RADIOSeptember 18, 2025

Debunking the 5 BIGGEST LIES about Charlie Kirk

In the first week after Charlie Kirk’s assassination, some in the media and on the Left have tried to either justify or dismiss his death by spreading lies about what he said. Glenn Beck reviews an article by The Federalist, which debunks the 5 biggest lies.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: We were just talking about the five lies that are going around, about Charlie Kirk.

And it is -- it's reprehensible about what's going on.

Because people who are saying these things. Who are starting these things. They really need -- I mean, they know. They know.

Like Stephen King, really?

You really think that Stephen King.

You really think that Charlie Kirk is for the stoning of gay people?

I --

STU: I do think, though. A lot of these people have an image of everyone on the right, that --

GLENN: But it shows how unbelievably isolated you are.

STU: Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. Now, king, in particular, I think -- like, I don't think Stephen King was lying on that.

I think he's -- and I don't think he's the sharpest knife in the -- in the drawer.

GLENN: He ought to be. You can't write like he does.

STU: He's not an idiot, right? He can form thoughts. But I think he's so completely isolated in his bubble. Like, if someone says something terrible, about a person like Charlie Kirk, and your image of him is he's basically Hitler.

Well, you don't -- you don't spend time fact-checking it.

Of course, that guy -- he's that terrible human being. Of course, he said something like that. You don't even bother to check it.

You know, it's like, if I -- if you ran into a quote from Hitler, you've never seen, that was negative from Jews. As a journalist, you should probably check it.

You might think. That was probably true. He said a lot of things like that. That's how they think about people who are normal conservatives who want lower taxes and less regulation. And that is really, really disturbing.

So these lies are really prominent. People really believe these things.

GLENN: So there's a couple of -- here are the five. The first one is Charlie Kirk said black people were better off in slavery.

How big of an idiot, do you have to be, to believe that?

Okay?

Unless you're Crockett. Unless your last name is Crockett.

And I don't mean Davey. Black Americans were better off than slavery. No. That's absolutely no true -- not true. He never said anything like that. Now, what he -- what you're probably getting this from, and I'm going -- searching. I am on -- way metal detector on the beach with board shorts, sandals, and socks, looking for anything that even kind of sounds like that. But Charlie Kirk did say that, you know, they were talking about Jim Crow and how evil Jim Crow was. But he said with be, but if you look at the family, the black family before the passage of the civil rights act, which ended the Jim Crow laws, he said, the family was thriving.

And it was!

It was. Blacks had a lower divorce rate than whites did in I think 1961. They -- their families were stronger. Dads were in the homes. They had lower crime rates. I mean, it -- something happened around the time of the Civil Rights Act.

Now, my theory is, the Civil Rights Act was a -- was done by progressives. I mean, these are the guys who said no to the Civil Rights Act, just four years before. And -- and worked hard to stop the Civil Rights Act.

So what changed in those four years?

The assassination of President Kennedy. That changed your mind. Not even. Not even.

I mean, Johnson was the biggest racist up until he -- up until he died. Why would he create the great society?

My theory, this is just a theory. But my theory is, is because finally, the progressives had a way to keep blacks under their thumb and destroy the family. And destroy them, as people.

I mean, the Civil Rights Act, and more the Great Society.

The Great Society did more damage to the black family than -- than anybody could have done outside of Margaret Sanger. I think that's what he meant by that. It was evil.

You know, Jim Crow, et cetera, et cetera.

But if you look at the numbers on specifics, family, et cetera, et cetera. Blacks were doing better as families, before the Great Society.

And I think that undoing is absolutely -- is absolutely tied to it. And it was intentional, myself, I believe that.

Also, the next claim is that -- that Charlie Kirk said, black women have inferior intelligence. No, that's not what he said.

Now, they're quoting him saying that black women don't have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously.

How -- how bad does your image have to be of people on the other side to believe that they could say that?

That Charlie Kirk could say that?

STU: Like, if you were to -- you know, I think about this a lot of times. When I think about how we react to crazy statements on the left.

My reaction a lot of times, when I hear someone saying that is wait a minute.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: Even if they believed that, they wouldn't just blurt it out. What is the context of this? I want to know. I want to understand. That should be your first question when you run into a quote like that.

GLENN: Well, go to Snopes. They rate this one true.

STU: This is true.

GLENN: They rate it absolutely true.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: Until you get to the last paragraph, when they say, well, we should point out, he wasn't talking about all black women. He was talking about four specific black women.

STU: Oh. Oh.

