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.

Did Hunter Biden CUT A DEAL for his guilty plea?

Hunter Biden has entered a guilty plea in his federal tax case, claiming that he doesn’t want to cause his family any more stress. But Glenn isn’t buying it. Why would Hunter suddenly plead guilty — after his Alford plea was rejected — and face jail time? What would have come out during his trial that the Biden family wants to hide? What are the odds that he cut a deal with his father, Joe Biden, that either he or Kamala Harris would pardon him? And how many times do the media and Democrats have to lie to you?! They spent years insisting that Hunter Biden was innocent and that his laptop was fake. Their lies drove families apart! And now, will anyone face consequences?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Hunter Biden's trial in California, ended were it started yesterday.

Because he was charged with nine tax charges.

And he was facing, you know, a long, long time at prison. And he decided, you know what, let's just cut to the chase. I did it, your honor. And he said, you know, after, you know, after the last five years. Where I've really sobered up.

I realized that I have to make amends. And so I'm just going to -- I'm just going to tell you that I did it.

The judge said, wait. Wait. Wait.

So you're agreeing that you committed every element of every crime. Yes. Yes, your honor. I do.

Because I really feel I have learned my lesson, and I should pay for my crimes. Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

So after five years, of denying all of this. Putting us through this horrendous ordeal, the first time it comes out yesterday and says, yeah. Yeah, I did it.

What? Hang on. What's his name?

Who is this? Who is this?

Hello!

STU: Hi. Hello.

GLENN: Yes. Hello.

STU: Glenn. Yes. Alan Newman.

GLENN: Alan Newman, hi. How are you?

STU: Heard the attorneys first talking about the story, and wanted to contribute to the conversation. Make sure they got the facts accurately. You seem to be skeptical of what went on yesterday.

GLENN: Well, it seems kind of odd, that, you know, he spent five years saying, he didn't do any of these things.

And then he goes to trial.

And he says, all right. All right. I did it.

STU: Yes.

Yes. He -- well, he's guilty of these crimes.

And he wants to take response...

GLENN: He what? Hello.

STU: He wants to take responsibility for his actions.

GLENN: Are you -- are you okay?

STU: Hunter Biden has spent his entire adult years trying to make good for the things that he did.

And he's now in a time in his life, season, where he's able to do that.

And we just think it's a wonderful thing to...

GLENN: Wait a minute. Hold on just a second. What are you laughing about?

STU: Look, it's -- we wanted to make sure the legal system was created with the respect of --

GLENN: Are you all right? Are you all right?

STU: The American people deserve the truth.
(laughter)

GLENN: So this -- so this -- so this is all on the up and up. He feels really, really bad.

STU: Hunter has had a --

GLENN: Hello.

STU: Biden is a loving father.
(laughter)

GLENN: And this -- and this -- hang on just a second. I'm talked to Hunter Biden's attorney.

In case you haven't learned, he suddenly decided he was guilty of all charges. This doesn't have anything to do with him just counting on his dad or Kamala to -- to pardon him, does it?

STU: Oh. Absolutely not, again.

We've never even considered.

GLENN: All right. All right. We -- we -- we thank Hunter Biden's attorney for joining us on today's program.

No, no, no. I mean, I don't think that's a problem. Hang up the phone.
(laughter)
All right. So -- so we've wasted all of this money. All of this time. How many times do they have to, really, honestly, lie to you?

How many times do they have to lie to you?

He didn't do any of those tax crimes. He was absolutely innocent. The laptop wasn't real. He wasn't working for the Chinese. Oh. The Dad had no idea.

Nobody in the family was enriching themselves. How many times does this administration -- does Kamala Harris and the Democrats and the media, how many times do they need to lie to America? Look them dead in the eye and lie to them, before they wake up? How many millions of dollars have we wasted? How much airtime has been wasted?

How many -- how many families have been driven apart, because of these lies?

And now, spit in your face. Oh, yeah. I did them.

Second spit in your face. And I'm not going to pay for it.

I'm going to get away with it.

I'm going to go to prison for a very long time. It's not just the lies. It's the fact that they -- they just think you're this stupid. You would never allow a friend to do this to you. You would certainly never let a guardian do this to you.

You would never let an employee do this to you. Why do you allow this to continue to happen?

Why America, why?

