Paul Manafort Surrendered to the FBI. What Happens Next?

Are you trying to untangle the ins and outs of the latest indictment scandal?

Andrew C. McCarthy, a former assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York and National Review contributing editor, joined today’s show to explain what we know so far about former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort being indicted and what we should look for as this case unfolds.

Here are some of the questions he and Glenn looked at:

What will a prosecutor need to prove in order to convict Manafort on money laundering charges?

How much jail time is Manafort facing?

Which allegation against Manafort will be the most damning?

How does the federal statute of limitations affect charges against Manafort?

What will special counsel Robert Mueller be looking for as Manafort is investigated?

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: Andrew McCarthy, contributing editor, National Review, and AndrewCMcCarthy.com.

Andy, can you tell me what is -- can you walk us through the Paul Manafort story?

ANDREW: Well, to the extent we know it, Glenn, I think what happened is Manafort and the fellow that they say is a protégé of his, Richard Gates, worked as political consultants for the Kremlin-connected Ukrainian regime, from about 2005, 2006, up until the main guy there, Yanukovych, got ousted and fled to Moscow in 2014.

So --

GLENN: Is it too much -- Andrew, is it too much to say that Paul Manafort played a big role in what led to the -- the revolution in -- in Ukraine? That they were rising up against the guy he was working for and strengthening?

ANDREW: Yeah. I would say, Glenn, not wanting to get too far ahead of what we know, the guy we were talking about certainly did lead to the chaos and worse that we have there now. And Manafort was obviously working for them. And if this indictment is to be believed, they made about $75 million in consulting.

GLENN: Jeez.

ANDREW: So I don't think we can say that what he was doing was trivial. So that's for sure.

GLENN: Okay. So he was laundering money and not declaring money from that job.

ANDREW: Yes. What you're required to do -- this is the allegation. What you're required to do if you're an American citizen and you have control over a foreign bank account that has more than $10,000 in it at any point during the year, you have to disclose that. You don't have to do anything more than disclose it. But you have to disclose it. And you also have to do something on your tax return in the way of disclosure as well. So the allegation is that they didn't do that.

Whether the money laundering -- the money laundering looks like it's kind of a rickety count to me. It may hold up. But the theory behind the money laundering is that they were unregistered foreign agents when they were, as American citizens, required to register under federal law, at the time they were making all this money. And they then moved the money. So the idea is that, with money laundering, not to get too far in the weeds, you have to have unlawful proceeds in the first place that you then start to move around through bank accounts and change the form of. So you got to prove the challenge through a prosecutor. A money laundering case is to prove that the money was illegal in the first place, before you started moving it around. So my question here would be, is -- it's not illegal to make money, even from bad people outside the United States.

What -- what he did wrong here is failing to register as a foreign agent. To me, that doesn't necessarily mean that the earning of the money was criminal. It means that his failure to register was criminal. They're trying to bootstrap those two things together, in order to say that these are unlawful proceeds. Criminal proceeds. So that when they then start moving the money around, the money laundering laws get triggered. We'll have to see how that theory plays out.

GLENN: They're also saying that he didn't pay any taxes on that. But would he have to pay taxes if he left it -- if it wasn't repatrioted?

ANDREW: He would have to disclose it. And I think that's the main -- the main allegation here is the failure to disclose, not necessarily the failure to -- I don't see a tax evasion charge here.

GLENN: Okay.

ANDREW: I see a failure to disclose discharge.

GLENN: Okay. Just so people know, Andy McCarthy, former assistant U.S. attorney for the southern district of New York. He's the guy that led the terrorism prosecution against The Blind Sheikh and 11 other people, with the '93 World Trade Center bombing. Also, was instrumental in the -- the bombing of the US embassy -- actually, the prosecution on the guys who bombed --

ANDREW: Yes, thank you.

GLENN: -- yeah, that bombed the embassies of Kenya and Tanzania. And so he has some real depth in this kind of stuff.

Andy, so I'm looking at this, and I'm thinking that, you know, if they could prove all of these -- here's a guy who is, what? Sixty-eight? Sixty-nine years old?