GLENN: So he's talking about Joy Reid, absolutely true. Sheila Jackson Lee, absolutely true.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: Ketanji Brown Jackson. Jackson Brown, absolutely true.

STU: Well, she's not a biologist, Glenn.

GLENN: No. She doesn't know what a woman is. I'm not a biologist. Yeah.

And Michelle Obama, which I don't think is true. I think Michelle Obama is actually rather smart and conniving and just flatout evil.

STU: Yeah. There's a mix there. Ketanji Brown Jackson, for all the flaws that would happen. There's a Supreme Court justice, obviously isn't a moron.

GLENN: Well.

STU: I would say Sotomayor, I would be more confident saying she is a moron.

Though, I am -- for the job that she has, Ketanji Brown Jackson is a moron. You know, Joy Reid is a complete idiot. Wasn't Sheila Jackson Lee, those two follow the same category? You're right. Michelle Obama, I would not call an idiot.

Again, criticizing four members of a group does not mean you're criticizing the group.

GLENN: And he was criticizing people he thought were unqualified to make statements of -- of any intelligence on whatever topic it was that he was talking about.

And what they did, is they said, he thinks that all black women are just dumb.

I mean, that is so incredibly dishonest.

Charlie Kirk said, gun deaths are worth it to keep the Second Amendment.

STU: This is one I heard a lot.

This is one that a lot of people on the left are using as justification for their celebration.

He said, you know, well, you just have to deal with the deaths if you want to have a Second Amendment.

And, you know, I don't know if you have the context --

GLENN: I have it -- I have his answer right here.

You ready? You will never live in a society where you have an armed citizenry. And you won't have a single gun death.

That's nonsense.

It's drivel.

But I am -- I think it's worth it. I think it's worth to have a cost of unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year.

So you can have the Second Amendment right to protect your other God-given rights.

It's a prudent deal. It is rational to think that way.

STU: I mean, and obviously -- every time -- if you have a free society, you take risks with it.

There will always be people. Horrible, horrible human beings that all seem to donate to Democrat causes, that will do things, like we saw one week ago today.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: And that is -- you know, I -- again, you can't speak for Charlie Kirk.

He spoke for himself so eloquently.

But he -- even what occurred last week, would not change his mind on that.

Even -- now that something terrible has happened to me and my family, we should overturn the Second Amendment. And people shouldn't have the right to defend themselves.

You know that's how he would feel about it. And this is, if anything, pointing to his incredible consistency on the rights that we have, in this country. You know, it is a sad -- sad, unfortunate fact about so many things.

Sad, unfortunate fact about automobile travel.

That you do have to deal with some automobile accidents.

When you have highways where you can drive 55, 65, 75 miles an hour, we all understand that to be true.

GLENN: It's unreasonable to think that you can live in a society with automobiles, and not have some automobile accidents.

STU: It's absolutely true.

GLENN: It's exactly what he said about guns.

STU: And, frankly, the other thing that is important to understand, if you did eliminate all guns, you would not eliminate all murders.

GLENN: No. They did in England.

STU: Oh, they did. We're all set?

GLENN: There's no murder there.

STU: No violent crimes there.

I keep reading about them. Is that all false?

GLENN: Yeah. That's Donald Trump. You know what I mean?

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: And he's -- last one, Charlie used an Asian slur. Now, I'm not going to use the slur, obviously. I'm just going to say, it's what happens sometimes with armor. There's a very famous saying with armor, that has nothing to do with the Chinese or Asian at all. But I'm not even going to put those together in this context now, you you'll have to figure it out.

The thing is going around, he used that slur to yell at an Asian woman in the audience.

Now, again, what kind of monster -- or how --

STU: You should know on its face, that's false. You should know that's false.

GLENN: Yeah. How stupid would Charlie Kirk have to be, okay?

So, you know, there's nothing. There's nothing like that. Well, I'm sorry.

He was screaming something at a woman when they were talking about capitalism, and he was yelling, Cenk, not the other word. Okay? And who is that? From the Young Turks --

STU: The guys from the Young Turks.

GLENN: That's what he was saying.

STU: Oh, gosh, that's just so bad. You know, the other one was the Stephen King situation, where he quoted some horrible thing that Charlie Kirk said.

And, again, he knitted eventually, that -- that it was false.

But it was -- it was -- he was quoting someone else, in an incident, and critiquing that position.

GLENN: Yes. Yes. Yes.

STU: Which was a bad position. But he was bringing it up to quote him and critique him, which is a very standard thing they did on the left. This is a standard tactic of Media Matters when you're quoting someone else or saying something.

They'll act as if I say it.

