Trump Breaks Promise to 'Lock Her Up'

This might get a little annoying. According to former Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway, the President-elect will not pursue criminal charges against Hillary Clinton, despite his inflammatory rhetoric on the campaign trail, during a presidential debate and the overwhelming evidence that Clinton lied.

"You get dizzy with all the lies. I feel like that's actually a Clinton strategy, right? If they throw enough lies at you, it's sort of like being in the batting cage . . . you've got a few of them firing at you at once, and you can't handle it," Buck Sexton said, filling in for Glenn on radio Tuesday.

While their political brand is forever damaged by years of scandals, it looks like the Clintons will get a pass once again.

"I don't think you can expect there will be a Clinton dynasty that, sort of, continues on after this whole. Remember, this is the second time Hillary has been the inevitable candidate. This is the second time the Clintons have had all of the media, all of the machinery behind them. They couldn't get it done either time. I mean, to borrow from W.: Fool me once, can't get fooled again," Buck said.

Whether Trump's political brand will be damaged by the backpedaling remains to be seen.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors:

BUCK: I've got some breaking news for you. Which is always fun when you're on radio and it's happening right as it's coming in. Donald Trump, according to a senior aide, I believe it's Kellyanne Conway, but Donald Trump has said that he will not pursue the criminal case against Hillary Clinton. That that is going to be off the table now.

Ooh. Some of you are probably a little annoyed about this. Others of you will think it's a good idea. I think we should spend some idea together talking about the pros and cons of doing this. Or, I should say, really, not doing this. Deciding to not continue the prosecution against Hillary Clinton.

I was a very early and vocal, not just critic of this whole thing. But I was telling everybody who would listen. I would go on CNN where I was a contributor. I would say, "Look, I had a TS clearance. I know the laws about this stuff pretty darn well. And there's no way what Hillary Clinton did in any way, shape, or form would just be sort of let go, if we were talking about somebody who wasn't a Clinton. There's just no way. It wouldn't happen." And, of course, early on, they were saying, "Oh, that's just conjecture from you. You don't really know -- there's no classified." Okay. There is classified. It wasn't marked classified. Actually, it was marked classified. Oh, she didn't know about it. Actually, she did know.

Oh, you get dizzy with all the lies. I feel like that's actually a Clinton strategy, right? If they throw enough lies at you, it's sort of like being in the batting cage. And it's just -- everything -- you've got a few of them firing at you at once, and you can't handle it. I haven't been in a batting cage in a while. It used to be kind of fun. So Trump is saying he won't go after Hillary.

A couple things about this -- on the -- let's start with the why this might upset some people. The first thing is that Trump was talking a lot during the campaign, as I think he should have, about how what Hillary did was very illegal, very wrong, and how there would be accountability. How, if you voted for Donald Trump, he would actually try to find some way. He would find some means of holding her accountable through the law.

And we knew that there was all kinds of funky stuff going on. Not funky like dance party. But funky like, "Hmm, that's not right." The head of the FBI went ahead of the Department of Justice -- they make the decision about prosecuting or not prosecuting. The head of the FBI went ahead and said that no reasonable federal prosecutor should bring charges. Shouldn't we have heard from the prosecutor? In this case, typically been from Loretta Lynch or one of her top officials. One of those who works for her at the DOJ.

But, no, it was Comey who went out, after Loretta Lynch had sat on that plane, on the tarmac, to talk about the future stuff. And they sat down. They had this discussion.

It all looked so bad. It looked terrible. Meanwhile, Trump is chanting, "Lock her up." His supporters are chanting, "Lock her up." This became one of the sort of rallying cries of the campaign.

"Lock her up." Could they, if you had appointed a special prosecutor, is it likely? Is it possible? Well, is it possible, first? How about that? And then is it likely that there could be criminal charges brought against Hillary Clinton for what she did? A direct and clear reading of the statute would be yes.

Now, what would the guidelines say about this sort of thing? She would probably take a plea deal. I think it's unlikely, even if she were a non-Clinton that she would go to jail. Probably pay a large fine. Have a number of years of -- a number of years of probation. And never hold a clearance for the rest of her life. And if she were also a non-political person -- meaning, if she just worked for an Intel agency or a military -- a branch of the military, she would be fired.