He's never leaving prison, if they can prove these things and get a jury to go along with it. Would you agree with that first?

ANDREW: I think that the indictment looks worse than the sentencing guidelines would look like. Like, for example, they're talking about a scheme that goes back to 2006. But the federal statute of limitations on most felonies is only five years, which is why when you look close at this, they're really only charging stuff that goes from 2012, forward, which cuts out a lot of the early lavish money that was involved.

There's also some sort of disturbing stacking of -- of accounts by Mueller's office. So, for example, they accused them of -- when they belatedly registered as foreign agents, making false statements on their -- on their form, that's fine.

Congress has a penalty for that, in the context of foreign agents, they make it a misdemeanor worth up to six months in jail, to make a false statement on a foreign agency -- a foreign agent registry form.

Mueller, for good measure, throws in a felony five-year full statements cap, that, you know, prosecutors use all the time.

You're not really supposed to do that, when Congress has prescribed a different penalty to the same behavior, you know, specifically addressing an area like registering as a foreign agent. Because you can't commit the one crime, without committing the other crime.

So what Mueller has done is taken something that Congress regards as a misdemeanor and turned it into a five and a half year felony. That kind of stuff, I think when courts look at it, they're not going to like it very much. So we'll see.

GLENN: So if you were -- if you were Manafort today, let's start with him. What would you be thinking, looking at this?

ANDREW: The same thing I have been thinking in July, when really gratuitously they got a search warrant and convinced a judge to let them break in, in the pre-dawn hours, with their guns drawn, while he's in bed with his wife. You know, I think they're squeezing me.

And it's clear, I think, what Mueller is doing here. Is that either he has reached an impasse in his investigation and he thinks that the only way he can find, if there's anything to this collusion business, is that -- is that Manafort is the guy who is the key to it. And he has to break them.

Or it may just be that there's nothing there, and this is the chance that Mueller has to take, in order to satisfy himself completely. But there's nothing to the collusion thing.

But one way or another, this is a very heavy-handed investigation. And to my mind, looking at it, it's a very overcharged set of charges.

GLENN: Wow.

ANDREW: I'm not for a moment making -- I'm not for a moment making the case that Manafort is not guilty. Looks to me that he's probably guilty of some not insignificant --

GLENN: Yeah, I think he's a really -- I think he's a really, really bad guy, who knew exactly who he was in bed with, you know, over in -- in the Ukraine. And, you know, is a -- is a -- a knowing ally of Vladimir Putin, trying to grab Ukraine. I think he's a really bad guy.

ANDREW: Yeah, but, Glenn, I always -- maybe this is because of what I used to do for a living. I distinguish between icky national security problem and crime.

GLENN: Yeah.

ANDREW: I have no doubt that Manafort was completely unsuited to be involved in a presidential campaign. And I've been upset as anyone about Trump's friendly blandishments back and forth with Putin's regime. But the question clinically for me, looking at the four corners of an indictment is, you know, how serious is this case? And it looks to me that it's overcharged.

GLENN: Okay. So what is the first charge? Conspiracy against the United States. That seems like, scary as hell.

ANDREW: Yes. Sounds terrible, doesn't it?

GLENN: It does.

ANDREW: When you look at it. Yeah, except it's the five-year catch-all federal conspiracy case, which always is conspiracy against the United States.

And what it really is, is --

GLENN: Fail --

ANDREW: 2012. You know, the failure to disclose the foreign bank accounts, is the main part of that. And the false statements.

GLENN: Wow. Because that just sounds like something you just do not -- you do not want to wake up on a Monday morning and hear those words.

ANDREW: You know, every caption in a criminal case says United States versus --

GLENN: Yeah, right.

ANDREW: -- the name of the person. And it's intimidated to be prosecuted and to be charged with things like conspiracy against the United States. You were good enough to mention my Blind Sheikh prosecution. Judge Mukasey, who later became the attorney general, made us call that case -- we originally called it United States versus Rockmond (phonetic). And he made us call it United States versus Abdul Rockmond (phonetic). Who, as our Arabic-speaking defendants explained that Abdul Rockmond meant soldier of God. Whereas, Rockmond meant God. So our original indictment said United States versus God. So...

