Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Super Pac Insider Sheds Light on Bribery, Delegate Math

April 15, 2016
Jon Boldt

Writer

Glenn's open opposition to Donald Trump’s candidacy has him taking shots from critics on every side. Breitbart, Drudge Report and Alex Jones --- to name a few --- have relentlessly attacked Glenn's character and intelligence with twisted facts and false allegations, making their true colors known.

The latest conspiracy theory now circulating is that Glenn has received millions of dollars from a pro-Ted Cruz super PAC in exchange for his endorsement and stumping on the Texas Senator's behalf.

Drew Ryun, political director for Trusted Leadership PAC (the super PAC in question) joined The Glenn Beck Program on Friday to shed light on the “bribery” and to talk money and math as the campaign heads towards a contested convention

Listen to this segment or read the transcript below.

The "Evil" Super PAC

GLENN: Drew Ryan is the political director for the Trusted Leadership PAC, which is one of those evil super PACs. Why are you so evil?

DREW: Well, you know, it's just one of those things.

But really what it is, is a super PAC is --- we run as, in a sense, a parallel PAC to a political campaign. And usually super PACs are filled with trusted operatives that the campaign knows and is comfortable with. And there's a high wall between us, according to the Federal Election Commission, that we can't communicate with the campaign. So we look to see where the campaign is, what the message is from the candidate, in our case, Senator Ted Cruz. And where they are playing. And we will look at financial reports and see what ad buys they've made, the message that they're driving. And we will, in a sense, serve to drive that message home.

Now, a super PAC is not constrained in the way that a campaign is. A campaign is locked in at a certain rate for maximum donors that can only give $2,700. A super PAC, the donations are unlimited. So we deal a lot with the major donors that help fund TV, radio -- in our case, a lot of highly targeted voter ID and grassroots rallies.

GLENN: Do they know that you have given me -- you've funneled through my charity $8 million right directly --

DREW: See, I would love to know where that money is.

GLENN: I've already spent it.

DREW: Oh, you have? Well, if you could actually find a way to get it back, that would be great too.

GLENN: Right.

DREW: But, you know, unlike, say, the Jeb Bush super PAC that blew through $100 million or Rubio's PAC that went through $70 million, we have raised and spent right at $30 million. So for us, it's one of those things where every dollar matters and how we spend it matters.

GLENN: Yeah. Because it's -- you really have a problem -- everybody has a problem right now that the money is staying off -- you know, a lot of people came in early. And a lot of the money has stayed off and said, "You know what, I don't know who is going to win it." Is that true or not?

DREW: No. We're actually seeing some movement in our direction, as it becomes clear that we're going to a contested convention. And there is a delegate path where Senator Cruz could win this on the second ballot at the convention. So we're starting to see a lot more movement from some of the traditional, what we could call establishment donors inside the Republican Party.

Delegate Math

GLENN: Can you go through the delegate math? Because this is -- this, I think, is going to be really confusing for Americans, that this isn't stealing the election. This is the way it's done. It was done this way in 1976. It was done this way in the 1950s. Abraham Lincoln won the presidency this way. This is the way it works.

DREW: So what happens in a lot of these presidential elections is you have pools of delegates to the national convention sometimes that are picked a year in advance. So what you're seeing is when you have, say, a Donald Trump win South Carolina and take all 50 delegates, unfortunately for Donald Trump, he found out that those delegates had been picked a year in advance, and he would not have a say in who these delegates would be. These are not Trump delegates, per se, that will be going to represent South Carolina at the national convention.

GLENN: If he had the 1237, they would have to be Trump delegates.

DREW: They would have to be -- in fact, they are bound on the first ballot. So when you look at how a Republican Convention works and obviously a Democrat as well, you have delegates that are bound through certain number of ballots. So a lot of states, if a candidate wins, again, going back to South Carolina, Donald Trump wins all 50, those delegates are bound by the by-laws of the party to vote for him on the first ballot. But if he doesn't get to 1237 -- and there's an increasing likelihood that he won't -- then all of a sudden those delegates become unbound for the second potentially third ballot of voting on the convention floor. And that is danger for Donald Trump.

STU: They can do whatever they want at that point, right?

DREW: They can do whatever they want to at that point.

Voting Their Conscience

STU: Does Donald Trump have any sway over them? If he says, "Look, I want you guys to continue to vote for me."

GLENN: Because we've heard that you can bribe these people. You know, you can give them golf memberships, let's say you own beautiful golf courses all around the world.

