Perverted Justice



GLENN: We also have Congressman Ted Poe. He was a prosecutor and a federal judge. So we're going to get his view of what happened in court yesterday and what it all means. But let me take the case from the beginning and spend just three minutes with Tara Setmayer here and then we'll bring Ted Poe into the conversation. Tara, give me the update on -- take this from the beginning on who this guy is in about three minutes up to the court case. Then we'll bring Ted Poe in and then you can bring is through what happened in the courtroom because you were there with Johnny Sutton yesterday. And we'll get Ted's kind of viewpoint on what you describe as we go along.

SETMAYER: Sure. And thank you for having me on again, Glenn.

GLENN: Sure.

SETMAYER: This is such an important issue and the developments are remarkable. The hearing yesterday had nothing to do with the drug smuggler Davila. Yesterday was the oral arguments in the appeals process for agents Ramos and Compean.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. I'm sorry. Then this is even better. I'm sorry.

SETMAYER: That's okay.

Border Patrol Fundraiser Shirt

***All of Glenn's proceeds from the sale of this shirt will be donated to a legal defense fund for Agents Ramos and Compean.***

To quote Col. Nathan Jessep--Jack Nicholson's character from, A Few Good Men--"Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns." That's true, and some of the men guarding our walls are U.S. Border Patrol Agents. Thing is…if one of those Border Agents tries to protect our walls with their guns, they might just end up in prison for the next 11 years. That's what happened to agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean. You've heard me talk about the injustice done to these brave men, and you know that I'm outraged. I invite you to join me in showing both your anger and commitment to setting them free by wearing one of these t-shirts: "U.S. Border Patrol…To Protect And Serve Time." It's the least we can do for two men who have done the most…men with families who are unfairly paying the price for doing their duty, showing their bravery, and trying to keep all Americans safe.

GLENN: I was all discombobulated here.

SETMAYER: That's okay. And how we got to this point, it was everyone was concerned about being overly optimistic and because the appeals process, the judges can be very, you know, straight-faced, poker faced. But yesterday I have to say they were so animated and you could visibly see they were upset about three main issues, and these are the issues that members of congress, Mr. Rohrabacher, my boss, Congressman Poe, Hunter, Tancredo, everything everyone was concerned about was brought to fruition coming out of the mouths of judges and those issues were the application of the 924(c) gun charge.

GLENN: Okay, hang on just a second. Hang on, hang on. If we're going to jump right into it, let me go to Ted Poe and get him on because I want the two of you to be able to discuss these things as I'm not a legal expert by any stretch of the imagination.

So Congressman Poe, how are you, sir?

REPRESENTATIVE POE: Fine. Thank you, Glenn.

GLENN: You were a prosecutor and a federal judge if I'm not mistaken.

REPRESENTATIVE POE: State judge for 22 years.

GLENN: State judge. What I'd like to do is get your viewpoint as Tara lays each one of these points out yesterday, or in a minute, and tells us exactly what the judges said, what the testimony was. I want you to try to, if you can, tell us what you think is going through the minds of these judges, especially if it was you sitting on the panel and hearing these things.


GLENN: Tara, what was the first point?

SETMAYER: The first point was the immunity agreement. They were rather upset about the fact that the drug smuggler was given an immunity agreement that no one seemed to be able to define and the government lawyer even admitted, used the word "Hybrid immunity" which is the same term that the prosecutors used during the trial. It was a weird hybrid immune. Well, that was problematic for these judges because the type of immunity that the drug smuggler was given determined the line of questioning that they were able to ask him or not ask him and whether he was allowed to properly invoke his Fifth Amendment right. And that ultimately led into the second drug load because the judges were concerned that the jury never heard any information at all about the second drug load which took place several months before the trial and while he was under this strange immunity.

GLENN: Right. And it wasn't just a second drug -- there wasn't just a second drug load. There was also a third drug load that we've now found out about.

