RADIOApril 19, 2024

Bitcoin Halving EXPLAINED: Will This One Be DIFFERENT?

The Bitcoin halving is here, but what is this event and will it be different from previous ones? Glenn and Stu explain what a Bitcoin halving is, what usually happens, and why some believe there won’t be a spike in Bitcoin value this time around. But are they right? Or is it still a good time to buy?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Hey, today is Bitcoin. What they call the havoc. Right?

STU: Happy havoc day, to those who celebrate. Yes. Ten hours away from now, it looks like.

GLENN: It sounds like something that would maybe happen, in -- what was that?

That film happened in Norway. It was like that summer festival.

It's like the halving, and they're all gathered in some beautiful place.

STU: Yes. What was that movie?

What was that? It was very -- it was one I wouldn't watch.

GLENN: It was creepy.

It could have been called the Halving.

Or, you know, When Magic Goes Bad. David Copperfield stars in the Halving. Now, I have to cut this woman in half. And he can't put her back. Maybe I don't --

STU: That would be a good plot. That's not what the halving is for Bitcoin though.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: And you've seen the price go up. There's been various reasons for that over the past year.

The ETFs. Meaning a lot of money is flowing into Bitcoin for the first time, really. That is a big catalyst of it.

The other is the halving, which happens, what? Every four years.

You don't know exactly what will happen. As they get closer and closer, they can specify.

And it will be today, at some point. About ten hours from now.

GLENN: And what does it mean exactly?

STU: Basically, when Bitcoin started. You have to have miners with, who are going to mine the Bitcoin to kind of bring it into availability for everybody.

GLENN: And you knew this would involve minors.

STU: No, it's not like Jeffrey Epstein. Think of a coal miner, except digitally.

GLENN: Different kind of miner. Okay. All right. What are they wearing? Are they wearing pants?

STU: That's not important. That's not important. By the way, Bitcoin miners know they're not wearing pants. They're in their underwear in their mother's basement. At least that's how it started. It was people in their underwear in their mom's basement, basically. And they were mining tons and tons of Bitcoin.

Now, remember, Bitcoin, there will only ever be 21 million of them. They are sort of -- think of them being mined. They are slowly mined, this time, I think we've mined, 2140. I don't know. It's a long way. But the basic idea with the halving, is every four years the reward for the miners gets cut in half. So the reason that's important, is the supply shrinks.

So maybe, you go back years and years and years. There's tons and tons of Bitcoin going on. Getting mined every single day.

Now, that number gets cut in half.

It was like each block, which is about every ten minutes.

Each one of those, it was six Bitcoin. Were freed into the world.

Like released into the world.

Now it's like three. It shrinks every four years. 1.75. 1.5. Or 1.25. It's not exact numbers.

GLENN: Until it gets to zero and there's no more Bitcoin left.

STU: And that's at 21 million Bitcoin. So you are now at -- I think it's six to three, roughly, in this particular halving. And the other part about the halving that has been important to note, is every time, there has been one, over the next six months, there has been a massive increase in the prophesy Bitcoin. Now, will this happen this time? No one knows. Past performance is not indicative of future results, we all know the disclaimer.

GLENN: We really do know that disclaimer. You may not know that disclaimer, but we do.
STU: Yes. Very true.

GLENN: The views of Stu are not necessarily those of the host.

STU: This is not financial advice.

Past performance is not indicative of future results. We don't know. We have also had a very large rise over the past year. So some people theorized, it's already built in.

Right?

This time, the rise we've already had, is basically part of what the halving would bring. However, when you look at the charts over the past three or four or five halvings. We've had massive increases. All those times, where all of a sudden, everyone around you, was talking about Bitcoin. Almost all those periods happened between six months.

Three to nine months after a halving.

GLENN: After. Not before.

STU: Well, you've seen some rises before. Generally, speaking, the real pop has happened after.

GLENN: This has been a real pop. This brought us back to where it was.

STU: There's a reason to believe, there's more here. Again, the last one was in 2020. Do you remember the 2021 phenomenon?

Then you had a drop back down. We are now down back to where we were, 2021.

GLENN: Making a case that somebody should buy, just a fraction of Bitcoin.

STU: Okay.

GLENN: I mean, you know, when it first started, and everybody was on board. Everybody was buying Bitcoin.

Because it was like, I have three Bitcoin. You know.

STU: Yep.

GLENN: And now, most people cannot afford to buy -- no.

STU: Of course not. Let me put it this way.

Right now, you would say, Bitcoin, $60,000. Basically, it's only for a millionaire.

Someone who wants tons of money, who will throw into a Bitcoin.

You might say only millionaires can afford that.

You might say something like that. Think of it this way, there are 24.5 million millionaires just in the United States.

GLENN: 24.5 million millionaires.

STU: Yes. Right. Right now, there will never be enough Bitcoin for every millionaire in the United States to own one. That doesn't include millionaires around the world. There are already too many millionaires for just millionaires to get one of these things.

GLENN: How much of it do you think is lost? Permanently, forever, lost.

STU: Permanently. Like, for example, we know the Satoshi's account. Which, the guy who invented Bitcoin. We don't know who it is. Group of people. Or if he's dead. I think they're dead. That's my opinion. He has an account with 1 million of it, in it, that's never moved.

So we basically know, unless this guy reveals himself somehow in the future. Which is not likely, that a million of them are lost. We also know, early on, people were mining these things and getting thousands and tens of thousands of them. And just losing -- turning their computer off. And not thinking they were worth anything.

The estimates are that probably something like a third of them are lost forever. So instead of 21 million, maybe it's 14 million. Maybe it's 15 million.

Somewhere in that vicinity. Now that they're valuable, people are not losing them, of course. At least as often. It's still happening every day.

People screw it up. They lose it.

They send it to the wrong account. That stuff still happens. But you're probably talking about, let's say 15 million, that actually will exist.

You have 24.5 millionaires in the United States. In the world, you have about 60 million millionaires. So if you split up all the Bitcoin in the world, just among millionaires, they can only get a quarter of one each.

Now, if you can put some in there. The idea that these things will go down in value.

Over the very long-term. To me, is unlikely.

And part of that is, at the beginning of this, nobody knew. Right?

Like when I first invested in Bitcoin. And I don't have a lot of money in Bitcoin. But when I first started in Bitcoin. My thought was, I'm going to throw some money in this, let's see what happens.

I have absolutely no idea.

My thought was, there's a good chance. I said this to you, at the time. There's a good chance it goes to zero. It was a total gamble. I had no idea.

I liked the concept of money that can't be inflated and printed. Right?

I like that concept. That's why I was interested in it.

But, I mean, how many multi-trillion dollar industries can you remember going to zero?

I mean, is there any example of this?

GLENN: White star line. This has I don't think they were worth trillions. Right?

Enron was a big company, right?

Don't remember it being worth trillions. Bitcoin's market cap is over a trillion dollars.

GLENN: No. I can't see it going to zero. Unless all the central banks in the world say, not --

STU: It's so resistant to that right now. Though.

GLENN: I know.

STU: We're seeing countries open up. And start accepting it. You know, the United States of America, has now accepted Bitcoin ETFs. That's a huge embrace of this technology.

And look, I don't know. I can't tell you, it won't go down in the future. I would be surprised if it never goes down below these levels again. It probably will.

So you might buy today. And at some point, be down.

A lot of people bought in 2021. And thought, oh, my gosh, I've lost all my money.

Except, now pretty much every person who has ever bought Bitcoin in its history, if they held on to it, is either about even or up.

GLENN: Everybody. Even the people who bought at the very peak.

STU: Everybody. Yeah, unless you bought like a couple of months ago, when it hit 69-70 for a couple of days. There's a few people.

But generally speaking, almost no one who has ever purchased this and kept it, has lost money.

