GLENN

Glenn Speaks With Father of Boy Removed From Home by CPS

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

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

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

Enjoy the complimentary clip or read the transcript for details.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

VOICE: Hi. We're great.

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

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

STU: Wow.

GLENN: Oh. By a court?

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

PAT: Wow. That's great.

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

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

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

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

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

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

GLENN: How do you mean?

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

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

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

CHRISTIAN: Yes, exactly.

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

CHRISTIAN: Yes, correct.

GLENN: Got it. Got it. Go ahead.

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

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

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

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

PAT: But it's unconstitutional.

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

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

GLENN: Somebody's got to do something.

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

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

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

PAT: Wow.

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

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

GLENN: How did you respond to that?

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

PAT: Wow.

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

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

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

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

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

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

GLENN: Sure.

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

GLENN: Sure. Sure.

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

GLENN: Amen.

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

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

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

It is absolute craziness what we allow.

Okay. So -- go ahead.

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

GLENN: So what do you do for a living?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

STU: Right.

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

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

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

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

(chuckling)

PAT: Hmm.

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

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

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

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

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

GLENN: And what's that going to decide?

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

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

STU: Justina Pelletier.

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

STU: There's a GoFundMe page, right?

GLENN: There's a GoFundMe page?

CHRISTIAN: Yes.

GLENN: What is it?

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

PAT: Okay.

GLENN: All right.

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

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

Is it Katie? Is Katie there?

Hi, Katie.

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

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

GLENN: How are you holding up?

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

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

KATIE: I'm a mail carrier.

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

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

Why Biden's Regime Wants to Brand YOU a 'Christian Nationalist' | Glenn TV | Ep 337
TV

Why Biden's Regime Wants to Brand YOU a 'Christian Nationalist' | Glenn TV | Ep 337

Blaze Media journalist Steve Baker has been arrested by the FBI. His “crime”? Reporting from the Capitol on January 6, 2021, and exposing the Biden regime’s corrupt campaign to brand political dissenters as “insurrectionists” and “extremists.” But there’s a new “threat” that the regime is targeting. It has partnered with the media, Big Tech, and private corporations to create the narrative that Christian conservatives are just a step away from domestic terrorists. And it all begins with their newest label: “Christian nationalist.” Politico has already deployed it to falsely claim that former Trump official Russ Vought and the Heritage Foundation are trying to usher in a theocracy with “Project 2025.” But what does “Christian nationalism” really mean? Should Christians embrace the term, or is this all a trap? Glenn breaks it all down, including why he believes this is an attempt to crack down on your God-given rights. Glenn also speaks with FBI whistleblower Steve Friend, who has some strong words for the FBI agents in charge of Steve Baker’s arrest and a warning about how weaponized the agency has already become against Christians.

House Releases 5,000 Hours of Jan. 6 CCTV Footage, Will Release ALL 40K Hours
RADIO

House Releases 5,000 Hours of Jan. 6 CCTV Footage, Will Release ALL 40K Hours

House Republicans are moving forward with their promise to release all 40,000+ hours of CCTV footage from the events of January 6, 2021. Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-GA) joins Glenn to announce the release of 5,000 hours of footage, partially in response to the FBI’s arrest of Blaze Media journalist Steve Baker. Plus, he tells Glenn that the House plans to release the rest of the footage over the next 8 weeks.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Congressman Loudermilk is on now. He has an announcement of his own today, that I think kind of ties into this. But I don't know what it is. Barry, welcome to the program.

BARRY: Glenn, it's always good to be with you. Not necessarily under these circumstances. But thank you and Steve for the resilience through all this. It's terrible. It's ridiculous. But it's sort of like what my dad told me. He was a medic in World War II. Was involved in the D-Day invasion. Battle of the Bulge, all the way into Germany.

And he used to tell me that, Glenn, they don't shoot at you until you're taking their ground.

GLENN: I know.

