An Inside Look at Fox

Glenn gives an inside look at what it was like to work at Fox News.

Trump Immunity Case EXPLAINED: Alan Dershowitz's Biggest Takeaways
RADIO

Trump Immunity Case EXPLAINED: Alan Dershowitz's Biggest Takeaways

The Supreme Court has granted at least partial immunity to former President Donald Trump for the actions he took as president. Attorney Alan Dershowitz joins Glenn to explain what this means. He lays out why this is likely a big win for Trump that has made it all but impossible for his Jan. 6 case to go to trial before the 2024 election. But Dershowitz also explains why he believes this isn’t over yet – chances are, he argues, this case will be heading back to the Supreme Court …

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Big news. And riots come out of France. This weekends. We haven't even had a chance to talk about that. But we will.

But in Paris right now, is Alan Dershowitz. He's getting ready to get up on stage. And speak.

But we wanted to take a couple of minutes. The decision on Trump immunity. Or actually it's presidential immunity came down.

And I think it's a win for the republic.

I think that's the way I would have ruled.

It was nine HP three. Alan, any just on it, and what it says?


ALAN: I'm in Paris. And speaking to you from the place of riots and demonstrations. And I'm not a part of that. Bit predicted exactly this instigation. (?) many any book, Trump.

Neither side would have a complete victory. And the Supreme Court would rule six-thee. And if at that if it's well-within the authority of the president. He has immunity.

If it's outside of the president. The question is, which is which?

Does TV to go back to the trial court? To determine whether the indictment had things that covered by immunity. (?) so this is the first step, in what what would be a multi-step process. It probably means, that there won't be a trial before the election.

GLENN: Right. So that's a win for Donald Trump.

ALAN: I think so.

GLENN: But is this a win for the republic? Because we can't have one of the branches going after the other branch, and then we also can't have people dragging the president into the -- into the courtroom, for everything that he does.

He's got to have immunity on official stuff, right?

ALAN: I agree. I agree.

GLENN: Do you agree with this line? Yeah. I agree with the line in general. I think it will be hard to implement and practice.

Everything the president does, he does as president. That's very hard to separate (?) than public acts. For example, the president orders the targeted assassination of Sella Manny.

Surely, he has to be (?) for any prosecution. But what if the president orders troops to have a coupe did he at a. And keep him in office. (?) hypothetically. He probably shouldn't get immunity for that.

So I do think, that this seems like the right line. And now, the problem is, it's going to be complemented by the lower courts.

And the lower courts, of the (?) District of Columbia. Are completely biased against Trump.

It may come back from the Supreme Court.

This may not be the last word from SCOTUS.

GLENN: Any just before we let you go? I know you have to get to the stage.

Any just at all, about what should be happening with the president on stepping down.

I don't know how you can say, he should step down from the campaign, and not as president.

What's the right thing to do?

ERIC: All I worry about is the alternative. Look, there's no question, that Biden, he himself admitted he's slowed down.

He's less -- less able than he was. The question is: What's the alternative. If he does step down, the Democrats may nominate some radical progressive person, who will be terrible to the country.

Terrible for peace in the Middle East.

We may see, you know, an attempt to get real radicals, as president and vice president.

So sometimes, the devil you know, is better than thively you don't.

And we'll see what the Democrats do. If they -- were to nominate some moderate person. That might be good. But if they use this as an excuse to let the progressive wing of the party take over, it won't be good.

GLENN: Alan Dershowitz, thank you very much. Stay safe.

ALAN: Always my pleasure. Thank you.

GLENN: You bet. Alan Dershowitz. That's an interesting thing coming from Alan Dershowitz, isn't it?

STU: Yeah. For sure.

The whole -- very interesting day here. And I think a very good one for Donald Trump.

This ruling going through it, I think exactly what he would want here. It doesn't give him, you know, full immunity on everything he did while he was in office.

It -- it -- and I think that would be bad for the country, right?

If he had this ability to have complete immunity, and any president to have complete immunity on anything they did. It would be completely ridiculous.

GLENN: But that's if we know that's what the impeachment process is for. First.

STU: Right. It also -- Trump's lawyers basically argued this. They even said, we wouldn't have the right to murder a bunch of people for fun.

