Congress Will Allow the FBI to SPY on YOU, But Not THEM?!

Congress Will Allow the FBI to SPY on YOU, But Not THEM?!

Congress is voting on whether to re-authorize FISA Section 702, which would allow the FBI to secretly spy on Americans without warrants. Glenn speaks to 3 congressmen who are leading the charge to prevent this. First, Rep. Chip Roy accuses House Speaker Mike Johnson of standing in the way of an amendment to force the FBI to obtain warrants before spying on U.S. citizens. Then, Rep. Thomas Massie lays out the "biggest red flag" he's seen: “There’s 2 carve-outs in here for congressmen…Only if you’re a Senator or US Representative do they have to notify you” if they’re spying on you without a warrant. And lastly, Rep. Warren Davidson explains his his “Fourth Amendment is Not For Sale” amendment, which would put an end to this shady practice.


Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: House Republicans are divided. I don't know how they're divided on this.

Read the Constitution. Where do you find in the Constitution warrants, Pat?

PAT: Well, you have the Fourth Amendment. For instance.

GLENN: Which is?

PAT: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.

And no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause. Supported by oath or ampliation.

GLENN: So wait. Wait. Wait.

That's the Fourth Amendment. What does that mean?

The reason why this was written in, is because the king used to issue general warrants. And that meant Pat Gray, there's something wrong with him. Go find it. And they could look into anything.

They could go into your house, go through all of your papers. Where a warrant, now, our kind of warrant has to be sworn out. By the police and somebody else, you know, somebody tips them off.

And they say, look, I know he robbed somebody, or he killed somebody. And he's keeping their necklace in their house.

It's in his safe, in his wall, and in his bedroom. They go to the judge, and the judge says, really?

And listens to all of it. And he's supposed to be skeptical and protect your right to privacy.

But if they have enough evidence to make the judge go, I think you're right. He did.

Then he issues that specific warrant. They can't just go into your business. And everything else.

And just look through stuff.

They have to know what they're looking for, and generally, where it is.

PAT: And if they find something else, that incriminates them on some other issue. You can't use it.

GLENN: You can't use it, okay?

That's the Fourth Amendment. This is where we get warrants. This is why you can't just stop people in the streets, and search them.


This is why America doesn't say, papers please. You can't do that! Because of the Fourth Amendment. Now, we were all really drunk and stupid, when we passed the Patriot Act. And in the Patriot Act, it has Section 702.

And it's the foreign intelligence surveillance act.

And we ail talked about it, at the time. And we all trusted our government, at the time.

Strangely, except for actual liberals, which I don't think exist anymore.

And they were the ones that were saying, tonight. Don't do this.

This -- this will -- they will scoop Americans up into this.

PAT: And we said at the time, eh, that's fine. It's not going to happen. Because I was for it, at the very beginning.

A few weeks into it, I was like, oh, wait. It's going to be a problem.

I remember thinking, all they have to do is just change the meaning of terrorist. If they -- if they decide a group of Americans are terrorists, we're done.

And that's exactly what they've done now.

So what happens is, they -- they get a warrantless surveillance of foreigners.

We don't have to have a warrant on foreigners.

So they go to the FISA court, and they say, look, we're going to listen to these people.

And they don't need a warrant. And they go and they listen to those people.

The problem is: It's a giant chain.

That person, if that person is foreign, and he calls somebody here in America, then that person is tracked.

And everyone else that he talks to. And everyone else that they talk to.

And so on. And so on.

Do you remember the old -- you know, the shampoo commercial?

And so on. And so on. And it kept dividing itself, until the whole screen was just nothing, but faces.

That's exactly what is happening. And they are scooping up all kinds of information on you. That doesn't have anything to do, with terror overseas.

This has got to stop. You know, when they -- when they built, after 9/11, they built the visitor's center of Washington, DC.

What you don't know, is -- or may not know.

Is underneath the visitor's center, we don't even know how many floors, there are.

Underneath that.

It's all top secret.

Your -- some of your senators and some of your Congressmen can't even get into the floors. They're top secret, because they're FISA courts.

We know now, that the FISA courts are completely corrupt. We know that the FBI is changing the facts, when they go to the court.

They're changing -- they've actually changed, sworn testimony. And no one is punished for it.

We cannot allow section 702 to pass.

Now, there is a -- an amendment to the bill. That has been suggested.

But the bill is coming up, this week. The G.O.P. representative Laura Lee of Florida, is the one who has put the amendment in.

Titled reforming intelligence and securing America act. It would reauthorize section 702 of FISA for five years.

And aims to impose a series of reforms. I don't believe any of the reforms.

I don't believe those will ever happen. We have given the keys to everything about us.

To the government. And the government has turned hostile on many Americans.

So, what do we do? We have Chip on yet?

CHIP: We passed a rollout committee yesterday, that would include -- that had a rule that said we will have a vote on a warrant. The problem is that the Speaker of the House, has now come out against the warrant amendment. That's a problem. Because the Speaker has pit his finger on the scale to shift the conversation. And to say publicly, we don't need the warrant.

GLENN: What the hell is wrong with this guy?

CHIP: Well, that's for another conversation. For the purpose of today, when we go to the floor, in an hour and 40 minutes, we're bringing to the floor under a bill that has an amendment to add the Fourth Amendment protection, the warrant protection that we could still pass, but seems like we won't. Because the speaker has put his finger on the scales.

So now since the speaker has done that, we now have to decide, whether or not we stop the whole process by killing the rule.

And then force it to be only reauthorized under its current form.

Which, of course, still wouldn't give us the protection of the warrant.


CHIP: But our concern is, there are other amendments in this, that would expand FISA in the name of going after --

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

CHIP: Right. And so, for example, there is well-intended legislation, to go after. To be able to collect data. Collect information. Relative to drug trafficking like fentanyl.