GLENN: You repeat a lie often enough, and the public will remember it. Glenn Beck is quoting Hitler. Glenn Beck loves Hitler.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Yeah. Hitler said that, but that's not what I was saying. That had nothing to do with the conversation, for the love of Pete.

STU: Yeah, again, if you had something against Charlie Kirk, you wouldn't need to go to this stuff. If our opinion of Kirk, which was a guy who worked hard to debate people.

Who tried to practice politics and civic life the right way. Who tried to be a shining light for his faith, which was vitally important to him and his family. If that vision of Charlie Kirk was false, you wouldn't need to go to these things.

GLENN: No.

STU: You could come up with 50 different things he said that were really offensive. Instead, what you come up with are lies. Because that's what you're in the business of.

GLENN: Yeah. And there is a problem.

The -- we now know. And we'll have more on this later today. On the Charlie Kirk show.

And then on tomorrow.

But we now know that the Chinese and Russia are involved with disinformation campaigns.

Based on Charlie Kirk, trying to get us to push us into Civil War. And we know it for a fact now.

So just be very careful what you read online.

And don't necessarily repeat everything that you see.

What Glenn Beck Never Got to Say to Charlie Kirk | Glenn TV | Ep 456

Charlie Kirk would have been president. Political violence robbed him of fulfilling that destiny, so now his friends, colleagues, and supporters throughout the world must figure out how to pick up the pieces and ensure that his legacy never ends. On a special episode of "Glenn TV," Glenn replays the most powerful, touching, and inspirational moments from his time guest-hosting "The Charlie Kirk Show" on Wednesday morning, one week after Charlie’s death. In a touching tribute to his friend, Glenn places Rush Limbaugh’s golden microphone next to Charlie’s — a symbol of Charlie’s longtime dream and the influence he has had throughout the world. Plus, Glenn speaks to "The Charlie Kirk Show" executive producer Andrew Kolvet and Turning Point USA COO Tyler Bowyer about who their dear friend was behind the scenes, the influence he’s had on America and the MAGA movement, and how Charlie’s fingerprints will still be present on future elections. Also, Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) and Glenn discuss how Charlie Kirk helped launched her career, and Research Center Investigative Researcher Ryan Mauro shares how he has the smoking gun President Trump needs to take on George Soros’ network. These are the voices who knew Charlie well, but the number of people he indirectly touched and influenced is spread far and wide. Glenn ends with a beautiful song tribute by David Osmond and Cheyenne Grace, depicting just how mournful the entire world truly is. Rest in peace, Charlie.

The Far-Left Attacks in 2025 Prior to the Assassination of Charlie Kirk

In the aftermath of the assassination of Turning Point USA Founder Charlie Kirk, it is important to realize that a chilling pattern of far-left radical attacks had already emerged in 2025. Glenn Beck heads to the chalkboard to lay out the timeline, connect the dots, and explain why what looks like a “protest” on one day can turn into an actual attack on the next. Glenn walks through each high-profile incident, the groups and ideologies involved, and the national implications for safety, free speech, and public order.

Watch This FULL Episode of 'Glenn TV' HERE

Glenn Beck warns of dangerous government powers in proposed Charlie Kirk act

President Trump and others have posted in support of a proposed Charlie Kirk Act. But Glenn Beck gives a warning: there are 2 versions of this going around. One, proposed by Sen. Mike Lee, would stop the government from using propaganda against Americans. The other would go further, giving the government dangerous powers over truth. Glenn Beck explains the differences as well as what the Smith-Mundt Act was and why an Obama-era decision may be connected to the assassination of Charlie Kirk.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Okay. I want you to just spend a couple of minutes with me, and switch everything that you've been thinking on, off for a minute. This is very important. I want to take you back to the world in 1948, okay?

The ashes of World War II are still warm. The Cold War is already beginning to chill in the air, and the Soviet Union has a propaganda machine that is in full swing.

Radio Moscow, Pravda, endless streams of anti-American stories are pouring into the homes of men and women, all across the globe.

And Congress looked at this. And said, we need a counterbalance on this.

America needs to tell her story to the world about liberty and about her finding ideals.

And we need to tell it to the rest of the world.

This is the birth of the Smith-Mundt Act. Okay? We needed to launch things, at that time. Like the Voice of America, and radio-free Europe, and Radio Liberty.

These were not just radio stations. For many who were behind the curtain, these were lifelines.

A Polish dissident in the 1970s or a Hungarian who lived through the 1956 uprising, they'll tell you, they're huddled in the dark, and they have that dial of that radio.

