Dershowitz: Trial Judge's 3 INFURIATING Moves That Prove He Has an 'AGENDA' Against Trump
RADIO

Dershowitz: Trial Judge's 3 INFURIATING Moves That Prove He Has an 'AGENDA' Against Trump

After witnessing the hush money trail against former president Donald Trump, famed attorney Alan Dershowitz tells Glenn just how shocked he was at the blatant anti-Trump bias. Dershowitz explains 3 moves that Judge Juan Merchan made which he believes prove Merchan's true "agenda": He threatened to strike witness Robert Costello's entire testimony from the record because he raised his eyebrows; he heavily restricted what Costello and other defense witnesses could say, after letting Stormy Daniels say anything she wanted; and he appears to have allowed the jury to go home and watch the news coverage of the trial. But as for the case against Trump itself, Dershowitz asserts, "I have never seen a weaker case.” But yet, he fears the New York jury and biased judge will convict Trump anyways. So, is it time for him to add another banana to his "Banana Republic" scale?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: One of the biggest -- I just -- I don't understand how our justice system got to where it is, this quickly.

I hope it's the different in -- you know, in New York, and in Washington, DC. But I have a feeling it's this way, in many states

And we are not. We are not even connected to the rule of law anymore. I read an article. An op-ed from Alan Dershowitz. Who was at the courtroom.

The last -- you know, when the defense rested. And heard the testimony of who was it?

Was it Cohen? Stu. Or was it Collins?

I can't remember. Anyway, and all he did was raise his eyebrows when there was an objection, and the judge said, sustained. He looked at the judge and raised his eyebrows, which set the judge into a tirade. Cleared the courtroom. For some reason, Alan Dershowitz was allowed to stay. And he writes about it, Dersch.Substack.com. And you have to read it. And Alan joins us now.

Hi, Alan, how are you?

ALAN: Hi. I wish the trial was televised, so that all Americans could see the veins in this judge's head popping. I mean, he just went berserk. You know what he reminded me of the psycho in the movie Taxi Driver? You looking at me? Hey, you looking at me?

The judge has such thin skin.

You looking at me. You raising your eyebrows? I'm going to strike all your testimony. Can you imagine the effect, if the judge had actually gone through with it?

GLENN: Hang on just a second. Did he say that in front of the jury?

ALAN: No. No. No. He did that outside of the jury. In fact, he didn't say it in front of the media. He threw the media out for some bizarre reason. I was sitting in the front row. And they didn't ask me to leave. So I was sitting right near the judges and the defendants and Cohen and all of them. He took the jury out. But he said basically, if you raise your eyebrows again, I will deny Donald Trump a fair trial by striking your defense testimony, and not allowing him to put on -- and Donald Trump didn't raise his eyebrows, at least in the courtroom. But he certainly raised a lot of eyebrows outside of the courtroom, as he has a right to do, because this is a political trial, so he's responding in a political way.

But the idea that you would strike the defense, because of something, you didn't like a witness doing?

First of all, everybody has a constitutional right to raise their eyebrows. And to look and stare at a judge.

I've done that many, many times. I'll never forget May West, in the movie Little Chickadee. She's in front of the judge, and the judge says, you're showing your contempt. And May West says, no, Your Honor, I'm trying my best to hide my contempt for the court.

And, you know, that's what many people do to this judge. I'm not a witness or anything. So I didn't hide my contempt. I rolled my eyes. I raised my eyebrows. I stared at the judge. I whispered to people next to me like, would you believe, people did that? Kept out this testimony? Let in this testimony. Let's remember, this is a judge who was so permissive with the prosecution. He allowed Stormy Daniels to testify that they had sex in a missionary position, that he used a certain kind of deodorant, and that he wore silk pajamas.

Now, how is that relevant to an entry case involving bookkeeping entry? Utterly irrelevant. Utterly prejudicial. The judge said, no. No. Let it all go in. Let it all go in. But when Cohen tries to testify about what his former client said to him, and the client had waved the privilege.

Said to him, I don't know anything about Trump. I can't incriminate him. The judge said, no. No. I'm imposing restrictions on what your witness could say, and I would raise my eyebrows.

GLENN: Wait. Wait. Wait.

He wasn't allowed to enter that into testimony?

ALAN: He was restricted as to what he could say. He was allowed to say that he had said on numerous occasions, that -- that he didn't know anything about Trump.

But he was restricted from saying, many of the things. As he said, he swore to tell the truth. The whole truth. And nothing, but the truth.

And the judge said, no. I only want a partial truth.

When it came to an expert witness, the judge was even tougher. The judge said, even though the prosecution was allowed to introduce evidence, that they claim the payments were illegal campaign contributions. The country's leading expert on campaign contributions, who was prepared to testify. These were not illegal campaign contributions.

The judge said, no.

You can testify as to your credentials and a few other things. But you can't testify as to the legality or illegality, even though the other side is allowed to.

What does it mean under the Sixth Amendment, then, you have the right to confront the charges and the witnesses in front of you? You think that it means you have a right to call witnesses on your own. Who would tell a different story. And give a different account, so the jury could make up their mind.

Not according to this judge. This judge wants a conviction. Whether it's because his daughter would profit from a conviction. She runs a -- she works for a fundraising outfit that fundraises off this trial.

Or where there were other reasons for it. I don't know. I don't want try to psycho analyze. The judge. Other than the judge tried to psycho analyze Donald Trump.

