BLOG

Greg Abbott Uses Social Media Like a Boss to Ban Sanctuary Cities in Texas

Texas Governor Greg Abbott beat protesters to the punch, signing into law a bill that bans sanctuary cities in the state of Texas and holds lawmakers accountable for failing to uphold existing federal laws. The governor made the the unprecedented move of signing the bill on Facebook Live, reaching over one million followers on his Facebook page.

POLL: Do You Support Gov. Greg Abbott Signing Bill Banning Sanctuary Cities?

Governor Abbott joined Glenn on radio to talk about how the bill works, why its a good move for Texas and what defines a sanctuary city.

Enjoy the complimentary clip or read the transcript for details.

GLENN: Greg Abbott last night went on Facebook and signed a new bill into law, stopping sanctuary cities. Well, some say the problem is Texas doesn't have any real self-declared sanctuary cities. And how dare him do this on Facebook. What a coward. Or a genius. You decide. Greg Abbott, the governor of the great state of Texas, joins us right now.

(music)

GLENN: Welcome program, Governor Greg Abbott. I think the best governor in the entire United States. Welcome, sir, how are you?

GREG: Glenn, I'm doing great. Great to visit with you again.

GLENN: Great to have you on.

So last night, you go on Facebook and you signed a bill -- this is the first time I think anybody has ever done this on Facebook.

Why did you choose Facebook to do this? Why did you do it last night?

GREG: It won't -- it won't be the last time either.

Listen, this is the 21st century. We've seen an evolution with regard to digital media, with regard to the way that elected officials are communicating directly with their constituents. We saw it first with what Barack Obama did with digital media. We saw what happened in the Trump campaign. And now this is the next step. But listen, I have more than a million viewers. And it's important that I be able to connect directly with them unfiltered through other media. Obviously, other media across the entire country has picked this up and spread the story, which we are proud that they did. But you can expect, going forward, there will be many more ways in which we are communicating directly with the people who are citizens, the people that I have to answer to every single day.

GLENN: I have to tell you, Governor, I'd love to spend some more time talking to you about that. I think that is great. I know that we are living -- and everybody knows. We're living in a time now where you don't need a middleman anymore. And it will change things. And I'd love to talk about the ramifications of that, if we have more time. But let me go to what you signed.

Texas doesn't have any self-declared sanctuary city. And the Trump administration is having a hard time defining what a sanctuary city is. So what did you sign in last night?

GREG: Well, first let's talk about terminology. And if you don't mind, let me correct you a tiny bit.

GLENN: Sure.

GREG: A synonym of a sanctuary city is an outlaw city. It's a city or county that refuses to follow the law. And in the state of Texas, it is my opinion, that we do have a self-declared sanctuary city. In Travis County -- for your listeners, Travis County is the county in which Austin, Texas, is located. And the sheriff of Travis County has a written policy that is tangible for anybody to put their hands on, that says that Travis County is not going to comply with ICE detainer requests. In fact, the Travis County policy is such that if a person who is in the United States illegally and has either committed or been accused of a very violent crime, such as sexual assault -- sexual assault of a minor. Armed robbery. Working in conspiracy with the drug cartels. Any of those crimes and far more, the sheriff of Travis County, who is responsible for upholding the law and keeping our citizens safe, is going to release them, even if the federal government has a request to hold them for the federal government to come and take them. That, I think, is the quintessential definition of a sanctuary city. Travis County is the target and subject of this law that I signed last night.

GLENN: Okay. So now what happens to Sheriff Hernandez? What happens to -- I mean, Dallas is also a city that kind of plays games with -- with sanctuary. What happens to these -- these counties, these cities?

GREG: The new Texas law imposes very serious penalties. One is going to be fines that can add up to $25,000 per day. Two is that these officials -- let's say in this case, the Travis County sheriff, can be subject to forced removal from office, by the Texas attorney general. Three is, these officials can be subject to jail time, if they have sanctuary city policies or if they refuse to comply with the ICE detainer request.

GLENN: Excuse me my ignorance on this. But -- I remember hearing this a long time ago, and it may be complete bunk, that the sheriff is the only one that actually answers directly to the people. Police officers, police commissioners, et cetera, et cetera, don't, but that this is a -- this is a separate office that doesn't really answer to any chain of command. Is that true or not?

GREG: Correct in this regard, in that police officers are not elected by the people. Sheriffs are elected by. The people. That said, sheriffs are one of the county officials who have to work in conjunction with county governance, which in the state of Texas, the leader of the county government is called the county judge, and then there's a county commissioner's court that the sheriff must work with. It's the county commissioner's court that sets the budget for the sheriff.

GLENN: How do you respond to people who are saying this is going to terrorize the Latino community?

GREG: Well, first, let's be clear about something. And that is that just because someone is here illegally doesn't at all mean that they are Hispanic. Remember this, Glenn, and that is more than half of the people who have been coming across our border illegally this past year are not from Mexico. They're coming in from across the entire world. So that part of the thesis is wrong. Second is that Texas is an open and welcoming state. In fact, even before Texas was Texas, we've been a blend of Anglo and Hispanic culture. And, as you know, my wife is the first Hispanic first lady. And so we're very supportive and open to immigration. People get this wrong in the terminology. They say that laws like this are anti-immigrant. That's absolutely not true. We're very pro-immigration. The only people who are subject to -- to being apprehended under this new law are people who are here illegally, who have committed a crime that ICE has caused them to put on their detainer list. If you are here and you've committed no crime whatsoever, you're never even going to be subject to this because ICE will not have you on their detainer list.

