BLOGAugust 03, 2017

Navy SEAL’s Mom Shares Her Secret to Raising Strong Sons

The best thing you can do while raising your son is to allow him to grow up to be a man, according to this Navy SEAL’s mom.

Karen Vaughn joined Glenn on radio Thursday to talk about her book, 'World Changer: A Mother’s Story: The Unbreakable Spirit of US Navy SEAL Aaron Vaughn,' and her family’s experience raising strong, resilient kids on a farm.

A small-town boy from Tennessee, Aaron Vaughn was one of 30 Americans who died aboard Extortion 17. The tragedy in August 2011 marked the greatest single loss of Navy SEAL lives. After their son’s death, Aaron Vaughn’s parents decided they would continue his legacy of protecting the American way of life.

In her book, Karen Vaughn wanted to share her family’s story with the hope that it would help other parents trying to raise kids who are willing to face their fears. She told a story on Thursday’s show about how 10-year-old Aaron learned from facing down the most intimidating cow on their family farm.

“I stood back and let him do it, and Aaron did,” Vaughn said.

She explained that sometimes not interfering was the best thing she could do as a parent, stepping back when her husband needed to teach their son about manliness.

GLENN: I want to introduce you to Karen Vaughn. She is -- she is a mom of a U.S. Navy SEAL who was part of an operation -- what was it?

KAREN: The helicopter's call sign was Extortion 17.

GLENN: Extortion 17. That's what I thought it was. And I thought, it couldn't be extortion.

KAREN: Yeah.

GLENN: Extortion 17.

If you have anything to do with Navy SEALs, military, you know Extortion 17 as one of the worst days in the history of SEALs. More SEALs were lost in that one day than ever before.

KAREN: Right.

GLENN: You want to talk just a little bit about that.

KAREN: Yeah. It was the single largest life in the history of naval special warfare single largest one-day loss in this entire war actually. And, you know, on that Saturday morning, unfortunately, we found out that our only son, our first-born child was part of that disaster. And it's been a life-altering experience. Those men were brave, fearless American warriors who were rushing into the battle to assist Army rangers who had been in a gunfight for three and a half hours. And their helicopter was shot down just before they touched down, killing every single person on board.

GLENN: So you didn't know -- I mean, there's a reason I have you on. And I'm doing an hour with you tonight on television. And I -- I invite you to watch this. Because there's a reason I had Karen on. There's a lot of people that can tell these remarkable stories of heroism. I mean, the stories of heroism from the guys who survived and didn't survive, they're -- they're just -- they're plentiful. They are plentiful.

And they're stirring, each one.

But the reason why I wanted to have you on, Karen, is because of what you did with that experience. It's very different than just simply telling a story of a great hero.

You chose a different path.

KAREN: I did. You know, after Aaron's death -- it's going to make me emotional to say this. Because you're kind of a rock star in our family. You were to Aaron, and I want you to know that. He absolutely loved everything you did. And we did too and have listened to you from day one.

GLENN: Thank you.

KAREN: But, you know, what I realized after Aaron died was, he gave his life for me, fighting a battle kinetically to protect and preserve the American way of life. Not a government. Not a piece of land. But a way of life.

And my husband and I have dedicated our lives to fighting culturally, as you do, to protect the same. We feel like it's the at least we can do to spread the message across this country that America is worth fighting for. It's worth dying for. And that it's up to all of us inside the boundaries of this nation to protect and preserve in -- in the interior of this nation, what so many are giving their lives for, to protect and preserve from the exterior of the nation. So it just became a calling on my life.

GLENN: So it's amazing to me, Karen -- I'll speak to millennials -- and they don't -- you know, it's hard for people my age to really come to grips with, they didn't know America prior to 9/11.

KAREN: Right.

GLENN: So they don't -- they don't know her real promise.

KAREN: Right.

GLENN: And so many rights are starting to just slip away. And, you know, I talk to people our age, and I'll say, "The western way of life is in real jeopardy. It's about to slide under into tyranny of some form."

And people our age understand it.

KAREN: Right.

GLENN: Millennials don't really understand it.

KAREN: Right.

GLENN: Your son -- you know, the book is called world changer. And what you started to do was right a book for his children so they knew dad.

KAREN: Right.

GLENN: But then you realized, wait a minute. This is actually a parenting book. Tell me about that.

KAREN: It was an interesting thing. Because as you said, I knew -- his babies were only two years old. Not quite two years old, Reagan was, if that tells you anything about my son's politics. And Chamberlain who was only 9 weeks old when Aaron left this earth.

GLENN: That's funny.

KAREN: You understand, right?

GLENN: Yeah.

KAREN: So -- so, you know, I wanted them to be able to pick up stories of their father's childhood in every stage that they would go through. You know, their dad is not here to tell them what it was like when he was ten or what it was like when he was 14 or when he learned to drive. So I wanted to be able to know their dad's story. And that's how it started.

GLENN: Gosh, how hard was just that, going through the scrapbook of your mind?

KAREN: Oh, my -- yeah, that's it. And it was a gut-wrenching experience. It took a long time because I continuously had to put it down because I was just emotionally overdone.

GLENN: Oh, I bet.

KAREN: Well, then just out of the blue, a friend of mine asked me to speak to a mom's group down in south Florida, not far from my home. And she said, I want you to teach people how to raise a world changer like your son. And I was like, wow, I don't think I did that. I thought God did that. You know, because Aaron was a devout believer. He loved Jesus. You know, his whole life revolved around his faith in God.

And so I just always saw it was something God did. And then when I started just evaluating basic principles of parenting and started talking to moms about this, I realized this culture did not have those foundational tools that, Glenn, you and I had growing up or raising our families. And all of a sudden, I was like, wow, I did do something -- it didn't seem fantastic to me or extraordinary to me. But in today's culture, they're extraordinary tools.

GLENN: It is. It is.

KAREN: And so I just sort of thought, wow, I'll go back through these stories, and I will weave the teaching principles into every single story. And that's what I did.

And my oldest daughter and I wrote 18 tiny chapters in the back of the study guide where moms could sit down together in groups or even dads and go through principles of how to raise strong formidable kids who don't need safe spaces on college campuses. Kids that are willing to run in the direction of whatever it is God calls them to do with their life, instead of running away from it in fear or cowardice. Just kids who can take what life deals them.

You know, and it was quite a project, working with one of my children, to write a book about parenting.

GLENN: I bet. I bet. I bet.

KAREN: It was kind of funny, you know. And we had to go away and, you know, butted our minds together and just said, what did I do right? You know, my husband and I. Not me. But Billy and I. What did we do right, Tara? What did we do wrong? And so we put all those principles in the back and just loved it.

GLENN: What was the biggest thing that you get to now and say, had no idea, but, wow, were we lucky we did this and people should do this?

KAREN: The first thing that comes to my mind is as a mom, wow, was I lucky that I caved to the concept that my husband wanted to raise a man. It's that simple.

You know, in our society, I believe one of the biggest breakdowns in our homes right now is this role reversal and this constant striving of women to believe that they have to be everything that a -- I know this sounds -- this is such a broad thing. And I know it needs to be a little more narrow than this, but there's a lot to talk about here in our culture, you know, where we are constantly telling men, you have to be more like women. You have to be more like women to fit into this society. And, you know, I was married to a rugged farm boy who had no intention of conforming our son to my -- you know, and I say in the book, I tried to fight that every way I knew -- I was a 19-year-old mom, Glenn, when Aaron was born. And so I tried to fight it every way I could. I entered him in the Troy Tiny Tot Beauty Review. And he won it.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

KAREN: But he never forgave me for it, you know.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

KAREN: While Billy was constantly busy teaching Aaron that he could overcome unimaginable obstacles, obstacles that seemed too huge for him. He would have him out there helping him cut trees on our farm, helping him give birth to calves. You know -- you know, things like that.

