RADIO

'Are you a junkie?' | The SHOCKING decline of Joe Biden’s cognitive ability & mental fitness

The mainstream media and the Democratic Party can try to hide it as much as possible, but there's no denying the cognitive ability of Joe Biden has been on a steep decline ever since he announced his candidacy. Now, in his latest misstep, he asked CBS correspondent Errol Barnnett "are you a junkie?" when questioned if he's considered taking a mental fitness test. And the only thing worse than watching Biden's sad decline, is thinking about the fact that he could be in the White House next year.

Glenn GOES BALLISTIC Over the Media's Love Affair with CEO Murderer
RADIO

Glenn GOES BALLISTIC Over the Media's Love Affair with CEO Murderer

The legacy media should be ashamed of how it’s covering the United Healthcare CEO’s suspected killer, Glenn says. CNN recently removed its own on-screen banner to show off the murderer’s abs. And left-wing activists, including sitting Senator Elizabeth Warren, are excusing his actions because they don’t like the healthcare industry. “This is the absence of all truth,” Glenn says. Glenn and Stu review some other ridiculous media takes, like the suggestion that back pain caused the killer to go crazy.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Now, I'm going to do my best.

To not take all of the nice stuff, that I just said in the last half-hour, and flush it down the toilet.

Because I'm a little irritated.

I'm a little irritated at the love we are showing for this killer.

The United Health Care killer. First of all, CNN -- and I am not making this up.

One of the anchors on CNN said, do we have it. Play this. Play this.

Watch this, if you happen to be watching.

And I'll describe it after. Go ahead.

VOICE: Yeah, the clips we were watching at the top of the segment, are driven by the fact that this is an attractive --

VOICE: We have to drop the banner to show why.

VOICE: And it's deeply troubling.

STU: And they actually do it.

GLENN: Okay. They actually do it!

This -- this banner, at the bottom of the screen, that's on all the time, they're saying that this guy is getting -- wait.

Charlie Manson could have been, you know, I don't know. The guy who can't believe it's butter. And nobody would have said, yeah, I know.

But look at him.

STU: Fabio?

GLENN: Boy, have you seen him? He's let himself go.

STU: Has he really?

GLENN: Anyway. I'm one to talk.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: But we never say that.

I don't care how good-looking you are!

STU: Hmm. I don't think we never say it. Like, for example, I saw the -- did you see -- was it a Mexican assassin?

A drug cartel assassin. Did you see her the other day?

Sara saw it. She was attractive, and that was the only thing people were talking about.

So that does happen. I think it does happen from time to time.

That being said, it's not supposed to happen on CNN.

GLENN: Wait. Wait. Right.

And are people saying, you know what, maybe her hits were okay?

STU: No. No.

But I will say, looking at the picture, I totally assumed, there will be a movie made about her, in the future.

GLENN: All right. Yeah.

STU: That will seem to maybe glorify the stuff she did. Which was terrible.

GLENN: We are glorifying what this guy -- listen to this one. Listen to this one.

I'm not going to give his name.

STU: Thank you. Thank you for that. Thank you for that.

You're the only person I've seen do that. Everybody else --

GLENN: This guy has been made into a hero.

STU: It's worse than the typical mass shooter. Typically the media, while they have all their gun points. Aren't trying to make him into a hero. They're trying to make him into a hero.

Giving his name over and over again isn't a good idea.

GLENN: Wait a minute. I haven't heard anyone saying anything about pulling guns off the streets either. Have you heard?

STU: No. Especially, and it was a ghost gun. It's like Joe Biden's favorite topic.

GLENN: I know. I guess all you have to be is good-looking.

STU: You know why? And on the left. On the left. Are you an anti-capitalist? Then fine. Good job with the 3D printer.

GLENN: So this guy went. He killed somebody in cold blood, and everyone is excusing him.
Everyone on the left and everybody in the media, excusing him.

Well, look at his abs. I mean, really.

What does that have to -- you know what, you know what that ties into? His back problems.

STU: Yes. Yes.

GLENN: Don't even begin to talk to me about back problems, you wuss.

My gosh. I've got back problems. You're 20. And you have those abs.

They aren't that bad, attitude.

STU: If you can do that many situps, I'm sorry. Your back problems can't be that bad.

GLENN: Shut up. Shut up.

And if you're in your 20s, and you had back surgery, you're a moron, unless you absolutely had no other choice, but then you're still a moron, if you thought it was going to work! Back surgery hardly ever works.

Honestly, how many people do you know, that had back surgery. And they went, you know.

I mean, I feel like I'm 20 again.

I don't know anybody that says that!

I know back doctors, surgeons, who are like, don't come to me yet.

Don't come.

Until you -- this is a quote from my surgeon. Until you beg me to cut you open. And I have begged him. And he's like, not quite yet.

I mean, how do you -- oh. Your back hurts. Oh, boo-boos.

STU: I think there was at least rumors, or indications from his online writings that he had spinal fusion surgery.

GLENN: Well, fine! Lots of people.

STU: It's serious.

GLENN: Yeah, but lots of people have had it.

STU: No, that doesn't justify murder. But I really don't understand if you have spinal --

GLENN: How self-absorbed are you?

We were just talking off the air. Went to a Christmas party. Went to the studio's Christmas party. And I was there for what? Like three or four hours. Okay. Standing on hard concrete floors.

