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.

Meta’s AI “Friends” Nightmare: How Zuckerberg’s Latest Move Could Enslave Your Mind

Meta and Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg has a new goal: to give lonely Americans AI “friends.” But Glenn sounds the alarm: this must NEVER happen! Glenn explains the hidden danger in Zuckerberg’s seemingly kindhearted plan: “AI cannot, must not, and will never be your friend.” Opening that door will only give Meta insane levels of potential for manipulation and control over you.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Let's start with this: Mark Zuckerberg. Good guy. I mean, he brought us Facebook.

And, you know, that is the thing that brought all of us together.

Brought out families together. All the people that we lost touch with.

Oh, the world is so much better now that we have Facebook.

So now, he's got another idea. Could we play the clip of Mark Zuckerberg?

VOICE: There's a stat that I honestly think is crazy. The average American has I think it's fewer than three friends. Three people they consider friends. And the average person has demand for meaningfully more. I think it's 15 friends or something.

I guess there's probably at some point, I'm too busy. I can't deal with more people. But the average person wants more connectivity, connection than they have. So, you know, there's a lot of questions that people ask.

Of stuff like, okay. Is this going to replace kind of in person connections or real life connections?

And my default is that the answer to that is probably no.

I think it -- it -- I think that there are all these things that are better kind of about physical connections, when you can have them.

But the reality is that people just don't have the connection when they feel more alone, a lot of the time, than they would like.

GLENN: Hmm. True.

Now, let me ask you. Is there a time when you don't remember feeling so isolated? When you didn't really feel like I don't have any real friends?

When you didn't -- you had real connections with people, instead of a million connections with people that are your friends, but not really your friends?

Can you think of a time, way back in history?

I mean, probably have to go back to the cavemen, to find a time.

Oh. Before Facebook, and social media!

When we weren't all killing ourself, because we have no meaning.

Now, from the people who brought you kill yourself, because you've been on Facebook too much.

Brings you new AI friends. Oh, this is going to be good.

By the way, you know, that's a crazy stat, I think the average American has, what? Three friends. And they have a capacity for, I don't know. Fifteen or 20. I don't know.

Really think about it right now.

How many true friends, do you have?

How many true friends?

People that when you are down and out, there is nothing -- the whole world is against you!

That that person will actually stand by your side. And go, yeah.

I'm their friend.

And I don't care what you say.

How many? How many do you have?

I think I would count myself lucky if I have three.

Now, I have a lot of consequences.

I have a lot of people who we all think are friends. But as a recovering alcoholic, I've been there.

I've done that. As a recovering alcoholic,
who then also is a conservative and spoke out about the Obama administration, I know who my friends are.
I know who my friends are not.

And I think there's a lot of people that have counterfeit friends.

If you've got. Oh, I've got ten or 15 friends.

Eh.

No, you don't. No, you don't.

I've always grown up thinking, you're lucky, you're lucky, to have three, five, really good friends.

That will walk through anything with you. Do you agree with that, Stu?

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: You've never been there.

STU: For you? Oh, God no. But I'm just saying, generally speaking. No. I think -- I mean, you're describing a great friend. You're describing a really --

GLENN: A real friend.

STU: Yeah. Like someone you know and stick around for multiple decades.

GLENN: Yeah, I have lots of friends. You know what I mean? I have millions of Facebook friends.

STU: Right. Those aren't real.

GLENN: Right. And I have lots of friends. But the ones that are there for you always, no matter what, I have family.

And I have family.

STU: Right.

GLENN: And I have a handful of friends. I would consider you one of those.

STU: Thank you. I would as well.

GLENN: Why?

Remember, I have a drinking problem.

STU: Yeah. A lot of brain cells killed to make that decision.

But I think that you -- yes. I think the only thing that I think I'm drilling down a little bit on to try to understand. When you say, well, I have a lot of friends.

In a way, I think that's what Zuckerberg is talking about.

It's not even necessarily a great friend that you have for multiple decades. And can count on at any time.

Just the mid-level consequences, are drying up for a lot of people.

GLENN: Yeah. And why is that?

Why is that?

Because we don't talk to each other anymore.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: Because of social media.

You know, when this generation says, I don't know.

I just think it's weird. I'm just now in a bar someplace.

And some stranger comes up to me and wants to strike up a conversation. I'm like, hello, weirdo. I don't know!

You think it's less weird to go online?
When people can fake everything!