And I tell a story about White Cow, this cow who literally terrorized our children on our cattle farm in Tennessee. And this cow -- Aaron was terrified of this cow. He wouldn't walk out the pasture with it. And Billy one day, instead of letting Aaron cower in fear to this cow, he said, I'm going to tell you what, you're going to stand at the fence right now. And when White Cow -- I'm going to herd the cows in. And when White Cow confronts you, if she charges you son, you've got to punch her in the nose. I'm sitting there thinking -- Aaron weighed like 60 pounds soaking wet. You know, he's about ten years old, I think. And I was like, you're going to do, what? But he let Aaron do it. I stood back and let him do it. And Aaron did.

White Cow sure enough charged Aaron that day. And he rared back in a nerve-defying -- like a nerve-racking defiance and just punched that heifer in the nose. Well, you know what he learned that day -- and White Cow, you know, she snorted and snarled at him and took a step back like she couldn't believe what happened, but then in submission she went in the pen. And Aaron learned that day that there was no challenge too great for him. And this is what drove him to become not only a Navy SEAL, but all the way to the pinnacle at Seal Team 6. Those are the things. And I say the greatest principle I can teach any mom is let your husband raise a man. It's hard not to interfere. But let him raise a man.

GLENN: I was always afraid to have a son. Because I didn't have a dad that did any of the typical dad stuff. And had a hard relationship with my dad for a long time.

And so I was terrified of raising a son.

KAREN: Yeah.

GLENN: And I have three girls.

KAREN: Yeah.

GLENN: And I do not know how to raise girls. I am horrible at raising girls. I don't know how many times my wife will look at me like, what the hell is wrong with you? What are you saying?

I'm like, what? What? Yes, the skirt makes her look fat.

No. What are you doing, you imbecile

But I see it with my wife with my son. Men speak the language of a boy. Women speak the language of a girl. And if you don't honor that language and honor that there is a difference there --

KAREN: Right.

GLENN: -- I mean, your kids will be lost.

KAREN: You're right.

GLENN: They'll just be lost.

KAREN: You're right.

GLENN: What was the thing that you found out that you did wrong?

KAREN: That's a hard question. No one has ever asked me to evaluate that side, Glenn.

Wow. You know, gosh, I'm not like I'm flawless. But if I tried to single out one thing -- I don't know. Maybe it was that -- maybe it was that I resisted things for so long. You know, that I tried so hard to resist. Speaking specifically about Aaron, not with our daughters, but maybe I tried to resist so much that forging that a man has to do with his son, if a boy is going to turn out right. You know, I did resist it for a long time.

And like I said, I'm thankful that I caved. But that's the first thing that comes to my mind, is I really did try to resist that. And if I could just speak to women out there who are raising boys, stop resisting. Let your -- let your husband have that role in his -- in his son's life. And let him be to him what he needs to be, you know, and stop trying to turn both of them into women.

(laughing)

GLENN: As you see the world and where we're headed and where we're headed I think with war, where we're headed culturally, where Europe and everything is headed and the lack of leadership, how do you feel about your son's sacrifice?

KAREN: That's hard. It's really hard. I -- you know, we have -- we have a -- I'm not trying to plug our organization. We have an organization where we mentor kids whose fathers have died during this war.

Not long ago, we had about 30 kids sitting in front of my husband, as he was, you know, closing out the camp and their moms, the widows were behind them. And my father said -- my husband said to those little kids, he said, I want you to know your fathers didn't die for a government -- like I said earlier. He didn't die to seize anybody's land. They died for an American way of life -- or, for a way of life, the American way of life. And, Glenn, we are watching that slip through our fingers.

And I feel like every day I have an obligation to honor the sacrifice that not only Aaron has made for me, but so many others throughout history. And I feel a compelling desire to -- to reach into the homes right now and say we got to shake this loose and shake this up and understand what we've given up. Where we are today. And where we need to go into the future, whether before it's too late. And you will never convince me it's too late because that means Aaron died for nothing. And you will never convince me of that. He died for the American way of life. And I'll fight. I'll fight to reinstill those values in American culture with my last breath.

GLENN: It will not be men who save the earth. It will not be women who save the earth. But I am convinced that it will be mothers and fathers that save us from ourselves.

One last question: What's -- what is the -- what is the thing your son taught you?

KAREN: That's easy. How to be strong. Aaron's death didn't make me weak. It made me strong. It really did. Because I started employing the principles in my life that he employed in his. Aaron never took a break. He never said I'm too tired to go fight the fight. He never said that.

And so you know my life has taken this crazy turn in the past -- we're coming up this Sunday as the sixth year anniversary of his death. And I've lived a very different life than I lived before Aaron died.

And many times along the way, I've thought, you know, I'm too tired. I'm too old. I'm too weak. I'm too frail. I'm too this. I'm too that. And every time, it's just his voice whispering in my ear -- Aaron was an encourager. You can do this, Mom. Just keep walking.

GLENN: I want to let you know that I believe there is something on the horizon that is very important that I just feel is coming and that is a movement of moms unlike we have seen before. And I wanted Karen to be on TV tonight to spend an hour with you and with moms. And talk about changing the world just by raising good children. If you're struggling and you would like some help or you want to know how to spread, join tonight at TheBlaze.com/TV at 5 o'clock. The name of the book is World Changer: A Mother's Story. The unbreakable spirit of U.S. Navy SEAL Aaron Carson Vaughn, by Karen Vaughn, his mom. Thanks, Karen. Appreciate it.

KAREN: Thank you.

RADIO

Is it a GOOD IDEA to Oust Speaker Mike Johnson BEFORE the Election?

Representatives Marjorie Taylor Greene and Thomas Massie have announced their plans to file a Motion to Vacate the Speaker of the House. But Democrats, under the leadership of Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, have promised to block the attempt. So, would trying to oust Speaker Mike Johnson actually HELP the Democrats? Glenn asked Rep. Thomas Massie to defend his reasoning for ousting Johnson before the election. Massie lays out the 3 “betrayals” he believes Johnson has committed and what he believes Jeffries is really plotting.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: You can say a lot of things about Thomas Massie. Some of them true, some of them false.

But the one thing that is absolutely true. He stands on his own principles.

And he is unwavering. In those principles. He joins us now. From the great state of Kentucky.

Republican representative. Thomas Massie. Hello, Thomas.

TOM: How are you doing, Glenn?

GLENN: I'm very good. I'm very good. I don't understand this whole Mike Johnson thing, as Speaker of the House. I don't understand what happened to him. How we went so wrong. You know, people are saying, that, oh, this has been a scam forever. He's been, you know, a RINO and just in hiding. And now, getting rid of him at this point. What good is that going to do? Or even moving from this, because do you have the numbers to do it?

TOM: Great questions. Let me talk about how we got to where we are.

GLENN: Okay.

TOM: So Mike Johnson has betrayed us three times. Big betrayals. He did an omnibus bill, that did does and he gave the FBI a brand-new bill in that omnibus bill. And he didn't give us time to read it. He gave up on doing 12 separate bills.

That was the first betrayal. Second betrayal, FISA. This is the spying program that's been used to surveil Americans without a warrant. He cast the deciding vote on whether to have warrants or not.

And he voted against warrants.

This is against what he stood for, when he was on the judiciary committee, that I serve on. With Jim Jordan.