And that's that's quite a statement. Again, what other investments can you point to, that has that type of record?

There's almost none. So I don't know. You don't know what the future holds, but man, this is a technology that has proved itself incredibly resilient.

GLENN: I get really pissed at you, every time we talk about this. Every time.

STU: You get pissed at me.

Why are you pissed at me?

GLENN: Yes, I do. I blame you for bad decisions. Blame you.

STU: Why?

GLENN: I was with Marc Andreessen.

STU: Yes.

GLENN: It might have even been a fraction of a cent.

STU: It was before -- well before I bought it. That's for sure.

Because I remember the conversation.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

And he's going to start some new thing with this new currency.

STU: Yeah. I remember you telling me this, at the time. I fortunately, did not listen.

GLENN: Yeah. Neither did I. Neither did I.

And we could have put hundred dollars in it, at this point.

STU: Oh, my gosh.

$100. Do you know how much that would be worth?

GLENN: It was a fraction of a cent. Wasn't it?

STU: I don't remember if it was that low, but it was really early.

GLENN: It was right as he started the digital wallet.

Coinbase. It was right as he started it.

STU: Gosh. This makes me physically ill.

GLENN: I think he actually told me that before he started it.

Or he may have --

STU: In the middle of making money or whatever.

GLENN: Yeah. He said, do you know anything about Bitcoin. You should invest.

Just take $5,000. And just throw it in this. And I'm like, uh-huh.

And I -- at the time, $5,000 was -- you know.

STU: You would probably be a billionaire.

GLENN: I would be.

STU: I can't imagine how many you would have -- I love this story.

GLENN: Well, look it up. Look it up.

Look up when they opened Coinbase.

And what the price of Bitcoin was. $5,000.

All right. Back in just a second. First, let me tell you about Ruff Greens. It's hard to know what to feed your dog these days. If you walk down the dog food aisle. You'll see hundred different types. Most of them are variations of the same thing.

The majority of dog food is kibble food. That means everything has been sterilized. All the good stuff. All the stuff that your dog really needs, because it has to have a long shelf life. They've cooked all that stuff out.

Your food. You need the same kind of nutrients, many of them that your dog needs.

And so naturopathic Dr. Dennis Black. Came up with this formula. Just for your dog. It has all of the vitamins, minerals, and probiotics, that your to go needs every day. Folks at Ruff Greens are so confident, that your dog will love it. They have a special deal for you. Just go to Ruff Greens. R-U-F-FGreens.com/Beck.

Or call 833-Glenn-33. They'll give you the first trial bag for free. All you pay for is shipping. 833-Glenn-33. Do it now.

Ten-second station ID.
(music)

GLENN: So go ahead.

STU: What?

GLENN: Why he didn't you invest in it? You're always -- you're that kind of guy. You know, I just threw some money in it. Why didn't you --

STU: I mean, I think I did. I just didn't do it as early as that.

Again, I wish I had invested more. Then I wouldn't have to be sitting here with you every day. It would be a dream.

GLENN: If I had a time machine, that's the only thing I would change. And for that reason. I would go back in time.

STU: You would make me -- you actually wouldn't mind making me a billionaire, just so I wouldn't have to be here every day?

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah. That's the kind of guy I am.

STU: How about this, I'll it do for 10 mil right now. Get some financing.

So it depends. It's hard to know exactly when you talk to him. The Coinbase started in 2012. Coinbase is a little later, when you're talking a fraction of a cent, so it was about ten bucks in 2020 -- when it actually started selling Bitcoin. When Coinbase began that process, it was about ten bucks.

If you spent $5,000 then, you would have had about 500 Bitcoin, which would be worth $32.5 million. Which would be incredibly nice. However, my remembrance of this story was, it was before -- before that. When it was sort of being dreamt up.

So it could have been.

GLENN: It was one of the first times I've ever heard of Bitcoin. And I think I came back to you. And I said, what is Bitcoin?

And you were like, well, people buy pizzas with it.

STU: This is ridiculous history.

GLENN: That's exactly what he said.
STU: I don't think I knew much of anything. I had heard of it. But I didn't know anything about it at that time -- I definitely was not discouraging you in investing $5,000. That's exactly how you remember it.

GLENN: That's exactly how I remember it, Your Honor.

STU: And one fascinating thing I think that really hasn't fully taken -- taken root yet when it comes to the Bitcoin phenomenon.

GLENN: By the way, hang on just a second. I just have to say something. I said at the time. I said that, on the air too.

STU: Oh, really?

We should go back and find it.

We can probably find it.

GLENN: Marc Andreessen. He's at Bitcoin.

Blah, blah, blah. But Warren Buffett. He says, if you don't understand it, you shouldn't invest in it.

STU: Where did you find that?

GLENN: I wonder if anybody. If anybody did it.

What our earliest time was, when we said. Hey, maybe you should throw some money into it.

I don't know if I will do it. If anybody in the audience. Of course, there was somebody that was in the audience.

They're not now.

STU: Showing, they're billionaires.

GLENN: On a yacht someplace.

STU: I think that's one of the things that's most interesting in a societal sense.

That we had a lot of people. Because the early people into Bitcoin. Not like the people necessarily today.

But the early people into Bitcoin. Were people who generally speaking, were ideologically let's say Libertarian.

Or somewhat close to that.

GLENN: Yes. Correct.

STU: And there are now massive amounts of people, who became insanely wealthy over this process. And continue probably to get even wealthier.

And those people who would have probably been marginalized in society, at some level.

Maybe they would of been successful. But would never have that sort of power.

GLENN: No. They're the losers. Loaners. And creeps.

STU: And we've seen.

I mean, Libertarians, will describe themselves this way.

So we've seen now, that many of these people have made an impact. Right?

We've seen a lot of them. Marc Andreessen. Not necessarily, an ideological Libertarian. A lot of these people have risen.

Two of the richest people in the world. Are the Winklevoss twins. The people who had Facebook stolen from them.

GLENN: I think they're fictional characters.

STU: They may be. They were in a movie once. So I don't know.

GLENN: Sure. Anybody can play them. But I think anybody with Winklevoss as their name. And they're twins. I think it's too magical to be real.

STU: It's hard to believe.

GLENN: It is. It is.

Oh, let's call on the Winklevoss twins.

STU: For everything --

GLENN: Show up. Say their names three times.

Hi, we're here to grant any wish, with our magical Bitcoin.

STU: Right. Consider that they basically had Facebook -- in my opinion, Facebook stolen from them. They wound up getting thrown out.

Got some money for it. Were not insanely wealthy.

Wound up not with one, but two giant revolutions of the world.

They were at the founding of almost -- they invested a fortune in Bitcoin, right after that.

And now were multi-billionaires because of it. It's a weird people that wouldn't have normally been at the top of our society. Are now there. And hopefully, they've kept some of these small government routes, through that process.

And maybe they can Friday the country, in a way --

GLENN: No. No. Because when you get that wealthy. What you do, you know, I can get somebody on the phone.

I can make this happen. I don't want a stop sign here.

And I think we should also kill the poor. I will get both of those done. I will call my council member. And, you know, my master at the WEF.

You know what you know I mean?

You start protecting it, and then that all goes to hell.

STU: Maybe. Who knows?

GLENN: We should do what Star Trek did, and abolish all money. Learn how to live in harmony.

STU: That worked out well for them. They were poor in episode.

What are you talking about?

GLENN: How did they pay for those starships? How ridiculous was that?

Is it a GOOD IDEA to Oust Speaker Mike Johnson BEFORE the Election?