Thank you, Mark Zuckerberg.

But no thanks. Okay.

STU: And they're just -- to build up on this point for one second.

There's a study that came out, the last 20 years, of how much time do you spend socializing with the people.

Again, that's not with your best friends.

This is just socializing with anyone, a human.

Every single group. Every single group has massive drops.

GLENN: Massive.

STU: Massive drops. Just give you some examples.

Ages. Fifteen to 24-year-olds. Thirty-five-point down.

In 20 years. 35 percent. So a typical 15-year-old, as compared to what they are, in 2003 and 2025, where were the two measurement years?

They're spending 35 percent less time, with other human beings.

GLENN: Okay. Hang on just a second. Can you please stop distracting me? Because I'm trying to figure out why our kids are killing themselves.

STU: No, it's really hard.

GLENN: It's very hard to figure out.

STU: To understand.

And this is the coup de grâce of this entire study, which is, the typical female pet owner spends more time actively engaged with her pet, than she spends face-to-face contact with her friends of her own species.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

STU: That is unbelievable -- not like you're in the same house as your cat.

Right? No. More face-to-face time with your cat!

GLENN: And I've got news for you. If you think your cat is your friend, wait until you die, and your cat is trapped in the house with you and you have no friends to check. They will eat your face.

STU: They will still have a use for you.

GLENN: Yeah. They will have a use foy.

STU: Not the other way around.

GLENN: Okay. Here's why I'm bringing this up today.

This is a lie, that is going to be sold to you, like crazy. And it's going to be wrapped in a beautiful, shiny package. And it's going to have from Mark Zuckerberg and others like him, on the tag.

They want you to believe, that AI and bots can be your friends.

Will the Conclave Elect a RADICAL Pope to Follow Francis?

The Conclave to elect the Catholic Church’s next Pope has begun. But will the next Pope be “conservative” and orthodox, will he follow in Pope Francis’ footsteps and be more friendly to leftist and globalist ideas, or will he be an “anti-Pope,” as some Catholics are claiming Francis was? Glenn speaks with LifeSiteNews co-founder and CEO, John-Henry Westen, who reviews the most likely candidates for the papacy and why he believes the “anti-Pope” claims against Francis are not ungrounded.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN:

Did the New York Times Just Admit It Curates Your Truth?

A recent New York Times hit piece is a perfect example of why many Americans no longer trust the newspaper. Glenn compares the piece, which criticizes “The MartyrMade Podcast” host Darryl Cooper’s revisionist history, with the New York Times’ own “1619 Project,” written by Nikole Hannah Jones. Glenn disagrees with both people about major historical events. But the Times, with its elitist hypocrisy, pushed Jones’ attempt to frame America as a racist nation since its inception as unquestionable truth. “I’m not defending [Cooper or Jones],” Glenn says. “I’m defending the idea that We the People decide what’s true, and that takes work and curiosity…The minute you let somebody else decide what you’re allowed to hear, you have already surrendered your freedom to think.”

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: I want to take on something else that I don't know. Maybe I should just keep my big, fat mouth shut.

Because I think this one will piss off everybody. But it's the truth. There was a story in the New York Times. The podcaster asking for you to side with history's villains. It was in the New York Times. Let me read something.

Darryl Cooper is no scholar. But legions of fans, many on the right, can't seem to resist what he presents as hidden truths.

All of a sudden, everyone was coming for Darryl Cooper. There were the newspaper columnists. The historians. The Jewish groups. Repugnant says the chairman of Yadveshev (phonetic), Israel's Holocaust museum in a statement.

Even the Biden White House released a statement, calling him a Holocaust denier who spreads Nazi propaganda. So it was for a time for Mr. Cooper. One of the most popular podcaster in the country, to do what he does best. Hit record.

In a special on his history program, Martyr Made. Mr. Cooper addressed the controversy, which had exploded out of September 2nd appearance on the Tucker Carlson Show.

The podcast started by the former Fox News host. At first, Mr. Cooper, a gifted historic storyteller, but not a trained historian, defended the claims he had made on Mr. Carlsen's show. One that Winston Churchill was the chief villain of the war. Ridiculous. Not by implication. Adolf Hitler.

The two -- and two, that millions had died in Nazi-controlled Eastern Europe because Nazis had not adequately planned to feed them. Okay. Not true.

