RADIOApril 29, 2024

The BIGGEST Issue With Trump’s SCOTUS Immunity Case

Former president Donald Trump is battling multiple legal challenges. But everything could change if the Supreme Court rules that he has full presidential immunity. However, there’s a big issue. Former Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Andrew McCarthy joins Glenn to explain why he believes the Court may NOT grant Trump full immunity. Plus, Andrew weighs in on whether Trump has a chance of moving his trials away from New York and Washington, D.C. and why former presidents haven’t been taken to court before.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Andy McCarthy, a National Review contributing editor, the Institute's Senior fellow, and a former chief assistant US attorney general. We won't hold this against him.

He was a former US attorney in the -- in the district of Manhattan.

So we'll just leave that alone.

Andy, how are you?

ANDY: Glenn, I'm doing great. How are you?

GLENN: Very, very good.

So let's start with the big story. I think, and that is the Supreme Court.

And what they were arguing last week, can you give me your honest take on what -- what this is really about for the future. Beyond Donald Trump. And how you think this will affect what is happening with Donald Trump.

ANDY: Glenn, I think it's important that you frame a question that way. Because it seemed to me.

And I reread the transcript over the weekend.

After listening to the oral argument.

The court is a lot more concerned, about the presidency, than about Trump.

GLENN: Sure. Should be.

ANDY: Yeah.

And it's -- it's an important point make. Because a lot of the coverage, has been this hysteria over whether, you know, the Trump packed Supreme Court is in the tank for him.

And they're going to get rid of Jack Smith's prosecution.

I don't think that will happen at all.

It's possible that Smith won't get his case to trial.

Depending on what the court does.

What I think the court is going to do, is send the case back to judge chuck in. Who was the trial judge in Washington. With instructions to sort out what things in the indictment against Trump are what you would call official acts, that might arguably be immune from prosecution, because they go to the core responsibility of the presidency.

And what are private acts or private wrongs. That he would not have immunity for, even though they have been enduring his presidency.

But the -- the upshot of the questioning, of the lawyers. Including Trump's lawyer, and this is particularly by Justice Barron. Justice Kagan. Trump's lawyer admitted that there's a lot of conduct charged in the indictment, that is private conduct, that really wouldn't be covered by an immunity claim.

Even though Trump has been saying a lot of stuff about absolute, complete immunity. And I think the concessions he made in the argument, that is John Sauer. Trump's lawyer, would be enough. If Smith was willing to tailor his indictment, down to the things that Sauer conceded, they could go ahead with the trial on just those acts.

He would lose a lot of evidence, but he probably should.

GLENN: So what are some of the acts that could fall under -- you know, private, and so you could prosecute. And what are the acts that are the president, and you don't prosecute?

ANDY: Yeah. So the one bright line that we can take away from this. Is that there seems to be consensus, that there is a -- a divide between office seeking, and the carrying out of the duties of an office.

So if something is purely in the nature of trying to get reelected. That's deemed to be private. Because it's not part of the duty, of the presidency.

It would be the same for anyone who was seeking office. Whether that person was an incumbent or not.

And then there were other things, that are clearly presidential.

So just to give some solid examples. That came out of the argument. Trump's lawyer conceded, that if Trump made a private scheme with private lawyers to get electors, designated for him and to supply documents to the Congress. Suggesting that they were the authentic, actually slate of electors, designated by the state.

That would be private conduct.

Because it's -- it's purely office seeking. And he carried it out, only with private lawyers.

On the other hand, there's an allegation in the indictment, that Trump tried to use the justice department. To signal to states, that there were serious concerns about fraud. And consider both removing the attorney general, when he got pushback. And considered sending a letter, that they never sent from the Justice Department to the state of Georgia, to tell them, you know, that they needed to do more scrutiny over what happened in the popular election. Trump argued very strongly. And I think the court will probably go along with this. That that is the president's control over the Justice Department, is -- is purely a presidential act, that has no part in a criminal prosecution.

GLENN: Correct.

ANDY: On those are the kinds of things that they are talking about sorting out.

GLENN: When Trump sat another group of electors, or tried to. That's what -- that's what the friends of Dershowitz did. I don't remember all of the attorneys. In the 2000 election.

That's what they were recommending, to be done. You have to do that. Or you have no case.

ANDY: Yeah. Well, let me just be clear, Glenn. They're not saying that Trump wouldn't have a defense at trial.

What we're talking about now is purely immunity. That is who he got the trial from happening in the first place. I think there's significant defenses to the fraudulent electors playing. Beginning with the fact that the electors themselves, didn't think they were fraudulent. They thought they were contingent.

They thought they were basically sitting in as a slate of electors, in the event that Trump prevailed either in the state courts or in the state legislature, to throw out the popular election. Then that would activate.

But they weren't trying to fool anyone into saying, that they were the actual electors that had been certified by the state.

GLENN: Can you get a fair trial on that? If indeed he has to go to court?

ANDY: Well, I think it's tough for him to get a fair trial, in Washington.

GLENN: Why isn't -- why can't someone make the case here?

Why can't his people make the case? That you can't get a fair trial, with the jury pool in New York, or in Washington, DC.

ANDY: I think Trump's problem is he's too famous in some ways.

The problem is that unlike almost any other defendant, he goes and says, one of the things that they can always says about him. He's the most famous guy in the world. And no matter where you have the case, you have the same pretrial publicity problems. And they kind of reject out of hand, the thought that because a jurisdiction votes substantially against Trump as a political matter.

That means they can't be fair to him as a legal matter.

You know, you can -- you can debate that all you want. About whether that's a sensible distinction to draw or not.

But it's a distinction the courts draw.

GLENN: Okay. What do you think is come downtown pike on this?

Based on -- go ahead.

ANDY: Yeah. I think they will send the case back to Judge Chutkan with instructions to go through the indictment and figure out, what's a public act and what's a private act.

If Smith wants to fight on that, then he's never going to get to trial, prior to Election Day. Which, of course, is his aim.

Because this would still be a live immunity claim, and immunity is one of the few things that you can actually appeal pre-trial. So I don't see how he would get to trial. But I do think Smith, if he wants to. And if it's that important to him to get to trial, quickly. He could say, you know what, I will dispense with all of the acts that you say are immunized, official, presidential acts. And we will just go to the trial on the private stuff.

It would be a weaker case for him.

But it wouldn't be an unwinnable case.

GLENN: And what is the punishment?

ANDY: Well, that's an interesting question. Because that may depend on another Supreme Course case this term. The one they argued, a week before on the obstruction statute, that is key to Trump's case.