GLENN: So, Governor, here's one thing that I can't solve in my head. And I know you're a compassionate man. And I know this has had to cross your mind. There are those people who are here illegally who then -- who are good, decent people and whatever their situation is -- yada, yada. But somehow or another, a bad guy gets into their life and is abusing them. Beating them. Raping them. Whatever. And if they fear that they are going to be, you know, sent back home and something is going to happen to them or they just don't want to be on anybody's radar because they're pretty invisible, they won't say anything about that. And crime could go through -- really horrible kinds of crime could go through the roof in those communities. How do you solve that? And do you believe that's true?

GREG: We solve that in this law because we put specific exceptions in this law. If you are a victim of a crime, if you are a witness to a crime, you will not be asked about your immigration status, if you report that crime. We wanted to make sure that those people be accepted from those provisions.

GLENN: Now, they're calling this the papers please bill. But that's not what this -- you don't ask for papers if somebody is on a routine stop, right? I mean --

GREG: You're absolutely correct. Let me be very clear about this. Because a lot of critics misconstrue this as being the Arizona law. And the Arizona law that was reviewed by the United States Supreme Court, they specifically, quote, required law enforcement officers to ask about immigration status. First, I will tell you that part of the law was upheld by the United States Supreme Court, even the liberals on the United States Supreme Court.

GLENN: Wow.

GREG: The Texas law does not make that requirement. What the Texas law does, is it allows, but does not require law enforcement to ask about immigration status. Let me explain to you why. And that is, when a police officer pulls over somebody -- let's say in a car -- and they do it for you're driving too fast. You know, whatever the violation may be. Let's say they walk up to the car and they look into the car and the person in the car has tattoos on them that clearly indicates they are a member of MS-13 -- which, by the way, is growing in number in the state of Texas -- it would be right for the police officer to ask that MS-13 member, "Are you here in the United States legally?" And so it allows them in situations where this person could be the subject of an ICE detainer request, which an MS-13 gang member most likely would be, to make that inquiry. But it simply and absolutely does not require law enforcement officers to ask about immigration status. Anybody who says otherwise either doesn't know the law or they're misrepresenting the law.

GLENN: Governor, what do you think about the progress that -- and I don't want to get this into a Trump thing. About the progress of illegal immigration and the border wall, et cetera, et cetera, with this administration. Without -- because I don't want to put you in the middle of something here. Are we moving -- are we moving the way we should be, or have we surrendered this?

GREG: Well, we've had a problem for decades now, with regard to the legal immigration process. We have a completely flawed immigration system that must be fixed, and nothing has been done in the last few administrations, and nothing has yet been done under the current administration to fix our immigration process.

Let's be clear about this: Texas, and I think America, strongly supports a robust legal immigration system. What must be done is, we must implement reforms that overhaul our legal immigration system and couple that with strict enforcement against illegal immigration.

GLENN: I said a few years ago, that what President Obama was doing was sending a message all around the world, come in. We're not going to enforce our own laws. And if I lived across the border in poverty, in a drug-ridden -- if I lived in a place where I knew my kids had no future and the president of the United States was saying, we're not going to enforce this, and if you get here, you're going to be here forever. I would absolutely take my kids across this border, for the promise of America. And I said at the time, it's -- it's -- a lot of this is our fault because we're telling them we don't care about this law. And if you're -- and if you are in their situation, you're going to roll the dice for a piece of this. Is it true --

GREG: Right. Barack Obama's approach to border security was the ole system (phonetic). Such as the matador saying "ole" to the bull charging at them, and just let them on through.

GLENN: Right.

GREG: But remember this, Glenn, and that is, why is it that so many people want to come to America as opposed to let's say Venezuela or some other place? The reason is because the United States of America more than any other country in the entire world is a nation of laws.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

GREG: And it is imperative that we as a people continue to ensure that America remains a nation of laws so that we will be the aspiration for people around the entire globe.

GLENN: Has our immigration here in Texas -- our illegal immigration, have you seen a decline in it?

GREG: There actually has been a decline.

GLENN: Small or significant?

GREG: During this calendar year, a very meaningful decline during this calendar year, where people who were coming across the border illegally has shrunk dramatically.

In this last calendar year, before the one we're in right now, there were more -- or about 1,000 people crossing the border a day. And now that has shrunk dramatically compared to where it was before. But we'll need to see. Because as most people known, the increase in cross-border activity typically increases during the May, June, and July months.

GLENN: Have we moved our border agents closer to the border since Obama? I mean, there was this huge gap for a long time.

GREG: You're exactly right. If you're going to secure the border, the best place to secure the border is at the border.

GLENN: Right.

GREG: One of the policies of the Obama administration was to remove more into the interior, the border security operations, so that people will have already crossed the border. It simply made no sense whatsoever. And so, yes, one of the changes is to move border security closer to the border. Another is to increase and enhance border security efforts. But that is something that the state of Texas is also doing. We're about to close out our new budget during the coming weeks. We continue to add more money from the state of Texas to secure the border because it is important that we be a state as well as a nation of laws. We welcome people here who want to immigrate to the United States legally. But we want to make sure that if there's anybody who is not following the law, the law will be enforced.

GLENN: I would love to have you back -- we're running out of time. I would love to have you back and talk a little bit about the culture of Texas and how -- if we're doing anything to protect the culture of Texas. It's one of the only states left that has -- or almost -- I can almost say had a unique culture. And it's -- it's really being destroyed. And I'm -- I'm -- and not intentionally or anything like that. Just because this massive influx from people all over the world and the country who were creating jobs here. And what we're doing to protect that. But let me leave you with just this one question here. Have we signed now officially to the Convention of States?