So something has changed there. He said he spent time in a skiff, that changed his time. Guess what, Glenn. I don't know if your listeners know this. I spent three and a half hours with him, to get him briefed by CIA, NSA, DOD, FBI, and DNI, and a FISA judge.

And in three a half hours. They didn't give us a specific example. Not one, of how spying on Americans, without a warrant, has helped them stop terrorism, to give them hypotheticals. But no example.

So that was the second betrayal. No warrants. Now, you can still be spied on.

It's reauthorized. Third betrayal. Just happened. This one we're still stinging from.

You may see the videos of every Democrat in the House voted for. For Ukraine.

Premeditated. Passed out Ukrainian flags. And basically humiliating us.

And I think speaker Johnson. If he's capable of having shame at this point. Should have been humiliated by that display as well.

I put the video of that on Twitter. And a search told me they would fine me $500 if I didn't take it down. So I reposted it.
(music)
Because look, you're not supposed to put video of what's happening on the floor. But that was video of things that were breaking decorum. Right? I was trying to provide evidence that they were in the wrong. And instead of prosecuting them, they came after me.

GLENN: Sure.

NEIL: Now, we got 8 million views on the video after I reposted it, and Speaker Johnson backed down on that fine because he knew how bad that looked. So third betrayal. Was that, you know, Ukrainian vote, where send the money overseas. We gave up all leverage on any border security.

They included some other bad stuff in it.

GLENN: Let's talk about the $4 billion to help people from the Middle East immigrate here to the United States. Including Palestinians.

Are you nuts?

NEIL: Yeah. And you see, Mike Johnson will not stand up against that.

By the way, those three bills that I just mentioned to you. You know what happened when they went to the Senate. After they passed the House. Chuck Schumer didn't even change the punctuation of any of those bills.

He must want any amendments to them. He wanted them exactly as Mike Johnson wanted them in the house.

Because those were Chuck Schumer's bills that Mike Johnson put on the floor.

He's already in the arms of the union party. The question you rightfully ask: Is why do this? Well, the people are always asking me, Thomas. Can you show us. Can you give us a list, of the good guys and the bad guys. Can you tell me who the good guys are. I have a primary. I have a vote in. I have a general election. Tell me the list. This list. You will have another list, we keep doing this. At great peril to ourselves.

The reason there's only a few of them that are willing to stand up and call this. Is because you put -- you put your reputation on the line. And people here hate transparency. They hate us for doing it. You will have the list next week. When the motion to vacate is called. Of who went to the king Jeffries. And the Uniparty to keep Mike Johnson in power.

King Jeffries, the reason he's supporting Mike Johnson, he got everything the Democrats want, without any of the blowback by having Mike Johnson as speaker. And they also -- they have some claims for other things.

They may resettle Palestinian refugees in the United States. And pay for it. They may want to make the funding for Ukraine permanent.

And before our next election, there's going to be another CR or omnibus or something.

That's coming September 30. So some people are like, well, why would you do this now, Congressman Massie?

Hasn't all the bad stuff -- hasn't Mike already done all the bad stuff to us?

Can't we just sit it out to the next election?

No. Because what Hakeem Jeffries wants more than anything is to be the speaker, and the only way he becomes the speaker is by getting the majority of the House in November.

And he knows Mike Johnson is the most uninspiring speaker we've ever had.

It will not do anything to inspire -- most likely to lose the majority under speaker Johnson.

GLENN: So what would the plan B. If you could get this to pass. I mean, well, first of all.

Let me ask you.

How many -- how many other Freedom Caucus members are standing with you?

NEIL: Well, I think before Hakeem Jeffries came out for Speaker Johnson. There were probably somewhere between 12 and 20 who didn't want to speak, but would have voted with us.

Now, I think, you may have maybe the entire Freedom Caucus. We'll see.

I know people outside of the Freedom Caucus.

Who said, if one Democrat votes to keep Mike Johnson. I ain't voting to keep him.

Because they know what that means. That means it's the Uniparty.

Now, the first vote will be on a motion to table. To try and prevent this from even coming up for appear actual vote. But people should understand, that is -- that motion to table, if they succeed. That is the only vote that will happen. And that is your list there.

Are those the people who saved Mike Johnson. Which Hakeem Jeffries. And all the Democrat leadership, said they'll do it. And some Democrat ranking file. There are some Republicans, who sit at the table. But that will be the vote. Now, if we could succeed.

Okay. If we could get past that motion to table. And maybe Hakeem Jeffries has only 40 Democrats, who are willing to walk the plank. I can imagine that will be tough for them and their primaries. Unless they're planning on retiring. Can you imagine? You've saved the Christian speaker, who is against abortion, and all this other stuff. And what's the -- anyways.

So I don't -- I'm not sure how many votes Hakeem has. But I think he helped us grow our numbers. Let's say we help them pass that vote. There is a motion to vacate. And Mike Johnson is vacating. At that point, who would we elect?

Well, we would like for Mike Johnson to avoid the scenario, I just described.

We're giving him a weekend to resign.

If he would announce that he's leaving, like John Boehner did in ten weeks.

And he won't be offended as we have votes to replace him while he's still speaker. We could go without ever not having a speaker.

We could keep doing subpoenas, and the judiciary committees. We could have hearings and pass all these wonderful old messaging bills that they love to pass. But if that doesn't happen, we'll have to elect a Speaker. We will be on the spot.

I think there are a dozen people, in the G.O.P. conference. Who have something in their entire life.

Whether it's political experience. Or prior experience nap qualifies them for the job.

Mike Johnson is a lost ball in tall weeds. I don't think there's some conspiracy, where they've got kids locked in the basement. Or something like that.

I don't think they have info on him, or blackmail material. I just don't think he can do the job.

And there's nothing in his life that prepared him for that. Let's find someone that can. Hopefully that will inspire people to keep them in the majority. Even Hakeem Jeffries bails Mike Johnson out, next week. They're not going to bail him out in January.

We know he's a lame duck speaker.

But he knows it. Let's get him out of there, before he causes any more mischief.

GLENN: What did McCarthy do better than Johnson?

NEIL: Oh, that's a great question. Under McCarthy, we did seven of the 12 bills. Okay. There's 12 separate bills. He said, we'll do an omnibus. We got seven of the 12. We got 7 of the 12 done. We had a thousand amendments. I'm not on the rules committee. We got votes on a thousand amendments to allow rank-and-file members to participate in the legislative process. When Mike Johnson came on board, he did two or three CRs. He ignored the 7 bills we had done. He made no effort to do the other five. And he said, you will get a two-part omnibus.

That was the bad thing.

The second thing, well, Kevin McCarthy could have cut a deal with the Democrats. And could have been still speaker now.

He said, I will not do it.

The position is not that important to me.

We will make a Uniparty here, and share power. So that's another thing that Mike Johnson has expressed a willingness to do.

That Kevin wouldn't do. And finally, as a part of the debt limit deal, this last summer.

Kevin extracted, from Joe Biden, and Chuck Schumer.

This is signed into law. And still law. That if you do a CR. And it goes past April 30th.

Basically, halfway through the fiscal year. There's a 1 percent cut.

And Kevin secured that from Joe Biden.

Mike onset had three choices, on the spending bills. When he came into office.

He could use the 1 percent cut option. He could have worked on the five other bills. Or he could have duplicate the omnibus.

He actually could have done the 1 percent cut option. That Kevin had secured.

And spent a lot of political capital on getting that provision in law.

So those are three things that Kevin did that Mike didn't.

And Kevin, put through of us on the rules committee.