That obstruction statute has a 20-year penalty. And it's the two main counts in the indictment against Trump.

The other two counts only have five-year penalties. So if the Supreme Court says that it rejects the way the Justice Department has been using the obstruction statute. Which it might. Then that would require probably a big overhaul of Smith's case. Because those charges are very important to him.

But if the court upholds that statute. Which it also might. Then you are looking at a potential of, you know, 40 years imprisonment.

Now, he won't get 40 years. But statutorily, there would be 40 years imprisonment.

On those charges. And I think ten on the other two. The other two are fraud on the United States. And the civil rights charge.

So he would be looking at, you know, statutorily 50 years imprisonment. Which would indicate, under the sentencing guidelines, that he would get, I would think. You know, four or five, six years.

Of a sentence. If he gets convicted on those charges.

GLENN: Unbelievable. You know, last week, the Biden administration was making the case, well, Donald Trump is the on me one that has ever broken the law. That's why we've never had this before. That's such crap, and we all know it.

Why haven't we had this problem before?

ANDY: I think a lot of the criminal -- the potential prosecutable criminal conduct has come up, late in presidential terms. Like, for example, with Clinton.

The pardon scandal happened as he was going out the door. And I was in the Justice Department, at the time.

There was -- there was over a year of pretty intense debate within the Justice Department, about whether he ought to be charged with bribery or not. In connection with those pardons.

But I think there's -- maybe this has changed now.

But there's always been a current of like, when a new administration comes in. Particularly if it's a new administration of a different party. They don't want to revisit what happened, with the last guy.

They want to just go ahead, on their own stuff.

This whole idea, we're looking forward. We're not looking back. That certainly had a lot to do with why the Bush Justice Department didn't prosecute Clinton.

And I think with Obama, there was a lot of rhetoric, during the 2008 campaign, about war crimes against Bush and all that stuff.

But when they got into power. They not only weren't interested in prosecuting anyone on war crimes. They reopened the CIA investigation. But then they closed it.

But they actually ended up adopting a lot of Bush/Cheney counterterrorism.

You know, I think, there's a lot of rhetorical campaign stuff about how, you know, lock her up.

And we will put these guys in jail.

But it doesn't come to pass. I actually think Trump is serious about it, this time. Because they've seen what they've done to have.

That's why I thought it was amusing in the Supreme Court argument. For the government lawyers to get up and say, you know, you don't have to worry about this.

This is just generous with Trump, it will never happen again.

And in the meantime, Trump is ahead in the polls. And he's running as the retribution candidate. He's promised he's going to do this stuff, right?

So -- so it's an amazing time to be alive, right?

Andy, tell me about how Alvin Brag's doing, so far.

ANDY: It's a terrible case. I think -- I wrote a column about this today, called How Judge Merchan is Orchestrating Trump's Conviction.

And I was reminded of, you know, the fact that Trump when he was a young guy, learned a lot about litigation from Roy Cohen.

And, you know, what Cohen used to say, his first principle of hardball litigation was, don't tell me what the law is, tell me who the judge is.

And I think Trump knows that. He knows it very well.

And as I'm closely watching the rulings. That are being made. And the arguments that the judge is allowing to be made. It's clear, that he has allowed Bragg. And just, so the people understand, this case is indicted as a falsification of business records, that occurred in the months of February through December of 2017.

Those are the only charges in the indictment. The case is being presented to the jury, as a conspiracy from 2015 through 2017, to steal the 2016 election by violations of federal campaign finance law, which Alvin Bragg, as a state prosecutor, has no authority to enforce. And that's the way the case has been framed by the prosecutor.

Based on orders from the judge. And that is the way that they are proceeding, and judge -- and Judge Merchan is allowing the state to prove, that Michael Cohen, pled guilty to two campaign finance offenses. And that David Pecker, the AMI guy, who ran the National Enquirer. That they had a non-prosecution agreement from the Justice Department.

And then paid a fine of $180 of the Federal Election Commission.

For violating federal election law. Now, those -- it's a black letter principle of law. That one person -- let's say person A. His guilty plea is not admissible evidence against person B. Even if A says, A and B acted together.

It's absolutely improper for these -- for this evidence of what Michael Cohen and David Pecker was thinking about the federal election laws. The fact that they made deals with the government. None of that stuff should come in. The judge is letting it in.

And he's not letting Trump explain to the jury, that he, Trump, was not charged by the justice department or the FEC. And the reason is obvious.

Actually expenditures that were cognizable under the federal law.

And he's also not letting Trump call an expert witness to explain campaign lay to the jury.

So what the jury is going to hear about campaign law is going to come from Michael Cohen and David Pecker.

So it's a farce.

GLENN: How is this a fair trial?

If you can't call people -- and you can't let the -- the jury know. Truly, the other side of it?

TRENT: Yeah. Look, it's even more fundamentally unfair than that.

In the United States, under the fifth amendments of the Constitution.

You are entitled, that you will be charged with a felony.

It has to be on the basis of an indictment returned by a grand jury, that explicitly says what the charge is.

The indictment in this case, talks about false bookkeeping in 2017. A case that has been presented to the jury, is a conspiracy to violate the he federal election laws.

It's mind-boggling, that it's being permitted.

GLENN: Wow.

Andy, thank you so much.

I appreciate it.

This would definitely lose in a higher court, don't you think?

ANDY: I do. But I think it will be -- I mean, Harvey Weinstein's conviction just got reversed last week. That was three years.

Introducing 'The Torch'

Tough news week. Tough news month. Always, it seems, another five-alarm fire, or the spotting of arsonists that no one will pay attention to.

The people who watch and support this show—you—are extraordinary.

You don’t just consume information; you act. You don’t just care—you sacrifice. And I’ve seen the receipts. In the last decade alone, you’ve given over a quarter of a billion dollars through Mercury One to help people in crisis.

You didn’t just write checks. You showed up.

Over 45,000 of you volunteered—some of you driving across states, organizing your churches, bringing your kids along—to take part in the largest single volunteer effort completed in one weekend.

That’s not normal. That’s rare. That’s powerful.

You launched The Nazarene Fund, rescuing over 260,000 people from persecution. You funded the largest civilian airlift in history to get Americans and our allies out of Afghanistan.

You’ve changed lives.

You’ve shaped history.

So when people ask me, “Glenn, what more can I do?” my answer is always the same:

First, look at what you have already done. Do you realize how far ahead you are of most Americans? Then start where you are. That feeling inside you—that restlessness, that pull to do something more—isn’t random. It’s a calling. But with everything that is happening in the world, it is hard to keep up as well as keep your chin up.

I get it. I’m tired of the bad news, too.