But that's probably what would happen. But Trump and his supporters were chanting lock her up. At least the implication there is, well, there she be a full-fledged investigation, absent the sort of politics that bails the Clintons out time and again, whether it's Bill or Hillary. Some could argue that this was a promise that was made.

This is on the negative side. And I think that there are going to be those in the Trump camp, or those who supported Trump all along, who see this and say to themselves, "is this the beginning of the waffling, the wavering, the undulating with the political winds?"

Is this going to be a moment in time when we all of a sudden realize, "Oh, Trump was saying that stuff to get elected, but he didn't really mean it?" Is this a broken promise?

I don't think we should go that far. But I don't know. And everyone is entitled to their opinion on this one. But on the negative side of things, you have that. Seems to be a sort of broken promise from Trump. And then also justice.

Hillary did things that are in clear violation of federal statute. Those of you listening who have had a security clearance or have a security clearance, worked in the national security side of things, whether military, Intel, or any of the jobs where you'd have to have a clearance, you know how crazy those rules are, how strict they are. And you probably think to yourself, "No. She should just be held accountable. Rule of law is rule of law. Rule of law doesn't mean exceptions for people based upon how important they are to one political party or another, how connected they are, how much strife it will cause within our political discussions, if they're actually held to account with the law."

So you probably think that a special prosecutor appointed by Donald Trump would be a good idea, if you take that position.

Now, let's look at the other side for a moment. Because this is -- this is pretty big because this means now that the Clintons are going to be able to sort of go off into the sunset. We'll see what the donations are like to the Clinton Foundation. I have a feeling that they're going to be plummeting dramatically over the next year or two.

I also think that the speeches that Bill and Hillary will give will be at quite a discounted rate. They will be rock-bottom prices, compared to what they were before, which will prove all of us who were saying that Hillary wasn't selling a speech, she wasn't selling wisdom, she wasn't even selling -- or -- and Bill too. They weren't selling this sort of gravitas that they give an organization. They were selling access or at least the appearance of access, which is just as bad.

Meaning the people buying it, thought that's what they were buying. All right? You can't take money -- you can't be a politician and take money from somebody and say, "Yeah, I'll make sure we pass that bill you want me to pass. Don't worry about it. I've got it covered." And then if the FBI is running a sting and you've taken that paper bag full of cash, you don't get to say, "Well, I wasn't really going to vote that way." Come on. Come on. That's not how it works.

So the Clintons get to continue on. I think that their brand is -- their political brand is forever damaged by all of this. I don't think you can expect there will be a Clinton dynasty that sort of continues on after this whole -- remember, this is the second time Hillary has been the inevitable candidate. This is the second time the Clintons have had all of the media, all of the machinery behind them. They couldn't get it done either time. I mean, to borrow from W.: Fool me once, can't get fooled again. Get can't get fooled again.

So -- now, let's look at the, this is a good idea for Trump side of the issue. And I will tell you, to be up front about it, I think it is. And I know some of you -- oh, I'm going to get some emails, I'm going to get some Facebook messages from current or former military or Intel -- some of my Intel brothers inside Langley and other places. They're going to be mad at me for this one, and I understand that. But let me make my case about why I think this is the right move for Trump.

As long as you're okay with Trump kind of breaking his word on this one. Lock her up was just theatrics, I guess. Okay. It was just theatrics.

Or maybe you just take the position that he looked on the facts and he's changing his mind based on the circumstances of today. That's usually what politicians do, by the way. When they want to change their mind about something, they go out and they tell you, "Well, things are different now." Are they different because they are, or because the politician wants them to be? I leave that to you.

So by Trump not pursuing this, you have, one, the possibility of unity. Do you buy that?

Given that the Democrats are hell-bent, it seems, on creating the perception that Trump is the sort of modern reincarnation of either the KKK or the neo-Nazis. Or the -- I -- the alt-right neo-Nazi KKK consortium -- whatever it is. They seem to be under the impression that they can convince -- if they just keep hammering this, they will convince Americans that that's who Donald Trump is. And so they stay on this -- which makes it seem like unity is kind of a tough thing to pull off. Right?