In order to convict them, you have to believe that the only reason, that the false entries were made. They weren't even made by him. They were made by some underling.

That the only reason the false entries, if they were false. Were made. Was to affect the campaign.

It had no reason, to avoid embarrassment to his wife, to his son, who was in school at the time. To avoid losing his television show. Because there's a morality clause in the contract.

No -- no reason to believe, it might affect his branding business.

Because, you know, all the branding of the Trump hotels, et cetera.

Obviously, there were mixed motives.

But the judge had to conclude, the predominant motive was to impact the election. Even though, if there was a campaign contribution, he wouldn't have had to report it until after the election. This case is so absurd. In 60 years of practicing, teaching and writing about criminal law, I have never seen a weaker case. And yet, there might be a conviction because this is a New York jury.

GLENN: You have watched juries forever.

ALAN: Yeah.

GLENN: Did you see any signs from them at all, one way or another?

ALAN: Hard to tell. When he acknowledged that he had stolen $60,000 from Trump and never tried to repay it, I can see the jury's literally raising their own eyebrows. They learned forward. They paid close attention to that. There was a lot of boring testimony. And, you know, jurors don't close their eyes. But they sit back. You don't know what they're thinking.

The only problem is, that jurors usually love the judge. The judge is the benevolent despot. And he is benevolent when the jury is there. When the jury leaves, then he becomes the true tyrant, that he really is.

GLENN: Yes.

ALAN: So the jury may take a cue from the judge, and the judge will give his instruction, I believe, that clearly favors the prosecution, and is prejudiced against the defender. So there's no real predicting the outcome.

I guess the most betting people are saying, a hung jury. It will be hard to get 12 people, to conclude either way, that he was totally innocent or totally guilty.

GLENN: And then what happens from -- what happens from there?

ALAN: The prosecution has the right to try him again. But at that point, the trial will have to take place after the election. And I'm not sure they would go forth.

It would depend on the vote. If the vote were 10-2 for the conviction, they might be triumphant. If it was 10-2 for acquittal, they may not retry him.

So there's a lot to be seen. The other thing that is bizarre. I've never seen this before. The judge delayed the trial a whole week. The jury went home. The jury is home today, tomorrow. It will be home Friday.

Of course, then the holiday. Vacation. Then it comes back next week.

GLENN: Wait. Wait.

Isn't this one of these cases that you should really sequester the jury so they're not seeing the news?

ALAN: Of course. And especially if they're not seeing CNN or reading the New York Times.

One thing MSNBC, which have already convicted him, without a doubt.

I mean, MSNBC thinks this is the strongest case since the Abraham Lincoln assassination. If it had been on videotape. There's no doubt, by the MSNBC people, they're rooting for a verdict.

As is the media. When I was in the courtroom, the other day. You could just see. And you could hear from the media. They're all rooting for a conviction. Even one of the courtroom artists, criticized me. For coming to the trial, and showing support for Donald Trump.

I didn't come to show political support for Donald Trump. I haven't made up my mind who I'm voting for. I voted for Biden in the last election.

I didn't believe there to show political support. I came there to show legal support. That this was a case, that should never have been brought. I would have done the same thing, if Biden had been charged with a noncrime like this.

I'm not political when it comes to my legal analysis.

GLENN: Yeah.

Alan, let me switch gears. There is -- there is a story out about the FBI. And the raid on Mar-a-Lago. And, you know, that there was a -- and they were allowed to use deadly force.

And I -- it's my understanding, at least, that this is being misreported by the right.

That's in all of these. It's a general thing.

ALAN: It is. There shouldn't have been a search warrant at all. There should have been a subpoena. When you deal with people like the former president of the United States, you send them a subpoena.

And if he fails to disclose the material, then he's in contempt of court or in violation of statutes.

But you don't burst into his home.

Yeah. Of course, you need to be --

GLENN: So wait.

ALAN: If somebody is there, shooting at you.

But they should never have used the search warrant in the first place.

GLENN: Yeah. That was kind of.

I didn't know about the subpoena, and all that, that you had other options.

But as I'm. I was looking at this, this morning.

And I was like, you know, at least for presidents. And I think it would be fine for other things.

Because a lot of people seem to be having their terrors kicked in.

When it comes to the president. And I say this about Biden too.

I'm sure that was in the same, you know, paperwork for Joe Biden.

In his garage.

ALAN: No. They didn't have a support. They didn't have a search warrant for Biden. They had a subpoena. So there was no such paperwork for Biden.

GLENN: Oh, my God.

ALAN: So it's a very, very different standard.

It's rare to get a search warrant.

Normally, the way to go, is just in a gentlemanly way. Or in a ladylike way. You say, look, we're subpoenaing this. Please, produce it to the court tomorrow. And if you don't, you'll be held in contempt. And if you try to destroy something, like it's claimed Hillary Clinton tried to destroy some of our servers, that's an independent crime.

But Hillary Clinton didn't have a search warrant conducted against her. Joe Biden didn't. I don't know about Biden's kid.

I don't know whether Hunter Biden had a search warrant. Search warrants are not the usual way of obtaining material.

Usually it's by subpoena.

GLENN: So I talked to you maybe six months ago, and we were talking about banana republics.

And you said, we're up to six bananas. Get ten bananas, and we're a banana republic. Where are we today?

