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.

EXPOSED: Tim Walz's shocking ties to radical Muslim cleric

Minnesota Governor Tim Walz is directly connected in more ways than one to a radical Muslim cleric named Asad Zaman. Zaman's history and ties are despicable, and despite Walz's efforts to dismiss his connection to Zaman, the proof is undeniable. Glenn Beck heads to the chalkboard to connect the dots on this relationship.

Watch the FULL Episode HERE: Glenn Beck Exposes TERRORIST SYMPATHIZERS Infiltrating the Democrat Party

Is there a sinister GOP plan to SELL national parks?

Is Sen. Mike Lee pushing a sinister plan to sell our national parks and build “affordable housing” on them? Glenn Beck fact checks this claim and explains why Sen. Lee’s plan to sell 3 million acres of federal land is actually pro-freedom.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Now, let me give you a couple of things, from people I generally respect.

Chris Rufo, I really respect.

I'm totally against selling this land.

Nobody is going to build affordable housing deep in the Olympic Peninsula, which is one of the most beautiful places in the country.

I agree, it's in Washington State. It's on the coast. And it's a rain forest.

I want my kids hiking, fishing, and camping on those lands, not selling them off for some tax credit scam. This is a question I want to ask Mike Lee about.

That's really good. Matt Walsh chimes in, I'm very opposed to the plan. The biggest environmentalist in the country are and always have been, conservatives who like to hunt and fish.

We don't just call ourselves environmentalists, because the label has too much baggage.

And the practice always just means communist. Really, we are naturalists in the tradition of Teddy Roosevelt, and that's why most of us hate the idea of selling off federal lands to build affordable housing or whatever. I want to get to affordable housing here in a second.

Preserving nature is important. It's a shame we haven't -- that we've allowed conservation to become so left-wing coated. It never was historically.

No, and it still isn't.

You're right about one thing, Matt. We are the best conservatives. We actually live in these places. We use these places. We respect the animals. We respect the land. We know how the circle of life works. So I agree with you on that.

But affordable housing. Why do you say affordable housing or whatever?

Are you afraid those will be black people? I'm just playing devil's advocate? Are you just afraid of black people? You don't want any poor people in your neighborhood or your forest?

That's not what they mean by affordable housing.

And I know that's not what you mean either.

But what -- what we mean by affordable housing is, if you take a look at the percentage of land that is owned in some of these states. You can't live in a house, in some of these states, you know. Close to anything, for, you know, less than a million dollars. Because there's no land!

There's plenty of land all around.

Some of it. Let's just talk about Utah.

Some of it is like the surface of the moon!

But no. No. No.

Not going to hunt and fish on the surface of the moon. But we can't have you live anywhere.

I mean, you have to open up -- there is a balance between people and the planet. And I'm sorry. But when you're talked about one half of 1 percent, and we're not talking about Yellowstone.

You know, we're not. Benji Backer, the Daily Caller, he says, the United States is attempting to sell off three million acres of public land, that will be used for housing development through the addition of the spending bill.

This is a small provision to the big, beautiful bill that would put land in Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado. Idaho. New Mexico. Oregon. Utah. Washington, and Wyoming at risk.

Without so much as a full and fair debate by members of both sides of the political aisle.

You know, I talked -- I'll talk to him about this.

The irony is, the edition of this provision by Republican-led Senate goes entirely against conservation legacy of a conservation. President Trump made a promise to revive this legacy.

Yada. Yada. Yada.

More about Teddy Roosevelt.

Then let me give you this one from Lomez. Is Mike Lee part of a sinister plan to sell off federal land?

This plan to sell off public lands is a terrible proposal that doesn't make any sense under our present circumstances and would be a colossal political blunder. But I'll try to be fair to base Mike Lee.

And at least have him explain where this is all coming from.

Okay. I will have him do that in about 30 minutes.

Let me give you just my perspective on this.

I'm from the West. I love the west.

I don't hike myself.

I think there's about 80 percent of the people who say, I just love to hike. And they don't love to hike. They never go outside.

I'm at least willing to admit. I don't like to hike. But I love the land. I live in a canyon now. That I would love to just preserve this whole canyon in my lifetime. I'm not going to rule from the grave. But in my lifetime, to protect this, so it remains unspoiled. Because it is beautiful!

But we're talking about selling 3 million acres of federal land. And it's becoming dangerous.

And it's a giveaway. Or a threat to nature.

But can we just look at the perspective here?

The federal government owned 640 million acres. That is nearly 28 percent of all land in America!

How much land do we have?

Well, that's about the size of France.

And Germany. Poland.

And the United Kingdom, combined!

They own and hold pristine land, that is more than the size of those countries combined!

And most of that is west of the Mississippi. Where the federal control smothers the states.

Okay?

Shuts down opportunity. Turns local citizens into tenets of the federal estate.

You can't afford any house because you don't have any land!

And, you know, the states can't afford to take care of this land. You know why the states can't afford it?

