BLOG

Adoption advocates ask Trump to intervene in ‘adoption crisis’ that started under Obama

Did you know that international adoptions have decreased worldwide by a shocking 80 percent in the last 14 years?

Nathan Gwilliam, CEO of Adoption.com, and Ron Stoddart, president of Save Adoptions, joined Glenn in the studio this week to talk about the international adoption crisis and how the number of adoptions in the U.S. has mysteriously dropped. They believe President Donald Trump will be sympathetic to their cause, so Adoption.com has created a White House petition asking Trump to investigate.

Watch the full clip (above) to find out why an Obama administration appointee who is “anti-adoption” was a key factor and learn how you can help.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: We have been kind of focusing on a few things in the last couple of weeks. One is, if Christians would just act like Christians, the world would be a much better place. If -- you know, I love the bumper sticker that says, Lord, save me from your followers.

The problem is not with Jesus, the problem is with a lot of people that say they're following Jesus and they're not. And statistics prove this out: There is no difference between somebody who doesn't go to church, doesn't believe in God, when it comes to marriages, alcoholism, drug use, any of this stuff.

That should tell us something, that we're attending church, instead of tending a church. And we brought in Nathan -- how do you say your last name?

NATHAN: Gwilliam.

GLENN: Gwilliam.

And Ron Stoddard. Ron is with Save Adoptions. And Nathan is the CEO of adoption.com. And first, tell me a little bit about adoption.com before you tell me why you're here.

NATHAN: Sure. So adoption.com is the connection engine for adoption. So if a family wants to adopt, they can put a profile online. And a woman who is pregnant, considering adoption can go and choose a family. Or we have photo listings of children waiting to be adopted. And families can go and look through thousands of photos of children and choose a child to adopt.

Or if an adoptee or a birth parent 20 years after the adoption want to find each other, they can put their information in, and we help facilitate a connection. So we connect people related to adoption.

GLENN: I have to tell you, I'm an adoptive father. And there is nothing better in my life than that choice to adopt. My children are everything. And, you know, we were afraid, you know, are we going to feel the same? Yeah, it's exactly the same. And it is a marvelous thing.

I tell you, if my wife -- if I could just -- if I could dye my hair so I didn't look like I look -- because my wife -- I'll say, we should adopt again. And she'll look at me, look at you. Like, we're going to adopt again.

So, anyway --

STU: That's a healthy relationship you got going on there.

GLENN: No, yeah, it's a little harsh.

Anyway, here's the problem: Adoptions -- overseas adoptions by Americans have gone down now 80 percent, and places like Romania have tried to pick up the slack before, and it didn't work. First, before we get to why this number is down, why aren't people in other countries like Romania, why doesn't adoption work like it does here? Do you know?

VOICE: Well, it does. There are people in Romania. But there are not as many people adopting in Romania because it is not culturally as acceptable as it is in the United States.

GLENN: That's weird.

RON: When we first started doing adoptions from Russia, very few Russian families would even consider adopting an orphan because they looked at them as children of alcoholics and socially inferior. But after Americans started adopting children from Russia and the Russians looked and said, maybe we're missing something here, now the number of domestic adoptions in Russia is much, much higher. And so we have an opportunity to show by example --

GLENN: Do you think that's a Christian thing? Is that a Christian trait that came from us or just something unique in us?

NATHAN: Brazil is the same way. A very Christian country, but they don't adopt their own children very much. It's the same -- same issue. It's a cultural issue. They're not used to going to an orphanage and finding a child and adopting a child.

GLENN: Huh.

RON: As you said, Christians ought to be doing it. So is it a Christian thing? It should be.

GLENN: Right. Right.

So now 80 percent drop in foreign adoptions. That's massive. And I warn you, the next few minutes are going to be to become excruciatingly painful to hear. In the former administration, that was the head of adoptions here? Helped setting the laws here and then?

NATHAN: She still is.

RON: Yeah, she is the chief of the adoption division, which is in the US State Department. And she's a civil service appointment, which is a problem in and of itself.

GLENN: Because she doesn't seem real high on adoptions.

NATHAN: She's anti-adoption.

GLENN: How could she have the job of being in charge of adoptions and being anti-adoption?

NATHAN: That's right. Why would we appoint someone to be our chief of adoptions in the United States, who is anti-adoption.

GLENN: When was she appointed?

RON: In 2014, she was moved from the Justice Department to the State Department.