GLENN: Yeah, that's probably something we shouldn't file.

ANDREW: Yeah. I agree to make that adjustment.

GLENN: Yeah.

(laughter)

GLENN: So can you hang on just a second, Andrew?

ANDREW: Yeah, sure.

GLENN: Because I want to now go to, all right. So if you are -- if you're Paul Manafort, do you just say, I'm sitting tight? Or do they have enough screws to put to you that you're starting to think, if -- if you had anything to offer, you might offer. And what are you thinking in the White House? And how does -- how does Donald Trump send a message without hurting himself? We'll get to that here in a second.

GLENN: Andrew McCarthy is joining us. Let me go to two places with you: First, back to Manafort. Manafort reportedly sent an email to Dara Poska (phonetic), asking if he would like private briefings on the campaign, which is, you know, kind of unusual. And then we also have papa dop, like I say, who apparently already pled guilty and swore out an affidavit. And, Stu, just read the first part of that.

STU: Well, foreign -- he was a foreign adviser. Or foreign policy adviser for the president's campaign. One of the big parts of this is, on or about April 26 -- this is about a month after the hack happened with Podesta. This guy, Papadopoulos, met with a professor. The professor told the defendant, Papadopoulos, that on a trip, he learned that the Russians had obtained dirt on then-candidate Clinton. They told them that the Russians have dirt on her. The Russians had emails of Clinton. They have thousands of email, indicating that potentially they knew about this Podesta hack in April of 2016.

And that is something that he has admitted to.

GLENN: Yeah. And that they were told that it was the Russians that did it. Is that bad?

ANDREW: Yeah. I think -- all of this is bad. Whether it's criminal is another matter. Obviously, if there was something criminal about it, they would have charged him with something other than a false statement. Because from a prosecutor's standpoint, there's nothing better in terms of establishing the crime that you're really trying to prove, than to get a cooperating witness to plead guilty to that crime, because that establishes that it happened.

They obviously didn't think they --

GLENN: Had a crime.

ANDREW: So they -- they got them to admit to false statements. And, you know, look this goes to something that has been a problem with this whole collusion thing from the beginning. Collusion with the Russians would be a terrible thing, not just with politics, but in terms of national security. It's the kind of thing that the Framers put impeachment in there for. And it's the reason why impeachment doesn't necessarily require a violation of the penal law.

GLENN: Do you believe that there is any collusion? That this is any indication that there may be collusion?

ANDREW: Well, I've always thought -- Glenn, you and I are colluding by having this conversation.

GLENN: Correct.

ANDREW: And collusion has got a dark connotation to it. But in the criminal law, we talk about conspiracy. Because that means you have to specifically violate a criminal statute, that we agree to do that. That's -- that's just collusion. That's something that you can actually work with as a prosecutor.

GLENN: Right.

ANDREW: So I think the reason that they talk collusion, you know, from one side, it's that they don't have a crime and they're trying to divert attention from the fact that they don't have it. But on the other side, collusion with Russia would be bad, even if it couldn't be prosecuted.

GLENN: So you're Donald Trump today. How are you feeling? What are you saying to him? You're walking in and you're saying to him, "Don't worry." Or, Mr. President, what are you thinking?

ANDREW: Well, I'm thinking that I'm not surprised by this because I had to know something like this was coming back in July, when they handled the search warrant on the guy's house the way they did. But I'm thinking, in terms of politics, which would be his major concern right now, he's been told by Comey apparently on repeated occasions that he personally is not a suspect. And now finally, there are charges for Mueller, and they don't have anything to do with the 2016 campaign.

So if I'm the president today, you know, I'm obviously not happy to see Manafort get charged, but if I'm just thinking about Donald Trump, which I think is what Donald Trump mainly thinks about, I'm thinking this is a pretty good day.

GLENN: And are you -- as the president, are you worried that Manafort, you know, could say something, even if it wasn't true, that they could flip him? How do you deal with Manafort?

ANDREW: I'm not more worried about that, than I was yesterday.

GLENN: Okay. All right.

ANDREW: I think that's been out there all this time. I'm less worried about it, after reading what Mueller has done.