GREG: Yes. As of last week, Texas became the 11th state to sign on to the Convention of States. And Texas will be in the vanguard of leading that effort. Now that Texas passed it, I think many more states will come behind us. This is a common sense opportunity to return power to the people, away from the entrenched forces in Washington, DC.

GLENN: I -- I have to tell you, I think you are the best governor in the country right now. That's pretty easy to say. But the best governor I think I have ever lived under, and big supporters.

Greg Abbott, thank you so much, sir.

GREG: Thank you, Glenn. God bless.

GLENN: You bet.

Great, great leader. As you heard, very well reasoned. Doesn't get into hyperbole or name-calling. He just does it. Love him.

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.

Jan. 6 Journalist Facing an FBI ARREST Reveals Who’s Calling the Shots
RADIO

Jan. 6 Journalist Facing an FBI ARREST Reveals Who’s Calling the Shots

The FBI has ordered investigative journalist and Blaze Media correspondent Steve Baker to turn himself in, but he believes the full story is even more corrupt than it sounds. Baker is facing misdemeanor charges connected to his reporting at the Capitol on January 6th, 2021. But he still hasn’t been told what the charges are. Steve joins Glenn to lay out how he’ll respond. For starters, the FBI told him to show up in shorts and flip flops so he can be marched out in an orange jumpsuit and leg chains — which is an extremely unprecedented move. But Steve tells Glenn what he’ll wear instead. And he also explains who he believes is really behind his arrest and the prosecution of many others who were at the Capitol: “There is ever more evidence of the insane corruption at the top of the Capitol Police…they are more powerful than Congress itself.”

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Steve, been praying for you this week. I know many members of the audience are doing the same.

This is crazy. What's about to happen to you tomorrow.

STEVE: Yeah. I'm always worried about more my unpaid parking tickets from college.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

You're a nice, gentle, regular guy.

And do you even know what the charges are?

STEVE: No. They haven't told us yet.

GLENN: Is that unusual.

STEVE: No. Back two and a half years ago, when they initially threatened me and said I would be arrested within the week. In November of 21 take it. They actually told my attorney at the time, what the charges are going to be then.

But because I'm a little outspoken and vocal about what's happening with me. We were -- we were told at the time, by an assistant US attorney.

This a judge would not be happy with me, you know, going out to the press, in the manner that I've done. So I just intensified that, accelerated that.

And lit that candle brighter. Yeah, I see the look on your face. I see the look on your face.

GLENN: Yeah. What right is it, for them to say, we're coming after you. And then when you say, hey, by the way. Everybody, they say they're coming after had he.

They haven't said why they're coming after me.

This is all I've done. Why would you be in trouble for defending yourself in the public square?

Because once they arrest you. Well, now you've been arrested we the FBI.

That's a really bad thing. Even if you're innocent.

GLENN: Well, two years ago, the US attorney said to my attorney, that a judge will not look favorably upon this.

To which my attorney responded, are you saying that my client should forego his First Amendment right under the threat of persecution from the federal government?

And she said, oh, no. We're not really saying that. Just, we're concerned for him and his --

GLENN: Oh, they're concerned for you.

STEVE: I kid you not. Now, fast forward two years. Under the current threat. And they won't tell me the charges this time. Literally, quote, unquote, from the US attorney, because he'll tweet it out.

GLENN: Well, what? Yeah. Yeah. We'll do it for you.

STEVE: Yeah. Technical the charges are under seal, until you're actually arrested. So they are technically not in violation of any law.

GLENN: Right.

STEVE: So tomorrow morning, at 7 o'clock, when I arrive at the FBI field office here in Dallas, I will know what my charges are.

GLENN: And how are you supposed to dress? What advice did they give you on that?

STEVE: They notified my attorney that I needed to arrive in shorts, a T-shirt, and flip-flops.

GLENN: And why is that?

STEVE: It's easier to change into the orange jumpsuit and leg chains.

GLENN: And is that something that everybody does?

When they bust down everybody's door, do they say, hey, change into a T-shirt and flip-flops?

STEVE: I don't think that when they bust in your door, you get that opportunity of choice.

GLENN: Yeah.

When they -- when they invite people to turn themselves in.

I've never seen people turn themselves in. You know --

STEVE: This is exactly what they did to the independent journalist, Stephen Mauren, from Raleigh, North Carolina, coincidentally, where I live.

And when they arrested him, and they brought him in. They did exactly same thing. They put him in an orange jumpsuit, put leg chains on him, and made him March before the magistrate in leg chains, on misdemeanor offenses.

STU: It's one of the interesting parts here. Because you don't know, as you point out, what you're being charged with.

But you do know they're misdemeanors, right?

STEVE: That's what they've told my attorney.

STU: So why on earth would you need to be in leg chains?

We have -- prosecutors all over the country, that won't charge people who have sexually assaulted individuals, with crimes. And they won't hold them.

And they are released the next day.

And they will put you in leg chains for misdemeanors.

STEVE: Well, let's start ourselves with the bigger question. And work our way to that answer.

This is the first time in history, since January 6th, that the FBI is even involving themselves in misdemeanor offenses and misdemeanor defendants.

And swatting misdemeanor defendants. With sometimes 50, 20, 25 agents, swatting misdemeanor. The FBI has never done that, in their history. Until ordered to do so, by Merrick Garland's DOJ, after January 6th.

So fast forward to this.

Why are they doing that?

Why are they requiring -- my attorney told me, when he told me, that this is what they will have me -- requesting that I arrive dressed in flip-flops and shorts.

I said, why are they doing this to me. He said, you know why. He said, you've been poking them in the eye for three years. This is retribution.

GLENN: This is evil. It's just evil.

When you have a government -- I mean, I don't know if you saw the story today from California. But there was a judge in California who said, you can't arrest just people on the right, when Antifa was there.