And they can tune it. They carefully tune it, listening to an American voice break through the static and break through the darkness. That says, freedom is real. And the world hasn't forgotten you. They remember that as being very important.

But and here is the key: We, as a society, drew a very bright red line, none of this could ever be used in the United States. Congress rightfully was terrified of unleashing a government propaganda machine on its own citizens. Now, I want you to remember. 1948, Congress is still Democrat.

Okay?

You just had 20 years of the same president, FDR.

They're about to say, no president can serve that long.

The Democrats said, no Democrat president. No Republican president can ever serve that long. Because we were so close to fascism.

So the Democrats are very concerned about the government going fascistic.

And they should know about it. Because they remembered the control commission.

Now, let me take you back to World War I. The Creel Commission is something that nobody remembers, and everyone should.

Because it's what whipped America up in a frenzy, to get us to go into World War I.

You know it, because you remember the I want you Uncle Sam poster. And I've always hated that Uncle Sam poster because of the Creel Commission. I love it. I think it's really beautiful. It was created by an artist, that he didn't create it for the Creel Commission. So, you know, he was innocent. But it was the Creel machine that plastered it on every wall, every post office, every train station.

And suddenly Uncle Sam's finger was pointing at you. It wasn't just a poster. It was a summons. It was you. We need you to go to war. Americans did not want to go to World War I. In fact, Woodrow Wilson said, the other side, he will put you into war. I will keep I out of war. He knew that wasn't true.

Within three months after his reelection, we're at war. But he had to bring the country along. So the Creel Commission, through films and songs, films like the Kaiser, the Beast of Berlin, it turned the -- it turned Germany into a cartoon villain. George Cohan, he wrote songs, over there. Over there.

All of these things were done by the government, as propaganda to get Americans to go over there.

And fight. Then the government went even further. And they started hiring these, what were called Four Minute Men.

Now, imagine this, you're sitting in a movie theater.

The film. You're watching maybe the -- the newsreel. And as they're changing the reels, some guy who just in the audience, stands up, walks to the front. Clears his throat. And he delivers this really well-thought out and rousing four minute speech about patriotism. And liberty.

And crushing Germany.

The government had 75,000 volunteers. They gave millions of speeches, when anybody would pause in churches and schools. In parks.

In theaters. They were called Four Minute Men.

This was social media before social media. They were short bursts. And they seemingly were everywhere, and always on message.

Because the message was crafted by the government. Then the Creel group, through our government, published booklets, official bulletins. They planted stories in the press. This is when we really started really getting into the press, and information was -- had one goal. All of the information. And that was rallies for the -- rally support for the war, and drown out anybody that was disagreeing with that. Okay?

The government actually encouraged kids to spy on their neighbors.

That you were encouraged and post -- post men did this.

To go through the mail, if they saw -- if they saw letters that were coming in. Ask they wanted to know, who it was. And are you a German spy. Are you somebody who is going to be against the war?

Postal workers went through your mail. And it was legal at the time!

You were encouraged, operators were encouraged to listen to people's phone calls, and to report if they were on the other side.

This is Germany.

In fact, because of the Creel Commission, Germans, and what's his name?

The head of the German propaganda, oh, what's his name? The German douche bag. I can't remember his name. Anyway, what was his name?

STU: Goebbels, is that who you're talking about?

GLENN: Goebbels.

STU: Although, I like your name for it, frankly.

GLENN: Yeah. Goebbels, the douche bag.

Anyway, he said, we lost World War I because of American propaganda. But we learned how Americans did it.

And that's what Goebbels did in World War II. All of this propaganda. Okay?

By the way, American advertising, up until World War II, it was called propaganda.

What I heard, I wouldn't have said, now a message from our advertiser.

I was delivering literally and it was cool at the time, to call it propaganda.

Because that's what it was. Paid for propaganda.

Bit after Goebbels took it. And did what he did with it. We were like, oh, propaganda is bad!

Okay?

So here's what -- here's what happened because of the Creel Commission. They were pushing uniformity of thought. They did that by making sure Americans were hearing the same slogans. The same images. The same stories from every direction. Which created the illusion of unanimous consent. I want you to think about life today.

I want you to think about life during COVID.

What was the goal of the government.

To crush any dissent, and to control all of the messages that were going out, to make sure that you were hearing the same slogans, the same images. The same stories from every direction, to give you the illusion that it was unanimous consent.

What about the global warming? It's exactly the same.

Then on top of it, the Creel Commission demonized dissent. Okay? German Americans were part of this country forever.