The problem is, in the definition, about precursors, and other stuff. It expands FISA. Expands the amount of information they were collecting. You could be about talking about an American citizen, buying, you know, whatever. Cold medicine.

That's the precursor for making meth.

So we're all alarmed, that it's expanding FISA, and we're trying to run all these pieces to ground.

Meanwhile, that's all stuff that's been added to it. You know, by the leadership.

So now, we're trying to figure out, what we do. With a rule here at noon.

We are conflicted because of the current regime, doesn't have the Fourth Amendment warrant, you know, a language in there.

Obviously, we still have protections in American citizens under the Constitution. But if you don't put this provision in place, it's not as strong in terms of what we're trying to do to protect American citizens.

THOMAS: The biggest red flag in this. And I spent 15 minutes last night. The rules committee, going back and forth to the chairman of the Intel committee. We finally got him to admit, this is inside his bill. A carve-out for congressmen. I don't know if Chip mentioned it.

GLENN: No. He didn't.

THOMAS: Okay. They are trying to tell you, they have 53 reforms in here that will take care of all the problems. Well, the congressman who are voting for this aren't convinced, because they get a carve-out. There's two carve-outs here for congressmen.

Number one, the FBI is surveilling you, using FISA. They're going into this database, and searching with your name and your congressman. And they're ostensibly doing it for your own good.

Because they're worried about foreign actors. They have to notify you.

Only if you're a congressman. Only if you're a senator or US representative.

Do they have to notify you. And I asked, why did they put that in there? They were afraid of political bias.

What about school boards? Aren't you afraid of political bias there? And oh, by the way, does this apply to candidates, or just incumbent congressmen? It only applies to incumbent congressmen. How special is that?

So my solution here is, get a warrant. And then you don't have to put out carve-outs for congressmen.

GLENN: Correct.

THOMAS: And here's what's especially despicable about the carve-out. That's to get congressmen's votes. There's at least one Congressman we know -- Darin LaHood. He's said this publicly. He's on the Intel community, and he was being spied on by the Intel community.

He's responsible for their oversight. So he was worried enough about this. That he insisted, there would be some provision. Now, his concern is legitimate.

I'm not tingeing him, per se.

GLENN: No. I know.

THOMAS: For asking for this. It should be solved for everybody, not just congressmen.

GLENN: Thank you. So tell us what your amendment actually will do.

WARREN: Okay. So the amendment we have is called the Fourth Amendment is not for sale. So one of the most important ones in the bill is to get a warrant.

And let's go back in the fall. The base tax had getting a warrant, and the -- what is the Fourth Amendment not for sale do?

It prevents the federal government from buying data from data brokers that they would otherwise have to get a warrant for a subpoena to obtain. So it was in the data broker loophole. So it was in the base text. The Speaker essentially works with the Intel committee to gut the bill, of some of these important provisions.

And at least the warrant requirement is going to be able to be offered as an amendment. But he basically strips the Fourth Amendment is not for sale, from even getting a vote.

And part of the reason, I still remember, you know, a long time member of Congress, again, Walter Jones, asked him one time when a bill was popular in the House. Passed with like 420 some votes.

Only seven no votes. Would help solve a problem. Be popular with the public. Why in the world won't the Senate pick this up?

And he said, well, I hate to be cynical. But probably because it would pass. And why would they strip this out?

Well, because Dick Durbin, who is the Chairman of Judiciary in the Senate has a similar bill in the Senate, and Chuck Schumer is a cosponsor.

So this is an issue that does not break on party lines. When it was offered as a standalone bill in the Judiciary Committee last summer, it passed 36 to one through the committee. So how often did Jim Jordan and Jerry Nadler agree on something? Pretty rare.

But this is one that at least, this isn't a total party line issue like so many other things are.

GLENN: So they're stripping it out.

And he's actually going around the rules to make sure that it's -- that it never makes it to the floor, is it he not?

WARREN: Well, it doesn't make it as part of this debate. He has offered to give us a vote at a later time. But this is the problem.

If it's not attached to something that has passed like FISA. Well, of course, the administration wants to keep spying on Americans. They have already said that. So if there was a way to pass it through the House -- and even if there is a way to pass it through the Senate. The administration, you know, simply would veto it.

That's why it should be part of the FISA debate. That's why the judiciary committee had it as part of the base text of the bill, that essentially the Speaker reworked.

GLENN: So I'm hoping that most of the people that are hearing your voice right now, are the kind of people that maybe used to say. Well, I don't have anything to worry about.

Because I'm not doing anything illegal.

And realize now, the government has turned hostile towards American citizens.

And all of the information that is out there, it's very dangerous for individuals.

Tell me what -- why the average person should care. Why does this matter?

You know, to those people who are not breaking the law, et cetera, et cetera?

WARREN: Well, the barbecue to the founding of the country, and why was the revolution ticked off. One of the major causes according to John Adam was the general warrant stop the king. King George was basically saying, well, we're looking for bad people. So under the guise of looking for bad people, we will just come and rummage through your personal effects. And, you know, in the concept of privacy.

Well, the Fourth Amendment doesn't say, well, if you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear.

It says that as an American, you have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

That without probable cause, and they can't search your stuff, and with probable cause, they have to get a warrant. Even for really bad people.

Even to go after pedophiles. You have to get a warrant. And that's the way. The foreign surveillance act, is designed to collect intelligence on foreigners. That part is broadly supported.

It's been very effective. We want to stop threats to our country. But when it comes to citizens, there's a reason there's no Domestic Surveillance Act. It's because the Fourth Amendment says that we have an expectation of privacy.

And we have to defend that. It's probably the most infringed part of the Bill of Rights at this point.

GLENN: So what is the most effective thing people can do today?