BARRY: And we must be over the target. We're taking this --

GLENN: Well, we know, we are, Barry.

You've been a big part of helping us get access to all of the video footage.

And we know we are.

The more footage that is released, the more this looks like a total and complete setup and lie.

BARRY: Well, that's part of the transparency part of the Constitution. That's why we have the freedom of the press, to be able to be transparent and hold government accountable.

And this is why they're trying to strip away, and as you just said, if you're going to go after Steve Baker, you need to go after the dozens of other reporters, that were present, in the Capitol that day. Who didn't do anything wrong. That's why we wanted to make sure that we got these video, regarding Steve and where he was, out early.

GLENN: And I know you guys have worked all night to do that. We got it early, early this morning. And I can't thank you enough for that, Congressman.

BARRY: Yeah. And our staff, I cannot commend them enough. I mean, we have this blue-like thing going through everywhere.

I think half our staff has been sick. Including me this week. But they stayed late. And got this done.

But they were also pushing to make sure we were doing something else today. Literally, just before I came on. Speaker Johnson released what we've been working on, over the past the several -- several weeks.

Is today, I did additional 5,000 hours of video footage.

Will be available on Rumble.

It's going to be rolling out throughout the day. It's taken us a while to get this because it's a technical process.

You've got to convert these video from the CCTV format, into an internet-friendly format. And when we first started doing this, when Speaker Johnson said, let's get them all out there. It was just taking our investigative team, of full-time -- just trying to get all this processed, which was taking us away from the other parts of the investigation.

GLENN: So how many -- how many hours are there in total?

I mean, I know you're going to release 5,000 hours. Is that all of it? Or...

RIKKI: No, no.

We're going to continue doing. Our goal is to continue doing about 1200 hours a day, if we can, through the processing.

So what we've done, I just went to the speaker. I said, look, it's taking all of our time.

I agree with you. We should get all of this on you the there.

But it's taking our investigative teams time just doing this.

And it's taking away from the other important points of investigating January 6. The light and selective committee.

And how they violated rules. And how their report is just a fabrication.

And so I suggested, can we just contract?

Can we find a contractor?

And hire a contractor to come in, and start the process of getting all these videos uploaded. And so he approved it.

And so it took us just a little bit of time to get the contract done. The contractor is working on getting the videos uploaded.

So the 5,000 will be available today.

It may take a little while for them to propagate through the system on rumble.

But we are going to continue every week, with rolling out more and more, just -- you know, anticipating some technical issues or whatever.

We're looking at maybe eight weeks.

That we should have all 40,000 hours up.

GLENN: Barry, is this because of Steve or partly because of what's going on, or the timing?

BARRY: The videos that we're releasing the prioritization of which videos of which we decided to do first.

Is partially because of what Steve is going through.

We -- because that is important to get those angles and those things out.

And it helps us to work on both at one time. And so that was part of it, because we see the direction that certain people are going, and what they're trying to cover up.

And so, we're going to get all the video out there. But we did prioritize some of these angles, and these footages.

And that's what we're looking at. What are the most important to support, the findings in our investigation. As well as, I mean, Steve has been a great team player with us. You know, he gets information. And when he gets something that he thinks is valuable to our investigation. He'll share it with us.

GLENN: We offered it all to -- he offered all of it to the FBI. And, I mean, on day one, when he had it. He was like, if you need it, you can have it.

I mean, he was documenting -- I don't want to get into it.

Congressman Barry Loudermilk from Georgia. Thank you, sincerely, thank you. Appreciate it.

BARRY: Thank you, Glenn. Well, we appreciate all you're doing, and definitely our prayers are with you. I mean, this is -- this is horrendous. It's terrible. We're going to be there, to make sure that justice is done. And -- and that means that the freedom. Our Constitution is upheld. And the truth be known.

GLENN: Yes. Thank you so much, Congressman. Congressman Barry Loudermilk from Georgia. A true friend indeed.