He then said, the story goes on to say, I don't know if we retracted some of that stuff. This emotional ventriloquism is part of Mr. Cooper's approach and appeal. On TikTok, a fan praised him as one of the best historians of our time, because he tries to go out of his way, to understand the perspective of everyone involved in a situation.

These critics have probably helped make Mr. Cooper bigger than ever. He's been the most subscribed to history newsletter on Substak. One spot ahead of the evident economic historian, Adam HEP Toos in the wake of the Rogan interview. Martyrmade. Blah, blah, blah.

Okay. So they go on and on and on. To talk about how this just can't stand. I mean, we've got to -- there's got to be some sort of filter. And, you know, Joe Rogan just can't have on, whoever he wants to have on. That's the problem!

Is it? New York Times. Is that the problem?

Hmm, that's really interesting.

Now, let me just look and -- and let me just look in the past here, and see if we've had this exact same problem, with anybody else. Because the person that came to mind was not Darryl Cooper, but Nicole Hannah Jones. Because I think those two are the same coin, and the coin is counterfeit.

Just opposite sides of the same coin. The martyr made podcast spins a tale of grievance and distrust. And it's wrapped in enough fact to keep it plausible.

But there are some facts in there. Okay.

Jones, she did the 1619 Project.

She did the same thing in reverse. Except, I think she's actually worse.

I mean, because I think she made up almost everything in that. She recasts American history. As racist from the very inception of the country.

Neither one of them is telling the whole truth. Neither one of them. Neither wants to, I think. They're both in the business of narrative, and not history.

So am I. But I tried to be fair.

The real problem is not these two.

Honestly, it's the New York Times.

Because in their Sunday styles, write-up on Cooper.

The Times poses as a concerned observer.

Wary of growing influence among the disaffected right.

Why are we disaffected. Why is the right disaffected?

We're disaffected because you have tried to take our country from us.

Everything that we believe. Our history.

Our values. Our traditions. And you've tried to denigrate them. And destroy them, every step of the way.

And you've done them with one lie, right after another.

Okay?

Why are they framing him. Not with facts. But with suspicion.

Not because he's -- dishonest or not dishonest. But because he's popular. They clutch their pearls, because he has an audience. And only the New York Times can have that you audience.

But where that was concern, when they did -- when they gave an audience to Nicole Hannah Jones.

And gave her a Pulitzer for a project now so discredited by the very historians that are now talking about Cooper!

Where was the caution when they declared that 1619, not 1776, was the true founding of the nation? They didn't question her authority. They didn't say, well, she's not a historian. They printed it. In fact, they taught it, and endorsed it. They platformed it in schools!

That's different than anything that Joe Rogan is doing. They platformed it in schools.

So let's be clear. Okay?

I think both Cooper and Jones are wrong.

They may have points worth considering.

But I think that they get it fundamentally wrong, in a few places.

They are looking at facts to sell the story.

And not necessarily reveal the truth.

Now, maybe I'm being too cynical.

But that's the way I see it. And I'm not condemning either one.

I'm condemning all of those on the left, or the right, that are now doing the same thing that the New York Times did with -- with Cooper, but didn't do with Anna Nicole Jones. Only one of those two was lauded by the New York Times, as legitimate. And a necessary corrective, even though, it was all a lie! Made up!

So that's what -- when I'm -- I'm reading that op-ed in the New York Times.

I can't take the -- oh, my gosh. The hypocritical nature of it. Just, blood shoots out of my eyes.

Because that's what the New York Times is actually saying. Don't you little people understand. We must decide what stories are acceptable. Not you!

Not somebody like Joe Rogan. We will decide. Which distortion are his virtuous and which ones are dangerous. Not you.

We get to choose the false prophets that get a column, which -- and which ones are called conspiracy theorists. We, at the New York Times, we in the media!

And athat is the problem! This isn't about the authors. Okay. First Amendment gives him a right to say whatever they want.

You may not like. You don't like it, stop listening.

Well, but other people might listen. Yeah. Well, other people might listen.

Maybe we should pay more attention to our education in our schools. Maybe we should pay more attention, so we don't become somebody that is a dummy, themselves. And are -- because this is the problem!

We don't have a press that exposes lies anymore. We have a press that curates the lies.

I really think this is why I started collecting -- you know, we have now, the third largest collection of founding indictments, in the American journey experience.

Along with David Barton's wall builders.

It is -- it's only behind the national archives. And the library of Congress.

Most people don't know it. Because, you know, we don't talk about it yet.

Beginning in '26. We will be making a big deal out of it.