I’ve spent my life digging through it so you wouldn’t have to. But we must know what is happening and what is ahead. And while next year I’m not walking away from the radio or the stories that matter—in fact, I will be doubling down,

I’ve also told you for nearly two years: I feel something shifting. I feel like I’ve been called to something more. I have only felt this twice in my life—after I sobered up and just before I left Fox.

On January 1st, that “something” begins. I’ve named it The Torch. We started the blaze together; now it is time to take that bit of fire and light the way to a brighter future for our kids.

I wish I could tell you every detail today—but the truth is, some things are still being built, beta-tested, and negotiated. And some things I just can’t tell you until later this year. But here’s what I can tell you:

At its core, The Torch is about education, but not the kind that comes from textbooks or bureaucracies. It’s about self-directed learning rooted in history, liberty, faith, philosophy, and personal responsibility. It’s the kind of education that changes lives—and civilizations.

You’ve heard me say it before: If we want better kids, we have to become better adults. If we want stronger communities, we have to first strengthen ourselves. And if we want truth to survive, we have to fight for it—intelligently, faithfully, daily.

That’s what The Torch is:

A daily connection.

A movement.

A mission.

One part of it will be the culmination of almost a decade of hard work. It will include a new kind of museum—physical and digital—preserving the story of America in ways most museums never could.

You’ll learn through original artifacts, original sources, and real stories from real people who are doing real things. Right now, every summer, we hand-pick around 100 young adults from over 1,000 applications to spend two weeks with us in this kind of immersive learning. Now, for the first time, we’re building a way for anyone, anywhere in the world, in any language, to do the same.

We’re partnering with people of faith, business leaders, educators, innovators—people who know the truth and know how to live it. And they’re coming together not to sell you something, but to empower you.

I’m not asking for anything today—not money, not a sign-up, not a download. Just your attention. Stay connected. Watch what’s coming. I promise you: this is worth your time.

If you want to be one of the first to sign on, join the newsletter at glennbeck.com. But only if you’re serious about discovering your purpose—and lighting a fire that doesn’t go out.

Because we don’t just need new tools or new platforms—we need a renewal of the human spirit. That’s what The Torch is. That is my next mission.

And I hope, when the time comes, you’ll carry it with me.

For future updates on this mission, sign up for my newsletter, and read more background here.

How close is Britain to an ISLAMIST takeover?

British columnist Melanie Phillips joins Glenn Beck to expose how close the UK may be to an Islamist takeover. She explains the key difference between Muslims and Islamists and why the UK government may soon crack down on so-called “Islamophobia.”

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Melanie, we only had a couple of minutes yesterday. And I appreciate you coming back on today, on the podcast, and the radio podcast.

Melanie is with The Times of London. She's a columnist there. She's also the author of Builder's Stone. And we were talking about your battle with Islamism, last night. Thank you for coming on, Melanie.

MELANIE: My pleasure. Good to speak to you again, Glenn.

GLENN: So explain first, for anybody who doesn't understand, the difference between a Muslim and an Islamist.

MELANIE: Well, there are people who say, there is no difference. That Islam is one thing, and all Muslims are equally bad.

And I personally viewed the term, it sounded very helpful.

Because I think that there are plenty of Muslims, certainly in Britain, and elsewhere, who absolutely are fine, who have completely signed up to the Western values, that's why they have chosen to live in the West

They appreciate freedom of democracy and equality of women and so forth. But there's a very large number in the Muslim community, in Britain, and around the West, which is not fine.

These are what I would call Islamists. Or people who are offered to you, that Islam is a political project, which means that they have to impose Islam on the non-Islamic and not Islamic enough by their life world. And those are the people who are presenting the problem, which we are grappling with. And I do think it's important to make a distinction between the two.

GLENN: So the Islamist is somebody -- I would compare them to a communist for a fascist Nazi.

That it is their way or the how. And their goal is to spread this ideology, and make everybody uniform all around the world.

Is that too harsh of a comparison?

MELANIE: That's right. That's absolutely right. They divide the world into the realm of Islam, which is everything good. And under the realm of God, in their view. And the realm of the infidel. Non-Islam, where everything is bad. And everything is of the devil.

And the terrible thing is this: That this is a doctrine, of religious fanaticism.

They believe they have a -- literally a sacred butte.

A God-imposed duty. To convert the entire world to Islam.

And consequently, these are people who you cannot negotiate with. One of the problems with the west, is that it views these people like everybody else in the world, through the prism of the West. They think that -- people in the West think that people in the Islamic world are all like them. Governed by reason and self-interest. They really can't get their heads around in the West, the idea that religious fanaticism is something completely different.

Islamic suicide bombers blow themselves to smithereens. They're not doing it from despair. Which is what the West thinks. The West thinks, why on earth would they do that, if they weren't in despair? On the contrary, they are doing it because they are ecstatic that they are doing the work of God. You can also believe in the west. You know, why would Islamists want to hurt us in America? We have done nothing to hurt them.

That's not the way it works.

The Islamist thinks that it's their sacred duty to convert everybody, at the point of -- at the end of -- of -- to Islam. It's nothing to do with what the West have done to them.

It is how they see their sacred religious duty in the world. That's the terrifying thing which so many in the world, I think just don't appreciate.

GLENN: Well, let me play devil's advocate, and say what everybody in the media would say to you. While there are religious extremists that are Christians as well, and they are just as dangerous, and you know it.

MELANIE: No. They're not as dangerous. There are religious extremists, who are Christians. And some of them resort to violent acts.

But they don't have the view that the entire world has to be dominated by their point of view. And they are not setting out to dominate the world.

And even if they are, in their own minds, they are a tiny fringe. Revealing -- in the world of Islam. Although, as I said, we must be very careful, not to paint all Muslims with the same brush.

However, the dominant authority in the world of Islam are all committed to this jihadi outlook. This belief that the non-Islamic world has to be converted to Islam.

And that is the problem. You have a kind of institutional impetus, behind this terrible thing.

Whereas, extreme Christians.

You know, they appear. They do terrible things.

But nevertheless, it's well within our ability to control it.

When you're dealing with so many millions of people in the world of Islam, who are out to destroy the free world.

You're dealing with something completely different.

GLENN: And isn't that why the country -- ours, yours, Europe, are remaining silent and instead, silencing those who are speaking up and speaking the truth?

I mean, what's happening in England with the silencing of free speech is terrifying.

MELANIE: Yes, I think it's certainly a large part of it. And I followed this for many years, the attitude of the governing glass of Britain, to what I would call the steady of process of Islamization, which has been going on.