I stand about 45 minutes. And I -- that -- that is like -- that's a miracle, if I'm standing 45 minutes. And not in in agonizing pain, in my lower back and legs.

I stood there for four hours. Did you know I was in pain, Sara?

Did you know I was in pain, Stu? Okay. You know why?

Because I know Pat, who is in worse pain than I am. And he never says anything.

What the -- you are so self-absorbed, that you think your problems, what happened to me. What they did to me. What they didn't do for me.

I'm going to speak for humanity. And shoot a dad who has kids. Are you -- and then you glorify this guy?

This is the absence of all truth. This is the deception I talked about 15 minutes ago.

STU: Yeah. And, you know, it feels like it's a new moment in a way.

Like it feels like that.

But what exactly separates this from the way we handled George Floyd? What exactly -- like, when you're burning town cities, and everyone is saying, well, yeah.

But they -- but racism.

This is the exact same thing.

With the exception of 81 percent of the American public, don't approve of racism, like they do their own health care.

Health care -- health care is actually generally pretty well-received in this country.

GLENN: Well, better received before Obamacare.

STU: Yeah.

Obamacare is the worst approval rating of all of the insurance.

That is true.

But generally speaking, we don't hate our health care as much as everyone is portraying it right now --

GLENN: You want to go to health care. Go to Canada. Could I change it?

You know what this is?

What was the doctor?

What was the guy who shot the abortion doctor, that Bill O'Reilly was blamed for?

STU: Yes. I don't know his name thankfully.

Because he's a murderer.

GLENN: Right. What was the doctor's name.

STU: It was Tiller. George Tiller.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

And remember that? All we talked about, was how Bill O'Reilly, who did nothing. Was responsible for the shooting, of a guy who was killing babies every day.

Okay? And no one -- no one was on TV saying, you know, he was killed.

STU: Violence is never the answer. But!

Let me give you my rant on why abortion is bad. And this is a good opportunity for us to discuss the -- no, it's not.

No. A murder is not a good opportunity.

It's important, of course, to discuss health care and abortion. There's nothing to do.

There's no new justification to discuss them because there's a murder. You're totally right.

I would love to hear what Bill O'Reilly is --

GLENN: Let's call him. Have them call.

STU: We should.

GLENN: If I have time today, otherwise tomorrow.

STU: Yeah. Because he was blamed for that murder.

Blamed for it.

He did not commit it.

He was blamed for it.

GLENN: You know what, I'm so mad about murder. I'm going to murder someone.

STU: Huh. By the way, Glenn. You know, bits and pieces of his manifesto have leaked out.

They are quote after quote after quote of what left-leaning people say about our health care system.

GLENN: No, Stu. It was both left and right.

STU: Oh, yes. I'm sure.

Well, he didn't like wokeness. Did he kill anybody over wokeness?

I'm sorry. Did I miss that part of the story?

Was he too afraid that United Health Care was too woke, was that his criticism?

I missed that. His criticism was every left-wing criticism of health care.

Anything you want to say about, well, we spent this much. And we're only in 40-second place in life expectancy.

All that stuff, that you've been hearing forever.

From Michael Moore documentaries, was this -- this guy's manifesto.

And if we were consistent at all, all we would be doing is looking around for left-wing people to blame this murder on. Now, I don't think that's the right way to approach things.

I think people with the guns should be the ones to get the blame for the murders. That's what I think.

And I don't think you should be --

GLENN: I'm very tempted. I'm very tempted.

If I were just a political person, that just wanted to have our side win.

I would be very, very tempted.

STU: Yeah. And I can understand the temptation.

I feel like it's not the right thing to do. Because it's not true.

GLENN: Exactly right.

STU: Beyond that. I get it.

And here is -- they went after. I mean, they absolutely tried to destroy Bill O'Reilly over that.

They tried to destroy him. They tried to rip him off the air. They tried to destroy his life and his career. As if he was the one -- they also, here's another person they've done this to.

Glenn freaking Beck. Go back to the times when -- I don't remember the exact story.

But it was related to the Tides Foundation.

A guy who -- who went out and tried to do some terrible crime.

GLENN: Oh, jeez.

STU: And there was no evidence, he even watched your show, but because you brought up the Tides Foundation a bunch of times.

And he at one point, tried to criticize the Tides Foundation, they tried to ruin your life over that.

GLENN: Wait a minute. I had forgotten about that one, I was thinking about the Gabby Giffords shooting.

STU: Yes, there we go again.

GLENN: And then I remembered the guy who hung himself, the IRS agent who said -- who I was blamed for wanting him to be hung. First, it was Glenn Beck had him strung up.

Then it was, suicide.

Well, Glenn Beck made him want to hang himself. I mean, this is so ridiculous.

So ridiculous.

STU: Yeah. I mean, Glenn. Today, Elizabeth Warren. A US senator, came out and said, violence is never the answer, but you can only push people so far. A US senator said that!

GLENN: You know, with everything that's going on, with communism and North Korea.

The only ones that were eaten, were North Koreans by Jeffrey Dahmer. I mean, yes, he ate people. But all the heads in his refrigerator were North Koreans. So I kind of understand, you know.

I don't condone cannibalism.

But you can see why he had a deal against North Koreans.

That's how insane this argument is!

STU: Yeah. It's not. It's not a well-reasoned argument, as you point out.

And I don't care how many situps, the guy did.

I don't care that he had nice abs, that he really enjoyed. I don't care that you thought his smile was nice in the video that identified him.

