutting waste, and making companies more efficient and also coming up with some really good products.

He's a disrupter.

He doesn't do things like everyone else. He doesn't think like everybody else.

That's his strength. He advertise erupts industries. He challenges the norms.

And he's been a very public mission to expose and challenge what he sees as government overreach.

Whether it's with Twitter for X. Or even the critiques of regular agencies. Now, he can come in and look at these things and go, wait a minute.

This doesn't seem to be exactly, you know, what you're supposed to be doing. This is different. This isn't about posting memes and calling out the woke mind virus.

This is about accessing the very heart of the government's covert machinery.

That's what's happening with USAID because it's not about aid programs.

It's all about data. It's all about networks.

It's all about the hidden influence, that the US experts, you know, flex all around the world.

Including perhaps inside the United States, against their own people.

But we don't know. And now for the first time in decades, somebody from the outside of traditional power structures are -- are saying, huh.

What is it that you guys do here?

And guess what? The machine doesn't like it.

The people who have been running that machine, also don't like it. I want you to remember who was in charge of USAID. Does anybody remember?

Anybody. Bueller. Anybody?

Samantha Power. Now, Samantha Power. She's the wife of Harvard professor. Obama adviser.

And author of the really super important book called Nudge.

How to get people to do what you want them to do, without them knowing. Nudge.

So the wife of that guy, who I'm sure has nothing to do with nudging or dig do go anything like that.

Even though she was with the Biden -- or the Obama administration, forever! She didn't know anything about that.

GLENN: This is why John Voorhees and Brian McGill push back.

That's why they're risking their careers to say, no. You can't come in here. Because they weren't just protecting the files!

They were protecting the status quo. They're protecting a system that has operated in the shadows for decades, with that to no accountability to the American people!

And here's where it gets even more fascinating. The employees at USAID and across the federal bureaucracy, aren't just fighting to protect sensitive information.

They are fighting to protect their power. He's getting in to the roots now.

He's opening up to -- you know how Donald Trump is kind of like a -- a human hand grenade. I've said this to his face. You know, I think you're kind of like a human hand grenade.

What do you mean? Well, you're the greatest human hand grenade I've ever seen, don't get me wrong. You just kind of throw yourself into things, and then a wall comes down.

And then as the dust is settling, everybody goes, wait a minute.

What's on the other side of that wall? That's what's happening.

Except, this time they're not just lobbing grenades in. They know where it is.

Over the years, we've created this massive administrative state. Which is a fourth branch of government that nobody votes for. Wholly unconstitutional.

No one really controls it. You noticed that the people on Capitol hill, they're afraid of the intelligence agencies.

Hmm. So who is really boss then?

They operate with a level of secrecy, that would make our Founding Fathers roll in their graves.

This many of us state has been the gatekeeper of information.

Deciding who gets to know what.

Both here, at home.

And abroad.

Does the president even know?

So when Trump and Musk come knocking, knocking, knocking, at the door.

Trying to peak behind the curtain. The reaction is swift and fierce.

Because if they succeed, they'll manage to pull USAID's operations. And put it right under direct control of the State Department. Or even worse, in the public eye! They'll be held accountable for things!

We can't have that. It will expose decades of covert actions.

Questionable alliances.

The dark side of US foreign policy.

That has been hidden under the guise of aid.

It's why the rest of the world hates us.

Think about some of the crazy things we've done in the name of foreign aid.

We funneled money to warlords in Afghanistan.

We gave money to the Taliban.

Money to Gaza to prop up Hamas.

We've run guns to the Syrian groups ISIS, propped up dictators in Latin America. Even funded opposition groups in countries, where we wanted regime change all under the banner of freedom and democracy.

Again, this is why everybody hates the American government.

Her people see our influence as good and benevolent.

And sometimes, I think we are.

Other times, America is anything but!

So in exchange for our tax dollars, we've asked countries to change their laws. To accept abortion, in places where the people are morally outraged. We promote transgenderism in their schools.

We -- we tell them, that this is the enlightened way to go.

Otherwise, they lose their aid.

We force them to open their markets to multi-national corporations that sometimes don't have their best interests at heart. And we conduct military operations on their soil. You will do it our way. And yet, you don't know anything about it.

