Court rules NSA program overstepped their authority

May 08, 2015

Writer

There are over 4000,000 regulations on the books. It’s believed the average American commits three felonies a day. But don’t worry - there’s no way a corrupt federal government will target you! Thankfully, Americans had a small victory for freedom when a federal court ruled the NSA overstepped congressional authority with their collection of bulk phone data under the Patriot ACT. Senator Rand Paul joined Glenn on radio to discuss this huge step towards freedom and other news of the day.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment:

GLENN: Yesterday, the NSA, the Domestic Spying Program was deemed illegal by an appeals court. And we have Senator Rand Paul on the phone with us. Congratulations, Senator Paul. I know this is something you've been working tireless on. How are you, sir?

RAND: Yeah, Glenn, thanks.

You know, about a year ago, I sued the NSA and the president and Eric Holder on this. The Fourth Amendment is very explicit. It says you have to name the person. You have to name the things you want. You got to have probable cause, and then you have to ask a judge for permission. And one of the reasons we did that is, we didn't want to allow general warrants, where you can be rounded up because of your ethnicity, rounded up because of your religion, rounded up because of your political beliefs. It had to be individualized.

It was what John Adams said -- it was the spark that led to the American Revolution. When James Otis fought against these generalized warrants. So, yeah, it's a big deal for the court now to agree and say they're illegal. I really though want this to go to the Supreme Court. And I want the Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality on whether or not a general warrant is constitutional or not.

GLENN: This is surprising to me. I don't know enough about the courts. You probably know much more. This is the second US Court of Appeals. And if I'm not mistaken, isn't there two appointees from Obama and one from Clinton. So this isn't like the Fifth Circuit Court. This is -- this is -- you know, the left is part of this court as well.

RAND: I'm not sure of the composition, because I think sometimes there's more judges than that. I think there's actually more judges in the appellate court than the three.

GLENN: I'm saying that the three-panel judge -- the three judges on the panel, Clinton-appointed judge and two Obama-appointed judges.

RAND: Yeah, that could well be on this. And there's more that could be picked. But these particular three, I think you're correct.

The ultimate question though is that: In order for it to be enforceable ruling across the country, it needs to come from the Supreme Court. My understanding is that this decision will be sent back to the lower court. It won't necessarily go to the Supreme Court. So we're still sort of working and fighting to get this to the Supreme Court level. Because there's a really important question here, and that's whether or not a warrant can have somebody's name Mr. Verizon. And I tell people in a tongue-in-cheek way in speeches that I don't know anybody named Mr. Verizon.

So can you put the name of a business and yet get hundreds of millions of individuals' records who do business with that particular business? And I think that's where the question is: Does the Fourth Amendment requirement to individualize, to put a person's name on it, does that qualify, or does this sound suspiciously like a general warrant?

GLENN: So there's really no teeth to this, is there? I mean, there was no injunction. They don't have to stop. This was just like, yep, that's against the law.

RAND: It will have an important ramification for this reason. They're saying that the Patriot Act, as passed, does not cover in a statutory way, does not give authority for this bulk collection of phone records. The reason this is interesting is, is that Senator Wyden and I have a bill to end the bulk collection. But we don't reauthorize any part of 215, and we don't acknowledge that 215 allows this. There's a competing version of this called the USA Freedom Act, and it would actually replace this and give new statutory authority. So there's actually a danger that the reform that lurks out there, if it passes, would actually give affirmative legal justification for this program. So I think everybody needs to really think long and hard about whether the reform that's out there will actually be good or bad. I think it's better just to tell the government they can't do bulk collection, rather than replacing it with something that may give new authority.

GLENN: Two questions. First, have you ever had to run to a trash can to vomit in it every time you hear something like the Patriot Act or the Freedom Act. I mean, it is so -- you know there's trouble whenever it comes out with the Everybody Likes Ice Cream Act, you know it's deadly.

RAND: Yeah, whatever the acronym is, the more benign sounding, the actually more dastardly it is the closer you read the text.