DREW: Let's just say that the law regarding bribery and delegates at a national convention is murky at best. There's always the possibility there may be some things going on like that, particularly from a Trump campaign. But, yeah, once the first ballot is over, a lot of state delegates are released to vote their conscience in the second or third ballots.

GLENN: So let me ask you about the delegates. Because you've done this before. So the delegates -- who are these people generally? Because I would think -- let me tell you why I'm asking this question. And then you can take it where you want to go.

One, bribery. Are they believers enough to be offended by that? And two, how are they going to react to somebody threatening to give out their address, their phone number, their hotel room?

DREW: Well, let's start from that second question and work our way back. I think you'll have a very vociferous reaction to being threatened. A lot of these folks are party loyalists. When you look at who usually goes to the conventions, it's usually a party. We don't have contested conventions. As you referenced, 1976 was the last time we had a contested convention inside the Republican Party.

These are also conservative grassroots organizers. These are not traditionally on either camp Trump-type people. So when you look at the Trump loyalists --

GLENN: Why do you say that? Why do you say that?

DREW: Trump, when you look at his natural base is -- and he actually does have a base.

GLENN: Oh, yeah.

DREW: 50 percent of these people, we've never seen before. They're independents. They're Democrats crossing over in these open primaries, which why the next six to seven weeks look tenuous. After we get out of the northeast and head towards Indiana and West Virginia and Nebraska, these are all closed primaries. It looks like a tough road for Donald Trump over the last five to six weeks in this primary. He's not going to have independents and Democrats crossing over and voting in the Republican primaries. When you look at the delegate pool, as I referenced earlier, a lot of these people have been picked by the party hierarchy, sometimes as much as a year before these primaries actually took place. These are not people that are naturally going to be going towards Donald Trump.

Devil’s Advocate

GLENN: Let me play devil's advocate, if they're establishment people, they're not likely to go to Ted Cruz either.

DREW: I think that all depends on Rule 40B. And there's been a lot of conversation about the impact that the rules committee will have on the 2016 convention.

GLENN: What's Rule 40B?

DREW: Let me roll this back a little bit. So you have a rules committee that meets a week before the convention. Each state or territory has two delegates per...

(ringing)

GLENN: Okay.

DREW: And you will have 112 members on the rules committee that will actually meet and decide what the rules will be for the convention in 2016. Rule 40B right now states that you have to win the majority of --

(ringing)

GLENN: Sorry. My phone is seemingly going off here. And I'm sorry for that. Go ahead.

DREW: It's totally fine.

GLENN: Go ahead.

STU: Do you have any idea how to turn the thing off?

GLENN: No, because I never carry my phone. I don't ever use it. Somebody else uses it. I don't carry.

DREW: I love this show already. This is fantastic.

STU: For a guy that just got $8 million.

GLENN: I know. But I hire somebody to --

STU: Okay.

GLENN: They tell me.

DREW: You hire a phone Sherpa? You could hire two phone Sherpas.

GLENN: That's right. Yeah. So I'm sorry. I lost you at hello.

DREW: Yes, well, that's fine. Because I'm coming back to you.

All right. So when you talk about the rules committee, and I think that's a story that's going to become bigger and bigger as we go towards the convention. The rules committee always meets the week before the actual convention. Each state or territory gets two delegates a piece on this rules committee. So you'll have 112 delegates that will decide what the rules for the convention will be.

Currently, the party states that Rule 40B, you have to win the majority of delegates in eight states.

GLENN: Okay.

DREW: There will be only two candidates that will have the opportunity to be considered on the floor of the convention right now. Obviously, the rules can change the week before. And I'll talk about that later.

GLENN: How many states did Marco Rubio win?

PAT: One. He won one state. And a territory.

DREW: One. He won Minnesota. And a territory, Puerto Rico. John Kasich has won Ohio.

Playing Around With the Rules

GLENN: So there's only those two -- even if they're suspended, there's only those two.

DREW: Potentially. I mean, John Kasich may win Pennsylvania, but there are no other states that he can win. So at best, he'll win two states going in.

Right now, I think Ted Cruz is going to win 13 to 14 states when you look at the remainder of the states on the calendar. He's already won seven. And obviously Donald Trump will clear the threshold of Rule 40B. Something for your listeners and your viewers, however, if you start to see Republican National Committee men and women start appointed to the rules committee, there is a good chance that Rule 40B will change, and we potentially will go from a contested convention to an open convention. And that's when things potentially get crazy.