We also have the largest collection of pilgrim era artifacts and documents in the world.

The largest. So I can tell you what happened in Jamestown in 1619.

I can tell you this, the ship that Hannah HEP Nicole Jones talks about. There were no slaves on that ship.

How do I know?

We have the manifest!

No slaves. Hmm. That seems problematic, doesn't it?

And the Mayflower did not launch a system of slavery.

In fact, they fought against it.

We -- this is so crazy.

What the Pilgrims did against slavery was remarkable.

Remarkable. When a slave shipbuildingsly gave into their port, it was -- slavery was against the law. They called it man stealing.

It was against the law. As soon as the slave came into port. You could smell the slave ship. They knew exactly what it was. They marched and up arrested the captain of the ship.

They put anymore irons. And put him in jail.

And these people, who were already paying 15 percent of everything they make. These poor people.

15 percent of everything they make, to a king they can't be they despise. But they paid it, because they wanted to just stay alive.

They took up a collection from each other. Not outside. From each other.

Got a new captain. Refueled. Restocked the ship. And sent those people. Those slaves back to Africa, so they could be free!

That's who our pilgrims were. Don't believe me? You don't have to take my word for it.
We have the evidence. Please, you know, the longest running treaty with Native Americans happened with our Pilgrims. And you know who broke it? Not the white man. It was the Native Americans! And you know why?

Because after years and years of the Pilgrims and the Native Americans getting along, Christianity was starting to seep into their culture. And they needed to go to war with the tribe. And the war that the way they used to fight it, the Native Americans, it was okay to enslave your enemy.

In fact, you needed to.

You could torture them, after you won!

Just to make a point. And then you would enslave anybody you wanted.

And Christianity said, no. You can't do either one of those things.

And so the native Americans, that were part of this tribe, that were and friends under this treaty, with the Pilgrims. They started telling their chief. You know, we can't do these things.

And the chief got so pissed. Because he was like, we're fighting a war.

We fought it like they always fought it.

That they broke the treaty. Did you know that?

No. They were just horrible. We stole the land.

Ay-yi-yi. Did America live up to its ideals?

No! Has anybody, ever?

Have you? Has the pope? Has anybody really lived up to their ideals all the time?

No! But you have ideals, and that's what matters.

By the way, on the other side, I also happen to own a few original Nazi documents, from the actual perpetrators. I've got documents from the engineer that actually calculated how much Zyklon B it would take to murder a room full of Jews, okay?

It wasn't because they didn't want to -- they didn't have enough food.

This was calculated. I have the final prescription signed by Dr. Mengele, for a thousand liters of lumen that will for the so-called children's hospital. That's how the right was killing the undesirables in the children's hospital.

They didn't do it in a frenzy. It wasn't a riot. It wasn't out of desperation. It was silence out of lab coats, and beauracrats and experts signing off, and the press like the New York Times refusing to say a word about it. The scariest people are not the ones in the streets. They weren't. They were the ones with titles. With offices, with press credentials.

They were the ones with the doctorates.
They were the people who decided what could be published.

Who could be punished. What could be known? What could be said?

And that's the danger that we're staring down, right now. Not from cringe theorists on a podcast. Not even from overzealous academics with a Pulitzer.

But from the institutions that bless one distortion, and condemn the other.

Not based on truth. But based on usefulness.

Is it useful to our side?

I just want you to know. This is my stance on this. and make this very, very clear.

The First Amendment does not exist to protect comfortable speech. It doesn't exist to protect Cooper, as opposed to Jones. It exists to protect both of them!

It protects uncomfortable points of view.

Things you do not like to hear. And disagreement. It protects people who are absolutely wrong, and even those who are lying!

It protects the process, so you can figure it out. There is no licensed priesthood in our country.

You know, that are -- the priesthood of truth-tellers. No official ministry of facts.

That's where countries go wrong. The Times should be exposing both sides of these stories.

Just like I'm doing.

The distortions of the right, and the left.

But instead, they become exactly what they've warned us about.

A newspaper that prints dogma, and not dialogue.

And the real problem here: No.

The real solution here is you. Jefferson warned that a man who reads nothing but newspapers.
Sorry. A man who reads nothing is better informed than a man who only reads the newspaper. Okay? I would say, the newspaper is today's social media.

Man who reads nothing is more well-educated than a man who just only reads social media.

But today we might say, better to be ignorant than confidently misled by trusted media.