It's one thing when you disagree with the top marginal tax rate. It's one thing when you disagree with how to handle ballooning entitlement spending because of the Baby Boomers. You can disagree on that and still sit down and be friends at the end of the day.

And I hope that that's where we actually get in our politics. It's a whole 'nother situation though when one side is just pointing a finger at the other side and saying, "You support somebody who is morally the equivalent of a KKK member." Maybe not actually in the KKK. But somebody who is really, really bad.

It's tough to sit down with them and say, "Yeah, let's have a civil discussion about all of this." But unity -- if you're looking for reasons why Trump would decide not to pursue charges. And this is just breaking now.

Not to pursue charges against Hillary Clinton for what she did with her email. Oh, by the way, I believe also that means for what she did at the Clinton Foundation. That one's tough to take too. Because the legacy of the Clintons, really, more than anything else, is going to be the creation of a vast international enterprise under the guise of a charity that was really using charity as a front for creating a tremendous amount of political clout and brand value and cronies getting all sorts of payoffs and money and paying salaries. And building an enterprise that is really a for-profit under the guise of a nonprofit. A for-profit for the Clintons.

The end goal of which, was not just to make them rich, but also to make Hillary Clinton president. So that's gone too.

But, okay, unity, that's one reason. Then there's another one, but this is sort of a contingent reason, right?

So on the one hand, we've got, this is bad. Trump is breaking his word. Trump is also not pursuing justice. You can take that position. By not going after Hillary with a special prosecutor in -- during his presidency. I guess we could also, by the way -- just throw this out there, just to make things really crazy, Trump could also change his mind on this. We had a couple of months. He could be like, "Yeah, you know, I've decided, actually, she's pretty bad. We're going to go for it." All right. But let's just assume that he's going to keep his word on this one or that this report is true.

Then there's the possibility of just the Machiavellian side of this. Trump looks a bit magnanimous in the process, right? There will be some good will created here. Maybe it's a distraction for the Trump administration that actually realizes that they have a wide open field to do incredible things for this country.

Got a Republican House. A Republican Senate. Tons of Republican governorships. Republican statehouses. Wide open. He's made these promises. The people have spoken. We have voted. People want some of the stuff that Trump has said he would do to actually happen. Maybe he realizes that's much more important to many of us, to most of us, than settling a score with Hillary Clinton. And so by doing this, he sort of looks magnanimous in the process. And he looks like he's being gracious, gracious to the other side.

Do I think he'll be rewarded by the other side for this graciousness? No, no, I do not. I think that would be a naive point of view for you to take on it. But those of fair mind, for those of open mind, for those who are willing to at least judge Donald Trump based on what he does now as president, I'd have to say that moving beyond the prosecution of Hillary Clinton -- again, this sort of ties in for the purposes of unity. But it makes Trump look good. It will make him look good.

There's one more thing I want to throw in there, he says he's not going to prosecute her -- or, he's not -- I should say, continue the investigation.

But if he appointed a special prosecutor, I mean, over a hundred classified emails. I mean, this is not hard. They wanted to go after her.

They gave her a special pass, created this well-she-didn't-mean-to exception for a federal statute, for which, when you talk about the handling of classified information, there is no special, oopsies -- Oopsies loophole. The other side of this is, what if he decides that he's going to pardon her?

Now, sort of like a political endorsement that you didn't ask for. A pardon sticks to you no matter what. Hillary could say, "Well, I didn't want this pardon." It doesn't matter. He can say he's not going to investigate her, but just to be a super-duper nice guy, he pardons Hillary Clinton for the email situation. Maybe just that, so that if people want to dig up some other stuff from the past, that's on them. But he pardons her for the email situation.

Now you have the would-be standard -- or, the former standard-bearer and would-be president of the Democratic Party with a pardon for criminal activity on her record.

Trump looks magnanimous in the process. Trump looks like he's trying to achieve unity.

And anytime somebody brings up Hillary and the popular vote, they'll be like, "Hillary is lucky that she's not walking around in an orange jumpsuit because did you hear about the pardon?" A little Machiavellian. Anything that could stop Trump from doing this? Not that I'm aware of.