But if the Trump and Cruz campaigns are doing their job, you will see a rules committee stacked with their people and Rule 40B will stay in place.

GLENN: Is Donald Trump --

DREW: Paying attention? I don't know.

GLENN: Yeah, I mean, is he -- it's crazy. It's really crazy.

STU: From a guy who has pitched his campaign as I'm the guy who can get all these things done. I'm going to understand the rules more than everybody.

GLENN: Right. And I'm the guy who can hire really smart people. The people around him are dummies.

DREW: You know, he's running around saying, I'll hire the best people, how is it then if you hire the best people, you're hiring the guy that drove Scott Walker's campaign into the ground?

STU: He's a good candidate. I liked Scott Walker.

DREW: I liked Scott Walker. Literally he was my second choice in this election season, and Rick Riley drove his campaign into the ground in seven to eight weeks and blew through millions of dollars and yet he gets hired by Donald Trump's campaign yesterday.

PAT: Wow.

STU: They were saying, you need to define someone who has some ability. Which obviously Scott Walker saw something in Riley, but also, someone who was so down on their luck and had performed poorly that they would take the job with Donald Trump. And he's kind of the sweet spot of those two things, right? I don't want to put words in your mouth. That's kind of why they went to this guy. Because, I mean, he's not completely without ability. But he's in a tough spot because of the Walker campaign. Walker was one of the frontrunners. A good candidate. A guy who could really connect with both sides, sort of an establishment and conservative side. And his campaign ended before Jim Gilmore's did.

DREW: So what Stu is saying is he's taking the best available tier-three talent. You're right, he is.

JEFFY: He'll always have Lewandowski to consult with.

DREW: Well, of course. And Paul Manafort. And Roger Stone.

GLENN: Have you ever seen anything like this before?

DREW: No. And here's what I think is going on is, I don't think Trump expected to be in this long, to be honest.

GLENN: I don't think so either.

DREW: I think this was something of a protest campaign. He said a few things that resonated with the grassroots, with the disaffected. And all of a sudden, it's like he's taking off. And he doesn't have the infrastructure or the talent to see this thing to the end. Now, I think he's the least serious serious contender for nomination that we've ever seen.

Featured Image: Attendees to a Republican fund-raiser walk by protesters and activists outside of a midtown hotel which is hosting a black-tie event for the state Republican Party on April 14, 2016 in New York City. Republican presidential candidates Donald Trump, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Ohio Gov. John Kasich are all scheduled to appear at the event which comes days before New York will hold its primary. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

Presidential debate recap: The good, the bad and the ugly

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The second presidential debate was many things--some good, some bad, but one thing was made clear: this election is far from over.

If you were watching the debate with Glenn during the BlazeTV exclusive debate coverage, then you already know how the debate went: Kamala lied through her teeth and Trump faced a three-pronged attack from Harris and the two ABC moderators. This was not the debate performance we were hoping for, but it could have gone far worse. If you didn't get the chance to watch the debate or can't bring yourself to watch it again and are looking for a recap, we got you covered. Here are the good, the bad, and the ugly from the second presidential debate:

The Good

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Let's start with what went well.

While there was certainly room for improvement, Trump's performance wasn't terrible, especially compared to his performance in other debates. He showed restraint, kept himself from being too brash, and maintained the name-calling to a minimum. In comparison, Kamala Harris was struggling to maintain her composure. Harris was visibly emotional and continued to make obnoxious facial expressions, which included several infuriating eye-rolls and patronizing smirks.

The Bad

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Despite all that, the debate could have gone much better...

While Trump was able to keep his cool during the debate, he was not able to stay on track. Kamala kept making inflammatory comments meant to derail Trump, and every time, he took the bait. Trump spent far too long defending his career and other extraneous issues instead of discussing issues relevant to the American people and revealing Kamala's failures as Vice President.

Trump's biggest blunder during the debate was his failure to prevent Kamala from leaving that debate looking like a credible option as president. Kamala was fairly unknown to the American people and had remained that way on purpose, giving only one interview after Biden stepped down from the campaign. This is because every time Kamala opens her mouth, she typically makes a fool of herself. Trump needed to give Kamala more time to stick her foot in her mouth and to press Kamala on the Biden administration's failures over the past four years. Instead, he took her bait and let her run down the clock, and by the end of the debate, she left looking far more competent than she actually is.

