GLENN

Glenn Finds Kumbaya Moment With Obama on His Last Full Day

This is so weird. What a coincidence. Finally, with Obama's final press conference and last full day in office, Glenn and his co-hosts found common ground with the soon-to-be former president.

OBAMA: I want to do some writing. I want be quiet a little bit, not hear myself talk so darn much.

"He wants to be quiet, and he doesn't want to hear himself talk so darn much. And we don't either," Co-host Stu Burguiere commented.

This is definitely a red-letter day.

"That's a basic fundamental principle of mine. You know, not hearing him talk so much," Glenn said.

Less talking, less time with a pen and phone --- things are looking up.

GLENN: Frustrating. Some might celebrate that this is the last day that we have to hear this, but a piece of audio from a press conference yesterday with Barack Obama that made blood shoot directly out of my eyes. And we begin there, right now.

(music)

GLENN: Oh, I -- I don't even know where to begin. Except with the audio. And I'm not sure I'm going to make it through a commentary on it. Here it is: Barack Obama yesterday in the press conference.

OBAMA: That does not, of course, mean that I have enjoyed every story that you have filed, but that's the point of this relationship. You're not supposed to be sycophants. You're supposed to be skeptics. You're supposed to ask me tough questions.

PAT: Unreal.

OBAMA: You're not supposed to be complimentary, but you're supposed to cast a critical eye on folks who hold enormous power --

PAT: Uh-huh.

OBAMA: -- and make sure that we are accountable to the people who sent us here, and you have done that.

You've done it, for the most part, in ways that I could appreciate for fairness, even if I didn't always agree with your conclusions.

(chuckling)

PAT: Wow.

JEFFY: Does that count as making it all the way through?

PAT: Yeah, we -- we did. I think we did.

JEFFY: We made it non-stop.

GLENN: No, I said I couldn't make it through the commentary about it.

JEFFY: Oh.

GLENN: Play -- play his thanks and warning -- because what he was doing yesterday --

PAT: Yeah, he was --

GLENN: -- was he was warning the press, how they have to behave under Donald Trump. And I just -- I just --

PAT: Yeah, because they did it with him. They were skeptics with him, not sycophants.

In fact, he said sink-ophants. Which I don't know what the hell that is.

OBAMA: That does not, of course, mean that I've enjoyed every story that you have filed, but that's the point of this relationship.

PAT: Yeah.

OBAMA: You're not supposed to be sycophants, you're supposed to be skeptics. You're supposed to ask me tough questions. You're not supposed to be complimentary.

GLENN: Stop.

PAT: Like that, what about being enchanted? What's the thing that's enchanted you the most? What a tough question that was. How do you choose what has enchanted --

GLENN: What was the best thing about your first year as president? What was the thing that you were most proud of? That kind of tough questioning from --

PAT: Yeah, that's tough. That's tough.

STU: Yeah, I was actually hoping whoever that reporter was that asked him how he was enchanted by the office, would come back on the last press conference and ask the exact same question. Did not happen, however. He did use the word "enchanted" during the press conference, though. So he brought it back around a little bit. But it was -- you know, look, there were some moments there that maybe that could frustrate you. You know, you're Mr. Bring Us Together, I thought.

PAT: Yeah, yeah.

GLENN: I thought that wasn't you anymore. I thought that was the old Glenn Beck, you know.

GLENN: I didn't say anything about that. I was just pointing out what the president --

STU: Oh, I could tell. I got your tone. I got your tone. And, sure, you could look at that, and you would say -- well, you guys held my feet to the fire in a lot of ways. I guess those ways were invisible ways. But I guess he did.

JEFFY: Yeah.

STU: You could certainly look at that and be critical. However, what have we done today? We have obviously been skeptical of Donald Trump's presidency. We've outlined a few things we have liked about his run-up to the inauguration.

GLENN: A lot of things.

STU: You know, there's some very positive things there.

GLENN: I want to come back to the David Gelernter thing. That's a great thing.

STU: Yeah. And I think we can also -- people say you can't say anything positive about Trump. We've done that today. People say you can't say anything positive about Obama. I think we can do that too.