WARREN: Call their member of Congress. Tell them to demand that their number of votes are for a warrant requirement. And ask them to say, we should be voting on the Fourth Amendment is not for sale.

The government should not be circumventing the warrant requirement, to buy data, that they would otherwise get a warrant. They don't want the warrant requirement in the first place. But in the event, that should pass, in a lot of ways, they're saying, well, it's not as consequential. Because we could just buy our ways around it.

Why Democrats May REGRET Choosing Chicago for the DNC

Why Democrats May REGRET Choosing Chicago for the DNC

Biden and the Democratic Party are doing everything they can to appease the radical pro-Palestine, anti-Israel wing of the Left. But they may be in for a rude awakening come the Democratic National Convention in August because the city they chose — Chicago — doesn’t just have an insane crime rate. It has the largest Palestinian population in the United States, and many of them are being provoked by radical leftist groups. Just as Glenn predicted back at Fox News, the communists, anarchists, and Islamists are coming together to destroy the western way of life. But it’s no longer just him saying that. Capital Research Center investigative researcher Ryan Mauro joins Glenn to lay out why he believes another “summer of rage” is about to begin.


Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Tonight, we're going to talk about, is a Colour Revolution coming to the United States of America?

And Colour Revolution is many things. But it is top-down, bottom-up, inside-out. We've talked about it for years. It is the way we have overthrown countries. And now I believe our own country are operatives in and out of our own country, have declared a war in America. And our republic itself.

There -- there was a declaration of war, that was -- was -- announced over the weekend.

And it comes from those who support Hamas.

Those who make war, do not deserve peace.
The Palestinian resistance continues to escalate against the Zionist statements institutions and so are we. We will take this building. We refuse to allow normal life to continue, while violence is done to our communities here and everywhere.

We must escalate our actions against all governments. Institutions. And corporations who participate in, profit off of, and enable genocide.

There must be a consequence to their property. Income. Reputation.

Privacy and safety.

This is what they're planning now for the summer.

And a guy, and the fall. And one of the guys who was really been on top of this. And has been studying the -- I think about 100 different groups like this.

Is Ryan Mauro. He's a capital research center. Investigative researcher. And counterterrorist expert. And friend of the show.

Ryan, welcome to the program.

RYAN: Hey, Glenn, thank you so much for having me back.

GLENN: Thank you. So who is this group? And what are the groups that you're looking at? I saw something about a month ago from you that said you were shocked when you got in and started seeing the results come back. Because they're not hiding their connections, to Hamas.

A terrorist group.

RYAN: Right. It's really remarkable in how different from the past rising, that we saw, destroy parts of American cities in recent years, in that, their extremism is just so in your face. And the groups that are behind the student protest. And awful these actions that are happening off-campus.

That the majority of them are openly communist.

Or socialist.

And then they define that in a way that means communist. Anarchist.

Or they have Islamic extremist ties. And you go to their Facebook ties.

You go to their Instagram account.

They're praising the October 7th attack.

What really surprised me. We're used to the situation, where the extremist groups kind of come in and hijack things. And cause a lot of trouble.

And our line on our side, is usually look at how many of them are involved.

The higher percentage than you realize.

This is wholly dominated by militant revolutionists.

And as well as Islamic extremists.

All of them kind of coming together, under this anticolonial revolutionary narrative.

And they're saying that every day.

That this is not just about Israel at all.

GLENN: So you're saying, I want to get this straight. Communist. Anarchists.

Islamists. Are all coming together, to work together, to destroy maybe the Western way of life.

RYAN: Yes. And they worked together before. But now it's like a full integration.

I mean, there are groups that will consist of all those components working together. And calling for violence.

And I mean, just the other day. Like two days ago.

I saw one of these major anarchist groups online. Called the escalate network. That a lot of them follow.

Just blatantly said, that all three people, should send the New York editorial board to hell.

Saying, it was their obligation to actually do that. Make them go to hell. Kill them.

And that just shows, how little reporting is on this.

Because they have thousands of followers. Someone should have caught that.

GLENN: So what are we in for this summer? And this fall?

RYAN: It's going to be bad. And it might be -- it's very possible, that you see a rise, like we've seen before.

But what they're talking about are loss of direct actions. Because they're usually protests in their minds.

So it's more like sabotage.

They're talking about, especially the first week of July.

Blocking ports. Interpreting any kind of shipping going to Israel. A lot of anti-police activities planned.

A lot about fighting them. About doing deer arrest as they call them. Or to pay someone, and everybody swarms and attacks and frees the person.

And then there's just a lot of chatter about the DNC convention in August. And I think --

GLENN: This is 1968. This is 1968 all over again. All over again. Is it not?

RYAN: Yeah. They will regret choosing Chicago. Chicago has the largest House city and population in the United States. And it's like the headquarters for all these radical groups that they put together. I don't know who their security consultants were.

But, man, did they make a bad call.

GLENN: Wow. I didn't know that about Chicago.

I knew that about Michigan and Minnesota. Being very Arab in nature now.

But not Chicago. That's the largest population of Palestinians.

RYAN: Yeah. Just solely Palestinians. Not Arab overall. Or Muslim overall.

GLENN: So let me ask you: The president is doing everything he can, to try to get the Muslim and Arab vote.

And they're saying, no. Move on, from Biden.

Are they serious about that, do you think?

I hate to make this about politics.

But are they serious? Or is that just --

RYAN: Yeah. They're serious. I thought it was just a fake at first.

Now I'm seeing the passion they're putting into it.

And how much credibility they're investigating in it.

So I think a lot of them obviously are just saying it. And are going to switch back to them.

When the time comes. But the people are really into this type of stuff.

This anti-Israel stuff. I actually think they will move away.