Do you know what they're doing right now?

They're Trump proofing the DOJ. This is a story from John Solomon and Just the News.

They're hiring, using a hiring authority, that is outside of the normal competitive process for hiring career officials. Normally to be hired is a career civil service job.

You have to list it in USAjobs.gov. Then they have several candidate. They go through them. They go through a competitive process, to choose these people.

Then the DOJ hires from that. But the DOJ uses a process outside of that. The noncompetitive process.

And they're hiring hundreds of attorneys, into areas that will be vital to protecting the Biden-Harris administration policies from a Trump administration or another future administration.

So what they've done, is they've taken everything that they wanted, and they are codifying it now. By putting attorneys all around it, that Trump cannot fire. I've got to tell you, if Trump gets in, I really want him to utter these words. Just -- just for me. It may not make a difference for anybody else. But just for me.

I really want him to say, I've dealt in real estate my entire life. So I'm pretty good at speculating housing prices and what's going to be a value and what's not.

You know that 5 million-dollar house that you have in the Washington area?

It's going to be worth dog crap very soon, because I am firing so many people. Housing is going to be plentiful, in the Tristate area.

Jeez! He's going to have to fire so many people, and they're going to fight. And they're going to say, oh, this is Draconian. I love that word. Because I use it every day.

Don't you use Draconian, Stu. Almost every day, in your everyday life.

STU: Absolutely, again. I make sure I use it five, ten minutes a day.

GLENN: It's Draconian. It's Draconian. You mean like Dracula?

They're already sucking the blood out of our neck.

What are you talking about? Anyway, so we have that to look forward to.

By the way, a top Department of Justice spokesperson, in New York, was caught on a hidden camera. Ripping Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney. You know, the one that went after Donald Trump.

Now, this is the chief spokesperson, for the southern part of New York. This is -- this is New York City.

Chief spokesperson for the Justice Department. And the Manhattan US attorney's office.

Okay. He was, you know, trying to, I don't know. Romance a woman and impress a woman, he says.

And he said, I've got to tell you, this case, that Bragg brought up. It's nonsense. It's nonsense. He said, he had known Bragg for 15 years. Previously worked for him. Described the unprecedented hush money case against Trump, as a perversion of justice.

Listen to the bit of this tape from Steven Crowder's people.

I don't have the cuts in front of me. Just play the -- just play the cuts of the district attorney.

Or the -- the spokesperson.

STU: I think they're a little mystified as to which clips you're looking for.

GLENN: Yeah. I'm sorry. We have a advertise connect between the meetings sometimes, and the show. Sorry about that.

So he goes on, and he says, you know, this case is nonsense. This is a perversion of justice.

Then he goes on to say. You, you know, he just wants to be something.

I don't know.

A mayor. I'm not sure what he wants to be.

But I know he's just not happy being the mayor of New York county.

Before he decided to prosecute Trump, did you know who he was?

Well, you do now.

So he said, wait a minute. Hang on. Hang on just a second.

Do we have his attorney on the phone.

We have his attorney on the phone.

Because what he said was, he didn't he was just trying to impress a girl. And it was -- it was not -- it was nothing that -- hello.

Who is this?

STU: Hi, Glenn, Alan Newman.

GLENN: Alan, you're back.

STU: Yes. As you mentioned, just trying to impress a girl. And that -- that's all.

GLENN: So when he said, it's a perversion of justice.

STU: Perversion of -- I came up with that one, yeah.

GLENN: You -- he didn't mean that. He was just trying to impress a girl.

STU: Well, he meant it, but, well, he -- well, he was trying to impress -- we've all said things to the ladies.

GLENN: Well, we've never --

STU: Glenn, sometimes -- every once in a while, we've all stepped up.

GLENN: No.

He said, at the federal level, I work, there's a 90-day rule, where you can't make any decisions on cases that are going to affect an election, within 90 days of the election. But the rule does not apply at the state level. Because the state level, it's like the F-ing Wild West. They're like idiots. They don't care. They're all political.

To put it mildly, it's a mockery of I couldn't wait. This whole thing is disgusting. They're just out to get Trump.

STU: Glenn, it's -- it's a travesty.

GLENN: It's a travesty.

STU: It's a sham. It's a mockery.

GLENN: It's a --

STU: It's a travashamockery.