GLENN: Did I miss something in his --

STU: In his press conference. He outlined something I think we really, really agree with. And listen.

OBAMA: I want to do some writing. I want be quiet a little bit.

GLENN: Oh.

OBAMA: Not hear myself talk so darn much.

STU: Us too.

GLENN: We're there.

PAT: We absolutely agree with that.

STU: We also don't want to hear you talk anymore.

PAT: I don't want to hear him at all.

STU: We can go even further than you.

PAT: 100,000 percent.

GLENN: We have come across lines, and we're holding hands with the president in his last day.

PAT: Wonderful. Wonderful.

STU: He wants to be quiet, and he doesn't want to hear himself talk so darn much. And we don't either.

PAT: And we want the same thing.

GLENN: Wow. There's so much -- and that's a basic fundamental principle of mine.

STU: Right.

GLENN: You know, not hearing him talk so much.

STU: More quiet time.

GLENN: More quiet time for Obama.

STU: Yes. We agree whole-heartedly.

GLENN: Less time with the pen and the phone. And we're going to get that too.

STU: That's nice.

GLENN: Can I take a moment here and just say, "We made it."

PAT: Well, it's tomorrow at noon.

STU: It's tomorrow. It's tomorrow.

PAT: Tomorrow at noon.

STU: Slow your roll. He's still in office.

GLENN: You're right. He's about to suspend the Constitution, declare marshal law, and not go through with the inauguration. Because I've heard that from a lot of people.

STU: A lot of people. And I don't agree with that part of it. However, there were a dozen or two dozen regulations that were pushed through today. I don't have the list of them yet. But something in there can be quite terrible. We still expect him to pardon dozens and dozens and dozens of people that could be dangerous criminals.

GLENN: No. You don't put -- you don't put dozens of regulations through on your last day that are controversial.

STU: No. And you don't pardon the really controversial -- remember, this is a guy who a couple days ago pardoned a -- a terrorist who was targeting the overthrow of the government from --

GLENN: From Puerto Rico.

STU: From Puerto Rico.

GLENN: And bombed government buildings here in the United States. And was planning on bombing several places in Chicago.

STU: They found his apartment stuffed with C4, preparing for these actions.

GLENN: Unrepentant and an avowed communist, who still wants the communist state.

STU: And that was the opening act.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: They said today, it's going to be substantially more of pardons and commutations.

GLENN: You're right. He's already done 209.

PAT: Well, that was the other day. He's done 1597 commutations and pardons during his presidency. Almost 1600. And it will certainly surpass that today.

STU: By far the most. It was 273, just the other day. Two hundred nine commutations, sixty-four pardons.

PAT: Just the other day.

GLENN: Okay. So 209. And they said it's going to be substantially more today. It's kind of like, what is a few? Is a few three or is a few five? What does substantially more mean to this president?

STU: Because the way it was written, in theory, it could mean there will be a significant amount more, right? So like you had --

GLENN: It said substantially more.

STU: It said substantially more. So it could be another 50. Like that's a substantial amount, right? That's in addition to the 273.

PAT: Or it could be 500.

STU: The way I read it was substantially more that 273. So I don't know which one it's going to be.

GLENN: Right. I think it's more than 273. I think substantially more -- the way I read that, I'm expecting 1,000.

STU: You know what I was expecting -- I was thinking yesterday -- you made the great point yesterday, let's say in theory he just decided to -- everyone who had a marijuana-only conviction in prison, he could just say let them go. And I thought that was an interesting point. I don't know how you could do that pragmatically. You have to do them all individually.

GLENN: Are you in federal prison for marijuana?

STU: You can be, yeah. So theoretically, you know, that could happen. But, again, you'd have to do them all individually. He would have to be preparing for this for a long time. The other one that popped into my head on that same road though was, what about immigration? He knows that Donald Trump has been running on, we're not going to get rid of any of these dream acts. These executive orders. Couldn't he go through and pick whatever his 20, 50, 100, 1,000 best cases are as far as immigration law and exempt them from prosecution on those things?

PAT: Uh-huh.