Here's the thing. And this is important for the DNC convention. They will make it appear, as if their actual Biden reporters, a part of his base. A lot of them, the anti-communist types. Hated him.

They're not actually his base. So they're going to freak out. Saying, look at all these voters.

All these organizations.

It never happened to begin with, most of them.

GLENN: So why are unions involved in so much of this stuff, all over the world?

Like SEIU is over in Ukraine. They seem to be involved in these things. Are there any unions involved, in this, that you've tracked down funding from?

EDWIN: Yeah, parts of a few. Like different sections of them.

But not wholesale. Certainly, not like a major labor movement. There are some coalitions that will say, labor from Palestine.

You look at them. And the same groups are popping up, under every other coalition name. Pro-Hamas, and actually not representative of any type of labor movement.

But, yeah, there was one -- trying to see. United Auto Workers. Did a walkout, at the university of California.

That's an example. And why this happens, I mean, it just -- they say they care about the issue. I don't know the underlying reason is.

I don't know if I could make a blanket judgment about them.

GLENN: Right.

RYAN: But one of the other things that it's important for people to know, the anarchist elements, the real elements are moving away from taking credit in the name of any organization. They just want the movement to take credit. And that's what happened in my article that just came out about in Chicago, when they see the Institute of Politics and made that Declaration of War.

GLENN: That's terrifying.

RYAN: Right. Yeah.

GLENN: Terrifying.

RYAN: I mean, it was so blatant.

GLENN: No. It is.

It is -- you know, there's one thing to express. That you can't incite violence.

And many my opinion, that is the clearest incitement of violence that I have seen in America.

For a very, very long time.

And is anybody looking into this? Is anybody questioning anything?

RYAN: I don't know how to provide intelligence for the authorities before.

And it's been acted upon.

And I don't know how far-reaching overall effort is.

It's actually hard to get a window into that. Yeah. People will say, well, the group is just a small handful of students. But if you see how the social networks behind all this operate. The statement came out on the major anarchist groups, social media page, and then it was the other major ones.

No. It is reflective of the movement and their objectives. Like they say, overthrowing the system.

And whenever you see one of these far left groups calling the US turtle island. What they're referring to, is basically sort of how they say Israel has occupied Palestine. They're saying, this is occupied Native American land.

What theory saying, the US has no right to exist.

Just as Israel has no right to exist. That's what that is saying.

GLENN: Jeez. Ryan, I appreciate it.

Let's stay in touch this summer. Because I have a feeling, you will be very, very, very busy. But we would like to get on your calendar, whenever you have updates on all of this.

How involved is Open Society Foundation?

RYAN: What's hard researching the grants. Is that there's all sorts of ways to hide money. But when it comes to the grants, of what you get from public records. Is that groups like Open Society. George Soros. Tides Foundation. All these really big liberal groups. They give out grants. And you don't really know, necessarily how they're being implemented.

And so they might give a bunch of money to a pro-Hamas group. You can say, well, it didn't go to the protest.

And it didn't go to sabotage.

GLENN: You would still, you're giving money to a pro-Hamas. I think that's bad enough.

Maybe my standards are --

RYAN: They will say. Oh, we didn't know. It's terrorism.

These pro-terrorism groups. We condemn terrorism. Their definition of terrorism is just a completely different one.

GLENN: Yeah. Ryan, thank you so much. God bless. Keep up the good work. You bet. Ryan Mauro. He's a capital research center. Investigative research and counterterrorism expert.

Been on the program several times. And we're going to go through, some of these organizations. And NGOs that are funding the -- the Colour Revolutions around the country.

And show you some of the -- our researcher, chief researcher Jason Buttrill. Has been working on this for three months, maybe. And we have really done our homework on this. I need to see it. Because you need to see what's coming this summer.

I think Ryan is exactly right, about Chicago, God help us. And the fall.

And these aren't the only groups that are not going to start popping up. They are going to start popping up on different subjects. And they are all going to look disconnected. And they're all going to cause chaos. And -- and God help us. God help us, if somebody, either side is shot and killed, in this -- in this time period.

That's the only thing we're missing from '68, really, is assassinations.

And God help us.

God save the republic.

The TRUTH About Israel’s “Genocide” in Gaza

The TRUTH About Israel’s “Genocide” in Gaza

The International Criminal Court has accused Israel of committing genocide in Gaza and is even seeking an arrest warrant for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. But are the cries of “genocide” accurate? As the media keeps “all eyes on Rafah,” Glenn speaks with acclaimed historian Edwin Black to get the truth. Black explains whether Israel has met the 5 qualifications of genocide, why the ICC doesn’t even have jurisdiction over this debate, and how all of this have affected Jews around the world. Plus, he also argues that President Biden doesn’t even care about the Palestinians. Instead, he has another “two-state solution” in mind.


Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: A man who I have tremendous respect for, because of his overall body of work, he has more than 2.2 million books in print. For half a century, he has worked and focus odd human rights. Genocide.

Organized hate. Corporate criminality. And corruption. Governmental misconduct. Academic fraud.

All of it. Been nominated 14 times for a Pulitzer prize. And I don't believe has ever won, one. Which is an amazing -- just an amazing thing, because I've read his books.

And they are important. Edwin Black. Welcome to the program, sir. How are you?

EDWIN: I'm fine. And thank you very much for having me, Glenn. And all the work that you do.

GLENN: Yeah. Thank you. So I want to talk to you a little bit about the -- the organization of this takedown of Israel. What we had a fire now in -- somebody set the embassy in Mexico on fire.

The Israeli embassy.

They're threatening to do it here.

And at the same time, the International Criminal Court is going after Benjamin Netanyahu, and I believe -- I believe we didn't try to stop that, at best.

EDWIN: Well, you're absolutely correct.

Not only did we not try to stop it. We orchestrated it.