GLENN: Okay.

Well, he apparently is pack in the good graces of everybody. Because he said, I regretful made some statements in private, in a social setting. That don't affect my views about two local and state prosecutions. So I guess it's all right.

STU: Yeah. They don't reflect their views at all.

GLENN: Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Newman.

GLENN: Wow. Wow. Wow.

Stu, you weren't around there, strangely for those two phone calls from the attorneys. I don't think there's -- I don't think there's -- I don't think they're spitting in the face of the American public. Do you?

STU: Not at all. No.

This is exactly how justice is supposed to play out.

Especially the way that -- the Hunter Biden one is such a great example of it. It certainly appears, Glenn. That Hunter Biden tried to come in.

He tried to plead. What was it? An Alford plea.

I didn't even recognize the term. It was basically to say, to say you're guilty, without admitting guilt.

Which, I don't know why it's a thing. But that's a thing.

They tried to negotiate that. They said, we're not going to accept that type of plea. Give us a half an hour. And then they just came back, he's just entirely guilty and totally fine with it. Every single thing in my mind. He got a call from daddy.

He called his dad. His dad said, all right. Just plead guilty.

And the second we get past this election, I'll pardon you.

GLENN: And that's absolutely going to happen.

And I remember when Ford did that with Nixon. And, oh, man. Everybody was pissed off. My dad who actually said, you know, Nixon does the same thing that everybody else does. They just got him, because he's a Republican.

I don't know if that's true.

It just didn't feel right to me.

Maybe it is. Now with some of the stuff that we know.

But still, he was pissed at Ford. He was for Nixon.

And he was pissed at Ford. He's like, that was a dirty deal.

That was a deal made, to get him out of the office.

And it was. And the same deal has been made, if, you know, should I die in office. Kamala, you have to pardon every member of my family.

And me.

And if I'm still in office, before I leave, I'm going to pardon everybody in my family.

It is a perversion of justice.

Why would you have to pardon your family, if you didn't do anything the whole time?

This whole time, do you know how much money and energy has been spent?

Do you know how many people have destroyed. Have their reputations destroyed.

Because you said, the laptop wasn't real.

Because you said, none of these charges are real.

You -- you had 50 former CIA and intelligence officials, lie and say this was a Russian operative. A Russian op.

And you threw the election. Trump would have won, according to all polls, had people believed the laptop.

He would have won. So you lied, you cheated. You stole. Then you lied again, to the American people.

You employed 56 people, from the CIA, and intelligence, who we no longer believe anymore. You destroyed the credibility of anybody in intelligence.

Then you had us spend millions of on this. You tore families apart, arguing back and forth, the laptop is not real. You're a conspiracy theorist. All of that stuff.

All of the damage done to our families. All of the damage done to reputations.

All of the money that has been spent. And now you spit in our face and say, yeah. Yeah. I did it.

I did it. And I really -- I'm really, really sorry about it. How dare you. How dare you.
(music)
Damn, America!

Wake up.

FACT CHECK: Are Illegal Immigrants Voting in Our Elections? | Glenn TV | Ep 375

Americans are finally starting the feel the impact of unchecked immigration under the Biden-Harris administration. Venezuelan gangs are terrorizing communities. Illegal immigrants in New York City now account for 75% of arrests in Midtown Manhattan. This isn’t by accident. It’s a globalist plan to overwhelm and collapse our country. Glenn Beck saw this coming back during the Arab Spring. He predicted how the movement would see Islamists, anarchists, Marxists, and progressives all working together. It would cascade throughout Europe and eventually to the United States. Now, in the middle of this chaos, there are two issues that citizens in every Western country — including ours — are being censored over: immigration and elections. Glenn connects the dots and does a deep dive on the data to answer: Are illegal immigrants voting in our elections? And if so, are the numbers meaningful enough to actually choose the next candidate? The numbers in the swing states are shocking! Some of the best work that exposes the White House’s master plan on illegal immigration has been produced by Mike Howell at the Heritage Foundation’s Oversight Project. He joins Glenn to separate fact from fiction on how widespread illegal voting by noncitizens really is and explains why Democrats in Congress really don’t want to pass the SAVE Act. “They’re lying to you. ... Illegal voting is a largely unpoliced matter by design.”