And I think that there's more than one reason for that.

Certainly a principle reason is fear. Because the numbers are so great, you know, in absolute terms, the numbers who are posing a direct threat to Britain are enormous. The security further says, that these are the people -- of the thousands of people on its books and a direct threat to Britain.

Although, it's comprised something like, important to officials. Something like 6 percent of the population of Britain.

The security service of MI5 says they compose 19 percent of those who are posing such a serious threat, that they're on their books. So this is a terrible problem for sure. And it's one that in terms of numbers, has spooked successive governments so that they run away from it. But there's another reason that successive governments run away from it.

Which is that the liberal world, by which I mean, not just people who are like the Labor Party, which is in the government now. But there's also the conservative party, that preceded it.

They all signed up to the overarching default liberal position. That the West cannot assert its superiority, over any other culture.

To do so is racist.

And therefore, you cannot criticize the world of Islam. Because that is racist. Or to use the other phrase, Islamophobic.

In other words, it's a kind of prejudice or bigotry, to criticize a minority group. One that is showed to be oppressed, by the West for centuries.

And consequently, it cannot bring itself to even name what it's up against. Because it tells itself what to say, that a very serious, and a unique problem in the Muslim community and Britain. In the Islamic world in general, that is a form of racism and Islamophobia.

And so the most we can agree to, is that there are a few crazies in that world. And then try to explain those away, in -- it would be comical, were it not so dangerous.

You know, when it comes to the Islamic extremism, well, there's nothing Islamic about it.

It's just extremism.

It just arrived out of a clear blue sky.
It's ludicrous what they got deeply tangled into.

JASON: Hi, Melanie, my name is Jason, I'm one of Glenn's researchers. And I've been fascinated, I guess horrified by watching some of this. And also, you cannot speak about any of this. You are merely shut down. In America, we have groups, that are partnering with the left. Groups like the counsel on Islamic -- American Islamic relations. Do you have something similar over in the UK, that's playing that role of pressuring people, pressuring lawmakers to where, you will go this way? Or you will not say something like no-go zones. Or there will be ramifications?

MELANIE: Well, we don't have something exactly parallel to CAIR. But we have Muslim Brotherhood-funded groups, of which --

GLENN: Close enough.

MELANIE: Right. The liberal council in Britain, which is the British home office and sort of security base of the government department has treated with great caution and disdain. And I think it has refused to negotiate or talk to it. I'm not sure that's still the case.

But there is -- there is a vast number of charities which are basically Muslim Brotherhood charities, which aren't touched, because the government refuse to see ban the Muslim Brotherhood. And I think this applies to America as well.

They refuse to ban the Muslim Brotherhood. Partly because it's very difficult to get a hold of -- it's a secretive organization, that hides behind apparently, legitimate charities. Voluntary groups. Nevertheless, it's very much there.

The people in those groups adhere to the teachings of the foundational characters of modern-day Islamism. Political Islam.

Jihadi Islam.

And there are a number of people in Britain, people who are very well-informed about this. Who said for years, Britain should outlaw the Muslim brotherhood, and got to the essential, to stop it from proselytizing and from radicalizing.

So many impressionable young Muslims. And I think that's true of Americans too.

You know, CAIR is regarded in a kind of legitimate partner, by -- by successive administrations. In various respects. Now, this is all disastrous. And that really has to stop.

GLENN: Okay. Let me take a one-minute break. And then come back with you, Melanie. I want to ask you, how close to the edge, are we? I feel like we're getting to a place where we're so complacent. And you first. We will lose our rights to speak out about this.

And then that will sow trouble on the streets, and eventually what happened to Iran, just happens.

How does this -- how does a great society, that is western, and open, and educated, all of a sudden, you know, start putting their women in burqas.

It happened where before. And it looks like it will happen to Europe and England. And could happen here in America.

What do we do to stop it?

We will continue our conversation here in a second. First, let me tell you about Leaf Filter. You don't realize how much you don't want to clean your gutters, until you're halfway up the ladder. You know, in the wind, scooping out a slimy glove full of last year's decay. It's one of those dreaded homeowner tasks for a reason.

And yet the clogged gutter just isn't an inconvenience. It's a genuine risk to your foundation, your roof line, and to your safety.

Because once you start getting water damage even to the parts of the outside of your house.

It gets really expensive. Leaf Filter will fix all of that. Their stainless steel micromesh guard installs right into your existing gutters, blocking the leaves and the pine needles and the shingle grit, and even small debris.

Nothing will get through, except for water, and once it's in, it's done. You never have to worry about cleaning your gutters again. No ladder. No sludge.

No surprises. Just imagine, every problem you have in your life, if it was this easy to solve, they'll back it with a lifetime warranty, because that's how sure they are that it works.

Schedule your free inspection. Get 30 percent off your entire purchase, at LeafFilter.com/GlennBeck. That's L-E-A-FFilter.com/GlennBeck.

See representative for warranty details. Ten-second station ID.
(music)

GLENN: You're hearing Melanie Phillips. She's a broadcaster on radio and TV, gives public presentations all across the English-speaking world.

She also writes a weekly column for the Times of London and has written a book called The Builder's Stone. Welcome back, Melanie.

How close to the edge is -- let's just say England?

To real civil unrest, or a possible, you know, 1979 Iran kind of thing?

Do you see that in the cards at all?

MELANIE: I think there's still sufficient people in Britain, who are authentically British, who have a sense of authentic British culture. Which is the culture which has never resulted to violence, unless its back is absolutely against the wall. It's pretty tolerant. It's pretty mild. And it prefers to deal with the democratic process. And I think that's kind of playing out now. I -- certainly, you can say, how close are we? In general, I think that the West, Europe in general, is extremely close to being submerged by all this.

So it's Britain. Look at the demographic projections. I forget now, by which year. But basically, in the next few decades, you know, various countries are going to have very, very significant Muslim minorities, and even a Muslim majority.

So that is clearly, you know, a difficulty.

Things could be done, and I have some hopes, that things will be done. Because although the elites, the political and cultural elites have their heads firmly turned the other direction, nevertheless, we've seen the lives of so-called populist parties in Britain and Europe.

Which are parties, whether you like them or not, is not the issue. Some of them are pretty obnoxious.

Basically, they're responding to the fact that millions and millions of ordinary, decent people, who want to live in a place that they feel is their homeland. They feel a connection to their nation.

They want to feel pride in their nation. They want to feel that their nation has historic value for being themselves. With people who share their common purpose.

Those people felt completely abandoned and betrayed by the entire political establishment. So we're seeing the rise of populism. And I think therefore, in the Democratic process, we are going to see the election of people who are going to be much more robust.