WATCH: FBI ARRESTS, Handcuffs, & Charges a JOURNALIST Over Jan. 6 Reporting
RADIO

WATCH: FBI ARRESTS, Handcuffs, & Charges a JOURNALIST Over Jan. 6 Reporting

Blaze Media investigative journalist Steve Baker has been arrested, arraigned, and handcuffed by the FBI on charges related to his reporting at the Capitol on January 6, 2021. Glenn reveals the charges, as well as a segment of CCTV footage that House Republicans released to Blaze Media that suggests a different story. Plus, BlazeTV contributor Jill Savage gives an update from the Dallas, TX, courthouse.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: We welcome to the program now Jill savage.

She is a Blaze TV contributor.

And following this story, this is going to be breaking news all day. We don't believe anyone else will cover it. That's why it is so crucial that we cover it. And you spread the news. Or -- or honestly, America just goes down another road, that is unthinkable.

The FBI arrested a Blaze TV reporter. Jill, what do you know, so far.

JILL: Well, we know he will be in court at 10:00 a.m.

He's already self-surrendered at 7:00 a.m. this morning. They handcuffed him. And this is -- it's interesting, because we think there will be four misdemeanor charges.

Right? That's what they've told us so far.

We don't know that for a fact. He's not been told the charges up until this point.

Because they said, they were scared he would tweet out the charges.

Well, at some point, this will all become public record.

So they're also afraid. He is afraid, that it is three or four misdemeanors.

How many misdemeanors?

JILL: Four.

GLENN: Four misdemeanors. But he feels like they will use those four misdemeanors to -- as enticement. You just say you did wrong, otherwise we bump it up to a felony.

But for the life of me, I cannot understand what -- what even the misdemeanors are. You know, they were parading. What were some of the other ones that they charge people with?

He's not parading. He went as a journalist. And we have, and we'll show you in a few minutes. We just got in the middle of the night, from Barry Loudermilk's office and the Speaker of the House. Those two have just been amazing. They got all of the tape of Steve, reporting in the Capitol on January 6th.

And so we have all of the -- I think there might be a couple more minutes. I don't know.

We don't know how complete it is. But it's fairly complete of him in the Capitol that day, just reporting.

And our understanding is, from the Capitol, that there is no parading. There's nothing, but journalism, taking photographs.

Taking video. And reporting.

JILL: Yeah. Steve Baker is a Blaze media reporter now. But on the day of January 6th.

When he went into the Capitol building. He was an independent reporter. He said, he went in trying to document the day. He said, he didn't know what January 6th was going to turn into. He just followed the story where it went. He was outside with the crowd, and said, okay. A lot of people are going in the building, let me go see what's going on in there. And from that, they are now turning his life into hell. And you can see, that they are not just going out. And he said, they could have easily just said, an order to appear in front of the court today. But that's not what they did. They put an actual arrest warrant out for him. And Steve this weekend asked his lawyer, why are they doing this to me? And his lawyer looked at him and said, you know why they're doing this to you. You've poked them for three years.

That's the other point. They've been doing this to him for almost three years now.

In December of 2023, they said an arrest warrant would be imminent. They've been making him wait and wait for these charges to come down. He's just living his life, thinking, okay. What time is this going to happen to me?

GLENN: When you know people have been railroaded and if they didn't cooperate, they got 20 years, 20 years!

This is like a cancer diagnosis. Can you imagine, the doctor saying, you might have cancer. You might be fine.

Here. I'm going to give you the results of your test. They're imminent, any day now. And then you wait two and a half years.

That's -- they're making the process, the punishment. Because they don't have anything.

And so they're making -- they're setting an example by scaring everyone. And I swear to you, America. If you don't wake up on this one, if these reporters, if these journalists don't report this. May God have mercy on your soul! For what you've done to the republic. This is a journalist. That is being arrested. And you say nothing?