WARNING: The Feds could SEIZE your private land under THIS act

There’s a new law in the works that would drastically harm Americans’ ability to own land. Called the SUSTAINS Act, it would give the USDA the power to monitor “natural processes” and decide who owns “environmental services.” Glenn breaks down what that means: “They are claiming the processes that are on your land. You may not own the air, the trees, the water … nothing! What is your land worth without water?” Glenn also reviews how Kamala Harris' plan to tax investment income could further hurt the economy.

But it’s not too late to STOP this. You can submit public input on the SUSTAINS Act until Sept. 16, 2024, HERE: https://www.federalregister.gov/docum...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: I don't trust anybody anymore.

But I will tell you, we have no country left. I mean, let's just give you some of the headlines from today.

Harris calls for higher taxes, on investment income.

Now, what is that going to do, Stu. Just noodle this with me. She's giving more taxes on investment income.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: What do you think that is.

STU: Some would say, when you tax something, you discourage it. So if you're taxing investments, you're discouraging investments in American companies.

GLENN: Right. Right.

Yeah. But she says, she's only going to be taxing people who have a million dollars or more.

STU: She can say that all she wants. She's lying though.

GLENN: Yeah. I know.

But she's also, just so you know, she's only going after the people who have money to invest.

She's not going to go after the poor people on the investment thing.

STU: Good. Really?

She's not going to hit the people in massive debt with no income on their massive 401(k)s.

GLENN: Right. No. They're not going to.

Great story about workers feeling Bidenomic's pain as job creators fear the worse for Kamala. And this is what -- you know, this is what's happening. If you think your employer is going to be like, you know what, I'm going to add jobs. If Kamala gets in, you're out of your mind.

They're all going to batten down the hatches. By the way, job openings fell more than expected in I couldn't like. Which is huh.

What does that even mean? Hmm?

US Steel shares plunge as Biden/Harris prepare to block Nippon Steel takeover. People familiar with the matter told the Washington Post that President Joe Biden is preparing to announce that he will block the $14.9 billion deal. US shares have fallen now 41 percent this year.

Kamala Harris, the presidential nominee said, US Steel should remain American-owned at American operated. That was during a campaign event in Pittsburgh.

STU: What do you --

GLENN: Well, that would be good. That would be good. I would love that. Is anybody offering that to US Steel?

STU: Not according to US Steel. Which is kind of the issue. Which they say.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

STU: And I'm interested in your thoughts on this. Because it's not China. It's not Russia. This is an ally, a close ally, Japan, who is trying to purchase US Steel. Obviously US Steel being like this iconic company, makes us feel weird.

Has the word US. United States in it.

Their point is like, we are screwed without this deal. We're leaving Pittsburgh. We're firing a bunch of people.

A lot of union jobs go away, if you do not let us go through with this deal. And I can kind of -- I kind of have some understanding of like why you would be hesitant to want US Steel to go into foreign hands.

It kind of makes sense to me.

GLENN: No. I don't think it should.

You have to -- as a country, you can recommend against it.

But do you have a plan to save it?

I mean, do you have a plan?

What is the plan?

No. We're not going to approve that deal. Okay.

Are you working on anything that maybe you get some Americans to pool their money together. And think, you know what, we think this is important.

US Steel. This is critical infrastructure, if we can't make steel in the United States, we're screwed. But don't worry about it. She's got everything under control. And you're not going to have to worry about cars or tractors or things like that.

Because we're all going to be living in 15-minute cities. And if you don't believe me, that you will own nothing. And you will be happy about it. Let me just share this.

The -- who owns the environmental services?

USDA now is monetizing natural processes, under the Sustains Act. So the Sustains Act, we told you about a couple of weeks ago -- we told you, that you had to speak out against this and stop it.

It doesn't look like it's going to be stopped. But there's a free market now, on environmental processes. So, in other words, one environmental process is trees breathe in, carbon dioxide. And they breathe out, air. Okay?

So they take the pollution, and breathe it in.

And then they give us, what we need to live, as they breathe out.

It's kind of a weird thing. I haven't heard anybody talk about that for a long, long time now.

But that's how they survive, and thrive.

But now, for instance. I've planted in the last ten years.

I can't count the number of trees, that I have planted up in a treeless area.

And I may not own those trees now.

If the USDA has their way. And this is already passed. They're just looking at how to implement it.