GLENN: Any idea what the motivation was to put somebody anti-adoption in there? Why was that done? Don't speculate. If you know --

RON: Yeah. I think the attitude at that time, the hate convention had been implemented in the United States. And the focus of the government on any activity is to regulate and control. So she was moved into that position because she had experience in adoptions years earlier, even though she had a proven record of being opposed to the hate convention and the regulations.

GLENN: All right. So she put in regulations. They did not go into effect, because Trump came in. And he reversed them? Is that right?

VOICE: Well, Trump came in and said, we're going to require that you have -- eliminate two regulations for every new regulation you oppose.

GLENN: Right. Okay.

VOICE: So the regulation has already existed. But she proposed new regulations in September of 2016. That would further give them control over the adoption industry.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

All right. So what has to happen to get Donald Trump to -- I assume he's open to this.

What do we have to do to get him to kick -- kick her out, reverse these, what?

VOICE: Move her to a more appropriate position, that would use her skills in a more positive way.

STU: Very nice way of saying that.

VOICE: Put someone in that is pro-adoption if you're going to be in charge of a US adoption program.

GLENN: Wow. Okay. So what do you have people do?

NATHAN: So we believe Donald Trump would be very supportive of this, if this just got on his list of priorities, if this became something that he focused on. So we've created a White House petition. We started promoting it yesterday. Had been 2500 signatures this morning. The White House promises that if it reaches 100,000 signatures, that they will respond. The petition was actually created on petitions.whitehouse.gov. If your listeners wanted to find that petition, they could go to adoption.com. And right at the top, there's a bright yellow bar with a link to it. Click on that link.

GLENN: Sign the petition.

NATHAN: Sign the petition.

GLENN: Okay. So he'll look at it, if we have 100,000 signatures and take it seriously of correcting this.

How long will it take to reverse an 80 percent decline?

RON: It will take years. But, of course, it has to start with a person being put in that position that wants to increase adoptions.

GLENN: So we have a problem in America where we have a need for foster parents. And it's a lot easier to adopt a little child, than it is to adopt a 12-year-old. If it takes years to fix this, the problems in the other countries of -- because I got to believe. I mean, our foster system is not a pleasure. I can't imagine what it's like in some countries. Not good.

NATHAN: Well, most countries don't have foster systems. It's a system of orphanages. And you look at the outcomes of those children. You look at as many as 50 percent of the girls that age out of those orphanages are -- end up in prostitution. And you look at the homelessness at 60 percent or higher. You look at the suicide rate of 10 percent. Just ridiculously poor outcomes for the children that age out of those orphanages.

STU: You've been talking about this 80 percent in foreign adoptions. How much of that has to do with the Russian sanctions that we've heard so much about?

NATHAN: Very little.

RON: Very little. Russia closed in the end of 2011, and the decline has continued. So, yeah. There was a time when China put a pause on adoptions, that caused some of the decline. China's one-child policy was changed. That caused a little bit of it. But there are so many countries that are not even engaged in adoption because the US puts restrictions on them. If they do not have an administrative system for tracking documentation when a child is born out in the boondocks, then we suspect that there may be fraud with the documentation. So a country like Nepal, with children available for adoption, the US will not allow adoptions from Nepal because we don't trust their documentation.

NATHAN: And the key question about Russia isn't whether Russia closed its doors or not. The question is, what has the State Department done to help open those doors? What support have we provided to these countries to help them implement robust and ethical adoption programs? And that's the piece that's missing. We need a State Department that is innovating and helping create the type of adoption system they want, instead of trying to regulate everybody out of existence.

GLENN: So I want to take a quick break and come back. Ask you this question: I know there are people that, you know, will come across this interview and they'll say, well, why don't we start in our own country?

There's some problems here with adoption in our own country and some things that we can take care of and some things that, you know, we all should be aware of. There is a need in our own country. And let's talk about that and that concern, when we come back.

(music)

Again, you go to adoption.com. Adoption.com. Look for the banner up at the top and sign the White House petition. To get this Obama appointee removed from the State Department, or at least in this position, where she's overseeing adoptions. She's anti-adoption.

Do this at that now. Adoption.com.

GLENN: The United States is down 80 percent in -- in international adoptions. And that's because there is somebody that was appointed by Obama to the State Department, that is anti-adoption. And has put all of these rules and regulations in to stop international adoptions.

