Glenn Beck: Can McCain Win?



Rasmussen Reports: Daily Presidential Tracking Poll

GLENN: Let me go to Scott Rasmussen first. He's a pollster. Scott Rasmussen from the Rasmussen Reports. Hey, Scott, how are you?

RASMUSSEN: I'm doing great, Glenn. I've got to tell you I always enjoyed being on your show on CNN and appreciated your staff as well.

GLENN: Well, thank you very much. Are you -- I mean, you go over to Fox, too? You do stuff over all of them, right?

RASMUSSEN: I'll answer questions from anybody who asks.

GLENN: Okay, good, good. Because I've enjoyed our relationship, Scott, and I like the way that you think and your polling is very accurate and I have just a few questions that I wanted to get down to the bottom with. One is the Bradley effect. Can you explain the Bradley effect? And then also, do you even believe in the Bradley effect?

RASMUSSEN: Yeah, those are two different things. The theory is that there is a, at least as it's become a myth that there are a number of people who will tell a pollster they are going to vote for an African-American candidate and then in the privacy of their own voting booth, they won't do it. It comes down to an election in California a generation ago, nearly 30 years ago. There are a number of factors that actually went into, you know, Bradley not winning after he had a big lead in some polls. Race may have been one of them. However, I've just got to emphasize that was a generation ago.

GLENN: 30 years ago. 30 years ago.

RASMUSSEN: Right. Look, we called in Tennessee two years ago in Harold Ford's race an African-American running in Tennessee, a place if there was going to be a Bradley effect, you would have seen it. It didn't show up. You know, is it possible that there are some people who refuse to vote for an African-American? Absolutely. In fact, 8% tell us that in our polls, that they will not vote for an African-American.

GLENN: You're ridding me.

RASMUSSEN: No. Now, it's largely generational, and there are more questions about people's peers, you know, would your family, friends and neighbors vote for an African-American. But, you know, this is not something that is -- and I know, believe me, I get e-mails all the time from people who are hoping that John McCain's going to pull off an upset here in the last days saying that because of the Bradley effect, our polls that show, you know, Obama ahead with a narrow lead really mean McCain's ahead, and that's just not the case.

GLENN: Okay. So let me go here because this is my theory. I don't believe in the Bradley effect. I don't believe that -- I shouldn't say this. I don't know anybody that would do that. I mean, the racists I meet are pretty clear, you know?

RASMUSSEN: Exactly.

GLENN: So, you know, they are pretty proud to say, "I'd never vote for, you know, an African-American." But I don't know those people, but I'm sure they exist. Here's what I think is a possibility. Today's world is so unbelievably politically correct, the culture has and the campaigns have made it in such a way that if you say you're against Barack Obama or you're not going to vote for him, you are just like... it just leads to no good. Is there a possibility that there is some margin here that is -- just wants to be left alone? You know what I mean? And they will say whatever they have to say just to get off the phone, just to move on with life. And the reason why I ask this, Scott, is I saw an interview. Where was it? I think it was on Fox in the morning. They were doing a live interview in a diner in either North or South Carolina, and the reporter went up and said, "So who are you going to vote for." And one guy said, "I'm voting for Barack Obama." The other guy said, "I don't know yet. I'd rather not comment." And I was struck with, I think he does know. He just doesn't want to say it. And the next guy said, "I don't, I don't want to say."

RASMUSSEN: Yeah. You know, look, I think what you're describing, there's a little bit of reality to it. I think there are some people who say they are not sure who actually are leaning towards John McCain. If you look at our poll compared to other surveys, we almost always get the same results for Barack Obama's total. There's some variance among the number of people who say they are going to vote for John McCain, and I think that variance helps explain some of the differences in the overall poll results and it also plays right into what you're describing. But having said that, you know, there's a million details. Putting a poll together in theory is easy. Making it work in practice is a great challenge. I'll tell you the things that worry me this election cycle. The biggest one is youth turnout. And the reason I say that is if young voters really show up in large numbers as the Obama camp hopes, that would be unusual historically and it would be very good for a campaign Obama. On the other hand if after all the hype the youth don't come out and vote in big numbers, then the shift will be a couple of points in the other direction towards John McCain. And it is issues like this that, you know, as a pollster we hope they all cancel each other out by the end of the day and that our estimate really is right on the money. And I have to say when I look at all of the data and everything else, it's a very stable race, it has been very stable ever since this economic meltdown began, and I believe what's happened is it's not so much a question of John McCain versus Barack Obama anymore. It's become a referendum on the Bush years, and part of the reason I say that is what we're seeing in John McCain's slippage in the polls over the last month we're also seeing in Senate races and other indicators.