The secretary is allowed to -- to go in and say, you know what, these trees are really important. That water. You're pumping that water out of your well.

Well, that's not your water. That's part of the environmental process. And we don't think you should pump any of that water.

They will -- well, I can't say this. They will regulate. But they won't own.

They are claiming the processes that are on your land. So you may not own the air. You may not own the tree.

You may not own the water. Nothing.

What is your land worth? Without water.

Especially in the West. What is your land worth without water farmers. What is your land worth, when you can't till the soil yourself, because the minerals and the -- the soil is not really owned by you.

You own the space. But you don't own anything other than -- maybe -- maybe your house, if it's already built.

Who owns that? Well, people like Bill Gates will own that. Bill Cosby will come in and say, I just want to save the planet. So I will just buy up all of this farmland. And I will buy the air. And I will buy the trees. And I am going to buy everything.

So that way, when somebody wants to farm on it, like these farmers that have been farming on it for generations, I can tell them no.

No. Because it will hurt the environment.

And all of this is done, by the Secretary of the USDA. I don't even know who that is.

Do you?

This is why our government is out of control.

Who is to answer for this?

It's all at the Secretary's discretion.

No, thank you. (no, thank you. So the Department of Agriculture and USDA, they have administered the program. And the Secretary -- can you look up the Secretary of Agriculture, Stu, because I don't know who that is. I would like to know what brainiac we have put in on that. But I'm sure they're smarter than all of that put together.

STU: A name from the past. Secretary Tom Vilsack. Remember him?

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: Former senator --

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. I don't know why I remember him. But I do remember him. Yeah. Good. So we have a senator. You know, and senators know so much about farming and land.

You know, and trees. And all of that.

I think that's -- I think that's fantastic. So the new law sets out how the secretary is to determine ownership of the environmental services that are created on private land. Through the federal conservation ram. Contributing entity, the one who contributes the private funding to the conservation program. Is to prescribe the terms of the environmental services. Subject to the approval of the Secretary.

So that's great. That's great.

The landowner really doesn't have anything to say about it.

So don't worry about it. Don't worry about it.

You can live in a city, a 15-minute city. And you're not really going to have a job. Because you don't have to really have a job because you won't own anything. You will just rent it from your overlords. If you think this sounds like hyperbole, read the news!

Read the news. You can get our -- our daily newsletter, which has just the news stories of the day.

And you can find these, and share them with your friends and family.

What do you mean they're monetizing the natural processes under the Sustains Act? This is a way for them to take control of the land, through private/public partnerships. So the public owns the land.

Well, I shouldn't say that. I mean, it's still a private person.

But he's, you know, part of the public.

So he owns the land. And he partners with the government. To control it.

And I think that is exactly the direction we all want to go in. I really don't understand how people -- you know, I understood when it was my word, saying, you know, I feel like this is what's happening.

We're so far beyond that.

When I came out with the book, on the WEF.

And was starting to tell you about how you were going to, you know, own nothing, and be happy.

I could even understand, that you would say, well, that's what all the documents say. But they're not going to do it.

I can't understand your burying your head in the sand, anymore.

There's no excuse for it, anymore.

This is not my opinion. You can do your own homework.

You'll find all of this, being done, not talked about.

But being done.

What else are you waiting for?

What else are your friends and your family and your neighbors waiting for?

We have to start talking to our friends and our family, not about politics.

Not about Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. We need to start talking to them about principles, and the things that are actually happening.

These things are actually happening. The economy is going to the crapper. The -- the jobs going to the crapper.

If they believed in all of these things, why wouldn't they do them right now?

Because they don't believe in turning the economy around.

They don't know how to do it.

And what they're going to do, is put you all back in chains. You will work for the government, how the government wants you to work, where they want you to work.

Where they want to you live. You will own nothing!

By 2030. This election, takes us to 2028. Do you think maybe this is an important election?

Why exposing Epstein List would be Trump's MOST DANGEROUS move

During an interview on the Lex Friedman Podcast, Donald Trump hinted that he would release the Epstein client list if he wins the White House. But would that be the final straw for global elites? Glenn explains why he believes Trump’s life is in danger: the global cabal was blindsided once. They can’t let him win again, especially if he’ll expose everything. And Glenn isn’t the only one who believes this. He reviews a clip of Eric Weinstein, who recently made the same argument on the podcast Modern Wisdom.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Did you hear Eric Weinstein?