GLENN: Okay. So do you have any confidence at all -- I mean, Mitch McConnell, I'm sorry, but, you know, as we call him here, he's a turtle head. Because he looks like a turtle head. And I defy you to look at him and not laugh because he looks exactly like a turtle. You expect his head to go in past his shoulders. But that's a different story. Notice there's no laughter there. He's very smart.

STU: He's smart.

GLENN: So you -- Mitch McConnell is already trying to, you know, push a clean extension of the Patriot Act. He's not really on the side of -- of you on this. And of us.

RAND: There is a division within the Republican Party. There's also division in the country. But the interesting thing is, when you look at my numbers versus Hillary Clinton in purple states, the reason we're winning the independent vote is because I am for the right to privacy. I am for the Fourth Amendment. And we're getting a large segment of the youth vote and of the independent vote. So I don't know, I think the Republican Party needs to be open to our point of view.

GLENN: But they don't seem to be.

RAND: Well, up here, they're not. In Washington, they're not. But go out anywhere in Texas and go to a large crowd and ask them, do you think the government should be collecting all your phone records without a warrant without your name on it? And I'll bet you 75, 80 percent of Republicans -- I've been there. I've been to Lincoln Day dinners in Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston. And when I give those lines, I get a rousing cheer and often a standing ovation saying, the government -- it's none of your damn business what you do on your phone or with your phone records. And so I think the people outside of Washington are different than people in Washington.

GLENN: I know that.

RAND: I'll give you another quick example. I had an amendment that said, no more American tax dollars through foreign aid to countries that persecute Christians. Countries that put Christians to death or put Christians in jail for life. For blasphemy. Interfaith marriage. Or apostasy. And I lost the vote 18-2. Eighteen people in Washington said we should continue it. Two said no. But if I poll that question anywhere in America, it's 99 percent of Americans say, hell, no, we shouldn't send our money to countries that persecute Christians.

GLENN: That's unbelievable. But that would include China as well. I mean, that is -- you want to talk about picking a fight, and God bless you for doing it, but that's a fight-picking question.

RAND: And here's the interesting thing, as rich as China is and as much as we have a trade deficit with them, we do send money to China. Not foreign aid. We send them economic development assistance. Because they really need some economic development over there.

GLENN: Yeah, don't they? Yesterday, the Senate passed a bill that would require congressional authorization on any deal the president would make with Iran. Is the House -- it's going over to the House. Will the House pass this, and does this have any teeth?

RAND: It's a big victory in this sense. The president for the last six months to a year is saying, we don't get any say. He's been he's going to send it directly to the UN. He's been saying, this is an agreement and there's no congressional authority at all. Well, when enough Democrats told him otherwise, all the Republicans were saying otherwise, but when enough Democrats got on board and he knew he would have his veto overturned, he changed his tune, support the bill, and it passed 99-1. Can it stop him? The only thing that can stop him, the only thing that can do anything to the president when you disagree with him is 67 votes. Because it takes 67 votes to overturn a veto. So some people are complaining whether this is disapproval or approval. The bottom line is, any scenario that you want to stop a president that disagrees with you on any piece of legislation or any kind of foreign agreement, it takes 67 votes. But the fact that this was 99-1, there is a chance that there could be 67 votes saying the deal with Iran is not a good deal. This is a good bipartisan way of getting to the next step. Which is, if we were to get rebuked with more than 67 votes, it would be the end of the presidency. He would get nothing done the rest of the year and he would be completely without any capacity to get anything done, which would be good for the country.

PAT: Why is that the case? Why would one vote like that, shut him down so badly?

RAND: I think it's because it's very, very rare that people don't vote in partisan lockstep. So I think if there were a vote that rebuked him. This one was a rebuke, but he changed his mind and said I'm for it. But if the Iranian deal comes forward and people have doubts -- and this is my biggest doubt is that the Iranians are not sincere, credible partners because they tweet out in English the opposite of what apparently the Americans say the agreement means. The other thing that concerns me is when the president's spokesman comes forward, Josh Earnest, comes forward and says, oh, well, it looks like -- yeah, they'll continue to probably be involved with terrorism after they sign this agreement. It makes you wonder, doesn't it, whether or not we're having a sincere two-party agreement here. But I think if that's shot down and the Democrats say this also, it really goes to the heart of whether the president really leads his party anymore.

