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.

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

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

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

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

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

Approximately 141 minutes every single day, scrolling.

The average American!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let's get it off that!

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

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

Okay?

The rot remains!

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

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

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

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

Or worse what?

When we stop thinking?

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

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

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

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

Nope! Can they reason?

Nope!

Can they remember what happened yesterday?

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

We're studying AI brain rot!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are we there yet?

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

And I was like, we're getting books!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can we really?

Can we get people to actually listen to this?

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

It starts with awareness.

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

What do you permit into your mind?

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

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

Deeply live.

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

I'm happy. Are you happy?

What was the question?

What are you saying?

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

I love my family!

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

It's up to us, America.

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

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

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think it was clear to you.

That our side, for way too long.

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

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

They're seeing now Dearborn. And Minneapolis.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's the bear minimum.

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

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

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

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

GLENN: So what is it the state can do?

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

If you lose Texas, you lose the West!

As Texas goes, so goes America.

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

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

And you're seeing that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No. No. No.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GLENN: I don't either.

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

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

GLENN: Me too.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Right.

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

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

Bull! That is not true. Okay?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have to stop this right now.

The Bubba Effect: Is America headed for collapse?

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

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Welcome to the Glenn Beck Program.

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

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

Question orders.

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

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

They sent that message.

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

Their military is falling apart.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay?

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

Because that's a second branch!

Otherwise, you break up the branches, okay?

These are not political stories.

These are constitutional earthquakes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two, the military.

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

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

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

The silence so far is not reassuring.

Three, the judiciary.

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

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

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

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

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

Do you see anyone in Hollywood, doing that?

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

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

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

The Founders never trusted the press.

They trusted the people.

So that's where we are now.

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

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

My fellow Americans. This is not about Donald Trump.

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

It's not how you vote.

This is about whether the military stays under civilian authority.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And it has to be corrected immediately!

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

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

But at least he's right on this one!

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

So what do you do?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We're here for a reason!

Everything snaps back into place!

It always has!

From 1800 to 1868 to 1974.

Institutions bend.

People break. But the Constitution can be restored.

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

THIS could FINALLY land Epstein’s enablers IN JAIL

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

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

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

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

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

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

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

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

A SAR.

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

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

Built after decades of financial corruption.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why?

Why did nobody report that?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does it really matter what their excuse was?

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

Hmm.

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

There's a new idea.

This story isn't just about Epstein.

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe somebody else. I don't know.

But also an asset for us.

That helps all the. Apparently.

We do all kinds of horrible things. Why not?

Senator Wyden says, he wants to follow the money.

Well, good!

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

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

Because this is where it really leads.