Trump Breaks Promise to 'Lock Her Up'

This might get a little annoying. According to former Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway, the President-elect will not pursue criminal charges against Hillary Clinton, despite his inflammatory rhetoric on the campaign trail, during a presidential debate and the overwhelming evidence that Clinton lied.

"You get dizzy with all the lies. I feel like that's actually a Clinton strategy, right? If they throw enough lies at you, it's sort of like being in the batting cage . . . you've got a few of them firing at you at once, and you can't handle it," Buck Sexton said, filling in for Glenn on radio Tuesday.

While their political brand is forever damaged by years of scandals, it looks like the Clintons will get a pass once again.

"I don't think you can expect there will be a Clinton dynasty that, sort of, continues on after this whole. Remember, this is the second time Hillary has been the inevitable candidate. This is the second time the Clintons have had all of the media, all of the machinery behind them. They couldn't get it done either time. I mean, to borrow from W.: Fool me once, can't get fooled again," Buck said.

Whether Trump's political brand will be damaged by the backpedaling remains to be seen.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

BUCK: I've got some breaking news for you. Which is always fun when you're on radio and it's happening right as it's coming in. Donald Trump, according to a senior aide, I believe it's Kellyanne Conway, but Donald Trump has said that he will not pursue the criminal case against Hillary Clinton. That that is going to be off the table now.

Ooh. Some of you are probably a little annoyed about this. Others of you will think it's a good idea. I think we should spend some idea together talking about the pros and cons of doing this. Or, I should say, really, not doing this. Deciding to not continue the prosecution against Hillary Clinton.

I was a very early and vocal, not just critic of this whole thing. But I was telling everybody who would listen. I would go on CNN where I was a contributor. I would say, "Look, I had a TS clearance. I know the laws about this stuff pretty darn well. And there's no way what Hillary Clinton did in any way, shape, or form would just be sort of let go, if we were talking about somebody who wasn't a Clinton. There's just no way. It wouldn't happen." And, of course, early on, they were saying, "Oh, that's just conjecture from you. You don't really know -- there's no classified." Okay. There is classified. It wasn't marked classified. Actually, it was marked classified. Oh, she didn't know about it. Actually, she did know.

Oh, you get dizzy with all the lies. I feel like that's actually a Clinton strategy, right? If they throw enough lies at you, it's sort of like being in the batting cage. And it's just -- everything -- you've got a few of them firing at you at once, and you can't handle it. I haven't been in a batting cage in a while. It used to be kind of fun. So Trump is saying he won't go after Hillary.

A couple things about this -- on the -- let's start with the why this might upset some people. The first thing is that Trump was talking a lot during the campaign, as I think he should have, about how what Hillary did was very illegal, very wrong, and how there would be accountability. How, if you voted for Donald Trump, he would actually try to find some way. He would find some means of holding her accountable through the law.

And we knew that there was all kinds of funky stuff going on. Not funky like dance party. But funky like, "Hmm, that's not right." The head of the FBI went ahead of the Department of Justice -- they make the decision about prosecuting or not prosecuting. The head of the FBI went ahead and said that no reasonable federal prosecutor should bring charges. Shouldn't we have heard from the prosecutor? In this case, typically been from Loretta Lynch or one of her top officials. One of those who works for her at the DOJ.

But, no, it was Comey who went out, after Loretta Lynch had sat on that plane, on the tarmac, to talk about the future stuff. And they sat down. They had this discussion.

It all looked so bad. It looked terrible. Meanwhile, Trump is chanting, "Lock her up." His supporters are chanting, "Lock her up." This became one of the sort of rallying cries of the campaign.

"Lock her up." Could they, if you had appointed a special prosecutor, is it likely? Is it possible? Well, is it possible, first? How about that? And then is it likely that there could be criminal charges brought against Hillary Clinton for what she did? A direct and clear reading of the statute would be yes.

Now, what would the guidelines say about this sort of thing? She would probably take a plea deal. I think it's unlikely, even if she were a non-Clinton that she would go to jail. Probably pay a large fine. Have a number of years of -- a number of years of probation. And never hold a clearance for the rest of her life. And if she were also a non-political person -- meaning, if she just worked for an Intel agency or a military -- a branch of the military, she would be fired.