They see themselves not as a watch to go. But as a shepherd. And we are the sheep.

So I am not defending either one.

I am defending the idea that we, the people. Not the institutions. Not the elites. Not the New York Times.

Not Joe Rogan.

You decide what's true. And that takes work and that takes curiosity. Maybe the other guy is wrong.

I don't know. Maybe I don't have the whole story either. I don't know.

Look it up. Because the minute you let somebody else decide, what you're allowed to hear, you have already surrendered your freedom to think!

What Christian Movies Can Learn from Serial Killer Films

Christian movies can learn a whole lot from serial killer murder mysteries, The Daily Wire’s Andrew Klavan tells Glenn. While Christian films tend to have good messages, they don’t often touch on the dark realities of this fallen world we live in – realities that even the Bible addresses through the stories of Cain and Abel and many others. Instead, Klavan argues, he gets more biblical truths out of movies like “Halloween” and “The Silence of the Lambs” and books like “Crime and Punishment” than he does films like “God’s Not Dead.” Klavan tells Glenn how he finds God in the literature of darkness, a topic he further delves into in his new book, “The Kingdom of Cain.”

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Andrew Klavan. Host of the Andrew Klavan program. The Andrew Klavan Show.

How are you, sir?

ANDREW: I'm good. Good to see you.

GLENN: Good to see you. I don't think I've seen you out of your element ever.

ANDREW: Yes, I've been many times to the studio.

GLENN: Have you? Well, they were memorable.

ANDREW: I get this reaction a lot.

GLENN: No. I just love you. I love you. And I got to tell you, the best compliment I could give you, your son is remarkable.

ANDREW: He is remarkable. He is.

GLENN: I hope some day, somebody will say that by my children. Really remarkable.

You and your wife are amazing parents.

ANDREW: Oh, well, thank you.

GLENN: So tell me about the Kingdom of Cain, and talk down to me.

ANDREW: It's a really simple book, and very entertaining, because it's about the movies that we all love.

GLENN: Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. He says this. Let me read this to you, Stu, and see if you understand what this is.

STU: The Kingdom of Cain looks at three murders in history, including the first murder. Cain's killing of his brother Abel. And at the art created from imaginative engagement, from those horrific events by artists ranging from Dostoyevsky to Hitchcock. To make beauty out of the world, as it is shot through with evil and injustice and suffering. It is the task, not just of the artist, but Klavan argues of every life rightly lived.

Examining how the transformation occurs in art. Grants us a vision of how it could happen in our life. What is this about?

STU: I don't know what you're missing.

ANDREW: I will tell you, I'm a crime writer. Right? I get this letter all the time. Constantly. It says, you call yourself a Christian.

That part is true, and yet you write about horrific things. You right about murder.

Prostitutes and gangsters, and all this stuff.

Why do you do that?

And the reason is very simple. I believe that God is a central fact of reality. And I believe that any artist who speaks truthfully about reality, will speak about God.

And so what I did. I took three murders. Three very famous murders.

I showed how they inspired works of art. Over and over and over again.

They're -- not just one work of art. But they kept coming back, inspiring other works of art. And how those works of art actually speak about something, that happens to a society, when it begins to lose its faith. As our society has certainly done.

You know, and they chart those works of art, and some of them are like the stupidest little horror movie.

And yet, the guy who is making that horror movie understood what he was talking about.

And can show you. If you go back, for instance, and watch a slasher movie. Like Halloween, which is a very scary movie.

It's actually about the fall of the end of faith. And how it destroys sexual responsibilities.

So it takes place in the suburb. Have you seen it?

GLENN: Wait. Wait. Yeah. I have seen it.

ANDREW: Where there are no moms. And the dads are very weak.

And this knife-wielding crazy man comes back. And basically preys on kids having sex while nobody is watching.

And it's a very, very stark picture. I bet if you asked the director what he was doing, he would tell you that. It's right in the movie, when he see that. But you have to be watching this.

The thing is, these movies are -- not just movies. But novels.

The arts are -- really reveal the conscience of a culture.

GLENN: Yes.

ANDREW: And so taking the way they look at murder, tells us things that are bad about our culture.

But it also tells us about ways we want to go in the future.

The role, for instance, of psychiatrists in -- in these films.

Films. Most of these films are based on murder, committed by Ed Dean in the 1950s, a guy who was constant. Who used to kill women.

Right?

