One of Glenn’s favorite authors and conservative commentators joined The Glenn Beck Program on Tuesday. An intellectual giant, Michelle Malkin’s latest endeavor is a new show titled Michelle Malkin Investigates which airs on CRTV. Her first four episodes go in-depth on topics she’s covered her entire career.

Glenn talked with Michelle about a variety of issues, including who should be Time Magazine’s Man of the Year, Trump’s new pick for Secretary of Education and her relief that Hillary Clinton lost the election.

RELATED: Donald Trump Faces off Against Hillary Clinton, Beyonce, Vladmir Putin and Simone Biles for Time ‘Person of the Year’

“There are many sub-swamps in Washington, DC, but the biggest one that has been irreversibly drained, has been the swamp that’s been dominated by progressives who have been running the levers of power since at least the Clinton administration . . . John Podesta, Anita Tandon and Hillary Clinton and all of her minions are out of a job,” Malkin said.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: Welcome to the program, Michelle Malkin. New York Times best-selling author and a good friend of the program.

Michelle, how are you?

MICHELLE: Good, how are you doing, Glenn? It’s been quite a year.

GLENN: That is an understatement.

MICHELLE: Which I’m not usually prone too.

GLENN: Right. We were just talking about TIME Magazine is trying to decide who the man of the year could possibly be. I don’t think there’s really a choice here.

MICHELLE: No.

GLENN: I think one man has changed the world, or at least has found a way to capitalize on where the world was and is — is being viewed all over the world as the catalyst of change. Which is it?

MICHELLE: Yeah. Well, things have changed. And there are many sub-swamps in Washington, DC. But the biggest one that has been irreversibly drained, has been the swamp that’s been dominated by progressives who have been running the levers of power since at least the Clinton administration.

And for those who had had reservations about Trump on whether it was character or certain policy positions or whatever he’s tweeting, whenever, in the middle of the night, there is one reality that cannot be denied: John Podesta, Anita Tandon, and Hillary Clinton and all of her minions are out of a job.

And it was enough for me, when I decided after the primary and even before the primary — because I remember the last time I talked to you and TheBlaze, last year, I had said that I had no qualms if the choice had to be between Donald Trump or Marco Rubio or Hillary Clinton. And that has given, you know, both the personal and political history that I had had with Donald Trump. Was it hard in some ways? Yes. But in many ways, it was probably one of the easiest political decisions I’ve ever made.

GLENN: Unbelievable. As you know, Michelle — and I respect you and respect your opinion and everybody’s right to disagree with things. But this was a hard year for me.

MICHELLE: Yes, I understand.

GLENN: Because I can’t jump on the bandwagon of a $1.2 trillion stimulus package and say, “Oh, well, that’s okay.” Because it’s not. That’s crazy. That’s crazy.

MICHELLE: Well, you know, I’m not a bandwagon jumper either. And I haven’t been in the quarter century that I’ve been doing this. And so, you know, political reality is unfortunately about having to make cost-benefit calculations.

And when you look, even now, at some of the transition choices, it blows my mind, particularly because, you know, Glenn, that immigration and sovereignty issues have been something that have been near and dear to my heart for my entire career —

GLENN: Oh, yeah, I know.

MICHELLE: That we have a stalwart hero like Jeff Sessions who is now the attorney general nominee. I never in my lifetime thought that ever would be a possibility, let alone a near reality.

GLENN: So why is — why are you so pro on this, and yet Ann Coulter, who was in my opinion, damn near unhinged on Donald Trump, is now saying we may have a traitor within our midst?

MICHELLE: You’d have to ask her. All I can do is tell you this. I was covering immigration issues back — as far back as 1992 in Los Angeles. My first book was Invasion which came out in 2002. And there have been a lot of Johnny-come-latelies to the cause of immigration enforcement and the need to have systemic reform, that not only puts the rule of law and the immigration laws that are on the books first, but the interests of America, American workers, American citizens, and law-abiding people who lined up and did it the right way. And so I think it’s up to each and every one of your listeners and your readers to make up their mind about how authentic people really are when it comes to practicing what they preach.

GLENN: Yeah. Preach.

Can I ask you a question? I’ve never talked to you about this before.

MICHELLE: Yeah.