But that's probably what would happen. But Trump and his supporters were chanting lock her up. At least the implication there is, well, there she be a full-fledged investigation, absent the sort of politics that bails the Clintons out time and again, whether it's Bill or Hillary. Some could argue that this was a promise that was made.

This is on the negative side. And I think that there are going to be those in the Trump camp, or those who supported Trump all along, who see this and say to themselves, "is this the beginning of the waffling, the wavering, the undulating with the political winds?"

Is this going to be a moment in time when we all of a sudden realize, "Oh, Trump was saying that stuff to get elected, but he didn't really mean it?" Is this a broken promise?

I don't think we should go that far. But I don't know. And everyone is entitled to their opinion on this one. But on the negative side of things, you have that. Seems to be a sort of broken promise from Trump. And then also justice.

Hillary did things that are in clear violation of federal statute. Those of you listening who have had a security clearance or have a security clearance, worked in the national security side of things, whether military, Intel, or any of the jobs where you'd have to have a clearance, you know how crazy those rules are, how strict they are. And you probably think to yourself, "No. She should just be held accountable. Rule of law is rule of law. Rule of law doesn't mean exceptions for people based upon how important they are to one political party or another, how connected they are, how much strife it will cause within our political discussions, if they're actually held to account with the law."

So you probably think that a special prosecutor appointed by Donald Trump would be a good idea, if you take that position.

Now, let's look at the other side for a moment. Because this is -- this is pretty big because this means now that the Clintons are going to be able to sort of go off into the sunset. We'll see what the donations are like to the Clinton Foundation. I have a feeling that they're going to be plummeting dramatically over the next year or two.

I also think that the speeches that Bill and Hillary will give will be at quite a discounted rate. They will be rock-bottom prices, compared to what they were before, which will prove all of us who were saying that Hillary wasn't selling a speech, she wasn't selling wisdom, she wasn't even selling -- or -- and Bill too. They weren't selling this sort of gravitas that they give an organization. They were selling access or at least the appearance of access, which is just as bad.

Meaning the people buying it, thought that's what they were buying. All right? You can't take money -- you can't be a politician and take money from somebody and say, "Yeah, I'll make sure we pass that bill you want me to pass. Don't worry about it. I've got it covered." And then if the FBI is running a sting and you've taken that paper bag full of cash, you don't get to say, "Well, I wasn't really going to vote that way." Come on. Come on. That's not how it works.

So the Clintons get to continue on. I think that their brand is -- their political brand is forever damaged by all of this. I don't think you can expect there will be a Clinton dynasty that sort of continues on after this whole -- remember, this is the second time Hillary has been the inevitable candidate. This is the second time the Clintons have had all of the media, all of the machinery behind them. They couldn't get it done either time. I mean, to borrow from W.: Fool me once, can't get fooled again. Get can't get fooled again.

So -- now, let's look at the, this is a good idea for Trump side of the issue. And I will tell you, to be up front about it, I think it is. And I know some of you -- oh, I'm going to get some emails, I'm going to get some Facebook messages from current or former military or Intel -- some of my Intel brothers inside Langley and other places. They're going to be mad at me for this one, and I understand that. But let me make my case about why I think this is the right move for Trump.

As long as you're okay with Trump kind of breaking his word on this one. Lock her up was just theatrics, I guess. Okay. It was just theatrics.

Or maybe you just take the position that he looked on the facts and he's changing his mind based on the circumstances of today. That's usually what politicians do, by the way. When they want to change their mind about something, they go out and they tell you, "Well, things are different now." Are they different because they are, or because the politician wants them to be? I leave that to you.

So by Trump not pursuing this, you have, one, the possibility of unity. Do you buy that?

Given that the Democrats are hell-bent, it seems, on creating the perception that Trump is the sort of modern reincarnation of either the KKK or the neo-Nazis. Or the -- I -- the alt-right neo-Nazi KKK consortium -- whatever it is. They seem to be under the impression that they can convince -- if they just keep hammering this, they will convince Americans that that's who Donald Trump is. And so they stay on this -- which makes it seem like unity is kind of a tough thing to pull off. Right?

It's one thing when you disagree with the top marginal tax rate. It's one thing when you disagree with how to handle ballooning entitlement spending because of the Baby Boomers. You can disagree on that and still sit down and be friends at the end of the day.

And I hope that that's where we actually get in our politics. It's a whole 'nother situation though when one side is just pointing a finger at the other side and saying, "You support somebody who is morally the equivalent of a KKK member." Maybe not actually in the KKK. But somebody who is really, really bad.