And they were being violent. Beating up these people.

You arrest the people they were beating up. You don't arrest Antifa. That didn't make any sense at all.

When -- when a -- when a United States government can come after individuals. And, you know, we've been saying this from the beginning.

If they'll do to Trump. You don't think they will do it to you?

STEVE: Well, the selective prosecution is exactly what's happening here.

We have over 60 -- we have documented over 60 journalists that entered through those doors.

Or broken windows.

That day. The fifth person through the broken window that day, was a New York Times reporter.

The New Yorker reporter, Luke Mogelson, went through the broken window. And he paralleled another independent photo journalist. They went through the same window, paralleled the other journalist.

He had spent a lot of time working on the Latinos for Trump campaign.

Well, even though he didn't parade, he didn't do any protesting. He did no chanting. Anything of the sort.

And was contracted at the time, as a video photo journalist for a TV station in Mobile, Alabama.

Even though that was the groundwork laid, four misdemeanors. Swatted by over 20 agents at his home, with the red dots on his wife, his children, and, of course, obviously himself.

At 6:30 in the morning. And then, he was convicted. He said, I will go to -- he said, Luke Mogelson from the New Yorker, we went through the same window at the same time. And he hasn't been charged. I will go stand before a judge. He did a bench trial. He was convicted on all four misdemeanors. And because he went to trial, and he wasted the government's time and resources, not taking the plea deal he was offered.

The judge put him in prison for eight months. Sentenced him to eight months. They put him in a medium security facility, in -- in Georgia. Where after spending the first two months in solitary confinement. And gets out into the general population. He learns from all the other prisoners, that they never put misdemeanor defendants in that prison.

All of the other guys -- actually, they distrusted him. They thought he was some sort of plant inside the prison. They were like, people don't come here for misdemeanors.

You know, we're -- this is what we do for a living. We're pros. We go to prison.

You know, we commit crimes and go to prison for a living. You're not supposed to be here.

He says, well, you are here, if you're a J6 defendant.

GLENN: So mentally, how are you?

STEVE: I have my moments. I'm okay. I -- you know, I've had -- I've had over two years to prepare for this.

I've game planned it all out in my head. I'm not going to sleep tonight. I'm not even going to try.

It is my way. Anyway. And so I'm just going to, you know, prepare. Pray. And then I'm going to put on my suit and tie.

GLENN: Good for you.

STEVE: And walk in with my head up.

GLENN: Good for you. Good for you.

More in just a minute with Steve Baker. He's an investigative journalist. A Blaze media correspondent. He has been -- he's the guy who worked with Congress, to expose the video that was being held back.

And for this, he is being arrested and arraigned tomorrow. In what city?

STEVE: Here in Dallas.

GLENN: Here in Dallas. Will it happen? Will the trial happen here in Texas?

STEVE: We will certainly be filing a motion for change of venue out of DC, but none of those have been granted yet on J6 cases.

GLENN: Jeez. Because they know they can't win, anyplace else.

GLENN: It is -- it's amazing to me, Steve, that I'm doing an interview with a man, that I know is innocent.

Who I know is a journalist.

Who I know just did the job of being a journalist. And tomorrow, it might be your first day going to jail and then prison.

STEVE: You know, I'll correct you on one thing. There are 60 of us that are guilty.

We are guilty of crossing a restricted line, and that is common for law enforcement to allow the press to come inside the police line to document the public interests.

GLENN: I was going to say. Correct.

STEVE: There is no license. There is no credential. There is no press pass on the planet. Or in the United States of America, local, state, or federal, that allows any journalist to cross a restricted line.

But over 60 did.

And only those whose voice is more on the right side of the political spectrum are being prosecuted.

No one from the left.

GLENN: So what is your -- I mean, if you care to share it.

What is your game plan?

STEVE: I think the first thing we have to do is find out who our judge is. That's the most important aspect.

It's the first major piece of the puzzle.

Because the judges and the J6 lottery. Are -- are -- they come in all -- all shapes and sizes and intensities.

So it will depend upon whether we get a hanging judge, or we get one of the more reasonable common sense.

GLENN: Let's say you get a hanging judge, and they offer you a deal.

BRENDAN: That will be very tempting, if it's one of the hanging judges to take the deal.

Because we already know what the threat of not taking the deal is. That would be a superseding indictment that would include a felony. Because they're going to punish you. They don't want to work. They're government employees. They don't want to do a trial.

GLENN: What kind of felony?

What could they come up with this felony?

STEVE: It would be the one that is currently before the Supreme Court. The 15-12, obstruction of an official proceeding.

They could -- well, first of all, show me the man, I'll show you the crime. They could come up with anything.

GLENN: Right.

STEVE: So they could go back on years and years, on tax record. They could do anything. So it's not a matter of what could it possibly be that I did that day?

It's going to be something else. But that is the punishment. And it is the threat. And they have used it in other January 6 cases.

GLENN: Jeez.

STU: I know you've done a lot of work, Steve, going back, when you're doing your reporting. And looking through all these videos. And you've been able to isolate a bunch of really interesting things, that nobody knew about.

GLENN: That exonerate a lot of people.

STU: Exonerate.

GLENN: And take down the police and, you know, whoever they were. FBI agents or whoever they were.

STEVE: And there's more coming. As a matter of fact, I just heard from a senior congressional aid this morning. That there will be a very significant release tomorrow.

That's all -- he gave me permission to say. That I could say on the air today.

And some of that has to do and it intersects with my work.

GLENN: Wow.

STU: My question is. Do we see video of you?

STEVE: Oh, yeah.

STU: Will we see this? I think they want to paint this idea, that you were not a journalist at this event.