The Ugly

If anything, the debate reminded us that this election is far from over, and it's more important now than ever for Trump to win.

The most noteworthy occurrence of the debate was the blatantly obvious bias of the ABC debate moderators against Trump. Many people have described the debate as a "three vs. one dogpile," with the moderators actively participating in debating Trump. If you didn't believe that the media was in the back pocket of the Democrats before, it's hard to deny it now. Kamala stood on stage and lied repeatedly with impunity knowing that the moderators and the mainstream media at large would cover for her.

The stakes have never been higher. With so many forces arrayed against Trump, it's clear to see that the Left cannot afford to let Trump win this November. The shape of America as we know it is on the line. Kamala represents the final push by the globalist movement to take root and assimilate America into the growing global hivemind.

The election is far from over. This is our sign to stand up and fight for our nation and our values and save America.

Glenn: Illegal aliens could swing the 2024 election, and it spells trouble for Trump

ELIZABETH RUIZ / Stringer | Getty Images

Either Congress must pass the SAVE Act, or states must protect the integrity of their elections — especially the seven swing states that could shift the outcome of 2024 by a hair’s breadth.

Progressives rely on three main talking points about illegal aliens voting in our elections.

The first is one of cynical acceptance. They admit that illegal immigrants are already voting but argue that there is nothing we can do to stop it, suggesting that it’s just another factor we should expect in future elections. This position shows no respect for our electoral system or the rule of law and doesn’t warrant further attention.

This election will be very similar to 2020. It’s like football — a game of inches.

The second talking point targets the right. Progressives question why Republicans care, asking why they assume illegal immigrants voting would only benefit the other side. They suggest that some of these voters might also support the GOP.

On this point, the data says otherwise.

Across the board, immigrants vote overwhelmingly for Democrats, regardless of what state they’re in. The vast majority of migrants are coming up from South America, a region that is undergoing a current “left-wing” experiment by voting for far-left candidates practically across the board. Ninety-two percent of South America’s population favors the radical left, and they’re pouring over our border in record numbers — and, according to the data, they’re not changing their voting habits.

The third main talking point concedes that illegal immigrants are voting but not enough to make a significant dent in our elections — that their effect is minuscule.

That isn’t what the numbers show either.

Texas just audited its voter rolls and had to remove more than 1 million ineligible voters. The SAVE Act would mandate all states conduct such audits, but the left in Congress is currently trying to stop its passage. Dare I say that the left's pushback is because illegal immigration actually plays in Democrats' favor on Election Day?

Out of the 6,500 noncitizens removed from the voter rolls, nearly 2,000 had prior voting history, proving that illegal aliens are voting. But do the numbers matter, or are they “minuscule,” as the left claims? Let’s examine whether these illegal voting trends can make a dent in the states that matter the most on Election Day.

The corporate legacy media agree that Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin will swing the election in November. By Election Day, an estimated 8 million illegal aliens will be living in the United States. Can these 8 million illegal immigrants change the course of the 2024 election? Let’s look at the election data from each of these seven swing states:

These are the numbers being sold to us as “insignificant” and “not enough to make a difference.” Arizona and Georgia were won in 2020 by a razor-thin margin of approximately 10,000 votes, and they have the most illegal immigrants — besides North Carolina — of all the swing states.

This election will be very similar to 2020. It’s like football — a game of inches. The progressives are importing an electorate to extend their ground by feet, yards, and often miles.

This is why Democrats in Congress oppose the SAVE Act, why the Justice Department has ignored cases of illegal voting in the past, and why the corporate left-wing media is gaslighting the entire country on its significance. This is a power play, and the entire Western world is under the same assault.

If things stay the status quo, these numbers prove the very real possibility of an election swing by illegal immigrants, and it will not favor our side of the aisle. Congress must pass the SAVE Act. If it fails, states must step up to protect the integrity of their elections — especially the seven swing states that could shift the outcome of 2024 by a hair’s breadth.

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

Hunter pleads GUILTY, but did he get a pass on these 3 GLARING crimes?

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

Last week, Hunter Biden made the shocking decision to suddenly plead guilty to all nine charges of tax-related crimes after claiming innocence since 2018.

Hunter first tried an "Alford plead" in which a defendant maintains their innocence while accepting the sentencing, typically due to the overwhelming evidence against them. Hunter's Alford plead was not accepted after the prosecutors objected to the suggestion, and Hunter quickly pleaded guilty.