GLENN: Right.

STU: Right? We're talking about official acts. Now, what the court is saying, is we have to have -- first of all, there's a presumptive immunity for a president, when dealing with these situations.

So you are going to start off with the idea. Okay. There is immunity. Because he was president.

Then there has to be some sort of (?) whether it's an official act or unofficial act.

They sent it back to the courts. (?) are these official acts or not. You rushed through this. (?) whether these were official acts or not.

There's some sort of process there.

Which, by the way, the court notes. We don't know what it is.

There's no actual official process to figure out, whether these are official acts or not.

So this is amaze of legal rulings and challenges.

And the bottom line to all of this, is basically, I could be wrong on this, Glenn.

I will admit if I am.

But to me, this basically kills the possibility of either of these January 6th cases, coming before this election.

Like, it goes from unlikely to impossible with this ruling.

GLENN: Well, if president -- here, let me make a prediction.

If the president loses -- President Trump loses this election.

It will -- these cases will just disappear.

If the president wins this election, they'll fight it tooth and nail.

And they'll drag him all the way through.

But, you know, I think people are tired of all of this stuff. Myself.

You know, the last part of the debate, when they were going back and forth. And Joe Biden was making fun of Donald Trump's weight.

I mean, was he really actually doing a fat joke there?

I mean, I couldn't believe it.

And finally, Trump did say. Let's stop being -- acting like children here.

I think people just -- you know, their lives are in enough turmoil.

They would like somebody to pay attention to them, please.

STU: It's -- look, yeah. I think that's right.

And this is an amazing day.

Stop for a second.

And go back a year. Right?

Six months. This is a possibility of four cases come you up against Donald Trump. That go up to 91 charges against him. And we had no idea where this was going. One them has gone through 34 convictions. We see the result of that. Has not moved the election at all. Everyone has seen that as a weakest one. It will be overtinder anyway.

It's nonsense in my view. That leaves I with the two January 6. Which on the (?) consequences of that. Regardless of what you're feeling. Those were the most impactful. If you were to get convicted (?) even though, I think he was -- obviously, the government was overreaching on all this stuff.

Well, both of those are dead before this election now.

GLENN: And -- and the fanny Bryce. Or whatever her name.

STU: Fani Willis. (?) I would much rather have fanny Bryce do it.

She is -- that thing is pretty much dead.

I mean, it's not.

STU: I think that's dead, especially with this ruling.

I mean, I think it's dead.

We will see. It could still wind through.

They could find their outs.

It was dead anyway.

Most likely, now. I think it's dead, dead, dead.

Then you have the documents case. Again, keeping documents to me, the lowest of consequences in this.

But still, he had trouble there. It looks like there's no question, that will be pushed past November as well.

So it -- we're kind of at the point where that whole, hey, this is going to be an election about legal charges against Donald Trump is over.

Whatever consequence has occurred.

We're going to see. This is it.

There's no more moving this election. On charges. By Democrats.

I mean, Trump had already won the back and forth on this. By getting it to the Supreme Court, and having it take it along.

Just, if they have it delayed. They had a horrible ruling. It would still be a ruling for Trump. Because of the way it played out. This is a much better option.

For him, it will wind around the courts forever.

There's no chance of this happening before November now.

GLENN: And it's the right thing to do as well. This is the right thing to do for the republic.

Evidence: Did Jill Biden FORCE Joe Biden to Run Again?
RADIO

Evidence: Did Jill Biden FORCE Joe Biden to Run Again?

President Biden’s performance in the CNN Presidential Debate was shocking. But what happened after the debate ended was even more revealing: Jill Biden had to help Joe off stage and she praised him as if he was a 4-year-old for ... answering all the questions. This caused many to question whether Jill is the real driving force behind Biden’s re-election campaign. But this isn’t the first time these rumors have surfaced. Glenn reviews multiple mainstream media pieces on why Jill Biden may have convinced Joe to run, despite his age. But could this explain his poor debate performance? Did other prominent Democrats allow this train wreck to happen?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Sometimes there are stories, that are in our show prep.

And we include them, because spider senses tell me something is not right.

And there's been a couple of stories in our morning show prep, that if you get it at GlennBeck.com, it's free. You get all the stories.