SETMAYER: Yes. There were multiple smuggling attempts and another load that we know about in September, but that couldn't be discussed because that wasn't discussed during the original trial. But they did ask if Davila had been indicted at this point and the Government had to admit that, yes, he had. And the judges were rather perplexed by the fact that they made such a concerted effort to hide this information and they said that, you know, don't you think that was relevant? And the Government said, well, no, we didn't think it was important. And the judge said, applied common sense for you guys to think that the credibility of this witness was absolutely at the heart of this case. He clearly wasn't a mule. He was a pretty midlevel drug smuggler which means the likelihood of him having a weapon was much greater and you guys knew that, which is why you made sure you kept this from the jury.

GLENN: Congressman Poe, tell me about, if you were a judge, what does it mean, this hybrid immunity and also the prosecution saying, well, no, we didn't think this was important. Tell me as a judge how that would sit with you.

REPRESENTATIVE POE: First of all there's no such thing under the law as hybrid immunity. Either you've got immunity or you don't have immunity and so they are trying to bootstrap a phrase into federal law that does not exist. So that was the first problem with immunity.

The federal government gave the drug dealer immunity from prosecution if he would testify. He did testify, and he told some things obviously that turned out not to be true in the case and so I would be, as a judge, concerned about the immunity agreement and here's the reason. Any time the prosecution makes a deal with a criminal to get certain system; in other words, immunity for testimony, you get the testimony you pay for. And in this case they got the testimony they wanted and they got these two individuals convicted. So immunity deals are always suspect and the jury should know all about the immunity situation and that's why the judges were concerned about first the immunity making the deal with the drug smuggler. And, of course, the second issue is the fact that he was held up to the jury, Davila, as sort of a choirboy. You know, he was just bringing a little drugs to get some money for his sick mother in Mexico. That is not true. And the jury should have known about the other drug smuggling incidences and the reason is because the whole prosecution case was based upon the credibility of their star drug dealer witness, and he was no choirboy. He was an habitual offender of bringing drugs in. So that in a way misled the jury as to who this person was that they made a deal with. So the judges were very concerned about both of those two issues, as they should have been, as any trial would be.

GLENN: Okay, Tara, what was the next thing that came out of the trial yesterday?

SETMAYER: The next thing was the 924(c) gun charge but I want to say one more thing, really important point that came out. While they were questioning the Government on the immunity agreement, one of the judges flat out asked about three times, "Did he violate the terms of his immunity agreement, was that a violation or was it an abuse of the immunity agreement," and the government lawyer, who really tripped over his words, he was being battered so much by the questioning, he finally said, quote: He told some lies. So the government attorney admitted that the drug smuggler, Davila, told some lies during the trial.

GLENN: How significant is that, Ted? Congressman, how significant?

REPRESENTATIVE POE: Any time a witness testifies and lies on the witness stand, that is highly significant. And if the lawyer putting the witness on the witness stand knows that the witness is lying on the witness stand and doesn't bring it to the attention of the Court, that is about the worst thing a lawyer can do. So --

GLENN: And it's illegal, right?

REPRESENTATIVE POE: Of course. It's called in the vernacular suborn perjury. If that witness lies and the lawyer's aware of it and doesn't do something about it, it's unethical and it is illegal. So that was a tremendous blow, I think, to the prosecution. When this lawyer for the U.S. attorney's office admitted, well, you know, the drug dealer did tell some lies, flippant, like it was not anything that was important. It's very disturbing.

GLENN: Okay. Now, we know that now the prosecution has admitted that he told some lies. We know that they knew in advance of the second drug load, which Johnny Sutton said to me, and I know he said to you guys as well, oh, we don't know that; we have no evidence of that; we're still looking into that. We know now that that was a blatant lie to us in the media and you in congress, but then after that second drug run they raised the charges. While this guy's credibility is going down and they know that he's lying, they raise the charges against Compean and Ramos. That is the second thing that they were upset about, right, yesterday, Tara?