In fact, we were I think two votes away from making German our official language, as the United States, not English. But they were all of a sudden, branded as traitors.

You couldn't -- a priest went to jail, because he gave the last rites to a German who fell down in front of him on the streets and was dying. And a priest spoke German and gave him the last rites in German. That priest went to jail! Okay??

Okay? So they demonized dissent. Then they suppressed free speech. The propaganda campaign dovetailed with the Espionage Act of 1917. The Sedition Act of 1918. If you criticized the draft, if you questioned the war, you could be fined. You would be ostracized, and you would go to jail.

This is Woodrow Wilson, gang. Does any of it sound familiar?

Now, here's what the aftermath was, after the war. When the war ended, the mask came off. Millions were dead, and Americans felt absolutely duped. They felt that they were tricked into going into a war that they were manipulated into. They didn't even understand it. And that's why we were such isolationists, in the 1920s and our 1930s, because our own government had manipulated the population to go in to fight this war, and they felt so manipulated and so betrayed by their own government. They were like, I don't want anything to do with foreign wars, okay?

So why did this -- why did this happen in 1948?

Well, because in 1948, all of this stuff is happening, and we're saying, okay. We need to have some sort of -- some sort of boundary.

Because we're going to start all of this propaganda, for the United States. And it cannot be ever turned on the people of the United States. Okay?

So then why -- why was it repealed?

It was repealed without any really kind of conversation. Because it was slipped in, called the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act.

It was slipped in to a defense authorization bill. Just like it's happening right now, the government didn't pay its bills.

They couldn't come up with the -- with a way to actually fund everything. Because we have to act as an emergency, otherwise all of our war machine. And it's all going to stop. And the world is going to die. And panic and all of that.

;And so somebody has slipped the bill in. And we modernized it.

Why did we modernize?

Well, because don't you like transparency?

I mean, we're doing this overseas. We're doing this propaganda overseas. Do you know -- taxpayer. You're paying for it. Shouldn't you see it?

There was a Congressman Max Thornberry. He was one of the sponsors. And he said, quote, today the law prevents the American people from seeing or hearing the same things we broadcast overseas, and that doesn't make any sense.

We paid for it. Okay. Then they switched that from transparency to, and it's helping fight terrorism. It will let the Department of Defense and the State Department share counter radicalization material both abroad and at home, because we have to modernize this. The internet is everywhere, okay?
So who doesn't want to fight terrorists? Who doesn't want transparency?

Now, here's what actually happened. I'll tell you in 60 seconds. First, Stu.

STU: Yeah. Let me tell you about Prize Picks. You know, we're talking about daily fantasy sports, which is a nice escape, honestly from where we've been over the past three weeks.

If you remember fantasy sports and you're like, oh, gosh.

Yeah, that's a lot of work. I have to be on there, every single day. You don't have to do it that way. Prize Picks brings it back to what it was meant to be. Simple and quick and actually enjoyable.

No drafts. No leagues. No season-long commitments. You just look at the player projections for the day, decide if they'll do more or less than what is listed, build your lineup. And then you're in.

It takes less than a minute to play. And you can mix or match players across different sports, football, baseball. Basketball.

Whatever -- whatever you want.

You don't have to be a stat wizard. You don't have to be a sports insider. You just got instincts, and you have an opinion.

You can win Prize Picks. It's daily fantasy, the way it should be. Fun, flexible, and easy to fit into real life and a nice escape. No stress. Just sports your way.

Download the app today. Use the code Stu.

Get $50 in lineups after you play your first $5 lineup. The code is Stu, to get 50 bucks instantly when you play your first 5-dollar lineup. It's Prize Picks. And it's good to be right. Ten-second station ID.
(music)

GLENN: So in 2012, the left decides, we have to get rid of this propaganda thing.

Okay?

Once the firewall was gone, and it's just a blip, no one even really noticed it. Suddenly, the government agencies could circulate diplomacy campaigns, inside of the United States.

And we saw this. This is where you get your USAID. The NGOs. Doing all the things here in the United States.

Because they can all do it. During COVID, you saw this.

You saw government-funded messaging, quietly merging with the media campaigns and big tech content moderation. Narratives weren't debated. They were handed out by the government. And then they were enforced. Then take the DHS disinformation governance board.

This is a direct descendent from this shift. Okay?

It was the government openly declaring it had a role in policing speech at home.

Look at the 2016 aftermath of the elections. Reports now confirm that the US government funds originally intended for overseas information campaigns that had filtered into domestic projects that fact-checked, flagged, and suppressed certain narratives online. The line between foreign propaganda and domestic persuasion was completely gone. Everything they worried about in 1948, was now happening after 2012. Okay. So why am I bringing this up today?

