RADIOSeptember 02, 2024

EXPLAINED: What happens if Trump wins from PRISON?

Special counsel Jack Smith has revived his classified documents case against Donald Trump. But why is he doing this so close to the election? Will the Supreme Court's immunity ruling apply here? And what would happen if Trump wins the election from prison? Former U.S. DoJ Assistant Attorney General and Center for Renewing America senior fellow Jeff Clark joins Glenn to break it all down: “I would not be surprised if [this judge] sentenced President Trump to prison.” But he also explains why he believes the American people will see through the Left’s attempt to “criminalize politics” and realize that we have become a banana republic.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Jeff Clark, he is a senior fellow at the center for renewing America. And he knows this case, quite well.

The case against Trump. The latest indictment filed against special counsel Jack Smith.

Jeff, I have been trying to understand this story.

It's very complex. Can you just break it down for dummies, like me?

JEFF: Glenn, thanks for having me.

And, you know, you're definitely underestimating yourself, Glenn, but hopefully I can help the audience to understand the case.

GLENN: Okay.

JEFF: So, look, obviously this case was filed a way back.

And it's resulted in several important decisions, first as the district court, and then in the DC circuit, holding that President Trump was not immune.

You know, they tried to last that argument out of the lower courts, especially with this ridiculous SEAL team six hypothetical.

The idea that President Trump could order Seal Team Six to assassinate his political rivals.

And so the argument goes. You know, because that would not make any sense.

Therefore, he can't have any form of immunity. And I always thought that hypothetical was totally ridiculous, when the case eventually reached the Supreme Court. In a case called Trump v. United States, which was decided by the Supreme Court. Six to three, most of it, on July 1st of this year.

GLENN: Right.

JEFF: They gave that argument, short trip too. And they held, consistent with the fact, that every branch of government, has some form of immunity. That the president of the United States, and the one that was just applied to Donald Trump, it was applied to all presidents of the United States. Have to have, you know, a set of immunities. And the immunities they decided that he had, were basically a -- in a trichotomy.

So the first tier is that the president exercises his core executive powers.

You know, the things that are at the heart of being president. He is absolutely immune from those.

Full stop. Then second, per anything else that he does. Which is not within his core powers.

So that would include things like speaking, using the president's bully pulpit.

He's immune to the outer boundaries of his office. As long as it has the nexus to his official duties, which a lot of things do. And that there he has presumptive immunity. And in order to overcome it, you have to show that it would really make no impingement or inroads into the executive power. You know, to -- to be able to pierce that immunity. So that's also a very strong form of immunity.

GLENN: But that would be something like he's saying, you know, WWE is real. And somebody sues him. And says, it's not real.

It has nothing to do with the presidency. Right?

JEFF: Exactly right. So it certainly -- to my mind, let's take the speech, that he gave, you know, outside the -- the White House. On January 6th. He was clearly talking about matters of public concern, which the president can express himself on. And I think that that is presumptively immune. And I think to tell a president that he could not set out his views about an election, would be an inroads into the presidency. And therefore, he would also be immune for that.

GLENN: Yeah.

JEFF: So the left category, and the trichotomy is a category for which a president would not be immune, Glenn. That's the category of -- of an unofficial act. An act in a private capacity.

And so, after the Supreme Court's decision on July 1st, you know, it -- it kind of goes down each step. It steps down to the Court of Appeals level.

And they remand it back to the district court to Judge Chutkan.

And then Judge Chutkan started to set proceedings. More -- more on that in a minute.

And then what's ultimately come, once she now has jurisdiction back in the case, is that Jack Smith was off to the side, working with an entirely different grand jury, and he got this superseding indictment that came out yesterday.

And in -- in a phrase, what that indictment is, you know, new indictment. Meet the old indictment. You know, it's just the same as that old indictment.

He's just reformulated to try to make it consistent with and fit everything into the third box.

The box of everything President Trump did. That he had indicted before.

The first time. Is actually -- as opposed to a set of official acts.

And therefore, Jack Smith argues, he's not immune.

GLENN: So are they doing this, to smear him yet again. So late in the campaign.

Or is this a plan just in case he wins, they think this will keep him out of office?

JEFF: I think, Glenn, that they're doing it for all of those reasons. Right? Because they absolutely want to block him any way they can.
So this is election interference. There's no way you should be issuing a new indictment like this, using a new grand jury.

This close to a major presidential election. Especially --

GLENN: Correct.

JEFF: And it also shows me that this was being concealed. So what happens is that the court was told.

Because it was ready to go. Trying to set deadlines to try to march back toward a trial.

And Jack Smith made a filing. The last couple of weeks. Saying, no. No. No. Hold on. I need more time.

We're doing consultations inside the Justice Department.

Well, I'm sure they were doing consultations inside the Justice Department. But that's not the real reason. It's now clear, that the real reason is that he was actually in secret grand jury proceedings, getting this superseding indictment.

GLENN: Jeez.

JEFF: And the media, right? The media has been all over, watching the DC courthouse.

