GLENN

Glenn Speaks With Father of Boy Removed From Home by CPS

Camden Maple is a seven-year-old boy described as “energetic and intelligent” by his parents. However, officials at his public school believe Camden's rambunctious behavior makes him mentally unstable and in need of medication for Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD). His parents wholeheartedly disagree, saying he's above grade level and gets easily bored with the school curriculum.

Following a series of disagreements between the parents and school administrators, Camden was forcibly removed from his home by Child Protective Services and local police. He spent nearly a month away from his family before being returned last night. Chris Maple, Camden's father, joined Glenn on radio Thursday to talk about the ordeal he and his family have been through --- and the battle they are still fighting.

Learn more about Camden's situation on the family's Go Fund Me page --- and donate to help ease their legals fees should you feel inclined.

Enjoy the complimentary clip or read the transcript for details.

GLENN: You feel small and insignificant, don't. I've got something that will actually -- you can sink your teeth into and make a big difference.

If you're a parent, so you know, government agencies and school, they know what's best for your children. A lot of parents are under the illusion that they know how to handle their families and make their own decisions. But father doesn't know best anymore. Apparently, the State knows best, at least in Ohio. In Lebanon, Ohio, a government agency ironically named Child Protective Services has removed a 7-year-old boy from his family and his home. The boy's name is Camden Maple.

Camden is what you would expect from a 7-year-old boy. His parents, dad, Christian, stepmom, Katie, describe him as rambunctious, intelligent, and creative. The administrators at Camden school describe him differently. They say he has ADHD and requires a mental health examination.

In February, Camden was called into the principal's office for disrupting class. According to his stepmom, Camden told the school counselor, quote, he was upset because he felt he was bad and wanted to erase himself from the earth.

The counselor asked Camden how he would do that, he said he would stab himself in the eye with a knife, end quote.

Camden's dad, Christian, immediately came to the school. Picked Camden up. Christian and Katie did exactly what I would have done with my kid. I would have sat down with him, had a long discussion about his behavior, evaluated him myself.

If we had any doubt, we would go to a doctor. Camden said, "No, I don't want to hurt myself. I was just upset. And, quite honestly, just trying to get a rise out of the counselor."

They dealt with it as a family. They believed they could handle the situation. And they moved on. But the story was just getting started. The next day, the Maples got a call from the school. The school was following up on their suggestion that Camden be taken to the hospital for a mental health examination.

The Maples were like, "No, we handled it. It's okay. We got it." The matter was closed.

No. The school refused to let go. Thanks, likely to some protocol handed down from some genius progressive bureaucrat that knows better, they had already badgered the Maples for a very long time about getting Camden diagnosed with ADHD and get him on some medication. The parents didn't want to do that.

Now the school wanted to know what was said during the parents' discussion with Camden.

The Maples said, "That's a private family matter. We dealt with it. And that's the end of it."

Well, the idea that a parent knows what's best for their kid does not sit well with people in school now. That's ludicrous.

The Maples say Camden made very good grades, finishes his classwork before most of his classroom, gets bored. And, yes, he does act out. He's bored, just like millions of other 7-year-olds around the country.

Instead of medicating him, what do you say? Why don't we find something else he can do?

The school didn't like the fact that the Maples were ignoring their ADHD and mental health recommendations, and so they called CPS. They accused the family of neglect. Now CPS was involved. And they called the Maples and said they wanted to investigate, visit the home. Christian, the dad said, no, I don't think so. And, by the way, I think I have some Fourth Amendment rights here.

Two weeks later, they received another phone call saying there's an emergency shelter care court hearing that you have to be at. After the hearing, CPS arrived at the home with police officers and took the 7-year-old boy into custody.

The case is still unresolved, and Camden has been separated from his family for well over a month. All of this because mom and dad and the stepmom say we know our son better than the school.

We have Christian and Katie Maple on the phone with us now. Hi, guys. How are you?

VOICE: Hi. We're great.

GLENN: Good. Christian, do I have any part of the story wrong?

CHRISTIAN: No. Not that -- he was actually, on the good note, returned to us last night by the court.

STU: Wow.

GLENN: Oh. By a court?

CHRISTIAN: Yes, the court ordered him to be returned home.

PAT: Wow. That's great.