You'll be able to see a pattern in the way that we work as a team.

There are two stories about Jill Biden that bothered me. And I never talked about them on the air, because I couldn't figure them out yet.

But I had a feeling about a year ago, that Joe Biden isn't making the decisions on whether to run or not.

It was Jill.

Now, there's a couple of things.

First, let me go to a story from Politico.
How Jill Biden helped Joe to get to yes for running on re-election at 80.

She is the not-so-secret weapon behind her husband. And unlike four years ago, she doesn't have reservations before he chose to run. Privately, the First Lady encouraged her husband to run again, while giving him the space he needed to process the decision in the way he traditionally does. With extensive deliberations, consideration of the burden it would place on his family, and a bit of classic Biden hemming and hawing. She was involved in the high level discussions around the decision. Giving council when she felt it was necessary. She's usually in the room when senior campaign staff, was presenting strategy to her husband.

She'll ask questions. But she never weighs on the decisions. Said a former senior Biden adviser.

Her gentle encouragement of her husband's reelection run. Comes as she relishes her role, hanging out at the Super Bowl, or the women's final four. And actively posting on social media. Unlike the cliché applied to wives of major political figures, that they're the secret weapon behind their husband's success.

There is nothing secret about the role she is playing. Nearly a dozen aides and advisers in Biden world described the First Lady as someone who has grown more willing to enjoy the rigors and demands of being in the political spotlight herself, and more convinced of her husband's ability to be fit for the job.

Interesting line. When I read that, I went, hmm.

That's a weird line to just throw in.

Close advisers says, she feels a comfort level with her role inside the White House. Balancing the ceremonial responsibilities. Now, why are they making this?

Why are they making his throwing in his decision to run, and that she is feeling more comfortable at the White House?

That she also is really enjoying kind of the power things that you get to do. In Washington.

And it goes on to talk about, he's -- she's always there, taking notes, listening. With her glasses on.

And Joe will always look at her, and go, what do you think?

And she advises him. Now, that is contradicted in the same story.

And it's just a confusing mess.

I read another story about a year ago, that was talking about how Jill was the force, behind the -- the Biden run, this time around.

That she was the one, driving it.

Okay.

Then there was this story, that just came out from Slate last week. Or maybe earlier this week.

What's happening with Jill Biden?

June has turned out, unlike how the Bidens expected. To me natured by a much bleaker circumstance. Namely Hunter Biden's federal trial. And conviction.

Some of that could not have been foreseen.

Jill Biden as an intensely private First Lady, exercised her near perfect control over her image during her three and a half years in the White House. However, that has cracked.

When she appeared at Hunter's trial this month, she faced exactly the same sort of scrutiny and unpredictable headlines that she sought to avoid. Her communications director reacted defensively to questions about this, saying, she's a mom. Of course, she would be there as much as possible to support him. The spokesperson said, at one point -- and it was hard to argue with that. Even as ABC News began reporting the steep cost to the taxpayers of her trips to the courthouse.

Now, when was the last time -- I mean, unless it was Melania Trump. When was the last time you heard about the First Lady's expense?

Remember how they -- they threw just flower petals at the feet of Michelle Obama?

And she could spend a fortune and nobody ever said anything about it?

In fact, you were called a racist if you did say something about it?

Jill was more in her element a few weeks ago. Appearing on Good Morning America. And the View.

By the way, both ABC.

It was ostensibly to promote her book. These were actually campaign appearances. And awkward ones, at that that.

But they were nothing compared to the book she was promoting Willow. Which I have not been able to quite shake from my mind, since peering through a digital copy this month, as admittedly more consequential events played out.

The juxtaposition of poor Willow the Cat, against all else, that has happened in June, feels like a telling example of the Biden's larger comes trouble.

And tendency to assume the benevolent gaslighting might be a viable solution for dealing with them.

So here's Slate magazine. They start out about her appearance at Hunter Biden's trial. And that she blew her, you know -- cracked that she will of just I'm the perfect First Lady.

Then they went into, she's spending a lot of money.

Then they go into this bizarre review of this book, she was hocking, about Willow the cat. And they go so far as to say, it might be good news for Jill Biden that no one is paying attention to this book. It could go on. But here's what bothered me on these stories. And this is why they were included in the show prep. And I didn't know why exactly.