Representatives Marjorie Taylor Greene and Thomas Massie have announced their plans to file a Motion to Vacate the Speaker of the House. But Democrats, under the leadership of Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, have promised to block the attempt. So, would trying to oust Speaker Mike Johnson actually HELP the Democrats? Glenn asked Rep. Thomas Massie to defend his reasoning for ousting Johnson before the election. Massie lays out the 3 “betrayals” he believes Johnson has committed and what he believes Jeffries is really plotting.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: You can say a lot of things about Thomas Massie. Some of them true, some of them false.

But the one thing that is absolutely true. He stands on his own principles.

And he is unwavering. In those principles. He joins us now. From the great state of Kentucky.

Republican representative. Thomas Massie. Hello, Thomas.

TOM: How are you doing, Glenn?

GLENN: I'm very good. I'm very good. I don't understand this whole Mike Johnson thing, as Speaker of the House. I don't understand what happened to him. How we went so wrong. You know, people are saying, that, oh, this has been a scam forever. He's been, you know, a RINO and just in hiding. And now, getting rid of him at this point. What good is that going to do? Or even moving from this, because do you have the numbers to do it?

TOM: Great questions. Let me talk about how we got to where we are.

GLENN: Okay.

TOM: So Mike Johnson has betrayed us three times. Big betrayals. He did an omnibus bill, that did does and he gave the FBI a brand-new bill in that omnibus bill. And he didn't give us time to read it. He gave up on doing 12 separate bills.

That was the first betrayal. Second betrayal, FISA. This is the spying program that's been used to surveil Americans without a warrant. He cast the deciding vote on whether to have warrants or not.

And he voted against warrants.

This is against what he stood for, when he was on the judiciary committee, that I serve on. With Jim Jordan.

So something has changed there. He said he spent time in a skiff, that changed his time. Guess what, Glenn. I don't know if your listeners know this. I spent three and a half hours with him, to get him briefed by CIA, NSA, DOD, FBI, and DNI, and a FISA judge.

And in three a half hours. They didn't give us a specific example. Not one, of how spying on Americans, without a warrant, has helped them stop terrorism, to give them hypotheticals. But no example.

So that was the second betrayal. No warrants. Now, you can still be spied on.

It's reauthorized. Third betrayal. Just happened. This one we're still stinging from.

You may see the videos of every Democrat in the House voted for. For Ukraine.

Premeditated. Passed out Ukrainian flags. And basically humiliating us.

And I think speaker Johnson. If he's capable of having shame at this point. Should have been humiliated by that display as well.

I put the video of that on Twitter. And a search told me they would fine me $500 if I didn't take it down. So I reposted it.
(music)
Because look, you're not supposed to put video of what's happening on the floor. But that was video of things that were breaking decorum. Right? I was trying to provide evidence that they were in the wrong. And instead of prosecuting them, they came after me.

GLENN: Sure.

NEIL: Now, we got 8 million views on the video after I reposted it, and Speaker Johnson backed down on that fine because he knew how bad that looked. So third betrayal. Was that, you know, Ukrainian vote, where send the money overseas. We gave up all leverage on any border security.

They included some other bad stuff in it.

GLENN: Let's talk about the $4 billion to help people from the Middle East immigrate here to the United States. Including Palestinians.

Are you nuts?

NEIL: Yeah. And you see, Mike Johnson will not stand up against that.

By the way, those three bills that I just mentioned to you. You know what happened when they went to the Senate. After they passed the House. Chuck Schumer didn't even change the punctuation of any of those bills.

He must want any amendments to them. He wanted them exactly as Mike Johnson wanted them in the house.

Because those were Chuck Schumer's bills that Mike Johnson put on the floor.

He's already in the arms of the union party. The question you rightfully ask: Is why do this? Well, the people are always asking me, Thomas. Can you show us. Can you give us a list, of the good guys and the bad guys. Can you tell me who the good guys are. I have a primary. I have a vote in. I have a general election. Tell me the list. This list. You will have another list, we keep doing this. At great peril to ourselves.

The reason there's only a few of them that are willing to stand up and call this. Is because you put -- you put your reputation on the line. And people here hate transparency. They hate us for doing it. You will have the list next week. When the motion to vacate is called. Of who went to the king Jeffries. And the Uniparty to keep Mike Johnson in power.

King Jeffries, the reason he's supporting Mike Johnson, he got everything the Democrats want, without any of the blowback by having Mike Johnson as speaker. And they also -- they have some claims for other things.

They may resettle Palestinian refugees in the United States. And pay for it. They may want to make the funding for Ukraine permanent.

And before our next election, there's going to be another CR or omnibus or something.

That's coming September 30. So some people are like, well, why would you do this now, Congressman Massie?

Hasn't all the bad stuff -- hasn't Mike already done all the bad stuff to us?

Can't we just sit it out to the next election?

No. Because what Hakeem Jeffries wants more than anything is to be the speaker, and the only way he becomes the speaker is by getting the majority of the House in November.

And he knows Mike Johnson is the most uninspiring speaker we've ever had.

It will not do anything to inspire -- most likely to lose the majority under speaker Johnson.

GLENN: So what would the plan B. If you could get this to pass. I mean, well, first of all.

Let me ask you.

How many -- how many other Freedom Caucus members are standing with you?

NEIL: Well, I think before Hakeem Jeffries came out for Speaker Johnson. There were probably somewhere between 12 and 20 who didn't want to speak, but would have voted with us.

Now, I think, you may have maybe the entire Freedom Caucus. We'll see.

I know people outside of the Freedom Caucus.

Who said, if one Democrat votes to keep Mike Johnson. I ain't voting to keep him.

Because they know what that means. That means it's the Uniparty.

Now, the first vote will be on a motion to table. To try and prevent this from even coming up for appear actual vote. But people should understand, that is -- that motion to table, if they succeed. That is the only vote that will happen. And that is your list there.

Are those the people who saved Mike Johnson. Which Hakeem Jeffries. And all the Democrat leadership, said they'll do it. And some Democrat ranking file. There are some Republicans, who sit at the table. But that will be the vote. Now, if we could succeed.

Okay. If we could get past that motion to table. And maybe Hakeem Jeffries has only 40 Democrats, who are willing to walk the plank. I can imagine that will be tough for them and their primaries. Unless they're planning on retiring. Can you imagine? You've saved the Christian speaker, who is against abortion, and all this other stuff. And what's the -- anyways.

So I don't -- I'm not sure how many votes Hakeem has. But I think he helped us grow our numbers. Let's say we help them pass that vote. There is a motion to vacate. And Mike Johnson is vacating. At that point, who would we elect?

Well, we would like for Mike Johnson to avoid the scenario, I just described.

We're giving him a weekend to resign.

If he would announce that he's leaving, like John Boehner did in ten weeks.

And he won't be offended as we have votes to replace him while he's still speaker. We could go without ever not having a speaker.

We could keep doing subpoenas, and the judiciary committees. We could have hearings and pass all these wonderful old messaging bills that they love to pass. But if that doesn't happen, we'll have to elect a Speaker. We will be on the spot.

I think there are a dozen people, in the G.O.P. conference. Who have something in their entire life.

Whether it's political experience. Or prior experience nap qualifies them for the job.

Mike Johnson is a lost ball in tall weeds. I don't think there's some conspiracy, where they've got kids locked in the basement. Or something like that.

I don't think they have info on him, or blackmail material. I just don't think he can do the job.

And there's nothing in his life that prepared him for that. Let's find someone that can. Hopefully that will inspire people to keep them in the majority. Even Hakeem Jeffries bails Mike Johnson out, next week. They're not going to bail him out in January.

We know he's a lame duck speaker.

But he knows it. Let's get him out of there, before he causes any more mischief.

GLENN: What did McCarthy do better than Johnson?