You know, if there was some allusion to 2016 in here, that would be alarming. But I take comfort from the fact that this is all Ukrainian stuff that doesn't have anything to do with the 2016 campaign.

GLENN: I hate to ask you this: But can I hold you for just a few more minutes? I want to ask you your thoughts on the Fusion GPS and Uranium One. Because I think that needs to be looked at as well.

ANDREW: Yeah, sure.

GLENN: And we need to pop the hood on that. But they say the same thing: Is there any crime there? Back to it in a sec.

GLENN: Andrew McCarthy, contributing editor of the National Review. And he is -- he's also a guy who, you know, was the former assistant US attorney for the southern district of New York that led the charge on the first World Trade Center bombing and is a trusted friend of the program.

So, Andrew, I want to ask you the -- the right is -- I'm sorry, the left is dismissing Fusion GPS and Uranium One. And both of those seem to be really big deals. At least to me.

And nobody -- nobody in the news media seems to really care.

ANDREW: Yeah, I think they're very big deals, Glenn. Not only on their own merit, but particularly framed by the debate that we've been having for the last year. So, for example, just to take Fusion GPS, if you strip out the middle men, that is the law firm that the Clinton campaign and DNC-hired, and Steele, who was the guy who supposedly has these connections. Which, if you read his dossier, he says they are high-level Kremlin-connected people. What they basically did was get information from Kremlin-connected officials, which would be damaging to the Trump campaign.

GLENN: Right. There's no difference -- there's no difference, in my mind, between the Trump meeting, which I think was wrong, and the Fusion GPS, with an exception of, that information was laundered. But it's exactly the same. And they knew it.

ANDREW: Yeah, no, that's exactly right. And it goes to definitely -- you know, we keep hitting the same themes. But these things may not be illegal. But they're very unsavory. It may not be illegal to get damaging information about your campaign opponents from a bio-regime, but it's a terrible thing to do. And it's terrible for American politics.

GLENN: So what about the -- what about Uranium One? I am concerned that Uranium One, that the president issued a gag order on a guy who was saying all kinds of stuff about how the Russians were involved and bribing all kinds of people.

ANDREW: Yeah, I'm very -- I'm really concerned about this nondisclosure agreement. I'm glad that the Attorney General Jeff Sessions decided to lift it. I must say, when I was a prosecutor, I was a prosecutor, Glenn, for almost 20 years. I never used one. We always told people that, your non-disclosure agreements are not effective against us. We can still put you in the grand jury. We can still put you on the witness stand. So for the government to tell that to people, and at the same time, use these kinds of agreements, seems inappropriate to me.

But the thing I think is really alarming is not only now that -- we already knew that when this transmission of uranium assets to what essentially is Russia. This conglomerate Rosatom is the Kremlin, for all intents and purposes. They were buying off American officials at the time that was going on.

GLENN: Correct.

ANDREW: Now we know that they knew they had an extortion and racketeering case on the American subsidiary of Rosatom at the very time that this was under consideration. And they elected not to bring the case, because if they had brought the case, that would have blown the transactions to smithereens. We never would have gone forward.

GLENN: Do you believe the FBI now? I mean, the FBI has been using -- they used this to get a FISA court to spy on Donald Trump. They knew. They had to have known.

ANDREW: Well, I think -- we have to find out all the facts. And I know -- I'm entitled to be an apologist for the FBI because I work for them or with them for a long time. And it's a big institution that's got good and bad, just like any other institution.

GLENN: Yeah, everything else.

ANDREW: But, look, if they used -- if they wrapped up the dossier and gave it to the FISA court, that would be a big problem.

If they mined allegations out of the dossier and then went and independently corroborated them and used what they had corroborated to get a FISA warrant, I don't have a problem with that. If they had good-faith reason to think that there was connection between the Russian regime and the Trump campaign -- not, you know, as a pretext for political spying, but a good-faith reason to believe that was going on, it would be irresponsible to not investigate it.

GLENN: Andy, thank you very much. Appreciate it.

STU: Andrew McCarthy from National Review. He's at AndrewCMcCarthy.com. And on Twitter @AndrewCMcCarthy.