Because after the assassination of Charlie Kirk, we have been asking for this to be reinstated.

This Smith-Mundt Act has to be reinstated. But after the assassination of Charlie Kirk, there is a new wave of enthusiasm for this as there should be.

But some people on our side, are now demanding more than just a firewall.

You go to change.org. And there's petitions for a Charlie Kirk act.

And it will not only stop government propaganda. But it goes further than that. It starts to punish private media. Educators. Social media platforms. For spreading what they call false narratives. So this is -- this is our side saying, yeah, well, now we want the power to do what they did. Okay? Hear me clearly.

Accountability matters! Lives are destroyed, reputations are smeared. And that matters.

But we have systems in place for that.

What this proposal opens is a new door. A terror where government decides, what is and isn't falsehood.

And the government cannot do that. History teaches us. Once the government claims the authority to define truth.

Liberty is gone. Okay?

Now, enter Mike Lee.

Mike Lee has another proposal. Mike Lee has a version. That he is submitting to Congress. And trying to get it passed. And every American should be for this.

Right or left.

Every American should be for this. He's not going to reinvent the wheel. He just wants the old firewall put back. That's it.

Period.

The government must not, and cannot propagandize its own people. Restore the very bright red line that was attacked in 1948.

It's not about silencing speech. It's about preventing the most powerful institution on earth, with the endless resources of that institution, the government.

And the endless reach, from turning its firehose of influence in on the American people.

This is why it matters. I want you to think of -- I want you to think of football.

Oh, boy. Dangerous.

You wouldn't let the referee this a football game, put on a jersey, and join one of the teams. Okay?

But that's what the repeal did. It let the government be both the referee and the player in the arena of ideas. Mike Lee is saying, put the stripes back on their jerseys. Make sure they're in black and white stripes. So we know exactly who they are!

Change.org and some people on our side want to make the ref not only a player, but the judge, the jury, and the executioner. It cannot happen.

This is -- I'm telling you, if this goes through, Mike Lee is proposing something that is clean. Doesn't have any of this in.

So support the Mike Lee Mundt Act. But if you're hearing people talk about, we have to go further, that is the Patriot Act of our day. We're standing at a fork in the road.

Reinstating the Smith-Mundt protections. They're not going to solve all the problems of misinformation, but it reestablishes the ground rules. And tells Washington, you cannot propagandize us, period.
(music)

Once truth belongs to the state, truth itself ceases to exist. Support Mike Lee's bill.

Restore the Smith-Mundt Act.

New York DROPS key charge against CEO killer. Here’s why.

A New York judge has dismissed state terrorism and first-degree murder charges against the man who killed UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson. Should the charge have been kept? Why is the state only pursuing second-degree murder charges? And will he avoid the death penalty? Former Chief Assistant US Attorney Andrew McCarthy joins Glenn Beck to explain what’s really to blame for these decisions.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: We have a good friend, Andy McCarthy who is a Nashville review contributing editor. He's also a former chief assistant US attorney, and a guy who when he speaks, I almost always agree with him. And when I don't, I'm probably wrong. Especially when it comes to things like this, because this was his expertise. He was a former chief assistant US attorney. And he worked on terror most of his career. I mean, he -- he is -- he is well-versed on terror charges and how to try them.

This Luigi Mangione case, the terrorism charges have been dropped. And, Andy, if I remember right, came out with an article I think last year said, this is not going to stand.

These terrorist charges aren't going to stand. And I don't understand why they won't.

And I don't understand how only be charged with second-degree murder.

When it was clear he was stocking the guy. Privy planned on killing him.

He was waiting for him outside.

That's premeditation, which is murder one.

But I know Andy will have all the answers for us.

Can you make sense of this for us, Andy?

ANDY: Yeah. I'm afraid I can, Glenn.

I think to start with the second point first about why it's murder two, rather than murder one. Back in the McCaughey days, which is like the 1990s in New York, when he was governor.

STU: Yeah.

ANDY: They tried to revise the New York capital murder statute. Because they haven't done a death penalty case in New York in decades.

And this was not -- this ultimately was not a successful effort. They still haven't revised the death penalty.

But what they did, they took the things that you could get the death penalty for, which in New York, were only things like killing a police officer or killing a prison guard in the prison.

And they made those the only murder in the first degree. Variety. Homicide, and all other murder.

GLENN: Why?

ANDY: Well, because they were trying to clean up -- their idea was, they were trying to clean the statute in a way that murder one would be revised as capital murder.

GLENN: Death penalty.

ANDY: Right. And all other murder was going to be second-degree murder, so because --

GLENN: That's insane.

ANDY: What we're dealing with Mangione, under New York law, would not have qualified for the death penalty because that would have been very, very narrow, and it's mainly killing police officers or prison guards.

That puts it into the category of second-degree murder. That doesn't mean, by the way, that it's unserious.

It has a -- I think the -- the offense in New York is like 25 years to life. Societies -- it's --

STU: The guy should get -- I mean, you could. You could argue against the death penalty. But guy should get either the death penalty, or life without payroll.

Not 25 years! This guy -- help me out on this one. How is he not a terrorist? He had the intent to terrorize. He said himself, he wanted people to look over their shoulders.

I mean, he is a textbook terrorist. And premeditation. Textbook!

ANDY: Yeah. To -- to prove terrorism, you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, an intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian population.

And you have to sort of get out of the -- the mindset that murder is terrorizing. I mean, all murder is terrorizing, to the people who are obviously involved in it. And to the extent that it intimidated people. But we can't turn every murder into terrorism.

GLENN: Correct.

ANDY: Terrorism --

GLENN: But he did it for. But isn't terrorism about trying to scare the population to either vote different or change the laws to be so terrorized that they -- in this particular case, he was trying to send a message to the -- the industry, you better watch your back, because there's more of me.

And you'll get it in the end.

That's terrorizing a group of people to get them to act in a way, the terrorists wants them to act.

ANDY: Yes.

GLENN: Isn't that how they define it?

ANDY: It's not terrorizing the government to change policy or terrorizing the whole civilian population. What the judge said, this was very narrowly targeted at the health care industry, and this particular health care executive.

And I --

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: Wow.

ANDY: And I just don't think it trivializes the murder to say that it's not a terrorism crime.

GLENN: Okay.

ANDY: You know, the federal government, Glenn, just so we're clear on this part of it. There were two charges brought here. There's a -- the federal charges and the state charges.

So Alvin Bragg, the -- the New York DA, brought the terrorism charge.

GLENN: What a joke.

ANDY: I said, at the time, I thought he was bringing it because he knew the Justice Department wanted to charge this guy. So he wanted to make a splash. Like the Justice Department wanted to make a splash.

When the Justice Department indicted it, even though Biden is against the death penalty, and the Democratic administration was against the death penalty. They indicted it as a death penalty case.
Because they wanted to make a big to-do over it. Even though, you know, if you look at the fine print, they would never impose the death penalty.

They had a moratorium on the death penalty. So in order not to be outsplashed, what Bragg turned around and did was indict this -- what he -- like ten times out of ten, indict only as a murder case.

If you could get Bragg to indict something that was actually a crime. And he decided to make it a terrorism murder case, so that they could compete for the headlines in the press.

Unfortunately, this is kind of what happens in these -- in these cases.

But to your point about stalking and all of that stuff.

The federal charges. Which are the death penalty charges, include exactly what you're talking about.

The fact that this guy was stalked.

That it was done in a very cold-blooded way.

And actually, if he gets convicted in the federal -- can in the federal system, now that Trump is running the Justice Department, rather than Biden, he gets convicted on the death penalty charge, he's going to get the death penalty.

GLENN: Okay. So it's not like he's getting murder in the second degree, and he'll be out in 25 years. The federal government is also trying him. Will it be the same trial?

ANDY: No. No.

In fact, the interesting thing, Glenn. Just from a political standpoint, I hate having to get political on this stuff.

GLENN: I know. Me too.

ANDY: If we can avoid it. The Biden Justice Department was working cooperative with Bragg. I don't think the Trump Justice Department is going to work cooperative with Bragg.

GLENN: No.

ANDY: And the interesting thing about that is under New York law, they have a very forgiving double jeopardy provision. Which basically means, if the Feds go first, that will probably block New York state from going at all.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

ANDY: Because of their expansive protection. And I think what Biden's Justice Department was willing to let Bragg go first.

So that they would go second. And then everybody would have --

GLENN: Trump won't do that.

ANDY: I'm not sure the Trump guys will play ball with that.

GLENN: No. Okay.

So are you confident the justice will be served in this. Oh.

ANDY: Well, I think -- you know, look, I think if your idea of justice served. Are this guy be convicted of a severe murder charge and never see the light of day again?

I am confident in that.

GLENN: Yes.

ANDY: If you believe as I do, that if you're going to have a -- a death penalty in the law, which our Constitution permits.