The left does not go after the First Lady. And it wasn't a universal thing, it was here and there.

In this story, you find out, that there were three occasions, that it was just ABC News.

Hmm. I believe that Jill Biden was the driving force behind Joe, making this decision.

To run again. And that there were people in the White House, and people in the democratic party, that knew that was going to be a disaster.

And they couldn't come out and say anything. It wasn't like Edith Wilson.

Because this is what happened. The Democratic Party, under Woodrow Wilson.

He had a stroke.

Edith ran the White House, ran everything.

Put a pen in his hand. And then signed his name. To documents and everything else.

And he was going to run for a third term. Well, nobody saw the president.

She wouldn't let anybody in. And finally, the Congress. The Democrats got together, and said, we demand we see him.

Or we're going to bring up hearings.

And he will have to appear. So they did. She was -- had registered him for a third term.

After the stroke. And the Democrats finally had to come to her. And threaten her. And say, we're going to expose all of this. Or you can go away peacefully in the night.

I'm not saying that Jill was -- you know, faking his signature or anything like that. But she was the one that was getting in the way of getting him to step down, because there were Democrats, screw the country.

Didn't think that he should run for president again. I think last night happened because that same force that has been throwing her under the bus. The same force has said, put him in now, while we still have a chance. Let's do a debate early.

And they sold it, and they bought it. And they did it.

And what happened last night, Jill Biden was the first one to step up, as soon as. He -- well, let me just show you the walking off the stage.

Who was the one walking -- he was stuck. Donald Trump left the stage.

And it was -- this is just a shot from -- from people in the room.

This wasn't what was on TV. Show that -- show that videotape of him --

VOICE: President Trump walking off the stage. The first debate of the 2024 campaign, and the earliest presidential campaign ever now in the books.

GLENN: So he just walks off, and Joe Biden is just standing there. And Jill comes out, and grabs his arm and stands there for a while, and then walks him down, with his arm down the stairs of the stage.

Then they go back into the Spin Room. And here's what she says, when they go back in public. Listen to this.

JILL: Joe, you did such a great job. You answered every question. You knew all the facts!

And let me ask the crowd, what did Trump do? Lie!

GLENN: Look at him.

Then she went to Waffle Hut -- or Waffle House. She goes to Waffle House. And she's running a little dog and pony show, where Joe is just kind of, you know, still looks like he was hit by a freight train. And she is spinning this whole thing, and leading a show, at a Waffle House.

The hell is going on there?

I think this was -- I think this was a democratic inside job, to get her to have so much pressure. Not him.

Her!

To feel the pressure, that he has got to go.

Could be wrong.

But I bet I'm not.

What the Surgeon General’s Advisory for ‘Firearm Violence’ is REALLY About
RADIO

What the Surgeon General’s Advisory for ‘Firearm Violence’ is REALLY About

Biden’s Surgeon General, Vivek Murthy, recently issued a first-of-its-kind Surgeon General’s Advisory for “firearm violence.” Murthy argued that firearm violence is a “public health crisis” that must be dealt with immediately. But Glenn translates that into what it really means: “when the government says, ‘it's a public health concern,’ what they mean is a lack of control of the public.” Plus, Glenn reviews a terrifying bill that Delaware’s legislature recently passed that sheds light on why everything is being declared a “public health crisis.”

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Let's start with the Surgeon General. The Surgeon General has come out and declared climate change a -- a public health emergency.

He has also claimed that racism is a public health emergency. Now, when you have a public health emergency, you know i.e. COVID, the government can claim all kinds of powers.

If it's a public health emergency, they're using this language very, very carefully.

Now, here's what he said, yesterday. Cut four. Surgeon General announces firearm violence being a public health emergency.

Today, for the first time in the history of our office. I'm issuing a Surgeon General's advisory on firearm violence.

It outlines the urgent threat firearm violence poses to the health and well-being of our country. As a doctor, I've seen the consequences of firearm violence up close. In the lives of the patients I've cared for over the years. These are moms and dads. Sons and daughters.

All of whom were robbed of their physical and mental health. By sensible acts of violence.