May God have mercy on your soul.

So they arrested him. Now, they told him to show up in shorts and sandals, right?

JILL: Right.

STU: Which you just can't picture -- told him, I can't picture you in flip-flops. He does not look like a man who has ever worn flip-flops in his entire life.

GLENN: No.

JILL: And theoretically, it's to make it easier just to put the orange jumpsuit on, and put the chains on. And go through, right? They want to make this as humiliating as possible. This is not just, here, let's do X, Y, and Z. Let's go through by the book. No. We want to humiliate you. That's why we're telling you, not what charges you're facing. But we're telling you to show up in shorts and flip-flops.

GLENN: So this is what is what happened about an hour ago. Do we have the video of Steve?

STU: Not wearing shorts and flip-flops notably?

GLENN: No. He went in a suit. And he's on his way to the FBI. There's first picture of him.

Do we have the video of him being handcuffed?

That's all we have right now. But he was -- I am told, I have not seen the video. I am told that he was -- he was leaned up against the car.

And then his face was pushed down on to the -- on to the hood.

STU: Come on.

GLENN: And he was handcuffed.

They're going to put leg irons on him, and an orange yomps.

Now, for four misdemeanors, why do you need leg irons?

JILL: It's all the humiliation game.

And that's exactly what -- everything is going back to. None of this needed to happen. The way that it is.

I hope that that is what people take away from today. None of this needed to happen this way.

It could have been an order to appear in front of the court. It didn't have to be duress. It didn't have to be an orange yomps. It didn't have to be with the chains.

But they're doing this for show.

STU: He told me yesterday, Glenn. That the fifth person to breach the Capitol building.

The fifth, was a New York Times journalist.

GLENN: Who went through the window.

STU: The window. The broken window. The fifth one.

Now, look, I am not at all advocating that the New York Times journalist who went in there, should be arrested. Should not.

Quite clearly, this is a story worth covering, and it's -- it's vitally important we have video that Steve took. Which, by the way, was then used by documentaries.

GLENN: HBO.

STU: By the House -- the -- whatever that counsel -- the committee was.

GLENN: The committee of clowns.

STU: The committee of clowns that went after everybody. They used his footage. And now they're going to arrest him for taking it. It's incomprehensible what they're doing.

GLENN: He said, there's a possibility that they get him on some sort of crossing state lines.

Because he crossed state lines and then sold the video. It's like, what?

What kind of law is that?

I've never even heard of that.

STU: These are the Commerce Clause for anything, as you know.

GLENN: Yeah. No. I know. I know. Okay. So you're on your way down to the courthouse, right?

JILL: Yes, I will be there today, reporting back with whatever comes out of the courthouse today.

GLENN: Okay. Thank you so much. Appreciate it.

JILL: Thanks, Glenn.

GLENN: I have done this job, since 1978.

I have never seen anything like this.

I believe, they left Steve alone, for two years. He was not a Blaze TV correspondent. They left him alone. They first contacted him, and they had nothing. Literally nothing.

He is a journalist, an independent journalist, when he was at the Capitol. He did not engage in anything.

The guy is a Libertarian. He wasn't for Trump. He wasn't for anybody. He was an independent journalist.

There are, I think, 60 journalists, that were on Capitol Hill that day. Now the federal government, as soon as he joined us. And started putting his stuff out, and it got eyeballs.

All of a sudden, they're after him.

And I don't think this is -- I mean, I know they need him to stop. Because he's the guy who has revealed everything.

We're getting down to the Kamala Harris stuff. He told me yesterday, some things that he's working on.

And he said, Glenn, there are other people, who know it.

Other people have my work, in case, I become suicidal, in jail.

He said, and he told me a story, I'm not going to tell you.

He told me a story, if he can prove this. I mean, it's game-changing.

This is the clip of him. Is this the clip of him in the Capitol, being handcuffed?