What the podcast he was on. Modern wisdom?

STU: I didn't hear the clip. I was reading about it, though.

GLENN: Okay. You really. This is a good podcast you should probably listen to. A lot of wisdom there. A lot of wisdom.

And it's kind of what we've been saying for a while now.

But I don't know. Eric says it, and it just seems much, much smarter.

It's kind of like, Eric is much, much smarter.

But if he had an English accent, it would be game over.

Everybody would listen to everything he has to say.

So here he is, on Donald Trump. Listen.

VOICE: I don't know whether -- I don't know whether Donald Trump will be allowed to become president.

VOICE: What do you mean by that?

VOICE: I think that there's a remarkable story, and we're in a funny game, which is, are we allowed to say, what that story is?

Because to say it, to analyze it, to say it, is to bring it into view.

I think we don't understand why the censorship is behaving the way it is. We don't understand why it's in the shadows. We don't understand why the news is acting in a bizarre fashion.

So let's just set the stage, believing that was in in February.

There is something that I think Mike Benz is just referred to as the rules-based international order. It's an interlocking series of agreements, tests, and understandings. Explicit understandings.

Clandestine understandings.

About how the most important structures keep the world free of war. And keep markets open.

And there has been a system in place, whether understood explicitly, or behind the scenes, or implicitly. That says, that the purpose of the two American parties, is to prune, the field of populist candidates. So that whatever two candidates, exist in a face-off, are both acceptable to that world order.

So what you're trying to do, from the point of view.

Let's take it from the point of view of, let's say, the State Department, the Intelligence Community, the Defense Department, and major corporations that are -- have to do with international issues, from arms trade to, oh, I don't know, food. They have a series of agreements that are fragile and could be overturned, if a president, entered the Oval Office, who didn't agree with them. And the mood of the country was, why do we pay taxes into these structures?

Why are we hamstrung?

Why aren't we a free people?

So what the two parties would do is they would run primaries. You would have populist candidates, and you would pre-commit the populist candidates to support the candidates who won the primaries. As long as that took place, and you had two candidates that were both acceptable to the international order. That is, they aren't going to rethink NAFTA or NATO or what have you.

We called that democracy. So democracy was the illusion of choice.

What's called magicians choice. Where the choice is -- pick a card. Any card. The magician makes sure the card that you pick, is the one that he knows.

In that situation, you have magician's choice in the primaries. Then you would have the duopoly. Two candidates. Either of which was acceptable. And you could actually afford to hold an election.

And the populace would vote. And that way, the international order wasn't put at risk every four years. Because you can't have alliances, that are subject to the whim of the people in plebiscites. So under that structure, everything was going fine until 2016.

Then the first candidate ever to not hold any position in the military. Or position in government.

In the history of the Republican Party. Or Donald Trump. Broke through the primary structure.

This was a full-court press. Okay. We only have one candidate acceptable to the international order. Donald Trump will be under constant pressure, that he's a loser. He's a wild man. He's an idiot.

And he's under the control of the Russians. And then he was going to be a 20 to one underdog. And then he wins.

And there was no precedent for this. They learned their lesson you cannot afford to have candidates, who are not acceptable to the international order. And continue to have these alliances. This is an unsolved problem.

GLENN: Now. I've been saying for a long time, they're going to kill him.

Because it upsets their plans, and he's the one standing in the way, because he won't play their game. Now, Eric may have expressed this -- expressed this, in a more understandable way. But he's absolutely right.

100 percent right.

And that's why honestly, they're playing the game in the Democratic Party.

Where you didn't get a choice. You didn't have a primary.

You didn't have a primary.

And that's because the president is going to run. But the president can't run. So now, you didn't have a primary, and you have the most unpopular candidate. Ever!

She's never been, she was never popular. She wasn't popular just two months ago.

But now, oh, my gosh, she's hung the moon and the stars.

And we don't know anything about what she plans on doing. Okay.

All right. But she won't upset the international order.

She won't upset the -- the plans, that places like the WEF, and the United Nations. And now all of the western leadership, has come up with.

But you'll notice, those plans are extremely unpopular, with the people, all around the world.

Every -- every Western country now, is in turmoil.