CHRISTIAN: Yeah, it is. It's really great. But it's still not over. They still want to have him found dependent by the court so they can justify all of their actions that led up to this.

GLENN: Wait. What do you mean by find him dependent? What does that mean?

CHRISTIAN: Well, it's a different category by Ohio statute that -- not meaning neglect or abuse, but a dependent child, they are trying to say who lacks adequate parental care by reason of mental or physical condition of the parents, guardian, or custodian.

GLENN: So tell me -- let's go back.

Tell me when you found out that he said he was going to stab himself with the eye. Tell me, if you don't mind, tell me about that conversation. Tell me what happened.

CHRISTIAN: Well, like I said, the school called me, notified me that he said that. He was -- he never -- like what they are alleging, he never came up with that plan on his own. He was prompted to say that.

GLENN: How do you mean?

CHRISTIAN: Well, the counselor that he saw them at the school was asking him leading questions. She asked him deliberately, well -- when he said that he wanted to erase himself because he was bad. She said, "Well, how would you do that?" Instead of getting to the root issue of why he felt bad, she prompted him to divulge a plan, which he didn't come up with on his own. Like he didn't volunteer that information.

GLENN: Okay. So he didn't -- what you're saying is he didn't walk in and say, "I just want to stab myself in the eye." He said, "I just want to erase myself." And she said, "Well, if you were going to do that, how would you do that?"

"Well, I would stab myself in the eye."

CHRISTIAN: Yes, exactly.

GLENN: So he hadn't made a plan, which is a sign of real suicide. She was asking him of a plan.

CHRISTIAN: Yes, correct.

GLENN: Got it. Got it. Go ahead.

CHRISTIAN: So then the school called me. And to note the seriousness of the situation, before I got off the phone with the school, I was already in my car on the way to the school. I was there within five minutes. And told the school that after they made their recommendations, at first, we were going to come home and have a long conversation, me, my wife, and my son. And then based on that conversation, we would determine if more action was necessary.

Which they completely denied. And they called CPS that same day, before I even had time to respond to the situation, before they knew anything.

PAT: How is it that CPS functions this way, without due process, without having a trial, without -- without giving you a chance?

GLENN: Because somebody has to do something. That's why.

PAT: But it's unconstitutional.

GLENN: No, I know. But somebody's got to do something, Pat.

PAT: You can't just take children out of homes.

GLENN: Somebody's got to do something.

PAT: If there's -- if there's proof of abuse, that may be the case. But there wasn't. There just -- there wasn't abuse, right?

Were they even alleging that you guys were physically or mentally abusing him?

CHRISTIAN: No, but the school had priorly -- before all this instant, they called four times alleging two cases of abuse. And the CPS didn't even investigate because it was unfounded.

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: Wait. Wait. What did they accuse on abuse, and why would they do that?

CHRISTIAN: The school? I'm not exactly sure. I just know that they called twice to report physical abuse by me done to my son.

GLENN: How did you respond to that?

CHRISTIAN: Well, I'm -- obviously I was upset. But I didn't even know about that until after this last actual investigation by CPS was open.

PAT: Wow.

STU: Were you able to track down why they believed that? You know, were there -- he got bruised playing and they thought it was you? Do you have any idea where that came from?

CHRISTIAN: No. I know the school called and alleged that. I don't know why they think that.

GLENN: Okay. And CPS said, we didn't -- we just didn't investigate.

CHRISTIAN: Yeah, they said it was unfounded. And there was no reason even to investigate.

GLENN: Okay. And were they upset at you because you wouldn't put your son on ADD medication? And why wouldn't you put your son on ADD medication?

CHRISTIAN: Yes, the school has been pushing for the ADD medication for a long time.

GLENN: Sure.

CHRISTIAN: It's brought up every time we have a meeting with the school.

GLENN: Sure. Sure.

CHRISTIAN: No, I don't -- because that's going to stifle his creativity. And I don't want to medicate my son because he's an average 7-year-old boy that is creative.

GLENN: Amen.

CHRISTIAN: That's nothing wrong with my son. That's nothing wrong with the curriculum and the school being able to handle a little boy.

GLENN: You're exactly right on that one. I'm so glad to hear you answer that way.

We -- why are we letting the system say I don't need to change the system to adapt to different kids. Instead, I'm going to medicate kids and claim the system is okay.