ALAN: Yeah. If it's a conviction, we're up to seven. But there's another court I want to talk about for a second, if you don't mind. And that is the International Criminal Court, that for the first time in its history, has gone after leaders of the democracy. Namely Benjamin Netanyahu, and the -- the foreign -- the military minister, in Israel. Even though, what they did was purely self-defense.

And -- and it means that the United States is at risk. Great Britain is at risk.

Canada is at risk. Any country that wages war is now at risk.

There is a rule for the International Criminal Court, that they can't go after any country, that has a working judiciary, which is capable and willing to investigate their own people.

Now, Israel has a very active judiciary. Four former prime ministers were investigated.

Four former prime ministers, Rabid, Sharome, Elmer (phonetic), and Netanyahu. In one form, a president went to jail. In fact, I made a joke about that, when I visited Omar in prison. I said, in Israel, when you ask for a former Prime Minister's cell number, it's not necessarily his cell number. And what other country can boast that they have had such an aggressive judiciary? And yet the international criminal court says, no, no, no. We're going after you.

Even though, Israel and the United States, they're not even signatories to the treaty. They're not members of the court. So we live in an age now, where courts are going out of control.

The court in New York is out of control. The court in the Hague is out of control.

And we should not be living by the judiciary. You know, in the book of, I think it's the book of Ruth. In the Bible, it starts by saying, when judges ruled the land, there was famine and hunger.

You know, you don't want judges to rule the land.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

Alan, thank you so much for talking to us. I appreciate it.

ALAN: Always a pleasure to have an intelligent talk with you. I look forward to it.

GLENN: Thank you. Alan Dershowitz, law school professor ameritas, and host of the Dershow.

The Dershow. And he's also the author of Get Trump. If you haven't read that, it's well worth your time.

Exposing Target’s Internal MELTDOWN After Pride Month Backlash
RADIO

Exposing Target’s Internal MELTDOWN After Pride Month Backlash

Glenn Beck reveals leaked internal messages between the members of Target’s “Pride + Business Council” that took place during last year's boycott. Target went off the rails last Pride Month and offered “tuck-friendly” bathing suits, chest binders, and transgender-themed merchandise for children. Americans responded with a boycott that sent Target running back into the closet. Thanks to an employee from Target corporate who wished to stay anonymous, Glenn exposes for the first time ever the radical response of Target employees, including a witch hunt that ensued when certain employees defended Target’s rollback of controversial LGBTQ+ merchandise as a reasonable business move. In the end, Target leadership received a list of demands from employees that included a call for Target to bring back the merchandise that started the controversy in the first place. Despite the internal pressure, Target toned down its Pride collection this year. Should reasonable Americans take the win, or is there yet another battle for the culture just around the corner?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So you're the first to hear this exclusive leak, that we received from a source inside Target headquarters who thought the public needed to know how some of Target's employees responded to last year's boycott. First, let me speak directly to the people that made all of this possible.

Women, I know it was hard to boycott Target.

We were there. We -- we as husbands, and men saw you. Like you weren't busy enough.

We saw you drive past that bright red sign. And go from store to store, to be able to boycott. With us. With Bud Light.

I mean, it's beer.

We will just reach in the fridge for another beer. Victory. Real victory is yours with Target. But it's Pride month again.

Which means, it's been one year since Target rolled out a collection of Pride onesies, tuck-friendly bathing suits, chest binders for girls, and apparel made by some transgender Satan apologist. Not today, Jesus. Says Satan.

This year, prayed month, Target has a much more toned down collection. Like, for instance, let me show you their new Pride Month charcuterie board.

That says, it's giving charcuterie. Has no rainbows or Pride symbols on it at all. It's just a wooden board.

I guess maybe Target thinks charcuterie is gay enough on its own. I'm not really sure, but it's a tame collection of rainbow wine bottles and clothes and nothing like last year.

Also, unlike last year. There was nothing for kids. So victory.

Now, some Target locations won't have any Pride merchandise this year. It will only be sold online in the stores. Where Target says, they've seen historically the strongest sales demand.

Okay. That makes sense as a business. To be clear, Target, I don't think is doing this because corporate had some road to Damascus moment, and decided, you know what, we should depoliticize this company and maybe sell things people want.

Remember, this is the same company, that in 2016, when most didn't even know, you know, that there were 96 genders.

They said, put a statement out that said, we welcome. I'm quoting. Transgender team members and guests. To use the restroom or fitting room facility that corresponds with their gender identity.

Well, that make me comfortable when my kids want to go and try something out. Their 2023 sustainability and governance report. This Target is one of them that does ESG on their own. Says, their goal is to take urgent action. To combat climate change and its impacts.

The Target website says, Target is an inclusive and antiracist organization. That's key.

It's not non-racist. It has to be. You have to have a little racism to combat racism, you see.

So the way I see it. There's only one reason Target has pulled back on their Pride collection.

And that is you. But now Target is a really, really tricky position. And that's because, on one hand, they can't afford another boycott. The New York Post reported that after last year's boycott, Target lost ten billion dollars in market valuation, in ten days.

That's a lot. On the other hand, they have created a brand around being basically woke. And just like Disney, the inmates are now in charge of the asylum. And employees at Target, many are very woke and militant. Now, to make matters really complicated, that radical staff they have to deal with, was not happy. Last year.

Last year, our team was given exclusive access to internal messages, that took place on Target's slack chapel for their pride plus business council.

We found culture wars that are taking place, because Target is taking a stand and saying, wait. We're going to slow down on this.