And I think it would be pretty clear.

As you said, there's cameras everywhere.

You have to be on camera, all over the place.

Were you doing something different than the New York Times reporters that were there?

STEVE: I am happy to say, that myself and TheBlaze team, back in December, we harvested a day in the life of me.

Capitol CCTV cameras, and we will be showing that.

GLENN: Right. Excellent.

STEVE: Every second of me inside the Capitol, doing my job, never participating in any parading, milling around.

You know, or as they say, picketing.

Protesting. Never chanting. None of that. We have it all on film.

GLENN: That's fantastic. Now -- now, if you have a hanging judge, will that judge allow that to be -- I mean, the fact that these cases have not been overturned. The minute we started seeing video. Where you're like. Wait a minute.

That makes that guy innocent.

And they didn't allow the attorney to have that. Or see that. Or use that.

I mean, it -- the fact that those haven't been overturned yet. Is a real crime.

A real crime.

STEVE: And we're continuing to work on that process. I will tell you, that there is ever more evidence of the insane corruption, at the top of the Capitol Police.

Which is -- which is holding back these -- you know, series of documents that we need.

To bring justice.

In those particular cases, that you're referring to.

They are more powerful, than Congress themself.

I never believed that. I had Capitol police officers, my sources, unnamed, and known.

That have told me, over and over again. You do not understand how powerful the Capitol Police are. So I'm thinking to myself. Okay. Okay. Okay. Right. Right.

And then I talked with Speaker Johnson. And Speaker Johnson tells me, his lips to my ears, he says, I have 100 percent authority over the -- the distribution of those videos. I can -- I can either let them out. Not. It's all on me. And then all of a sudden, they stop. There's not been anything released in weeks. And suddenly, it stops. Get back with my sources. They said, I told you, it's the Capitol Police. Why is the Capitol Police so powerful?

They know where all the bodies are buried. They know who buried them. They know who is sleeping with who.

They know everything.

GLENN: Jeez.

STEVE: And they are -- and they are the personal security guards of Congress. That's why they're so powerful.

GLENN: It's amazing that it was said that this is Nancy Pelosi's police force. The Speaker has control. Well, she might have. But according to you, Johnson doesn't.

STEVE: There's somebody more powerful than him.

GLENN: Hmm. All right.

Best of luck. We'll keep you in your prayer -- in our prayers. And please, please, stay in touch, and tell us how we can help.

STEVE: Well, we're not going to stop working. So I'll tell you that.

GLENN: Thank you.

STU: And we'll try to get you a flip-flop sponsorship.

STEVE: Can we do that?

GLENN: You need an orange jumpsuit to make it even easier for the feds. Call this number.

How China is Using REAL Disinformation to DIVIDE America
RADIO

How China is Using REAL Disinformation to DIVIDE America

Many Americans feel more divided than ever. But are we really? Investigative journalist Peter Schweizer joins Glenn to expose how the Chinese Communist Party is using real disinformation to divide us. As described in his new book, "Blood Money," China has funded and pushed everything from the trans agenda to radical violent protests in our streets. Schweizer also exposes how the Chinese military is running thousands of social media accounts posing as Americans: half claim that America is racist and bigoted and the other half spew white supremacy. "This is clearly an effort to destabilize the United States," he argues. And that's just the beginning of China's secret war against America ...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: We're with peter Schweitzer. He's the president of the Government Accountability Institute.

He's also a guy who has written several books, exposés on both the right and the left.

The left now forgets that he does that, and they just call him a tool of the right, but he lets the chips fall where they may.

Thus, why he's talking about people in several books, like Mitch McConnell.

So, Peter, we're talking about in your book, blood money. How the Chinese Communist Party is sewing chaos in the United States.

Is there -- is there -- not that there needs to be. But do you have evidence of more things, other than just the fentanyl?

PETER: Oh, absolutely. Take the issue of the trans movement in the United States. This just erupted in the last five years.

If I point out in the book, two of the biggest funders of the trans movement in America, are China-based billionaires.

One is an American Marxist named Roy Singham.

He worked. He built a company called Thought Works. He was a consultant adviser to Huawei, a Chinese military-linked company.

He sold his business, made him a billionaire to a private equity company, partly owned by the Chinese government. He moved to Beijing. He's very close with people.

He gets invited to their events. He's put more than $160 million into radical causes in the United States, including the trans rights movement.

The other Chinese billionaire doing that, is a guy named Joe Tsai, who is the cofounder of Alibaba. He has poured tens of millions of dollars into the trans rights movement.

And in addition, he owns the WNBA Team in New York. The New York Liberty, which was the first professional sports team to have a trans athlete play.

Now, here's the -- the -- very troubling part for me, Glenn. About this, Glenn.

These guys do not push for these rights in China. They only push for these rights in the United States.

There's no -- they're not trans. They don't have family members that are trans. This is clearly an effort to, you know, destabilize the United States.

If you look at a lot of violent actions in the streets, in 2020, with BLM. Or the violent actions in the streets now, involving pro-Hamas demonstrators. There are a couple of groups. FRSO. PSL, that spearhead these really radical, violent protests.

As I lay out in the book, these organizations, that take their marching orders from China, in some cases, there are financial ties.

They consult with Chinese officials.

And I quote from Chinese government reports. Where they, actually, monitor and track the behavior of the organizations.

Then the other part I would add. Online.

There's so much craziness online.

The Chinese military. The PLA. Has thousands of experts, that run individually, thousands of social media accounts, where they pose as Americans, into the United States.

Basically half the account, Glenn, say America is a hopelessly racist, bigoted society. And the other half of the accounts say, I only like white people. And they're posing as Americans.