SETMAYER: Yes, they were clearly upset about the application of the 924(c) gun charge which was the minimum sentence enhancement that was added on after the initial charges. It's called a superceding indictment. The reason why is because this has huge complications for any law enforcement officer that carries a weapon, and the questions right away, they asked them, do you think that a police officer is always subject to this statute no matter what the circumstances are. And the Government said, well, yes. And that was concerning for the judges because that means that a law enforcement officer who is lawfully permitted to carry a weapon, lawfully permitted to discharge that weapon and can in a reasonable force situation. So one of the judges asked, well, you could have -- this is exactly what he said: There are a number of charges you could have used. Why this one? And they said -- he asked, why did you stack? He used the term "Stack" charges against them. And that's when he went into his, almost a lecture about how if these guys had reported this, do you think the prosecution would have proceeded? And the Government admitted, probably not. And he said, well, you know, they were concerned about that. So basically they're being charged for not reporting, which isn't a crime. That's a procedural violation that could have been handled within the policies of the border patrol.

GLENN: Yeah.

SETMAYER: And so the implications of a 924(c) gun charge I think is what prompted the judges to say that this got out of hand and that the Government overreacted, which are quotes.

GLENN: We have Tara Setmayer from Congressman Rohrabacher's office. These are the people who have been behind this from the very beginning. Congressman Ted Poe who was a prosecutor and a state judge, who has been leading the charge in congress as well. So congress, let me go to you as a former judge. What would you be thinking if you were sitting on the bench and you heard all of this stuff start to spill out?

REPRESENTATIVE POE: The application of adding the rep charge. As the U.S. attorney said yesterday, they've never done this in a case before. In other words, no law enforcement officer has ever been prosecuted and they had the gun charge application stacked on them to give more time. He said that to the judges yesterday. So it looks like to the observer, common sense observer that there's a vindictiveness by the U.S. attorney against the border agents; and more technically, this does not apply to peace officers. The law was written to apply to a person who commits a federal crime and he uses a gun and that way the person would get more time in prison because a gun was used. Doesn't apply to police officers because the law not only allows them but requires them to carry a firearm while they're on duty and so now they're being punished for doing what they're supposed to do by law. So I think the judges had a real issue here with why the prosecution seemed to be a little vindictive in putting this application on a peace officer where it's never been applied before.

GLENN: Okay, congressman, let me ask you two questions. Then I've got to run because we've got David Botsford on who is the appeals attorney for Compean and Ramos. Let me just get your read here. A, this is as significant as I believe it is right now, yes or no; and B, does this look like this could turn into releasing of Compean and Ramos; and C, do you believe that anything else will happen? Will we go after the people in the system that did this to Compean and Ramos?

REPRESENTATIVE POE: It's highly significant and I hope the judges allow Ramos and Compean to have bail while they're pending their decision. The purpose of bail is to secure a person's appearance in court. And they are not going anywhere. They are not running away. So they should be allowed to have bail based on the hearing yesterday. And the most important thing thirdly, yes, we're going to follow up with the Justice Department hopefully to have aggressive investigations on this whole relentless attitude by the U.S. attorney's office on prosecuting the border agents. So we're not through with this issue yet.

GLENN: I'm glad to hear it. Congressman Ted Poe from Texas, thank you for being with us. Tara Setmayer from Congressman Rohrabacher's office, as always it's good to have you on and we'll follow this in the coming days.


In the final days before the 2020 election, President Donald Trump is gaining among black voters, particularly men, because his record of accomplishments "speaks for itself" and the "façade" that President Trump is a racist "just doesn't ring true," argued sports columnist Jason Whitlock on "The Glenn Beck Radio Program" Tuesday.

Jason, who recently interviewed the president at the White House for, shared his thoughts on why he believes many black Americans — notably celebrities such as Kanye West, Ice Cube, and 50 Cent — are breaking from the "façade" that President Trump is a "flaming racist."