You are a legitimately horrible human being, if you're cheering this guy on. You are a terrible human being.

You know, my -- I have a relative, Glenn.

GLENN: May I change that? In the spirit of Christmas.

STU: I wanted to say five other things. And, yes.

GLENN: You are so lost in darkness.

STU: Okay. Fine. Fine. Fine --

GLENN: I'm trying.

Stu, I try to be a better person. And you drag me down every day.

Lord, it is his fault.

STU: Strike him down!

GLENN: There's a lot of smote coming. At some point.

STU: I have a relative who works for a company, that is associated with -- with United Health Care.

And to the point, that like she's had Zoom calls with Brian Thompson. You know, group calls.

GLENN: Wow.

STU: And she's like, I -- he's like the nicest guy in the world.

Everybody in the company loved this guy.

He spent all this time.

GLENN: Of course, they're all -- they're all sheaving the average person. In the back.

STU: I don't think that's true. You know, people -- he was known in the company, as one of the good guys, who was trying to reform the problems in this -- in the industry.

He was a guy who was constantly encouraging low level employees to be able to have new opportunities, and make their lives better.

This was a good man!

A good man!

A good man, who came up. Whose dad, by the way, worked in a grain elevator.

He came up from nothing!

And was a massive success, and was -- was loved by the people around him. And these mother -- people. Are -- are cheering on his cold-blooded murder in the streets of Manhattan.

GLENN: Let me tell you the part that really makes me want to sound like you. If just a minute.

Glad you're here.

You know, the -- the thing that really makes me angry, is -- sorry.

I have to use "Les Miserables" as an example. God, I'm such a weirdo.

That's why I have no friends.

STU: Better than Chitty Chitty Bang Bang.

That's usually where you go in this moment.

GLENN: So you know the revolution is started by all of these, you know, socialists. They're all rich kids. They're all rich, privileged kids that start the revolution. This is who this guy is.

He has absolutely nothing to whine about. Nothing to whine about.

His family seems to be a really gracious family. I don't know.

But it's these rich, spoiled white kids, that just think they know better than everyone else. They grow up to be rich little white liberals, and they are so screwed up, and nobody even seems to mention that. Here's 1 percent!

Should Taylor Lorenz & BLM Leader Be SILENCED For Celebrating VIOLENCE?
RADIO

Should Taylor Lorenz & BLM Leader Be SILENCED For Celebrating VIOLENCE?

The only speech that needs protecting is the speech we hate to hear. That’s why Glenn must defend the right for people like Taylor Lorenz and BLM chapter leader Hawk Newsome to say awful things, even if it kills him to do so. Speaking to Piers Morgan, Lorenz said she was “joyful” that United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson was murdered. And speaking to the press, Newsome called for “black vigilantes” to rise up after the acquittal of Daniel Penny. So, is this speech, which glorifies violence, protected under the First Amendment? Glenn explains the “fire in a crowded theater” Supreme Court case that provides the answer.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: All right. I will play some stuff.

Got to be said.

And I want you to know. What I'm going to say to you here, is only -- I'm only saying it, because it is absolutely true.

And it only counts, when it takes everything in you, to say it.

It's easy to say, well, we have the right.
It's easy to say that. It only counts, when you hate saying it!

And I hate saying this.

With that, let me play a couple of clips of audio.

Let's first play, Taylor Lorenz, as she was talking with Piers Morgan, about the killer of the United Health Care, CEO.

STU: Why would you be in such a celebratory mood about the execution of another human being?

Aren't you supposed to be on the caring, sharing left?

Where, you know, you believe in the sanctity of life?

VOICE: I do believe in the sanctity of life. That's why I felt along with so many other Americans, joy, unfortunately.

VOICE: Joy? Seriously? Joy at a man's execution?

VOICE: Maybe not joy, but certainly, you know -- certainly not empathy.

VOICE: We're watching the footage.

How can this make you joyful? This guy is a husband. He's a father. And he's being gunned down in the middle of Manhattan.

VOICE: What about the tens of thousands of Americans that are being murdered?

So are the tens of thousands of Americans -- innocent Americans who died because greedy health insurance executives like this one push policies of denying care to the most vulnerable people.

GLENN: Nonsense.

VOICE: Hang on.

VOICE: Okay. Probably not joyful.

VOICE: You said you were feeling joyful.

VOICE: Yeah, I take that back. Joyful is the wrong word here.

VOICE: You think? You think joyful is the wrong word? I'd say it is.

VOICE: As I clarify, sure. Sure. Sure. But celebratory because, again, it feels like justice in the system, when somebody responsible --

GLENN: Okay. Stop.

STU: No. Please, let her keep talking. That was awesome.

GLENN: I can't take it anymore.

STU: Are you sure, joy isn't the right word? It's amazing.

GLENN: Now, let's go to Daniel Penny. Daniel Penny is found innocent.

I think anyone looks at what he did.

What he tried to do.

The spirit he tried to do it in. He was not trying to kill anyone.

He was trying to protect people.

BLM of New York, which is only sold, I think -- the only thing they do is sell hats. You know, that say, F the mayor.

You know, whatever. They came out. And this is what they -- this is what the head of BLM New York said, after the Daniel Penny trial.

VOICE: We need some black vigilantes. People want to jump up and choke us!

And kill us, for being loud. How about we do the same?

When they attempt to oppress us. I'm tired.

VOICE: Right.