Because you can't charge taxes on 70 percent of your land!

Anyway, on, meanwhile, the folks east of the Mississippi, like Kentucky, Georgia. Pennsylvania.

You don't even realize, you know, how little of the land, you actually control.

Or how easy it is for the same policies, to come for you.

And those policies are real.

Look, I'm not talking about -- I'm disturbed by Chris Rufo saying, that it is the Olympic forest.

I mean, you're not going to live in the rain forest. I would like to hear the case on that.

But we're not talking about selling Yellowstone or paving over Yosemite or anything like that.

We're talking about less than one half of one percent of federal land. Land that is remote.
Hard to access. Or mismanaged. I live in the middle of a national forest.

So I'm surrounded on all sides by a national forest, and then BLM land around that. And then me. You know who the worst neighbor I have is?

The federal government.

The BLM land is so badly mismanaged. They don't care what's happening.

Yeah. I'm going to call my neighbor, in Washington, DC, to have them fix something.

It's not going to happen.

If something is wrong with that land, me and my neighbors, we end up, you know, fixing the land.

We end up doing it. Because the federal government sucks at it.

Okay.

So here's one -- less than one half of 1 percent.

Why is it hard to access that land?

Well, let me give you a story. Yellowstone.

Do you know that the American bison, we call it the buffalo.

But it's the American bison.

There are no true American bison, in any place, other than Yellowstone.

Did you know that?

Here's almost an endangered species.

It's the only true American bison, is in Yellowstone.

Ranchers, I would love to raise real American bison.

And I would protect them.

I would love to have them roaming on my land.

But you can't!

You can't.

Real bison, you can't.

Why? Because the federal government won't allow any of them to be bred.

In fact, when Yellowstone has too many bison on their land, you know what the federal government does?

Kills them. And buries them with a bulldozer. Instead of saying, hey. We have too many.

We will thin the herd.

We will put them on a truck. Here's some ranchers that will help repopulate the United States with bison. No, no, no. You can't do that.

Why? It's the federal government. Stop asking questions. Do you know what they've done to our bald eagles.

I have pictures of piles of bald eagles.

That they'll never show you.

They'll never show you.

You can't have a bald eagle feather!

It's against the law, to have a feather, from a bald eagle!

If it's flying, and a feather falls off, you can't pick it up. Because they're that sacred.

But I have pictures of piles of bald eagles, dead, from the windmills.

And nobody says a thing.

Okay.

But we're talking about lands.

States can't afford to manage it.

Okay. But how can the federal government?

Now, this is really important.

The federal government is, what? $30 trillion in debt or are we 45 trillion now, I'm not sure?

Our entitlement programs, all straight infrastructure, crumbling.

And yet, we're still clinging to millions of acres of land, that the federal government can't maintain. Yeah, they can.

Because they can always print money.

We can't print money in the state, so we can't afford it.

Hear me out. The BLM Forest Service, Park Service, billions of dollars behind in maintenance, roads, trails, fire brakes.

Everything is falling apart..

So what's the real plan here?

Well, the Biden administration was the first one that was really open about it, pushing for what was called 30 by 30.

They want 30 percent of all US land and water, under conservation by 2030.

But the real goal is 5050.

50 percent of the land, and the water, in the government's control by 2050.

Half of the country locked up under federal or elite approved protection.

Now, you think that's not going to affect your ability to hunt, fish, graze, cattle. Harvest, timber, just live free. You won't be able to go on those. It won't be conservatives, who stop you from hunting and fishing.

It will be the same radical environmental ideologues, who see the land, as sacred, over people!

I mean, unless it's in your backyard. Your truck. Or your dear stand, you know, then I guess you can't touch that land.

Here's something that no one is talking about, and it goes to the 2030.

The Treasury right now, and they started under Obama, and they're still doing it now.

Sorry, under Biden.

And they're doing it now. The Treasury is talking about putting federal land on the national ballot sheet. What does that mean?

Well, it will make our balance sheet so much better.

Because it looks like we have so much more wealth, and we will be able to print more money.

Uh-huh. What happens, you know. You put something sacred like that, on your balance sheet, and the piggy bank runs dry.

And all of the banks are like, okay.

Well, you can't pay anymore.

What happens in a default?

What happens, if there's catastrophic failure. You don't get to go fish on that land. Because that land becomes Chinese.

You think our creditors, foreign and domestic, won't come knocking?

What happens when federal land is no longer a national treasure, but a financial asset, that can be seized or sold or controlled by giant banks or foreign countries.

That land that you thought, you would always have access to, for your kids, for your hunting lodge, for your way of life.

That is really important!

But it might not be yours at all. Because you had full faith in the credit of the United States of America.

So what is the alternative?

Dershowitz SLAMS ‘expert’ lies in explosive trans surgery debate

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor a Tennessee law that bans transgender surgeries for minors. But famed attorney Alan Dershowitz explains to Glenn why “it should have been unanimous.”