So there are two different courts, which are confusing people. And which have absolutely no jurisdiction, in the false charge of genocide against Israel.

The first one is the international court of justice. This is traffic court.

This -- this court was established, in the early 20th century, to solve border disputes, contractural breaches.

Tax levies. And other matters between countries. It has no prosecutor.

It has no enforcement arm.

And it has never considered all of the many genocides in the 20th century. Not the rape of in an -- the rape of Nanking. The massacre of 80,000 Jews by Ukrainians.

It -- nothing against the Nazis. And, in fact, it took the -- the -- because there was no actual arm of investigation and prosecution, for crimes against humanity, it was the United States military, that established the IMT. The -- the international military tribunal. Often known as Nuremberg. To try the perpetrators of the Third Reich.

And they established a separate one, for the Japanese.

GLENN: So is this the ICC, or the ICJ?

EDWIN: This is the ICJ. The International Court of Justice.

GLENN: And which is going after -- are both of them going after Netanyahu?

EDWIN: Both of them. Both of them. And neither have them have jurisdiction. Basically, what South Africa did, was they put up the false claim. That everyone has agreed to not commit genocide. And Israel breached its contractural duty.

GLENN: You know, when you look up genocide and the steps to genocide, I believe you're the guy who invented, or -- or wrote the original -- what is it, seven or eight steps to genocide. Are you not?

EDWIN: Well, of course, I identified the six steps, that IBM took to organize the Nazi genocide against the Jews.

But the five qualifications of genocide, require a deliberate act. Which, by the way, was written on the campus of Duke University.

GLENN: Okay.
EDWIN: The five steps require a deliberate intention to destroy a people and/or to call for the destruction of people.

And that would include not only Goebbels, calling for the Jews to be destroyed.

But Rashida Tlaib, calling for, from the river to the sea. Palestine will be free.

So the International Court of Justice is a show trial, in a traffic court of international jurisprudence. Israel is cooperating. And it's stacked against them.

Now we go to the International Criminal Court.

The International Criminal Court, did not exist until a couple of years -- a couple of years ago.

It -- it established a lone statute. Which 124 countries, have accepted. And the United States is not one of them.

And Israel is not one of them. And Palestine, a non-state, a territory, a region, is also not one of them.

In fact, when you go to the official list of the ICC of member states. Palestine is not one of them. And this organization is seeking not only to bring Israel down, but it is seeking to bring American service men down. Especially, those who served in Afghanistan, and this is why the prior administration of the United States, sanctioned the ICC.

GLENN: Yeah. Now, you say that we helped orchestrate this, that Biden encouraged these warrants.

EDWIN: Yes. There has been a concerted -- that basically Biden is not concerned about the Palestinian state.

Its two-state solution is Minnesota and Michigan.

EDWIN: He's -- he's concerned about the 200,000 votes in Michigan, which is a swing state.

Which have vowed to not vote for Biden.

Even if it means electing Trump, as a punishment, or a warning to a Democratic Party. Which they've just announced. It's all very public.

In which, they will complete their takeover. Of the Democratic Party.

And engage in the disposition of the Jews in America.

And the disposition of America, from sea to shining sea.

And so, everything that is being said by the administration now, is walking between these two-third rails. The pro-Jewish majority in the United States, which is upward of 70 percent, and the need to curry favor with the Michigan votes.

GLENN: So have you ever looked -- have you ever looked into the -- the psychological game or reason, that, you know, when -- when persecution is happening, like it is now. I would think, if I were a Jew. I would be freaking out, right now.

And I -- I would be thinking, where could I go?

You know, you're leaving America. I don't know where else you would go. But so many Jews will just continue to go down the same path with the same leaders that are clearly against. That are siding with the people who do want genocide with all the Jews. Why does that happen?

EDWIN: It's quite a correct observation by you. I remember the last time, that I was on your show.

It was last -- it was one of the last times. It was last year.

GLENN: Yeah.

EDWIN: And there were people in your audience, who were from Oklahoma. Offering me a basement. To hide in.

Right after your show, I had a meeting with Jewish leaders in Dallas. And these are Texans. And they were asking me, what country will take us in? I'm in touch with Jewish leadership. All over the world.

On a minute-to-minute basis. And I can tell you, this is on everyone's mind. It's on my show, tomorrow.

The Edwin Black Show. We will be discussing, not only the Farhud.

Which is for the -- established by International Farhud Day. But that the Farhud.

This pogrom, is coming, not to the Middle East next, but to the United States next.

GLENN: Explain what the Farhud. Explain what the Farhud is.

This is -- this is a great book of yours. Explain in two minutes, if you can. What the Farhud is.

EDWIN: Well, the Farhud was the Arab Nazi pogrom of June 1st, June 2nd, that was the beginning of the end of the 2700 year dwelling of the Jews, in Iraq.

During this two-day monstrosity, this is how it's been described for years.

So it may sound eerily familiar. Parents were killed in front of their children. Children were killed in front of their parents. Babies were beheaded. Women were raped, en masse.

And I know what that sounds like.

GLENN: October 6th.

EDWIN: That sounds not like 1949. That sounds like October 7th, 2023.

GLENN: So do you think though, that Jews in America, are waking up and saying, wait a minute. These -- the people who I have always thought are our friends, are maybe not our friends.

EDWIN: They're waking up, not en masse. They're waking up, en slow.

One by one. I received a call from one of my supporters, who is fervently, and dramatically anti-Trump. And pro-Biden.

Several days ago when I was in Israel, he ended up visiting these massacre sites.

And this guy said, I just realized that if the election goes the wrong way, Israel and the Jews are finished.

And that is exactly what is in the it became plan. The State Department is stuck with leadership, for students with justice in Palestine.