I mean, back in the real height of this, a year ago, you know, no one could walk into the courthouse, even if it was for an entirely different reason.

And not have the media report X, Y, Z. You know, this person went in. They must be going to the grand jury. Or there was speculation. But for this proceeding, for some reason, it surprised someone.

All the mainstream media, purported to say, well, Jack Smith was just consulting inside the Justice Department.

I think that that was essentially running a cover story for the fact that they were conveniently not -- purporting not to watch the courthouse.

Because they would have seen the prosecutors, regularly going to the grand jury to get this new indictment. And yet there was entire radio silence on that, until the surprise of yesterday.

GLENN: So what is supposedly new in this one, that changes the ground?

JEFF: It's not. It's essentially just a reformulation, right?

So the original indictment started out by saying, you know, Donald Trump, president of United States. You know, from -- from these dates, to candidate Trump.

So everything has been reframed. In the light of trying to fit it into the third box of being a private unofficial act.

GLENN: Person.

JEFF: Yeah. And otherwise, it's the same. It's the same four counts. There are -- even, you know, particularly remarkable to me, Glenn. Is not just that they have the -- trying to repackage the allegations, right? To go against Trump in his private capacity.

But the fact that two of the allegations were to this statute -- 28. I'm sorry. 18USC1512.

And that statute went to the Supreme Court, also this past term, involving the January 6ers. And the Supreme Court decided that -- that 1512C2, about obstruction with official proceeding, which I'm sure you and many of our your listeners would have heard of. You know, a statute, that really, they stretched to try to apply to January 6th. Even though they didn't. The Supreme Court held, that it did not apply to the January 6ers. And it remanded.

So, you know, Jack Smith has never said aye. He's still using 1512. Many commentators thought that after the Supreme Court's Fischer decision, that's the one about 1512C2, that he would drop the 1512 counts. And he would just go with the conspiracy counts.

Two conspiracy counts. There's 118USC371, conspiracy to defraud the US.

And then the second conspiracy count is a conspiracy against civil rights. But, no. He's using exactly the same four counts that he used before.

That's why I say, you know, the new indictment is really the same as the old indictment.

GLENN: I have to tell you, I don't think the Rosenbergs went through this kind of trial and tribulation. That Donald Trump. I've never seen anybody treated like they treat Donald Trump.

Never. What -- what the courts have done to him, what the prosecutors have done to him, in these cherry-picked courthouses and districts is absolutely obscene.

And I -- I would love to them your point of view, Jeff. I think they will put him in jail in September.

JEFF: Well, I'm actually, Glenn, making preparations to go up there, to be in Judge Merchan's court in Manhattan, on September 18th if the sentencing goes forward.

Look, two days before that time, on September 16th, Judge Merchan is supposed to issue his decision about whether the Supreme Court's immunity decision, Trump v. the US, that I've been talking about.

Whether that essentially requires a new trial to be granted. And I don't see how it couldn't possibly -- you know, you could come to any other conclusion, to the fact that it requires a new trial. Because President Trump is immune for his official acts. And there's even, in addition to the three tiers of immunity that I've described to you.

The Supreme Court created a new exclusionary rule, and said that, in terms of liberation inside the executive branch, are -- are protected. And they cannot be presented in court, as evidence against the president. And so the Alvin Bragg prosecution, it presented precisely such prohibited evidence. It had Hope Hicks in the Oval Office, talking to the president. And testifying about various things.

The jury heard that. And you can't unring that bell. They produced a verdict, based on hearing that evidence.

Alvin Bragg is trying to argue. Oh, it's all harmless error. Right?

We would have gotten that, even if we hadn't presented that evidence. Well, who knows? No one knows that. And I don't believe it. And so he needs a new trial.

So I predict, sadly, you know, for the same reasons you say that the lawfare is just so intense and unprecedented against President Trump. And it really is a dagger at the heart of the republic, that I bet, you know, Judge Merchan is going to go ahead and deny the unite-based motion for a new trial. And then he will do the sentencing. And I actually would not be surprised if he sentenced President Trump, to prison.

And maybe he tries to, you know, soften it a little bit at the end. Just by saying, this sentence wouldn't begin to run until after the election, or something like that.

Or if you really wanted to go full bore, right? You can say, no, you're remanded into custody immediately. Or you're remanded into home confinement immediately. He has a lot of different options.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. I have to tell you, I think the American people will lose their mind.

Both Republican and Democrat. And especially I think independents. I think there are a lot of people who are sick of this. And they will see, this is a banana republic.

JEFF: I agree. It's already gotten to a banana republic level in terms of the level of lawfare directed at President Trump, at myself.

GLENN: Right.

JEFF: You know, at Steve Bannon, and Peter Navarro. You know, all of my folks down in Georgia, with Fani Willis.

GLENN: It's crazy.

JEFF: Now they have a new case out in Arizona, which they're trying to press on. You know, it's relentless.

It really is something that is trying to criminalize politics. And criminalize the ordinary operations of laughter. And pretend that Donald Trump was the chief executive of the United States.

That he -- you know, some unprecedented threat, that requires a level of treatment, that no one has ever gotten before, in the history of our country.