NEIL: Oh, that's a great question. Under McCarthy, we did seven of the 12 bills. Okay. There's 12 separate bills. He said, we'll do an omnibus. We got seven of the 12. We got 7 of the 12 done. We had a thousand amendments. I'm not on the rules committee. We got votes on a thousand amendments to allow rank-and-file members to participate in the legislative process. When Mike Johnson came on board, he did two or three CRs. He ignored the 7 bills we had done. He made no effort to do the other five. And he said, you will get a two-part omnibus.

That was the bad thing.

The second thing, well, Kevin McCarthy could have cut a deal with the Democrats. And could have been still speaker now.

He said, I will not do it.

The position is not that important to me.

We will make a Uniparty here, and share power. So that's another thing that Mike Johnson has expressed a willingness to do.

That Kevin wouldn't do. And finally, as a part of the debt limit deal, this last summer.

Kevin extracted, from Joe Biden, and Chuck Schumer.

This is signed into law. And still law. That if you do a CR. And it goes past April 30th.

Basically, halfway through the fiscal year. There's a 1 percent cut.

And Kevin secured that from Joe Biden.

Mike onset had three choices, on the spending bills. When he came into office.

He could use the 1 percent cut option. He could have worked on the five other bills. Or he could have duplicate the omnibus.

He actually could have done the 1 percent cut option. That Kevin had secured.

And spent a lot of political capital on getting that provision in law.

So those are three things that Kevin did that Mike didn't.

And Kevin, put through of us on the rules committee.

That gave us a blocking position. Chip Roy, Ralph Norman, and myself. And we used that for good. We forced the 72-hour rule for the entire time Kevin was speaker. That's another thing Johnson threw out the window.

You don't always get three days to read a bill now. He's overriding his own rules committee. And he's going with Democrats to do it.

GLENN: Do you think this was -- you know, I write in some place.

You know, this was planned from the beginning. He's been lying in wait, trying to pretend that he was part of the Freedom Caucus for years.

Do you believe that?

ANN: Yeah. You know, what really confused me. Is the readiness with which, sort of the big spenders in Washington, DC.

Where they accepted Mike Johnson as a valid speaker candidate. After defeating Jim Jordan multiple times.

They found Jim Jordan unsuitable. But they found this junior member very unsuitable to the job, who had no experience. You know, had never been a chairman. Didn't have much staff.

And I think at that point, they got some assurance from Mike Johnson. That he -- or some feeling, that Mike Johnson would be a good guy to carry the water for the establishment here in DC.

And that's exactly what he's done.

GLENN: Hmm. Well, Thomas, when do you file? Is this Monday?

NEIL: Probably what will happen is we'll file Monday. Speaker Johnson, because it's a privileged resolution. The only thing that has higher privilege is motion to adjourn.

So he will have two days. Two legislative days to bring it up. So if we file it on Monday. The vote will either be Monday immediately. Or Tuesday or Wednesday.

If we file it on Tuesday. It would be either on Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday. Would be the vote.

GLENN: You don't believe he will back away?

I mean, you put this, or Marjorie Taylor Greene did. She put this in line, to be brought up, as kind of a threat.

Hey, we're thinking about doing this. Don't push it.

And he did it anyway.

NEIL: That's right. So he called the bluff, and we're calling the bluff. And we will have this vote.

What I hope, Glenn, is that our conference chair. Our Whip. And our Majority Floor Leader would go to Mike Johnson.

We exhibit the leadership, that we put them on that team to exhibit. And say, Mike, it's over.

It's just not worth what you're doing.

You're going and partnering with Hakeem Jeffries. And the minority whip, and the minority conference chair.

We can't do that. So I would like to see them go, convince Mike Johnson as a team.

It's time for him to step aside. He could still do that.

And I know as improbable as it sounds. And as resolved as Mike Johnson seems when he gets to the podium. That's exactly how John Boehner was, until the five minutes he took to resign.

STU: Thomas, I know we only have about a minute left. But if the concern is that, you know, Johnson will work with Jeffries, when he's put up against the wall and do these things.

If you go forward with this, you're making Johnson's political life, dependent on Hakeem Jeffries saving. I mean, couldn't this potentially just make all of this worse?

NEIL: It's very painful to expose this. I think what we're illuminating. I don't think we're causing him to go in that direction. We're illuminating what actually exists in Washington, DC. And why you don't get the results you want.

Is because he's already in league with Chuck Schumer, Mitch McConnell, and Hakeem Jeffries.

And we're just illuminating what would be otherwise, I believe.

GLENN: Thomas, God bless you.

Thank you for standing up for your principles. Whether people agree or disagree with, you know, you and your stance.

I will tell you, that I have a lot of respect for somebody who will take the heat, because they won't sit down on their principles.

Thank you.

NEIL: Well, thanks, Glenn. People say, this is a lost cause. You shouldn't do it. People didn't elect us to give up. People elected us to try. And that's what we're doing.

GLENN: Thank you so much. Appreciate it.

Even MSNBC Can’t Support THIS Far-Left Talking Point

It’s time for a “Cannibal Update” as the Left continues to eat its own! Glenn reviews what happened when MSNBC’s Katy Tur actually called former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi out for spreading a blatant lie about Trump’s presidency. But Pelosi immediately responded by turning on Tur and trying to paint her as a Trump sympathizer! Glenn and Stu also review one of the biggest outbreaks of leftist “cannibalism” in recent years: The anti-Israel protests on college campus, in which pro-Palestine protesters have gone as far as to call President Biden “Genocide Joe.”

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: I think we need the cannibal update. Do we have the cannibal update music?

Because I have been very concerned about cannibalism, ever since Joe Biden brought it up.

Cannibalism. We all thought it was over.

But then again, we thought the Soviet Union was over.

We thought that threat was over.

Cannibalism is real. And it's so display. And it involves, well, let me show you. Here is Nancy Pelosi, involved in cannibalism on MSNBC.
(music)

NANCY: And Joe Biden is doing that, created 9 million jobs in his term in office. Donald Trump has the worst record of job loss of any president. So we have to just make sure people know.

VOICE: That was a global pandemic.

NANCY: He had the worst record of any president. We have had other concerns in our country. You want to be an apologist for Donald Trump. That may be your role. But it's not mine.

VOICE: I don't think anyone can accuse me of that.

NANCY: But let me just say, we put forward a 3 trillion-dollar bill. 3 trillion dollars of investment in communities and the rest, and that stimulates the economy.

STU: I mean.

GLENN: Now, I don't know which one is in the pod here, which one is eating each other. But they are eating each other.

So cannibalism. Another update is coming soon, because it seems to be going around now. And that's a real problem.

Now, let's do go to Columbia.

Because what happened there yesterday, was definitely not an insurrection, Stu. Nothing to see.

STU: Definitely not. No insurrection there. Not at all.

That was protesters, Glenn. Those are protesters, peacefully protesting, mostly, the -- in favor of the rapists and murderers in Hamas. That's all. That's all that was.

GLENN: Okay. Okay.

Well, let me show you some things that happened. This was in a library in Virginia.
(music)
They -- I mean, listen to that noise.

The librarian, her head exploded immediately.

She was like, shh. There were riot police were there.

They stormed and took over the library. At the Virginia commonwealth in Richmond, Virginia.

And they continued to talk out loud. Not in whispers.

And it was not good. It was not good. Here is from UCLA.

A Jewish student, that is being blocked from using the main entrance.

VOICE: I have my ID right here. I'm being blocked off. Not by the security guard. By you three.

This is what they do.

Everybody, look at this. Look at this.

I'm a UCLA student. I deserve to go here.

We pay tuition. This is our school. And they're not letting me walk in. My class is over there. I want to use that entrance. Will you let me go in?

Just let me and my friends go in. This could be over in a second.

VOICE: They're not in engaged.

VOICE: Then you can move.

VOICE: We're not engaged.