GLENN: Let me talk to you a little about freedom of speech. And what happened here in Texas. The media was all for the cartoonists in France. And so was I. Even though I disagreed with the cartoons. I personally don't think we should be mocking each other's religion. Those were very offensive cartoons. But they have a right to do it. And so I stood by them. And I stand by them. Same thing with Pamela Geller. I don't necessarily agree with the cartoon contest. And I wouldn't have, you know, done that myself. But she has a right to do that.

The press is coming after Pamela Geller. And saying that, you know, she was just inciting hatred and that it was not freedom of speech. Any comment on that?

RAND: Well, you know, I like the pundits or the constitutional critics that say the First Amendment really isn't about easy speech. It's about speech you find despicable. It's about speech you find offensive. That's the hard thing to allow that to happen in a free society. And I agree with you. I think it doesn't serve any purpose. You can talk about the First Amendment without doing things that are really offensive to other people's religion. But in our country, that's part of one of our basic freedoms is the right to be wrong. The right to be offensive. And the right to say things that people find despicable. Now, you don't you have to pay for them. You don't have to have them in your building, if it's your building.

GLENN: It's the Westboro Baptist Church. It's the Westboro Baptist Church.

RAND: Exactly.

GLENN: I despise the Westboro Baptist Church. But they have a right to say what they want to say. I don't have to listen to them. I don't have I don't want to have them over for dinner. But they have a right to say it.

RAND: Yeah, and that's the hard part about the First Amendment. Because it's easy if I'm saying, hey, what a great guy Glenn Beck is. You love my First Amendment rights. But if I'm criticizing you, it's a little harder. But that's what the First Amendment is about.

GLENN: Right. Let me play a piece of audio here that we found in Al Sharpton. He said this a couple of days ago. This is extraordinarily disturbing to me because of the way we have militarized our police and the way these riots now are being coordinated by people like Al Sharpton. But I want you to listen to what he said when he was talking about the riots in the streets of Baltimore and how they're going to spread.

AL: -- all over the country, which is why we're going to do this march from here to Washington. We need the Justice Department to step in and take over policing in this country. In the 20th century, they had to fight states' rights and to get the right to vote. We're going to have to fight states' rights in terms of closing down police cases. Police must be held accountable.

GLENN: Okay. So here's what he said in case you couldn't understand him. He said. These things are going to happen all around the country. Because it is time we get the Justice Department to take over policing in America. We had to fight states' rights to get the right to vote. Now we need to fight states' rights on policing.

RAND: Well, the interesting thing is, there was a time in our history when, you know, the South was all white and African-Americans were mistreated. And there was a role for the federal government to get involved at one point. This now is not a racial problem because all the government in Baltimore was African-American. And the rioting also. So I don't think the federal government being involved -- I do think there's a problem in our criminal justice system. There's a problem -- we have -- and there's no silver bullet. There's a variety of problems. But there's no excuse for violence or rioting. And the primary thing you have to do in the early stages. You have to have security of people's, you know, person as well as their property. And then over time though, I do want to be part of the dialogue, because I'll tell you one quick story. And this story I think represents why some people and a lot of people in our society feel like they're not being treated fairly.

Kalief Browder was a 16-year-old black kid in the Bronx arrested and kept for three years in prison. He was accused of -- an illegal immigrant. Illegal alien. And he spent three years in jail and was never tried for his crime. Tried to commit suicide. Was kept in solitary confinement. You can see if you're his parents and his friends, you would think something is wrong in America. So that kind of stuff does need to be fixed, and it's part of the unease.

GLENN: Senator, I have to go. Thank you so much. I appreciate your time with us. Senator Rand Paul. You bet.

Message to America after the Nashville massacre: We are worshiping a FALSE GOD

BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI / Contributor , DEA / A. VERGANI / Contributor , Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images.