Because they're doing the same thing to them, that they're doing to us. And that is collapse us.

Now, I believe this is to be true, I believe they'll do anything to stop him from winning.

They would put us into chaos. They would put us into Civil War, before they would have him win. They would put us in world war, before they would have him.

And Donald Trump, I just -- please, Mr. President. Please.

They've tried to kill you once. Please.

Don't make it worse. Don't make it worse. Yesterday, he was on a podcast, and he was on the Lex Friedman Podcast. And he got a lot of questions on Lex on foreign policy, et cetera, et cetera. The future going forward.

You know, he started talking about, you know, the Kennedy files. And how the Kennedy files, he kept classified.

Because it was protection of people. Which I'm not sure is exactly accurate.

I don't know what is in the Kennedy file. I have talked to people who have seen it.

And they have led me to believe, that it is not about people. It is about institutions.

But who knows? But Trump said, you know, I probably would not release the Kennedy files. However, Stu, what's the one thing you could say as a presidential candidate, that's pretty much guaranteed that you -- you're dead?

STU: Well, you're going to release the Epstein files.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

STU: And that would be --

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

But I am going to release the Epstein files. And the client list.

It's very strange for a lot of people, that the list of clients, that went to the island has not been made public.

Yeah. It's interesting, isn't it? Said Donald Trump.

It probably will be.

He said, I'll take a look at it, on the client list. But, yeah.

I'm inclined to do the Epstein thing.

I would have no problem with releasing that list.

Okay. All right. All right.

Remember, Donald Trump is definitely not suicidal.

But if they could put him in jail, he might become suicidal. And some cameras might go down.

Oh, my gosh.

STU: It's happened before, Glenn.

GLENN: This is -- oh, it did?

STU: Yeah. It's happened before.

GLENN: Really? But not related to Epstein?

STU: No. A philanthropist. No.

GLENN: The philanthropist. Yeah.

STU: Do we have this clip here, do you want to hear it? Yeah. Here we go.

DONALD: But a lot of big people went to that island.

Fortunately, I was not one of them.

VOICE: It's just very strange for a lot of people. That the list of clients that went to the island, has not been made public.

DONALD: Yeah. It's very interesting, isn't it? Probably will be, by the way.

VOICE: If you're able to -- you would be --

DONALD: I would certainly take a look at it. Now, Kennedy is interesting because it's so many years ago. They do that for danger too. Because, you know, in dangers, certain people, et cetera, et cetera. So Kennedy is very different from the Epstein thing. But, yeah, I would be inclined to do the Epstein. I would have no problem with it.

GLENN: Hmm. Hmm.

It's currently with the FBI. And it's under the control of one person at the FBI.

So what could possibly go wrong with that?

If it disappears, that would be unfortunate, wouldn't it, Stu?

And completely unexpected.

STU: Yeah. It would be shocking. That would be a shocking development. Look, sometimes, people lose documents.

You know --

GLENN: Happens all the time.

GLENN: Oops. I just dropped it in the shredder.

STU: Yeah. My daughter lost her homework, just last week.

And it was a rough day at school.

GLENN: Right. Right.

STU: This happens to people all the time.

There are shredders all over the place.

GLENN: All the time. You sometimes -- sometimes, you get up in the morning. And you almost exit -- I will step in the shower. And you almost step into the shredder. It happens. It happens, all the time.

STU: All the time.

Another example is, you noted yesterday, that your neighbor's property was on fire. What happened if a fire broke out, where that document was.

GLENN: Yeah. What happened? Oh, man. In the safe. In the safe. In the safe at the FBI.

STU: Yeah. Sometimes. Fires can happen anywhere, Glenn. Sometimes there are little fires that start up in safes.

GLENN: I knew we shouldn't have put it in the same safe, where we put the matches and the gremlin. You know.

I don't know what were we thinking?

What were we thinking? Oh, that's too bad.

Some misinformation here, I want to point out. Few fans left divided by major changes to ABC's daytime show, as Whoopi Goldberg and co-host return for a brand-new season.

Just want to give you -- you know, people say it all the time. How do you know when a story is true or not?

This one is pretty easy to point out. Just really in the first few letters. The View fans. There are no fans of the view.

And I would just like to correct that story. And make sure that you know.

We're on top of misinformation.