And then dress up in their bodies. Just like in Silence of the Lambs. That inspired Psycho.

It inspired a really good horror movie called the Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

Even though it's a crazy title. It's actually a good movie. The Silence of the Lambs. All of these movies grow out of that one murder.

And what it's about? It's about confusion. It's about sexual. About gender. You know, we don't see that going around nowadays. In fact, it's everywhere. In fact, these movies were made in the 1950s, '60s, '70s, and '80s and on. And so they were predicting, as art often does, what was going to happen, and explaining why.

GLENN: So do you think Alford Hitchcock knew that this was coming? Or he was just a good storyteller?

ANDREW: You are a good story teller. Who was it? T. S. Eliot said a great poet writes himself, and in writing himself, he writes his time.

And I think that that's what happens. These artists basically bring something out of themselves. But it reveals where we are all are. And it reveals where we are going. If you see where we are, you can tell where we're going.

That's why the book does not just concentrate on the darkness. It actually says. What do you do?

How do you react? Now that you know what's happening. How do you react to those things in a creative, joyful way?

Because this is -- the Bible doesn't say things will be great. The Bible says. Yeah.

GLENN: That's not the main point.

ANDREW: Being crucified. And at the same time, it says, rejoice ever more.

GLENN: Right.

ANDREW: So one of the things that really bothers me about Christian movies.

Is they don't really represent life.

If you do a Christian movie, that has real things in it, you get slammed.

Why would you put it in?

Why was there sex? Why was there murder?

One of the major influences that turned me to Christ, when I was 19 years old. That took three decades to kick in.

But it was reading Crime and Punishment. About an axe murderer. And about a prostitute who basically turns this axe murderer's life around.

If you walked into a Christian bookstore today.

And say, can I have that book about the axe murderer and the hooker? Yeah, they would look at you like you were nuts. Because Dostoyevsky was a great artist and a great Christian.

One of the truly deep and interesting Christians in history.

He revealed something about the philosophies that were rising up at that time.

And that are still with us today. And the philosophies that later became spoken out by Nietzsche. And Nietzsche affected all of the leftist philosophers that you and I have loved so much. And have done so many good things for our survival.

GLENN: So let's pretend somebody didn't read that by Dostoyevsky or whatever his name is.

And tell us the story -- and tell us the story. And exactly what -- what he was teaching.

ANDREW: Well, the idea is God is dead.

And therefore, instead of having this horrible Christian philosophy. That is nice to the poor. And the weak, and has charity. And compassion.

We need strong special men. Like Napoleon, for instance. Who will make their own law.

And this man, in this story. Crime and Punishment says, well, if I can make my own law, I can murder somebody.

And it will be a sin. It won't be wrong.

And then he actually accomplishes this murder.

And finds a way. Oh, wait. I've actually shattered the moral order. And now my life is spiraling out of control.

Now, Nietzsche wrote his philosophy, which is the exact philosophy in his book.

After Dostoyevsky wrote the novel, and then his philosophy inspired two murderers in America, named Leopold and Lowe. This was called the crime of the century. The crime of the 20th century.

GLENN: I don't remember it.

ANDREW: I know, nobody remembers it now, but it was one of the biggest crimes of the century. It inspired countless movies and television shows.

It was two kids, they were -- they were rich, gay Jewish kids in the suburbs.

GLENN: What year?

ANDREW: This is 19 -- I want to say 30 -- 30 or 40.

GLENN: Okay.

ANDREW: Yeah. It was the '30s. I'm sorry.

And they decided, well, we're Superman. Like Nietzsche. They read Nietzsche. And they thought, yes. This is what we want to be.

One of them. We will commit the perfect murder, to show we could do it.

They took a kid at random, who they know, and killed them.

GLENN: This is Rope.

ANDREW: Exactly. Exactly. And Rope became the Hitchcock film. And also inspired Compulsion, which is another movie.

Almost a true movie about it. Pops up again and again.

Two people who said, we will commit the perfect murder. Because we're superior.

If you look for it, you will find it in one story after another.

And it's based on the idea, that there's no God. And therefore, anything is permissible, and strong men have to make the rules.

GLENN: That's one of the best movies out of Hitchcock.

Nobody even knows it. Great movie from Hitchcock. And great movie with Jimmy Stewart and just really -- and disturbing.

ANDREW: Yeah, and written -- the original play was written by the guy who also wrote a play called Gaslight, which is where we get the word gaslighting.