GLENN: Boy, am I tired.

STU: Don't get tired. It's important to make sure you're well-rested.

GLENN: Yeah, get your rest. You might get a little cranky. You might do and say some crazy things.

Okay. So let me talk about those two statements quickly.

If I said this and said, it's time for some vigilantes.

Not even white or black. Just, it's time to get some vigilantes.

They would do everything they could, to get me off the air.

Everything. And I wouldn't say that.

Because I don't believe in that.

I believe in the Constitution. But here's a guy who can say that, and no one says a word except amen.

No one on the left. No one in the media. Well, he's got reasons to say that, you know.

Okay. But I would be blackballed. I -- my life would be over, if I said that.

Taylor Lorenz, she's out of her mind nuts. Okay? Out of her minds, nuts!

How many times do we have to hear this woman, say crazy things like, I don't feel joyful?
Just celebratory. Because somebody was gunned down in the streets.

Because she thinks health care is murdering people in America. Okay. Here's -- here's what I -- I -- oh, my gosh.

Stu, you have aspirin on you or anything?

Because if I have a stroke while saying this. Please, just put some aspirin on my tongue, so I might survive a little bit on this.

All of these people have a right to say that. Here is -- you can't cry fire in a crowded firehouse.

I don't know. They were just in a courtroom saying, we should kill people!

Like him.

I don't know.

Here is the actual court ruling. This is from 1969.

Court said, there's a two-pronged test to evaluate speech.

One, speech can be prohibited, if it is, quoting, directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action.

Now, you can say, we have a vigilante. Why don't we kill people?

That is inciting. It is! Inciting people to go and take lawless action.

But it isn't imminent lawless action. If somebody then picked up guns and started mowing down black people or white people. Or people that have bad acne or perfect faces or whatever it is.

Then that speech, he would be responsible for it.

But the court says, it is such a -- such a fine line here.

That it -- you have to go so far before your speech is banned.

It has to be one, directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action.

And two, likely to incite or produce such action.

Two standards!

Both of them have to be met.

I am only spitting this out, because I hate what these people have said.

I despise what these people say.

I believe with everything -- every -- every piece and every cell of my body, what they're saying is evil.

But because I'm an American constitutionalist. I defend their right to say it!

And it only matters to say these things, when it kills you to say it. And it's killing me to say it!

For all those on the left, that claim, that they are the banners of justice. They believe in the Bill of Rights. They believe in freedom of speech.

But it has limits.

Yes! Those are those two limits.

That's as far I have seen people go in a week. Maybe in my lifetime!

And I'm not calling for them to be silenced.

And if you'll notice, nor is most people on the right.

No one is saying, get them. Because we hold certain truths to be self-evident.

Rand Paul GOES OFF on Rumor that Biden Will Pardon Dr. Fauci
RADIO

Rand Paul GOES OFF on Rumor that Biden Will Pardon Dr. Fauci

Rumors are circulating that President Biden will issue preemptive pardons for many people he believes Donald Trump will go after as president, including Dr. Fauci. Sen. Rand Paul, who has been trying to bring the truth about Fauci to light, joins Glenn to explain how devastating a pardon for Fauci would be. Sen. Paul also comments on why he’s excited for Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency and Trump’s cabinet picks, including RFK Jr., Tulsi Gabbard, and Kash Patel. Then, Glenn and Sen. Paul discuss the war in Syria and Sen. Paul’s plan to end the endless emergency declarations.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: We have Senator Rand Paul on with us. I have to talk to him about a couple of things. A, staying out of war in Syria. Two, Anthony Fauci, is he going to be pardoned?

But let's start with DOGE. The Senate Republicans, hopefully are ready to just slash government spending, and hopefully we do it in the fashion that Calvin Coolidge did it back in the 1920s.

Senator Rand Paul, welcome to the program.

RAND: Hey, Glenn, thanks for having me.

GLENN: You bet. So how serious do you think this DOGE thing is?

RAND: You know, I think it's very helpful. Because, you know, the problem is not just Democrats in Washington, it's big government Republicans. And I think Elon and Vivek bringing attention to this, we've already offered up. I've been for ten years, collecting and arguing that we should get rid of waste.

We sent them 2,000 pages worth of waste that can be addressed immediately. Some can be done through executive action.

I think you can let people go. You can fire people. You can fire people for cause. You can also change the contracting.

You know, one of the things that Elon did at SpaceX, was he started bidding on things. They started doing it through competitive bidding as opposed to cost lost.

The big companies, Boeing and Lockheed would get their contracts, and would say, oh, we bid a billion dollars.

Oh, sorry, we came in at 2 billion. Well, you get 10 percent of whatever you came in at. So, in fact, there's an incentive to come in over budget. There's a lot of things that can do. And will do.

On spending reductions, there's a special procedure, where if we send a billion dollars to the administration to build a ship, and they build it for 800 million, they can send the 200 million back to us. Through a special procedure called rescission.

And it gets an immediate vote. A privileged vote. And it's a simple majority. Most of the problems we have is getting to 60 votes, to undo bad things the Democrats have done. But with this case, rescission, reducing -- that sent back to us by the president.

It's a simple majority. However, we tried to do this in the first Trump administration. With a very small bill. 15 million-dollar cut, and it failed because Republicans voted with the Democrats to keep the spending.

So we have to do this. We will have 53 in the Senate. And only one or two majority in the House. We have to see if we can actually get the majority of Republicans to vote for spending cuts. If they all do, we can as you sit here significant spending.

