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

Soros is trying to elect MORE TEXAS RINOs. Here's how YOU can stop him.

David McNew / Staff | Getty Images

Texas is under threat of a George Soros-backed takeover.

Soros-funded RINO judges have been elected in some of the highest courts in Texas. These judges implemented restrictions that have blocked nearly a thousand cases of voter fraud from being investigated or prosecuted from across the state. These new restrictions are similar to ones in place in states like George, Arizona, and Wisconsin, leaving Texas more susceptible to election corruption than ever. If Texas falls to corruption, America will lose its largest bastion of conservative electoral power in the nation. Without Texas, Republicans WILL NOT be able to win national elections and liberal corruption will go unchecked across the country.

Fortunately, there is a way to stop this: YOU.

If you live in Texas you have a chance to stand up against corruption and to fight back! Starting Tuesday, February 20th, early voting for the primaries begins, where three of these judges are up for election. Go out and vote. If the right people are voted in, there's a good chance the restrictions will be lifted and election fraud can once again be prosecuted.

But remember, you can't just go in and vote for anyone who has an "R" next to their name. Sorors knows that a registered Democrat would never stand a chance in Texas, so his lackeys register as Republicans and ride the little "R" right into office. So who do you vote for?

Fortunately, Glenn had Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on his show today and Ken gave us his list of judges that he vouches for. His list is as follows:

  • Gina Parker
  • Lee Finley
  • David Schenck
The Primary Election runs from February 20th to March 5th. This is your chance to get out there and make a difference. It might be the most important election you ever participate in. If you need to know where your nearest polling location is, or any other information regarding the election, you can go to votetexas.gov to find out more.
It's time to stand up.

Hypocrisy EXPOSED: The 'Amazon Files' and what WE are doing about it

SOPA Images / Contributor | Getty Images

Who is really banning books?

For years now, Conservatives have been taking flak from the left for supposed "book bans." The left likes to compare these "bans" to Nazi book burnings, accusing the right of sweeping authoritarian decrees designed to suppress information. In reality, this is a movement largely motivated by parents, who want to remove inappropriate books from children's libraries.

But if you want to discuss authoritarian book bans, look no further than the White House. As Glenn recently covered, the Biden administration has been pressuring the world's largest bookseller, Amazon, into suppressing books they disagree with.

On February 5th, 2024, Ohio Representative Jim Jordan released a slew of subpoenaed documents that exposed pressure placed on Amazon by the Biden Administration. The documents, which Jordan dubbed "The Amazon Files" after Elon Musk's "The Twitter Files," revealed an email conversation between Andrew Slavitt, a former White House senior adviser, and Amazon employees. In these emails, Slavitt complained that the top search results for books on "vaccines" were "concerning" and then requested that Amazon intervene. Amazon initially refused, not out of some altruistic concern for the free exchange of information. They thought any action taken would be "too visible" and would further exasperate the “Harry/Sally narrative,” referring to the outrage that followed Amazon's removal of Ryan T. Anderson’s book When Harry Became Sally.

Despite this initial refusal, Amazon agreed to meet with the White House a few days later. The number one item on their agenda was removing books from the website. An Amazon employee even admitted that the reason they even took this meeting was due to the pressure being placed on them by the Biden Administration.

What was the result of this meeting? Amazon caved. They began to implement ways of limiting the outreach of books that challenged the mainstream vaccine narrative and other books the White House might not like.

The White House was caught red-handed pressuring the world's largest bookseller to restrict the sale of books they consider in opposition to their narrative, and they have the gall to accuse conservatives of information suppression. This is just ONE of many actions committed by the Biden Administration that are more characteristic of a dictator than a president.

What can you do about it? Fortunately, you are not dependent on Amazon and its corrupted algorithm to help you find books. Every week right here on GlennBeck.com, we highlight books that Glenn is reading or talking about in our "Glenn's Bookshelf" series. Here you can find a wide selection of books free from Amazon's filters. Be sure to sign up for Glenn's newsletter to find out about new additions to "Glenn's Bookshelf" every week.

10 times Biden has acted like a DICTATOR

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The left-wing media's most recent tirade is accusing Trump of being a dictator. But, as Glenn said, "Everything they're accusing us of, they're doing."

Since day one, the Biden administration has overstepped the bounds placed on the executive branch set by the Constitution. In Glenn's most recent TV Special, he examined ten times Biden acted like a dictator, NOT a president. Here are 10 of Biden's Dictator Moves, and click HERE to get ALL of the research that went into this week's Glenn TV special:

5 ways to protect your First Amendment rights. Number 4 will surprise you.

Buyenlarge / Contributor | Getty Images

Every day it seems Glenn covers another story revealing how people across the world at all levels of power DESPISE the fact that YOU have rights, and they are actively trying to curtail them. Recently, there has been a string of attacks against the rights outlined in the First Amendment: the freedom of religion, the freedom of speech, the freedom of press, the freedom of assembly, and the freedom to petition.

As a refresher, the First Amendment reads as follows:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

This is powerful stuff, there is a good reason the Founding Fathers made it the FIRST Amendment. It's also the reason why power-hungry elites are attacking it. These attacks are designed to control the way you think, speak, and believe, vote, what you read, and who holds your representatives responsible. The First Amendment is our strongest weapon against tyrants, and they know it.

So what can you do about it? Hope that some wig in Washinton will eventually do something? We know how well that works. The best thing to do is to stay active, engage in the issues you care about, and exercise your rights.

So where to start? Here are a few things YOU can do to protect your First Amendment rights:

Religion

The best way to flex your Freedom of Religion is to—you guessed it—practice your faith. Become an active member in your place of worship, go to scripture studies, invite your friends to that late afternoon event, and walk the life. This can impact the way you spend money as well. Shop the businesses and brands that share your values, and don't shop at the ones that scorn them. Keeping the community alive and healthy is the best way to ensure that generations to come will be able to experience the freedom you enjoy.

Speech

Much like religion, the best way to protect your freedom of speech is... to speak. Engage your friends and family in polite, civil conversation. Stand up for what you believe in, and make your case to your peers. Just remember to keep it friendly. No one ever won an argument by shouting down their opponent. The civil exchange of ideas is the cornerstone of our republic, and a dialogue where the participants are well-informed, considerate, compassionate, and open-minded can have permanent impacts on all involved.

Press

Freedom of the Press seems a little tricky at first. Unless you work for the media, what are you supposed to do? Quit your job and go work for the local newspaper? The good news is that exercising this right is not nearly that difficult. In fact, you are currently doing it. The best thing you can do is to read from outlets that produce informative content. Want to know what Glenn consumes to stay informed every day? Sign up for Glenn's Morning Brief newsletter to get all the stories Glenn gets sent to his desk every day sent straight to your inbox.

Assembly

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

Freedom of assembly is one of the more impactful yet underutilized freedoms in the First Amendment. Peaceably assembling and protesting with like-minded individuals can hugely influence politicians and policies while simultaneously creating community and fellowship between attendees. It's understandable why more people don't turn out. We're all busy people with busy schedules, and flying out to D.C. for the weekend seems like a daunting task to many. Thankfully, you don't have to go out all the way to D.C. to make a difference. Gather some like-minded people in your town and bring awareness to issues that impact your community. Big change starts locally, and exercising your freedom to assemble can be the catalyst to lasting impact.

Petition

If you've been a long-time listener of Glenn, then you will have heard a few of his calls to action where he asks his audience to contact their representatives about a particular piece of policy. There is a good reason Glenn keeps on doing those: they work. Whether it's your local mayor or your senator, a call and an email go a long way. If you really want to make a change, convince your friends and family to reach out as well.