GLENN: Is there any -- is there any indication at all that you get that -- let me ask it this way. Congress has the last number I saw was a 9% approval rating. How is this not translating to the Democratic members of congress?

RASMUSSEN: You know, we just did a poll and we found out that about 38% blame the Bush administration for our problems with the economy right now, 27% blame congress, 11% blame the Clinton administration, you know. So there is some bipartisan blame going around. But part of what you're describing has been created by John McCain. If you watched the debate the other night and if you've listened to Barack Obama in the last week or two, he keeps talking about this is the worst economic situation since the Great Depression. If John McCain were more comfortable talking about the economy, what he could say is, no, actually it's the worst economic situation since Jimmy Carter was in the White House and that's why we needed Ronald Reagan to come in. And there would be, you know, better positioning for him. But he has not taken advantage of that in any way, shape or form.

GLENN: What do you think about the youth vote? Is there any way to measure? When you say that historically they never have come out to vote, I'm trying to think. I mean, Bill Clinton -- well, I guess Bill Clinton kind of connected with the youth but I've never seen a movement before like Barack Obama. Have we seen anything like this ever before?

RASMUSSEN: No. And, you know, let's face it. 18 to 21-year-olds have only been voting for a generation and, you know, the biggest reason those youngest voters got to vote is because they told congress, if we're old enough to go to war, we should be old enough to vote. What those folks wanted was an end to the draft. Congress gave them the right to vote and they just never took advantage of it. My suspicion is youth turnout will be up a little bit this year. Not so much because of the movement aspect or the enthusiasm aspect but because Barack Obama's team has been very organized and they have taken advantage of Internet technology and I believe they will be reminding young people of the vote and to get their votes in early and they have taken the steps to register them. So I think there will be some increase but I don't think it's going to fundamentally alter the demographics of the electorate.

GLENN: So if that doesn't fundamentally alter and the race is this tight, who wins?

RASMUSSEN: Right now it will be Barack Obama. The reason I can say that is with such comfort is not only has he been stably ahead in our model, what we see in our polling -- we always have to try and gauge. We have a series of questions to determine who's going to show up and vote, and we are seeing some increase but not a dramatic increase among the youngest voters. But the reason I'm so comfortable saying Barack Obama would win today is because if you look at the electoral college and you look at the states where the candidates are competing in, there is not a single state won by John Kerry four years ago that John McCain is ahead in. There are nine states that George Bush carried four years ago that we show as either tossups or leaning towards Obama and, you know, when he start talking about Ohio, Florida, Virginia, North Carolina all either tossups or leaning a little bit towards Obama, that's pretty dramatic. John McCain has to win them all to win the White House. Barack Obama would need to pick up one of those.

GLENN: So the Senate race, do they have 60 seats, the Democrats? Do they get 60 seats at the end of this?

RASMUSSEN: Right now the answer is no, they would be close. There have been some indications in the last few weeks that the Senate numbers are starting to shift in favor of the Democrats, and we probably won't know until right before election day. In fact, if you recall, two years ago control of the Senate wasn't decided until the wee hours of the morning when George Allen finally lost in a very close race. You know, we may know earlier how close they are going to be. And my suspicion is if the economic turmoil keeps up, if the market keeps being highly volatile and mostly in a negative direction, the Democrats will get very close to 60 and it will be -- if that happens, the first time since Lyndon Johnson that we'll have a president elected with such a large majority in the Senate.

GLENN: Yeah. Before that it was 1933. The idea of voter fraud, is this -- with an election this close and the idea of voter fraud -- and I'm not a voter fraud expert but have you seen anything like this before? Has this kind of voter fraud happened over and over and over again and we're just very, very sensitive to it at this point? Or is this something new, Scott?

RASMUSSEN: Well, I think there have been problems with voting probably since shortly after George Washington was sworn in, but most of the time it doesn't matter because we haven't had very close elections. But the last several elections have been so close, we're starting to see more flaws in the process. And on top of that, the new technologies and the new communication vehicles for getting people to register to vote I think have opened up some new opportunities. And what it's really done is it's undermining the very legitimacy of the process. Only 53% of voters in Ohio are very confident that their votes will be accurately counted and the right person declared the winner this year.

GLENN: That is really staggering. Have you ever seen a number like that before?