We had yet another tragic school shooting. There is only one way to begin to address this tragedy, a tragedy that has repeated itself all too often. We must begin by mourning with the families of the victims. Our hearts break for the victims, their families, and the entire community affected by this senseless act of violence.

I'm a parent, and I mourn with you as one.

I'm also a concerned citizen deeply concerned with the profound brokenness that pervades our current culture. All of us fear for the safety of our children and our loved ones. We share the same goal of creating a safe and secure environment for everyone, especially for our children, in our schools, in places of learning and growth.

It is natural for all of us to feel anger and fear during these times, and it may seem unnatural to rise above it. But we must. It's essential to remember that we have to come together as a society, together, and address the root causes of violence. Let me state it plainly: the root cause is not the gun, but rather, the misuse of them by individuals who are mentally ill or have criminal intent. I, for one, want to address the problem of gun violence. I am worried about this with my own children. Every American, regardless of who you voted for, feels the same.

But enough is enough.

When will we address mental health? Do you know the damage we have done to our children, just because of COVID? We have destroyed the mental health of our children. Our country's suicide rate is proof enough that something has gone deeply awry within the soul of our nation—the souls of our children. What is causing all of this? It is the loss of the old guards of our civilization.

Something has gone deeply awry within the soul of our nation.

There are several groups that we need to address. First, to the parents and families of the Nashville victims, I'm sorry. We love you. Our society is sick—it is sick and unrecognizable to most of us. Your loved ones have paid the ultimate price for that illness. I'm sorry because I'm part of the society that has an unwillingness to see the truth, apparently.

Second, to the mother of the 27-year-old shooter, we mourn with you as well. I've read your old posts. You've been fighting against guns in school. While we disagree, we both want this violence to end. I've also read your posts about your children, and how proud you are. There were so many moments of beauty. You feel the same way every mom and dad feels about their child, and you were right to feel that way.

Today, I can only imagine how confused you must be. You should know, we love you too. You lost a child as well. You lost a child to the same society that has an unwillingness to see the truth. You should also know, you are part of our community, and we mourn with you as well.

You lost a child to the same society that has an unwillingness to see the truth.

Now, lastly, to the political class and the media elites. You have been dividing us for years. At first, I think I was a part of that. I've tried really hard not to be. However, you're not sincere in anything you do. At first, maybe you thought you were right in your motivations, but then every time society proved you wrong and you just dug your heels in.

Why do you continue to divide us? Is it just to win over your opponent? Is it just to crush the other side? Is it because you believe that everyone who doesn't vote your way is evil? Or is it that you just no longer care? I'm one American among many who no longer believe in you.

I can understand how easy it is to think people who vote differently than me are the problem. I really can, and those people aren't the problem. The problem begins with people, like you, who only care about money or power, or are so arrogant that they think they know better than the rest of us. You make yourselves and your system into a false god. The arrogance.

You make yourselves and your system into a false god.

You go after the disaffected, the weak, and the hopeless, and you prey on these people, promising to be their savior, hoping they will help you gain power over those who you call your enemies. You have lied. You have lied through half-truths. You have lied through omission. You have lied through fabrications. You have distorted the truth to the degree that it's no longer recognizable.

You call men women, and women men. In your world, our children are legally children until 25 for insurance purposes. Yet you also consider our children "adult" enough to alter their own bodies at eight years old. You have called evil good, and good evil. We do not have a gun problem in America. Per capita, there were more gun owners 50 years ago than there are right now, yet they didn't have these problems. Is it the gun, or is it the people?

What we have in America is a TRUTH problem. We have turned ourselves inside out. We have turned ourselves against the basic principles that gave us life and freedom, and the promise of a fuller life. Our women have no more children, and our men have lost all meaning, reason, and faith.

What we have in America is a TRUTH problem.

Just yesterday, the Wall Street Journal released a poll that showed what principles the American people value most. Children, God, family—the values that used to define us as Americans—were LAST on the list. What was on the top? Money was in the top three. Money? Since when has money become a principle?