And the people were not just boycotting.

Internally, the employees started a little revolt.

And let me show you what we were sent and found.

Last year, when you were deciding to boycott Target for their choice to sell chest binders to children.

Paneled underwear.

Target hosted a town hall to discuss the move to pull back on some of their more controversial merchandise.

The people of the pride plus business council, were not pleased inside of Target.

Up said, quote.

It feels like leadership wants to keep support for LGBTQ causes on the down low. Like they want to be able to point it out to people. You know, make a fuss.

But they don't want to advertise it for people who might disagree. Senior management for philanthropic operations agreed, saying, quote, reasoning with the down low piece for real!

See, what they're saying is, Target while -- while we were saying Target went too far.

The employees were upset, that they hadn't gone far enough.

And now they were pulling back. One employee said, see. We need to cater to the bigots to get our sales up.

Okay. But it wasn't just the town hall announcement that started the internal firestorm at Target. It was the comments in the community chat, while it happened. The leaked messages were given to us, in backward order.

So as we went through them, we saw the Pride-plus council's reaction to the comments, before we saw the comments, themselves.

Remember, we weren't given access to the actual conversation, just the comments.

So we don't know what was said, by the Target leadership during the meeting.

But we were given snapshots. And screen shots of what happened in the chat.

So we don't know what they said, at the leadership of Target.

But it must have been pretty horrible.

Based on just the reactions. The comments must have been awful. From Target leadership.

Here are a few examples of what the chat said, during it.

How the Pride Plus business council was reacting. JPG 22, here. I've been through a lot in my life. I have PTSD to show for it.

And I have to say, that was the most gaslighty dystopian thing I ever witnessed in a while. Here's another one: JPG 24.

We need to protect ourselves. There are consequences for hateful statements and displays.

So now, what did Target say that has made their employees say, we have to protect ourselves from these hateful statements and displays?

Number 27.

A few more. I'm still in shock, and disgusted.

I'm sure a lot of people are examining, whether they want to continue to be a team member after all of this.

Kind of hard to get back to work after that one, huh?

So at this point, we're assuming something truly terrible had happened in that community chat.

The acronym HR was repeated over and over again in the chat.

And people were talking about filing ethics complaints.

One woman put the name and email of an intern, who she said was advocating for discrimination.

Wow! Another intern was exposed for basically putting thumbs down on a comment.

Which promoted one of the lead buyers for Target's pride collection to say, each person should be submitted to ethics.

An intern who gave a thumb's down on a comment, should be submitted to ethics.

So what horrible things were these people saying, to elicit such an extreme reaction.

Surely, they had to be sexist, racist tirades, that started this chaos.

Well, here's what we found. And you may want to sit down for this one. Because it's pretty darn shocking.

Here's one of the comments, that we found.

A woman who was a Christian. Hang on just a second.

That wrote this.

I'm a Christian. And I don't support violence against guests or team members.

Okay. I also don't hate people who view differently than myself.

However, for some to say my Biblical views are disgusting, that's not inclusive.

Wow! Now, it gets worse.

The people in the chat need to look at past year's Pride assortment. The backlash this year has been specific to gender-plus children, to imply leadership is now bowing down to bigots is highly offensive.

Then this: A lead designer, who had been at Target for 25 years, defended the people, who felt a little weird about Target partnering with a designer, who currently produces products that say, Satan respects pronouns.

This lead designer at Target said, so someone who doesn't think a partnership with an artist who glorifies Satan in their products is a bigot? Would Target partner with a similar individual who had a racist-themed product, or would you have the same feeling towards those partnerships?

Maybe quit calling names, because their beliefs are different than yours. The most inflammatory comment that we could find was made by a woman who started working at Target in the early 2000s.

She said, quote, not all people agree that giving hormones to kids, which only provides long-term health issues is a good thing. So inclusivity, means ignoring 95 percent of the population? To make sure 5 percent are able to keep grooming kids, end quote?

Read about some of the stories. I'm still quoting now.

Of the young girls who have had a mastectomy at 13. And are now in their 20s. And have horrible health issues. From the hormones that they've taken. I don't care what an adult does.

But kids should be left alone.

Is that unreasonable?

My favorite comment was this, with JPG 45. Our leadership team has a difficult decision to make.
They answer to something called shareholders.

We're also responsible for thousands of team member jobs. Please, don't attack your leadership or your fellow team members when you don't know their heart.

We are a business, and this is capitalism. Good day now. End quote.

Well, Target needed to send out a company-wide letters addressing the comments before the end of the day. And here's what they said.

Several comments made during the town hall, violated Target's policies. Those incidents are being addressed directly. Target does not tolerate discrimination or hate speech of any kind.

Wait. The ones who just said don't attack the leadership?

That that's hate speech? That wasn't enough for some of the members of the Pride Plus business council.

The idea was floated in their chat. On the day of their town hall.

That they needed more organized response.

That response came about a month later, in the form of a list of demands, sent to target leadership. Which we were also given access. Exclusive access to.

In the memo, they said, they wanted from Target, quote, an acknowledgment of harm. A sincere apology.

And a clear statement of unwavering support for the LGBTQ+ community.

They wrote, we have always regarded Target as an inclusive and progressive company. However, these recent events have called into question, the company's commitment to these values.