It's tough to sit down with them and say, "Yeah, let's have a civil discussion about all of this." But unity -- if you're looking for reasons why Trump would decide not to pursue charges. And this is just breaking now.

Not to pursue charges against Hillary Clinton for what she did with her email. Oh, by the way, I believe also that means for what she did at the Clinton Foundation. That one's tough to take too. Because the legacy of the Clintons, really, more than anything else, is going to be the creation of a vast international enterprise under the guise of a charity that was really using charity as a front for creating a tremendous amount of political clout and brand value and cronies getting all sorts of payoffs and money and paying salaries. And building an enterprise that is really a for-profit under the guise of a nonprofit. A for-profit for the Clintons.

The end goal of which, was not just to make them rich, but also to make Hillary Clinton president. So that's gone too.

But, okay, unity, that's one reason. Then there's another one, but this is sort of a contingent reason, right?

So on the one hand, we've got, this is bad. Trump is breaking his word. Trump is also not pursuing justice. You can take that position. By not going after Hillary with a special prosecutor in -- during his presidency. I guess we could also, by the way -- just throw this out there, just to make things really crazy, Trump could also change his mind on this. We had a couple of months. He could be like, "Yeah, you know, I've decided, actually, she's pretty bad. We're going to go for it." All right. But let's just assume that he's going to keep his word on this one or that this report is true.

Then there's the possibility of just the Machiavellian side of this. Trump looks a bit magnanimous in the process, right? There will be some good will created here. Maybe it's a distraction for the Trump administration that actually realizes that they have a wide open field to do incredible things for this country.

Got a Republican House. A Republican Senate. Tons of Republican governorships. Republican statehouses. Wide open. He's made these promises. The people have spoken. We have voted. People want some of the stuff that Trump has said he would do to actually happen. Maybe he realizes that's much more important to many of us, to most of us, than settling a score with Hillary Clinton. And so by doing this, he sort of looks magnanimous in the process. And he looks like he's being gracious, gracious to the other side.

Do I think he'll be rewarded by the other side for this graciousness? No, no, I do not. I think that would be a naive point of view for you to take on it. But those of fair mind, for those of open mind, for those who are willing to at least judge Donald Trump based on what he does now as president, I'd have to say that moving beyond the prosecution of Hillary Clinton -- again, this sort of ties in for the purposes of unity. But it makes Trump look good. It will make him look good.

There's one more thing I want to throw in there, he says he's not going to prosecute her -- or, he's not -- I should say, continue the investigation.

But if he appointed a special prosecutor, I mean, over a hundred classified emails. I mean, this is not hard. They wanted to go after her.

They gave her a special pass, created this well-she-didn't-mean-to exception for a federal statute, for which, when you talk about the handling of classified information, there is no special, oopsies -- Oopsies loophole. The other side of this is, what if he decides that he's going to pardon her?

Now, sort of like a political endorsement that you didn't ask for. A pardon sticks to you no matter what. Hillary could say, "Well, I didn't want this pardon." It doesn't matter. He can say he's not going to investigate her, but just to be a super-duper nice guy, he pardons Hillary Clinton for the email situation. Maybe just that, so that if people want to dig up some other stuff from the past, that's on them. But he pardons her for the email situation.

Now you have the would-be standard -- or, the former standard-bearer and would-be president of the Democratic Party with a pardon for criminal activity on her record.

Trump looks magnanimous in the process. Trump looks like he's trying to achieve unity.

And anytime somebody brings up Hillary and the popular vote, they'll be like, "Hillary is lucky that she's not walking around in an orange jumpsuit because did you hear about the pardon?" A little Machiavellian. Anything that could stop Trump from doing this? Not that I'm aware of.

Anything that makes me think that Trump might do this? Yeah. It makes a lot of sense, when you think about it.

Going into a break. We'll be right back.

Featured Image: Getty Images

Protests following the fatal police shooting of Walter Wallace Jr quickly devolved into violence, rioting, and looting in Philadelphia, and BlazeTV's Elijah Schaffer was there to document what the mainstream media won't. But while filming the carnage inside a Five Below on Tuesday, Elijah was surrounded and attacked by looters.

Elijah joined Glenn Beck on the radio program Wednesday to detail his experience and to explain why mainstream media efforts to downplay the violence just show that independent media has never been more important.