Most Americans don't have any idea. Because it's all wrapped up in the nice shiny package of humanitarian assistance.

So here's what happens if DOGE succeeds.

What happens if Musk and Trump manage to pry open the lid to this operation?

Well, for once, the bureaucrats lose control of one of their many hiding places.

Intelligence community loses one of its more useful tools.

And the American people might finally get to see just how much of their hard-earned money has been used, not to build schools or feed the hungry, but to manipulate foreign government and maintain our empire of influence. And here's the kicker.

This isn't about just the past. It is about the future. Because if Musk and Trump can break through this wall, it sets a precedent. It says no part of the government is beyond scrutiny of our elected officials.

And that tariffs people who have been running the show.

So what do we take away?

One, pay attention.

Stories like these are not bureaucratic squabbles.

This is the battlefront.

This is the battle line, right there, that will decide who actually runs the country.

We will see more on this, and the intelligence agencies are not going to like it.

So one thing I would take away from this is don't take any news story at face value, for a while.

There are many hiding places. And those who receive and use dark money for black ops are going to fight back.

Second, ask questions.

Continue to ask questions.

Why does USAID have classified systems that other government officials can't access?

Why is there so much resistance in an aid organization to transparency.

And third, remember the people that are screaming the loudest about protecting democracy are often the ones most afraid of the people actually seeing how the sausage gets made. So this isn't about USAID, DOGE, or even Trump or Musk.

It's about whether you have the right to know what our government is doing with your money.

Stay curious, America.

We will get to the bottom of this. But we have to be willing to go through the tough times, remain determined, and vigilant.

Adam Schiff Spews INSANE HYPOCRISY in Kash Patel Confirmation Hearing

Trump's pick for FBI Director, Kash Patel, recently sat down for his Senate confirmation hearing. And like many of Trump's picks, he faced a hostile room. But Glenn reviews some of the highlights, including how Kash said that "having been the victim of government overreach and a weaponized system of justice and law enforcement" makes him uniquely qualified for the job. Glenn and Stu also address Kash's comments on Trump's January 6th pardons and Sen. Adam Schiff's painful lecture about the word "we." Plus, Glenn reveals the "point I coldn't get past with any" of the Democrats from the hearing: "I can't take it! The Democrats don't understand what just happened!"

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: I only have really one thing to say today.

And that's because I threw out everything else, because it took me about two hours, to just gather my thoughts and jot them down.

Because I wanted to be searingly accurate.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: So the rest of the show, we're just going to kind of wing. Because I wanted to make sure, when I give you my opinion on what's happening, it's actually very clear. What I believe.

So that's coming up in just a little while. The rest of this show. We have today -- yesterday, last night, for Blaze TV subscribers, one of my favorite podcasts, because this is something I've been interested in as a kid.

The shroud of Turin. We had the exact linen copy of the shroud of Turin, in the studio. Plus, one of the leading experts on it.

And if you don't know what the shroud of Turin is. First of all, it's -- it's not a Catholic artifact. That's what people have said in the past.

But now evangelicals and everybody else have started to say, wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait a minute.

There is some new information on this.

This thing is the shroud of Christ, they believe. New data has been released, with something that is better than carbon dating. I can't remember what it's called. But it's better than carbon dating. And it looks at the fabric.

Dates it. It's 2,000 years old.

And what's more. There are spores and pollen. Et cetera, et cetera.

On and in the fabric.

That only are found in Jerusalem, in and around April, in the spring.

I mean, that's a pretty elaborate fraud! Plus, all of the bloodstains. The things that science has found about this, I think this is the shroud of Christ.

And you have to make up your own mind. But we're going to talk about that, later. And play some pieces of it. We have Jeremiah Johnston on, to talk about it on hour number three today.

You don't want to miss this.

People who say, it can't be done, it's not the shroud of Jesus. It's the greatest shroud of Jesus you've ever seen. I can't believe it. So, anyway, that's coming up.

So let's start with some -- hmm. Beautiful people in the Senate, shall we?

Let's start with Kash Patel first. Here's Kash Patel, testifying in front of Congress yesterday. Cut one.

VOICE: Senator, it may be one of the scenarios that most uniquely qualifies me to take command at the FBI.