"I really believe the facts are starting to speak for themselves, and that Donald Trump's record of accomplishments, particularly as it relates to African Americans, speaks for itself," Jason told Glenn. "He actually has a record to stand on, unlike even Barack Obama. When [Obama] was president, I don't think he had much of a record to stand on, in terms of, 'Hey, what did he actually deliver for African Americans?' President Trump has things he can stand on and, you know, beyond that I think black people understand when he starts talking about black unemployment rate. And America's unemployment rate. And then, when you add in for black men, the façade we've been putting on [President Trump] … you know, this whole thing that he's some flaming racist, it just doesn't ring true."

Jason suggested that Trump's fearlessness, unabashed masculinity, and record of keeping his promises resonates with men in the black community. He also weighed in on how media and social media's bias plays a huge role in convincing people to hate President Trump while ignoring Antifa and others on the Left.

"I keep explaining to people, Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, they're some of the most secular places on earth. And we've reduced everyone to a tweet, that we disagree with," he added.

Watch the video below to catch more of the conversation:

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.

Megyn Kelly is not happy about the "disgusting" media coverage of President Donald Trump, specifically pointing to Lesley Stahl's "60 Minutes" interview on CBS Sunday.

On the radio program, Megyn told Glenn Beck the media has become so blinded by the "Trump Derangement Syndrome" that they've lost their own credibility — and now they can't get it back.

"It's disgusting. It's stomach-turning," Megyn said of the media's coverage of the president. "But it's just a continuation of what we've seen over the past couple of years. Their 'Trump Derangement Syndrome' has blinded them to what they're doing to their own credibility. They can't get it back. It's too late. They've already sacrificed it. And now no one is listening to them other than the hard partisans for whom they craft their news."

Megyn also discussed how she would have covered the recent stories about Hunter and Joe Biden's alleged corruption. Watch the video below to catch more of the conversation:

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.

Imagine sometime next year, getting called before HUWAC – the House Un-Woke Activities Committee.

"Are you or have you ever been a member of the un-woke?"

Something like that is not as far-fetched as you might think.

Last week, Robert Reich, the former Secretary of Labor during the Clinton administration, now a UC Berkeley professor, tweeted this:

Since the 1970s, there have been dozens of "Truth Commissions" around the world like the kind Robert Reich wants in America. Most of these have been set up in Africa and Latin America. Usually it happens in countries after a civil war, or where there's been a regime change – a dictator is finally overthrown, and a commission is set up to address atrocities that happened under the dictator. Or, as in the commissions in East Germany and Czechoslovakia, atrocities under communism. Or, in the most famous example, South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation commission addressed the decades of apartheid that ravaged that nation.

These commissions usually conclude with an official final report. These commissions and reports have served as a means of governments trying to close a dark chapter of their country's history, or provide emotional catharsis, as a way to generally move on. Sometimes it kind of works for people, most of the time it leaves people clamoring for more justice.

Here's how one professor described truth commissions in an article in The Conversation last year. He wrote:

The goal of a truth commission… is to hold public hearings to establish the scale and impact of a past injustice, typically involving wide-scale human rights abuses, and make it part of the permanent, unassailable public record. Truth commissions also officially recognize victims and perpetrators in an effort to move beyond the painful past… Some have been used cynically as tools for governments to legitimize themselves by pretending they have dealt with painful history when they have only kicked the can down the road.

See, this is the problem with a lot of "Truth" commissions – they are inherently political. Even if you trust your government and give them all the benefit of the doubt in the world that their Truth commission is trying to do the right thing, it is ALWAYS going to be political. Because these truth commissions are never set up by those who have LOST power in government. They're always established by those who have WON power.

The Deputy Executive Director of the International Center for Transitional Justice says one of the main points in these Truth commissions is that "the victims become protagonists."

A Department of Anti-racism is entirely within the realm of possibility.