Unfortunately, the problem has continued to grow. The Surgeon General's advisory lays out the approach we can take to address firearm violence as the public health crisis that it is.

This includes implementing community violence prevention programs and firearm risk reduction strategies, improving access to mental health care for those exposed to or at risk for firearm violence. An expanding research funding can inform and evaluate our prevention strategies.

GLENN: Hang on just a second.

Hold on. It he just say that it would expand mental health access, for those who have created gun violence or who had participated in it? Or had access to guns?

That's interesting. Anyway, so there's Dr. Murphy. Coming on. And he says, I just want people to walk through their neighborhoods. And feel safe.

Yeah. So do I. So do I. What's changed?

What's changed?

Why has it gotten so dangerous to walk through our neighborhoods. There are some other things that I would say are going on that I would call a crisis. But he doesn't want to talk about that. He wants to talk about the evil guns. And those who want guns.

And it's a public health crisis. Now, let me give you another story before I get into the main point here.

Delaware, the state legislators yesterday said doctor-assisted suicide bill to the governor, to sign.

This would be the 11th state to approve doctor-assisted suicide. Okay. Let's look at those 11 states.

What 11 states has doctor-assisted suicide? California. Colorado. Oregon. Vermont. New Mexico. Maine. New Jersey. Hawaii. Washington. And Washington, DC.

Stu, I'm noticing a pattern here. And I don't know exactly what it is. What do those 11 states have in common?

STU: Great vacation locations. No?

GLENN: No. I wouldn't put New Jersey in the same category as Hawaii.

STU: Really?

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah. They're all the most progressive takes the we have in the union.

Okay?

So they're the same ones that are fighting for the death of babies. They are the same ones that are now going to the opposite end. And saying also, the death of old people, or anybody sick, that wants to die.

Okay. All right. Now, let me tie these two stories together. May I?

Have you ever heard anyone tell the American people, that this is science? And those that don't understand it, are going to be swept aside, in the -- in history. As those being on the wrong side of history?

Have you heard anyone saying, well, to, you know, kids.

You know, you understand things, that your parents don't understand.

Because, well, they don't get it. It's a new generation.

Right?

Have you ever heard anyone saying, if you don't -- if you don't join us, you're against us.

Right? Okay. Let me read a -- let me read something to the doctors, in medical profession.

From a doctor Wagner. Colleagues, sweep aside all those who do want wish to understand the sign of the times. Hmm.

Over the course of these weeks, it has been with emotion and gratitude. That we have observed the German national awareness of itself. And the value of its blood.

In every ham het. Every walk of life. In all the professions, we are witnessing the awakening of the people. And rejection of mistakes coming from liberal and formal -- and foreign elements. When they say liberal, by the way. They mean classical liberalism.

Then mean, that you as an individual matter. Not the kind of liberalism that's now being preached. Liberalism meaning you have a -- an inherent right to choose for yourself.

Let's see.

He says, a few professions, participate in the grandeur, and the future of this nation as much as the medical profession does. And none is so rife with the Jews, nor hopelessly invaded by foreign thinking.

Now, you could say. Well, I mean, in today's world. We're almost there, saying the Jews here in America. But you could also say, instead of foreign thinking, MAGA. People who believe in the Constitution. That believe we are a republic.

The PhDs that are your, hold the leading chairs of medicine in universities. They are sterilizing the medical art, and impregnating generations of young doctors with a mechanist (phonetic) way of thinking.

Okay. They have already taken care of this, in the universities.

And anybody who is a conservative, is -- is talked about like that. They just -- they don't get it. They're living in the past.

They hate people, they hate children. They are a threat to our democracy. Right?

Jewish colleagues sit at the places of honor, and doctor societies and associations. Now, again, this one they've already taken care of here in America.

There is no one who is a conservative, that has been honored and is sitting in high places in any of these organizations.

They're making a Trumpery of the honor of the medical profession, as they're statistically annihilating our code of ethics.

Do we have two ethics? Two set of ethics in this country?

I think we do. I think we have the progressive code of ethics.

And then the traditional American code of ethics. Let's see.