Perhaps it is because money is the god that so many worship—money over principles every time a corrupt bank is bailed out, money over principles for those who never want to pay their school tuition, every time we make someone who didn't go to school pay for someone else's tuition.

What kind of god do we worship, that makes children so allegedly flawed that we lay them on our metal alters to the gods in the surgical gowns, who can mutilate and sterilize them to make them "just the way they were intended?" That's an ancient god I don't recognize.

We all know the words that were written in the summer of 1776: "We hold these truths." But other words were written later that year when things weren't so sunny. It was December 21st: "These are the times that try men's souls." These words turned our nation around. These truly are the times that try men's souls, and the modern-day patriots—the lovers of truth and justice—must stand firm in the face of an ever-growing storm of disinformation and division. The weak-hearted are not going to be able to weather the storm, but those with the courage to fight for what is true will emerge victorious.

Lovers of truth and justice must stand firm in the face of an ever-growing storm of disinformation and division.

We live in a time when our faith in institutions, our faith in everything we know, is at an all-time low. Our republic is under siege, and the only way out is to remember our founding principles. We are drowning in a sea of lies. Cling to the life raft! Cling to the enduring belief in life and liberty, truth and justice. We'll only be able to find our way out if we can rekindle the flame of unity and embrace the American spirit that carried us through so many crises before. We have been here before.

But this time, in our current American crisis, we have to constantly remind ourselves that our fight isn't against an external enemy that we conquer. Our enemy is causing the internal divisions that are threatening to tear us apart, divisions that are created by monsters of men. These monsters are not just tearing us apart individual to individual, but tearing us and our children out from the inside out.

Cling to the enduring belief in life and liberty, truth and justice.

America, it is high time to reaffirm our commitment to the values that define us as a people. It is our collective responsibility, as free people, to stand up for those principles of truth. The seeds of division have been sewn by those who seek to manipulate and exploit us for their own gain. They shatter our trust in one another to instill fear and hatred where there should be understanding and compassion.

Truth is now clouded by conspiracy. The lines between fact and fiction have been blurred. Truth is a light. Everything we face is not insurmountable, but now is the time to return to truth and decency and justice for all.

Our kids are the ones who are going to pay the highest of prices for what we do now.

What's on Glenn's desk? THIS graphic novel's dystopia has TERRIFYING similarities to our world.

Matt Battaglia

Imagine a global health crisis. Everyone is ordered to "stay-at-home" and only to venture out for "essential" purposes. Travel is regulated by government surveillance, with only permitted workers allowed to go into the city. Inflation is at historic levels, and basic necessities, such as food and gasoline, become invaluable commodities.

Sound familiar?

As the COVID pandemic begins to recede into our cultural memory, it is harrowing to remember the sheer breadth of power we surrendered to our government in order to "keep us safe." We would be foolish to think that the pandemic wasn't a repetition of an age-old tale in the west, and we would be even more naive to believe that we aren't at risk of repeating it in the future: the government's manipulation of a crisis to secure its complete control over its people.

We would be foolish to think that the pandemic wasn't a repetition of an age-old tale

Filmmaker Matt Battaglia published a first in what is likely to become an emerging genre of post-pandemic apocalyptic literature, bringing to life the harrowing consequences of what could happen if we continue to surrender our liberty to the government for the sake of "safety and security."

Battaglia's graphic novel, House on Fire, brings this world to life in an even more vivid dimension through pictures, telling the story of a single day of a man living in this apocalyptic world that doesn't seem too distant from our own.

The setting

Imagine there is another global pandemic of a respiratory virus that is similar to COVID. The government implements COVID-like lockdowns and restrictions from their 2020 blueprint, but this time, the regulations are here to stay. After all, this pandemic isn't the only threat allegedly facing the American people. The future of our planet is at stake. On top of the pandemic regulations, our government restricts the types of food available for consumption, implements individual carbon quotas, mandates electric vehicles, eliminates gas-powered heating, cars, stoves, etc.