I think we're actually less divided, than we believe we are.

Examine China is trying to create fissures between us.

And they're very explicit, that this is part of the disintegration worker's strategy that they've embraced.

GLENN: Where would you put this on the scale of psyop operations of the past from Soviet Union, and everything else?

How big is this?

PETER: Oh, no comparison. Look, the Russians lacked sophistication when it came to this stuff. They lacked capacity. China is very, very aggressive, in their approach here. And if you think about it, it's brilliant. It's basically saying, we're going to beat the United States without actually fighting a war. And as we focus exclusively on how many battleships do we have? Or how many aircraft carriers do we have? What is the situation in Taiwan? Those are important issues, I'm not saying they are.

That's the exclusive focus on Washington. Nobody wants to focus on China's meddling in the United States.

GLENN: I will tell you, I -- I somewhat disagree with you.

We -- that's why our -- that's why our -- that's why we're doing a Colour Revolution op, really, I think, on ourselves, and all over the world.

We are doing that. But we are not doing it, with China.

We'll do it in Ukraine, and everything else.

Where we'll have these Colour Revolutions. And use many of these tactics on our own people, now, it's been shown.

But -- but China is approached as a friend in many ways.

PETER: Yeah, no, exactly.

I agree away with you. Yes, there's no question that the Colour Revolutions that started in the Obama administration. The Chinese, actually, site those as examples of what to use.

But, yeah. I mean, the problem is, we don't have an awareness of this. And there are people on the political left, that have some affinity for Beijing, that don't want to have this conversation.

I have in the book, for example, quotes from -- there's a Chinese organization. Called the center for the center of foreign Marxist parties.

Political parties. It reports directly to the central committee, the CCP.

We got asked to do an analysis in the United States. And one of the points of analysis is, that, yes. The Communist Party USA. Is disorganized. It's small, and it's irrelevant.

Why?

They talk favorably about the role of people like AOC and Bernie Sanders.

Examine they say, while these are not perfect vehicles.

They're still very helpful vehicles. This advancing the agenda, that they have in the United States.

So, you know, the political left does not want to talk about it.

Because these are their champions. Yet, there it is in black and white.

According to the Chinese point of view.

STU: Talking to Peter Schweizer. The book is Blood Money is out tomorrow. You need to get a copy of it.

Peter, can you talk about how much of this stuff, that China is trying to do, would be ineffective if we had a secure border?

And is this one of the reasons why we continually treat the border with such little significance in the federal government?

PETER: Yeah. That's a great point.

There's obviously the issue of illegal immigrants coming, particularly from China. It also involves certainly with fentanyl. There's problem.

I talk about in the book. Part of the Chinese strategy is sow violence in the American streets. China has a history of selling machine guns, to radical groups, and criminal organizations in the United States.

Going back to the 1990s.

They do it today, this a very clever way.

With a small device called a Glock switch.

It's a small switch that you put on a Glock handgun. It converts a Glock handgun to a fully automatic machine gun.

It's obviously highly illegal in the United States, highly illegal in China. You can't even own a firearm.

Yet, the Chinese are openly marketing and smuggling them into the United States.

And selling them to criminal gangs in this country.

It's a massive, widespread problem.

The rate of machine gunfire on American streets has escalated.

And customs and border protection first identified this in 2018.

They finally have started to detect these things as they arrive in the mail.

So what are the Chinese now doing?

They're now going south of the border. They're setting up machine tool operations. With the cartels.

And they're starting to smuggle these devices, across the open border.

So it's illegal immigrants. It's fentanyl.

It's now these devices that will sew chaos in American streets.

Because these devices are being targeted specifically, at drug organizations.

And violent criminal organizations, in the awes.

GLENN: So, Peter, at some point in the book. Blood money.

You say the CCP tricked the Trump administration into COVID lockdowns.

PETER: Yeah.

GLENN: What do you mean by that? What evidence do you have of that?

PETER: So a couple of things. One, if you remember in March of 2020, there was a report issued by imperial college of London, by a professor Ferguson. And it presented this apocalyptic view, that if we did not imitate the Chinese and have lockdowns.

There would be 2 million Americans dead within the next six months. And there will be 500,000 dead in the UK. And if you look at the accounts, the memoirs that have come out.

This had a very profound effect on Donald Trump.

And the administration.

And this moved us to the point of saying, maybe we need to start looking at some of these things.

And, in fact, we did.

Here's the problem. That imperial college of London study, was done, under Chinese influence.

Imperial college of London is a leading academic partner of the CCP. A government in China. They have a long cooperation there.

That particular study, included Chinese data. Included Chinese scholars.

Then the Chinese.

And again, I quote extensively from them. Had a strategy to impose the authoritarian model, for responding to disease on us. Because if you talk about us then.

Before the point, the response was, people that are sick should stay home.

Everybody else should go about their lives ordinarily. That's not the Chinese model.

The Chinese actively pushed that, in the United States. One of the things they reportedly do. I report in Blood Money. They donate in quotation marks. To American cities. Particularly in California and New Jersey.

Hundreds of drones. Our own government started using to monitor their own people. To make sure they were hearing the lockdowns.

And this was part of a Chinese strategy, to get us to embrace some of these authoritarian approaches.

And it's really actually quite extraordinary. And, you know, one of the reasons, that we have a certain individual on the front cover of the book.

Tony Fauci, is because we revealed in emails that we obtained, et cetera, that he covered for the Chinese in this regard.

That he would not criticize the Chinese. It's not just about the lab leak. He would not criticize the Chinese, he embraced their lockdown approaches.

And he kind of pooh-poohed, and criticized Americans.

There's a famous exchange, where a New York Times reporter is emailing with Tony Fauci. And says, China has been heroic in their response to this crisis with COVID.