GLENN: Would you agree with me that Donald Trump is different than he was in 2020. If we would have had him in 2020, it would have been a different situation entirely.
RAND: I think he's much more focused now. His picks for his cabinet I think are light years ahead of what was going on in 2016 for sure. And he really wants to disrupt. He's not going to allow the status quo.

He saw the status quo use the apparatus of government to come after him individually. And he realizes that in 2016. But again through 2020. That our intelligence agencies were being used against him.

Both retired. And I go I believe active. Went after the whole Hunter Biden thing to say it was Russian propaganda.

And it turns out, the propaganda was actually US propaganda calling it Russian propaganda.

And the FBI needs to clean house.

Kash Patel, I think, can do it. DNI, Tulsi Gabbard, I think can do it over there.

And he hasn't picked, you know, moderate, weak-kneed Republicans.

He's picked strong people. On the COVID front, picking Marty Makary, a doctor from John Hopkins. And Jay Bhattacharya, a doctor from Stanford.

Who have been leaders in pointing out this nonsense. These are people I would have picked. So I'm over the moon. I'm over the moon with some of these picks.

GLENN: So what do you think is going to happen?

I mean, you know, the White House is saying that Fauci may be pardoned in advance of anything, which doesn't seem like you could do that.

But they'll try it anyway. The -- I mean, at least it has to be -- everything just has to be dumped and exposed.

RAND: I've said referrals. Criminal referrals on Anthony Fauci twice to the Department of Justice. Without really response. Merrick Garland hasn't done his job. He's probably the most partisan attorney general we've ever had.

I will send those referrals again. If they preemptively pardon Anthony Fauci, it will seal his fate as the architect, author, and godfather of the pandemic. He's the one who funded it. He's the one who funded the research in Wuhan. He's the one that allowed the research, not to be scrutinized.

I don't get this. There was a safety committee that was supposed to scrutinize dangerous research. It was set up because of fear of exactly this happening. There have been scientists talking about this for 20 years, worried that this is going to happen. Anthony Fauci side-stepped the safety committee. And allowed this research to go on.

Then when it came forward, that he had done.

He said, oh. Nothing to see here. We didn't really do it.

Oh, well, we funded EcoHealth. And they funded Wuhan. But, oh, nothing to see here.

And then he had the gall to say, it wasn't gain of function, and it wasn't dangerous. That's all a lie. All that's come out. And really, we haven't -- we have him in private saying, we know it's really dangerous there. We know they do gain-of-function research. We have them dead to rights. If the president pardons him. I think it will just cement his role in history as being the architect of gain of function surgery.

GLENN: So, but will we release?

This is the one thing that I'm hoping Kash Patel does.

I hope he releases just the raw evidence that's been gathered. Kind of like the Twitter files.

Where we can see all the stuff that has been classified. That should be seen by the American people.

RAND: With regard to COVID. We voted unanimously. To declassify all of it. This was over a year and a half ago.

The FBI did do their job. They did a report. And they said that they thought COVID came from the lab. That the virus and the pandemic started with the lab leak. But they haven't released their report.

They were told to declassify it. I truly believe Kash Patel will look at it.

And the way you declassify it. If there's a name in there. You don't want someone to have a name or source.

Take that out of the report.

In fact, you know when I read and see classified things. I almost have never seen a name or a source.

Which I think is good. You protect your sources.

But I think you should get to see all the information. And really, in this case, the American public should see all of the information.

Anything to do with Russiagate, anything to do with the abuse of the FBI to go after Donald Trump. All of that has to be publicly released as well.

GLENN: Well, on Friday, here in Fort Worth, Texas, there was a judge that ordered Pfizer, to release and produce all of its emergency use authorization file. To a group of scientists, that want to look through it. And they have been saying, well, we can't do it. We can't do it.

The judge finally just said, do it now.

VOICE: Yeah. We've never had someone like Donald Trump. Or like these appointees.

That's why first line of battle is getting them through. There are many established Republicans. You know who they are.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: Who are weak-kneed, or frankly just no better than Democrats, who are looking to destroy Donald Trump's picks.

And so I'm going to be working very hard for Robert Kennedy. For Tulsi Gabbard. For Kash Patel.

These are -- you know, those three -- at the tip of my mind, have a lot of establishment Republicans, questioning. And we have to make sure that we get them through.

We have to make sure everybody listening to the radio.

Everybody out there. Is calling their particularly Republican senators. And saying, Donald Trump needs his team.

GLENN: How long do you think -- I mean, do you think he's going to get these -- what do you call them?

Out of session appointments? Where -- because it took him like two years to get all of his appointments. He didn't even get all of them in two years. He needs them right now.

But I hate the precedent that that would set.

RAND: The vast majority would be very quickly. I can tell you, I'm hopeful I will be Department of Homeland Security. So Kristi Noem's nomination will come to my committee.

My plan is, if elected in the next couple of weeks in January to be the chairman, I will have a hearing for her before the inauguration, as soon as he officially appoints, or after the inauguration. I maybe have an appointment that day.

Sometimes we will -- so while some of it was slow in 2016, the Secretary of State, Homeland Security. Several of these important positions were filled pretty quickly.

We plan on doing that again. I would be surprised in the first week. If we don't have four or five cabinet level people. Appointed and voted on in the first week.