Anything that makes me think that Trump might do this? Yeah. It makes a lot of sense, when you think about it.

Going into a break. We'll be right back.

Featured Image: Getty Images

What do clay pots have to do with to preserving American history?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

Editor's note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Why should we preserve our nation’s history? If you listen to my radio program and podcast, or read my columns and books, you know I’ve dedicated a large part of my life and finances to sourcing and preserving priceless artifacts that tell America’s story. I’ve tried to make these artifacts as available as possible through the American Journey Experience Museum, just across from the studios where I do my daily radio broadcast. Thousands of you have come through the museum and have been able to see and experience these artifacts that are a part of your legacy as an American.

The destruction of American texts has already begun.

But why should people like you and me be concerned about preserving these things from our nation's history? Isn’t that what the “big guys” like the National Archives are for?

I first felt a prompting to preserve our nation's history back in 2008, and it all started with clay pots and the Dead Sea Scrolls. In 1946, a Bedouin shepherd in what is now the West Bank threw a rock into a cave nestled into the side of a cliff near the Dead Sea. Instead of hearing an echo, he heard the curious sound of a clay pot shattering. He discovered more than 15,000 Masoretic texts from the third century B.C. to the first century A.D.

These texts weren’t just a priceless historical discovery. They were virtually perfect copies of the same Jewish texts that continue to be translated today. Consider the significance of that discovery. Since the third century B.C. when these texts were first written, the Jewish people have endured a continued onslaught of diasporas, persecutions, pressures to conform to their occupying power, the destruction of their temple, and so much more. They had to fight for their identity as a people for centuries, and finally, a year after the end of the Holocaust and a year before the founding of the nation of Israel, these texts were discovered, confirming the preservation and endurance of their heritage since ancient times — all due to someone putting these clay pots in a desert cave more than 2,000 years ago.

I first felt a prompting to preserve our nation's history back in 2008, and it all started with clay pots and the Dead Sea Scrolls.

So, what do these clay pots have to do with the calling to preserve American history? I didn’t understand that prompting myself until the horrible thought dawned on me that the people we are fighting against may very well take our sacred American scriptures, our Declaration of Independence, and our Bill of Rights. What if they are successful, and 1,000 years from now, we have no texts preserved to confirm our national identity? What kind of new history would be written over the truth?

The destruction of American texts has already begun. The National Archives has labeled some of our critical documents, like our Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights, as “triggering” or “containing harmful language.” In a public statement, the National Archives said that the labels help prepare readers to view potentially distressing content:

The Catalog and web pages contain some content that may be harmful or difficult to view. NARA’s records span the history of the United States, and it is our charge to preserve and make available these historical records. As a result, some of the materials presented here may reflect outdated, biased, offensive, and possibly violent views and opinions. In addition, some of the materials may relate to violent or graphic events and are preserved for their historical significance.

According to this statement, our founding documents are either “outdated, biased, offensive,” “possibly violent,” or a combination of these scathing descriptions. I’m sorry, the Declaration of Independence is not “triggering.” Our Constitution is not “outdated and biased,” and our Bill of Rights certainly is not “offensive and possibly violent.” They are glorious documents. They should be celebrated, not qualified by such derogatory, absurd language. Shame on them.

These are only the beginning stages of rewriting our history. What if they start banning these “triggering” documents from public view because they might offend somebody? Haven’t we torn down “triggering” statues before? What if we are no longer able to see, read, and study the actual words of our nation's founding documents because they are “harmful” or “possibly violent”? A thousand years from now, will there be any remnant to piece together the true spirit behind the nation that our founders envisioned?

The Declaration of Independence is not “triggering.”

That is why in 2008, I was prompted to preserve what I could. Now, the American Journey Experience Museum includes more than 160,000 artifacts, from founding-era documents to the original Roe v. Wade court papers. We need to preserve the totality of our nation’s heritage, the good, the bad, and the ugly. We need to preserve our history in our own clay pots.

I ask you to join with me on this mission. Start buying books that are important to preserve. Buy some acid-free paper and start printing some of the founding documents, the reports that go against the mainstream narrative, the studies that prove what is true as we are continually being fed lies. Start preserving our daily history as well as our history because it is being rewritten and digitized.