Here he is, the clip of him being handcuffed today if you're watching Blaze TV.

STU: Got to be kidding me.

GLENN: Look at that. Perp walk. This is the nicest, quietest, gentlest man I know.

STU: It's incredible.

GLENN: Unbelievable.

STU: Charges are as follows. Knowingly entering or remaining in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority. Now, that's one he's talked about. And he said, you know, look, I'm a journalist. And I know, even as a journalist, I --

GLENN: New York Times was there.

STU: -- I'm not allowed to be in these buildings, even if I'm covering these stories.

However, the fifth person, through a broken window, to enter the Capitol, was a New York Times journalist. And they are not being charged.

GLENN: And he didn't enter through a broken window. The other two -- three charges.

STU: Disorderly and disruptive conduct in a restricted HEP or grounds. Disorderly conduct in the Capitol building.

GLENN: Didn't happen.

STU: Parading, demonstrating, or picketing in a Capitol building.

GLENN: Didn't happen.

So we are waiting now in front of the -- the justice building, if you can call it that. The courthouse, here in Dallas. One of our colleagues has been arrested today for January 6th. Could we just play the footage, that we got from the Capitol, last night?

There, I mean, look at this. He -- Steve is in this footage, this the Capitol from January 6th. He is up against the wall, right there. He's either writing or he's checking the pictures on his camera, to make sure he has the shots he wants.

STU: He's not even looking at what's going on at that point. He's writing.

GLENN: Yeah, he's not engaged in anything, other than writing and something.

And then soon, he's going to move around the crowd. And he's going to stand in a doorway, doing exactly the same thing, except taking pictures.

RIKKI: Doesn't look very disorderly to me.

STU: No. He's just texting or taking notes.

RIKKI: Not a lot of parading. His tripod is actually up against the wall.

GLENN: Have I seen all of this footage?

RIKKI: No, we've only got -- you heard the Congressman telling --

GLENN: No, no, no. Have you seen all 5 minutes of this -- it's boring as not.

RIKKI: Oh, yeah. It's very boring.

I could see why the FBI didn't want to look at this.

STU: I mean, this is not parading. He's not even engaged with the crowd. He's leaning against the wall, as the crowd passes by. And takes notes. We have seen him try to document the events that are going on.

But like people in front of him are cheering, waving their flags.

He's just leaning against the wall.

GLENN: Writing, writing.

And taking photographs and videos.

This is -- this is insane. But then again, this is -- this is not the only journalist. The other journalist that all other journalists seem to have turned their back on is Catherine Herridge.

She was at CBS, right?

She was just fired. She's been all over. She worked at ABC. NBC.

Fox. And she was at CBS. They just fired her.

And now, she is facing jail time. Because she won't reveal the source of a witness.

And that witness, that whistle blowed to her, was whistle-blowing on how there is an infiltration in our universities. From China.

And the government wants to know who her source was. And so they're putting her in jail.

What a surprise, it has something to do with China, hmm?

So that's two journalists in jail today. Rikki, I'm sorry.

Jill Savage is down at the courthouse. And she's -- we're waiting for Steve to come out. But what is the situation, have you heard, Jill?

JILL: Yeah. I was just up in the room with Steve Baker as he was going through his arraignment. He was there with four -- four defendants, who walked in. Steve, it was nice enough that they were letting him wear his blue dress pants and dress shirts.

So the orange jumpsuit that we were talking about earlier on the show, Glenn, did not happen. But he was indeed shackled at his wrists and ankles.

Steve looked over at us, as he walked in to the courthouse, and definitely showed those -- those shackles there on his wrists and ankles. And, Steve, it is going to be known that he will be released some time today. They were asked that. The government lawyer said that that was fine. That that was going to be part of today's proceedings. And then he will be set to appear in court, in the District of Columbia, on March 14th, at 12:30 Eastern Standard. So that will be the next thing that we should look for, for Steve Baker.