That gave us a blocking position. Chip Roy, Ralph Norman, and myself. And we used that for good. We forced the 72-hour rule for the entire time Kevin was speaker. That's another thing Johnson threw out the window.

You don't always get three days to read a bill now. He's overriding his own rules committee. And he's going with Democrats to do it.

GLENN: Do you think this was -- you know, I write in some place.

You know, this was planned from the beginning. He's been lying in wait, trying to pretend that he was part of the Freedom Caucus for years.

Do you believe that?

ANN: Yeah. You know, what really confused me. Is the readiness with which, sort of the big spenders in Washington, DC.

Where they accepted Mike Johnson as a valid speaker candidate. After defeating Jim Jordan multiple times.

They found Jim Jordan unsuitable. But they found this junior member very unsuitable to the job, who had no experience. You know, had never been a chairman. Didn't have much staff.

And I think at that point, they got some assurance from Mike Johnson. That he -- or some feeling, that Mike Johnson would be a good guy to carry the water for the establishment here in DC.

And that's exactly what he's done.

GLENN: Hmm. Well, Thomas, when do you file? Is this Monday?

NEIL: Probably what will happen is we'll file Monday. Speaker Johnson, because it's a privileged resolution. The only thing that has higher privilege is motion to adjourn.

So he will have two days. Two legislative days to bring it up. So if we file it on Monday. The vote will either be Monday immediately. Or Tuesday or Wednesday.

If we file it on Tuesday. It would be either on Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday. Would be the vote.

GLENN: You don't believe he will back away?

I mean, you put this, or Marjorie Taylor Greene did. She put this in line, to be brought up, as kind of a threat.

Hey, we're thinking about doing this. Don't push it.

And he did it anyway.

NEIL: That's right. So he called the bluff, and we're calling the bluff. And we will have this vote.

What I hope, Glenn, is that our conference chair. Our Whip. And our Majority Floor Leader would go to Mike Johnson.

We exhibit the leadership, that we put them on that team to exhibit. And say, Mike, it's over.

It's just not worth what you're doing.

You're going and partnering with Hakeem Jeffries. And the minority whip, and the minority conference chair.

We can't do that. So I would like to see them go, convince Mike Johnson as a team.

It's time for him to step aside. He could still do that.

And I know as improbable as it sounds. And as resolved as Mike Johnson seems when he gets to the podium. That's exactly how John Boehner was, until the five minutes he took to resign.

STU: Thomas, I know we only have about a minute left. But if the concern is that, you know, Johnson will work with Jeffries, when he's put up against the wall and do these things.

If you go forward with this, you're making Johnson's political life, dependent on Hakeem Jeffries saving. I mean, couldn't this potentially just make all of this worse?

NEIL: It's very painful to expose this. I think what we're illuminating. I don't think we're causing him to go in that direction. We're illuminating what actually exists in Washington, DC. And why you don't get the results you want.

Is because he's already in league with Chuck Schumer, Mitch McConnell, and Hakeem Jeffries.

And we're just illuminating what would be otherwise, I believe.

GLENN: Thomas, God bless you.

Thank you for standing up for your principles. Whether people agree or disagree with, you know, you and your stance.

I will tell you, that I have a lot of respect for somebody who will take the heat, because they won't sit down on their principles.

Thank you.

NEIL: Well, thanks, Glenn. People say, this is a lost cause. You shouldn't do it. People didn't elect us to give up. People elected us to try. And that's what we're doing.

GLENN: Thank you so much. Appreciate it.

RADIO

Even MSNBC Can’t Support THIS Far-Left Talking Point

It’s time for a “Cannibal Update” as the Left continues to eat its own! Glenn reviews what happened when MSNBC’s Katy Tur actually called former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi out for spreading a blatant lie about Trump’s presidency. But Pelosi immediately responded by turning on Tur and trying to paint her as a Trump sympathizer! Glenn and Stu also review one of the biggest outbreaks of leftist “cannibalism” in recent years: The anti-Israel protests on college campus, in which pro-Palestine protesters have gone as far as to call President Biden “Genocide Joe.”

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: I think we need the cannibal update. Do we have the cannibal update music?

Because I have been very concerned about cannibalism, ever since Joe Biden brought it up.

Cannibalism. We all thought it was over.

But then again, we thought the Soviet Union was over.

We thought that threat was over.

Cannibalism is real. And it's so display. And it involves, well, let me show you. Here is Nancy Pelosi, involved in cannibalism on MSNBC.
(music)

NANCY: And Joe Biden is doing that, created 9 million jobs in his term in office. Donald Trump has the worst record of job loss of any president. So we have to just make sure people know.

VOICE: That was a global pandemic.

NANCY: He had the worst record of any president. We have had other concerns in our country. You want to be an apologist for Donald Trump. That may be your role. But it's not mine.

VOICE: I don't think anyone can accuse me of that.

NANCY: But let me just say, we put forward a 3 trillion-dollar bill. 3 trillion dollars of investment in communities and the rest, and that stimulates the economy.

STU: I mean.

GLENN: Now, I don't know which one is in the pod here, which one is eating each other. But they are eating each other.

So cannibalism. Another update is coming soon, because it seems to be going around now. And that's a real problem.

Now, let's do go to Columbia.

Because what happened there yesterday, was definitely not an insurrection, Stu. Nothing to see.

STU: Definitely not. No insurrection there. Not at all.

That was protesters, Glenn. Those are protesters, peacefully protesting, mostly, the -- in favor of the rapists and murderers in Hamas. That's all. That's all that was.

GLENN: Okay. Okay.

Well, let me show you some things that happened. This was in a library in Virginia.
(music)
They -- I mean, listen to that noise.

The librarian, her head exploded immediately.

She was like, shh. There were riot police were there.

They stormed and took over the library. At the Virginia commonwealth in Richmond, Virginia.

And they continued to talk out loud. Not in whispers.

And it was not good. It was not good. Here is from UCLA.

A Jewish student, that is being blocked from using the main entrance.

VOICE: I have my ID right here. I'm being blocked off. Not by the security guard. By you three.

This is what they do.

Everybody, look at this. Look at this.

I'm a UCLA student. I deserve to go here.

We pay tuition. This is our school. And they're not letting me walk in. My class is over there. I want to use that entrance. Will you let me go in?

Just let me and my friends go in. This could be over in a second.

VOICE: They're not in engaged.

VOICE: Then you can move.

VOICE: We're not engaged.

GLENN: We're not engaging.

VOICE: I'm going in. I have my hands up. I'm not hurting them. I'm not hurting them. That's what they do. That's what they do, everybody. You guys are promoting adepression. You guys are promoting hate. We're UCLA students, we deserve to be there.

GLENN: True. But he's forgotten all the microaggressions, Stu.

STU: Well, I think we should give it an award to the security guard who stands there and does absolutely nothing and allows them to block this person's progress as he's trying to go to class. That's just wow, he should get a Hamas award. Congratulations to him. I mean, that's completely -- completely unbelievable that they're allowing this to go on.

And it's happening with campus after campus after campus.

GLENN: Did you see the latest polls that Americans are for Israel? By I think it's like 80 percent. Something like that. For Israel.

STU: I know. I was talking to somebody. That's good to see. You do see in the media, a lot of times.

It feels like this is some close call. And Americans are like, what is it? Seventy-five-25. In favor of Israel instead of Hamas. I'm like, that's terrible.

75 percent of people, Israel over Hamas?

Not even like a hidden, oh. The Palestinian people are whatever they usually pitch. No. This is the actual recognized terrorist group was used in the poll.

This should be 99 to one. 75 percent sucks for that poll!