STU: Because they're not citizens, there might be a weird line there, but in theory, he could probably do that to a lot of people before he walks out and implement his law -- and that would not be one that Trump would reverse.

GLENN: No, he can't. Because it's not executive order. This is presidential privilege.

STU: Yeah, presidential pardon. He's in the Constitution. He's allowed to do it.

PAT: And there's the Hillary thing. Will he pardon her in advance of any --

GLENN: No. Because nobody is going to go --

STU: Trump has pretty much said that. I don't want to hassle the family anymore, is pretty much what he said.

GLENN: No, she's done. She's gone, and they're not going to do a thing about it.

STU: I will say, someone polled the New York mayoral race. And Clinton was up by something like 20 points over de Blasio. So she -- I mean, that's still a big gig. If she wants a role like that, she might be able to get it. She might not be gone.

GLENN: Go ahead, New York. Take her.

STU: She would probably be better than de Blasio, to be honest.

GLENN: Oh, yeah, she would be. She would be.

STU: They're both nightmares. But she probably would actually be better for New York.

GLENN: Yeah. And the crime families would like her too.

"I Was Probably Drunk": Alex Jones APOLOGIZES for Calling Glenn Beck a CIA Agent
RADIO

"I Was Probably Drunk": Alex Jones APOLOGIZES for Calling Glenn Beck a CIA Agent

Years ago, InfoWars host Alex Jones accused Glenn Beck of being a CIA agent, and it caused some serious consequences. But in a recent BlazeTV exclusive interview on Pat Gray Unleashed, Alex apologized for the incident, admitting, “I was probably drunk when I said that,” and thanking Glenn for his work over the years exposing the global elites’ plans. Glenn responds to Alex’s apology and reveals the "peace offering" he gave Alex the last time they spoke about their past disagreements.

What We Currently Know About the Francis Scott Key Bridge Collapse in Baltimore
RADIO

What We Currently Know About the Francis Scott Key Bridge Collapse in Baltimore

A cargo ship that lost power has crashed into the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore Harbor, causing the entire bridge to collapse. Thankfully, traffic on the bridge was reportedly stopped before the crash. But the incident has many people asking: was this an accident or sabotage? Former assistant Treasury Secretary Monica Crowley, who helped spread the word of the incident, joins the Glenn Beck Program to discuss what we currently know as the search and rescue operation continues.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: One of my favorites Monica Crowley is with us. She's a former assistant Treasury secretary. My gosh, Monica, how have they trashed that Treasury? They are just looting it like crazy. Anyway, I saw Monica, you post something this morning, and I couldn't believe my eyes. Can you tell us what happened?

MONICA: Yeah. Good morning, Glenn great to be here like always. America is waking up to real tragedy this morning. The Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore Harbor, it's a massive span. And for those of us who live in the northeast, Glenn, I can tell you, I have crossed that bridge many a time, going from New York to Washington, and back, right?

GLENN: Oh, I have too.

MONICA: It is a major, major artery in the northeast. And at about 1:30 a.m. Eastern Time this morning, a cargo ship was approaching the bridge. And the video that I posted, which is now everywhere on social media.

GLENN: We're watching it right now.

MONICA: Yes. And it's all over TV as well.

GLENN: Go ahead. Yeah.

MONICA: It is a massive cargo ship. And it's under a flag, so the ship itself is registered in Singapore. And you can see in the video, that it approaches at Scott Key Bridge, and it loses power, Glenn, twice.

Not once, but twice in the moments leading up to its approach to the bridge.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

MONICA: And so, yeah. It -- it -- you can see in the video, it loses power twice. It regains power, but by that moment, Glenn. It's too late. And they can't get away from one of the massive lanes supporting bridge. And the cargo ship goes right into the piling. And the entire bridge collapses like a house of cards. just folds in on itself, right into Baltimore harbor.

GLENN: You know, I noticed, because I watched this video, a couple of times, after you posted it.

And I couldn't believe it was like toothpicks falling apart. When they had -- when you first start watching it. You'll see, the traffic is pretty steady on the bridge.