It's wrong and it's dangerous for humanity all around the world. And we're asking that you would go to adoption.com. And you'll see a banner up at the top. Click on it. It will take you to the White House for a petition. The White House has promised over 100,000 signatures. And they will take this up and review it.

So let me -- let me -- let me pick it up where we left our conversation with Nathan and Ron about international adoptions and adoptions here in America. Why not focus on the kids that we have here?

RON: That's a great question. Children in the United States and our foster care system were very important, and they need to be adopted. Children in orphanages in the United States are very important and they need to be adopted. It's not an either/or question. There are plenty of loving families that would love to bring these children into their homes. It's a matter of complexity, not a matter of numbers of families. We need to simplify the system and make it easy enough that these families can bring children home.

GLENN: I will tell you, I adopted my son Raphe. And Tania and I were terrified. I mean, she was beside herself for three years. We adopted in Texas, where it's pretty clear, you know, the new parents are the new parents, period. But still terrified that some -- somebody would come knocking at the door and say, yep. He's not your son.

RON: God touches our hearts in different ways. And sometimes we're motivated to adopt an orphan. And sometimes we connect with a 15-year-old child in the foster care system.

GLENN: Yeah. But we -- we have -- there are laws that -- I mean, that stuff does happen, but it is getting better here in America, isn't it?

VOICE: Yeah. And Texas has some of the best laws in the country. But unfortunately, that does happen.

GLENN: Okay. So --

VOICE: Working with the government is worse than labor.

GLENN: It is. It is. If you talk to my wife -- had two biological children and adopted twice. The labor that she went through with her biological children was nothing, compared to what we had to go through, to adopt.

GLENN: Yeah. No, it is.

But this is -- if we can correct this, we correct so many other problems.

NATHAN: That's correct.

GLENN: We correct homelessness. I mean, tell me about the rates of those in prison and homelessness and everything else.

VOICE: Well, a statistic I heard the other day, the CEO of the United States Institute Against Human Trafficking said that 60 to 70 percent of the children who are trafficked come out of the foster care system.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

RON: So the foster care system is good, but it's temporary. And you need to get those kids out of the foster care system, into a permanent home, as early as possible.

NATHAN: And the same thing happens internationally. We've seen statistics that as many as 50 percent of the girls that age out of the orphanage, that leave the orphanage without being adopted end up in prostitution. Going back to your original question, we've heard statistics a lot, that up to two-thirds of children within 18 months of aging out of the foster care system, two-thirds of the children end up either homeless, in jail, or dead.

The statistics for these kids -- the outcomes for these children that age out of an orphanage or a foster home are ridiculous. The question isn't whether we should adopt from the United States or internationally. The question is let's do everything we can to get them adopted. All of them.

RON: All of the above.

GLENN: And people say, there are not enough people. There are plenty, right? That want to adopt.

RON: There are.

NATHAN: A recent study from the Dave Thomas Center For Adoption show that 85 million Americans have considered adoption. And they said that the biggest reason they haven't adopted is the complexity and the cost. We need to focus on reducing complexity and reducing cost, instead of increasing regulations.

GLENN: Amen. Amen. Thank you guys, so much. Appreciate your hard work. And everything you do. And let me just -- let me tell you, as a dad, married to a wonderful woman who we couldn't have children and we wanted it so desperately and we worried about adoption, let me tell you, it's the greatest thing ever. The greatest thing ever.

RON: Amen.

GLENN: Go to adoption.com. And please sign that White House petition. And get that Obama appointee out of the State Department and correct that problem today. Adoption.com.

Thanks, guys.

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

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

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

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

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

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

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

GLENN: I know.

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

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

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

And we know we are.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will be available on Rumble.

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

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

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

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

RIKKI: No, no.

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

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

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

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

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

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

And so I suggested, can we just contract?

Can we find a contractor?

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

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

So the 5,000 will be available today.

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

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

We're looking at maybe eight weeks.

That we should have all 40,000 hours up.

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

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

Is partially because of what Steve is going through.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: We welcome to the program now Jill savage.

She is a Blaze TV contributor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How many misdemeanors?

JILL: Four.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Taking video. And reporting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

May God have mercy on your soul.

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

JILL: Right.

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

GLENN: No.

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

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

STU: Not wearing shorts and flip-flops notably?

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

Do we have the video of him being handcuffed?

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

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

STU: Come on.

GLENN: And he was handcuffed.

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

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

JILL: It's all the humiliation game.