STU: The one thing — the one book that you have written, and I haven’t read it in years.

MICHELLE: Uh-huh.

GLENN: That I was perplexed by and thought it was very brave, but I disagree with, is the case for internment. Because we have had that conversation.

MICHELLE: Yes.

GLENN: And I don’t know how anyone can think internment, especially Asian descent, could possibly think internment was a good idea.

MICHELLE: Well, maybe you should reread the book.

In defense of internment, the case for racial profiling in World War II and the War on Terror makes a very sophisticated and history-based argument that in a post-9/11 era, the kind of national security scrutiny measures that, for example, Kris Kobach, who is the secretary state of Kansas, a hero when it comes to fighting corruption, left-wing activism that has seeped into the federal government and, of course, immigration enforcement, helped design in the Bush administration.

Of course, it is now a very relevant issue with the national security entry/exit registration system, which has been falsely characterized as, quote, unquote, a Muslim registry and has been likened to, yes, the Japanese internment.

The entire thesis of the book took a look at what happened in, yeah, a very far left, liberal FDR administration and asked a question that — that very few people asked, the people who actually had knowledge of national security issues at the time: What was the evidence for taking these extreme measures? And what actually occurred is far different than what is taught in history books.

The magic message is from the State Department, at the time, which were later decrypted, indicated that there were real serious security threats, particularly on the west coast. I also delve into the actual history of the relocations that took place and the measures that were taken not just against people of Japanese descent, but also Italians and Germans who were interned by the thousands.

The point of the book, Glenn, for those who read it — and I’m very grateful over the years that I heard from so many high school history teachers who now teach the book in their classrooms to give a full picture to their students so they’re not just getting what left-wing Alinsky and Howard Zinn historians tell them. They actually look at the original source documents that I include in the book.

The point of it is that we want to avoid the — the absolute extremes of that kind of policy by taking sensible national security profiling measures. And that is why I’m so vocal about the need for someone like Kris Kobach to head the Department of Homeland Security. Because he’s done the hard work. He’s faced the slings and arrows of being called a racist and a xenophobe and a fascist because these people are actually very serious about protecting national security in an unapologetic way, as I was when I wrote this book.

GLENN: So let’s go to education. Because you just talked about how education — you know, you’re getting Howard Zinn.

Tell me about Betsy DeVos.

MICHELLE: Yes. So my grassroots friends and fellow warriors against Common Core and fed Ed, know full well that Betsy DeVos has not been a friend to those who want to limit and eliminate the overreach of the federal government in our children’s lives and their classrooms.

PAT: Hmm.


MICHELLE: In Michigan, Betsy DeVos was involved in a consortium called GLEP. I believe it’s the Great Lakes Educational Project — Great Lakes Education Project, which was pushing the Common Core standards adoption in Michigan.

She now says that she’s against Common Core. She now says that she has adopted Donald Trump’s stance, which was very clear. And not just clear, but also much more 50 than simply saying, as everyone else has now, that they oppose Common Core. And, of course, you and I were — were — teamed up to illuminate the dangers in the classroom with regard student data mining, the overencroachment of the testing regime, and, of course, the ways in which these so-called federal high standards were undermining local control and local classrooms in states where the standards were already much higher than what the federal government had set.

And, of course, it’s the Gates Foundation and Jeb Bush which are largely behind it. So grassroots Michigan activists and parents are very worried, and rightly so, about how committed Betsy DeVos will be.

There’s — there’s — I have mixed feelings about it. And I think that leading up to the confirmation, there are many questions that she needs to answer and that informed senators in both parties need to ask.

You cannot just preach about school choice and charter schools. And expect to have people bow down to you on the right, just because school choice has long been one of those sacred cows for us.

The more sophisticated and informed parents — many of them in your audience, Glenn, understand that choice and fed ed and Common Core are completely incompatible. And there is an explicit cognitive dissonance involved there because espousing choice doesn’t mean anything if Common Core-lined textbooks and tech and testing are being forced down the throats of independent charter schools and, yeah, school choice beneficiaries. If you still have to submit to the Common Core regime that has not been dismantled yesterday, choice is illusory.

GLENN: So — because this is kind of what — you know, in a nutshell, this is kind of where we have been, that I think some of Trump’s picks have been confusing at best. Because his policy will say one thing, and then he’ll pick somebody like this. And you’re like, “Wait. No, wait.” Jeb Bush celebrated her appointment. That can’t be a good thing.