Glenn could not believe just how disrespectful this situation was to the justice system and the American people. After years of lying about his innocence, which only served to deepen the divide in our country, Hunter decided to change his tune at the last minute and admit his guilt. Moreover, many expect Joe Biden will swoop in after the election and bail his son out with a presidential pardon.

This isn't the first time Hunter's crimes have turned out to be more than just a "right-wing conspiracy theory," and, odds are, it won't be the last. Here are three crimes Hunter may or may not be guilty of:

Gun charges: Found guilty

This June, Hunter Biden was found guilty of three federal gun charges, which could possibly land him up to 25 years in prison. Hunter purchased a revolver in 2018 while addicted to crack, and lied to the gun dealer about his addiction. While Hunter could face up to 25 years in prison, it's unlikely to be the case as first-time offenders rarely receive the maximum sentence. That's assuming Joe even lets it go that far.

Tax evasion: Plead guilty

Last week, Hunter changed his plea to "guilty" after years of pleading innocent to federal tax evasion charges. Since 2018, Delaware attorneys have been working on Hunter's case, and just before the trial was set to begin, Hunter changed his plea. According to the investigation, Hunter owed upwards of $1.4 million in federal taxes that he avoided by writing them off as fraudulent business deductions. Instead, Hunter spent this money on strippers, escorts, luxury cars, hotels, and, undoubtedly, crack.

Joe's involvement with Hunter's foreign dealings: Yet to be proven

Despite repeated claims against it, there is ample evidence supporting the theory Joe Biden was aware of Hunter's business dealings and even had a hand in them. This includes testimony from Devon Archer, one of Hunter's business partners, confirming Joe joined several business calls. Despite the mounting evidence Joe Biden was involved in Hunter's overseas business dealings and was using his influence to Hunter's benefit, the Bidens still maintain their innocence.

Why do we know so much about the Georgia shooter but NOTHING about Trump's shooter?

Jessica McGowan / Stringer | Getty Images

It's only been a few days since the horrific shooting at the Apalachee High School in Winder, Georgia, and the shooter, Colt Gray, and his father, Colin Gray, have already made their first court appearance. Over the last few days, more and more information has come out about the shooter and his family, including details of Colt's troubled childhood and history of mental health issues. The FBI said Colton had been on their radar.

This situation has Glenn fired up, asking, "Why do we have an FBI?" It seems like every time there is a mass shooting, the FBI unhelpfully admits the shooter was "on the radar," but what good does that do? While it is great we know everything about the Georgia shooter, including what he got for Christmas, why do we still know next to NOTHING about Trump's would-be assassin? Here are three things we know about the Georgia shooter that we stilldon't know about the Trump shooter:

Digital footprint

Just a few days after the shooting, authorities have already released many details of the Georgia shooter, Colt Gray's, digital footprint. This includes extensive conversations and photographs revolving around school shootings that were pulled from Gray's Discord account, a digital messaging platform.

Compared to this, the FBI claims Thomas Crooks, the shooter who almost assassinated Donald Trump, had little to no digital footprint, and outside of an ominous message sent by Crooks on Steam (an online video game platform), we know nothing about his online activities. Doesn't it seem strange that Crooks, a young adult in 2024 who owned a cell phone and a laptop left behind no digital trail of any relevance to his crime?

Home life

The FBI has painted a vivid image of what Colt Gray's home life was like, including his troubling relationship with his parents. They released information about his parents' tumultuous divorce, being evicted from his home, several interactions with law enforcement and CPS, and abuse. Investigators also found written documents of Colt's related to other school shootings, suggesting he had been thinking of this for some time before committing the atrocity.

In contrast, we still know next to nothing about Crooks's home life.

How he got the weapon

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

Colt Gray was gifted the rifle he used in the shooting from his father for Christmas last year. We also know Colt's father is an avid hunter and would take Colt on hunting trips. In 2023, Colt was the subject of an investigation regarding a threat he made online to shoot up a school. During the interview, Colt stated he did not make the threat. Moreover, his father admitted to owning several firearms, but said Colt was not allowed full access to them. The investigation was later closed after the accusations could not be sustained.

In comparison, all we know is that Crooks stole his father's rifle and did not inform his parents of any part of his plan. We have no clue how Crooks acquired the rest of his equipment, which included nearly a hundred extra rounds of ammunition, a bullet-proof vest, and several homemade bombs. How did Crooks manage to acquire all of his equipment without the FBI taking notice?

It feels like the FBI is either incompetent or hiding important information from the American people. Or both.