Somebody must have a copy of what is happening now and what has happened in the past. I hope things don’t get really bad. But if they do, we need to preserve our heritage. Perhaps, someone 1,000 years from now will discover our clay pots and, Lord willing, be able to have a glimpse of America as it truly was.

Top 10 WORST items in the new $1.2 TRILLION spending bill

Kevin Dietsch / Staff | Getty Images

Biden just signed the newest spending bill into law, and Glenn is furious.

Under Speaker Johnson's leadership, the whopping $1.2 TRILLION package will use your taxpayer dollars to fund the government through September. Of course, the bill is loaded with earmarks and pork that diverts money to fund all sorts of absurd side projects.

Here is the list of the ten WORST uses of taxpayer money in the recently passed spending bill:

Funding venues to host drag shows, including ones that target children

David McNew / Contributor | Getty Images

Money for transgender underwear for kids

Funding for proms for 12 to 18 year old kids

Bethany Clarke / Stringer | Getty Images

Border security funding... for Jordan and Egypt

Another $300 million for Ukraine

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

$3.5 million for Detroit's annual Thanksgiving Day parade

Icon Sportswire / Contributor | Getty Images

$2.5 million for a new kayaking facility in Franklin, New Hampshire

Acey Harper / Contributor | Getty Images

$2.7 million for a bike park in White Sulfur Springs, West Virginia, a town with a population of less than 2,300 people

$5 million for a new trail at Coastal Carolina University

$4 million the "Alaska King Crab Enhancement Project" (whatever that means)

FRED TANNEAU / Stringer | Getty Images

There is no doubt about it—we are entering dark times.

The November presidential election is only a few months away, and following the chaos of the 2020 election, the American people are bracing for what is likely to be another tumultuous election year. The left's anti-Trump rhetoric is reaching an all-time high with the most recent "Bloodbath" debacle proving how far the media will go to smear the former president. That's not to mention the Democrats' nearly four-year-long authoritarian attempt to jail President Trump or stop his re-election by any means necessary, even if it flies in the face of the Constitution.

Meanwhile, Biden is doing worse than ever. He reportedly threw a tantrum recently after being informed that his polls have reached an all-time low. After Special Counsel Robert Hur's report expressed concerns over Biden's obviously failing mental agility, it's getting harder for the Democrats to defend him. Yet he is still the Democratic nominee for November, promising another 4 years of catastrophic policies, from the border to heavy-handed taxation, should he be reelected.

The rest of the world isn't doing much better. The war in Ukraine has no clear end in sight, drawing NATO and Russia closer and closer to conflict. The war in Gaza is showing no sign of slowing down, and as Glenn revealed recently, its continuation may be a sign that the end times are near.

One thing is clear: we are living in uncertain times. If you and your family haven't prepared for the worst, now is the time. You can start by downloading "Glenn's Ultimate Guide to Getting Prepared." Be sure to print off a copy or two. If the recent cell outage proved anything, it's that technology is unreliable in survival situations. You can check your list of supplies against our "Ultimate Prepper Checklist for Beginners," which you can find below:

Food

  • Canned food/non-perishable foods
  • Food preparation tools
  • Go to the next level: garden/livestock/food production

Water

  • Non-perishable water store
  • Water purification
  • Independent water source

Shelter

  • Fireplace with a wood supply
  • Tent
  • Generator with fuel supply
  • Go to the next level: fallout shelter

Money

  • Emergency cash savings
  • Precious metals

Medicine

  • Extra blankets
  • Basic first aid
  • Extra prescriptions
  • Extra glasses
  • Toiletries store
  • Trauma kit
  • Antibiotics
  • Basic surgery supplies
  • Potassium Iodate tablets

Transportation

  • Bicycle
  • Car
  • Extra fuel

Information

  • Birth certificates
  • Insurance cards
  • Marriage license
  • Immunization records
  • Mortgage paperwork
  • Car title and registration
  • House keys, car keys
  • Passports
  • Family emergency plan
  • Prepping/survival/repair manuals
  • Go to the next level: copy of the Bible, the U.S. Constitution, and other important books/sources

Skills

  • Cooking
  • Gardening
  • Sewing
  • First Aid
  • Basic maintenance skills
  • Go to the next level: farming/ranching
  • Self-defense training

Communication

  • Family contact information and addresses
  • HAM radio

Miscellaneous

  • Flashlights and batteries
  • Lamps and fuel
  • Hardware (tools, nails, lumber, etc)
  • Extra clothes
  • Extreme weather clothes and gear
  • Gas masks and filters
  • Spare parts for any machinery/equipment

Is Trump's prosecution NORMAL?  This COMPLETE list of ALL Western leaders who served jail time proves otherwise.