Of course, the pandemic and climate change policies require major government funding, so the President uses his emergency powers and executive orders to push through a multi-trillion-dollar proposal that secures the funding necessary to finance the "clean and safe transition." Yes, inflation will be an issue, but that is a small price to pay to secure our health and the future of our planet. Don't forget to include foreign aid for our warring allies in the multi-trillion-dollar packages as well.

Inflation is a small price to pay to secure the future of our planet.

Now fast forward 20 years of living under these all-too-familiar draconian policies. This is Battaglia's apocalyptic world where we meet our nameless main character, causing the reader to question whether our world could devolve into Battaglia's in such a short amount of time.

The plot

Battaglia's story begins with our character kissing his wife goodbye and leaving their country home on a one-day mission to the city in search of a cure for his wife's most recent bout of the illness that is, presumably, a result of the pandemic.

All of the themes that contribute to the apocalyptic nature of Battaglia's world are familiar to us, disturbingly so. Our character drives through country roads, passing by gas signs that list $20 per gallon prices. His radio reports on another invasion of Poland, while country fields transform into steeple-like towers of run-down factories, like old monuments to former industries of a time long past.

Our character reaches the city limit, a border-like security checkpoint where he is required to scan his identity card to enter the city, the likes of which we see in China today. Masks required. He then drives through empty streets of a once bustling city, save for several suspect people who seem to blend into the crevices of alleyways and corners, shrouded by their masks.

Finally, our character meets with his "contact," who gives him some type of canister, supposedly a remedy for his wife's ailment. He barters with several cuts of meat, a rarity more valuable than inflated cash in this "Green New World." From this point onward, things take a turn for our character—for the worst.

Glenn's warning

Many of these scenes bring to life themes that Glenn has been warning about for years, from the government's use of a pandemic to seize control over its people, the depleted dollar and record-high inflation resulting from government spending and foreign conflicts, the Great Reset's goals to eliminate meat, gas-powered products, and other "high emissions products." All of these will be done in the name of seemingly righteous goals: "health," "safety," "security," and the "future of our planet" come to mind. However, we won't realize our freedoms will be a faint memory of the past until it is too late.

All of these measures will be done in the name of seemingly "righteous" goals.

House on Fire's poignant ending leaves the reader with a terrifying yet vitally important question: are the issues plaguing our society latent within society itself, or do they stem from the troubles within our own souls? Does society mold the human soul, or is society, as Plato puts it, the human soul "writ large?"

Battaglia's short yet powerful graphic novel brings to life many of the themes that Glenn has been warning his listeners. It is sitting on his desk, and we hope it will sit on yours too. It gives the reader a glimpse into our society after years of decay and oppression, calling on the reader to halt its progression before it's too late.

Click HERE to get your own copy!

Elon Musk comments on Glenn's podcast with David Sacks, takes jab at U.S. foreign policy

Pool / Pool | Getty Images

Elon Musk chimed into Glenn's conversation about foreign policy with PayPal's founding COO David Sacks on the most recent installment of the Glenn Beck Podcast.

Musk tweeted, "US foreign policy is bronze tier on a good day!" He hit the nail on the head, as Glenn and Sacks discussed the deterioration of U.S. foreign policy and the rising probability of war with Russia and China.

None
— (@)

Glenn asked Sacks, "How likely do you think it is that we'd be headed towards war?" Sacks responded that he has been warning about the imminent threat of war since the Ukraine situation started and lamented that we have entered into a "proxy war of choice" with Russia.

"We engaged in a series of actions going back to 2008 that the Russians have viewed as highly provocative," Sacks said, decrying the continued expansion of NATO into Ukraine. Russia has continually warned the U.S. against expanding NATO into Ukraine, yet the State Department "crusaders" have persisted in their NATO-driven objective, which is "unacceptable to the Russians," Sacks said, "in the same way the Soviet Union trying to put nukes in Cuba was unacceptable to us in 1962."