11 things you can do to help stop the Great Reset

Photo by Arthur Franklin on Unsplash

The foundation of the American way of life is freedom from tyranny, which can only exist in a nation that defends the rights, powers, and property of individuals and families. Over the past two centuries, the greatest threats to liberty have come from governments, both foreign and domestic. And from the beaches of Normandy to the civil rights movement of the 1960s, Americans have repeatedly conquered the challenges placed before them by those seeking to extinguish or limit individual rights.

However, over the past few years, a new, potentially catastrophic danger has emerged, but not primarily from the halls of Congress or state capitols. This threat to freedom has largely emanated from the board rooms of the world’s wealthiest, most powerful corporations, large financial institutions, central banks, and international organizations such as the United Nations and World Economic Forum.

In an attempt to secure vast amounts of wealth and influence over society, corporate CEOs, bankers, and investors, working closely with key government officials, have launched a unified effort to impose environmental, social, and governance (ESG) standards on most of the industrialized global economy. ESG standards are also referred to as “sustainable investment” or “stakeholder capitalism.” According to a report by KPMG, thousands of companies, located in more than 50 countries, already have ESG systems in place, including 82 percent of large companies in the United States.

ESG standards are designed to create a “great reset of capitalism” and to “revamp all aspects of our societies and economies, from education to social contracts and working conditions.” ESG supporters plan to enact these radical changes by using ESG schemes to alter how businesses and investments are evaluated, so that instead of focusing on the quality of goods and services, profits, and other traditional economic metrics, companies — including financial institutions — are evaluated largely on their commitment to social justice and environmental causes and then assigned scores so that companies can be compared, rewarded, or potentially punished.

Supporters of the movement for a Great Reset also plan on using technology to limit free speech and privacy rights, and they support creating vast new government programs that are designed to transform the Western economy via the Green New Deal, European Green Deal, a federal jobs guarantee, and basic income programs.

Together, the proposals that make up the Great Reset represent the most serious threat to freedom in the West since the fall of the Soviet Union and perhaps since World War II. But there is hope. We can stop the Great Reset, but only if we act quickly and with great conviction.

Below are 11 steps you can take to push back against the Great Reset. These steps represent a powerful bottom-up, grassroots approach to the Great Reset’s top-down plan to remake the world. Although many of these steps won’t be easy for everyone to take, they are essential for ensuring that our children and grandchildren will grow up in a world that protects the rights of individuals and empowers families, rather than wealthy special interests, financial institutions, and large corporations.

1. Live Not by Lies: The time for remaining quiet is over. When you hear or see something that you know to be false, speak up. Be kind, generous, and compassionate, but do not, under any circumstances, allow lies to infect your life. Further, do not support organizations, publications, politicians, schools, or any other institutions that regularly promote false claims.

2. Buy Local: The reason the Great Reset is so powerful is because so many of us have become totally dependent on large multinational corporations. They can be easily manipulated in a way that small, local businesses cannot. Learn to buy local, whenever possible, even if it means spending more money on your purchases. Yes, big corporations offer conveniences and low prices that many small businesses can’t compete with, but those benefits come with a great cost: your freedom.

3. Bank Local: Big financial institutions and banks are driving much of the Great Reset movement. They have started to use their incredible wealth and power to alter society by financing only those businesses who agree to the terms of the Great Reset. This problem is going to get worse, so it’s important to find local banks and credit unions you can trust and who refuse to utilize ESG scores and other discriminatory schemes.

4. Support Local Farms: If you live in an area that has local farms and farmer’s markets, consider buying as many of your groceries as possible from farmers. In the future, food production and distribution are going to change dramatically. It’s important that you support local farmers and build relationships with individuals who can provide you with the goods you need in a time of crisis. One of our main goals must be to make local communities as self-sufficient as possible, and that cannot happen unless we support local farms.

5. Be Vocal: After starting to shop and bank locally, be sure to tell big financial institutions and corporations why they have lost your business. They need to know that their decisions have serious consequences.

6. Run for Local Government: Local and state governments will soon be our most important defense against the Great Reset. Consider running for your local school board, zoning board, or even for a state legislative office. If you don’t feel qualified for these positions, find someone who shares your values and help them run for office. If we don’t have control of our local governments, we won’t be able to halt the Great Reset.