They said, the removal of some of the Pride collection was disappointing and distressing. So fort company to atone, they needed Target to acknowledge in writing, the harm done to the LGBTQ+ community, explicitly the trans and nonbinary -- nonbinary members of the community. Forge partnerships with prominent LGBTQ advocacy groups and immediately reinstate the Pride collection in full, which we know didn't happen.

Donate to LGBTQ causes and implement sensitivity training for employees and cease all contributions to politicians and organizations that do not support the LGBTQ community.

This is so crazy. Because here is a company, that supports LGBTQ. Way beyond what other companies do.

And they're not woke enough. Even after all that pressure from within the company. And all the pressure outside the company, from people like Governor Newsom accusing Target CEO of selling out the LGBTQ+ community to extremists.

We're the extremists. Target still toned down its Pride collection this year, and they did it because of you. This is a testament of what you can do, when we come together, which brings me to the point of this whole story.

What is this story really all about?

Because I'm not showing you all about this stuff?

You know, saying that Target has issues.

We know that already.

It's why you staged a boycott.

What is this story really all about?

Okay. So I wanted to give you this exclusive story today, on Target. Because I want you to see a couple of things here. First of all, we do have the power to make a difference.

We have more power than you think you do.

That's why they need to shut people up, using fear, okay?

The second thing is, is a little bit of hope.

And sadness as well.

Wokeness will always destroy itself.

This is -- it's like the plant in little shop of horror. You give it a little bit of blood, and it will eventually eat you.

And that's what's happening to companies like Target. They created a monster, and they planted it inside their own company. And it's eating them alive.

It's as if all of Target's virtue signaling came to life in the form some of their employees. And now it's the battle to the death. It's the same in higher education. There are those professors who have been teaching revolutionary theories for years. But now have been run out by revolutionaries they created. Same thing in the Democratic Party.

The new generation of progressives is threatening the Democratic establishment, who used to be the radicals, for not being radical enough.

Wokeness always eats its own. And it's because the entire ideology is fueled by deconstruction.

And critical theories that rage against the hierarchy. Or the debate. And do you know whams when you're in a movement for a while?

You, the radical, become the establishment. If you climb your way to the top of the woke ladder, you'll find yourself on the wrong side of the movement. And the new revolutionaries always destroy the old ones. The ending of the story for places like Target and Disney is inevitable.

And I think most of us understand that innately, which is why we watch these stories unfold like it's the end of the Daytona 500. We know someone is going to crash. It's just a matter of time. So what do we do?

Do we sit back, point and laugh?

No. That would be tempting. And fun. A little bit.

But not useful. Because in the short-term.

Whatever crash is coming. Is going to affect all of us.

There are plenty of sane people. Normal people. That work at Target.

Hike the ones that we saw, trying to be reasonable in their community chat.

All of us will be caught in the crossfire of these woke institutions as they implode.

We just need to be ready to fill the vacuum. That it's going to create.

In the long-term, we have to focus on creating an alternative. Business. Movie. Media.

Everything.

That's what we need. Alternatives. Kind, gracious. Decent. Alternatives.

You build it. They destroy. But you build. You restore.

Wokeness is a destructive force.

We just have to hold on to our values. And be ready to rebuild.

Did Obama REALLY Have to Lead a Senile Biden Off Stage?
RADIO

Did Obama REALLY Have to Lead a Senile Biden Off Stage?

The White House now insists that it’s “disinformation” to say that President Biden wandered away from G7 leaders while watching parachutists. He wasn’t lost in his own senile world! He was just greeting another parachutist…and had to be dragged back to the rest of the group. Well, over the weekend, Biden allegedly had a similar moment when former president Barack Obama had to allegedly lead him off stage at a massive fundraiser for his campaign. So, what’s the truth? Glenn and Pat break it down. Plus, they also discuss the upcoming first Trump/Biden debate of the 2024 election: What are Trump’s real odds of winning? Will the White House juice up Biden? And why are they holding it before the parties’ presidential conventions?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Remember the video of Joe Biden, you know, kind of wanderings off, and Prime Minister Maloney, going over and grabbing him and bringing him back in a very graceful way.

The White House has now come out and said, this is disinformation.

And there are stories everywhere about this. On how this is disinformation.

He was looking at some of the other parachutists, and he just wanted to go over and salute them and congratulate them. Maybe it's true. Maybe it's not true.

But it certainly is true, that he is not looking presidential. He is not paying attention. He is in his own little world.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: But they notice that they say, this is disinformation.

They say that to discredit anyone. Now, let me take it a step further. Over the weekend, there was a -- there was a fundraiser in California. In Los Angeles.

PAT: Huge.

GLENN: Yeah. Huge. And I think $50 million. Something like that. Jimmy Kimmel hosted it and Barack Obama was there with Joe Biden.

PAT: George Clooney. Julia Roberts. A bunch of stars. Yeah.

GLENN: At the end, Joe Biden is standing there with his hands kind of clenched a couple of times. But his hands -- and he was in that frozen lip sort of look. And when it comes time to leave the stage, Obama just reaches over and grabs Biden by the wrist and leads him off the stage. And it looks horrible, absolutely horrible. We can't show that video today, because it's something that all of us in the media are experiencing right now. Lawfare. We are being sued and everybody in our position are being sued if we play any clip. And, you know, it's weird. We don't get in trouble for playing clips that, you know, are neutral. Or don't have anything to do with anything, but, you know, Joe Biden. And the left.