People who are avowed and public anti-Semites. And anti-Israel activists. And believe you me, if the wrong people get into power, by this time next -- next year, there will be an active program to destroy Israel, within weeks. By recognizing Hamas, arming Hamas, supplying -- supplying aid. A munitions train, to Hamas.

Making -- sanctioning Israel, its leadership, and the Jews in America, who support Israel which are the overwhelming number of Jews.

GLENN: Well, I -- I will tell you. Edwin, I -- I pray that you're wrong. You're usually not. But I pray that you're very wrong on that.

EDWIN: I need to be wrong. I need to be wrong.

GLENN: I know you do. But I also want you to know, like, for instance, there's 12 million people in just this audience on radio alone. And I believe that there are tons of good Americans, that will not allow what happened before, to happen again, at least in our own country.

But I pray for that. I pray that you're wrong. Edwin, thank you for everything. I know I tell you this every time, but I mean it so sincerely.
What you've done, to open eyes, about history. There are very few people in my book, that have done as much as you have. And I so appreciate it. Thank you.

EDWIN: Thank you, very much, Glenn.

GLENN: You bet. Edwin Black.

IBM and the Holocaust. The Farhud.

That's a book you should read. It kind of explains an awful lot of what's happening now. And you can find him at All right.

Dershowitz: The ONLY REASON Trump Could Be Found GUILTY in New York

Dershowitz: The ONLY REASON Trump Could Be Found GUILTY in New York

The New York hush money case against former president Donald Trump is "the weakest case" attorney Alan Dershowitz has seen in his 60 years of practicing law. But yet, the jury may still convict him, the media is freaking out over it, and now, the Biden campaign is even holding events with Robert De Niro outside the courthouse. Dershowitz joins Glenn to explain the "only explanation for this case going forward" and how a guilty verdict "could hurt America more than it could hurt Donald Trump." Plus, he reveals something that the judge hid from the jury and what he would do if he was Trump's attorney.


Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Alan Dershowitz, with me to the program. How are you, sir?

ALAN: I'm doing great. I'm very concerned about what's going on in the Manhattan courthouse today. Because they hurt America, more than they could can hurt Donald Trump.

This is the weakest, worst case, I have seen in my 60 years of practicing law.

GLENN: Jeez.

ALAN: And because it's New York, because this is a jury of New Yorkers, and a judge.
There might be a conviction here.

It would be a horrible, horrible blemish. Stain on the American justice system, if that were to happen.

GLENN: You know, Jonathan Turley wrote a great article. I don't know if you saw this. About this trial.

And the last -- the last line is something along the lines of, you know, a three-legged stool in every court case. And this is the most wobbly, without a leg to stand on. And he said, it's not Donald Trump standing on that tool. That is -- that's something that is going to affect all of us, deeply.

And I don't even what an it means, if a -- a court like this, can -- can find any man guilty, like this, because he's unpopular, where is justice, Alan?

ALAN: Or because he's too popular. In this case.

GLENN: Yeah.

ALAN: It means, we're becoming more like, we're not there.

But more like Stalin. Soviet Union. Where Beria said, Stalin, show me the man, and I will find you the crime. Look, I wrote book called Get Trump. That's the only explanation for this case, going forward. A desire to get Trump.

The people, the prosecutors campaigned on the pledge to get Trump. They said, they would find a crime. They couldn't find a crime. Because there is no crime.

So they made one up. They put an expired misdemeanor, together with some select crimes. And they came up with an absurd felony, in this case.

And then they had to use, as their main witness, a guy who has a long, long history of lying, stealing, and they have to depend on his credibility. To prove that Trump actually knew that these payments would be made, and were being listed as legal payments, rather than as reimbursement for a non-disclosure agreement. It's the most absurd.

GLENN: I wonder if -- if Cohen will even be charged with a crime. He admitted under oath, that he stole. No?

ALAN: Yeah. I was hoping for a Perry Mason moment. When he said that on the witness stand, the police would come and put the handcuffs on him and take him away, but that didn't happen. It should have happened.

GLENN: Yeah. Tell me, I was on the jury once.

And the judge, we kept asking him. And he would come in. And he would say, I can't tell you anything.

I can't tell you that.

We would ask the bailiff, can we get this from the judge? Et cetera.

And the judge, he was in a position of power. And he really seemed like our friend.

And really seemed like we could trust him, to make the right decision. You know what I mean?

ALAN: And that's the real problem with our system of justice.

This judge, for example, is a benevolent despot when the jury is there.

He's so nice.

To the jury.

And as soon as the jury goes out. I was one of the only spectators to stay out of the courtroom.

When he emptied it -- then his true sense came out.

Remember the psycho in Taxi Driver?

You talking to me? You looking at me? You talking to me?

That's what he was basically saying to the witness. He hated the fact that the witness.

GLENN: Raised his eyes.

ALAN: Raised his eyes. Or, you know -- to stand and threatened to strike the witness testimony. The jury should have seen that.

And, by the way, the American public should have seen that.

Been on television. The fact that it's on television, is terrible.

GLENN: So, Alan, the thing with the judge. He gives the instructions.

How -- how horribly could that go wrong with him?

Or can -- are there some limits to what he gives as instructions?

ALAN: The limits come in the Court of Appeals, and that can come only after the election. For example, the crucial instruction is going to be ladies gentleman of the jury. The prosecution could have called Alan Weisselberg. He was the other person at that alleged meeting, where the crime occurred.

And the only other witness at that meeting was Cohen, who you shouldn't believe.

But Weisselberg could have been called. The prosecution didn't call him. They could have given an (inaudible), if he had pleaded the Fifth Amendment, but they didn't do it.

And you should, therefore, infer, that had they called him, he would have given them testimony adverse to the prosecution.

GLENN: But he can't say that in closing arguments. Right?