GLENN: I guess -- I guess I've just been beaten down so far, I'm just like, oh, that's good. Twelve people in America are still for the Jews.

I mean, I just -- I'm a little beaten down by it. Just a little bit.

Did you see what the University of Florida said yesterday?

That they're not going to tolerate it. They're not a preschool. You know the rules. You break them. You're out.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Boy, I can't imagine living in that fascistic society of Florida. Can you imagine that?

They hold you to the rules. When you sign it for school. You read the rule book. You're breaking the rules. You're out.

Everywhere else, they're negotiating with these people.

And I just think, negotiating with terrorists is such a smart idea.

It's so -- it's -- well, so today.

So open-minded. So woke. So great.

So one of the -- one of the -- I think it was northwestern negotiated to have Palestinians, you know, come up and speak on campus. So they're going to get some -- I don't know. Hamas members.

Why not? They did it with the Nazis. They literally did this exact same thing with the Nazis in the 1930s. Why should we expect a different outcome?

It's the same kind of people. The same group of people. They're fine with that.

Totally fine with that.

By the way, Spielberg is doing propaganda for Joe Biden.

I mean, no.

He's just -- he's looking into ways -- it's not propaganda. He's looking into ways to enhance the president's message. And help that message get out.

Like Nancy Pelosi just did. I I love that.

She was shocked when somebody in the media turned around and said. It's a pandemic. That's what everybody says. Play it again. That's what everybody says, to their television. When they hear that stat. Everybody says that.

NANCY: And Joe Biden is doing that. Created 9 million jobs in his office. Donald Trump has the worst record of job loss of any president. So we have to make sure people know.

VOICE: That was a global pandemic.

NANCY: He had the worst record of any president. We had other concerns in our country. You want to be an apologist for Donald Trump. That may be your role, but it ain't mine.

GLENN: She doesn't have any real comeback for it.

STU: No.

GLENN: She's never been challenged on that.

STU: No. She's literally stunned in that moment they can't be someone would point out most obvious thing in the world, that every single voter understands. Obvious. And this is showing up in the polls like crazy. That people don't even look at the pandemic, as part of Trump's economy. They don't judge it that way. They look at it, and they say, well, it was doing really well before this really terrible thing that happened. And obviously, a lot of jobs were lost.

And obviously, the -- you know, American people wound up come back to work after it was over.

And Biden is trying to take credit for that. The most fascinating part about that. If you are going to criticize Trump about his performance, on the economy, before when it comes to the pandemic.

You will hit him on the shutdowns. He was in favor of the shutdowns early. Which, okay. I think that's a fair criticism.

Certainly from the right, it was a fair criticism. Supported every single one of those policies, and tried to drag out shutdowns for another year and a half, after Trump stopped supporting them. So there's absolutely no argument whatsoever. Everybody knows. Everyone remembers COVID-19. Everyone remembers the period. Everyone remembers being told they couldn't go to work anymore for a few months.

Everybody remembers this. And the enact they keep trying to pitch this, is so insultingly stupid. That Katy Tur can't even let it happen on MSNBC. And she's calling Trump an apologist for it.

GLENN: Yes! Katy Tur. She's not -- she's not a conservative. She's not even anywhere close to that.

STU: She can't stand Donald Trump. She can't stand him.

GLENN: No. Fair is not even a word.

STU: She's embarrassed. She's embarrassed by the point that Nancy Pelosi is making.

She feels the internal poll. She has to point it out. It's such a stupid point.

And I feel I have a bit of sympathy for certain Democrats in these moments. Katy Tur is obviously no conservative.

It's like, what do you mean a Trump apologist?

Look at my record. I've done nothing, but bash Trump for years and years and years. The same thing with Joe Biden, he's being criticized as genocide Joe. He's done so much to hurt the Jews.

Why are you -- why are you -- he's done so much to ruin their ability to kill terrorists.

GLENN: Really has. Yeah.

STU: Stop their people from being raped.

He's done so much. Contributed so much to this cause. And these protesters won't give him credit for it.

GLENN: I personally think, genocide Joe, it's better to call him genocide Joe. From our side to their side.

He's been funding the Iranians who want a genocide on all the Jews.

He is genocide Joe.

They're just mixed up on who he wants to help kill.

By the way, this is what you would kill propaganda.

What happened on MSNBC, with Nancy Pelosi is propaganda.

And she was shocked that there was somebody, supposedly on her side. That would not play the game.

RADIO

Is NPR’s Woke CEO Katherine Maher WORSE Than We Thought?

NPR’s president and CEO Katherine Maher made headlines after NPR punished journalist Uri Berliner for exposing the network’s leftist bias … and then for her past outrageous statements about free speech. But is she even more nefarious than we thought? Blaze News staff writer Joseph MacKinnon joins Glenn to explain the theory that she is also a government asset: “From 30,000 feet, she looks like not just a tech-savvy media queen, but someone who spent a lot of time around color revolutions.” Glenn and Joseph run through Maher’s odd history of visiting nations that the CIA has helped overthrow and speculate whether she’s part of a plan to stage a color revolution in America as well. But whether she’s a CIA asset or not, MacKinnon argues, one thing is clear: “She might as well have been.”

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: I want to go over this NPR boss. Which was, you know, kind of funny, at the beginning.

And then the more you learn about it. The more you're like, well, hang on just a second. Because she would be a -- a very important tool in the hands of the government. And she's being paid, by National Public Radio. So she's being -- she is a tool of the government, in many ways.

Can she separate herself, from her own personal beliefs?

Or is that even wanted at nonprofit? We wanted to bring in Joe MacKinnon. Joe is a Blaze News Staff Writer. And she's been following up on this. Joe, take us from the beginning. From the -- the -- the whistle-blower, if you will.

All the way to Christopher Rufo. And then let's pick it up from there. So can you tell us the beginning of it, Joe?

BIDEN: Absolutely. Thanks for having me on. So Uri Berliner earlier this month. Had this damning exposé, in the free press, April 9th.

He goes after NPR, after having worked there for a quarter of a century, as a senior business editor. There's zero diversity, particularly after the former CEO had made it an activist organization.

And that allied it effectively with the Democratic Party.

This is a publication according to Berliner, that didn't want to cover the Hunter Biden laptop story.

That worked with Adam Schiff to push the Russian collusion hoax.

So he goes to town, on NPR. And draws the ire of someone who has not been on a lot of people's radar. That's Katherine Maher. Or Maher, I should say. So Maher comes up with this long response, and effectively cusses him out. In more charitable terms. And he subsequently, he is offended. And then he resigns. So people start looking into Maher after -- after this. Because she was with Wikipedia before.

But I guess, flew under the radar. For a lot. Particularly on the right. Or those -- among those who are critical of the government.

And at first blush, she looks just like another shrill left partisanship she has the obligatory photo. Wearing the Biden campaign hat.

She has an unhealthy obsession with race. That photo exists. The tweet speaks for itself. And you keep digging as Rufo has. And you realize, really quickly, that there's something going on here.

From 30,000 feet, she looks like not just a tech savvy media queen. But someone who spent a lot of time around Colour Revolutions and the orient, enough to know how they might be replicated.

GLENN: Okay. So hang on just a second.

The campuses and boardrooms are full of leftists. But you're saying, and Christopher Rufo is saying, she is not your ordinary leftist.

She has been around Colour Revolutions. What does that mean, she's been around Colour Revolutions.

JOE: Okay. One of the many interesting posts she's had. I should note at the outset here, she's a World Economic Forum, World Global leader.