GLENN: Let me switch topics to Syria. The president made it very clear, that this is not how -- you know, I went back this weekend. And look at a story from 2016.

Where the CIA was supporting one side. And the Pentagon was supporting the other side in Syria. And they were fighting each other.

Now the president, the current president. Whoever that is.

You know, bombed Syria over the weekend.

And I just had this bad feeling, that the industrial complex, the military-industrial complex wants to have a war, somewhere.

And Donald Trump is coming out and saying, it isn't any of our business. I know where you stand on war. What do you see coming?

RAND: I agree completely with Donald Trump on this.

And the people who took over. The rebels who won. Their new name say new name given to an old, old group called al-Nusra, which were associated with al-Qaeda.

So they were Islamists. Meaning, they were for a radical, fundamental sort of nature of Islam. That doesn't treat women well. Doesn't treat Christians well. Et cetera. A very primitive form of Islam. Well, they have been fighting there for a long time.

There's also another group called ISIS, that is actually somewhat the same. Fundamental Islamist.

And then there are also other groups there as well. There have been the Russians there. There have been Iranian proxies there.

There have been answered there. Caught in the mix are hundreds of thousands of Christians who have always had sanctuary. Since the time of Christ frankly. And are at risk.

And so we have 900 soldiers. 900 soldiers isn't enough to organize a parade. I mean, 900 soldiers is not -- you can't go to war with. You want to go to war in Syria.

You can put five, ten, 100,000 troops in. You don't put 900,000 troops in there.

They become targets, not -- they're not deterring anything. But if someone were killed. And I hope this doesn't happen. Then maybe all of a sudden, we're drug into the middle of a Civil War, where there are no good people on either side of it.

GLENN: Let me ask you one final question about -- you have a bill coming out, similar to the South Korean law. Which I don't know what happened in South Korea.

I'm still confused by that. Where the US Senate would allow presidential emergencies to continue only with a majority vote in Congress. Which I 100 percent back.

What does this mean, to all of the emergencies that we have dating way, way back. That are still in effect.

RAND: They expire. And currently, if a president has an emergency, the emergency can only be stopped by Congress.

If Congress votes to stop it.

But then the president would veto it.

So it really takes a two-thirds vote of Congress to stop an emergency.

My bill would actually change it. It's a simple majority. We don't to have vote to stop it.

It stops automatically by statute.

GLENN: Right.

RAND: We had this in Kentucky. Our state government. Our government shut down hotels. Made it illegal to travel. Made it illegal to go to church during COVID.

And legislature couldn't stop him because they were in session. So when they finally came back in session, our Kentucky legislature said governor's emergencies last 30 days, then they expire, unless affirmed by a majority of the legislature.

So this reverses it. Instead of needing two-thirds to stop a crazy governor or a crazy president, it actually takes a civil -- you have to have a civil majority to affirm it! So it really completely flips it on its head. And it's what we all wanted. And some people will say, oh, this is against Donald Trump. No. I've had this under Harris. Under Biden. I've had this bill for years.

And both Mike Lee and I fought on this, out of principle. Nothing to do with who the president is.

GLENN: I don't want any -- I don't want any president to have this kind of power.

We have got to reduce the power of the president of the United States.

And if he goes in, and does everything by executive order, we lose!

Because the next guy will come in, and do exactly what -- what Biden did. And just cancel it all.

We've got to get back to a debate, to reason. And to Congress. And the Senate. Actually doing their job.

RAND: This is something that people need to realize. It's not new. Because people get caught up in the situation. They think it's one person or another.

The you Constitution position of conservatives and limited government advocates have always been that as Madison said. We divided the powers.

We separated the powers.

And we wanted to pit ambition against ambition.

In other words, the ambition of people trying to take power. Would be pitted by the people trying to keep them from taking power.

Over the last 100 years. Since FDR. The power of presidency. Has gradually expanded.

What we need now is a stronger legislator. And less power for the central authority. To balance that power again.

This was sort of Montesquieu saying, that when the executive legislates -- when he has the power to execute and legislate, that's when liberty fails. That's when tyranny arrives.

And so I don't know. People just need to realize.

This has nothing with an individual. A new president. An old president.

It has all to do with constitutional principles, that have always motivated those of us who believe in limited government.

GLENN: I think there are a lot of people awake to exactly that message.

And your time is right now, Rand. Thank you so much. Appreciate it.

Senator Rand Paul, from the great state of Kentucky.

Dershowitz: Joe Biden Made a HUGE MISTAKE Pardoning Hunter
RADIO

Dershowitz: Joe Biden Made a HUGE MISTAKE Pardoning Hunter

President Biden may have thought that issuing a blanket pardon for his son Hunter Biden would end any investigations into his or his family’s crimes. But attorney Alan Dershowitz tells Glenn that it may have actually done the opposite. Dershowitz explains how Hunter can still be questioned and the truth unearthed. He also weighs in on the acquittal of Daniel Penny, which he believes was the correct ruling in a case that should never have been tried.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So probably -- well, he's definitely the most famous lawyer, of my lifetime.

And I think, the most important lawyer, in my lifetime, maybe in the last 100 years.

Alan Dershowitz.

He's a Harvard Law school professor, emeritus. He's also the host of his podcast, the Dershow.

And we wanted to get him on, to talk a little bit about Daniel Penny and a few other things.

Hello, Alan. How are you?