If NATO expansion isn't enough to provoke a response from the Russian bear, our ongoing and escalating aid to Ukraine certainly is. As Sacks explained, "We're not just providing [Ukraine] with money and weapons. We are providing them with intelligence, we have commandos on the ground" and we are even directing Ukrainian soldiers on how to use our weapons on how to hit specific Russian targets. As Sacks said, "We are providing the kill chain" for Ukraine.

To put this in perspective, that would be equivalent to Russian soldiers instructing Taliban members on how to use Russian weapons to hit specific U.S. camps in Afghanistan. In that situation, wouldn't we accuse Russia of engaging in an act of war? The term "proxy" is increasingly diminishing in its relevance towards the U.S.'s involvement in the Ukrainian conflict. We aren't engaging in a "proxy war" anymore. As Sacks said, "We are effectively a co-belligerent in this conflict."

It is no wonder that we are driving Russia into China's arms while both Putin and Xi continue to forge ties with sworn enemies of the U.S., including Iran and North Korea. If we continue to "poke the bear," it is only a matter of time before Russia finds its confidence with its newly-forged allies to retaliate against its aggressor.

Musk rightly said, "US foreign policy is bronze tier on a good day." But U.S. foreign policy has not even had a "good day" in some time. We are not only jeopardizing our own international reputation with ongoing aid to Ukraine; we are jeopardizing the whole world order by marching NATO increasingly toward war. Elites in the Biden administration and the military industrial complex may benefit from aggravating Russia towards war, but it certainly doesn't benefit anyone else, in the U.S. and abroad.

There are few tools in the conservative's kit to fight back against the elites' dangerous agenda. However, Musk mentioned one of these vital tools in a comment he tweeted on Glenn's interview with San Fransicko author and Twitter Files contributor Michael Schellenberger back in January: "Citizen journalism is vital to the future of civilization."

None
— (@)

As Glenn continues to give people a platform to speak out against the elites, it is encouraging to see Musk continue to help make Twitter a platform where people can voice their challenges to the machine's agenda.

Here are the TOP 5 things you NEED to know about Trump's potential indictment

Brandon Bell / Staff, Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

Trump's potential indictment is one of the most historically significant events in our nation's history—and no, that is not a hyperbolic statement.

If Trump is federally prosecuted, by a state-level District Attorney no less, then America may be entering a new territory past which there is no return: the weaponization of our judicial system against the top political opponents to the ruling class. As Glenn has said, weaponizing our judiciary is something we see in banana republics. Is America about to become one?

With all of the news and hype around Trump's potential indictment, it is easy to lose sight of the core issues that truly give this story historical significance. Here are five core aspects of this story that have the potential to transform our nation going forward.

1. Trump committed a misdemeanor, NOT a felony.

The allegations against Trump pertain to "hush money" given to the porn star Stormy Daniels during his 2016 Presidential Campaign. Trump's advisor Michael Cohen gave Daniels $130,000 of his own money after Daniels threatened to publicize her alleged affair with Trump just days before the 2016 election. Cohen wrote off the money as "legal fees" under his campaign finance funds. Trump then reimbursed Cohen for the expenses once he was in the White House.

Trump has maintained that he never had an affair with Daniels and that he is the victim of an extortion scheme. But that is besides the point. New York DA Alvin Bragg is potentially indicting Trump based on mislabeling the "hush money" as "legal fees" under campaign finance laws.

Even NBC acknowledges that mislabeling campaign finances is a "misdemeanor," not a felony, yet Trump is being prosecuted as if it were. The only way the "crime" could be turned into a felony is if the mislabeling was done to cover up another crime. Yet, as NBC admits, it is unclear whether Bragg has evidence of another crime that Trump was trying to cover up.

If you are thinking, "Wait, this is old news, right?" you would be correct. There is a reason why no one has prosecuted Trump based on the Stormy Daniels hush money in the seven years since it occurred—because there simply is no federal case. So why has Alvin Bragg decided to prosecute Trump now? Well, for one thing, Trump announced he is running for President again in 2024, and the Left simply can't let that happen.