ALAN: He can. If the judge allows that instruction to be given.

If I was a defense attorney, let me tell you what I would do.

I would get a life size picture of Alan Weisselberg. I would put it in the witness stand. And I would say, ladies and gentlemen, you see this picture? That's all you need to see. This picture.

Because the prosecution made a decision not to call this witness. And when you go in that jury room, I want you to be thinking of that picture.

I want you to be thinking of why, only a picture. And not the real witness appeared in this courtroom.

And, you know, would the judge allow that? I don't know. I would try it certainly.

GLENN: And he can't say -- he cannot bring up the FEC was not allowed to --

ALAN: No. He's not going to be able to bring that up.

There's a lot of stuff he wasn't able to bring up. He wasn't allowed to introduce an expert witness, who was the country's leading expert on the FEC. The jury is going to be allowed to conclude, that maybe this was an election fraud.

Even though, the experts say, it wasn't.

So there's a lot of problems with this case.

GLENN: Alan, what does your gut tell you, that will happen after the closing arguments on both sides?

ALAN: My gut says, possibly hung jury.

Let me tell you why: I was in the court lounge watching the jurors very carefully, and I couldn't tell whether they were inclined toward conviction or acquittal. What I could tell, is they didn't seem to like each other that much. They didn't seem to have a close relationship, which jurors sometimes have.

And that is more -- that inclines one to think, that maybe they won't agree. Maybe they will be a hung jury. But we won't know.

The TERRIFYING New ESG Rule that Glenn WARNED About is NOW HERE

The TERRIFYING New ESG Rule that Glenn WARNED About is NOW HERE

The European Union just gave its final approval for a new ESG requirements that will affect companies around the world. Glenn has been warning about this law for years and now, he says there’s only one way to stop it. But why should Americans be worried about EU regulations? Well, Glenn explains how ALL companies will either have to comply or abandon doing business with not just the EU, but any big company that does business in the EU. Plus, he breaks down how it could “destroy the petroleum industry” and even lead to YOU getting a social credit score.


Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: We have -- I have some good news and I have some bad news. Which do you want first?

STU: I'm a glutton for punishment. We'll take the bad news first.

GLENN: Okay. Hmm. You sure?

Okay. Here we go.

This is -- this is extraordinarily bad news from the European Union.

This is something that I have been warning listeners and readers with for over three years now.

It was included in both The Great Reset, and the Dark Future books.

We really went into it, at Dark Future, talking about, this -- this can't happen.

If this happens. Don't, no. Really.

Well, it's just happened. We've talked about it on the air several times. But I don't -- now it's official. And it's in writing. And so I'm going to explain it. And tell you what it is, and what it's going to do.

It looked like this bill was going to tie several times over the past few months. In fact, Justin Haskins and I had a big argument. Should have made a 3,000-dollar bet with him.

And then I could have paid you off for the Michelle Obama thing. But he said it would fail. And it did not. Now it's one of the biggest threats to freedom in America, both in the short and in the long-term, because this law, because of this law in Europe, our society, through corporate decision making and business partnerships, are going to be forced to conform with the European rules, values, and environmental standards. European social justice metrics are now officially, they have to be imposed on America, through this law.

The only thing that will change this, is if Congress acts, and the president acts.

This president and this at least Senate, will never stop this.

Here's what's going to happen: The EU has established an extraordinarily complex, very large ESG system, that covers all companies, and when I say all companies. All companies, will need to comply with.

This includes both covered companies. Based in the US. As well as non-EU companies, such as those in America and in Canada, that operate in the EU.

So, in other words, you sell, I think it's half a billion dollars' worth of stuff. And you have to comply. You sell a half a billion dollars in Europe. Just under that. Then you have to comply.

But so do all of the companies that you do business with.

So if you're a small company and you're making winkling it's, and you sell them to a company that is making big money. And I wonder if this applies to Amazon.

You sell something on Amazon, that's a company that's making at least half a billion dollars in Europe. You're going to have to comply.

The -- the covered companies, will be required to submit reports to the European government authorities, if they are EU-based customers. Or companies with more than a thousand employees. And a world wild turnover of more than $489 million.

Turnover is another word for revenue. Or income.

But why wouldn't you say that? This word bothers me. I just think it's one of those words like stakeholders. And nobody knows what it means. And then you hear stakeholders, and you know what it means. You're like, oh, crap, that's everybody.

Non-EU-based companies, such as U.S. companies now, fall under the requirements if they have a net turnover of more than $489 million with the European Union.

Franchise and licensing agreements as well as subsidiaries of larger companies.

Will also fall under the EU's ESG regime.

I don't know exactly the lawyers have not even really explained this yet.

But we have been covering this for so long.

We think we know what this means. But licensing agreements. I write books. Some of them sell in Europe.

Simon & Schuster sells books like crazy over in Europe.

They're making over 489 million I'm sure, in Europe.

Am I now forced to comply?

Thank God I have Mercury, Inc. now, and I don't have to do Simon & Schuster. But am I required?

Most importantly, all covered companies will need to ensure that the businesses in their supply and value chains. I don't know what that means. Do you know what supply and value chain is?

Stu, you're the head of Ford. Have you checked your value change?

What is exactly the numbers on your value change? What the hell does that mean?

STU: Value chain or value chains?

GLENN: Value chains.

STU: I mean, I'm very in touch with my value chains on a daily basis.

GLENN: Yeah, okay. Also, those companies, anybody who makes a widget for these companies has to adhere to the relevant ESG you rules. Remember, ESG is environmental, social, and governance.

So could you have enough, you know, gay -- gay, black, hermaphrodites, that only have one leg.

Do you have them on your board?

Well, why not?

That's your governance part. Social is all of the social justice crap, that we have been fighting. And E, of course, is environment.