RASMUSSEN: No. I mean, we have seen -- there's a little bit of humor you have to put in all of it. Only about half of Americans typically say that elections are fair to voters but that's sort of in a generic sense. What we see is when the Republicans are winning, Republicans say elections are fair and Democrats say they're not. And when Democrats win, we see the reverse. But something specifically like this in terms of having their votes counted, it's a new high.

GLENN: In California Proposition 8, this thing is going to change. Opponents say this will change absolutely everything. Proposition 8 is to make marriage between a man and a woman -- this is going to change, and we're going to do something on this next week. This is going to change the way schools behave. I believe this could be the end of school choice, quite frankly. This is going to be -- change the way everything is in America. It will probably -- your church, if you stand for marriage between a man and a woman, your church could lose its tax-exempt status, your church could be deemed a hate organization. I mean, the possible ramifications from Proposition 8 are just astounding. Have you done any polling on this?

RASMUSSEN: We have not polled on that issue and it's something that is obviously a big question in the State of California and all around the country. I think the implications you are talking about actually have more to do ultimately with what happens with the judges that are appointed in the next four or eight years. You know, and that's something that is directly under the control of the next President.

GLENN: Well, I mean, it's already happened when California -- and believe it or not, you know, one of the certain court of appeals actually overturned it but I mean, one judge has already said you don't have right to teach your kids in school.

RASMUSSEN: Right.

GLENN: It's madness. How about Colorado and the union measures there that also are going to fundamentally change the way America does business in America? I mean, unions are really trying to make a play here. This happens to be -- and correct me if I'm wrong, Scott. I believe this election is the liberal dream come true, or at least the possibility of the liberal dream come true.

RASMUSSEN: Oh, absolutely. And in fact, when I mentioned a few moments ago that this would be the biggest Senate majority since Lyndon Johnson, we tend to forget what happened with Lyndon Johnson. He was a very skilled politician, an incredible legislative genius when he had a narrow majority to work with when he was the Senate majority leader. But when he became president and had no checks on him, his personal instincts took over, nobody checked them and he couldn't even stand for reelection four years later. Barack Obama, if he gets elected with a 60-seat majority in the Senate, is going to face a challenge. The left is going to have a lot of pent-up demands. They want to destroy anything that was left from the Reagan era and they are going to be pressing Barack Obama to push through an agenda that is far to the left of where most Americans are. If Obama is unable to resist, it probably will have some negative implications for Democrats going forward. But who knows what happens in the meantime.

GLENN: Okay. Scott, I appreciate it. We'll talk to you again, my friend.

RASMUSSEN: Look forward to it.

Glenn Beck: Adam Schiff is a LIAR — and we have the proof

Image source: Glenn Beck Program on BlazeTV

On the radio program Wednesday, Glenn Beck didn't hold back when discussing the latest in a long list of lies issued by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) during the Democrats' ongoing endeavor to remove President Donald Trump from office.

"I'm going to just come out and say, Adam Schiff is a liar. And he intentionally lied. And we have the proof. The media being his little lapdog, but I'll explain what's really going on, and call the man a liar to his face," Glenn asserted. "No, I'm not suggesting he's a liar. No, I'm telling you, he's a liar. ... Adam Schiff is a lying dirtbag."

A recent report in Politico claimed Schiff "mischaracterized" the content of a document sent to House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) as evidence against President Trump in the Senate impeachment trial. Read more on this here.

"Let me translate [for Politico]," Glenn said. "House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff lied about a text message exchange between two players in the Ukrainian saga. And we know it, because of the documents that were obtained by Politico."

A few of the other lies on Schiff's list include his repeated false claims that there was "significant evidence of collusion" between the Trump campaign and Russia leading up to the 2016 presidential election, his phony version of President Trump's phone call with the president of Ukraine, and his retracted claim that neither he nor his committee ever had contact with the Trump-Ukraine whistleblower. And the list just keeps getting longer.

Watch the video below for more details:

Use code BECK to save $10 on one year of BlazeTV.

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.

On the radio program Tuesday, Glenn Beck and Stu Burguiere discussed recent reports that former Vice President Joe Biden's son, Hunter, wasn't the only family member to capitalize on his connections to land an unbelievably lucrative job even though he lacked qualifications or experience.

According to Peter Schweizer's new book, "Profiles in Corruption: Abuse of Power by America's Progressive Elite," Joe Biden's younger brother, Frank, enjoyed the benefit of $54 million in taxpayer loans during the Obama administration to try his hand at an international development venture.