PhotoQuest / Contributor, The Washington Post / Contributor, Win McNamee / Staff | Getty Images

Mainstream media is on a crusade to normalize Donald Trump's indictments as if it's on par with the electoral course. Glenn asked his team to research every instance of a Western leader who was jailed during their political career over the past 200 years—except extreme political turmoil like the French Revolution, Napoleonic Wars, Irish Revolution, etc.—and what we discovered was quite the opposite.

Imprisoning a leader or major political opponent is not normal, neither in the U.S. nor in the Western world. Within the last 200 years, there are only a handful of examples of leaders in the West serving jail time, and these men were not imprisoned under normal conditions. All of these men were jailed under extreme circumstances during times of great peril such as the Civil War, World War II, and the Cold War.

What does this mean for America? Are Trump's indictments evidence that we are re-entering times of great peril? Below is a list of Western leaders who were imprisoned within the last 200 years. Take a look and decide for yourself:

Late 1800s

The Washington Post / Contributor | Getty Images

Jefferson Davis: The nearest occurrence to a U.S. President to serve jail time was in the case of Jefferson Davis, the first and only president of the Confederate States of America. Jefferson was captured in Georgia by Northern Soldiers in 1865 and locked up in Fort Monroe, Virginia for two years. He was offered a presidential pardon but refused out of his loyalty to the confederacy.

Early 1900s

PhotoQuest / Contributor | Getty Images

Eugene V. Debs: Debbs, a Midwestern socialist leader, became the first person to run for president in prison. He was locked up at a federal penitentiary in Atlanta having been convicted under the federal Sedition Act for giving an antiwar speech a few months before Armistice Day, the end of World War I. Many of his supporters believed his imprisonment to be unjust. Debs received 897,704 votes and was a distant third-part candidate behind Warren G. Harding, the Republican winner, and James M. Cox, the second-place Democrat. Harding ordered Debs’s release from prison toward the end of 1921.

Nazi sympathizers and collaborators: After the end of World War II in 1945, several European leaders who had "led" their countries during the Nazi occupation faced trial and imprisonment for treason. This list included Chief of the French State Philippe Pétain, French Prime Minister Pierre Laval, and Minister-President of Norway Vidkun Quisling. The latter two were also executed after their imprisonment. President of Finland Risto Ryti and Prime Minister of Finland Johan Wilhelm Rangell were also tried and jailed for collaborating with the Nazis against the Allied Powers.

Late 1900s

The Washington Post / Contributor | Getty Images

The end of the Cold War: The fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 was one of the pivotal moments that brought the Cold War to a close and marked the end of Communist East Germany. With the fall of the wall and the collapse of the German Democratic Republic (East Germany), the former leaders were brought to trial to answer for the crimes committed by the GDR. General Secretary Erich Honecker and General Secretary Egon Krenz were both put on trial for abuse of power and the deaths of those who were shot trying to flee into West Germany. Honecker was charged with jail time but was released from custody due to severe illness and lived out the rest of his life as an exile in Chile. Krenz served 4 years in jail before his release in 2001. He is one of the last surviving leaders of the Eastern Bloc.

Lyndon LaRouche: Larouche was a Trotsky evangelist, public antisemite, and founder of a nationwide Marxist political movement, became the second person in U.S. history to run for President in a prison cell. Granted, he ran in every election from 1976 to 2004 as a long-shot third-party candidate. When he tried to gain the Democratic presidential nomination, he received 5 percent of the total nationwide vote. Even though in 2000 he received enough primary votes to qualify for delegates in a few states, the Democratic National Committee refused to seat his delegates and barred LaRouche from attending the Democratic National Convention.