And thank God, right at the time it collapses, not a lot of cars, if any, were on the bridge. Do you know if there were cars on the bridge?

MONICA: Well, thankfully, if there's any silver lining on this horror show, Glenn, it is 1:30 in the morning. So it's relatively light traffic.

And you can see headlights of cars going both ways. And the moments the cargo ship, hits the bridge.

It looks like very few cars, if any, are on the bridge.

What we're hearing this morning, pardon me. What we're hearing is that two people have already been rescued, God bless. There are at least seven people missing that we know about.

So there is a very active search-and-rescue going on. The Coast Guard is out there. The National Transportation Safety Board is on site. The Navy is there. Navy divers are in the water, and have been there for hours.

And so we hope and pray that any victims that fell into the water in their automobiles and in their trucks, there's at least one semi that we know of, that collapsed into the water with the bridge. Glenn, so we hope and pray, that all of these people, who were part of this unfortunate accident. And at least now, it does look like an accident. And we will wait for the investigation. But we hope and pray that everybody will be rescued, and will be okay.

GLENN: So, Monica, do we know anything about the ship.

Because the first thought is. The power goes out. Then it comes back on. And the poor captain, man, you can see him just trying to turn that ship as fast as he can, when the power goes on. Then it goes out again.

Do we know?

My first thought is, is this some sort of a -- you know, a -- some sort of an attack with -- on electronics. Was there -- is there -- has anybody else thought of that? Or is it just me and my sick, twisted paranoia, I guess?

MONICA: Well, I think that too, Glenn. And we will have to wait for a thorough investigation here, in a lot of different areas.

There's one report that I saw this morning, that indicated that the crew, and apparently there was one pilot and two captains on board. And, of course, an additional crew, which you would expect for a vessel of this size and magnitude, under an international flag. Again, Singapore. And there is one report this morning, that indicates that the crew alerted the Maryland Department of Transportation when they were leaving the port, that they had lost control of the vessel. And again, I don't know how reliable this report is. But it's up on the New York Post website this morning. So, again, I don't know if that report has been vetted. But, you know, most of these vessels now, are under electronic control. Not unlike some of our voting systems. And might very well be -- might very well be open to hacking by nefarious players here.

So, again, we will to have wait and see. I mean, sometimes the cigar is just a cigar. And accidents unfortunately do happen.

GLENN: Right. And I hope that's the case. But with all the cyber terror that is predicted, I just -- you know, I know we're all on high alert for that.

Monica, thank you very much for reporting and calling in. I appreciate it. God bless.

MONICA: Oh, it's my great pleasure, Glenn. Thank you.

GLENN: So we have an update on the bridge collapse. The Fort McHenry Bridge. Very important bridge and port in Baltimore.

Here's the update that is pretty remarkable.

STU: Yeah. Apparently, the ship was able to issue a mayday, and say they were experiencing a power issue. And this enabled transportation officials to halt traffic on the bridge, at the last second.

I mean, if you watch the footage, you can see the cars crossing the bridge as normal, up until the very last second. And all of a sudden, they just stop. And you just kind of assumed, it was a break in traffic.

But, apparently, they knew something was wrong, and were able to stop it. I mean, they must have saved dozens of lives by doing that. So that's an incredible part of the story.

GLENN: These -- these -- yeah. These guys are heroes.

If you're watching TheBlaze right now, we're showing you the bridge collapse. It is absolutely unbelievable.

And you can see how the boat is trying to turn, as sharply as they can. And then the lights -- the lights come back on. They try to steer it away. And then it goes out, at the second time. And it's too late, and the whole thing collapses. It's remarkable.

Jeez. And they've now -- that port is closed. I'm not saying that this is by any stretch of the imagination, other than it reminds me of, the cyber attack on -- I think it was a Navy ship, wasn't it?

That was in the South China Sea. I'm pulling this -- I'm sorry. I have CRC. Can't remember crap.

But it was in the South China Sea. And it -- it lost control. And it made a circle.

And then rammed right into an oil tanker. Clearly controlled by somebody else.

I'm not saying this -- that's what this is. This is probably just mechanical error.