So I talk all about these works of art. These works and movies. And listen, I think it's an entertaining book, Glenn.

GLENN: I love your work. I love your work. Most people, if you don't know who Andrew Klavan is.

You've written movies. I mean, you've written just some thrilling novels.

And novels that have been made into movies. And I'm a huge, huge fan.

But, I mean, you know, you are talking to mice here.

ANDREW: I try to just make it about things that people like and enjoy.

GLENN: Yeah. So what is -- what is the lesson that we learn from -- from all of this?

ANDREW: Well, I think the most important lesson, if I can call it that, in the book. Is that the beauty has something to do with the answer to evil.

You know, one of the things that keeps people from believing in God. They say, there's so much evil in the world.

How can a good God, allow this evil to exist?

And at the end of the book, the last third of the book. Which is a very personal statement about what I do, to basically live joyfully in the world, that I can see is evil.

It ends with looking at the statue of Michelangelo. Which is one of the most beautiful works --

GLENN: Beautiful.

ANDREW: But it think about what it's about, Glenn. It's about a mother with her dead son. It is a world with a dead God. It's the worst movement in human history. And yet Michelangelo, a man, made it beautiful.

And my question at the end of the book, is if a man can take that misery, that suffering, that evil, and turn it into beauty, what can God do with the world that we're living in now?

When he works with the marvel of eternity. And so I work my way to that point, by going to the movies that we watch, the stories that we read.

And why we're so fascinated with murder.

You know, think about try crime. This is what this is about.

STU: Why are we?

ANDREW: Because it is the borderline, where you cannot say, there's something right about this.

It's the place where I suddenly realize that the moral order has its great points, but it also has a very stark --

GLENN: So explain to me. Explain to me why shows like, let's say.

Yellowstone.

Are so satisfying, because you're kind of like -- kind of like seeing that guy taking to the train station.

You know what I mean?

You know that it's wrong. But you're kind of in there. You're kind of like -- you know.

And you feel. At least I do. I mean, I'm sure a lot of people watch. Yeah. That's fine.

I watch it. I don't like the fact that I kind of -- I'm rooting for them.

ANDREW: I think the best art does that to you. I really enjoy this. That actually tells me something about myself, that I don't want to think about.

GLENN: Yeah.

ANDREW: See, a lot of people think art is like a sugar pill, that they used to give you a little lesson in life. A little parable of sorts. I don't think that's what it is at all.

I think it's an experience that you really can't have in your life, that broadens the way you look at life. Broadens your view of humanity. So when you get Christian stories like God Is Not Dead. I don't want to pick on anybody.

GLENN: But you'll pick on them.

ANDREW: I will pick on them. The guy is hit by a car. He says, well, at least he was saved.

I think, really? We can't just say -- you can't call his wife say, and say, this is a sad moment. Let me grieve when people die? We can't say we're horrified by death and afraid?

So I want Christian art that deals with life in a real way.

And shows that people who are afraid. And people who have evil thoughts, and people who want to justify murder. And they -- there are moments when we all sort of think -- but if you go off into a room by yourself and ask, how can I make the perfect world?

Within two minutes, so help me.

You will be committing mass murder in your mind.

Let me see. Well, first, I have to go to rid of these people because these people can't be reformed. You'll wipe them out, right?

So that's who we all are.

When he start to see that. I believe that's actually a layer on top of who we really.

I believe who we really are is who Christ wants us to be. That's the question.

How do you get through that layer?

That's what artists do for us. They show us our true selves.

And lead our conscience to the place we're supposed to go.

GLENN: All right. Our natural soul is who Christ wants us to be.

ANDREW: Right.

GLENN: And we're encapsulated in this flesh. And the natural man is an enemy to that. And it's the battle back and forth.

ANDREW: And that's what art is. That battle. That's where drama comes from. That's where tragedy comes from.

You know, one of the stories I mentioned in the Kingdom of Cain is Macbeth, because it's such a great story about murder.

And it ends with the most beautiful speech about nihilism, about things, nothing makes sense. Nothing is worth anything. Right? Life is a tale told by an idiot. But because you're watching a play, you understand, Shakespeare is not saying that. A guy has detached himself from the moral order is saying that. He's lost the meaning of life, because he's detached himself from the meaning of life.

And so studying murder and writing art about murder. Takes you to the most serious questions about who we are. And who we really are. And what we really want. And how we -- you know, that inner battle that goes on. Which is to me, the source of drama.