Unlike, you know, Americans who are basically being fat, selfish slobs.

And Tony's response was, yeah. You make a really, really good point here.

On the record, he agreed with him.

That's the disdain that a lot of these leaders had, for their own countrymen.

And the embrace that they had for this authoritarian model, that the CCP imposed.

GLENN: So I'm out of time.

Peter, would you come back in a couple of days. When you can come up for a breath of air.

And tell us where we need to start to dismantle.

Again, I thank you for exposing all of this. You're usually so far ahead of the curve.

But I think Americans sense now, something is really wrong.

Especially with our relationship with China and the border.

And fentanyl. So you're right on the money here. I would love to have you back, to talk a little bit more about where we should begin to dismantle. And how that can be done.

PETER: Yeah. Would love to do it, as always, Glenn. I appreciate your encouragement and support as always, and I'm glad to come back.

GLENN: Got it. Thank you so much Peter. Peter Schweizer. He's an unbelievable -- an unbelievable author. Good friend of the ram. Known him for years. He never, never holds back any punches, from either side.

He is as fair as they come. And extraordinarily well-buttoned up. His book, the latest. You should get it.

Comes out tomorrow.

Is blood money. Blood money by Peter Schweizer.

How Leftist Immigration ‘Reform’ Made YOUR Streets DEADLIER
RADIO

How Leftist Immigration ‘Reform’ Made YOUR Streets DEADLIER

In the aftermath of the death of Georgia nursing student Laken Riley, the media is insisting that the increase in crime across the country has nothing to do with illegal immigration. But Blaze News Senior Editor Daniel Horowitz joins Glenn with the real stats. Daniel warns that Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro is practically emptying out his prisons and sending the criminals — many part of the brutal gang Tren de Aragua — to America. He also uses the latest data to make the case that YES, crime has gone up because of our open border and progressive "criminal justice reform" policies.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So the media is now doing their best to say that crime is not a problem.

Because of illegal immigration. We know that that's not true. That doesn't mean that everybody who comes across illegally is a law breaker, other than come here illegally.

You know, they're not all rapists and murderers.

But we seem to have our fair share now, from overseas. And I love the people, who are saying, you cannot violate the rights of people. Just because of this one murder. Review, yeah. Yet they're the same people, who say, we should take away everyone's guns. Because if it will just save up life, it's worth it.

Well, you know what, not letting the illegal immigration would have saved one life.

In fact, would have saved a lot of lives recently.

To talk about it is Daniel Horowitz. He did a podcast yesterday, on this.

He's compiling the stats of crime, from illegal aliens.

Daniel, what did you find?

DANIEL: Hey, well, it's great to be back with you, Glenn. And, look, if last decade criminality from foreign nationals was defined by MS-13, I think we should start to familiarize ourselves with Tren de Aragua. Because that's the Venezuelan prison gang, that was essentially sent up here by President Maduro in Venezuela. And why not him blame him? He knew that our door was open. He figured he would get rid of his problem.

We focus a lot on the quantitative act that -- of this border nation. That quantitatively, it's much greater than we've ever seen.

Probably about 10 million, between the apprehensions and gotaways, since Biden took office.

But qualitatively, when I speak to border agents, ICE agents, and then reporters down at the Darien Gap in Panama, they say they have never seen so many young male belligerents, with tattoos, that kind of look like they want a piece of you.

And now if you go to the New York Post, every day, you will find stories of those arrested, and then turned out loose, within 24 hours in New York City. We find it in Chicago.

So this alleged murderer of Lincoln Riley is not in a vacuum.

This is something that we're going to deal with, for years. You know, in the next number of years, if we don't get rid of them very soon.

STU: Daniel, when you talk about the border issue. You mention the issue between the qualitative and quantitative problem here.

And it is significant.

Obviously, the quantitative problem as has been well documented. When you talk about the people coming across the border, though.

You know, we hear about potential terrorists. We hear about drug dealers. What is the biggest issue the border agents are facing.

DANIEL: Sure. I mean, again, we've seen all these pictures, where we have young military-aged males, just marching through the border, that we've never seen before. And it turns out, I mean, at least from what I'm hearing. Is that the Venezuelan the highest concentration of criminal element. Simply because it's not by natural.

It's not natural selection.

That you will have a lot of ruffians come over our border.

That's what a lot of them do.

A lot of them are criminal elements.

This is a concerted effort on the part of Maduro. To send his prison gang up here.

And you're finding this a lot in spaces like Miami. Places like Chicago and New York. Even local media is reporting on it. Where they're having a number of gangbangers arrested. Chicago arrested.

Just a handful. You know, five, ten Venezuelan nationals. In 2022.

But then last year, in 2023, they arrested seven hundred of them.

And again, this is not looking like you're an illegal alien.

These are people, it's shoplifting. It's assault.

It's driving without a license. Drunk driving. You know, I've chronicled this for about 15 years. Now, you can't use the numbers now, because Biden doesn't enforce the law. But when Trump was president and they were trying to apprehend people, in just one given year, we would typically get -- and this is recurring every year. Enough people arrested in that kind of suite. That net of enforcement. To account for 2,000 homicide-related offensive -- meaning both conviction and arrests. Six hundred kidnappings. Thirty-eight hundred robberies. Thirty-seven thousand assaults. 10,000 sex crimes. And usually about 80,000 or so DUI's.

The numbers were pretty consistent every single additional year. Now, typically, especially back then, before the George Floyd crime rates. We typically had maybe 14,000 homicide arrests in a given year. To 2,000 accounted for, among the jurisdiction of ICE.

Illegal aliens, sometimes illegals. But criminal elements that are deportable. That is an astounding share.