GLENN: Do we know the judge?

Stu, in the charges, it was signed a District of Columbia judge.

We should look up the judge.

Is that the hanging judge?

I mean, he's going into territory now, where he -- good luck getting a fair trial.

JILL: Yeah. Absolutely. And I think that was one of the things that the lawyers definitely knew what they were getting in for today. We were able to speak to them just briefly before they went up into the courtroom. But that is now the unknown.

What happens when things do get into the District of Columbia on March 14th.

GLENN: Tell Steve that I talked to Alan Dershowitz today. And Alan is willing to get involved pro bono, to help him, for free speech cases.

This isn't the only one, unfortunately, that is now popping up.

How the Supreme Court’s Presidential Immunity Decision Could Change EVERYTHING
RADIO

How the Supreme Court’s Presidential Immunity Decision Could Change EVERYTHING

The Supreme Court has decided to take up former president Donald Trump’s presidential immunity case. This is good news, Glenn says, but the decision could have huge ramifications for the 2024 election and future presidents. Glenn and Stu discuss what might happen: Will special counsel Jack Smith’s case against Trump take a massive hit? Or will the Supreme Court practically gut the power of the presidency? Glenn and Stu also discuss why they believe Trump is in a great position right now in his 4 trials: “There’s a good shot that none of this comes to anything.”

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So there's a couple of things. Let me start with some good news.

A judge -- let me just read this.

No individuals associated with the left, who engaged in far right speech, and violently suppressed the protected speech of Trump supporters, were charged with a federal crime for their part in starting riots at a political event.

This is textbook viewpoint discrimination.

Okay. You ready?

That was said by a judge in California. He threw the charges out of the -- two far right political agitators. Saying, this is selective prosecution.

Now, these two guys, I don't know if they're necessarily -- you know, I don't consider Nazis far right. But maybe you do.

But they're white nationalist group. I shouldn't say Nazis. They're a far right nationalist group. So they're people I really don't like.

Kind of like the people in Antifa. I don't like them either.

So what the charge was, is these guys were holding a rally. And the Antifa guys came with, you know, all those things that they do. Intimidated and beat some of the people in this. Police came.

Only arrested the far right people. Not anybody at Antifa. And a judge said, no. Sorry. Can't do it.

Not going to do it. If you didn't arrest the other side. You can't arrest these guys. I think it's a step in the right direction. That's what I've always been saying.

Wait a minute. January 6. Why did you arrest all those people.

When you had people stealing. Breaking windows. Burning cities.

And none of those people were arrested.

STU: Yeah. I would think my preference would be, everyone would be arrested for burning it down.

GLENN: No. That's not my preference.

That's the way America should work.

STU: But my secondary choice is nobody does. It at least should be fair.

However, I would like all the people who burn things to the ground or start riots or beat the heck out of police officers, they should all go to prison. I'm fine with that.

GLENN: Let me give you this now. Bump stocks. Supreme Court.

The justices heard the case to legally -- to repeal an executive order from Donald Trump. Or was it an executive order?

Or was it just redefining guide lines?

STU: Yeah. It was that type of thing. An administrative change.

You know, this thing we already approved for eight years.

What if we don't approve it anymore.

What if we let a guy build an entire business, based on this thing that we were okay with. And then just pull the rug right out.

And make him send, what was it?

80 pallets of unused and unsold bump stocks to be melted down. What if we do that instead?

GLENN: It's one of the worst things Donald Trump did in his administration.

Was just use that executive, administrative branch to single-handedly say, no. Can't do that.

Supreme Court looks like they're torn.

Usual lines.

But there's a chance the bump stocks survive.

STU: The ban, you mean?

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: It's weird. The way the case is set up, is basically the question of, they should have at least passed a law to do this. If you want to get rid of bump stocks. You need to pass a law to ban bump stocks. You can't just do it. And I don't know. That just seems overtly obvious. However, I don't even think, the law if it was passed, would be constitutional. That's maybe, you know, being a Second Amendment extremist, or something.