Having been the victim of government overreach, and a weaponized system of justice. And law enforcement.

I know what it feels like to have the full weight of the United States government barreling down on you. And as the Biden inspector general determined, those activities at the FBI and DOJ are wholly improper, and not predicated on law and facts.

I will ensure if confirmed that no American subjected to that kind of torment, to that kind of cost, financially and personally. And most importantly, I will make sure that no American is subjected to death threats, like I was.

And subjected to moving their residents like I was.

Because of government overreach. Because of leaks of information about my personal status.

If confirmed as FBI director, Mr. Chairman, you have my commitment, that no one in this country will feel that pain.

GLENN: Wow!

Why is he on such a rant here? He's going to weaponize the government. Is this just all about payback? Oh, my gosh!

Did you hear what he just said he went through!

Yeah, it's not about payback. It's about justice.

Making sure that anyone that was involved in that kind of activity, with anyone, no longer works for the United States government.

And if they broke any laws, they go to jail. I don't know about you! I kind of -- I kind of like the idea of jail for some people.

You know what I mean?

Not everybody. But the guilty?

No matter if they're the poorest person in the world. Or it's George Soros.

I don't really care. You break the law. You go to jail. But he's on your side.

I don't care.

Go to jail.

That's what he's trying to restore. Now, let's go to cut two. He was called out on the January 6th pardons by Senator Durbin. Here it is.

VOICE: Was President Donald Trump wrong to give blanket clemency to the January 6th defendants?

VOICE: Thank you, Ranking Member. A couple of things on that. One, the power of the presidential pardon is just that. The president.

VOICE: Well, I can see he has the authority. I'm asking, was he wrong to do it for him?

VOICE: And as we discussed in our private meeting, Senator, I have always rejected any violence against any law enforcement. And I have including in that group, specifically addressed any violence against law enforcement on January 6th.

And I do not agree with the commutation of any sentence of any individual who committed violence against law enforcement.

VOICE: So do you think America is safer because these 1600 people have been give up an opportunity of coming out and serving their sentences and living in our communities again.

VOICE: Senator, I have not looked at all 1600 individual cases. I have always advocated for imprisoning those that cause harm to our law enforcement and civilian communities.

I also believe that America is not safer, because President Biden's commutation of a man who murdered two FBI agents, Agent Coler's and Williams' family deserve better than to have the man that at point-blank range, fired a shotgun into their heads and murdered them, released from prison. So it goes both ways.

GLENN: Okay. All right. I think you're pretty clear.

STU: I like that answer.

GLENN: I love that answer.

STU: So what do you take -- part of the -- trying to stir things up on the left.

Saying, he took a different position than Trump on that.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

You mean people are the different, they're not zombies.

STU: That's true. Though not common.

GLENN: The presidents. Presidential pardons are just that.

His pardons.

I'm not for releasing people who have ever, you know, harmed cops. I'm not for that. I don't think the president is for that.

STU: Well, he -- he did commute sentences of people who were the violent offenders in there.

GLENN: I would like to look at each individual case.

STU: But he did all of them.

So we don't to have look at each individual case.

GLENN: Well, here's my feeling on this.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: I've already expressed this over and over again.

You cannot say that the system was corrupt for some and then just allow that corrupt system to sentence and put people away that might have been guilty. You can't do that! We never do that. If there was a corrupt prosecution, and a corrupt judge, or whatever.

And it's found out.

It's not only that person that is parted. And you throw the case out. And you can't try it again.

Sorry, it was corrupt. Then you're supposed to go on and see, when did this happen?

Did this team see anything else?

And if you look and see this as a pattern, you have to throw it all out.

It's not the president's fault. It is the prosecution's fault. It is the DOJ's fault.

STU: I think that's a defensible point.

He hasn't explicitly said this. Donald Trump's point, why he did all 1600. That's not Kash Patel's point. Kash Patel is saying, I can't agree with any of those commutations.

GLENN: He didn't say that. He said, I don't agree with --

STU: Any commutation of anyone.

GLENN: But that's a blanking statement. I don't really care anyway.

STU: I'm just curious. Because I think they're too slightly different points.

I would say, they're kind of representative of our two points here.