That is one in seven. And, again, this is before the Biden wave.

So you can imagine now, they are having all these belligerents from Venezuela.

Just think about this. We had 335,000 Venezuelans come in, just in the first few months.

I'm sorry. Just in 2023.

Plus, Biden granted temporary status of 470,000 others. Just 834 have been removed.

Okay?

So that is how you think what that problem is.

GLENN: What is amazing to me is at the same time that is going on. By the way, that is exactly what -- what was his name in Iraq?

Saddam Hussein did, right before we went in.

To cause chaos in the streets. He emptied the prisons. That's what Maduro did except into the United States.

And his reward for that was the United States, allowing him to sell more oil, even to us.

So there -- this is -- this is a chaos operation.

But we're also all seeing stories almost every day. If you're paying attention to it.

Your key word there was belligerent.

They feel like, they are above the law. They know they're not going to be charged.

And so they'll beat police officers.

They'll -- they'll flip people off.

They are super citizens, almost. That's the way they act.

DANIEL: And what you're finding, especially in these blue areas is an amalgamation of the invasion and then jailbreak. What they call criminal justice reform in New York City. So they turn out all criminals. The next day.

But in this case. You have, you know, the people let out of Rikers Island.

Domestic criminals being let loose. And then now, you have all these Venezuelans coming in, committing crimes. Often three or four crimes. And they get released every time.

I want to throw out another number that's very important.

I've tracked for a number of years. There's something called ISIS undetained document.

So what that means by its very nature are these are the people that are on ISIS' radar to at least investigate, often target for removal.

But they remain undetained right now, there's only about 37,000 people in ISIS custody. That's the maximum of what they can handle.

The undetained docket is 6.2 million.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

DANIEL: 6.2 million. Now, I don't have the numbers. But in the old days, I don't think this has changed. About 80 percent were criminal aliens. So they had criminal charges and/or convictions, in addition to being here illegally. Think about that. There's only five, 6,000 ICE ERO officers. Deportation officers around. Limited resources.

We already know that under this administration, if you're caught drunk driving, you're not really a priority. That's not considered a high level crime.

So there are 6.2 million. In their undetained docket. Just think about the needless murder victims, rape victims that are seeing this now every day.

The media tries to cover it up. We saw, you know, a rape of a minor, allegedly committed by an illegal alien. South of Lynchburg, Virginia, yesterday.

There was a case in Montana.

I was just looking at.

If the American people would actually know, the extent of how many of these heinous crimes are committed by people that should never be here.

And there would have been multiple opportunities to get them out. They would be up in arms.

And this would be our George Floyd moment.

GLENN: Imagine if you are a citizen, and your governor is telling you, hey.

We need homes for people. Take them into your home. How stupid do you have to be.

DANIEL: I mean, it's unbelievable. Picture the worst of the Bloods and the Crips in your own downtown. That's what we're deporting from all over the world. Each country's problems. You know, you'll have some desperate, impoverished people that are kind of peaceful too. Certainly not in our best interest to let them in.

But this time, we're just seeing a total invasion.

And what's important, is legally, this definitely meets the definition of an invasion under the compact clause, that should trigger state authority for removal. I think this is where it's important.

When you look at that 6.2 million number. You look at what we're seeing, from that individual charged with murdering Lincoln Riley. Along with his brother.

They were caught in a red state, here illegally, and having committed other crimes prior to this alleged murder.

And yet, they remained. Some of them are because of sanctuary policies. But sometimes, even if you're not a sanctuary state, but now you're a sanctuary nation.

Here's the thing, let's say a state might want to deal with that individual. Maybe lock them up.

Maybe try to remove them. But ICE now grants them with a detainer. And now a detainer is a double-edged sword. Because they'll place a detainer, enough that the state cannot enforce the law against them. But it's not like the feds will actually remove them or even detain them.

They will be on their undetained docket.

Out free to commit more crimes.

This is where the red state governors need to get together and say, look, if we catch someone here, illegally. Committing an assault.

Of drunk driving.

They need to be out of here.

STU: Daniel, can you address one more thing before you go. Which is the media's response to this talk every time.

Is to say, actually, immigrants commit crimes at a lower rate that be US citizens.

They're not the problem here.

DANIEL: Sure. They're right in the sense immigrants. Okay. So legal immigrants on average commit fewer crimes. And the reason is, because on average, they come to the United States. At an older age. That sort of the criminal career age. Sixteen to 30. They're usually older when they believe.

They're more established. With that, I will say, there are certain pockets of the world, that we accept who didn't notice illegally, that still commit too many crimes. The crimes that we commit should be zero.

Because they're vetted. You know, it's kind of like your draft pick. You get your choice. You can pick your immigrants. You can't pick your natives.

Native born, that is.

But as it relates to the people coming from the border. Again, you look. As we -- I want to give you a statistic that is, again, astounding.

GLENN: You have about 45 seconds, before I have to break.

DANIEL: In 2020, Trump's ICE director, Matt Albence. He said that in one year in New York City, they issued 7500 ICE detainers.

And out of those 200 individuals, they included 200 homicides.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

DANIEL: I looked up that area of operation. There were fewer than 300 people arrested for all homicides in that area of ISIS operation, in that one year.

I'm not saying they necessarily commit two-thirds. You have to study that.

But it is surely greater than their share of the population.

GLENN: Daniel Horowitz. You can hear his podcast on TheBlaze.

Blaze TV.

He did a whole podcast about this, yesterday. And he's always, always really buttoned up.

And has a different view on a lot of things, that I think you should hear. Daniel, thank you so much. Appreciate it.

DANIEL: Thanks for having me. Take care.