A lawyer by training, Frank Biden teamed up with a developer named Craig Williamson to build a sprawling luxury resort in Costa Rica, which claimed to be on a mission to preserve the country's forests but actually resulted in the decimation of thousands of acres of wilderness.

The then-vice president's brother also reportedly earned hundreds of thousands of dollars as the front man of a for-profit charter school company called Mavericks in Education.

The charter schools, which focused on helping at-risk teens, eventually failed after allegations of mismanagement and a series of lawsuits derailed the dubious business venture.

Watch the video below to get Glenn's take on these latest revelations in the Biden family corruption saga:

Use code BECK to save $10 on one year of BlazeTV.

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.

Ryan: Bernie at the disco

Photo by Sean Ryan

Saturday at El Malecón, we waited for the Democratic socialist. He had the wild white hair like a monk and the thick glasses and the booming voice full of hacks and no niceties.

Photo by Sean Ryan

The venue had been redecorated since we visited a few nights before when we chatted with Castro. It didn't even feel like the same place. No bouncy castle this time.

Photo by Sean Ryan

A black curtain blocked the stage, giving the room a much-needed depth.

Behind the podium, two rows of mostly young people, all holding Bernie signs, all so diverse and picturesque and strategic.

Photo by Sean Ryan

Lots of empty seats. Poor showing of Bernie fans for a Saturday afternoon. At one point, someone from Bernie's staff offered us seats in the audience, as if eager to fill up those seats however possible.

There were about 75 people in the dancehall, a place built for reunions and weddings and all those other festivities. But for a few hours on Saturday, August 10, 2019, it turned serious and wild for "Unidos Con Bernie."

Photo by Sean Ryan

People had been murmuring about Sanders' speech from the night before at Wing Ding. By all appearances, he had developed a raving lust to overthrow Trump. He had even promised, with his wife just out of view, that, were he elected, he'd end white nationalism in America. For good.

El Malecón lacked its previous air of celebration. It had undertaken a brooding yet defiant spirit. Media were sparse. Four cameras faced the podium. Three photographers, one of whom had been at nearly all the same events as us. A few of the staffers frowned at an empty row of chairs, because there weren't that many chairs to begin with.

At the entrance, Bernie staff handed out headsets that translated English to Spanish or Spanish to English, depending on who the speaker was. The translators stood behind the bar, 20 feet from the podium, and spoke into a lip-ribbon microphone.

Bernie's staff was probably the coolest, by far. As in, they looked cool and acted stylishly. Jeans. Sandals. Careworn blazers. Tattoos. One lad had a black Levi's shirt with lush crimson roses even though he wasn't a cowboy or a ranch-hand. Mustaches. Quirky hats. A plain green sundress. Some of them wore glasses, big clunking frames.

Photo by Sean Ryan

The outfits were distinctly Bernie. As Bernie as the tie-dyed "BERNIE" shirts for sale outside the club. Or later, at the Hilton, like a Grateful Dead cassette stand.

Immigration was the theme, and everyone in the audience bore some proof of a journey. Because America offers life, freedom, and hope.

Sanders' own father emigrated from Poland to America at 17, a high school dropout who could barely speak English. As a Jew, he'd faced religious persecution.

Within one generation, Bernie Sanders' father contributed to the highest stratum of American society. In one generation, near hopelessness had transformed into Democracy, his son a congressman with a serious chance at the presidency.

Photo by Sean Ryan

That's the beauty of America. Come here broken and empty and gutted and voiceless. And, within your lifetime, you can mend yourself then become a pillar of society. Then, your son can become the President of the United States of America!

Four people gave speeches before Sanders. They took their time, excited and nervous. They putzed. Because how often do you get to introduce a presidential frontrunner?

All the native English speakers jammed their earpieces when the woman with the kind and dark energy took the stage.

Photo by Sean Ryan

She mumbled in Spanish and did not look up and said that, when her parents died, she couldn't go home for the funeral. She fought back tears. She swallowed hard to shock herself calm. And the room engulfed each silence between every word.

It felt more like a therapy session than a political rally. A grueling therapy session at that. Was that what drew people to Bernie Sanders, that deep anguish? That brisk hope? Or, rather, the cessation of it, through Sanders? And, of course, the resultant freedom? Was it what gave Sanders a saintlike ability to lead people into the realm of the confessional? Did he have enough strength to lead a revolution?

Photo by Sean Ryan

While other frontrunners hocked out money for appearances, like the studio lights, Sanders spent money on translators and ear-pieces. The impression I got was that he would gladly speak anywhere. To anyone. He had the transitory energy you can capture in the writings of Gandhi.