MICHELLE: Yes. And I did point that out.

Now, having supported Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton does not obligate me to jump up and down like a Dallas Cowboy cheerleader at everything he does and every choice he makes.

And just as I did with every other president, whether they were Republican or Democrat, when they deserved to be praised, I will be out there praising very loudly with my big brown mouth. And when they deserve to be criticized —

GLENN: Wow. What a racist.

MICHELLE: — I will do the same.
(laughter)
PAT: But the problem has been — hasn’t it, Michelle — have you noticed that so many on the right are doing just that?

JEFFY: They sure are.

PAT: I mean, it’s been amazing to me that nobody has said anything about Ivanka and Donald both meeting with Al Gore yesterday. Nobody is saying anything about a trillion dollar stimulus package.

GLENN: Unless it’s good.

PAT: Unless it’s good.

MICHELLE: Yeah. Well, I understand what you’re saying. And I understand why you feel that way. But there’s plenty of unhappiness about a number of things.

PAT: I’d love to hear it.

MICHELLE: You know, for me — okay. I will tell you how I came about these decisions. Because, I mean, we’ve — we’ve been — I — I appreciate that I have friends in the Never Trump camp. I have friends who are on the Trump train since day one. And there are more people who are like me, who initially struggled with this decision, but sort of stepped back and saw the bigger picture.

I was definitely — at a certain point in this election, I was just Never Hillary, that doesn’t mean I’m going to be happy that Ivanka and Donald are meeting with Al Gore.

GLENN: Right. I think you’re the majority.

MICHELLE: But somehow they will defeat that machine, and that means a lot to me. It does.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Right. Does that mean — do you think there’s a chance — because I said this yesterday.

And this is a little bit of the, “Hey, John Roberts must have a plan to really defeat Obamacare.” So it’s a little wishful thinking. But, I mean, do you think that he actually is buying into the global warming thing here, and Ivanka is going to run with this, or is this a way to kind of bring it into the fold and defeat it?

MICHELLE: Oh, I have no idea what they talked about. And so it might be worth asking about that.

And, you know, there were a lot of past Republican presidents who met with really shady people. You can go back and look at all the pictures of George W. Bush palling around with Al Sharpton, and Newt Gingrich palling around with Al Sharpton. And many other execrable left-wing figures. Does it mean that he’s going to throw in with the climate change crowd? Well, the fact that he picked Myron Ebell from the free market environmental hard-core competitive Enterprise Institute to be the EPA nominee who is an adamant —

GLENN: You’re right.

MICHELLE: — has been an adamant opponent of the left-wing global warming crowd.

STU: We praised him for that.

GLENN: Yeah, we did.

MICHELLE: — tells me that he means business.

Yes, I know he met with Al Gore. So it gives people a lot to fret about for a day —

PAT: Well, I will say, if it was Ted Cruz meeting with Al Gore, it would have been a nightmare. It would have been a nightmare.

GLENN: Well, but I think that’s a mistake. I stand by what I said yesterday. This president — the current president never reached out to anybody on our side. And when you shut yourself off, then you got nothing.

PAT: That’s true. That’s true.

GLENN: I mean, at least he is reaching out. The proof will be in the pudding on what he actually does.

I got to go. We’re up against a break. Her new gig is on Mark Levin’s CRTV. Does it begin tonight, Michelle?

MICHELLE: Yes. My episodes are now all available. I have four episodes that go in-depth in topics that I have covered my entire career.

GLENN: Right.

MICHELLE: And I do want to say that one of the most important stories I’ve ever, ever, ever covered is the subject of a first two-part series of CRTV’s Michelle Malkin Investigates on a former Oklahoma City police officer who was convicted a year ago this weekend of a series of alleged sexual assaults. I dig deep into this case.

GLENN: Right.

MICHELLE: And this is the most massive miscarriage of justice I have ever experienced.

GLENN: That is saying something. And it’s available now. Michelle Malkin Investigates on CRTV. Michelle, thank you so much. And we’ll talk again.

Featured Image: Conservative author and commentator Michelle Malkin (Photo Credit: Jensen Sutta)