GLENN: We're not engaging.

VOICE: I'm going in. I have my hands up. I'm not hurting them. I'm not hurting them. That's what they do. That's what they do, everybody. You guys are promoting adepression. You guys are promoting hate. We're UCLA students, we deserve to be there.

GLENN: True. But he's forgotten all the microaggressions, Stu.

STU: Well, I think we should give it an award to the security guard who stands there and does absolutely nothing and allows them to block this person's progress as he's trying to go to class. That's just wow, he should get a Hamas award. Congratulations to him. I mean, that's completely -- completely unbelievable that they're allowing this to go on.

And it's happening with campus after campus after campus.

GLENN: Did you see the latest polls that Americans are for Israel? By I think it's like 80 percent. Something like that. For Israel.

STU: I know. I was talking to somebody. That's good to see. You do see in the media, a lot of times.

It feels like this is some close call. And Americans are like, what is it? Seventy-five-25. In favor of Israel instead of Hamas. I'm like, that's terrible.

75 percent of people, Israel over Hamas?

Not even like a hidden, oh. The Palestinian people are whatever they usually pitch. No. This is the actual recognized terrorist group was used in the poll.

This should be 99 to one. 75 percent sucks for that poll!

GLENN: I guess -- I guess I've just been beaten down so far, I'm just like, oh, that's good. Twelve people in America are still for the Jews.

I mean, I just -- I'm a little beaten down by it. Just a little bit.

Did you see what the University of Florida said yesterday?

That they're not going to tolerate it. They're not a preschool. You know the rules. You break them. You're out.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Boy, I can't imagine living in that fascistic society of Florida. Can you imagine that?

They hold you to the rules. When you sign it for school. You read the rule book. You're breaking the rules. You're out.

Everywhere else, they're negotiating with these people.

And I just think, negotiating with terrorists is such a smart idea.

It's so -- it's -- well, so today.

So open-minded. So woke. So great.

So one of the -- one of the -- I think it was northwestern negotiated to have Palestinians, you know, come up and speak on campus. So they're going to get some -- I don't know. Hamas members.

Why not? They did it with the Nazis. They literally did this exact same thing with the Nazis in the 1930s. Why should we expect a different outcome?

It's the same kind of people. The same group of people. They're fine with that.

Totally fine with that.

By the way, Spielberg is doing propaganda for Joe Biden.

I mean, no.

He's just -- he's looking into ways -- it's not propaganda. He's looking into ways to enhance the president's message. And help that message get out.

Like Nancy Pelosi just did. I I love that.

She was shocked when somebody in the media turned around and said. It's a pandemic. That's what everybody says. Play it again. That's what everybody says, to their television. When they hear that stat. Everybody says that.

NANCY: And Joe Biden is doing that. Created 9 million jobs in his office. Donald Trump has the worst record of job loss of any president. So we have to make sure people know.

VOICE: That was a global pandemic.

NANCY: He had the worst record of any president. We had other concerns in our country. You want to be an apologist for Donald Trump. That may be your role, but it ain't mine.

GLENN: She doesn't have any real comeback for it.

STU: No.

GLENN: She's never been challenged on that.

STU: No. She's literally stunned in that moment they can't be someone would point out most obvious thing in the world, that every single voter understands. Obvious. And this is showing up in the polls like crazy. That people don't even look at the pandemic, as part of Trump's economy. They don't judge it that way. They look at it, and they say, well, it was doing really well before this really terrible thing that happened. And obviously, a lot of jobs were lost.

And obviously, the -- you know, American people wound up come back to work after it was over.

And Biden is trying to take credit for that. The most fascinating part about that. If you are going to criticize Trump about his performance, on the economy, before when it comes to the pandemic.

You will hit him on the shutdowns. He was in favor of the shutdowns early. Which, okay. I think that's a fair criticism.

Certainly from the right, it was a fair criticism. Supported every single one of those policies, and tried to drag out shutdowns for another year and a half, after Trump stopped supporting them. So there's absolutely no argument whatsoever. Everybody knows. Everyone remembers COVID-19. Everyone remembers the period. Everyone remembers being told they couldn't go to work anymore for a few months.

Everybody remembers this. And the enact they keep trying to pitch this, is so insultingly stupid. That Katy Tur can't even let it happen on MSNBC. And she's calling Trump an apologist for it.

GLENN: Yes! Katy Tur. She's not -- she's not a conservative. She's not even anywhere close to that.

STU: She can't stand Donald Trump. She can't stand him.

GLENN: No. Fair is not even a word.

STU: She's embarrassed. She's embarrassed by the point that Nancy Pelosi is making.

She feels the internal poll. She has to point it out. It's such a stupid point.

And I feel I have a bit of sympathy for certain Democrats in these moments. Katy Tur is obviously no conservative.

It's like, what do you mean a Trump apologist?

Look at my record. I've done nothing, but bash Trump for years and years and years. The same thing with Joe Biden, he's being criticized as genocide Joe. He's done so much to hurt the Jews.

Why are you -- why are you -- he's done so much to ruin their ability to kill terrorists.

GLENN: Really has. Yeah.

STU: Stop their people from being raped.

He's done so much. Contributed so much to this cause. And these protesters won't give him credit for it.

GLENN: I personally think, genocide Joe, it's better to call him genocide Joe. From our side to their side.

He's been funding the Iranians who want a genocide on all the Jews.

He is genocide Joe.

They're just mixed up on who he wants to help kill.

By the way, this is what you would kill propaganda.

What happened on MSNBC, with Nancy Pelosi is propaganda.

And she was shocked that there was somebody, supposedly on her side. That would not play the game.

Is NPR’s Woke CEO Katherine Maher WORSE Than We Thought?

NPR’s president and CEO Katherine Maher made headlines after NPR punished journalist Uri Berliner for exposing the network’s leftist bias … and then for her past outrageous statements about free speech. But is she even more nefarious than we thought? Blaze News staff writer Joseph MacKinnon joins Glenn to explain the theory that she is also a government asset: “From 30,000 feet, she looks like not just a tech-savvy media queen, but someone who spent a lot of time around color revolutions.” Glenn and Joseph run through Maher’s odd history of visiting nations that the CIA has helped overthrow and speculate whether she’s part of a plan to stage a color revolution in America as well. But whether she’s a CIA asset or not, MacKinnon argues, one thing is clear: “She might as well have been.”

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: I want to go over this NPR boss. Which was, you know, kind of funny, at the beginning.

And then the more you learn about it. The more you're like, well, hang on just a second. Because she would be a -- a very important tool in the hands of the government. And she's being paid, by National Public Radio. So she's being -- she is a tool of the government, in many ways.

Can she separate herself, from her own personal beliefs?

Or is that even wanted at nonprofit? We wanted to bring in Joe MacKinnon. Joe is a Blaze News Staff Writer. And she's been following up on this. Joe, take us from the beginning. From the -- the -- the whistle-blower, if you will.

All the way to Christopher Rufo. And then let's pick it up from there. So can you tell us the beginning of it, Joe?

BIDEN: Absolutely. Thanks for having me on. So Uri Berliner earlier this month. Had this damning exposé, in the free press, April 9th.

He goes after NPR, after having worked there for a quarter of a century, as a senior business editor. There's zero diversity, particularly after the former CEO had made it an activist organization.

And that allied it effectively with the Democratic Party.

This is a publication according to Berliner, that didn't want to cover the Hunter Biden laptop story.

That worked with Adam Schiff to push the Russian collusion hoax.

So he goes to town, on NPR. And draws the ire of someone who has not been on a lot of people's radar. That's Katherine Maher. Or Maher, I should say. So Maher comes up with this long response, and effectively cusses him out. In more charitable terms. And he subsequently, he is offended. And then he resigns. So people start looking into Maher after -- after this. Because she was with Wikipedia before.