"Unfortunately, [the attack] escalated from one person to about a dozen very quickly," Elijah explained. "I'm actually really happy to be alive. Because in that same shopping center, right there, there was a 15-year-old girl who was shot, according to reports. And I heard multiple gunshots throughout the night. Another individual is reported to have heard a gunshot as well, so we try to confirm. I watched people get pummeled beyond belief."

Glenn asked Elijah to respond to mainstream media claims that conservatives are exaggerating the looting and violence in Philadelphia.

"It's so funny to hear people that aren't there try to counter what we're reporting," Elijah replied.

Watch the video below to catch more of the conversation:

Subscribe to BlazeTV today with our BEST DEAL EVER for $30 off with promo code GLENN.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

In the final days before the 2020 election, President Donald Trump is gaining among black voters, particularly men, because his record of accomplishments "speaks for itself" and the "façade" that President Trump is a racist "just doesn't ring true," argued sports columnist Jason Whitlock on "The Glenn Beck Radio Program" Tuesday.

Jason, who recently interviewed the president at the White House for OutKick.com, shared his thoughts on why he believes many black Americans — notably celebrities such as Kanye West, Ice Cube, and 50 Cent — are breaking from the "façade" that President Trump is a "flaming racist."

"I really believe the facts are starting to speak for themselves, and that Donald Trump's record of accomplishments, particularly as it relates to African Americans, speaks for itself," Jason told Glenn. "He actually has a record to stand on, unlike even Barack Obama. When [Obama] was president, I don't think he had much of a record to stand on, in terms of, 'Hey, what did he actually deliver for African Americans?' President Trump has things he can stand on and, you know, beyond that I think black people understand when he starts talking about black unemployment rate. And America's unemployment rate. And then, when you add in for black men, the façade we've been putting on [President Trump] … you know, this whole thing that he's some flaming racist, it just doesn't ring true."

Jason suggested that Trump's fearlessness, unabashed masculinity, and record of keeping his promises resonates with men in the black community. He also weighed in on how media and social media's bias plays a huge role in convincing people to hate President Trump while ignoring Antifa and others on the Left.

"I keep explaining to people, Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, they're some of the most secular places on earth. And we've reduced everyone to a tweet, that we disagree with," he added.

Watch the video below to catch more of the conversation:

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Megyn Kelly is not happy about the "disgusting" media coverage of President Donald Trump, specifically pointing to Lesley Stahl's "60 Minutes" interview on CBS Sunday.

On the radio program, Megyn told Glenn Beck the media has become so blinded by the "Trump Derangement Syndrome" that they've lost their own credibility — and now they can't get it back.

"It's disgusting. It's stomach-turning," Megyn said of the media's coverage of the president. "But it's just a continuation of what we've seen over the past couple of years. Their 'Trump Derangement Syndrome' has blinded them to what they're doing to their own credibility. They can't get it back. It's too late. They've already sacrificed it. And now no one is listening to them other than the hard partisans for whom they craft their news."

Megyn also discussed how she would have covered the recent stories about Hunter and Joe Biden's alleged corruption. Watch the video below to catch more of the conversation:


Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Imagine sometime next year, getting called before HUWAC – the House Un-Woke Activities Committee.

"Are you or have you ever been a member of the un-woke?"

Something like that is not as far-fetched as you might think.

Last week, Robert Reich, the former Secretary of Labor during the Clinton administration, now a UC Berkeley professor, tweeted this:

Since the 1970s, there have been dozens of "Truth Commissions" around the world like the kind Robert Reich wants in America. Most of these have been set up in Africa and Latin America. Usually it happens in countries after a civil war, or where there's been a regime change – a dictator is finally overthrown, and a commission is set up to address atrocities that happened under the dictator. Or, as in the commissions in East Germany and Czechoslovakia, atrocities under communism. Or, in the most famous example, South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation commission addressed the decades of apartheid that ravaged that nation.

These commissions usually conclude with an official final report. These commissions and reports have served as a means of governments trying to close a dark chapter of their country's history, or provide emotional catharsis, as a way to generally move on. Sometimes it kind of works for people, most of the time it leaves people clamoring for more justice.