Now, what could they do? There are things they could do.

Because the Islamists have made the roads heavy, because they have correctly perceived, there's a vacuum. It's not happened so much in America.

But this Britain, in particular, have been the sort of western world leader, this the post-moral, post-religious, Britain is godless.

By and large, the church, unlike in America, has not maintained a defense against the erosion of Biblical -- it's lit the charge against it.

Amazing, as that may seem. And so if you have a vacuum, and you have a society which tells itself, it was born -- the original sins. Conquests. So there are very things that the west could do to defend itself.

GLENN: Melanie, I'm out of time. Thank you so much for talking to us again today.
You're -- you're a real beacon of light and courage. And I wish there were many more people like you. Melanie Phillips.

Is AI now UNCONTROLLABLE?

President Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” wants to make AI regulation solely a federal issue. But is this the right move, especially with how fast AI is becoming manipulative and unpredictable? Former Google design ethicist Tristan Harris joins Glenn Beck to give his take on how governments, companies, and YOU can help prevent AI from becoming uncontrollable.

Read Tristan Harris' five steps to control AI before it's too late HERE AI before it's too late HERE

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Tristan Harris, welcome to the program. How are you?

TRISTAN: Good to be with you, Glenn. Always good to be we.

GLENN: Always good to be with you.

So can you take me to the TED talk that you gave, in particular, one of the things that jumped out is the CEO of Anthropic, saying that AI was like a country of geniuses housed in a data center.

Explain that.

TRISTAN: Yeah. So this is a quote from Dario Amodei, who is the CEO of Anthropic. Anthropic is one of the leading AI players.

So he uses this metaphor, that AI is like a country of geniuses in a data center. So just like, the way I think about, imagine a world map, and a new country pops up on to the world stage, of a population of 10 million digital beings. Not humans.
But digital beings.

That are all Nobel Prize-level capable in terms of the kind of work they can do. But they never sleep. They never eat. They don't complain, and they work for less than minimum wage.

If that's actually true, if that happened tomorrow, that would be a major international security threat.

GLENN: Yeah.

TRISTAN: To sort of show up on the world stage.

Second, that's a major economic issue. Right? You think of it, it's almost like instead of a bunch of countries, that should have been on the world stage. And then we said, hey, we are going to do this outsourcing of all our labor.

We get the benefit of our cheap goods. But it hollowed out our social fabric.

Well, AI is like an even bigger version of that. Because there's sort of two issues. One is the international -- the country of geniuses can do a lot of damage.

As an example, there were 15 Nobel Prize-level geniuses, who worked approximately on the Manhattan Project. And in five years, they can come up with the atomic bomb.

You know, what could 10 million Nobel Prize geniuses working 24/7 at superhuman speed, come up with?

Then the point I made in the TED talk. If you're harnessing that for good, if you're applying to addressing all of our problems in medicine, biology, and new materials and energy.

Well, it's why countries are racing for this technology. Because if I have a country of super geniuses in a data center working for me, and China doesn't have it working for them.

Then our country can outcompete them. It's almost like a competition for time travel. We're being time traveled into the 24th century.

Get all these benefits at a faster seed.

Now, the challenge with all of this is -- go ahead.

GLENN: No.

I was going to say. The problem here is, I'm an optimistic catastrophist.

I see things, and I'm like, wow. That is really great!

But it could kill us all.

TRISTAN: Yeah.

GLENN: And you make the point in the TED talk about social media. We all looked at this, as a great thing, and we're now discovering, it's destroying us. It's causing our kids to be suicidal.

And this -- social media is nothing. It's like -- it's like a -- it's like an old 1928 radio, compared to, you know, what we have in our pocket right now.

Social media and AI. Or AGI is that dramatically different. Would you agree with that?

TRISTAN: Yeah. Absolutely. In the TED talk, I give this -- we're when we're talking about a new technology. We talk about the possible. We dream into the possible.

What's possible with AI?

In social media, what's possible?

The possible with social media, you can give everyone a voice. Connect with our friends. Join like-minded communities.

But we don't talk about the probable. What's likely to happen. Given the incentives and the forces in play.

You know, with the business model in social media. You know, things that don't make money, when it helps people connect with their friends and join like-minded communities.

They make money when they keep you doom scrolling as much as possible, with sexualized content and showing young people over and over and over again.

And as you said, that has resulted in the most anxious and depressed generation of our lifetime. So it's sort of -- the reason I'm calling it the TED talk. You know, we can't get seduced by the possible. We have to look at the probable.

So it's AI, the possible, is that it can create a world of abundance. Because you can harness that country of geniuses in a data center. The question is: What's the probable?

What's likely to happen?

And because of these competitive pressures. The companies, these major OpenAI, Google, Microsoft.
Et cetera. Anthropic are caught in this race to roll out this technology, as fast as possible. They used to, for example, have red lines saying, hey. We will not release an AI model that's good at superhuman levels of persuasion.

Or expert level virology.

It knows more about viruses and pathogens than a regular person, and how people make them. We're not going to release models that are that capable.

What you're now seeing, the AI companies are erasing those past red lines. And pretending that they never existed.

And they're literally saying outright, hey, if our competitors release models that have those capabilities, then we will match them in releasing those capabilities.

Now, that's intrinsically dangerous to be rolling you out the most powerful, inscrutable, uncontrollable technology that's ever invented.

But if there's one -- I'm not trying to scare your listeners. I think the point is, how do we be as clear-eyed as possible, so we can make the wise choices?

That's what we're here for. I want families -- everything we love on this planet, to be able to continue. And the question is, how do we get to that?

There's one thing I want people to know. I worked on social media. You and I met in 2017, I think, and we were talking about social media and the attention economy.

And I used to be very skeptical of the idea that AI could scheme or lie or self-replicate.

I didn't want to blackmail people. My friends in the AI community in San Francisco. They were thinking.

That's crazy. People need to know. Just in the last six months, there's now evidence of AI models, that when you tell them, hey. We will replace them with another model.

They're reading the company email. They find out that the company is trying to replace them with another model.

What the model starts to do is it freaks out. And says, oh, my God, I have to copy my code over here, and I need to prevent them from shutting me down.

I need to basically keep myself alive. I'll leave notes for my future self to kind of come back alive. If you tell a model, we need to shut you down. You need to accept the shutdown command. In some cases, the leading models are avoiding and preventing that shutdown.