But we have to start thinking about those kinds of things now. Because they're all possible.

EVERY Constitutional Right that Biden’s New “Red Flag” Office VIOLATES
RADIO

EVERY Constitutional Right that Biden’s New “Red Flag” Office VIOLATES

President Biden’s Department of Justice has launched a new office to train state and local authorities on how to use red flag laws to confiscate guns from people who could pose a “threat.” But what does it consider to be a threat? People have already accused this "National Extreme Risk Protection Order Resource Center" of violating the Second Amendment. But Glenn believes it may violate a handful more of the Bill of Rights. Glenn reviews how the Department of Justice has sidestepped Amendments 1-6 of the Constitution with this order, along with others.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So, you know, I thought we would look at the Constitution. A caller last hour was right on the money. When he said, you know, this center, that can take your gun away, without due process. Yeah. That's -- that's a big one. That's a big one. That's a violation of the Second Amendment. But it's also a violation of many other amendments. I want to go through the -- the -- you know, just the first ten amendments.

Okay?

First of all, do you know how the Bill of Rights came about?

Listen to what they wrote.

This is at the top of the page. Resolved. Resolved by the Senate and the House of representatives of the United States of America. In Congress, assembled. Two-thirds of both houses concurring. That the following articles be proposed to the legislatures of several states, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States. So here's a group of people. Imagine this. Two-thirds, say, we believe these things should be done. But we have to send them to all of the states to ratify, and they need two-thirds to be able to pass it in their states. And then we will need two-thirds of all the states to agree. Okay?

Wow. What a process! And what are they trying to do, get themselves a raise? Give themselves more power? No.

The exact opposite. Here's what they say. The amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which articles when ratified by three-fourths of the legislatures to be valid in all intents and purposes, as part of said Constitution.

Articles, in addition to, and amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, ratified by the legislature of several states.

They're saying here, that the -- after the convention, a number of states, having at the time, adopted the Constitution.

This is in the little preamble here. Expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse its power.

So the guys in the government said, I am afraid people will abuse the power and misunderstand the Constitution.

So, quote, further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added. And as extending the ground of public confidence, in the government. Will best ensure the -- the benefit ends of the institution.

So they're saying, look, nobody trusts the government right now.

Does that sound familiar. Nobody trusts the government right now.

So we want to pass several amendments right here, that will protect the rights. And make sure that the hands are tied of the federal government.

They're saying, these are restrictive clauses. And by telling the people, we will never do these things.

Confidence will be gained. I contend, our -- our problem is, we're no longer unified on these ten articles. We no longer care about them. We no longer learn them. Teach them. Know them.

So here's article one. Amendment number one. Congress shall make no law, respecting an establishment of religion.

I contend, we are violating that right now. Because what we are celebrating is a religion.

It has a cult following. It has nothing to do with science.

Or even common sense. It has a tribunal. That will excommunicate you from society. If you don't get involved. It has rituals. It has laws, that you just must accept on faith. I know that's pushing it. But I think they're doing that. They are also breaking the second part of the First Amendment. Prohibiting the free exercise of religion. They did that during COVID. Abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. And the right of the people to peacefully assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. They don't want you standing up. They don't want you standing up. They will do everything they can to make sure you are sitting down. Enough of this Christian nationalist stuff. Enough that. Don't dismiss it. It's real. It's very, very small. But it's real.

So don't call yourself a Christian nationalist. Don't allow yourself to fall into that trap. You might be a Christian. But you are also a constitutionalist. You believe in the Constitution of the United States, and the articles of the Constitution of the Bill of Rights. You believe in all of that stuff. That's all you want.

Article II, a well-regulated militia being necessary to a free state. The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

That's the one that everyone should look to, on this particular new center from the Department of Justice. They -- well-regulated militia. Would that make sense? Would it make sense, that the people couldn't have guns? And the federal government would have a huge army? No. In fact, we never had a standing army. We were the soldiers. We would be called up to arms. So you would have your own arms. And then when there was war, you would be called up in a militia. Okay? But you had the right to protect yourself with a gun as well. No. That was for fishing or hunting. Or one of those things. No. It wasn't. No, it wasn't. Article three. I think we can skip over. Well, no. Actually, not. No soldier shall in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war. But in a manor to be prescribed by law. So article three, I think you could make the case. I don't think you would win. But you could make the case, that our government is quartered. Soldiers are quartered in our house. Because they are in a public/private partnership. With Amazon. And everybody else.