But I guess, flew under the radar. For a lot. Particularly on the right. Or those -- among those who are critical of the government.

And at first blush, she looks just like another shrill left partisanship she has the obligatory photo. Wearing the Biden campaign hat.

She has an unhealthy obsession with race. That photo exists. The tweet speaks for itself. And you keep digging as Rufo has. And you realize, really quickly, that there's something going on here.

From 30,000 feet, she looks like not just a tech savvy media queen. But someone who spent a lot of time around Colour Revolutions and the orient, enough to know how they might be replicated.

GLENN: Okay. So hang on just a second.

The campuses and boardrooms are full of leftists. But you're saying, and Christopher Rufo is saying, she is not your ordinary leftist.

She has been around Colour Revolutions. What does that mean, she's been around Colour Revolutions.

JOE: Okay. One of the many interesting posts she's had. I should note at the outset here, she's a World Economic Forum, World Global leader.

She's worked with the World Bank. She's worked with various NGOs that are in the tech, coms, and, well, foreign policy space.

So around 2010, 2011. And Rufo chronicled her travel itinerary. She's with the National Democratic Institute. And that's a spin-off of the National Endowment for Democracy, committed to -- yeah. Exactly.

You know where I'm going with this. This is an organization that tries to transition, unwilling regimes to become liberal democracies.

GLENN: Can I redefine that a little bit?

It's a CIA front.

JOE: Well, Mike Benz -- he was in the Trump administration at the State Department. He said, exactly that. He said, to carve out for the CIA. And other people have said just as much.

In fact, I think it was Ron Dixon, at the New York Times, back when, he said the NBI was actively fomenting protests during the so-called Arab spring.

GLENN: Uh-huh. We -- we know this. I exposed that, when we were at Fox.

We've known that from the beginning. It didn't take a brain surgeon to figure this out.

Then, when you go into Ukraine, and see what they were doing and the phrases that they were using. Saying, you know, we can -- we can spread this now. We kind of perfected it. In the Middle East. And we can spread it. And that's exactly what we were doing, in Ukraine.

JOE: Well, precisely, Ukraine. Libya. Egypt. Yemen. Tunisia. And so she's kind of been on a pilgrimage to these toppled regimes. And in some cases, as they're falling.

So Rufo notes, that she goes to Tunisia a couple times. She goes to Gedden (phonetic) in Southern Turkey. Just as rebels are making inroads, along the highway between Damascus and I believe it's Aleppo. And she actually said, not a long time ago. She framed the timing differently. She said in the aftermath of the revolution, she was doing research on the ground. With, quote, unquote, human rights activists.

And independent journalists.

And so she -- she is with the NBI. She's going to Tunisia. And she raises a couple of alarm bells. There's this Tunisian cabinet official. And, well, he basically -- he straight-up said, it's a likely case, that she works for a certainty letter agency. And a lot of people have been speculating about that in recent weeks.

GLENN: So what is her -- what is her background in broadcast? And news?

JOE: Well, she deals a lot with -- in terms of news, she's been critical of the ways that governments have weaponized their state broadcasters. Which I think --

GLENN: Right. Yeah. Yes. But what is she -- does she have a background in -- in news?

Is she a journalist.

Is she -- I mean, why is she -- I see she's traveled the world. That she's with the World Bank. And the WEF. And she's been with NGOs. And she's been around revolutions. But that doesn't necessarily scream CEO of NPR.

JOE: Well, I think Wikipedia, where she ran the show for, for several years.

GLENN: Oh.

JOE: Yeah.

And it was under her reign, that it quickly became clear that this was -- well, supposed to be a repository for human knowledge. Right?

GLENN: Right. It's not.

JOE: Recently you talked about how memory is the key to where we are. Well, Wikipedia is instrumental to capturing and curating that memory for a lot of people. So she may not be a journalist. But she was very much, I don't want to suggest there's a causation, she pretends that the Wikipedia editors who are working on their own.

But while she's in control, there's very much a narrative curation going on. A kind that you might want, at taxpayer funded broadcasts --

GLENN: Gosh. Jeez.

Okay. So the rumor that she's with CIA. Where did that originate?

JOE: So I mentioned, she went to Tunisia a couple times, right?

GLENN: Right.

JOE: So this cabinet official. I think I'm pronouncing that right.

But Slim Amamou. I think I'm pronouncing that right. But Slim said in 2016, it's a bit of a retrospective.

He's looking back. And I believe it's around the time. She's getting a promotion over at Wikipedia. He straight-up says, she's probably CIA.

He's not mincing words. He says, she's come over under different affiliations. With World Bank.

With USAID. And he suggests. And this is going on Twitter.

Still called that.

He suggests that she may as well have had CIA written on her front.

So Slim was in the transitional government.

He dropped out to protest, so-called. And he -- you know, not entirely, the top of the food chain. But someone you might at least want to hear out.

And so she is prickled by the suggestion.

She responds saying, I am no sort of agent. You can dislike me, but please don't tie me.

But then, that brought even more scrutiny.
Because people took notice of the way she framed that response.

So Christina Pushaw. She's on the DeSantis team. She said, for instance, okay. You may not have been an agent, but you could have just as well have been an asset.

GLENN: Yeah.

JOE: But the CIA element, I think, you know, I haven't seen any incontrovertible proof.

It's also largely immature.

She's also directly worked with the Biden administration.

She's worked with and brushed shoulders with all these regime change groups. So whether or not she has CIA on the card, somewhere, tucked into her desk.

She may as well have been.

GLENN: And this is -- this is part of the group, that -- I mean, Hillary Clinton, that infamous clip, where she said, we came, we saw, and died.

And laughed about it.

I think who she was talking about, at the time.

Might have been Samantha Power. Who is Cass Sunstein's wife. Author of nudge.

And somebody, who knows how to nudge people into new positions.

But Sam now works at USAID. She's the head of USAID.

So if you have the head of NPR, also working with Samantha Power, at USAID. That is also a CIA front.

JOE: Oh, absolutely. And I think it was Michael Waller and Rufo. She's a national security analyst. And he said, he drew that same connection with power.

And intimated said that Maher is part of his revolutionary vanguard movement.

So, you know, they're all in bed together. By the looks of it, I should say.

I don't want a mean tweet. And then, you couple this, with her public comments. And then, it lends even more gravity to this -- well, her becoming the head of NPR. Which was --

GLENN: Give me some of her -- give me some of her public comments, that I may not know.

JOE: Okay. Well, and I did a little bit of a -- a lot of these already are circulating.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

JOE: But Donald Trump -- so, you know, for instance, in 2021 interview, and this one caught a lot of people's attention in recent days.

She described the First Amendment as the top challenge in the fight against disinformation.

So the challenge -- yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

It's a challenge, because, quote, it's a little bit tricky to really address some of the real challenges of where, does that information come from? Sort of the influence peddlers who made a real market economy around it.

And, by the way, when she's talking about disinformation. She means skepticism of COVID-19 vaccines.

GLENN: Right.

JOE: Which will lead it to the show. Which was mentioned, that --

GLENN: Correct.

JOE: Devastating impact. Well, so is disinformation, according to the former head of Wikipedia. She also learned that it won't fly for her.

So an Atlantic Council 2021 event, she says Wikipedia isn't a free expression platform.

And so that -- a lot of people are wondering why. And she suggests, and I created content that people can add confidence to.

That they can make determinations in their right. So in that right, they have access to high integrity content, often sort of trumps the right to free speech.

Now, pair that with the fact that she suggests, straight out, in a TED talk, that, quote, a reverence for the truth, might be a distraction.

And it's getting in the way of finding common ground for getting things country. So I don't know who that common ground belongs to, by the way.