Photo by Sean Ryan

I'm not saying he's right or wrong — I will never make that claim, about any of the candidates, because that's not the point of this, not the point of journalism, amen — what I'm saying is he has the brutal energy of someone who can take the subway after a soiree or rant about life by a tractor or chuck it up with Sarah Silverman, surrounded wherever he goes.

Without the slightest fanfare, Sanders emerged from behind the black curtain. The woman at the podium gasped a little. The room suctioned forward when he entered. In part because he was so nonchalant. And, again. That magnetism to a room when a famous or powerful or charming person enters. Not many people have it. Not many can keep it. Even fewer know how to brace it, to cull it on demand. But several of the candidates did. One or two even had something greater.

Photo by Sean Ryan

I'll only say that Bernie had it with a bohemian fervor, like he was a monk stranded in a big city that he slowly brings to God.

"We have a President who, for the first time in my lifetime, who is a President who is a racist," he shouted. "Who is a xenophobe and anti-immigrant. Who is a sexist. Who is a religious bigot. And who, is a homophobe. And, what is very disappointing is that, when we have a President, we do not necessarily expect to agree with him, or her, on every issue. But we do believe that one of the obligations is to bring people to-geth-ah. As Americans."

Photo by Sean Ryan

After listening silently for several minutes, the audience clapped. Their sweet response felt cultish. But, then again, what doesn't feel cultish these days? So this was cultish like memes are cultish, in a striving-to-understand kind of way.

"The essence of our campaign is in fact to bring people together," he said. "Whether they're black, or white, or latino, or Native American, or Asian-American. We understand that we are Americans."

At times, this meant sharing a common humanity. Others, it had a slightly more disruptive feel. Which worked. Sometimes all we want is revolution. To be wild without recourse. To overthrow. To pass through the constraints of each day. To survive. The kind of rowdy stuff that makes for good poetry but destroys credit lines. Sanders radiated with this intensity, like a reclusive philosopher returning to society, from his cave to homes and beds and fences and maybe electricity.

Photo by Sean Ryan

But, as he says, his revolution would involve healthcare and wages and tuition, not beheadings and purges and starvation.

Seeing the Presidential candidates improvise was amazing. They did it constantly. They would turn any of their beliefs into a universal statement. And Sanders did this without trying. So he avoided doing the unbearably arrogant thing of pretending to speak like a native Guatemalan, and he looked at the group of people, and he mumbled in his cloudy accent:

"My Spanish — is not so good."

Photo by Sean Ryan

This is the same and the opposite of President Trump's Everyman way of speaking English like an American. Of speaking American.

Often, you know what Sanders will say next. You can feel it. And, anytime this happened, it brought comfort to the room.

Like, it surprised no one when he said that he would reinstate DACA on his first day in office. It still drew applause.

But other times, he expressed wild ideas with poetic clarity. And his conclusions arrived at unusual junctures. Not just in comparison to Republicans. To all of them. Bernie was the Tupac of the 2020 election. And, to him, President Trump was Suge Knight, the evil force behind it all.

"Donald Trump is an idiot," he shouted.

Photo by Sean Ryan

Everybody loved that. Everybody clapped and whooped and some even whistled like they were outside and not in a linoleum-floor dancehall.

"Go get 'em, Bernie," someone in the back shouted.

This was the only Sanders appearance with no protestors.

"Let me say this about the border," he shouted. And everybody listened to every thunking syllable. He probably could have spoken without a mic. Booming voice. Loud and clear. Huddling into that heavy Vermont slug accent.

They'll say many many things about Bernie. One being, you never had to lean forward to hear him. In person, even more so. He's less frail. More dynamic.

Photo by Sean Ryan

Despite the shoddiness of the venue, there was a sign language interpreter. Most of the rallies had a designated interpreter.

"If you work 40 hours a week you shouldn't be living in poverty," he shouted, provoking chants and applause from the audience, as if he were talking about them. Maybe he was.

An anecdote about the people at an emergency food shelf blended into the livable wage of $15 an hour. He shifted into his spiel about tuition-free college and pointed at the audience, "You're not doing well," then at the kids behind him, "they are." He craned his head sideways and back. "Do your homework," he told said.

Laughter.

Half of the kids looked like they hadn't eaten in days. Maybe it was their unusual situation, a few feet from Bernie Sanders at a stucco community center.

Before the room could settle, Sanders wove through a plan for how to cancel debt.

Did he have a solution?

Tax Wall Street, he shouted.

Photo by Sean Ryan

And he made it sound easy. "Uno dos trey," he said. "That's my Spanish for today."