We can't play them. And they're -- they're charging now. Like that clip is $600 for one -- one play. One play.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: And I don't even know if that includes on the internet and replays and everything else.

So they're making it impossible, for to us show you clips, of things that happened.

PAT: That are all over the internet, by the way. They're all over -- we just can't talk about them. We can't do it.

I mean, we can talk about it. But we can't show it. The problem makes it worse, right?

GLENN: I think it does. I was just going to say that. I think it makes it much worse.

If I describe to you, Joe Biden on the stage, and he's in that pose. And he's just stiff, and his hands are clenched.

And Obama grabs him by the arm. Your imagination might make that worse, than it actually is.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: You might watch that and go, well, it's not that bad. But if we can't play it, you don't get to decide. And that's the point.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: You don't get to decide.

PAT: But Obama definitely grabs him by the wrist and starts leading him out, and then he smoothly kind of makes it like, oh, this is my good buddy, and puts him arm around him. And then he just pushes him off the stage. He just guides him the whole way.

GLENN: The whole time. The whole time.

PAT: And never -- never removes his arm from -- from Joe Biden's back.

It's amazing to watch. And I don't know how they explain that away. I'm sure they will just say, oh, they are just very close.

GLENN: Yeah. Barack does not like Joe Biden.

PAT: No. Not in a minute.

GLENN: There's something else. Is the debate on Thursday or Friday of this week?

PAT: It's a week from Thursday.

GLENN: A week from Thursday. I am reading so much that Donald Trump is just going to cream him and everything else.

I -- I would be very careful with your predictions on this. First of all, it -- it will higher expectations. So everybody will expect him to just make a clean sweep. And if he doesn't, then it looks like a loss for Donald Trump.

So be careful on the way you're being used.

PAT: Yeah. True.

GLENN: To talk about this.

And the other thing is, and we will find this out. Well, we won't. But our kids and grandkids will find out. I'm convinced that they juice him.

PAT: Oh, for sure. Just like they did for the State of the Union Address.

GLENN: Well, we don't know that for sure, but we speculate.

PAT: Yes. Yes.

GLENN: He comes out, and he is a different man entirely.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: And, you know, they did this for JFK, and everything else.

And we didn't know about it, for 20 years. But, you know, just like Elvis and everybody else.

You have to perform. Let's get him to performance level, and they juice him up. And so he will be clear. I think he will actually do well. He will be clear. Donald Trump could also look like a bully, to this sweet little old man.

I mean, honestly

PAT: It's possible.

GLENN: You have no idea, how this thing is going to play out. No idea.

The question we should be asking is: Why are they doing it, before either of them are officially the candidate of their party?

PAT: Is your thought on that, that they could make a change if they decide to.

GLENN: I have no thought on it.

I have no thought on it. Other than, we're probably not going to get a debate before the election. And, you know, there's a million ways you can go. You know, if he doesn't do well. They can change him.

You know, if he gets worse in the next six months. They know what they're dealing with now.

But what will he be like in November? Look how fast this guy is deteriorating. So maybe it's that. I don't know.

But in my lifetime, Pat. I don't think I've ever seen a debate between the two candidates. In a presidential debate, before the two conventions.

PAT: No. I don't think it's happened. I think this is the earliest ever.

GLENN: Right. Right. So what is that all about?

Why is that happening?

PAT: It might be. Yeah. I think like you said. It could be a number of things.

But one of the things that I think is pretty obvious.

Is that if he performs badly. You have meant of time to recover from that. If this happens right before. Right before the election, and he performs terribly, like we expect him to.

Or so many of us do.

Then that hurts him.

But if it's six months before, you forget.

GLENN: Right. And if he does really, really well, like he did in the State of the Union.

I mean, I thought it was a horrible speech. And I disagreed with almost he went he ever said.

PAT: But perform better than I thought he would.

GLENN: Oh, yeah. He performed like he was there.

And if he performs like he is there, then they have that to go to all the time. Over and over again. No matter what he's like. You know. Because you cannot have. You can't have the performance of the State of the Union. And the performance in the rest of his life. You know, you just -- it doesn't -- they're juicing him with something. Something is happening.

To get him to that state. And I think he will be in that state.

Which everybody will say. Because they're expecting such a poor performance of him.

Oh, look. He's not as bad as everybody says.

Glenn Schools CNN: Why America is a REPUBLIC, Not a Democracy
RADIO

Glenn Schools CNN: Why America is a REPUBLIC, Not a Democracy

CNN recently asked Trump supporters about America’s “democracy” and were terrified to discover that they believed we’re not a democracy, but a republic. Well, sorry CNN, but that’s true, no matter what the “experts” claim. Glenn breaks it all down for them and explains why our Founders chose to combine the principles of a republic and a democracy to create the system we have now…or do we? Glenn explains how our system of unelected, faceless bureaucrats is the real danger, not Trump supporters…

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: I have some -- some breaking news from CNN. We apparently are not a republic.

Now, I want you to listen to the -- please, I haven't said this in a long time. But just about everything pisses me off so much, and I can't believe it, that I've kind of have given up on my head not exploding.

But I guarantee you, your head will explode on this CNN clip.

So please, wrap your head tightly in duct tape. It will explode.

But at least you will have all the pieces that way, when you walk in, they will be like, oh, another head explosion.

And you will have all the pieces, so they can stitch you back together.

But your head will explode on this. Here's the latest from CNN.