But it's certainly not the people.

GLENN: Yeah. That's a fantastic. Okay.

I'm going to come back. Let me take one minute to break for a sponsor.

And then I want to come back. And then I want to ask you.

So if she was a tool, even a little bit in Colour Revolution.

What is the fear that she could do? Or what is the impact she could have here in America? By being the CEO of nonprofit?

Back in just a second. Stand by.

Let's say that you had an employee. And here's what he did. He spent too much of the company's money. A bunch of which he actually stole. In fact, he ran the company into huge, huge debt. Where there was no turning back from it.

Ensuring the stock was worth less and less every day, until the whole thing went belly-up. On top of that, he was a jerk about that, to all the other employees beneath him.

What would I do with that employee? You would fire him, right?

Well, we don't do that. We call it Congress. We call at it administration. We call it the fed and the Treasury.

And we're all supposed to listen to them.

And they keep doing these things. We know they're doing these things. And yet we keep coming back to them, and saying, okay. How are you going to fix it? How are they going to fix it?

The fix is already in. Stop listening to those people! I want you to seriously consider gold or silver. There was a story in today's show prep at GlennBeck.com about China, and how the Chinese are just buying gold like crazy.

They're going on these vacancies, over to India. And they're just coming back with buckets of gold that they bought. They know in China, that that's the only hedge against insanity.

Well, I think we're in the land of insanity. We're now borrowing $1 trillion every 100 days.

Please, please, they have five-star reviews out the wazoo. They have a worry-free purchase guarantee.

24-hour free purchase guarantee.

They are the precious metals leader that you can trust.

It's Lear Capital.

Please, call them now.

Just get your free wealth protection guide. This is coming. And it's coming fast and hard.

They will also credit your account. $250 towards your purchase. So call today. At 800-957-GOLD. That's 800-957-GOLD.

Back in just a minute. Ten seconds.
(music)
So we're talking to Joe MacKinnon, who has written extensively for TheBlaze news.

You can go to Blaze.com. And find his work on NPR's CEO, who is looking to be far worse than what anybody thought she was. We just thought she was a crazy liberal. Or progressive.

But she seems to be. Possibly much more than that. Including, possibly working with the CIA.

But she -- she spent a lot of time around Colour Revolutions. We'll talk about that. Coming up in the next break.

But I just wanted to ask you, Joe, before you go. What is the impact, if this is true, that she could have with NPR at her disposal?

JOE: NPR has long been a joke. It's ineffective. Its viewership has dwindled immensely. She's shrewd. She's effective. This is an individual who had people believing that cultural Marxism is a far right conspiracy theory, when she was running with them.

And all the insights she's gleaned, when she was doing her, again, pilgrimage of farm state. And her understanding that capture of a state broadcaster could ultimately mean capture of the state.

Means that nonprofit is a weapon in her hands.

Potentially a weapon in her hands. There's over a thousand stations broadcasting at NPR programming. There's thousands of employees.

A bunch of bureaus across the country.

Now, I don't think they're going to do business as usual.

In fact, she's telegraphed that there's going to be a transformation behind the scenes. Nonprofit was already a leftist propaganda element.

Now I think it's going to be used, to foment. Or at the very least control.

The protests. And to at least have the power to weaponize various groups across the nation.
Send your marching orders, essentially out via NPR.

So Wikipedia -- and I'm surprised you left Wikipedia honestly. I think that's a more consequential place.

Wikipedia controls the past. And therefore, controls the future.

GLENN: Yes. Right.

JOE: I think NPR under her helm, I think the game, anyway, is controlling the present.

GLENN: Joseph MacKinnon, from theBlaze.com.

The BIGGEST Issue With Trump’s SCOTUS Immunity Case

Former president Donald Trump is battling multiple legal challenges. But everything could change if the Supreme Court rules that he has full presidential immunity. However, there’s a big issue. Former Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Andrew McCarthy joins Glenn to explain why he believes the Court may NOT grant Trump full immunity. Plus, Andrew weighs in on whether Trump has a chance of moving his trials away from New York and Washington, D.C. and why former presidents haven’t been taken to court before.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Andy McCarthy, a National Review contributing editor, the Institute's Senior fellow, and a former chief assistant US attorney general. We won't hold this against him.

He was a former US attorney in the -- in the district of Manhattan.

So we'll just leave that alone.

Andy, how are you?

ANDY: Glenn, I'm doing great. How are you?

GLENN: Very, very good.

So let's start with the big story. I think, and that is the Supreme Court.

And what they were arguing last week, can you give me your honest take on what -- what this is really about for the future. Beyond Donald Trump. And how you think this will affect what is happening with Donald Trump.

ANDY: Glenn, I think it's important that you frame a question that way. Because it seemed to me.

And I reread the transcript over the weekend.

After listening to the oral argument.

The court is a lot more concerned, about the presidency, than about Trump.

GLENN: Sure. Should be.

ANDY: Yeah.

And it's -- it's an important point make. Because a lot of the coverage, has been this hysteria over whether, you know, the Trump packed Supreme Court is in the tank for him.

And they're going to get rid of Jack Smith's prosecution.

I don't think that will happen at all.

It's possible that Smith won't get his case to trial.

Depending on what the court does.

What I think the court is going to do, is send the case back to judge chuck in. Who was the trial judge in Washington. With instructions to sort out what things in the indictment against Trump are what you would call official acts, that might arguably be immune from prosecution, because they go to the core responsibility of the presidency.

And what are private acts or private wrongs. That he would not have immunity for, even though they have been enduring his presidency.

But the -- the upshot of the questioning, of the lawyers. Including Trump's lawyer, and this is particularly by Justice Barron. Justice Kagan. Trump's lawyer admitted that there's a lot of conduct charged in the indictment, that is private conduct, that really wouldn't be covered by an immunity claim.

Even though Trump has been saying a lot of stuff about absolute, complete immunity. And I think the concessions he made in the argument, that is John Sauer. Trump's lawyer, would be enough. If Smith was willing to tailor his indictment, down to the things that Sauer conceded, they could go ahead with the trial on just those acts.

He would lose a lot of evidence, but he probably should.

GLENN: So what are some of the acts that could fall under -- you know, private, and so you could prosecute. And what are the acts that are the president, and you don't prosecute?

ANDY: Yeah. So the one bright line that we can take away from this. Is that there seems to be consensus, that there is a -- a divide between office seeking, and the carrying out of the duties of an office.

So if something is purely in the nature of trying to get reelected. That's deemed to be private. Because it's not part of the duty, of the presidency.

It would be the same for anyone who was seeking office. Whether that person was an incumbent or not.

And then there were other things, that are clearly presidential.

So just to give some solid examples. That came out of the argument. Trump's lawyer conceded, that if Trump made a private scheme with private lawyers to get electors, designated for him and to supply documents to the Congress. Suggesting that they were the authentic, actually slate of electors, designated by the state.

That would be private conduct.

Because it's -- it's purely office seeking. And he carried it out, only with private lawyers.

On the other hand, there's an allegation in the indictment, that Trump tried to use the justice department. To signal to states, that there were serious concerns about fraud. And consider both removing the attorney general, when he got pushback. And considered sending a letter, that they never sent from the Justice Department to the state of Georgia, to tell them, you know, that they needed to do more scrutiny over what happened in the popular election. Trump argued very strongly. And I think the court will probably go along with this. That that is the president's control over the Justice Department, is -- is purely a presidential act, that has no part in a criminal prosecution.

GLENN: Correct.

ANDY: On those are the kinds of things that they are talking about sorting out.

GLENN: When Trump sat another group of electors, or tried to. That's what -- that's what the friends of Dershowitz did. I don't remember all of the attorneys. In the 2000 election.

That's what they were recommending, to be done. You have to do that. Or you have no case.