They are -- they are gaining access to our papers. To our letters. To our emails. To our phone calls.

That's what the government was doing, that made this article important.

The king would say. You know what, find out what those guys are doing over there.

And, you know what, just go into their house. You live there. I will quarter you into their house. So you can spy on them.

Well, it's just in a different way. But that's what's happening. Fourth Amendment. The right of people to be secure in their persons. Do you feel secure in your person?

Houses. Paper. Effects. Against all unreasonable search and seizures. Shall not be violated. It's violated all the time.

We've talked about this many times. How many people have been driving down the street. And they have money in their car. And they were going to buy another car. They will buy it in cash. And they're stopped. Their cash is taken. No due process. I think you're a drug lord. Wait. What?

No warrants shall issue. But upon probable cause. This is a general warrant. This is why they -- this is why this is in here. In article four. No warrants shall be -- no warrants shall issue. But upon probable cause. General warrants, used to be, you know, there's something going on with that guy. Go find out.

And they could search for anything. Anywhere. No. No general warrants.

You have to know, and tell the judge, I'm going in, for this document, or this particular item. And I believe it's here!

Great. So the judge will say, you can go there, in their house. And look for it. But no general warrants. You can't occasion you can't go in and just try to find something. No person shall be held to answer for capital. Otherwise, infamous crime, unless the presentment or indictment of a grand jury. Except in cases, arriving in the land or Naval forces, or in the militia when in actual service in time of war, or public danger. Nor shall any person be subject to the same offense twice, to be put in jeopardy of life or limb.

Nor shall he be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. Nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property. Without due process of law.

Nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

Those are being violated, but in particular, with this new center, where they can take -- come into your house, and take your guns without due process.

Clear violation of the Bill of Rights. Clear. So you have three of them now. That have been broken just for this one law. Don't tell me I love democracy. Don't tell me you love freedom. Don't tell me you're trying to save the republic, and you love the Constitution if you're violating this many. And we're only halfway through. You're in direct violation of the Bill of Rights.

Article six, in all criminal prosecution. The accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial. Has that happened with those who are still waiting for trial for January 6th?

How is it they can -- they have to wait so long?

But Donald Trump has to be done by this summer?

Why is that? Are all men created equal?

Are we -- are we -- are we looking at the people of January 6th?

With the same blind justice eyes, as Donald Trump? No. Of course, we're not.

Violation of the Constitution by an impartial jury of the state and district, wherein the crime shall have been committed.

In partial jury. If you can't get an impartial jury. What do you do?

You can't get an impartial jury, you ask for a change of venue, where you can get an impartial jury. You don't have an impartial jury pool in Washington, DC. You don't. And to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation. To be confronted with the witnesses against him. To have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor and have the assistance of council for his defense.

In this new center that they have announced, you don't get the due process.

You don't get to face the witness. You don't know the cause of accusation.

You have nothing.

On your side.

New York Court Hands Trump a HUGE Victory Over $454 Million Bond
RADIO

New York Court Hands Trump a HUGE Victory Over $454 Million Bond

A New York court has issued a massive ruling in the state’s fraud case against former president Donald Trump. New York Attorney General Letitia James had threatened to seize Trump’s assets in New York City if he didn’t post a $454 million bond. But the court has lowered the necessary bond payment to $175 million and given him 10 more days to post it. Plus, in a big win for ALL New York business owners, the judge has allowed Trump to continue running his businesses in NYC. Glenn and Stu review the ruling and explain why it’s a huge win.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Welcome to the Glenn Beck Program. We have some breaking news. It looks like the judge -- the panel of judges, has actually done Donald Trump a little bit of a favor here.