My point is more consistent with Kash Patel, I think on this. And yours is maybe more consistent with Trump. I don't think it's a big deal if they disagree, as you point out.

GLENN: No.

STU: It's interesting what the left was trying to do with that though.

They're trying to get that little wedge of separation.

They're trying to say, hey, to know, this guy doesn't agree with you.

Look, he doesn't need. Because the whole -- it's funny, they want to separate them. And say, hey, they don't agree.

At some point of time, of trying to make the point, the only reason he has this job, that he's a loyalist that is an automatron robot. Which is like, you don't get both of those things.

They'll try. You can't have both of them.

GLENN: They'll try. Yeah. Touchdown, either direction. You know? Which I think you would be for with the Eagles, so please don't get on your high horse.

Okay. So the thing that drives me nuts is -- and this is the point I couldn't get past with anyone of them.

Excuse me, Durbin. Hang on just a second. Wait. Wait. Wait.

You're worried about the safety of the American people, because people who, in your words, not mine. Rioted and tried to burn the republic down, you're worried about them. But all of the riots from BLM. Burning Minneapolis almost to the ground.

You didn't have a problem with that one? I can't take it. I can't take it.

And I don't think the American people -- I just -- they don't get -- the Durbins of the world. And the Democrats. Don't understand what just happened. America changed on Election Day. This isn't just, you know what, we're going to -- we're going to switch and go with another party.

That's not what happened!

People didn't vote for the Republicans. They voted for Donald Trump's agenda.

They voted for massive change. And they're playing the same game.

And I'm sorry, but it's not going to work, dude. It's just not going to work. And it will come and bite them in the ass like nobody's business.

Look, whenever you try to con people, it's going to come out. It's going to come out.

All of their illegalities. Everything that they tried to do, is any of that really hidden anymore?

Do you really think that Donald Trump's going to let these secrets lay secret?

Let's go to cut three.

VOICE: Trump recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Then we went to a studio and recorded it. Mastered it. And digitized it. And put it out as a song released exclusively on the war room.

We, we, we.

If you had nothing to do with it, Mr. Patel. Why did you tell Mr. Bannon and all his listeners, that you did.

VOICE: That's why it says, we, when it's highlighted.

VOICE: Yeah. And you're part of the we. When you say we, that includes you, Mr. Patel.

VOICE: Not every instance.

VOICE: Well, that's new!

So when you said we.

GLENN: Stop. Stop. Is it? Is it?

Maybe I identify as we!

Really? You mean these words have meaning?
Good God Almighty!

This is Adam Schiff, talking to Kash Patel about January 6th! Like he has any credibility at all.

STU: None. Zero.

It's the royal we, is it not, Glenn? The royal we.

GLENN: Well, it's whatever Kash Patel decides it is, quite honestly.

STU: That's right! You're not allowed to ask.

GLENN: That's new.

So when you said we, you didn't really mean you, is that your testimony?

VOICE: Not unless you have a new definition for the word we.

VOICE: Oh, okay. I always thought we included the person that announced the word.

GLENN: Stop! I always thought them/them refers to a group. But it doesn't.

STU: So true. I cannot even read news stories anymore. They say they, and I'm like, who are they talking about?

And they're talking about one person who says they're they. Like, that is not --

GLENN: Right. I wish Kash would have -- I mean, he's too -- he's too cool to do this.

He's too smart to do this, but I would have unleashed on Schiff.

Really? Because I thought, I'm sorry. They told me. Who is they?

Well, that's how I refer to myself. And I was talking to myself. You have a problem with them/they, sir.

STU: So true.

GLENN: You have a problem with we? I call myself we. What's the problem with that?

Now, it's not a logical answer.

But it's certainly worth shoving right down his throat.

STU: We come up with words. As a society. To describe things.

Right?

GLENN: Yes! You've done everything you can, to destroy the meaning of almost every word!

That's what's so -- we always talk about. Oh, well, it's not scientific.

It's not reality.

All that is true. But you're destroying the way we communicate with each other.

GLENN: When you say we, what do you mean by we?

STU: I mean they. Thank you.

GLENN: All right.

STU: But it's true. You destroy that. And you have nothing. You have nothing.