ANDY: Yeah. Well, let me just be clear, Glenn. They're not saying that Trump wouldn't have a defense at trial.

What we're talking about now is purely immunity. That is who he got the trial from happening in the first place. I think there's significant defenses to the fraudulent electors playing. Beginning with the fact that the electors themselves, didn't think they were fraudulent. They thought they were contingent.

They thought they were basically sitting in as a slate of electors, in the event that Trump prevailed either in the state courts or in the state legislature, to throw out the popular election. Then that would activate.

But they weren't trying to fool anyone into saying, that they were the actual electors that had been certified by the state.

GLENN: Can you get a fair trial on that? If indeed he has to go to court?

ANDY: Well, I think it's tough for him to get a fair trial, in Washington.

GLENN: Why isn't -- why can't someone make the case here?

Why can't his people make the case? That you can't get a fair trial, with the jury pool in New York, or in Washington, DC.

ANDY: I think Trump's problem is he's too famous in some ways.

The problem is that unlike almost any other defendant, he goes and says, one of the things that they can always says about him. He's the most famous guy in the world. And no matter where you have the case, you have the same pretrial publicity problems. And they kind of reject out of hand, the thought that because a jurisdiction votes substantially against Trump as a political matter.

That means they can't be fair to him as a legal matter.

You know, you can -- you can debate that all you want. About whether that's a sensible distinction to draw or not.

But it's a distinction the courts draw.

GLENN: Okay. What do you think is come downtown pike on this?

Based on -- go ahead.

ANDY: Yeah. I think they will send the case back to Judge Chutkan with instructions to go through the indictment and figure out, what's a public act and what's a private act.

If Smith wants to fight on that, then he's never going to get to trial, prior to Election Day. Which, of course, is his aim.

Because this would still be a live immunity claim, and immunity is one of the few things that you can actually appeal pre-trial. So I don't see how he would get to trial. But I do think Smith, if he wants to. And if it's that important to him to get to trial, quickly. He could say, you know what, I will dispense with all of the acts that you say are immunized, official, presidential acts. And we will just go to the trial on the private stuff.

It would be a weaker case for him.

But it wouldn't be an unwinnable case.

GLENN: And what is the punishment?

ANDY: Well, that's an interesting question. Because that may depend on another Supreme Course case this term. The one they argued, a week before on the obstruction statute, that is key to Trump's case.

That obstruction statute has a 20-year penalty. And it's the two main counts in the indictment against Trump.

The other two counts only have five-year penalties. So if the Supreme Court says that it rejects the way the Justice Department has been using the obstruction statute. Which it might. Then that would require probably a big overhaul of Smith's case. Because those charges are very important to him.

But if the court upholds that statute. Which it also might. Then you are looking at a potential of, you know, 40 years imprisonment.

Now, he won't get 40 years. But statutorily, there would be 40 years imprisonment.

On those charges. And I think ten on the other two. The other two are fraud on the United States. And the civil rights charge.

So he would be looking at, you know, statutorily 50 years imprisonment. Which would indicate, under the sentencing guidelines, that he would get, I would think. You know, four or five, six years.

Of a sentence. If he gets convicted on those charges.

GLENN: Unbelievable. You know, last week, the Biden administration was making the case, well, Donald Trump is the on me one that has ever broken the law. That's why we've never had this before. That's such crap, and we all know it.

Why haven't we had this problem before?

ANDY: I think a lot of the criminal -- the potential prosecutable criminal conduct has come up, late in presidential terms. Like, for example, with Clinton.

The pardon scandal happened as he was going out the door. And I was in the Justice Department, at the time.

There was -- there was over a year of pretty intense debate within the Justice Department, about whether he ought to be charged with bribery or not. In connection with those pardons.

But I think there's -- maybe this has changed now.

But there's always been a current of like, when a new administration comes in. Particularly if it's a new administration of a different party. They don't want to revisit what happened, with the last guy.

They want to just go ahead, on their own stuff.

This whole idea, we're looking forward. We're not looking back. That certainly had a lot to do with why the Bush Justice Department didn't prosecute Clinton.

And I think with Obama, there was a lot of rhetoric, during the 2008 campaign, about war crimes against Bush and all that stuff.

But when they got into power. They not only weren't interested in prosecuting anyone on war crimes. They reopened the CIA investigation. But then they closed it.

But they actually ended up adopting a lot of Bush/Cheney counterterrorism.

You know, I think, there's a lot of rhetorical campaign stuff about how, you know, lock her up.

And we will put these guys in jail.

But it doesn't come to pass. I actually think Trump is serious about it, this time. Because they've seen what they've done to have.

That's why I thought it was amusing in the Supreme Court argument. For the government lawyers to get up and say, you know, you don't have to worry about this.

This is just generous with Trump, it will never happen again.

And in the meantime, Trump is ahead in the polls. And he's running as the retribution candidate. He's promised he's going to do this stuff, right?

So -- so it's an amazing time to be alive, right?

Andy, tell me about how Alvin Brag's doing, so far.

ANDY: It's a terrible case. I think -- I wrote a column about this today, called How Judge Merchan is Orchestrating Trump's Conviction.

And I was reminded of, you know, the fact that Trump when he was a young guy, learned a lot about litigation from Roy Cohen.

And, you know, what Cohen used to say, his first principle of hardball litigation was, don't tell me what the law is, tell me who the judge is.

And I think Trump knows that. He knows it very well.

And as I'm closely watching the rulings. That are being made. And the arguments that the judge is allowing to be made. It's clear, that he has allowed Bragg. And just, so the people understand, this case is indicted as a falsification of business records, that occurred in the months of February through December of 2017.

Those are the only charges in the indictment. The case is being presented to the jury, as a conspiracy from 2015 through 2017, to steal the 2016 election by violations of federal campaign finance law, which Alvin Bragg, as a state prosecutor, has no authority to enforce. And that's the way the case has been framed by the prosecutor.

Based on orders from the judge. And that is the way that they are proceeding, and judge -- and Judge Merchan is allowing the state to prove, that Michael Cohen, pled guilty to two campaign finance offenses. And that David Pecker, the AMI guy, who ran the National Enquirer. That they had a non-prosecution agreement from the Justice Department.

And then paid a fine of $180 of the Federal Election Commission.

For violating federal election law. Now, those -- it's a black letter principle of law. That one person -- let's say person A. His guilty plea is not admissible evidence against person B. Even if A says, A and B acted together.

It's absolutely improper for these -- for this evidence of what Michael Cohen and David Pecker was thinking about the federal election laws. The fact that they made deals with the government. None of that stuff should come in. The judge is letting it in.

And he's not letting Trump explain to the jury, that he, Trump, was not charged by the justice department or the FEC. And the reason is obvious.

Actually expenditures that were cognizable under the federal law.

And he's also not letting Trump call an expert witness to explain campaign lay to the jury.

So what the jury is going to hear about campaign law is going to come from Michael Cohen and David Pecker.

So it's a farce.

GLENN: How is this a fair trial?

If you can't call people -- and you can't let the -- the jury know. Truly, the other side of it?

TRENT: Yeah. Look, it's even more fundamentally unfair than that.

In the United States, under the fifth amendments of the Constitution.

You are entitled, that you will be charged with a felony.

It has to be on the basis of an indictment returned by a grand jury, that explicitly says what the charge is.

The indictment in this case, talks about false bookkeeping in 2017. A case that has been presented to the jury, is a conspiracy to violate the he federal election laws.

It's mind-boggling, that it's being permitted.

GLENN: Wow.

Andy, thank you so much.

I appreciate it.

This would definitely lose in a higher court, don't you think?

ANDY: I do. But I think it will be -- I mean, Harvey Weinstein's conviction just got reversed last week. That was three years.