VOICE: President Biden's House's re-election campaign is a fight to preserve democracy. If you ask some Trump supporters, the former president is not a threat to democracy, because the United States is not a democracy.

VOICE: Obviously, there's a lot of criticisms of Trump, that he is bad for democracy. That he's bad for American democracy.

VOICE: We are a republic. We are not a democracy.

VOICE: We are a republic, we're not a democracy.

VOICE: One thing we've been hearing at Trump rallies like this over the past few months. Is that America isn't really a democracy.

VOICE: America is not a democracy. It's a republic. .

VOICE: Look, it's not a democracy. Democracy is actually not as good as you think it is.

VOICE: America is a democracy. It was founded as a democracy.

VOICE: Here's the expert.

VOICE: I've had heard a lot of conspiracy theories, I hear a lot of things out on the road. But to hear Americans, people who describe themselves as patriots, say that America is not a democracy. That stopped me in my tracks.

GLENN: Right.

VOICE: You were hearing people say America is not a democracy because there are people around Trump who want them to be saying that. Who have planted that narrative.

GLENN: Okay. They've been planting that narrative. Continue on. Please. Play some more if there's more. Oh, you have to get to the end. See if you can get to the rest of it. Where they go back and talk to people and they're saying, you're wrong. We're not a republic.

And they make this into a giant scandal.

We are a republic!

And to the republic, for which it stands! Okay?

Here's the problem, people don't understand what the difference is between a democracy.

We are a democracy, on voting day.

One man. One vote.

You go in. And you use the democratic principle of one man, one vote.

And you democratically elect people to their position.

But what you're not doing is voting on every single law.

You are voting for a representative.

That representative represents you in the republic. A republic has people -- understands that people can't understand every single issue and be voting on every single issue. A republic also understands that a democracy is bad. A -- democracy-only country will every time. Because all you need is to whip enough people into a frenzy. Schedule a vote. They'll vote, the way you want them to vote. It will bring you things like the Patriot Act, when something bad happens, people will be like, we've got to stop all those Japanese! Let's put them into a camp!

Okay? You have a republic to slow the process down and give reason a chance. Can you imagine this country voting on every single issue? When they don't even know the difference between a republic and a democracy? And when you have media, that is going to experts -- so-called experts. And telling us, that we're -- we're not a republic!

A lot of time was spent with the Founders trying to find the best system. They ruled democracy out, because they always fail.

So they took the democratic principle, which is one man, one vote. Used that to select representatives.

We are a representative republic. And that you have to be able to explain that to people.

You have to understand, look, democracy is a very important part of our republic. But it is not what we are.

We are a democratic republic. So we vote for the people to represent us. Why is the democracy part so important?

Well, the democracy part is really important because what was the war in heaven, all about?

If you go back and you read your Scriptures and you look at the war in heaven, what was it about?

It was about Satan saying, I'll cleanse all of them. You don't need anything, but me. I'll go down, and I will tell everyone, what they're supposed to do and keep them from sinning.

I'll keep them safe, and they won't make any decisions on their own. I'll tell them they can only do these things. Then Jesus stood up and said, no. They must have freedom of choice.

And so, I will go down, and atone for all of their mistakes.

So the very first thing, in the -- the very first argument, in all of the Scriptures, the first argument was over free choice.

Do I have someone make all the decisions to keep me safe, and free from all harm?

Or do I have a savior, that will rebalance things and make sure that you're clean enough?

Because no one can be clean enough!

No one will ever be perfect on earth!

Unless, Satan would say, somebody tells them exactly what they can and cannot do.

Well, that is a misunderstanding of human nature. That is a misunderstanding of God's nature.

So one man, one vote. Yes! Very important.

But then take human nature into account!

Human nature is to just go with their feelings. That's a bad idea. So the whole Constitution is written, to restrain the government, so they cannot make every decision for you, like they're trying to.

This is when people say, government thinks it's God.

Government is their God.

Yes, it is!

Because they want it to make all of the decisions for you. Does that sound like the plan of Jesus? Or the plan of Satan?

So you elect the representatives. They answer to you.

This is why they're the one that holds the purse.

Congress is supposed to be the only one that can initiate pending.

But these people who claim they're for democracy, are just spending it in any way.

It doesn't matter. They hold the purse. They're the closest to you. They're elected every two years.

Why? Because you need to be able to tell your representative, no! That's not what we want. That's why every bill of spending, everything, needs to start with Congress! But what happened to Congress? Why isn't Congress doing everything?

Well, they'll say it's because of the Republicans and the Democrats. No. It's because no one in Washington wants it to work that way! They want to be able to issue dictates! Dictate. Dictate. That's the root word of something else. Oh! A dictator.

They want to issue either an executive order, which is part of the American republic, but they were never meant to be used like this.

All the things that are going through executive order now, are the responsibility of Congress and the Senate!

They were never -- we were never to be ruled by faceless bureaucrats, that no one elected. You want to talk about back to democracy, the EPA.

The ATF. The -- the housing people. The -- the Fed! All of these things, that you never elected. You never elected any of those people. And it's okay if they are hired to be in there to make the system work. But instead, they're making the rules, which become laws.

Only Congress can make laws. But we don't do that anymore. That's why we have to restore the republic. Democracy is happening. And democracy is very important.

But we have to restore the republic. Because the republic part of our democratic republic is broken!

Oh. These -- the -- the lies and the lies from not only the media, but the so-called experts, when are we going to stop listening to these experts?