We are indebted to them forever growing mercantilism, meaning capitalism. Unworthy of our profession. So capitalism shouldn't play any role. Because of it, we shall be impoverished. Our credit with the people would collapse. So because of capitalism, the people will be impoverished. You can't have that.

You need a socialized system. Have we heard that from anyone?

German doctors, this we know. Those responsible for the situation are foreigners. They alone have led us this way.

They have been opposed to any German thinking in our organizations.

So could that be said by people who are MAGA? Or people who are constitutionalists? Or people who are classical liberals?

Yeah. Yeah. We've been opposed to any of this new think. In all organizations.

But we have welcomed every Marxist proposal and -- but they have welcomed every Marxist proposal. And every Jewish member, or measure that came along.

We have not. We have not. They have. That the medical profession should constitute a Judeo-Messianic enclave at the heart of Germany cannot be allowed to happen. Honor and sense the duty that obliges us to put an end to this scandal.

It is for this reason, we are appealing to the entire German medical profession. Clean up the administration of our organization. Sweep aside all those who do not wish to understand the new way of thinking.

Does that sound familiar? For we wish to work together, towards the reestablishment of a new medical profession, for the welfare of the people and the honor of the German doctor.

Okay. So they -- the medical associations listen to this. And then, they begin to -- they, again, begin to socialize the medicine. And that's when they get into euthanasia.

And it's a public welfare project. That's what this is. It is for the good of the German people.

And those who are suffering. They are just unproductive people. And they are suffering. And we should help them meet the Lord.

Now, they go on, they start liquidating people.

People become suspicious. What does the government do?

The government comes out and says, we're not doing any of that. That's not true.

Does that sound familiar? How many times, have we heard, we're not doing that?

That's not want true. That's a conspiracy theory. And even Hitler himself comes out and says, this is an affront to the German ethics. We are not killing children, and -- behind the scenes, that's exactly what they're doing. Then they start a new campaign.

And they start to go after the universities and -- and culture. And they start producing movies and films that are showing, how insensitive it is for you to judge people that want to die.

And there was a -- there was a new movie that was released by Goebbels for propaganda.

Called I Accuse, and this was about a doctor whose wife was dying. And he gave her, you know, life-ending medicine, out of compassion.

And he was prosecuted for it. Persecuted is the way it is made to be in the movie.

And he says, you accused me of this?

I accuse you of having no heart!

Euthanasia becomes popular. And there's new passports for death. And then they develop public/private partnerships for death. For instance, the charitable organizations that would take old people and children out of the hospitals and kill them.

It was the community labor service. It was the nonprofit association for financial questions.

It was the Patient's Transportation Corporation that did all these things. Not the government. Oh, surely, not the government. They created a system, where the scariest were not the black-coated SS officers.

The scariest were the ones wearing the white coats. It was the doctors and in yours, that first laid all of the foundations for what the Nazis are best known for.

I warn you. You cannot make medicine political. You cannot take political matters, and bring them in to the system of medicine.
But that's exactly what we're doing. And may I ask: Do you think you or your familiar can afford in every way that that is meant or conjures, can you and your family afford another four years of this?

Will the Democrat Party Let Kamala Harris Remove Joe Biden With the 25th Amendment?
RADIO

Will the Democrat Party Let Kamala Harris Remove Joe Biden With the 25th Amendment?

After watching the CNN Presidential Debate, Rep. Chip Roy is calling on Vice President Kamala Harris to invoke the 25th Amendment and remove President Biden from power. Rep. Roy joins Glenn to explain why he believes this should happen and whether any Democrats will join him: “He should not be Commander in Chief right his second.” He also tells Glenn some of what his Democratic colleagues are saying behind closed doors about Biden’s mental agility.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: I led the show today, the comment, you cannot think about politics right now. Politics would say, you just let him go. Let Joe Biden be the candidate.

But it's wrong for the country. And dangerous. Our enemies watched his performance last night. And we are very vulnerable.

Just remember, constitutionally only the Secretary of Defense, the guy who brought us, you know, all of our wonderful exits from Afghanistan and all of the great things our military has been doing lately.

Only he can advise the president, if the football is needed. Only he.

And the president -- read Annie Jacobson's book, nuclear war. There's no way this guy could handle it.

There's no way. And we are -- we are insanely close to somebody doing something stupid.