2. Hillary Clinton committed the SAME crime.

The double standard of Trump's potential indictment is made even more clear when compared with Hillary Clinton, who committed the same misdemeanor.

Hillary Clinton's 2016 Presidential campaign "misreported" funds received from the Democratic National Convention (DNC) that went towards the infamous Steele Dossier, which aimed at linking Trump to collusion with the Russian government (which was proven to be a complete farce). Clinton's campaign wrote off the Steele Dossier funds as "legal services"—sound familiar?

She and the DNC paid the Federal Election Commission $113,000 to the Federal Election Commission, and the issue was swept under the rug. Yet Trump is being accused of the SAME misdemeanor—mislabeling campaign finance funds—and he is being threatened with federal prosecution.

3. Trump's possible indictment is "very conveniently" timed to overshadow the Biden family's corruption.

On March 16, 2023, the House Oversight Committee released a scathing memorandum detailing the illicit business dealings between the Biden family and the Chinese state-owned energy company, State Energy HK Limited.

According to bank records subpoenaed by the committee, the Chinese energy company wired $3 million to Delaware-based Robinson Walker LLC two months after Biden left the White House in 2017. At the time of the wire transfer, the business account only had $159 thousand. Now it had over $3 million.

The very next day, Robinson Walker LLC wired over $1 million to a company associated with James Gillar, a business partner of Hunter Biden’s.

Over the next 3 months, Robinson Walker LLC would send incremental payments to multiple members of the Biden family and their companies, including Hunter Biden, Joe Biden's brother, James, and Beau Biden's ex-wife, Hallie. The transfers included another "mysterious" recipient titled simply, “Biden." Who could that possibly be?

Let's get this straight: Trump's potential misdemeanor-turned-felony is making front-page news while Biden's DOCUMENTED business dealings with a foreign entity and enemy to the United States are being swept under the rug. How "convenient" for Biden.

4. Weaponizing judiciary

This week, we published a poll to see what YOU think of Trump's potential indictment, and most of you overwhelmingly believe our judiciary is being weaponized against anyone on the right side of the aisle—and you are absolutely correct.

Glenn aptly pointed out that using the judiciary to attack political opponents is something we see in banana republics, but now we are witnessing it in the U.S. before our eyes. As Glenn said, the strategy in banana republics is, "Show me the man, and I will find you the crime." They want Trump GONE, and now they are trying to conjure up the crime to do it.

It is very telling that conservatives are fearful of protesting Trump's potential indictment. As Glenn said, we all want a peaceful response. However, conservatives are now taking pause before peaceful protest after seeing the DOJ ruthlessly prosecutethousands of individuals on January 6, even those who never reached the capitol grounds. Is protesting Trump's indictment worth the risk of arrest?

The fact that this question arises in people's minds is extremely indicative of our current political climate. Our judiciary has been weaponized against conservatives, and now we have to think twice before publicly standing up for our beliefs. Sounding more like a banana republic?

5. This is the FIRST time a U.S. President has been federally prosecuted.

If Trump is federally indicted, it would solidify the judiciary's ability to become a weapon against political opponents, even up to the position of a U.S. President. This should give all Americans grave concern. This issue is much bigger than Trump; it is about whether we want to live in a nation whose ruling power can use its judicial system to go after its opponents.

Consider, for a moment, if the tables were turned. What if a Trump-appointed DA federally indicted President Obama for a state-level misdemeanor that resulted in throwing him in prison? Is that the "America" you would want to live in? It would arguably cease to be "America" as we know it and devolve into an ungovernable shell of what it once was.

This harrowing possibility is materializing beneath our very noses. There were many events that led up to the fall of the Roman republic into an empire, but it was the singular event of Caesar crossing the Rubicon that tipped the republic past the point of no return. Could this be our Rubicon moment? Are we, like Cicero, witnessing our republic mutate into something unrecognizable before our very eyes?

Though prosecuting Trump may yield some political vengeance and satisfaction for one side of the aisle in the short term, it poses an insurmountable threat to both sides of the aisle in the long-term trajectory of our country.

Glenn's Show Prep