It is absolute craziness what we allow.

Okay. So -- go ahead.

CHRISTIAN: No, I was just agreeing with you. It completely is.

GLENN: So what do you do for a living?

CHRISTIAN: Well, I was -- until recently, I was a welding supervisor. I've taken a long leave of absence because we just had our sixth child. And right before Christmas. And I am staying home to take care of her and our other younger daughter.

GLENN: And what does this cost you? I mean, how has this affected the family?

CHRISTIAN: Well, emotionally, what it's cost is us I can't even put any kind of amount on it.

GLENN: I don't mean money-wise. What does this cost you? What's the payment been like? I mean, are your friends staying by you? Do people look at you differently, like, oh, my gosh, there goes that family? There's something wrong with them.

CHRISTIAN: No. For the most part, a lot of my friends are behind me. I haven't had any of my friends change any of their attitude because they know me. And they know that this is all ridiculous and completely false.

STU: Christian, have you mixed it up with the school at all with anything else? Are they going to come out and say that you're a troublemaker or one of these parents that are always complaining about everything? Is there any other reason that this would happen?

CHRISTIAN: I did have a dispute with the school. Because like I said, after my baby daughter was born just recently, they -- I tried to get our bus stop moved because I have a kindergartener and I have to physically be out there to pick him up from the bus stop. I tried to have them move it two houses down the street so I could see from our house when the bus was there and go out. Because I did not want to wait out there with my infant.

STU: Right.

CHRISTIAN: And they said absolutely not. And they would not change the stop. So, I mean, we had a disagreement over that. But --

GLENN: What a bad parent. What a bad parent you are. Holy cow. Don't want to be standing out in the freezing cold in Ohio in the winter with your newborn. Holy cow. What will they think of next?

All right. So yesterday, the court ruled in your favor. And he's back home. How is he?

CHRISTIAN: He's really excited and happy to be home.

(chuckling)

PAT: Hmm.

CHRISTIAN: He wasn't sleeping well before. And he slept like a log last night. So -- and he's -- right now, I know he's just really, really happy.

GLENN: Do you -- how are you affording the financial hit with the -- with the attorneys? I got to believe you're taking on the State. That's not cheap. Do you have people volunteering their time? Are you paying for it? How is that working?

CHRISTIAN: Both. But mostly paying for it out of pocket. Just barely making it. I have help from my parents who have loaned us money. But it's -- yes, it's taking its toll.

GLENN: Well, I -- I wish you -- I wish you the best. And we're going to follow this. When is the next court date?

CHRISTIAN: The next court date is the education hearing on the 17th of May.

GLENN: And what's that going to decide?

CHRISTIAN: That is CPS and the prosecutor's office wanting him to be declared dependent so they can justify all their actions from the moment this started.

GLENN: If somebody wants to get a hold of -- there's got to be a great attorney. And I know some attorneys -- who helped the Pelletiers? Remember the story out of Boston?

STU: Justina Pelletier.

GLENN: Who was that? That was a friend of ours. See if we can find out. We might -- we're going to hold on to your number. Is there a public way anybody can get a hold of you?

STU: There's a GoFundMe page, right?

GLENN: There's a GoFundMe page?

CHRISTIAN: Yes.

GLENN: What is it?

CHRISTIAN: I will -- my wife set that up, so I will let her answer to that.

PAT: Okay.

GLENN: All right.

CHRISTIAN: I don't want to misspeak or say something --

GLENN: That's all right. That's all right.

Is it Katie? Is Katie there?

Hi, Katie.

KATIE: Yeah. Hi, the link is just help us get our son home. I'm assuming you can search it.

STU: Yeah. If you actually search for -- as we were talking here, search for GoFundMe and Christian Maple. You'll get a link to it. And we'll also tweet it out from all of our accounts and everything so people can get to it easily. @worldofStu or at Glenn Beck. We'll get it all out there.

GLENN: How are you holding up?

KATIE: All right. It's taken its toll. I've had to take a lot of days off work.

GLENN: What do you do for a living, Katie?

KATIE: I'm a mail carrier.

GLENN: A mail carrier. Six kids. A father who is staying home. Boy, the GoFundMe page might be very well needed. Katie, best of luck.

Christian, thank you very much. And we will continue to watch this.

"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.