We cannot have him as president. And Chip Roy. I was glad to see this morning. He's already on it. And he is -- are you putting a bill through? Or are you just trying to gather people to try to encourage the 25th Amendment.

CHIP: Good morning, Glenn Beck. Let me just co-sponsor everything you just said. We all have our political biases. I am a strong supporter of President Trump. I thought he did great last night in terms of laying out his views on the border and all of these issues.

Obviously, those of us who have been following politics have known, that Joe Biden has been diminishing. That he's been demonstrating his clear incapacity and inability to carry out the powers and duties of the office. I think last night, it was on full display in a way that was much more apparent.

And to your point, it was a clearly demonstration -- a clear demonstration to our enemies. You know, and the result of which, is a -- you know, weakened and endangered American people. Not just the nuclear football. Not just the codes. Not just the decision making about those really perilous issues. But just things like handling the border. And to the extent at which people are coming in and killing Americans. The extent to which, we're not pushing up food in the right way. And we're getting into a risk of World War III and Ukraine.

The extent to which we're siding with the Palestinians over Israel. All of these things are a direct consequence of his complete diminished capacity, which again was on full display last night.

So I'm filing either today, or early next week, a very simple resolution. That lays out, those observations. And then simply says, we're call on the vice president of the United States. To exercise her authority under section four.

Under the Constitution. To find the president can no longer carry the duties of the office.

And we believe that she convened the cabinet to do that.

We believe that that's important. And this is a non-political statement.

I happen to believe, that it is beneficial for us politically, to be strong on standing up for the Constitution, and defending the country.

And calling it like I see it. And I think the Democrats will try to pull him down. They will do that anyway. We should not view it through those lenses. That is blindness. We have seven months at least under this guy. And a potential of longer, if you let him run for reelection. And he happens to win.

You know, we can't allow that. So I think President Trump is perfectly defeating him or Kamala Harris or anyone else they want to throw up.

And I think we should right now focus on the fact, that he is unable to faithfully discharge the duties that he has been empowered to do as commander-in-chief.

GLENN: You know, I think the political operatives on the left are so cynical and callous and, you know, power hungry, that they won't understand that a lot of Americans on both sides of the aisle watched that last night and were frightened by what they saw. But also sad.

This was extraordinary to watch the president of the United States. And I watched it last night. And I'm like, if he's declining this much since the State of the Union, what is he going to be like in November? Or January?

He's not going to be all there.

And what does that mean for us?

And look, I don't want the -- for me, personally, if I wanted to look at all of these politically.

I would say, let him one.

Because Donald Trump, it will be such a massive victory, for Donald Trump.

Because nobody could vote for him.

And I think Kamala Harris, you know, is -- is not a rocket scientist.

And I disagreed with her on almost everything.

And I don't want her to be president either.

But what I do know, it's bad for America if he continues another day. It is bad for my children's safety and your children's safety.

But, you know, you -- everybody in the White House knew it. His cabinet, they know about it. And only Kamala Harris, who is unpopular in the White House, can instigate that. And she has to then go to the cabinet. And you have to -- what is it? A majority of the cabinet, has to say, yes. We agree with you.

CHIP: Correct.

GLENN: They're running the show. They're running the presidency, why would they give up that power?

CHIP: Well, I mean, that's a very good point, which is to some degree the impetus behind my desire to put forward a resolution.

Now, look, there are questions about whether it's -- it can be what we call privileged. Whether he can get a vote on it.

There's questions. You know, I'll let the body kind of work its will a little bit. I think it's important to file it.

I think it's important for at least one member of Congress, maybe others to make these statements that we believe the president is unfit to carry out the duties as command in chief.

And to put pressure on them. And look, if they're going to be political. And they will rally around. And say, we're the secretary. We have all the power. We're calling all the shots.

The millionaires are calling the shots. Biden is going along for it.

If they will be that cynical, then that will play out politically. And I think I've done what I think I should do as a man and as an American and as a member of Congress, who has an oath under the Constitution.

If -- if -- not, you know, then fine. If they go carry it out and they go proceed under the 25th.