She's worked with the World Bank. She's worked with various NGOs that are in the tech, coms, and, well, foreign policy space.

So around 2010, 2011. And Rufo chronicled her travel itinerary. She's with the National Democratic Institute. And that's a spin-off of the National Endowment for Democracy, committed to -- yeah. Exactly.

You know where I'm going with this. This is an organization that tries to transition, unwilling regimes to become liberal democracies.

GLENN: Can I redefine that a little bit?

It's a CIA front.

JOE: Well, Mike Benz -- he was in the Trump administration at the State Department. He said, exactly that. He said, to carve out for the CIA. And other people have said just as much.

In fact, I think it was Ron Dixon, at the New York Times, back when, he said the NBI was actively fomenting protests during the so-called Arab spring.

GLENN: Uh-huh. We -- we know this. I exposed that, when we were at Fox.

We've known that from the beginning. It didn't take a brain surgeon to figure this out.

Then, when you go into Ukraine, and see what they were doing and the phrases that they were using. Saying, you know, we can -- we can spread this now. We kind of perfected it. In the Middle East. And we can spread it. And that's exactly what we were doing, in Ukraine.

JOE: Well, precisely, Ukraine. Libya. Egypt. Yemen. Tunisia. And so she's kind of been on a pilgrimage to these toppled regimes. And in some cases, as they're falling.

So Rufo notes, that she goes to Tunisia a couple times. She goes to Gedden (phonetic) in Southern Turkey. Just as rebels are making inroads, along the highway between Damascus and I believe it's Aleppo. And she actually said, not a long time ago. She framed the timing differently. She said in the aftermath of the revolution, she was doing research on the ground. With, quote, unquote, human rights activists.

And independent journalists.

And so she -- she is with the NBI. She's going to Tunisia. And she raises a couple of alarm bells. There's this Tunisian cabinet official. And, well, he basically -- he straight-up said, it's a likely case, that she works for a certainty letter agency. And a lot of people have been speculating about that in recent weeks.

GLENN: So what is her -- what is her background in broadcast? And news?

JOE: Well, she deals a lot with -- in terms of news, she's been critical of the ways that governments have weaponized their state broadcasters. Which I think --

GLENN: Right. Yeah. Yes. But what is she -- does she have a background in -- in news?

Is she a journalist.

Is she -- I mean, why is she -- I see she's traveled the world. That she's with the World Bank. And the WEF. And she's been with NGOs. And she's been around revolutions. But that doesn't necessarily scream CEO of NPR.

JOE: Well, I think Wikipedia, where she ran the show for, for several years.

GLENN: Oh.

JOE: Yeah.

And it was under her reign, that it quickly became clear that this was -- well, supposed to be a repository for human knowledge. Right?

GLENN: Right. It's not.

JOE: Recently you talked about how memory is the key to where we are. Well, Wikipedia is instrumental to capturing and curating that memory for a lot of people. So she may not be a journalist. But she was very much, I don't want to suggest there's a causation, she pretends that the Wikipedia editors who are working on their own.

But while she's in control, there's very much a narrative curation going on. A kind that you might want, at taxpayer funded broadcasts --

GLENN: Gosh. Jeez.

Okay. So the rumor that she's with CIA. Where did that originate?

JOE: So I mentioned, she went to Tunisia a couple times, right?

GLENN: Right.

JOE: So this cabinet official. I think I'm pronouncing that right.

But Slim Amamou. I think I'm pronouncing that right. But Slim said in 2016, it's a bit of a retrospective.

He's looking back. And I believe it's around the time. She's getting a promotion over at Wikipedia. He straight-up says, she's probably CIA.

He's not mincing words. He says, she's come over under different affiliations. With World Bank.

With USAID. And he suggests. And this is going on Twitter.

Still called that.

He suggests that she may as well have had CIA written on her front.

So Slim was in the transitional government.

He dropped out to protest, so-called. And he -- you know, not entirely, the top of the food chain. But someone you might at least want to hear out.

And so she is prickled by the suggestion.

She responds saying, I am no sort of agent. You can dislike me, but please don't tie me.

But then, that brought even more scrutiny.
Because people took notice of the way she framed that response.

So Christina Pushaw. She's on the DeSantis team. She said, for instance, okay. You may not have been an agent, but you could have just as well have been an asset.

GLENN: Yeah.

JOE: But the CIA element, I think, you know, I haven't seen any incontrovertible proof.

It's also largely immature.

She's also directly worked with the Biden administration.

She's worked with and brushed shoulders with all these regime change groups. So whether or not she has CIA on the card, somewhere, tucked into her desk.

She may as well have been.

GLENN: And this is -- this is part of the group, that -- I mean, Hillary Clinton, that infamous clip, where she said, we came, we saw, and died.

And laughed about it.

I think who she was talking about, at the time.

Might have been Samantha Power. Who is Cass Sunstein's wife. Author of nudge.

And somebody, who knows how to nudge people into new positions.

But Sam now works at USAID. She's the head of USAID.

So if you have the head of NPR, also working with Samantha Power, at USAID. That is also a CIA front.

JOE: Oh, absolutely. And I think it was Michael Waller and Rufo. She's a national security analyst. And he said, he drew that same connection with power.

And intimated said that Maher is part of his revolutionary vanguard movement.

So, you know, they're all in bed together. By the looks of it, I should say.

I don't want a mean tweet. And then, you couple this, with her public comments. And then, it lends even more gravity to this -- well, her becoming the head of NPR. Which was --

GLENN: Give me some of her -- give me some of her public comments, that I may not know.

JOE: Okay. Well, and I did a little bit of a -- a lot of these already are circulating.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

JOE: But Donald Trump -- so, you know, for instance, in 2021 interview, and this one caught a lot of people's attention in recent days.

She described the First Amendment as the top challenge in the fight against disinformation.

So the challenge -- yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

It's a challenge, because, quote, it's a little bit tricky to really address some of the real challenges of where, does that information come from? Sort of the influence peddlers who made a real market economy around it.

And, by the way, when she's talking about disinformation. She means skepticism of COVID-19 vaccines.

GLENN: Right.

JOE: Which will lead it to the show. Which was mentioned, that --

GLENN: Correct.

JOE: Devastating impact. Well, so is disinformation, according to the former head of Wikipedia. She also learned that it won't fly for her.

So an Atlantic Council 2021 event, she says Wikipedia isn't a free expression platform.

And so that -- a lot of people are wondering why. And she suggests, and I created content that people can add confidence to.

That they can make determinations in their right. So in that right, they have access to high integrity content, often sort of trumps the right to free speech.

Now, pair that with the fact that she suggests, straight out, in a TED talk, that, quote, a reverence for the truth, might be a distraction.

And it's getting in the way of finding common ground for getting things country. So I don't know who that common ground belongs to, by the way.

But it's certainly not the people.

GLENN: Yeah. That's a fantastic. Okay.

I'm going to come back. Let me take one minute to break for a sponsor.

And then I want to come back. And then I want to ask you.

So if she was a tool, even a little bit in Colour Revolution.

What is the fear that she could do? Or what is the impact she could have here in America? By being the CEO of nonprofit?

Back in just a second. Stand by.

Let's say that you had an employee. And here's what he did. He spent too much of the company's money. A bunch of which he actually stole. In fact, he ran the company into huge, huge debt. Where there was no turning back from it.

Ensuring the stock was worth less and less every day, until the whole thing went belly-up. On top of that, he was a jerk about that, to all the other employees beneath him.

What would I do with that employee? You would fire him, right?

Well, we don't do that. We call it Congress. We call at it administration. We call it the fed and the Treasury.