STU: I would say, it's -- it's a favor. I don't know if it's the right way of saying it. A massive amount of decrease in the amount of money he needed to come up with. If you remember it was $464 million. He claimed he could not come up with that amount for a bond. Went to court. Tried to overturn that. And they have reduced it significantly to $175 million.

So over a 60 percent reduction in that number. Now, of course, 175 million to my taste, is still excessive and ridiculous for what's gone on here.

GLENN: Completely excessive and ridiculous. Nothing ever like this.

STU: No.

GLENN: And as you -- as we've noted, many, many times, I did a whole show on this, on Stu Does America, where you go through the ways that this rule has been used historically. And there are no parallels, at all, to what has happened with Donald Trump. It's quite clearly and quite obviously a personal persecution, whether you like Trump or not. And so -- but this is a big difference, because he can probably come up with $175 million instead of the 464. So huge deal.

A massive victory for Donald Trump in this case. And I'm curious to see. Because Latisha James has gone through the ritual of posting over and over again the amount owed by Donald Trump, like bragging about it. Because it keeps going up, as Andy McCarthy mentioned. Was 100-some-odd-thousand dollars a day, and she just keeps mentioning it. I wonder if she will continue that process now that it's gone down by over 60 percent. We will see. Because she's been bragging about this for, you know, weeks and weeks. And now takes a massive hit. And I think a blatantly obvious one. Right?

I think anyone who looks at this, can fairly tell, this is ridiculous from the beginning. And now a big slap in the face, for this original ruling.

GLENN: I'm wondering if he could come up with the 171.

STU: I would think so.

You know, he claimed -- one filing. To have $400 million in cash. Now, he had to come up with a bond for the E. Jean Carroll thing, which was 90-something million, which would suck some of that out.

Whether he could do that, probably all himself. However, when you have that sort of money. You can also -- when you have that sort of cash laying around. You can usually get someone to loan you that. With the cash as collateral very easily.

Regardless of the process he goes through. You would think, he would be able to get this.

Again --

GLENN: If you could find a bank.

STU: Yeah. Although, you know, this -- I'm of the view.

And I've mentioned this before. This is just my own speculation. Is that Donald Trump could have come up with the $464 million.

He correctly argues, that is completely unfair.

And I think, you know, given time, he could come up with that sort of money.

But why not play this out? Why not push this as far as you can? It will take a long time, until you, actually, start seizing property. As Andy laid out a little earlier. And why not use that time, to the best of your ability, to fight this off. Because I think he's very likely to win. I think he's very likely to win in an appeal. Or at least have this reduced to maybe a dollar fine. Or 10,000-dollar fine. Or and that would be saw so what aligned with reality. I think he eventually wins this. The longer he can play this out, without having to give up resources. The better.

GLENN: You know, the one thing that is good from all of this. And I'm trying to look at the bright side on everything, as much as I can. And I can usually never find it. Because that bright side has been snuffed out long ago.

Anyway, the bright side on this. In some ways, is I don't think people really understood, what it was like, back in the Jim Crow days.

I don't think white people really understood, where -- what -- it was like, where there's not a chance you're getting a fair trial.

Not a chance.

And, kids, don't trust the police. We don't -- we don't understand that.

And now, this injustice is being served, on so many Americans. From the FBI to the Justice Department. To the -- to the court system, in Donald Trump's case. And it does give you a view on how important justice is. The kind of justice that many of us have taken for granted. Our whole lives. You know, that's -- that's all right. The courts will figure it out.

STU: Yeah. And how many times have we said lately, that the courts are the only thing standing between us and chaos? They've been probably the shining, you know, light when it comes to justice lately. As we've seen in the Supreme Court many times, to think of where this is going. And how close we are. To that precipice. We really are on the precipice of disaster, when it comes to this. I'm just -- I'm glad to see though, that at least, there's something. Like even -- even in these cases. Even with someone, like Donald Trump. Who they're obviously trying to take out. The system does have a way of -- of coming through at the end. And I think, you know, might be -- might need to go all the way to the Supreme Court. But it does seem to play out, the right way, a lot of times. I don't know. Maybe the system holds together. It doesn't feel like it will. But it has so far.