This bill, by the way, will destroy the petroleum industry. And don't worry, petroleum, it's not used at anything. Nothing can make petroleum.

This will indirectly impose Europe's ESG standards on countless American companies, including many small businesses.

All covered companies will need to create climate change transition plans. Prevention action plans. Establish contractural assurances, from a direct business partner. That it will ensure compliance with the business' prevention action plan.

So you make a widget, but you don't sell it to Ford. You sell it to somebody that is making radios for Ford.

You don't have anything to do with Ford. But if you want to sell a widget to another company, that does business with Ford, or sell it to another company that that company sells to another company, to sell to Ford.

You see how this is working?

And if you don't comply in America, you cannot sell anything, in Europe.

You also, established contractural assurances. Business prevention.

Can and make necessary financial or nonfinancial investments or upgrades.

What the hell does that mean? Individual countries will write their own laws in accordance with this new EU. ESG law.

Each country in the EU will be responsible for enforcing its rules and issuing punishments. Civilian and activist groups also are covered in this bill. Activist groups can bring private cause of action against companies for failing to meet guidelines.

Well, open up the floodgates for attorneys, right there. The EU requirements are going to be faced in, beginning in 2027.

Now, let me get into the actual requirements, that we can -- this is a very complex, and very big bill.

Over the weekend. Thank God for Justin Haskins and his team. He went through all of it. So let me tell you what these rules are.
Again, we're talking about something that just passed on Friday in the EU that affects us. And it's -- it's the economy. It's the environment. It's free speech. It's all of it. So there's not a single long list of rules that companies need to comply with. There are some specific rules that are included.

However, this new law includes hundreds of vague statements and references to existing international agreements and EU regulations.

Many of those are also long agreements, featuring many more are rules, such as, the Paris climate agreement.

And the international covenant on economic, social, and cultural rights. You know that. You're complying I'm sure.

Oh, you're not?

I guess we should read up on it. As a result of the complexity and the expansiveness of the rule. The total number of social credit scoring metrics. Let me say that again. The total number of social credit scoring metrics, included in this law, is currently unknown.

But it is likely in the hundreds, if not more than a thousand.

It's hard to tell, currently. You get social credit scores. Now, let me ask you something: Is the EU going to actually stop buying everything that comes from China.

Because there's no way that China will comply with this.

Do you know what that will do for the prices in the European Union.

If they stop buying stuff from China?

If we don't stop this. If we stop buying things from China.

Prices -- you will go broke, quickly, businesses will go out of business, quickly.

Now, here's just one example of the law, where it's not economic.

It's actually on climate change. And free speech.

The directive is an important legislative tool to ensure corporate transition to a sustainable economy. What they're saying there is: No longer a capitalist system. Including to reduce the existential harms and costs of climate change. To ensure alignment with the global net zero by 2050. And to avoid any misleading claims, regarding such alignment, and stop green washing disinformation, and fossil fuel expansion, worldwide, in order to achieve international and European climate objectives

So notice they throw in misinformation. One law -- one law firm notes, companies are required to effectively engage with stakeholders. Let me say that again.

Companies are required to effectively engage with stakeholders.

Do you remember who the stakeholders are? Because they're not you!

The take holder are the governments. The social activists. And I think that's it. And the companies, themselves.

Those three get together. Because, you know, the Sierra Club, is a stakeholder in making sure that our trees are okay. And our environment is clean.

The government is just a representative of you. Yeah. Yeah. I stopped believing that a long time ago.

So you don't have a voice. Your voice is the Senate, the House, and the president.

That's the stakeholder that they have to deal with. Companies have to sit down, when they're making these rules, with those guys.

This includes carrying out consultations at various stages, of the due diligence process. That's going to be cheap. During which, companies must provide comprehensive information.

Now, according to the European parliament. Member states will be required to provide companies with detailed online information. On their -- of their due diligence obligations. Via practical portals, containing the commission's guidance.

They will also create or design, and designate a supervisor authority, to investigate, and impose penalties, on any noncompliant firms.

These will include naming and shame.

That's a quote.

This will include, in quotes, naming and shaming. And fines of up to 5 percent of the company's net worldwide turnover.

Again, worldwide turnover.

Why not use revenue?

Additionally, a breach of certain CSDDDD obligations. That's the catchy acronym for it.

May result in civil liability for damages. However, a company cannot be held liable for any damage caused by its business partners. In its chain of activities.

That's the bad news. I can guarantee you, we are at least a year, maybe two years ahead of everyone else. They are not paying attention to this.

Do not dismiss this, when you go into vote.

Which candidate is -- and I mean every candidate, is most likely to stand up and say, no! Review if the United States, a huge market, decides to say, we're not playing your game. Europe will not be able to stand on its own.

China, they'll just give a pass to. Because everybody, for some reason, thinks that that authoritarian state that puts their own people with social credit scores, and puts them in camps, is okay.

Let me ask you this: Do you think Europe is actually going to have Apple pay a fine or stop making its products in China because they're made by slaves?


This is a way to -- look, there is a book over in our museum.

Very rare. Because the king had them all burned.

It was during the witch trials over in Europe.

And it was one book, that says, this is hogwash!

This is just the king wanting these rules, so he can get rid of his enemies.

King had them all burned. We can find all kinds of stuff, that say, witches are real.

That book, is extraordinarily rare. Why?

The king needed them to go away, because he could have -- anybody who displeased him, he's a witch.

She's a witch.

Burn them at the stake. That's exactly what's going to happen here. Companies like Apple will be fine. Facebook, fine.

Doing business. Over in Europe. Even though, they're working with the Chinese!

You, but any company that decides to stand and say, no. We don't believe in this.

We're not doing this. You're doomed. You're doomed.

If you play ball with the government, one way or another, you're all right.