ALAN: First of all, will you send my very best to Senator Lee. His father and I were co-clerks together, 60 years ago, in the Supreme Court. And we had launch together every day. Why?

Why? Because he was a Mormon and couldn't have coffee, and I was an Orthodox Jew. And couldn't have almost anything. So we set the table.

And we were -- and we would schmooze and talk about everything.

And his father, you know, Rex, who was the solicited general, was a great, great man. And I think Senator Lee is a great man too.

And I hope he plays a major, major role, in the coming administration.

GLENN: I tell you, I hope he becomes a Supreme Court justice.

I -- I -- I think he truly cares about what the Founders meant and about the Constitution.

I mean, everything he does, it's all based in the Constitution. I will definitely pass it on.

ALAN: Yep. And it's based on his father. I can tell you that the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

His father was an amazing constitutional scholar. The dean of Brigham Young Law School.

You know, the guy was -- he would have been the greatest Supreme Court justice. Unfortunately, he died very young.

So, Alan, first of all, how have you been?

I know -- I think you came out and said, you couldn't vote for Joe Biden.

I know things got really ugly for you. Have things gotten better at all for you?

ALAN: Well, I'm in Florida now. Everybody loves me in Florida. As long as I'm in Martha's vineyard, I'm doing great.

You know, my hat is split. Half the people come up to me, yell and scream at me.

And half the people come up to me and tell me how much they admire me. I wear a hat in New York saying, proud American Zionist.

And --

GLENN: Wow.

ALAN: And, you know, I get people talk to me about that, as well.

So, you know, when people come up to me and say, I hate you. I never know. Is it for Trump? Is it for Israel?

Is it for who I represent?

I never know.

GLENN: I love that. I love that.

ALAN: That's what happens when you're a controversial lawyer.

GLENN: Yeah. So let's start with Daniel Penny.

ALAN: Before you do that. I want to wait. After I get off the air. I want to hear you defend Black Lives Matter.

I don't know if you heard yesterday, the head of Black Lives Matter. Turned to penny in the courtroom, and said, hey, buddy. This is a small world.

And then he went outside. And he talked about strangling people. And being violent.

I'm not such a big fan of Black Lives Matter.

GLENN: So I'm not a fan of -- I can't defend what he said, personally.

To Daniel Penny?

But when he said, what would happen -- you know, they -- there's no justice. No peace.

What would happen, maybe we should start, you know, killing people every time they oppress us.

I believe that's constitutionally protected speech.

It's ugly. It's awful.

But what is that -- that test called?

Stu.

STU: The Brandenburg.

GLENN: The Brandenburg.

ALAN: Look, I agree with you. But he said it in front of a crowd of people. That were surrounding white people.

Then it would be an incitement. But if he said it in the abstract. In an interview. It's just despicable and disgusting.

It reminds me of what you Justice Brennan once said.

Justice Brennan wrote an opinion saying, that the Constitution protected to burn the American flag.

And he was -- what would you do, if you saw somebody burning an American flag, and Justice Brennan, who was about five-three tall. Said, I would walk up to him, and I would punch him in the mouth. And then I would defend his Constitutional rights.

GLENN: So that is -- so let me ask you. Because we've had a debate here. Before we went on the air, where I told Stu. I said, I think I'm going to use this as an example.

Because people, they always say, oh, you know.

Speech has limits. And, you know, you can't cry fire in a crowded.

Yes, you can!

Unless it leads to, you know, a stampede.

ALAN: Or is likely. Is likely. It doesn't to have lead. But it's likely to lead.

No, I think you're right. And I think you're right also from a conservative point of view, to be defending free speech for all. We can't live in a world in which it's free speech for me. But not for thee.

GLENN: Exactly right.

ALAN: I defended the right of Palestinian kids to put up a flag -- Palestinian flag to commemorate the death of Yasser Arafat.

And then when they put up the flag, I defended them. And I got them to be able to put up the flag. I hated that.

And then I got up there and I said, well, Yasser Arafat died.

It was too late. If he only died four years earlier, there might have been a resolution in the Middle East.

So I'm with you on the very expansive view of free speech.

GLENN: Yeah. Do you think we're moving -- I -- sense a shift, that maybe some of this craziness, is -- we're waking up to it. Do you feel that way?

ALAN: I wish you were right. I hope you're right.

Not on the left. The left is so goddamned self-righteous. They think that free speech.

Due process. The right to counsel was written for them.

They have Harvard law school, defending them.

Try believing the Constitution. It was written to promote the Democratic Party.

And every constitutional issue he's involved in. You know what his position is going to be.

Is it good for the Democrats?

If it's good for the Democrats. If it's good for the left. For the radicals.

And the constitutional Framers and candidates.

And fits bad for them. No. We can't have that for the constitutional law.

I don't think we're gaining any ground.

But the university campuses -- but I think we're gaining ground in the general public.

Now, I think maybe the Penny result shows that.

GLENN: Yeah.

RICHARD: I think Penny -- I think the case in Minneapolis, might have been decided a little differently today than it was years ago, when he was convicted and still is in jail.

I was thrilled by the -- by the verdict in the -- in the Penny case. And I think it sends a powerful message. I also think that the hung jury, you know, I thought the hung jury might have been six-six, five-seven. But obviously, the quick verdict on Monday morning, suggests that the hung miss on Friday, was probably ten to two or 11 to one in favor of acquittal. So that I think -- you know, look, that case should have never been brought. And the district attorney should not be the district attorney.