How can you listen to a show? You can't listen to a show. Because you can't understand what people are saying.

When you go to a court of law. This is what they try to do in court cases all the time.

That's not what the founders meant there.

That's what they always do. They're manipulating the language. You said this 100 times. Control the language. Control the argument. If you do control the language, you control that argument.

And we're starting to stop that.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

So sorry, Adam Schiff. We don't like it.

Me don't like it, either.

IHEART FEED

Will Trump's Cabinet Expose the Obama CIA’s BIGGEST Secrets?

During her Senate confirmation hearing to become Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard mentioned an Obama-era CIA program called “Timber Sycamore.” The program gave weapons and training to Al Qaeda affiliated groups with the goal of toppling the Assad regime in Syria. But the American people and many soldiers fighting in the Middle East were kept in the dark. What other secrets are government bureaucrats still hiding from us? Is the CIA connected at all to the Benghazi tragedy? And would Tulsi Gabbard reveal the truth as DNI? Glenn and Stu discuss.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: FBI agents are starting to pack up their desks. As fear of FBI mass firings swirl. That's -- that's sad.

And good. I'm glad.

Benjamin Netanyahu just arrived in DC. He said that he's meeting with Trump. And they hope to redraw the lines in the Middle East.

That's an interesting thing. I think Donald Trump is absolutely headed that way. The USAID headquarters have been closed.

Thank you, Donald Trump, for that. And there was something else.

Oh. And Mexico just came out.

The Mexican president just talked to Donald Trump.

And that 25 percent tariff?

Well, that's on hold.

She said, I talked to Donald Trump, we had and a great conversation.

And he put that on hold.

And I'm sending 10,000 troops to the US/Mexico border right now.

So I've got that under -- and Justin Trudeau. God bless his soul.

He's going to talk at 3 o'clock this afternoon. Yeah. Who is a good Prime Minister?

What a joke. Now, let me tell you about -- I just told you about USAID. And how that is a CIA front.

And Donald Trump is going to do two things with DOGE. He's going to cut all the bad guys. Try to find them.

He may not find all of them. But he will find a lot of them

Oh, did I mention that the FBI people are clearing out their desks.

Getting ready for a firing.

Anyway, he will clean out a lot of the mess, and a lot of the black ops that are happening.

And he will also cut the budget.

So he has that going for him. Now, the left and the Deep State. They're a little freaked out.

If they could have shredders at their disposal, 24 hours a day. I don't think there would be a lick of paper left, in I forget these agencies.

Consider some of the questions that have been swept under the rug. All the way back to Obama.

Let's see. Consider the American lives that are lost, overseas.

Consider the foreign lives lost. Consider the regimes that have changed.

And the chaos that is spread all over the world, in our names, with our tax dollars.

Now, consider what Donald Trump's team has pledged to break and uncover.

So if you listen to some of the confirmation hearings in the Senate, you might hear a little sneak peak at what's to come.

Tulsi Gabbard over on Friday, revealed for many Americans, they don't know about it. It's a clandestine, Obama program, that sought regime change in the Middle East.

And unloaded over a decade of violence and chaos.

Listen to this.

VOICE: Senator, as someone who enlisted in the military, specifically because of al-Qaeda's terrorist attack on 9/11 and committing myself and my life to doing what I could to defeat these terrorists. It was shocking. And a betrayal to me. And every person who was killed on 9/11. Their families. And my brothers and sisters in uniform.

When as a member of Congress, I learned about President Obama's dual programs that he had begun. Really, to overthrow the regime of Syria.

And being willing to -- through the CIA's timber sick more program, that has now been made public. Of working with and arming and equipping al-Qaeda, in an effort to overthrow that regime, starting yet another regime change war in the Middle East. DOD train and equip program, again, begun under President Obama, has widely been known, looked at, and studied that ultimately resulted in half a billion dollars being used to train who they called "moderate rebels," but were actually fighters working with and aligned with al-Qaeda's affiliate on the ground in Syria.

GLENN: Hmm. That's weird.

Most Americans have never heard about Obama's Timber Sycamore. It's possibly the largest gun running and training operation our little spy agencies have ever pulled off.

How many people died in Syria, as a result of this? How many people died all over the Middle East?