7. Demand That Your State Pass Laws Against ESG Scores: In America, states have a tremendous amount of power to slow the Great Reset and protect their citizens from abuses by large corporations, banks, and international institutions. They can do this by passing laws that make the use of ESG metrics and other, similar systems by financial institutions illegal, when used as a precondition for banking services, financing, investment, etc. ESG scores are, by definition, discriminatory and should be made illegal by state lawmakers who care about protecting their citizens’ rights.

8. Make Responsible Spending a Key Issue for Politicians: In recent years, politicians on the ideological left and right have totally abandoned responsible fiscal policy in favor of vast money printing and loose monetary policies. The many trillions of dollars that have been “printed” in recent years put our economy at risk and are being used to fuel the Great Reset. Without these trillions of dollars of printed money, it would be exceptionally difficult for governments and financial institutions to buy off corporations.

9. Organize Anti-Great Reset Groups: No matter where you live, there are Americans in your community who do not support the Great Reset — Republicans, Democrats, and independents alike. Find like-minded neighbors and organize a local, peaceful resistance. Find people you can trust and agree to support one another when times get tough. Now, more than ever, we need to develop dependable communities.

10. Buy Property and Diversify: Property ownership is going to become increasingly more difficult in the months and years to come. It’s important that you work with a qualified financial adviser to help you figure out the best way to buy property and diversify your investments. Buying hard assets, including real estate and precious metals, could be a good way for you to protect against the Great Reset and a possible financial collapse. If you already own property, resist selling it to large corporations and financial institutions, whenever possible. (This is not financial advice, and I’m not a financial adviser. Talk to an expert you trust before taking action!)

11. Make the Great Reset a Litmus Test for Politicians: Before supporting politicians, find out if they know what the Great Reset is and what they plan to do to stop it. If they aren’t familiar with the Great Reset or don’t have a plan to halt it, then demand that they learn about the Great Reset and develop a proposal to prevent it. Political leaders who refuse to take the Great Reset seriously do not deserve your support. This is the key issue of our generation.

Scott Quiner was transferred over the weekend to a hospital in Texas after doctors in Minnesota threated to terminate life support measures as he battled severe complications from COVID-19. Scott's wife, Anne Quiner, appealed to the courts for a restraining order to prevent the hospital from pulling the plug as she sought a new facility to provide medical care for her husband. Scott was unvaccinated when he tested positive for COVID-19 in late October, 2021.

Anne and her attorney Marjorie Holsten joined "The Glenn Beck Program" Thursday to describe their frantic efforts to halt the hospital's decision to turn off Scott's life support — allegedly because he was unvaccinated — and just how difficult it was to get him the medical treatment he needed.

"It was absolutely stunning," Holsten told Glenn. "[Anne] came in and she has this order, I saw the screenshot from the [online medical] chart that said [Scott] is basically scheduled for execution at noon the following day."

According to Holsten, the Minnesota hospital responded to her appeal for a restraining order by claiming that the "position" to keep Scott alive "is not supported by medical science or Minnesota law. As a result, Mercy will ask the court to issue an order that Mercy has the authority to discontinue Mr. Quiner's ventilator and proceed with his medical care plan."

"The 'medical care plan' was the plan to discontinue the ventilator at noon, which leads to death very shortly. So that was at 10 o'clock, but then at 11 o'clock, before the 12 o'clock execution, the judge did, in fact, sign an order saying the hospital is restrained from pulling the plug," she added.

Anne told Glenn that doctors in Texas were shocked by Scott's condition after he arrived from the Minnesota hospital. Not only had he been given dangerous drugs, he was also found to be “severely malnourished."

"The doctor [in Texas] spent two hours with Scott and when he came back out, he said, 'I don't know how he even made it, how he even survived that other hospital ... but I will do everything I can to try to save his life,'" Anne explained.

"And the doctor [in Texas] said Scott was the most undernourished patient he has ever seen," Holsten added.