It's not like I will be doing jumping jacks and jumping down and being excited about Kamala Harris making good decisions. I mean, good grief. She's got massive deficiencies in terms of her capabilities, and obviously her ideology. But there's a clear distinction, right?

And the president is not even the president that he was when he was elected.

You know, and when he was 20. And, you know, I think that when we look at this, as Americans. As you put it, Glenn. We have an obligation to make that clear. But process-wise for your listeners. The way the 25th Amendment works, the vice president has to make the call, to convene the cabinet, a majority, but then send a letter up to Congress. And they would say, you know, we're assuming the duties. The president can then respond and say, no, you're not. I'm actually competent. And then they can basically challenge it.

Then the cabinet can basically say, nope. You're not. Then the Congress votes.

That's basically the way that votes. Congress will not pass a law to create a different body to do that.

We've never done that.

GLENN: I don't like that. You know, I like the way the 25th Amendment was written. But that assumes that you have Americans all that love country more than self in that cabinet. And it has to come from the cabinet and the vice president.

That way, otherwise, you'll get, you know, the Republicans saying, well, that's another form of impeachment.

Let's get him on this. Or you'll have the Democrats doing that. Somebody will -- will abuse this. You know, I -- you didn't expect that the cabinet would be full of people that were just so power hungry and really must respect the office of the president. And real, try, as they say, democracy or the republic.

You never expected that there would be a group of people that would do that. But that's what they're doing right now if they don't stand up.

Is there any Democrat that would join you on this? Because last night, I -- you know, even Joe Scarborough said today, he's got to step down.

CHIP: It is very clear and widespread. When you have lost the New York Times, when you have lost Joe Scarborough, when you have lost democratic pundits on CNN.

They actually went beyond crying and depression.

They went straight to real concern.

And what I believe actually -- is opportunity.

I believe that Democrats have now known this for a long time.

They have been guilty of trying to hide it from the American people. They have been using him as a puppet. As a Manchurian Candidate. To drive their radical agenda. They have done that. And on purpose.

And that now, they saw that the gig was up. That Trump could win. They were hoping they could keep the Manchurian Candidate in place. They panicked. And they said, you know what, it was a controlled panic.

Let's do this. Let's have an early debate. Let's see how they perform. They didn't perform.

Now they have what they need, to push him aside. And, frankly, end run, Kamala.

That's what I think. I think part of this is prompting to end run Kamala, with someone they can pass and sell maybe to Gretchen Whitmer.

Maybe somebody else.

And come in. And try to rally them around. And beat President Donald Trump.

So for me, I think we have a constitutional duty to protect the Constitution. He's incapable. He's been president for a week and 12 months. I think we should force Democrats to own it.

Make a choice. Do you agree? Do you believe he's competent? And number three, look, let's make them choose.

And if Kamala will exercise it, she will become the president. And they have to decide if they will rally around her or not. Or whether they try to end run over someone else at the convention. I think it puts them in a box.

And I don't think Kamala is the best candidate. So, you know, we could see how it all plays out, but our duty is to the Constitution first.

GLENN: So, again, we go back to asking you, are you in Washington now? Have you heard anybody that is talking on the other side about, hey. This is a real problem. We have to get serious about this?

CHIP: Well, look, I don't want to break confidences, but I've definitively had conversations with some of my Democrat colleagues and others. And they have very real concerns.

People that wouldn't ordinarily say it.

And they are very real concerns. And, look, I just saw something out of social media. You have to take it for what it's worth. With someone saying, they're hearing the wrong claim. And Barack Obama are having to sit down with the president today.

Jill Biden is the one that is saying that she insists that he runs.

And that Kamala is feared that she's not being considered as a replacement. Whitmer and Newsome are. Who knows?

GLENN: That's crazy.

CHIP: Jill Biden is the one that is trying to hold him up. And Biden himself is arrogant. And he doesn't even know himself what's going on. So, you know, if they're going to rely on Biden to step down at the convention, then that may not even happen. Maybe that's good electorally for Republicans and for President Trump. And for us to take our country back.

And look, I'm willing to entertain that notion. But I still think we have the duty right now.

He should not be commander-in-chief, right this second.

Every second is a second in which we're a --

GLENN: You're exactly right. Chip Roy, thank you so much. Appreciate it. God bless.
You bet.