Here's how one professor described truth commissions in an article in The Conversation last year. He wrote:

The goal of a truth commission… is to hold public hearings to establish the scale and impact of a past injustice, typically involving wide-scale human rights abuses, and make it part of the permanent, unassailable public record. Truth commissions also officially recognize victims and perpetrators in an effort to move beyond the painful past… Some have been used cynically as tools for governments to legitimize themselves by pretending they have dealt with painful history when they have only kicked the can down the road.

See, this is the problem with a lot of "Truth" commissions – they are inherently political. Even if you trust your government and give them all the benefit of the doubt in the world that their Truth commission is trying to do the right thing, it is ALWAYS going to be political. Because these truth commissions are never set up by those who have LOST power in government. They're always established by those who have WON power.

The Deputy Executive Director of the International Center for Transitional Justice says one of the main points in these Truth commissions is that "the victims become protagonists."

A Department of Anti-racism is entirely within the realm of possibility.

So, who are the victims in Robert Reich's America? People like him, members of the far-Left who had to endure the atrocities of four years of a president with different political ideas. What an injustice. I mean, the left's suffering during the Trump administration is almost on the level of apartheid or genocide – so we totally need a Truth commission.

There have been lots of calls for the U.S. to have its own Truth and Reconciliation commission, especially around racial injustice.

This past June, Democratic Congresswoman Barbara Lee of California introduced legislation to establish the " United States Commission on Truth, Racial Healing, and Transformation."

Ibram X. Kendi – the high priest of anti-racism, and author of Target's current favorite book " Antiracist Baby" – proposes a Constitutional anti-racism amendment. This amendment would:

establish and permanently fund the Department of Anti-racism (DOA) comprised of formally trained experts on racism and no political appointees. The DOA would be responsible for pre-clearing all local, state and federal public policies to ensure they won't yield racial inequity, monitor those policies, investigate private racist policies when racial inequity surfaces, and monitor public officials for expressions of racist ideas. The DOA would be empowered with disciplinary tools to wield over and against policymakers and public officials who do not voluntarily change their racist policy and ideas.

If you think that is far-fetched, you haven't been paying attention to the Left's growing radicalism. In a Joe Biden-Kamala Harris administration, a Department of Anti-racism is entirely within the realm of possibility. And of course, such a DOA would never stop at policing government.

We're in a dangerous, precarious moment in our history. Given the events of 2020, should Democrats gain the White House, the Senate, and the House, how many commissions will be in our future? They will suddenly have plenty of political capital to drag the nation through years of commission hearings.

And the Left's form of justice is never satisfied. You think it will stop at a T&R commission on race? MSNBC's Chris Hayes tweeted this month about the need for a commission to deal with Americans who are skeptical about wearing masks:

Or what about a Truth commission on religion? I mean, look at those reckless churches spreading Covid this year. Or this would be a big one – a T&R commission on climate change deniers.

The Left is highly selective when it comes to truth. That's why they are the very last group you want in charge of anything with "Truth and Reconciliation" in the title.

This is one of the most incredibly frustrating things about the Left in America today. The Left insists there is no such thing as absolute truth, while simultaneously insisting there are certain approved truths that are undeniable.

So, you can't question "Science" – even though that's pretty much what every great scientist in history did.

You can't question racism as the explanation for all of existence – because, well, just because.

You can't question third-party "Fact-checkers" – because the powers that be, mainly Big Tech right now, have decided they are the Truth referees and you have to trust what they say because they're using certified external fact-checkers. They just forgot to tell you that they actually fund these third-party fact-checkers. It's like if McDonald's told you to trust third-party health inspectors that they were paying for.

The Left thinks it has a monopoly on Truth. They're the enlightened ones, because they've had the correct instruction, they're privy to the actual facts. It's psychotic arrogance. If you don't buy what they're selling, even if you're just skeptical of it, it's because you either don't have the facts, you willingly deny the facts, or you're simply incapable of grasping the truth because you're blinded by your raging racism problem. It's most likely the racism problem.

The Left never learns from its own preaching. For the past 60-plus years they've decried the House Un-American Activities Committee for trying to root out communists, getting people canceled, ruining Hollywood careers, etcetera. But a HUAC-type committee is precisely what Robert Reich is describing and many on the Left want. It's not enough for Trump to be voted out of office. Americans who helped put him there must be punished. They don't want reconciliation, they want retribution. Because the Left doesn't simply loathe Donald Trump, the Left loathes YOU.