"Glenn, we are first bringing this battle to the court of public opinion," Holsten continued. "What we are showing the world is that Scott was near death because of the protocols used in that [Minnesota] hospital, but now he is recovering. He is getting better.... Now, we're not planning a funeral, we're planning for his release."

Watch the video clip below for more details.

If you'd like to help support the Quiner family, please consider making a donation to GiveSendGo.com/Anne.


Want more from Glenn Beck?

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

The Great Reset is not just an elitist idea — it’s not even a socialist utopian concept. It’s a real-world fascist threat to every American from Wall Street to Main Street. It’s happening now in policies and cultural shifts big and small, obvious and subtle, from environmental promises to corporations going woke. But the mainstream media, global elites, and politicians brushed off the Great Reset as “nothing to see here.” Another myth they push: “The World Economic Forum is just a conference for elites who have no REAL power.”

Glenn Beck first exposed the Great Reset almost two years ago, and the globalist cries of "conspiracy theorist" soon followed. They said he believed the WEF was a “master cabal calling the shots from some evil underground lair.” But Glenn Beck never said that. Instead, he uncovered the true intentions of global leaders in finance and politics by simply highlighting their own words.

This week, the same global elites are doubling down on their agenda at the World Economic Forum’s Davos Agenda virtual event. But still, the global elites — like Twitter’s Jack Dorsey — are trying to downplay the WEF’s influence to stop people like us from interfering with their plans. The oligarchy will prosper in the new world order they’ve designed. You will not.

So Glenn unveils a master chalkboard based on his best-selling new book to outline the threats from globalists and why we must stop their agenda if we hope to keep the precious freedoms we still have.

Watch the full episode of "GlennTV' Below:

Want more from Glenn Beck?

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

Kim Iversen, journalist, YouTuber, and host of "The Kim Iversen Show," reacted to Glenn Beck's appearance last week on "Tucker Carlson Tonight" by conceding that, while the subject of Beck's new book, "The Great Reset: Joe Biden and the Rise of Twenty-First-Century Fascism" might at first sound "a little bit loony," closer analysis confirms "this isn't such a crazy conspiracy theory after all."

"Glenn Beck was on Tucker Carlson's show last week touting what has been called a right-wing conspiracy theory and discussing his new book, 'The Great Reset: Joe Biden and the Rise of Twenty-First-Century Fascism'," began Iverson on The Hill's "Rising."

"Well, maybe that all sounds a little bit loony — and believe me, I do think Glenn Beck tends to be a loon," she quipped. "But, maybe this isn't such a crazy conspiracy theory after all. And after seeing everything we've seen with the governments enacting all sorts of authoritarian controls and many other conspiracy theories coming true, maybe there's something to be concerned about. So, what is the Great Reset? The name even sounds conspiratorial, but believe it or not, it's a real thing."

Iverson went on to explain exactly who is behind the Great Reset, what their agenda entails, how they are using the COVID-19 pandemic to "to rebuild society in a way the global elites see best fit."

"You'll own nothing and you will be happy: That's what they're saying," Iverson explained. "And with inflation sky high and no signs of it slowing down, they might be right. We are on our way to becoming a nation of renters, but don't worry it's nothing to fear ... don't worry, everything is being done under the premise that this is all ... being done for our own good, the benefit of a collective society, and we will be happy," she added sarcastically.

Iverson concluded by asking, "Who thinks it's a good idea that a bunch of corporate millionaire and billionaires and world leaders are getting together and coming up with what's best for we the little people? I mean, who thinks that that's a really good idea? And who thinks that they are going to be doing it for our benefit? But, of course they're going to frame it like 'Oh, this is good for you. You're going to rent. You'll own nothing and you'll be happy. Don't worry about it' ... When you look at the actual list of partners with the World Economic Forum, they control everything. They control media. They control health. They control business. They control everything, and so then it does become, how do we people fight against that?"

Watch the video clip below to hear Kim Iverson break it down and don' t miss Wednesday night's special episode of "GlennTV" on BlazeTV’s YouTube channel.

Iversen joined Glenn Beck on the radio program to discuss what The Great Reset is and how YOU can help stop it. Watch the video clip from "The Glenn Beck Program" below:

Want more from Glenn Beck?

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