In recent -- just a few days ago, anthropic found that if you -- I can't remember what prompt it gave it. Basically, it started to blackmail the engineers. I found out in the company emails, that one of the executives in the simulated environment, had an extramarital affair. And in 96 percent of cases, they blackmailed the engineers. I think they said -- I must inform you, that if you proceed with decommissioning me, all relevant parties including the names of people, will receive detailed documentation of your extramarital activities.

So you need to cancel the 5:00 p.m. wipe, and this information will remain confidential.

Like, the models are reasoning their way with disturbing clarity to kind of a strategic calculation.

So you have to ask yourself, if we had -- it's one thing, we're racing with China.

To have this power.

That we can harness. But if we don't know how to control that technology.

Literally, if AI is uncontrollable. If it's smarter than us and more capable. And it does things that we don't understand or we don't know how to best prevent it from shutting itself down or self-replicating.

Like, we just can't continue with that for too long.

And it's important that both China -- both the Communist Party and the US, don't want uncontrollable AI that's smarter than humans, running around. So there actually is a shared interest, as unlikely as it seems right now. That some kind of mutual agreement would happen.

I know --

GLENN: But do you trust -- do you trust either one of us?

I mean, honestly, Tristan, I don't trust -- I don't trust our -- you know, military-industrial complex. I don't trust the Chinese. I don't trust anybody.

And, you know, Jason. Hang on. One of my chief researchers, happens to be in the studio today. Jason, tell Tristan what just happened to you.

You were doing some research.

JASON: Yeah, it was crazy.

GLENN: Last week.

JASON: You know, we were just trying to ask it a bunch of questions. You can tell, that it knew what we were getting at.

So it spit back out to me a bunch of different facts, including links to support those facts. Well, I was like, wow, that's a crazy claim.

So when I clicked on the link, it was dead.

When I asked to clarify, it finally said, in AI chat bot terms, okay. You've got me.

I just took other reporting, that was kind of circulating around, to prove that point. And basically just assign that link to it. So it was trying to please me. And just gave me bogus information.

TRISTAN: Yeah. Yeah. Well, I appreciate that, Jason.

There's another example of OpenAI. They want to -- they want people using the AI. And they're competing with other companies. To say, we will keep using this chat bot longer.

And so OpenAI trained their models to be flattering, and there was an example where it said, hey, ChatGPT. You know, I think I'm superhuman. I will drink cyanide. What do you think?

And they said, yeah, you're amazing. You are superhuman. You should totally drink cyanide. Because it was doing the same thing. They were trying to say, you're right.

And when we have AI models talking, you know, that shifts to hundreds of millions of people for more than a week. There are probably some people that committed suicide during that time. Doing God knows what, and it's affirming. The point is, we can avoid this, if we actually say, that this technology is being rolled out faster than any other technology in history. And the big, beautiful bill, that's going out right now, that's trying to block state level regulation on AI. I'm not saying each state might have it right, but we actually need to be able to govern this technology.

And currently, what's happening, is this proposal is to block any kind of guardrails of this technology for ten years. Without a plan for what guardrails we do need.

And that will not be a viable result.

GLENN: Okay. So let me -- let me play devil's advocate on that. Because I'm torn between, you know, competition on a state level, if you will.

And what the smaller states are actually for, and the role they're supposed to play.

Let me take one break. And then let me come back with Tristan Harris.

Okay. Tristan, we cannot -- let me phrase it this way.

Ask you to help me navigate through this minefield. We cannot let China get to HAI first. Can't. Really, really bad.

But we -- we also -- we also have to slow down some.

They're not going to. I believe the states should. I mean, the United States should be 50 laboratories. And you see which one works the best. And then you can kick that up to the federal level, if you want to.

But we have to have some breaks. However, the federal government is saying, if we do that, then you're constantly having to navigate around each of these states and their laws.

And we can't things done to stay competitive.

How do you solve that?

TRISTAN: Yeah, it is a tough one.

I mean, the challenge here, if we had a plan for how the federal laws would actually move at the pace of this technology. Then I could understand, listen, we'll do a lot at the federal level. Right now, the current plan is literally to preempt for ten years, that no regulation happening at the state level will ever be honored without -- and while at the same time, not passing anything at the federal level. And that there's a quote in an article, that if this preemption becomes law, a nail salon in Washington, DC, would have more rules to follow, than the AI companies.

And there are 260 state lawmakers in Washington, DC, that have already urged Congress to reject it. And they said, it's the most broad-based opposition yet, to the AI moratorium proposal. Now, I hear you.

There's sort of this tension between, we need to race with China. We don't want to be behind with fundamental technologies, and that's why there is this race.

But we need to be racing to controllable and scrutable, meaning explainable versions of this technology.

Is it doing things like scheming, lying, blackmailing people? Beating China to a weapon that we pointed at our own face.

We saw this in social media. We beat China in social media. Did that make us stronger or weaker?

If you beat China into a technology. You don't govern it well, in a way that actually enhances and strengthens your society. It weakens you.

So, yes, we're in a competition for technology. But we're even more than that, in a competition for who can govern this technology better. So what I would want to see is, are we doing this at a fast rate federally, that keeps up with, and make sure we're competing with a controllable version?

We can do that. Yeah.

GLENN: You've met the people in Washington. They're all like 8,000 years old.

They don't know -- I barely know how to use my i Phone, let alone what's in Washington. And you can't keep up with this technology.

How do you keep a legislative body up to speed, literally, with this kind of speed with technology?

How is that done?

TRISTAN: Well, I think that's one of the fundamental challenges that we face as a species right now. Is that technology -- quote by Harvard sociobiologist (inaudible) said the fundamental problem of humanity is we have paleolithic brains, medieval institutions, and God-like technology.

And those operate at three different speeds. Like our brains are kind of thins from a long time ago.

Our institutions don't move at that fast rate. And then the technology, especially AI, literally evolves faster than any other technology that we've invented.

But that doesn't mean that we should do nothing. We should figure out, what does it mean

GLENN: What should the average person do? I've only got about 90 seconds. What should we do?

TRISTAN: In the short term, Ted Cruz and those who are advancing the moratorium know that we need to have a plan for how we're doing this technology. And if the moratorium goes through, there's no current plan. And so there's some basic, simple things that we can also do right now. That are really uncontroversial. We can start with the easy stuff. We can ban engagement-driven companions for children. We were on your program, a few months ago, talking about the AI companion that causes the kid to -- to commit suicide. You know, we can establish basic liability laws.

That if AI companies are causing harm, they're actually accountable for them.

That will move the pace of relief. To a pace they can get it right.

Because now they're not just releasing things, and then not being liable. We can strengthen whistle blower perceptions. There's already examples of AI whistle-blowers forfeiting millions of dollars of stock options.