A serious man, he shoved through his speech like a tank hurtling into dense jungle. He avoided many of the typical politician gimmicks. Proof that he did not practice every expression in front of a mirror. That he did not hide his accent. That he did not preen his hair. That he did not smile for a precise amount of time, depending on the audience. That he did not pretend to laugh.

Photo by Sean Ryan

He laughed when humor overtook him. But it was genuine. With none of the throaty recoil you hear in forced laughter.

"I want everyone to take a deep breath," he said. And a palpable lightness spread through the room, because a deep breath can solve a lot of problems.

Photo by Sean Ryan

Then he roused some more. "Healthcare is a human right," he shouted. "A human privilege," he shouted. He told them that he lives 50 miles from the Canadian border in Burlington, Vermont, and healthcare works better up north.

Each candidate had a bad word, and Sanders' was "corporate."

Photo by Sean Ryan

At every speech, he mentioned "corporate media" with the same distrust and unpleasantness that conservatives derive from the term "mainstream media." Another would be "fake news," as popularized by Sanders' sworn enemy. Either way it's the same media. Just different motivations that irk different people.

But the discrepancies varied. Meaning two opposing political movements disliked the same thing, but for opposite reasons.
It sounded odd, Sanders' accusation that the media were against him. The media love Bernie. I can confirm this both anecdotally and judiciously. Yes, okay, in 2016, the media appeared to have sided with Hillary Clinton. As a result, Sanders was publicly humiliated. Because Clinton took a mafioso approach to dealing with opponents, and Sanders was her only roadblock.

Imagine if a major political organization devoted part of each day to agitating your downfall. And then you fail. And who's fault is it?

Sanders wanted to know: those negative ads targeting him, who paid for them?

Photo by Sean Ryan

Corporations, of course. Corporations that hated radicals like him. And really was he so radical? He listed off the possibilities: Big pharma, insurance companies, oil companies.

Because he had become a revolutionary, to them. To many.

He said it with certainty, although he often didn't have to say it at all. This spirit of rebellion had become his brand. He would lead the wild Americans into a utopia.

But just as quickly, he would attack. Trump, as always, was the target.

He called Trump the worst president in American history.

"The fates are Yuge," he shouted.

The speech ended as informally as it had begun. And Sanders' trance over the audience evaporated, replaced by that suction energy. Everyone rushed closer and closer to the man as Neil Young's "Keep on Rockin in the Free World" blared. Sanders leaned into the podium and said, "If anyone wants to form a line, we can do some selfies."

Photo by Sean Ryan

It was like meeting Jesus for some of the people.

There he was, at El Malecón. No stage lights, no makeup, no stylist behind the curtain. Just him and his ideas and his erratic hand commotion.

Then a man holding a baby leaned in for a photo. He and Sanders chatted. And, I kid you not, the whole time the baby is staring at Bernie Sanders like he's the image of God, looking right up at him, with this glow, this understanding.

Bernie, if you're reading this, I'd like to suggest that — if this election doesn't work for you — you could be the next Pope.

New installments come Mondays and Thursdays. Check out my Twitter. Email me at kryan@blazemedia.com

On the "Glenn Beck Radio Program" Monday, Harvard Law professor and lawyer on President Donald Trump's impeachment defense team Alan Dershowitz explains the history of impeachment and its process, why the framers did not include abuse of power as criteria for a Constitutional impeachment, why the Democrats are framing their case the way they are, and what to look for in the upcoming Senate trial.

Dershowitz argued that "abuse of power" -- one of two articles of impeachment against Trump approved by House Democrats last month -- is not an impeachable act.

"There are two articles of impeachment. The second is 'obstruction of Congress.' That's just a false accusation," said Dershowitz. "But they also charge him, in the Ukraine matter, with abuse of power. But abuse of power was discussed by the framers (of the U.S. Constitution) ... the framers refused to include abuse of power because it was too broad, too open-ended.

"In the words of James Madison, the father of our Constitution, it would lead presidents to serve at the will of Congress. And that's exactly what the framers didn't want, which is why they were very specific and said a president can be impeached only for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors," he added.

"What's alleged against President Trump is not criminal," added Dershowitz. "If they had criminal issues to allege, you can be sure they would have done it. If they could establish bribery or treason, they would have done it already. But they didn't do it. They instead used this concept of abuse of power, which is so broad and general ... any president could be charged with it."

Watch the video below to hear more details:



Use code BECK to save $10 on one year of BlazeTV.

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.