He should be defeated. He, not only brought this case. He brought that made up case against Donald Trump. And now he wants to prevent Donald Trump from appealing, by saying, well, we'll put the sentence off for four years.

We will hold the sort of Damocles over your head for four years.

I'm going to able to campaign for office, saying, I've got a conviction against Donald Trump. And he didn't get it reversed on appeal.

And I think it's -- it's disgusting. He's the worst districting district attorney in my lifetime in New York history.

And, remember, that's an office that had -- that had -- that had -- and now it has Alvin Bragg! Oh, my God. It's a disgrace.

GLENN: So let me ask you. Because we were talking about what he did on Friday. And what the judge allowed.

You have to have -- if you have a hung jury, on the first count.

You can't move to the second count.

It's a hung jury, and you have to have a retrial, right?

It's a mistrial.

ALAN: Unless, the defense asks to you consent for it.

Which often happens. But it didn't happen in this case.

So he dismissed the higher count. And allowed the jury to deliberate the lower count.

Look, in the end, that was good for Penny. Because there's double jeopardy there. You can't be tried on either counts. Because the first count was dismissed. To have

It wasn't hung. It was dismissed.

And that means it was jeopardy, and the second it was an acquittal.

So he's free. It's a civil lawsuit against him. But he will win that civil lawsuit. It will probably never get past the motion to dismiss because the person bringing it, it wasn't a father who had nothing to do with the son. He had no relationship with the son.

He became the father only after the killing. In order to gain publicity from it.

GLENN: So he has basically no standing. Is that what you're saying?

ALAN: I don't think he has a real standing to bring the lawsuit. And what's his damages?

You know, it's very hard to figure out, what they are.

And more over, a jury found, that there was no causation of death.

There was justification.

So I -- I don't think that the lawyer is interested in the money.

Or even a publicity at this point. Are going to want to bring that case forward.

I think it will be dropped. It's not like a DOJ case. Where clearly there was a strong civil case after he was acquitted.

And he won the civil case, although he didn't collect any money.

GLENN: Let me switch to politics here.

There are things. Like, I believe Anthony Fauci should be investigated. They've already investigated him in Congress.

But it should go through a court of law. And if he's found to have done the things that we now believe he did.

There should be some sort of penalty for him. And anybody else that was involved.

I don't care, right, left, Republican, Democrat.

We can allow this kind of stuff to happen.

Now, Biden is -- they suspect. So we're just speculating here. That he may pardon him in advance.

Is that even possible?

Before you're charged.

ALAN: Where a connection was pardoned. Not only before he was charged. But before there was any criminal investigation.

He was charged -- he was pardoned.

And the pardon power, as you said in your introduction.

Why don't we have a kingly pardon power?

It's the only residents of the British rule over the United States.

GLENN: Correct.

ALAN: There's nothing else in the Constitution, which so emulates the absolute power of kings, than the power to pardon and commute. It's without restrictions.

And it's without the need to explain.

And, by the way, you don't even need a document. As soon as President Biden said, I pardon my son, that act was completed.

And, by the way, you don't have to accept the pardon. Even if you reject the pardon.

And, by the way, there are some people who have already said, that if Trump pardons me, or if Biden pardons me, I will reject the pardon. Because a pardon makes it sound like I did something wrong.

GLENN: Wrong. Yeah.

RICHARD: The Supreme Court under Oliver Wendell Holmes in about 1926, rendered a decision, in a case called Bittle versus Petrovic (phonetic).

Which said, you can't reject the pardon. The pardon is an act of government. It's like immunity. If you're given immunity, you can't reject immunity. You have to testify, if you're given immunity. If you're given a pardon, you also have to testify.

I think Biden made a big mistake by pardoning his son.

He should have commuted his sentence. By pardoning the son. He opens the son up to asking any question at all.

About his criminal background. And his association with anything else.

Including his father.

Whereas, if he gave only a commutation of the sentence, it would mean he doesn't go to jail for a single day, but still can invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege.

So I think it's a blunder on the part of President Biden who is a lawyer, but didn't understand the consequences of a pardon.

As distinguished of the consequences of a computation.

GLENN: Do you think anybody is going to go after him though?

Because there's nothing politically to gain.

I think this is extraordinarily important on principle.

We cannot have people selling the power of the office.

RICHARD: Look, I agree with you.

And it's been part of politics for a long, long time.

I have to tell you, I think Trump has a warm spot in his heart for the Biden family.

He showed some sympathy. For Hunter Biden.

For his addiction. For all of that.

I don't think he will try too pile on. Now, you know, whether or not traditional committees -- get the choice of being held in contempt or perjury.

That's a different question. But I don't think Trump will do it. I think he's going to move on.

He wants to have a great four years. I want him to have a great four years.

You know, I'm not a Republican. But I'm a patriarch. I want to see every American president succeed. I have helped every American president. I have consulted and advised them since Jimmy Carter.

And I will then continue to do it. Any president that asks for my help, done. I'm giving it.

GLENN: That's the way it should be. Thank you so much, Alvin. I really appreciate it your friendship. And it's an honor to know you.

Really is. To have you on the program.

ALAN: Well, you're a great man.

And it's great to have a conservative who so believes in the Constitution and free speech.

And, again, send my best to Senator Lee. He's a great man.

GLENN: I sure will. I will. Thanks.

Alan Dershowitz. You can find him on the Dershow. The website is Dersh.Substack.com.