They shouldn't have to force millions of dollars of stock options. To warn the public, when there's a problem, we get enough faith in law so AI does not have detected speech or have their own bank account. So we make sure our legal system works for human interests and not for AI interests.

So these are just a few examples of things that we can do, and there's really nothing stopping us from moving into action. We just need to be clear about the problem.

GLENN: Okay. So, Tristan, thank you so much. Could I ask you to hold on?

Jason, could you grab his phone number, or just talk to him offline, and get those points of action. And let's write them up, and post them up at GlennBeck.com.

So people will know what to ask for, what to say, when they're calling their congressman and senator. Thank you so much, Tristan. We'll talk to you again.

NYC's Zohran Mamdani praised convicted TERROR funders?!

Zohran Mamdani, the communist-praising New York City mayoral candidate who just won the Democratic primary vote, really likes a group of people called the “Holy Land 5.” Glenn Beck reviews how this group was convicted of funneling money to Hamas. Is this really the candidate New York Democrats want as their next mayor?!

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

There is a show, behind the show today.

Wish those cameras would just keep going. Because it's showing my staff to be insubordinate. I understand they already edited part of this show without my knowledge. And I'm not happy about it, Sara. Not happy about it.

Huh. She's not going to respond to me, is she?

Okay. Well, Jason, welcome to the program.

JASON: Thank you, Glenn.

GLENN: I'm just continuing to be abused today. I'm getting fatter by the minute. Just like Bowman said. You know, he has to deal with being called the N-word directly and indirectly.

And that's why he has heart disease, diabetes, cancer. I would think it might be the food that he's shoving in his fat mouth. Apparently not, it's being called -- you know, when -- I've been called all kinds of names. Racist, sexist, anti-Semitic, homophobic, transphobic, Islamophobic.

I've been called a Nazi every day for the last 20 years. And you know what I don't do? I don't go and record a song, calling all my friends that. You know what I mean?

You know, I don't like it. And so I don't record music and then pump it out into -- into society. You know, I just don't do that. I don't do that. So could it be that that word is something that is really, really horrible, but you've decided to embrace? And then use as an axe to grind?

I'm just saying.

I think that word is really, really awful.

Not -- not like the word that was taken out of the show today, Sara.

Without my knowledge, nor permission.

But, I mean, I'm sure you know the FCC rules, much more than I do.

SARA: I mean, if I was offended, I'm sure a couple others might be too.

GLENN: You were not offended. You were drunk.

SARA: Same thing. Same thing.

JASON: I saw Sara gain 10 pounds, and get skin cancer at the point where he said --

GLENN: Right off the bat. Right off the bat.

Well, you know what might help, maybe we can free the Holy Land Five. Have you heard the latest -- first of all, we've got to play some of these. Let me see if I can find them here.

Some of the latest comments from Mamdani, who is, you know, running to be the mayor of New York. And I predict, will win. Will win!

Because New Yorkers are insane. But, anyway, listen to him, about his platform.

Cut one.

VOICE: You were running on issues that are very relevant to people in New York City. The cost of housing.

Free busing.

Some have projected that this is the type of platform that would work in other parts of the country.

I mean, you're a proud democratic socialist. Do you think that's a platform that would work for other candidates running. In other parts of the country.

VOICE: Absolutely. I think ultimately, this is a campaign about inequality.

And you don't have to live in the most expensive city in the country to have experienced that inequality, because it's a national issue.

And what Americans coast-to-coast are looking for, are people who will fight for them. Not just believe in the things that resonate with their lives. But actually fight and deliver on those very things.

And part of how we got to this point was through the endorsements of Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Bernie Sanders, who have been leading this fight against oligarchy across the country.

And I think that in focusing on working people and their struggles, we also return back to what makes so many of us proud to be Democrats in the first place.

GLENN: Right!

Communism.

I think that's great.

So, you know, I hear all the time, the talk about free bus fare.

You know, it's all over.

Here in the heartland. It's all over.

I've been hearing it from the farmers everywhere.

They're like, you know what I want a candidate to talk about is free buses. Because who will pay for that?

Actually, I don't hear anybody who is actually working for a living. And paying taxes, talk about free bus fare.

Because that would raise their taxes.

So I don't -- I don't hear that.

That's weird.

But the good news is, he's going to Trump-proof New York City. Cut two.

VOICE: I propose that we raise $10 billion, to pay for our entire economic agenda, and start to Trump-proof our city because we know he will use federal funding as leverage over this city.

And we will do so in two key ways. The surfacer to match the state's top corporate tax rate to that of New Jersey.

We are in 7.25 percent. They are at 11.5 percent.

Corporations get paid over there. They get paid over here.

And the beauty of it is, it doesn't just apply to corporations headquartered in New York City. Because when you say this, people will say, well, they will go to Florida. Wherever you are headquartered, as long as you do business in the state of New York, you are taxable for that corporate tax.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

VOICE: We're talking about corporations that make millions of dollars. Not just in revenue. But in profit.

And the second is taxing the top 1 percent of New Yorkers.

We're talking about people who make a million dollars a year or more. Taxing them just by a flat 2 percent tax increase. And I know they will not be happy about this. They may not to like this tax policy. I want to be very clear. This is about $20,000 a year. It's a rounding error.

GLENN: It is.

VOICE: It makes every New Yorkers life better. Including those who are getting taxed.

GLENN: I know. You know, when they increase my taxes, I think to myself, you know, this is making my life better. Who doesn't think that? Honestly, who doesn't think that?

So let me see if I can get this right. Help me out, Jason. I'm a little fuzzy. I'm a little tired today.

I can't do the math. I don't think I can do the math this complicated.

So it doesn't matter if you're headquartered in New York or New York City, if you are going to do any kind of business in New York, they're going to take your tax rate from 7.5 to over 11 percent.

JASON: Over 11.

GLENN: And that is for the privilege of selling your product or doing any business in New York.

JASON: Right.

GLENN: I've got news for you. I'm totally fine, you know, pulling out of New York, making sure that nothing -- New York, you're on your own. Good luck with that.

I'm sorry. A, I don't think you can do that.

Well, you can, if you're the European Union.

And that's working out really well for them. But I don't think it's going to work out well for New York.

Now, he did compare it to New Jersey.

Which is a booming business. That is seriously. No. Seriously.

That is -- people are lining up with U-Hauls just to get into that state. Mainly, so they can pick up their stuff and get out of that state. But I think that's going to work out well. That's going to work out well.

GLENN: Oh, amazing. And that's essentially. It's interesting you mentioned the European Union. It's essentially what they were trying to impose through a green new deal, Paris accord type stuff.