Well, I'll tell you. I'll tell you. Because the rest of that CNN report, went on. And went back to the people who said, we're a republic. Not a democracy.

And then they couldn't understand. They couldn't define what a republic was.

Well, you're of no help.

You're of no help. That's why we have the experts.

Don't claim something, if you don't -- all knowledge. All information. Everything you believe must be yours.

And it must be purchased at the price, that apparently is too high for somebody -- some people to pay. Most Americans to pay. The price you have for your opinion, is it is your opinion, that you have done some sort of research, you've done some sort of thinking on this. And you haven't taken it from a boob like me, and just, oh, yeah. He said it. And it sounded really good. So we are a republic not a democracy. You can't take what I have spent my lifetime learning and studying, you can't take it from me.

It must be your own. It's like a testimony of God. If you don't have a testimony, that is yours. If you are feasting on somebody else's, you're doomed.

Okay?

It won't work. It will break down. And people will say, well, wait a minute. What about this or this or this.

If you haven't thought of that, then you don't really have a testimony. If you haven't thought -- when I say, well, what is the difference between a republic and a democracy?

If you can't explain that, how do you think can't kids are going to explain it? How do you think you can possibly defend the United States of America?

If we don't know what our rights are, if we don't know why they were established.

See, this is -- give me. Give me a minute.

I'll come back in just a second.

First, let me take a minute here. A break. And tell you about the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews.

On June 8th, in a daring daytime raid, Israeli security forces rescued four hostages, held by Hamas terrorists in Gaza.

Some were being held in the homes of Palestinian citizens. A man named Aaron Zamora. Commander of the police special counterterrorism unit.

He was killed during the time rescue. Israel's ground campaign against Hamas continues. Even as Hezbollah is attacking them from the north.

The International Fellowship of Christians and Jews has a pledge that they are asking Christians to take.

To stand with their Jewish brothers and centers. To never be silent. The first step in this, is to know why the Jewish people, and why Israel, even exists!

Why does Israel exist?

If you don't know the answer to that, then you're of no help.

Israel exists for one reason, this is just one reason. And that is so they can defend themselves!

Because everywhere Jews go, they end up being the scapegoat. And they can't defend themselves. Because the country will say, well, they're dangerous.

We need to disarm them. Well, no, no, no. We'll protect you.

Then they never do. At least if they have a homeland, they can defend themselves. Anyway, the pledge is to ask you to say, I understand never again. I understand never again is now. At all times. I understand what is happening in the world, and the evil that is happening.

And I, as a Christian, pledge to the Jews all around the world, by neighbors in Israel, everywhere. I will stand with you.

Will you sign this pledge? Go to SupportIFCJ.org. That's SupportIFCJ.org.

And take a stand today. Ten-second station ID.
(music)
Now, let me ask you something: Why would people who say one man, one vote, is so important. Be the leaders on stealing votes.

Why would somebody who really, truly believes in democracy, also at the same time be saying, it's about the collective.

Why?

If you believe in the principle of democracy.

That's the individual, having a voice.

And we have that here in America.

That's part one of our republic. The individual has a voice.

Now, why does the individual have a voice? Because, again, back to the war in heaven. Christ said, I will atone for all of them.

Individually, it wasn't collective, we must. We can't earn it as an individual.

We can't earn it as a collective. But it was personal. An individual to each of us.

Okay. That's where we get all men are created equal. They are created spiritually equal. It doesn't mean they're born in equal families with equal opportunities. Or they'll have equal outcomes.

It means we all are the same in the spirit.

That -- that spark of life is the same in all of us.

And we all have the same rights, no matter what station you were born in. No matter who you are. You still have the same basic human right.

The Gnostics tried to make this into a 1 percent kind of deal. The Gnostics were like, well, not everybody is safe. I mean, those who know. They will be safe.

But not everybody.

This is why we're supposed to treat everyone equally.

This is why we're supposed to treat people like our brothers and sisters.

Because we literally are spiritual brothers and sisters of each other. And if we can get to a point to where we can see the spiritual spark in every human being, even when we meet them.

Even when we don't like them. Even if -- even if they're trying to destroy us. They are still that person! They're still a human being. My brother or sister.

This is why trials are supposed to be done. Justice is blind. Because you're not supposed to look at the R or the D, after their name. You're not supposed to look for the Trump or the Biden. You're supposed to look at the lay, and the claim of the breaking of the law. And the facts. And that's it!

With democracies, you get a mob.

And in the end, you always get the collective. Both of those are evil!

Control Freaks: The 'Scientific' Roots of Progressive Tyranny | The Beck Story | Ep 1
THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

Control Freaks: The 'Scientific' Roots of Progressive Tyranny | The Beck Story | Ep 1

How did unelected “experts” with their unwavering devotion to “science” rise to such power in American life? More than a century ago, an engineer named Frederick W. Taylor inspired progressive activists with a new concept he called “scientific management.” Future Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis took Taylor’s concept and married it with political power. Brandeis teamed up with President Woodrow Wilson and a powerful senator named Robert La Follette to give the nation an “expert” makeover that Americans were not asking for. This is the story of how a cult of expertise developed among progressives and how these “experts” took a sledgehammer to our constitutional system of government, with far-reaching consequences that still reverberate today. '

NOTE: Episode 2 is available NOW wherever you get your podcasts. Subscribe, rate, and review to help the “The Beck Story” climb the charts!