So, who are the victims in Robert Reich's America? People like him, members of the far-Left who had to endure the atrocities of four years of a president with different political ideas. What an injustice. I mean, the left's suffering during the Trump administration is almost on the level of apartheid or genocide – so we totally need a Truth commission.

There have been lots of calls for the U.S. to have its own Truth and Reconciliation commission, especially around racial injustice.

This past June, Democratic Congresswoman Barbara Lee of California introduced legislation to establish the " United States Commission on Truth, Racial Healing, and Transformation."

Ibram X. Kendi – the high priest of anti-racism, and author of Target's current favorite book " Antiracist Baby" – proposes a Constitutional anti-racism amendment. This amendment would:

establish and permanently fund the Department of Anti-racism (DOA) comprised of formally trained experts on racism and no political appointees. The DOA would be responsible for pre-clearing all local, state and federal public policies to ensure they won't yield racial inequity, monitor those policies, investigate private racist policies when racial inequity surfaces, and monitor public officials for expressions of racist ideas. The DOA would be empowered with disciplinary tools to wield over and against policymakers and public officials who do not voluntarily change their racist policy and ideas.

If you think that is far-fetched, you haven't been paying attention to the Left's growing radicalism. In a Joe Biden-Kamala Harris administration, a Department of Anti-racism is entirely within the realm of possibility. And of course, such a DOA would never stop at policing government.

We're in a dangerous, precarious moment in our history. Given the events of 2020, should Democrats gain the White House, the Senate, and the House, how many commissions will be in our future? They will suddenly have plenty of political capital to drag the nation through years of commission hearings.

And the Left's form of justice is never satisfied. You think it will stop at a T&R commission on race? MSNBC's Chris Hayes tweeted this month about the need for a commission to deal with Americans who are skeptical about wearing masks:

Or what about a Truth commission on religion? I mean, look at those reckless churches spreading Covid this year. Or this would be a big one – a T&R commission on climate change deniers.

The Left is highly selective when it comes to truth. That's why they are the very last group you want in charge of anything with "Truth and Reconciliation" in the title.

This is one of the most incredibly frustrating things about the Left in America today. The Left insists there is no such thing as absolute truth, while simultaneously insisting there are certain approved truths that are undeniable.

So, you can't question "Science" – even though that's pretty much what every great scientist in history did.

You can't question racism as the explanation for all of existence – because, well, just because.

You can't question third-party "Fact-checkers" – because the powers that be, mainly Big Tech right now, have decided they are the Truth referees and you have to trust what they say because they're using certified external fact-checkers. They just forgot to tell you that they actually fund these third-party fact-checkers. It's like if McDonald's told you to trust third-party health inspectors that they were paying for.

The Left thinks it has a monopoly on Truth. They're the enlightened ones, because they've had the correct instruction, they're privy to the actual facts. It's psychotic arrogance. If you don't buy what they're selling, even if you're just skeptical of it, it's because you either don't have the facts, you willingly deny the facts, or you're simply incapable of grasping the truth because you're blinded by your raging racism problem. It's most likely the racism problem.

The Left never learns from its own preaching. For the past 60-plus years they've decried the House Un-American Activities Committee for trying to root out communists, getting people canceled, ruining Hollywood careers, etcetera. But a HUAC-type committee is precisely what Robert Reich is describing and many on the Left want. It's not enough for Trump to be voted out of office. Americans who helped put him there must be punished. They don't want reconciliation, they want retribution. Because the Left doesn't simply loathe Donald Trump, the Left loathes YOU.

President Donald Trump's performance at last night's final presidential debate was "brilliant" and "the best he's ever done," Glenn Beck said on the radio program Friday.

Glenn described the moments he thought President Trump came across as "sincere," "kind," and "well-informed," as well as Joe Biden's biggest downfalls for of the night — from his big statement on wanting to eliminate the oil industry to his unsurprising gaffes as the debate neared the end. But, the question remains: was Trump's "brilliant performance" enough to win the election?

Watch the video be low to get Glenn's take on the final debate before the November 3 election:

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.