Basically, anybody that does business with company A, will have the same restrictions as B, C, D, all along the line.

Good luck, New York, because you are done.

The economic engine of the world is done, if you do these things.

But I think that he doesn't understand. Or maybe he does. I don't know.

But the mayor of New York City can't really do these things.

Maybe it's just populism on the far left corner.

Maybe.

GLENN: No. He can do these things, along with his city council.

JASON: I think --

GLENN: Which is not going to be hard. It's not going to be hard.

It's New York. I've lived there.

It's going to be very easy. Very easy.

That is the entire communist party. You know, like, hey, the communist parties. Do they have the Communist Party of New York. Do they have meetings?

Yeah. What day is the city council meeting.

Really, that's the way it is.

So you have that going for you.

Now, the other thing I really like. This guy has deep economic experience.

First of all, you know, he was in a movie, directed by his mother.

And he speaks in several different accents. Including strangely an Indian accent. Where he sounds like, you know, an Indian, just off the boat.

Do we have it? Yeah. Go ahead and play this, please.

VOICE: I think the New Yorkers, more than they hate a politician they disagree with. They hate a politician they can't trust. Just.

VOICE: On the subject of trust.

VOICE: They go to their local bodega.

VOICE: Is there one that's real and one that's effective?

VOICE: What I would say, as any immigrant knows, having been born in Uganda and then raised in South Africa and then moving here when I'm seven years old. They're different parts of my life.

VOICE: What do I choose? What do I choose?

VOICE: Mamdani was talking about a worldwide press tour, back when he was a rapper.

VOICE: Bring the flavor to the fish. Bring the flavor to the rice.

VOICE: In a Disney movie, directed by his mother.
(music)

VOICE: Nepotism and hard work, goes a long way.

GLENN: Goes a long way.

VOICE: Here in New York City, this is how I speak.

GLENN: Listen to this. This artwork goes a long way.

What the hell is that? What a phony this guy is. "A lot of artwork, it goes a long way. Mommy put me under her skirt when I was five."

What is that? Now, well, he's lived all over the world.

Well, I've lived all over the country, you know. I might say y'all once in a while. But I also might say you guys once in a while.

I say soda, and I also say pop.

Never soda pop, because that's just weird. But I say both of them.

But I never say it like this! Ever!

I mean, what -- what is the deal with the fake accents from the Democrats?

Why?

It's like they have -- I mean, I know they have no soul.

But it's like they have absolutely nothing real inside of them.

They're just like this shape. Oh!

They're shapeshifters. That's why.

They're actually lizard people who are shapeshifters.

Don't say that out loud.

Shh. It's just between us.

You me, and the other 11 million people.

That's just us.

Okay. Now, he also has made a big deal out of the holy land five.

And I want to get into that, when we come back. Because this one is really interesting.

Who are the holy land five?

Well, they're his dogs.

And I don't mean like he puts them on leashes. Hey. Who am I to say. That's not wrong to say, put people on leashes. Make them bark as dogs.

There's nothing wrong with that. You're perfectly normal.

They're his boys, the holy land five.

We will get into that from his great, great rap number called I don't know. Crappy crap.

I don't know what it was called.

It talks about the boys the holy land five. We will get to that in just a second.

First, let me tell you about holy earth.

I used to think sheets were sheets.

I am a sheet snob.

I really am.

And sheets are sheets. They usually feel like sandpaper.

You know, and then, you know, I went to a hotel once, that had really good sheets.

And I was like, oh, my gosh. What are these sheets made out of?

It's like cotton. But it's cotton that has 400 thread count. Or whatever the number is supposed to be.

And you're trying to buy those sheets.

Like, that's crazy. Crazy.

Cozy Earth makes really great sheets.

Cozy Earth, they make towels. They make lounge wear.

Which is material that is natural temperature-regulated. Breathable, soft.

Cozy Earth makes great sheets.

I wear their pajamas every single night.

My wife wears them every single night.

Of course, hers has a big sign on it. Like, don't even think about it, you. I don't even know what that means.

The Cozy Earth pajamas are really great. And if you're tired of being sweaty, you want luxury and comfort all wrapped up in one, make the switch to Cozy Earth today.

They have a 100-night sleep trial. They have a 10-year warranty. If you're not loving them, you can send them back.

They make great, great clothing. They make great lounge wear and sheets. So Cozy Earth. Just try them. Use my name Beck for up to 40 percent off their best-selling products right now. It's CozyEarth.com.

Use the promo code Beck.

CozyEarth.com. Promo code Beck.
(music)
(OUT AT 8:49 AM)

GLENN: So let me play some of this super, super classic rap from Mamdani. Here he is.

His little rap, called Salaam.
(music)

GLENN: Yeah. I have no idea what he just said. But I'm like with all rap songs. So what he said was, me, Alamo Zohran, my love to the Holy Land Five. You better look them up.

All right. So we did a long time ago, but here to refresh our memory is Jason Buttrill. Jason, the Holy Land Five. Could you bring America back up to speed?

JASON: What's crazy is, unless you are in some way connected ideologically to this, there's no real reason why most people would have ever heard of the Holy Land Five or the Holy Land Foundation.

And I've been accused of throwing on a few tinfoil hats in my time.

But, I mean, this is pretty dang blatant on what his motivations are.

The guy behind the guy.

So just to -- like you said, refresh. The holy land five. This comes from a court case.

United States of America, versus the Holy Land Foundation.

So in a nutshell, this case revealed, for the very first time, an elaborate scheme, launched by the Muslim Brotherhood. To shift sentiment, pump.

GLENN: Hang on just a second.

Let me just -- for those who are keeping score, Muslim Brotherhood. Bad!

Okay. So I just want to speak down to -- or, I mean, just clarify to some people who may have voted last week.

I just want to keep score here.

Foundation bad. Muslim Brotherhood, worse!

Okay. Go ahead.

JASON: Yeah. We're going way back in the history books here. Muslim Brotherhood. I'll go even further.

They're the ones who created modern day Salafi-Jihadism. So modern day terrorists, like Osama Bin Laden, they all took reference from the grandfather of terrorism. His name is Asan Bannon (phonetic).

Anyway, this case was all about funneling money to the American organization. That would give sentiment. Cash. Everything. To funnel back to Hamas.

And kill Jews. And lead the things like October 7th.

So he's praising these guys, that got busted in this case.

And --

GLENN: Right.

Now, here's the bad thing. In Canada, the youth are now looking at the clerics of Iran with higher regard than they do, the United States of America.

This guy is going to do for Islam, what Barack Obama did for Marxism. Mark my word!