Just take, Glenn, the Mar-a-Lago raid. Right?

What did they do with Vice President Pence and President Biden? They negotiated an agreement to go and search through their -- their homes, right? But did President Trump get that treatment?

No. He got a jackbooted raid. With armed agents. That wouldn't even show the president's lawyer, Christina Bobb at the time, the warrant initially, until she basically had to pry it out of him.

GLENN: Would you hold on just a second, Jeff?

Because I have to take a 60-second break. And then when we come back, I would just like to know, what happens if he go to jail? Can he be president of the United States?

How would that work? Does Secret Service go with him?

What happens? We'll talk about that in 60 seconds. First, getting poor sleep is not just an inconvenience. It absolutely ruins your day, for one thing. That's -- you know, that's not the worst part. It's also terrible for your health. And it can be very dangerous. If you've ever fallen asleep, during driving. Because you have such a terrible night of sleep. Or you've fallen asleep in a meeting. And you're like, I've got to stay awake. You're screaming at yourself, and you just can't do it.

If you're somebody who has difficulty sleeping, either once in a while or all the time, there is something I've taken when I've had sleep issues. And I would like for you to give it a try.

It's all natural. It's called Z Factor. It comes from the makers of Relief Factor. It's a 100 percent drug-free way to help you fall asleep faster, sleep better, and stay asleep longer.

Z Factor, uses a formula of four all natural ingredients to calm your mind. Relax your body, so you can ease into sleep faster, and sleep right through the night.

It's worked for me. It works for my wife. Rediscover the joy of a great night of sleep with Z Factor. Get the best sleep you've ever had. Try Z Factor from Relief Factor, and save 46 percent on your first order.

It's ReliefFactor.com. ReliefFactor.com. Call 800-4-Relief. 800-4-Relief. Ten-second station ID.
(music)
From the Center for Renewing America, he's the senior fellow there. Also, former US DOJ Assistant Attorney General Jeff Clark is with us.

So if they put him in jail, can a president be in jail?

If he -- let's say he wins the election. But he's in jail. What happens?

JEFF: So there are two periods, right? One would be a period, prior to inauguration. There to answer your question, right before the break.

You know, the Secret Service would still protect him.

And, you know, indeed, Alvin Bragg had been talking to the New York jail system, about trying to make accommodations for that.

And then in the period after he's inaugurated, then I think all of the -- any kind of imprisonment would have to be ended for suspended.

It would be what lawyers call preempted by the Constitution since he would be the dully elected and inaugurated president of the United States.

He can't be kept from exercising those functions by a state conviction.

GLENN: That is absolutely unbelievable.

I mean, I don't think our Founders ever -- they -- I don't think they ever saw something like this happening.

I mean, you know, our -- our checks and balances are so far out of whack. And the administrative state is so strong now.

That, you know, almost anything can happen. It is really crazy. Jeff, thank you. Go ahead.

JEFF: Thank you. Yeah. I was going to say, you're absolutely right. The republic is hanging by a thread at this point. Hopefully Judge Merchan will come to his senses. And I think the Supreme Court is always in the background to make this all come out right, like they did in the Trump immunity case on July 1st.

GLENN: Hmm. Jeff Clark, thank you very much. I appreciate it.

You can follow him on Twitter, @JeffClarkUS. @JeffClarkUS. Thanks, Jeff. Appreciate it.

I mean, can you imagine, Stu?

STU: Yeah. I was thinking about that, as you were playing out the situations.

What if -- you putting them in jail, would send a message.

I think, as you pointed out. I think would backfire on them.

Could you see them do House arrest?

So he can't campaign anywhere.

He can't do any rallies. They put an ankle bracelet on him. I don't know. That one, I could see.

Especially if they're losing. I think the more -- the more dire they feel their situation is. The more likely that happens. That he goes to prison.

Because, you know, they will see this as, well, I mean, we've got this other card to play. Why not give it a shot?

We're losing. Right now, I don't think they feel like they're in that situation. I feel like they think they're winning, and why would they shake it up?

GLENN: I have to tell you though, I think if Donald Trump was under House arrest and he couldn't leave his house, first of all, he could do video from his house. I'm sure.

And there would be people like me. You know, I would be willing to take a hiatus and go campaign for the man, if he couldn't campaign himself. And not -- and not because, well, he's a Republican or anything.

Because --

STU: It's wrong.

GLENN: -- this is an American that has been wronged. And we all have to stand up for it.

I mean, they are out of control.

STU: That's going to be fascinating to see.

GLENN: Can you imagine if they win?

Oh, my gosh. Can you imagine how much trouble we're in if they win, Stu.

I mean, everything we've ever talked about, is happening right now.
(music)
As Jeff just said, a republic hangs by a thread. Who is going to rush in and save it?

Well, I will tell you, it will only be good and godly people.

Because it's got to be people of merit, that are trying to find favor in the eyes of God.

And say, we will be a fruitful nation. And we will bear good fruit, otherwise, he will curse us and we will whither on the vine. Quickly.

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.

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.

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.