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Alan Dershowitz, how are you?

ALAN: I'm doing great, how about you?

GLENN: It has been a really confusing week. I'm losing friends, I think, because I stand with Israel's right to defend themselves. And I'm pointing out, that while I don't want a war, Iran is a really bad place.

And then I see, the Supreme Court comes out best interest there are three justices are like, I don't know. I think children, you know, can change their identity before we even let them drive or carry a gun. Or enlist in the military.

It's insane!

ALAN: It is insane. Especially since the radical left said that -- 17 and a half-year-old -- voluntary sex with their boyfriend. That would be sexist, that would be horrible.

But they can consent to have an abortion. They can consent to have radical surgery, that can't be reversed.

By the way, the decision is like six to two and a half. Elena Kagan, my former colleague at Harvard, didn't reach the merits of whether or not a state could actually ban these operations on a minor. She got involved in whether or not you need super, duper scrutiny, or just super scrutiny, a kind of, you know, a very technical thing.

But she didn't rule on whether under any kind of scrutiny, the state could do that. So definitely, two of them said that the state could do it, but not necessarily a third one.

GLENN: Okay.

Can you break this argument down? And why it should have been unanimous?

ALAN: Oh, it should be unanimous. There's no question.

States under the Constitution, have the authority to decide medical issues. States decide a whole range of medical issues. I remember when I was a young professor, there was an issue of whether or not one twin could be operated on to remove a kidney, to be given to another twin.

And, you know, that case went all the way through -- the federal government never got involved in that. That was up to the state of Massachusetts. They made interesting decisions.

Some states go the other way.

Half the countries of Europe go one way. The other half go the other way. And just as Justice Brandeis once said that things are the laboratories of Constitutional experimentation.

They have the right to do things their own way. And then we'll see over time. Over time, I predict that we will find that this kind of surgery, is not acceptable scientifically for young people.

And the New York Times had an absurd op-ed yesterday. By the mother of a transgender person.

And it never mentioned. It originally said that the person was now 18 years old.

And the decision does not apply to anyone who is 18.

You know, just wait. Don't make irreversible decisions while you're 12 years old. Or 13 years old.

Because we know the statistics show, that some people, at least, regret having made these irreversible decisions, particularly. Yeah.

GLENN: So why is it -- why is it that the state. Why wasn't the argument, you can't do this to children?

ALAN: Well, you know, that's the question.

Whether or not if the state says, you can do it to children, that violates the Constitution. I think states are given an enormous amount of leeway, this. Deciding what's best for people.

You leave it to the public.

And, you know, for me, if I were, you know, voting. I would not vote to allow a 17-year-old to make that irreversible decision. But if the state wants to do it. If a country in Europe wants to do it. All right!

But the idea that there's a constitutional right for a minor, who can't -- isn't old enough to consent to a contract, to have sex, is old enough to consent to do something that will change their life forever, and they will come to regret, is -- is absurd.

GLENN: So I don't know how you feel about Justice Thomas. But he -- he took on the so-called experts.

And -- and really kind of took him to the woodshed. What were your thoughts on that?

ALAN: Well, I agree with that. I devoted my whole life to challenging experts. That's what I do in court.

I challenge experts all the time. But most of the major cases that I've won, have been cases where experts went one way, and we were -- persuaded a jury or judge. That the expert is not really an expert.

Experts have become partisans, just like everybody else.

And so I'm glad that expert piece is being challenged by judges.

And, you know, experts ought to challenge judges, judges challenge experts. That's the world we live in. Everybody challenges everybody else. As long as all of us are allowed to speak, allowed to have our point of view expressed, allowed to vote, that's democracy.

Democracy does not require a singular answer to complex medical, psychological, moral problems. We can have multiple answers.

We're not a dictatorship. We're not in North Korea or Iran, where the ayatollah or the leader tells us what to think. We can think for ourselves, and we can act for ourselves.

GLENN: Yeah. It's really interesting because this is my argument with Obamacare.

I was dead set against Obamacare. But I wasn't against Romneycare when it was in Massachusetts. If that's what Massachusetts wants to do, Massachusetts can do it. Try it.

And honestly, if it would work in a state, we would all adopt it.

But the problem is, that some of these things, like Romneycare, doesn't work. And so they want to -- they want to rope the federal government into it. Because the federal government can just print money. You know, any state wants to do anything.

For instance, I have a real hard time with California right now.

Because I have a feeling, when they fail, we will be roped into paying for the things that we all knew were bad ideas.

Why? Why should I pay for it in Texas, when I know it wouldn't work?

And I've always wanted to live in California, but I don't, because I know that's not going to work.

ALAN: Yeah. But conservatives sometimes take the opposite point of view.

Take guns, for example.

The same Justice Thomas says that I state cannot have the authority to decide that guns should not be available in time square.

Or in schools. There has to be a national openness to guns. