RADIODecember 10, 2024

Dershowitz: Joe Biden Made a HUGE MISTAKE Pardoning Hunter

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

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

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

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

Alan Dershowitz.

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

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

Hello, Alan. How are you?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And --

GLENN: Wow.

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

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

Is it for who I represent?

I never know.

GLENN: I love that. I love that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To Daniel Penny?

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

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

I believe that's constitutionally protected speech.

It's ugly. It's awful.

But what is that -- that test called?

Stu.

STU: The Brandenburg.

GLENN: The Brandenburg.

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

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

It reminds me of what you Justice Brennan once said.

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, you can!

Unless it leads to, you know, a stampede.

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

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

GLENN: Exactly right.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They have Harvard law school, defending them.

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

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

Is it good for the Democrats?

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

And the constitutional Framers and candidates.

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

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

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

Now, I think maybe the Penny result shows that.

GLENN: Yeah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You can't move to the second count.

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

It's a mistrial.

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

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

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

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

It wasn't hung. It was dismissed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There was justification.

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

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

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

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

GLENN: Let me switch to politics here.

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

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

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

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

We can allow this kind of stuff to happen.

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

Is that even possible?

Before you're charged.

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

He was charged -- he was pardoned.

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

Why don't we have a kingly pardon power?

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

GLENN: Correct.

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

And it's without the need to explain.

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

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

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

GLENN: Wrong. Yeah.

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

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

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

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

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

Including his father.

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

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

As distinguished of the consequences of a computation.

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

Because there's nothing politically to gain.

I think this is extraordinarily important on principle.

We cannot have people selling the power of the office.

RICHARD: Look, I agree with you.

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

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

He showed some sympathy. For Hunter Biden.

For his addiction. For all of that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Really is. To have you on the program.

ALAN: Well, you're a great man.

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

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

GLENN: I sure will. I will. Thanks.

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

Has THIS Islamist organization BROKEN state laws for YEARS?!

A new report accuses CAIR Action, the political arm of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, of breaking state laws with its political activism. Glenn Beck reviews this story...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So let me go over what is -- what's happening with -- with CAIR.

You know, the Founding Fathers were obsessed over accountability.

Because they knew one thing. You know, they did. They must get suggestions from people on, you know, through tweets. They studied every single system of government.

Every single republic that survived. That didn't survive.

Why didn't it survive?

They studied all forms of government. They were trying to come up with something that could -- could set people free.

And they -- they worked really hard on putting our checks and balances in place, because they knew, once power slips into the shadows. They knew, once power slips into the shadows, once influence becomes unmoored from law, what rises is not a republic.

It's a machine. And that's what you're seeing right now. We're not living in a republic. We're living in a machine.

We -- I think we're staring at one of the largest unregulated political machines operating in the United States ever! Okay.

There have been a couple of groups that are doing sweeping investigations, two watchdog groups. One of them is NCRI and the Intelligent Advocacy Network.

And they have concluded now that the political arm of CAIR, he known as CAIR action, has been operating nationwide with no legal authority, to do the things it has been doing for years now.

They're not allowed to raise money. They've been raising money. Coordinating political campaigns.

Not allowed to do it. Endorsing candidates. Not allowed to do it, they're doing it. Mobilizing voters, shaping policy, functioning as a national advocacy network.

They don't have the legal authority to do any of it. And no one has said anything.

Now, according to the report, CAIR action doesn't just have a paperwork problem.

Investigators found, state by state, that it lacks the license, the registrations. The charitable authorizations, required to legally solicit money.

Excuse me. Or conduct political activity, in any of the 22 states in which it operates. Think of that!

I know how serious this is, because I remember what it took to get the license in each and every state, for Mercury One.

So we could operate. We could raise money. We could do things in those states. It's a lot of work. And if you don't do it, you go to jail. And they find out pretty quickly.

Okay?

22 states, they operate not one, zero legal authorization.

In Washington, DC, the city where CAIR action is incorporated, the department of licensing and consumer protection told investigators, they have no record of CAIR action ever obtaining the basic business license required to solicit funds or to operate.

Imagine how long would you last in business, especially if you were controversial.

How long would you remain in business, if you never had a business license?

You think somebody would figure that out?

In a sooner time than I don't know. A couple of decades!

This report means, that the organization if true, is engaging in unlicensed inner state solicitation.

It has exposed itself to allegations as serious as deceptive solicitation. Wire fraud and false statements to the IRS. These are big things.

And this is not political rhetoric.

Are these phrases written in black and white. In the law.

And by investigators. In California, one of CAIR's most active hubs. The state attorney general has said, the state attorney general of California has said, same pattern here!

The state of California, to say, yep. That's what's happening here.

CAIR action has never registered with California's charitable registry.

Never filed the required CT1 form. And has no authorization whatsoever to request donations. But they've been doing it in California anyway.

Fundraising, selling memberships. Issuing endorsements. Mobilizing voters. All of that has been done by CAIR action. There's no record of any license. Any permission, ever. Going to CAIR. From California. That's according to their attorney general.

Wow!

That's pretty remarkable, huh? How does that happen?

It's not just the coast. It is also happening to the Midwest, the South, the Mountain West. Every state hosting its own CAIR action fundraising page, complete with the donate now and become a member portal, despite no trace of the legal filings required to operate. That's bad!

Now, here's where the stakes rise.

Because CAIR action presents itself openly, as the political arm of CAIR National.

Investigators are now warning that any unauthorized fundraising or political activity.

Could become CAIR's national responsibility as well.

So, in other words, the parent, CAIR itself, might be held responsible.

Meaning, this is want just a rogue subdivision.

This could implicate the entire National Organization of CAIR.

Now, this is happening at the same time it's coming under national scrutiny. It's also Texas.

And I think Florida have designated the group a foreign terrorist organization. Members of Congress are now asking the IRS, the Treasury, the Department of Education to investigate all of its partnerships, all of its financing, all of its influence operations. I mean, I think they're going to be in trouble.

How long have we been saying this?

But every time, I have pointed out anything about CAIR, I have been called an Islamophobe, which shuts everything down. That is a word, developed by people like CAIR, to shut people down, so you'll never look into them.

So what happens next?

First of all, the reports have to hold up.

Regulators now have an obligation. Not a choice. An obligation to act!

State attorneys general in these 22 states, they might pursue fines, injunctions, criminal referrals.

All of them need to take action!

The IRS, needs to take action. Investigate tax exempt fraud. Treasury Department may review foreign influence or money flow violations.

Anything coming from overseas.

Oh, I can't imagine it. They're so buttoned up, right now.

DC regulators may determine whether CAIR actions entire fundraising operation has been unlawful from the beginning.

But here's the deeper question. And it's not bureaucratic. This one is constitutional.

Can the United States tolerate an influence machine, that operates outside of the legal framework, designed to prevent corruption, foreign leverage, and untraceable money?

If I hear one more time, talking about how AIPAC has just got to be investigated. Fine. Investigate.

I'm not against it.

Investigate.

Why aren't you saying anything about CAIR?

It feels like it might be a tool in the hands of a foreign operation.

Why aren't you saying anything about this?

Because here it is! It's not like, hey. I wonder why.

This is it! This is it! This isn't about silencing CAIR. Muslim Americans are -- that are full citizens, they have every right to speak. Every right to vote. Every right to organize. Participate in public life. No question! They can disagree with me, all they want.

But no organization. None! Not mine. Not yours. Not theirs. None. Should operate a nationwide political network, in the shadows and be immune from all of the guardrails that every other group must follow!

That's called a fourth branch of government!

That's how a fourth branch goes.

By the way, CAIR has placed all kinds of people in our Department of Homeland Security. Et cetera, et cetera. This organization has done it!

This is -- you cannot have a fourth branch of government.

They must abide by the laws.

No -- you can't have a branch that nobody elected. Nobody oversees.

Nobody holds accountable.

We talked about this yesterday, on yesterday's podcast. So what needs to happen is total transparency. CAIR action has to release its filings. Its donor structure. Its compliance records, if they exist. Equal enforcement under the law. I don't want them prosecuted in special ways.

Look, if AIPAC is doing the same thing. AIPAC should be prosecuted exactly the same way.
I want it equal. I want constitutional rule.

If conservatives, if Catholics, pro-Israel, environmental, Second Amendment groups, if they have to comply by the state law, so does CAIR action.

And if CAIR action has to do it, so do the Second Amendment groups and environmentalists, and pro-Israel and conservative groups. The law cannot be selective. It can't be!

I don't know how that's controversial in today's world. But somehow or another, they will find a way.

The Feds have to review all of this. If the report is accurate, the IRS and the Treasury have to determine whether false statements or unlicensed interstate solicitations have occurred.

Americans deserve to know what exactly, who is influencing our elections. Who is shaping our policy? Who is raising money in their state?

Especially physical the organization claims political authority, that it doesn't legally possess.

Because history will teach us one unchanging lesson. When a republic stops enforcing its own laws, someone else will always step in to fill that vacuum because power abhors a vacuum!

Unregulated, political power abhors a free people. So while it's about CAIR, it's not about Muslim Americans. It's not about religion.

As always, at least on this program, we try to make it about the rule of law.

One standard for everyone or no standard at all!

And that more than anything, will determine whether or not our institutions remain worthy of the freedom and responsibility that we have entrusted to them.

Glenn Beck WARNS Democrats Will Return with VENGEANCE in 2026 | Glenn TV | Ep 473

America is entering a year of historic upheaval from Charlie Kirk’s assassination and the spiritual shock that followed, to Trump’s tariff revolution, China’s rare-earth war, collapsing energy grids, AI displacement, and the looming fights over Taiwan and Venezuela. Glenn sits down with BlazeTV hosts ‪@deaceshow‬ and ‪@lizwheeler‬ along with his head researcher Jason Buttrill, to break down the biggest stories of 2025. Plus, they each give their most explosive prediction for 2026 that could shape our politics, economy, national security, and civil rights in ways Americans have never experienced before.

Trump Just SHATTERED the “Expert Class” - And the Deep State is in Total Panic

For nearly a century, Washington DC has been ruled by an unelected “expert class” operating as an unconstitutional fourth branch of government — accountable to no one, removable by no president, and shielded from all consequences. Glenn breaks down why Trump’s firing of the Federal Trade Commissioner could finally dismantle the 1935 precedent that empowered technocrats, how Ketanji Brown Jackson exposed the Supreme Court’s embrace of expert rule, and why America cannot survive a government run by people who never face the voters and never pay for their failures.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Okay. So President Donald Trump fired the federal trade commissioner Rebecca Slaughter. Federal Trade Commission is an administrative position. I mean, this is under -- the head of the federal trade commission is a cabinet member.

And if the justices uphold Trump's firing of Slaughter, that will overturn a precedent that was horrible, that was set in 1935. Remember, 1935, we're flirting with fascism. You know, everybody thinks. Because they haven't seen the horrors of fascism yet.

Everybody thinks fascism is neat, blah, blah. So what they do is they say that this is an independent person. And the president can't fire them. Because they're, you know, an independent agency.

Well, wait. That would make a fourth branch of government. Our Constitution is really clear.

There is no such thing as a fourth branch of government. Right?

So that's what they're deciding. Now, here is Ketanji Brown Jackson, who is talking about how we really need to listen to the experts. Cut four.

VOICE: Because presidents have accepted that there could be both an understanding of Congress and the presidency. That it is in the best interest of the American people to have certain kinds of issues, handled by experts. Who, and I think you -- in your colloquy, Justice Kagan, have identified the fact that these boards are not only experts, but they're also nonpartisan. So the -- the seats are actually distributed in such a way, that we are presumably eliminating political influence because we're trying to get to science and data and actual facts, related to how these decisions are made.

And so the real risk, I think, of allowing non- -- of allowing these kinds of decisions to be made by the president, of saying, everybody can just be removed when I come in, is that we will get away from those very important policy considerations.

VOICE: We will get away from US policy considerations, and it will create opportunities for all kinds of problems that Congress and prior presidents wanted to avoid, risks that flow inevitably, just given human nature, the realities of the world that we live in.

GLENN: Okay.

Now, remember, what she's saying here is, we have to have experts.

We have to have experts. We have to have experts that don't really answer to anybody. Okay?

They're appointed. And then they're just there. This from a, quote, judicial expert, who cannot define a woman, because she's not a doctor.
She's not a scientist.

She needs an expert to define a woman.
That's how insane her thinking is. Okay?

Now, I would just like to ask the Supreme Court, when you want things run by experts, do you mean things like the State Department, or the counsel of foreign relations, that have gotten us into these endless war wars for 100 years?

Because these are the things that Woodrow Wilson wanted. He wanted the country run by experts.

Okay. So is it like the Council of Foreign Relations, that keep getting us into these endless wars.

Or is it more like the Fed, that directs our fiscal policy, that has driven us into $38 trillion of at the time. We have all powerful banks. That strangely all belong to the fed. And endless bailouts for those banks. Are those the experts that you're talking about?

Or are you talking about the experts that are doctors, that gave the country sterilizations, lobotomies, transgender surgeries. You know, or should we listen to the experts, like the ones that are now speaking in Illinois, to get us death on demand like Canada has, with their MAID assisted suicide, which is now the third largest killer in Canada. MAID, assisted suicide, third largest killer in Canada. Experts are saying, we now need it here, and they're pushing for it in Illinois. Or should we listen to the experts? And I think many of them are the same experts strangely, that brought us COVID. Yeah. That was an expert thing. They were trying to protect us. Because they need to do this for our protection. So direct from the labs in China with the help of the American experts like Fauci. We almost put the world out.

Should we listen to those guys?

Or the experts that brought us masking, and Home Depot is absolutely safe. But Ace Hardware wants to kill grandma. Which are the experts that we want? That we want to make sure that we have in our lives? That they don't answer, or can't be fired by anybody. Because I'm pretty full up on the experts, myself. I don't know.

But you're right. These experts would keep the president in check, and they would keep Congress in check. And you in check!

And the Supreme Court, which would be really great. You know, and you know who else they would keep in check? The people.

So, wow, it seems like we would just be a nation run by experts, and our Constitution would be out the window, because that's a fourth branch!

And if you don't believe me, that, you know, these experts never pay a price. Can you name a single expert?

Give me a name of an expert, that gave us any of the things that I just told you about.

Give me the name. I mean, give me the name of one of them. Give me the name of one of them that went to jail. Give me the name of one expert that has been discredited.

You know, where your name will be mud in this town. Do you know where that came from?

Your name is going to be mud. It's not M-U-D. It's M-U-D-D, that comes from Dr. Samuel Mudd. Okay? He was a docks man. He was an expert. He was that set John Wilkes Booth' broken leg. He made crutches. He let him stay there for a while. He claimed he didn't know him, but he did know him.

In fact, one of the reasons they proved it.

Is because when he pulled the boots off -- when he pulled both of his boots off, right there, in the back, you couldn't have missed it. It said "John Wilkes Booth."

He's like, I have no idea who he was.

Yeah. Well, you knew him in advance. This was a predetermined outpost where he could stay. It's clear you could know him.

The guy was still discredited, we still use his name today. Your name will be mud in this town.

And we think that it's like dirt, mixed with water kind of mud. No, it's M-U-D-D, Dr. Mudd. The expert that was so discredited, went to jail, paid for his part of the assassination of -- of Lincoln.

Give me the name of one of the experts in the last 100 years, that has brought us any of the trials and the tribulations. The things that have almost brought us to our knees. Give me the name of one of them. Can't!

Because once an expert class, they don't answer to anyone. So they never go to jail.

Wow! Doesn't that sound familiar. People never going to jail!

There's a rant that's going around right now, that I did in 2020. And everybody is like, see. He's talking about Pam Bondi.

No, no. I got to play this for you, a little later on in the program. But I want to get to the experts and what the Constitution actually says about that. Because you don't need my opinion. What you need are the actual facts. So you can stand up and say, yeah. I think Ketanji Brown Jackson is an idiot. Okay?

And she's really not an expert on anything. Especially the Constitution. You need the facts, on what the Founders said. Because the Founders would be absolutely against what they did in 1935.

Because that just -- what does it do?

It just sets up a fourth branch of government.

EXPLAINED: Why the Warner-Netflix/Paramount Merger is DANGEROUS for All of Us

The biggest media merger in modern history is unfolding, and Glenn Beck warns it’s the most dangerous consolidation of power America has faced in decades. With six corporations already controlling 90% of the nation’s news and entertainment, a Warner-Netflix or Warner-Paramount megacorporation would create an unstoppable information cartel. Glenn exposes how “too big to fail” thinking is repeating itself, how global elites and “experts” are tightening their grip, and why handing our entire cultural narrative to a handful of companies is a direct threat to freedom. The hour is late — and the stakes couldn’t be higher.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: By the way, it's never good when you consolidate power. It's never good.

And what is going on now, with this Netflix Warner Brothers paramount stuff, I don't care if Larry Ellison is a conservative or not.

No one should have that much power.

I did a show, gosh, four years ago. I don't even remember when I did it.

We looked it up. In the 1980s. 19 percent of American media was owned by over 50 companies.

Forty years later, 90 percent of the media is watched and controlled by six companies.

National Amusements, the Red Stone Family controls CBS, CMT, MTV, Nickelodeon, gaming and internet. Simon & Schuster Books. That's all one.

Disney, ABC, ESPN, History Channel, Marvel, Star Wars, video games and print.

TimeWarner controls CNN, Warner Brothers, HBO, Turner, video games, internet, and print media like TIME. Comcast, MSNBC, NBC.

CNBC, Telemundo, the Internet.

New Corp. Fox. National Geographic. Ton of others. Sony, with a ton of movies, music and more. The big six. They're valued at nearly $500 billion.

Now, this is something I put together five years ago. So I don't even know. This is probably not even valid even today.

And now we're talking about Netflix, Warner Brothers. Paramount, into all of these one giant corporation. It's wrong! It's wrong!

We can't keep putting all -- everything into the hands of just a few! It's what's killing us!

We've got to spread this around. We can't -- the government cannot okay mergers like this.

They're big enough he has

What happened -- what happened when the banks went under, or almost went under in '08. What did they say the problem was?

They said the banks are too big to fail.

Too big to fail.

Because they were providing all of the services, everybody needs. All the time. And there's only a handful of them.

So if they fall, then everything falls.

Right?

That was the problem. So what did we do to fix it?

We made them bigger!

We let them merge with other banks, and gobble up other things!

And started taking on the local banks.

And so now, your banks that were too big to fail. Are now even bigger. And their failure would be even worse!

What is wrong with us?

Seriously, we're not this stupid.

We're not this stupid.

I think we're just this comfortable.

We just think the experts have a plan. No. The experts don't have a plan.

Their plan is stupid. Their plan is to make it bigger.

Every time it fails. Make it bigger. Push it up.

Make it more global.

No. Haven't you seen what the entire world is like?

The entire world is over-leveraged. The entire world is on the edge.

The entire world is being redesigned.
So what do we do? We don't allow them to make things bigger! We need to start taking more individual and local control of things. They're making it bigger. Which will make the problem bigger. And make the problem so big, you won't be able to do anything about it, because all the experts. All of the heads. They'll all -- there will be six of them. And they will all be sitting in one room.

And they will all be making the instigations. And with them, making those decisions will be all the heads of all the countries around the world, that you're not going to have a say in any of that. They're already trying to do it with the WEF.

But if -- if the Supreme Court says, no, experts matter. And the president can't fire them. You will not have any control over anything!

We're at this place, where we can back out. We can turn around.

We can do it.

It's not too late. But the hour is growing very late.

I don't know about you, I don't like being this.

Up to the edge, you know what I mean?

I would rather have lots of breathing room, between me and the edge of the cliff.

But we don't have that anymore.

Everything has to be done right.

And we have to pay attention.

And the worst thing we can do is make things bigger.

Dream big, think small.