GLENN: He deserves it.

ANDY: If you're going to have it, he deserves it. And if he doesn't get it. He would be among a long line of people, who probably didn't deserve it and must get it.

Though, I guess it depends on what your idea of justice is. But I guess if we could agree that justice is this guy never sees the light of day again, I think justice will happen here.

GLENN: Right. Okay.

Can I switch to Charlie Kirk?

ANDY: Of course.

GLENN: How is this unfolding? What are your thoughts on this. What are your thoughts on -- you know, I really want to make sure I don't want to go too far. I don't want another Patriot Act kind of thing.

But I do believe, you know, the -- it appears as though, there may have been many people involved. At least in knowing.

What does that mean to you? And what should happen?

What should we be doing? What are we doing that is right and wrong?

ANDY: Well, to the extent -- I'm sorry -- I do -- I do think, Glenn. That this is being very aggressively investigated by both the state authorities and continuing by the federal authorities.

I heard Kash Patel, because I happened to be on television this morning. And they -- they broadcasted that while I was on.

And he was talking about how they are going through all of the social media stuff.

To see, who may have had an inkling about this beforehand. And if there was any conspiratorial activity, they're going to go after it.

Now, the chats that have come out so far, that have been reported in the last couple of days are chats in which Robinson admitted to committing homicide and told the people that he was chatting with -- that he had already arranged his surrender.

If that's all these people knew, that is to say, he had --

GLENN: Then there's nothing there.

ANDY: And he was turning himself in. Well, they might be good witnesses in terms of what his state of mind was at the trial of Robinson.

But I don't think that implicates them in criminal misconduct.

On the other hand, the feds are going to keep digging.

And I assume Utah is going to keep digging.

And if they find out that someone was involved in planning it, I think those people will be pursued.

GLENN: You know, there's probably Texas would be a bad place to commit this crime.

Utah, however, they have the death penalty. And they used the death penalty.

And the governor who I'm not a big fan of this governor.

But, boy, he has been very strong, and I think right on top of this whole thing.

And he said, day one, you will get the death penalty. We catch you. We prove it in a court of law. You do get the death penalty. And I think that's coming from this guy.

ANDY: Well, it's deserving. Because if it's ever indicative of premeditation and repulsive intent, I would say, this is a textbook case of that.

GLENN: The idea that Trump is now going to go after -- possibly RICO charges for people like George Soros and, you know, organizations like that, that are -- are pushing for a lot of the -- the -- the Antifa kind of stuff. Do you see any problems with that. Or is this a -- a good idea?

ANDY: I just think the first thing, before you get into RICO. And all these. You know, RICO is a very complicated statute, even when it obviously applies. So I think the bedrock thing they have to establish, is that you are crossing the line. From protected speech. A lot of which can be obnoxious speech. And actual incite meant to violence. And if you can get invite meant to violence.

You know, I didn't need RICO to prosecute the Blind Sheikh, right? I was able to do it on incitements of violence and that kind of stuff. Those are less complicated charges than Rico.

But the big challenges in those cases, Glenn, is getting across the line into violent action. As opposed to constitutionally protected rhetoric.

GLENN: Is there anything to the subversion of our -- of our nation. That you are -- you are intentionally subverting the United States of America.

You are pushing for revolutionary acts?

VOICE: You know, there's a lot of let allegation that arose out of that, in connection with the Cold War and the McCarran Act. And, you know, you remember all the stuff from the -- from the '40s and '50s, forward.

GLENN: Yeah. I know.

ANDY: And I think when that stuff was initially enacted, the country was in a different place.

I think when the McCarran Act was enacted, it was a consensus in the country, that if someone was a member of the Communist Party.

Hadn't actually done anything active to seek the violent overthrow of the US, but mere membership in the party. I think if you asked the question in 1950, most people would have thought that was a crime.

And by 1980, most people would have thought, it wasn't a crime. Based on the Supreme Court --

GLENN: Yeah. I don't.

Look, if you're a member of the Communist Party, you can be a member of the Communist Party.

But if you are actively subverting and pushing for revolution, in our country, I think that's a different -- I think that's a different cat, all -- entirely.

ANDY: Yeah, that's exactly right. But if you had that evidence of purposeful activity, and look, if you had a conspiratorial agreement between two people that contemplates the use of force, you don't need much more than that. You don't need an act of violence. If you have a strong evidence of conspiracy. But you do have to establish that they get over that line and to the use of force, at least the potential use of force.

STU: Yeah, okay.

Andy, as always, thank you so much. Appreciate your insight. Appreciate it.