How many terrorists received weapons and training from our government?

Al-Qaeda?

We know that many of those same terrorists now control the government of Syria, right now.

And the horror show is not over yet.

Why haven't we heard about this?

Why does every school kid know about Reagan and Iran-Contra, but not Obama and Timber Sycamore?

It is because it not only reveals terrorists receiving our training and weapons, that we supplied. But it also reveals American lives that have been lost.

We still don't know the full details on what happened in Benghazi.

Why is that?

Why is it that Hillary Clinton and Obama made sure of that?

That wasn't part of some gun-running operation to Syria, was it?

Is this part of the peace of the fallout from Obama's Timber Sycamore?

Why was the US ambassador even in Benghazi? Why was there a State Department annexed in such a dangerous place? And why was it so unguarded?

Why was there a secret CIA substation there? Why was it kept so low-key?

Why didn't the military respond? Why were they so quiet and ineffective? Were they trying to keep Obama and Clinton's little secret hidden?

And all at the cost of four American lives. Say their names. They like to say that. Say their names.

Ambassador Christopher Stevens. Sean Smith. Tyrone Woods. Glen Doherty.

They still deserve justice. We deserve answers. I just want you to know, what's happening in Washington, DC, right now, is because cutting the budget.

But it has a dual purpose. In everything they're doing. They're cutting the heart out of these secret ops. They are exposing what our government is doing. By moving USAID over to the State Department. USAID can't that have.

I mean, I don't think of the State Department as someplace that's clean and has a good agenda.

But apparently, that's being cleaned up as well.

What is it we are going to learn, over the next few months?

What is it we're going to see exposed?

It's quite amazing. It is quite amazing.

By the way, Sunday, yesterday, Musk wrote, that career Treasury officials are breaking the law every hour of every day by approving payments that are fraudulent or do not match the funding laws passed by Congress.

Oh, boy. What's this? Apparently, the Treasury Secretary, the new one, has allowed the department of government efficiency to gain access to the federal government's payment system.

Okay. Wait a minute. So USAID won't allow the DOGE officials any access to their aid programs? But the Treasury is like, yeah. Open up the books!

They discovered, among other things, that payment approval officers, at Treasury were structured to always approve payments, even to known fraudulent or terrorist groups!

They literally have never denied a payment in their entire career.

Not once!

So why do you have them.

And why would they be told that? My gosh, this house of cards is going to come crashing down.

They are in -- they're going to have serious issues.

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

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

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

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

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

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

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

This can't continue this way. Right?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GLENN: That was an unforeseen consequence.

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

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

STU: Yeah. That's true.

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

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

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

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

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

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

STU: Yeah, definitely happened with Colombia.

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

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

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

Let's go to cut three, please.

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

STU: Useless job, yeah.

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

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

GLENN: Here's cut six.

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

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

GLENN: You're right!

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

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

STU: No, he's been horrible.

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

STU: Sure.

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

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

That's what started all of this.

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

And the illegals. Stop it. Stop it.

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

From them coming into your country!

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

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

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

You've talked to him privately about that.

GLENN: I disagree with him on that happen.

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

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

They're not good in and of themselves.

They're just taxes in and of themselves.

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

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

He's saying, there will be pain.

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

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

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

That's the calculation here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think what we saw in his first term.

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

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

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

He's I guess not happy with it now.

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

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

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

Right? Congratulations, we will!

GLENN: In fact, we kind of already have.

STU: Well, that one, we already have.

That's probably a bad example.

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

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

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

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

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

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

STU: Yeah.

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

Here's Donald Trump talking about tariffs on Europe.

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

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

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

GLENN: Yeah. But what does he want?

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

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

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

We don't have that!

We don't have that in Germany.

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

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

So that's what that is all for.

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

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

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

You've got to pay it.

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

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: It exists with the terms of the agreement.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

STU: In place. Follow them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our government, our state department seems to want to.

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

So we're totally fine with that, Europe.

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

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

But go ahead. We're not protecting.

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

Okay. All right.

You want a trade war. Okay.

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

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

STU: They have to know that.

GLENN: Yes, they do. They do.

STU: They have to know that.

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

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

We are the second largest exporter in the world.

GLENN: But --

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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