GLENN: But at least that's the way our Constitution and the system of government is supposed to work.

You can pass a law. And it's not constitutional. Go back and rewrite the law and make it constitutional, if you can. You know what I mean?

STU: Or take the advice as unconstitutional and maybe don't do it again.

I take your point. At least it would be a normalized process.

Instead, what they did was basically say, I don't want these.

GLENN: It's the administrative state.

STU: It's bad on both sides.

GLENN: And I don't know how to convince people that this is one of the biggest problems we have in America.

Congress does not do their job.

They're not required to anymore.

Many of them are there fighting, to do a job.

But everything is a back door deal, that you got to rush to sign. And then it just gives more power to the agencies. Where the agencies can say, oh, no. You know what? We have this guideline. Why don't we write it to include this?

STU: Yeah. And, look, I get the motivation here. This is the worst mass shooting, that was not government-involved, in -- in history.

GLENN: Yes. Right.

STU: And it was really, really a bad incident.

But emotions of that incident do not overwhelm our system of government.

And, you know, they -- they -- this is just completely unfair.

They changed tens of thousands of US citizens into felons overnight.

GLENN: So there is -- there is another court case, that the spouter yesterday, said they would take up.

I think this is good news. And not just politically good news.

The real question here is presidential immunity. Does the president -- is he immune from a criminal trial for things he did as president?

Not while president. As president.

The answer to me would be, yes. No trial for -- because that should have been stopped by Congress. Or the Supreme Court. Or whatever.

As an official act, there should be -- we shouldn't have a bunch of people putting their hands in their pockets. Going, well, I was just following order. No. If it's illegal. No. Stop it.

But can the president do an official act, and then be held in criminal court. If that happens, you will just continue to be able to prosecute any president that is running a second term.

STU: So -- and I think pretty much the line is set. That while a president. If you do something as president, and you're currently still president. The answer to this, is pretty much. They can't throw you in prison. While you're president of the United States. That's been at least the guideline.

GLENN: No. No. But it's also a separation of, if the president murdered somebody while he was president, he should go to prison.

You know what I mean?

STU: Right. I would agree to that.

GLENN: He would murder somebody, while he was president.

STU: However, I believe the way that would play out. He would need to be impeached first.

And removed from office. And then he would be thrown in jail.

At least the -- it's not like a constitutional -- it's not in the Constitution.

There's not a founding, really reference toward this. The guidelines they've used is one year actually operating as the chief executive. We can't take you out of that room.

GLENN: Well, yes.

And the thing with Biden is -- Biden's crimes were before he was president.

STU: Uh-huh. But still, if he was -- if they went to this level of -- they found enough evidence. And they decided they would --

GLENN: Oh, he would have to be --

STU: He would have to be impeached and removed. Before he dealt with the punishment of that. And when he was removed from office, then be able to go through the trial as a normal person would.

GLENN: So here is the -- here is the ramifications of this decision.

Can Donald Trump be held now, in -- in a criminal case, for his acts as president?

The answer is, always been no. Always been no.

Otherwise, you're president if he decides to execute military operations. And somebody says, that that's illegal. Then it has to go to a court.

It would be very -- it would be very bad for the presidency.

It would just completely gut our president. This goes to the trial now, that everybody is so excited to hear.

All right. So the Supreme Court is hearing this, which would stop or at least because they're going to hear it, slow down the Jack Smith trial on Donald Trump.

Which is

STU: Which --

GLENN: Which trial.

STU: So you've got four major ones, right?

You've got the January 6th.

There are two of those.

You have the federal one, which is the jacks Smith.

And you have the Fani Willis one in Georgia.

Then you have the other two. Which are the New York. With Alvin brag. And you have the documents case in Florida.

Those are the four.

And it's like, I don't know, Glenn. Tell me if I'm wrong on this.