And we're all supposed to listen to them.

And they keep doing these things. We know they're doing these things. And yet we keep coming back to them, and saying, okay. How are you going to fix it? How are they going to fix it?

The fix is already in. Stop listening to those people! I want you to seriously consider gold or silver. There was a story in today's show prep at GlennBeck.com about China, and how the Chinese are just buying gold like crazy.

They're going on these vacancies, over to India. And they're just coming back with buckets of gold that they bought. They know in China, that that's the only hedge against insanity.

Well, I think we're in the land of insanity. We're now borrowing $1 trillion every 100 days.

Please, please, they have five-star reviews out the wazoo. They have a worry-free purchase guarantee.

24-hour free purchase guarantee.

They are the precious metals leader that you can trust.

It's Lear Capital.

Please, call them now.

Just get your free wealth protection guide. This is coming. And it's coming fast and hard.

They will also credit your account. $250 towards your purchase. So call today. At 800-957-GOLD. That's 800-957-GOLD.

Back in just a minute. Ten seconds.
(music)
So we're talking to Joe MacKinnon, who has written extensively for TheBlaze news.

You can go to Blaze.com. And find his work on NPR's CEO, who is looking to be far worse than what anybody thought she was. We just thought she was a crazy liberal. Or progressive.

But she seems to be. Possibly much more than that. Including, possibly working with the CIA.

But she -- she spent a lot of time around Colour Revolutions. We'll talk about that. Coming up in the next break.

But I just wanted to ask you, Joe, before you go. What is the impact, if this is true, that she could have with NPR at her disposal?

JOE: NPR has long been a joke. It's ineffective. Its viewership has dwindled immensely. She's shrewd. She's effective. This is an individual who had people believing that cultural Marxism is a far right conspiracy theory, when she was running with them.

And all the insights she's gleaned, when she was doing her, again, pilgrimage of farm state. And her understanding that capture of a state broadcaster could ultimately mean capture of the state.

Means that nonprofit is a weapon in her hands.

Potentially a weapon in her hands. There's over a thousand stations broadcasting at NPR programming. There's thousands of employees.

A bunch of bureaus across the country.

Now, I don't think they're going to do business as usual.

In fact, she's telegraphed that there's going to be a transformation behind the scenes. Nonprofit was already a leftist propaganda element.

Now I think it's going to be used, to foment. Or at the very least control.

The protests. And to at least have the power to weaponize various groups across the nation.
Send your marching orders, essentially out via NPR.

So Wikipedia -- and I'm surprised you left Wikipedia honestly. I think that's a more consequential place.

Wikipedia controls the past. And therefore, controls the future.

GLENN: Yes. Right.

JOE: I think NPR under her helm, I think the game, anyway, is controlling the present.

GLENN: Joseph MacKinnon, from theBlaze.com.

RADIO

The BIGGEST Issue With Trump’s SCOTUS Immunity Case

Former president Donald Trump is battling multiple legal challenges. But everything could change if the Supreme Court rules that he has full presidential immunity. However, there’s a big issue. Former Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Andrew McCarthy joins Glenn to explain why he believes the Court may NOT grant Trump full immunity. Plus, Andrew weighs in on whether Trump has a chance of moving his trials away from New York and Washington, D.C. and why former presidents haven’t been taken to court before.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Andy McCarthy, a National Review contributing editor, the Institute's Senior fellow, and a former chief assistant US attorney general. We won't hold this against him.

He was a former US attorney in the -- in the district of Manhattan.

So we'll just leave that alone.

Andy, how are you?

ANDY: Glenn, I'm doing great. How are you?

GLENN: Very, very good.

So let's start with the big story. I think, and that is the Supreme Court.

And what they were arguing last week, can you give me your honest take on what -- what this is really about for the future. Beyond Donald Trump. And how you think this will affect what is happening with Donald Trump.

ANDY: Glenn, I think it's important that you frame a question that way. Because it seemed to me.

And I reread the transcript over the weekend.

After listening to the oral argument.

The court is a lot more concerned, about the presidency, than about Trump.

GLENN: Sure. Should be.

ANDY: Yeah.

And it's -- it's an important point make. Because a lot of the coverage, has been this hysteria over whether, you know, the Trump packed Supreme Court is in the tank for him.

And they're going to get rid of Jack Smith's prosecution.

I don't think that will happen at all.

It's possible that Smith won't get his case to trial.

Depending on what the court does.

What I think the court is going to do, is send the case back to judge chuck in. Who was the trial judge in Washington. With instructions to sort out what things in the indictment against Trump are what you would call official acts, that might arguably be immune from prosecution, because they go to the core responsibility of the presidency.

And what are private acts or private wrongs. That he would not have immunity for, even though they have been enduring his presidency.

But the -- the upshot of the questioning, of the lawyers. Including Trump's lawyer, and this is particularly by Justice Barron. Justice Kagan. Trump's lawyer admitted that there's a lot of conduct charged in the indictment, that is private conduct, that really wouldn't be covered by an immunity claim.

Even though Trump has been saying a lot of stuff about absolute, complete immunity. And I think the concessions he made in the argument, that is John Sauer. Trump's lawyer, would be enough. If Smith was willing to tailor his indictment, down to the things that Sauer conceded, they could go ahead with the trial on just those acts.

He would lose a lot of evidence, but he probably should.

GLENN: So what are some of the acts that could fall under -- you know, private, and so you could prosecute. And what are the acts that are the president, and you don't prosecute?

ANDY: Yeah. So the one bright line that we can take away from this. Is that there seems to be consensus, that there is a -- a divide between office seeking, and the carrying out of the duties of an office.

So if something is purely in the nature of trying to get reelected. That's deemed to be private. Because it's not part of the duty, of the presidency.

It would be the same for anyone who was seeking office. Whether that person was an incumbent or not.

And then there were other things, that are clearly presidential.

So just to give some solid examples. That came out of the argument. Trump's lawyer conceded, that if Trump made a private scheme with private lawyers to get electors, designated for him and to supply documents to the Congress. Suggesting that they were the authentic, actually slate of electors, designated by the state.

That would be private conduct.

Because it's -- it's purely office seeking. And he carried it out, only with private lawyers.

On the other hand, there's an allegation in the indictment, that Trump tried to use the justice department. To signal to states, that there were serious concerns about fraud. And consider both removing the attorney general, when he got pushback. And considered sending a letter, that they never sent from the Justice Department to the state of Georgia, to tell them, you know, that they needed to do more scrutiny over what happened in the popular election. Trump argued very strongly. And I think the court will probably go along with this. That that is the president's control over the Justice Department, is -- is purely a presidential act, that has no part in a criminal prosecution.

GLENN: Correct.

ANDY: On those are the kinds of things that they are talking about sorting out.

GLENN: When Trump sat another group of electors, or tried to. That's what -- that's what the friends of Dershowitz did. I don't remember all of the attorneys. In the 2000 election.

That's what they were recommending, to be done. You have to do that. Or you have no case.

ANDY: Yeah. Well, let me just be clear, Glenn. They're not saying that Trump wouldn't have a defense at trial.

What we're talking about now is purely immunity. That is who he got the trial from happening in the first place. I think there's significant defenses to the fraudulent electors playing. Beginning with the fact that the electors themselves, didn't think they were fraudulent. They thought they were contingent.

They thought they were basically sitting in as a slate of electors, in the event that Trump prevailed either in the state courts or in the state legislature, to throw out the popular election. Then that would activate.

But they weren't trying to fool anyone into saying, that they were the actual electors that had been certified by the state.

GLENN: Can you get a fair trial on that? If indeed he has to go to court?