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

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

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

But they're doing this for show.

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

The fifth, was a New York Times journalist.

GLENN: Who went through the window.

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

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

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

GLENN: HBO.

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

GLENN: The committee of clowns.

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

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

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

What kind of law is that?

I've never even heard of that.

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

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

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

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

JILL: Thanks, Glenn.

GLENN: I have done this job, since 1978.

I have never seen anything like this.

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

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

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

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

All of a sudden, they're after him.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

STU: Got to be kidding me.

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

STU: It's incredible.

GLENN: Unbelievable.

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

GLENN: New York Times was there.

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

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

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

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

GLENN: Didn't happen.

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

GLENN: Didn't happen.

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

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

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

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

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

RIKKI: Doesn't look very disorderly to me.

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

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

GLENN: Have I seen all of this footage?

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

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

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

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

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

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

He's just leaning against the wall.

GLENN: Writing, writing.

And taking photographs and videos.

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

She was at CBS, right?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GLENN: Do we know the judge?

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

We should look up the judge.

Is that the hanging judge?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

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

A judge -- let me just read this.

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

This is textbook viewpoint discrimination.

Okay. You ready?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And none of those people were arrested.

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

GLENN: No. That's not my preference.

That's the way America should work.

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

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

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

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

Or was it just redefining guide lines?

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

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

What if we don't approve it anymore.

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

And make him send, what was it?

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

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

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

Supreme Court looks like they're torn.

Usual lines.

But there's a chance the bump stocks survive.

STU: The ban, you mean?

GLENN: Yeah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

GLENN: It's the administrative state.

STU: It's bad on both sides.

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

Congress does not do their job.

They're not required to anymore.

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

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

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

GLENN: Yes. Right.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not while president. As president.

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

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

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

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

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

You know what I mean?

STU: Right. I would agree to that.

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

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

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

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

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

GLENN: Well, yes.

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

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

GLENN: Oh, he would have to be --

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which is

STU: Which --

GLENN: Which trial.

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

You've got the January 6th.

There are two of those.

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

And you have the Fani Willis one in Georgia.

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

Those are the four.

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

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

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

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

STU: Especially before the election.

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

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

It makes no sense.

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

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

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

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

And potentially did not tell them the truth about it.

Does he wind up being convicted of that?

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

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

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

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

STU: Those could be big.

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

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

STU: Until June.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I mean, they completely lied --

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

STU: Yeah, at least.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, I mean --

STU: I don't know.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

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

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

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

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

You're a nice, gentle, regular guy.

And do you even know what the charges are?

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

GLENN: Is that unusual.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GLENN: Oh, they're concerned for you.

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

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

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

GLENN: Right.

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

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

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

GLENN: And why is that?

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

GLENN: And is that something that everybody does?

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

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

GLENN: Yeah.

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

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

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

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

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

But you do know they're misdemeanors, right?

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

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

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

And they are released the next day.

And they will put you in leg chains for misdemeanors.

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

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

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

So fast forward to this.

Why are they doing that?

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

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

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

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

And they were being violent. Beating up these people.

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

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

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

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

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

Or broken windows.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GLENN: So mentally, how are you?

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

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

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

GLENN: Good for you.

STEVE: And walk in with my head up.

GLENN: Good for you. Good for you.

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

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

STEVE: Here in Dallas.

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

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

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

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

Who I know is a journalist.

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

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

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

GLENN: I was going to say. Correct.

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

But over 60 did.

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

No one from the left.

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

What is your game plan?

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

It's the first major piece of the puzzle.

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

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

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

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

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

GLENN: What kind of felony?

What could they come up with this felony?

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

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

GLENN: Right.

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

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

GLENN: Jeez.

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

GLENN: That exonerate a lot of people.

STU: Exonerate.

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

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

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

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

GLENN: Wow.

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

STEVE: Oh, yeah.

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

And I think it would be pretty clear.

As you said, there's cameras everywhere.

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

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

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

Capitol CCTV cameras, and we will be showing that.

GLENN: Right. Excellent.

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

You know, or as they say, picketing.

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

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

That makes that guy innocent.

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

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

A real crime.

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

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

To bring justice.

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

They are more powerful, than Congress themself.

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

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

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

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

They know everything.

GLENN: Jeez.

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

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

STEVE: There's somebody more powerful than him.

GLENN: Hmm. All right.

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

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

GLENN: Thank you.

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

STEVE: Can we do that?

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