I think Trump is in the best position he's been in, since he started now.

GLENN: Oh, everybody has been saying, I don't know if I can vote for Donald Trump. Because he might go to jail.

At this point, there's a good shot, none of this comes to anything.

STU: Especially before the election.

GLENN: Yeah. Before the election, it won't now.

STU: Right. If you think about the four of them individually, you have -- one of them is the Alvin Bragg Stormy Daniels, which everyone acknowledges is the weakest case, it's the weakest case. He has all sorts of ridiculous laws he's bending to even bring the law in the first place.

It makes no sense.

Everyone, on the left, kind of blew that one off as frivolous. Then you have --

GLENN: And even if he's convicted of that, he won't lose any votes. Because it's just such a sham.

STU: Yeah. And plus, people knew that story already, a long time ago.

So second is the documents case. And, look, there is a lot of evidence against him on that, especially on how he handled it, when they asked for the documents back. He fought it.

And potentially did not tell them the truth about it.

Does he wind up being convicted of that?

It's possible. But what person -- you know, picture the Trump voter with the Trump sign in their lawn.

Then they're just like -- they're walked out one day. And say, I'm ripping this thing out of the ground. That man stored documents improperly.

I just don't believe that person exists. I don't know. I could be wrong. I just don't think he stored documents, frankly.

GLENN: The insurrection or stealing the election. Those -- are those big.

STU: Those could be big.

But think about what one of those two are. One is delayed in April. It could even be heard. Nothing can happen from now to April. April 22nd.

GLENN: Right. But after it's heard, their decision won't come out until June.

STU: Until June.

So you're all the way in June. Before they could even start this thing.

I mean, maybe they try to put this in -- I mean, the conventions are going on. I mean, we are deep into the election at this point.

Maybe they'll still try it. But it will be very difficult. And really amps up all of the problems with trying to persecute your opponents even more.

And then the last one is Fani Willis. Which is completely falling apart.

I mean, the texts that came out from this lawyer.

Who is texting the lawyers of the defense. Saying, yes.

Absolutely. This happened in 2019. And I'll tell you exactly where they met, and then he's on the -- the stand saying, I don't know.

I'm just speculating about that. Can he was not doing. He was given multiple chances to correct the actual filing about this. And said, there's no problem with it. And that's just what we know so far.

I mean, they completely lied --

GLENN: So far, there are three attorneys that should lose their license.

STU: Yeah, at least.

GLENN: At least. And personally, I think they should pay a very hefty fine.

And, well, possibly I think Fani Willis and her boyfriend, absolutely should go to jail. They were defiant.

They knew what they were doing. They didn't even have to test. She didn't even have to testify about it.

But she wanted to. She walked on that stand with the intent of lying. Gone.

STU: Everyone I talked to, said, nothing ever happens to these people when it happens. There's no I couldn't wait.

That may be true. I will say, this judge in particular. Remember, the Federalist Society. Appointed by a Republican.

He seems to have the right approach here, at the very least.

I don't know. Maybe we'll still be disappointed.

I don't think he's just taking this, as, oh, I can't wait. To give Fani Willis. A free pass on this.

I don't think that's his approach. We will see how this turns out. You all of these things -- at the very least, Trump will have a really good argument, even if he gets convicted in the Georgia case and come out -- these people are obviously corrupt. And it won't be one of those reflexive defenses where you're complaining about everything. They will have a really good case that this was corrupt.

GLENN: And the other one, if it makes it to court, is the District of Columbia.

So, I mean --

STU: I don't know.

GLENN: I think he's had a great week. Donald Trump. I think he's had a great week.

STU: Yeah. A lot of this stuff will probably cost him money in the long run. When it believes to this election. I think he's been in the best position he's been in, in a long time.

GLENN: Once again, the seems to be in the position, we got him this time. We got him this time.

Oh, crap, maybe we don't have him.