ANDY: Well, I think it's tough for him to get a fair trial, in Washington.

GLENN: Why isn't -- why can't someone make the case here?

Why can't his people make the case? That you can't get a fair trial, with the jury pool in New York, or in Washington, DC.

ANDY: I think Trump's problem is he's too famous in some ways.

The problem is that unlike almost any other defendant, he goes and says, one of the things that they can always says about him. He's the most famous guy in the world. And no matter where you have the case, you have the same pretrial publicity problems. And they kind of reject out of hand, the thought that because a jurisdiction votes substantially against Trump as a political matter.

That means they can't be fair to him as a legal matter.

You know, you can -- you can debate that all you want. About whether that's a sensible distinction to draw or not.

But it's a distinction the courts draw.

GLENN: Okay. What do you think is come downtown pike on this?

Based on -- go ahead.

ANDY: Yeah. I think they will send the case back to Judge Chutkan with instructions to go through the indictment and figure out, what's a public act and what's a private act.

If Smith wants to fight on that, then he's never going to get to trial, prior to Election Day. Which, of course, is his aim.

Because this would still be a live immunity claim, and immunity is one of the few things that you can actually appeal pre-trial. So I don't see how he would get to trial. But I do think Smith, if he wants to. And if it's that important to him to get to trial, quickly. He could say, you know what, I will dispense with all of the acts that you say are immunized, official, presidential acts. And we will just go to the trial on the private stuff.

It would be a weaker case for him.

But it wouldn't be an unwinnable case.

GLENN: And what is the punishment?

ANDY: Well, that's an interesting question. Because that may depend on another Supreme Course case this term. The one they argued, a week before on the obstruction statute, that is key to Trump's case.

That obstruction statute has a 20-year penalty. And it's the two main counts in the indictment against Trump.

The other two counts only have five-year penalties. So if the Supreme Court says that it rejects the way the Justice Department has been using the obstruction statute. Which it might. Then that would require probably a big overhaul of Smith's case. Because those charges are very important to him.

But if the court upholds that statute. Which it also might. Then you are looking at a potential of, you know, 40 years imprisonment.

Now, he won't get 40 years. But statutorily, there would be 40 years imprisonment.

On those charges. And I think ten on the other two. The other two are fraud on the United States. And the civil rights charge.

So he would be looking at, you know, statutorily 50 years imprisonment. Which would indicate, under the sentencing guidelines, that he would get, I would think. You know, four or five, six years.

Of a sentence. If he gets convicted on those charges.

GLENN: Unbelievable. You know, last week, the Biden administration was making the case, well, Donald Trump is the on me one that has ever broken the law. That's why we've never had this before. That's such crap, and we all know it.

Why haven't we had this problem before?

ANDY: I think a lot of the criminal -- the potential prosecutable criminal conduct has come up, late in presidential terms. Like, for example, with Clinton.

The pardon scandal happened as he was going out the door. And I was in the Justice Department, at the time.

There was -- there was over a year of pretty intense debate within the Justice Department, about whether he ought to be charged with bribery or not. In connection with those pardons.

But I think there's -- maybe this has changed now.

But there's always been a current of like, when a new administration comes in. Particularly if it's a new administration of a different party. They don't want to revisit what happened, with the last guy.

They want to just go ahead, on their own stuff.

This whole idea, we're looking forward. We're not looking back. That certainly had a lot to do with why the Bush Justice Department didn't prosecute Clinton.

And I think with Obama, there was a lot of rhetoric, during the 2008 campaign, about war crimes against Bush and all that stuff.

But when they got into power. They not only weren't interested in prosecuting anyone on war crimes. They reopened the CIA investigation. But then they closed it.

But they actually ended up adopting a lot of Bush/Cheney counterterrorism.

You know, I think, there's a lot of rhetorical campaign stuff about how, you know, lock her up.

And we will put these guys in jail.

But it doesn't come to pass. I actually think Trump is serious about it, this time. Because they've seen what they've done to have.

That's why I thought it was amusing in the Supreme Court argument. For the government lawyers to get up and say, you know, you don't have to worry about this.

This is just generous with Trump, it will never happen again.

And in the meantime, Trump is ahead in the polls. And he's running as the retribution candidate. He's promised he's going to do this stuff, right?

So -- so it's an amazing time to be alive, right?

Andy, tell me about how Alvin Brag's doing, so far.

ANDY: It's a terrible case. I think -- I wrote a column about this today, called How Judge Merchan is Orchestrating Trump's Conviction.

And I was reminded of, you know, the fact that Trump when he was a young guy, learned a lot about litigation from Roy Cohen.

And, you know, what Cohen used to say, his first principle of hardball litigation was, don't tell me what the law is, tell me who the judge is.

And I think Trump knows that. He knows it very well.

And as I'm closely watching the rulings. That are being made. And the arguments that the judge is allowing to be made. It's clear, that he has allowed Bragg. And just, so the people understand, this case is indicted as a falsification of business records, that occurred in the months of February through December of 2017.

Those are the only charges in the indictment. The case is being presented to the jury, as a conspiracy from 2015 through 2017, to steal the 2016 election by violations of federal campaign finance law, which Alvin Bragg, as a state prosecutor, has no authority to enforce. And that's the way the case has been framed by the prosecutor.

Based on orders from the judge. And that is the way that they are proceeding, and judge -- and Judge Merchan is allowing the state to prove, that Michael Cohen, pled guilty to two campaign finance offenses. And that David Pecker, the AMI guy, who ran the National Enquirer. That they had a non-prosecution agreement from the Justice Department.

And then paid a fine of $180 of the Federal Election Commission.

For violating federal election law. Now, those -- it's a black letter principle of law. That one person -- let's say person A. His guilty plea is not admissible evidence against person B. Even if A says, A and B acted together.

It's absolutely improper for these -- for this evidence of what Michael Cohen and David Pecker was thinking about the federal election laws. The fact that they made deals with the government. None of that stuff should come in. The judge is letting it in.

And he's not letting Trump explain to the jury, that he, Trump, was not charged by the justice department or the FEC. And the reason is obvious.

Actually expenditures that were cognizable under the federal law.

And he's also not letting Trump call an expert witness to explain campaign lay to the jury.

So what the jury is going to hear about campaign law is going to come from Michael Cohen and David Pecker.

So it's a farce.

GLENN: How is this a fair trial?

If you can't call people -- and you can't let the -- the jury know. Truly, the other side of it?

TRENT: Yeah. Look, it's even more fundamentally unfair than that.

In the United States, under the fifth amendments of the Constitution.

You are entitled, that you will be charged with a felony.

It has to be on the basis of an indictment returned by a grand jury, that explicitly says what the charge is.

The indictment in this case, talks about false bookkeeping in 2017. A case that has been presented to the jury, is a conspiracy to violate the he federal election laws.

It's mind-boggling, that it's being permitted.

GLENN: Wow.

Andy, thank you so much.

I appreciate it.

This would definitely lose in a higher court, don't you think?

ANDY: I do. But I think it will be -- I mean, Harvey Weinstein's conviction just got reversed last week. That was three years.

Glenn's Show Prep

Navy SEAL’s Mom Shares Her Secret to Raising Strong Sons

Is it a GOOD IDEA to Oust Speaker Mike Johnson BEFORE the Election?

Transcript

Even MSNBC Can’t Support THIS Far-Left Talking Point

Transcript

Is NPR’s Woke CEO Katherine Maher WORSE Than We Thought?

Transcript

The BIGGEST Issue With Trump’s SCOTUS Immunity Case

Transcript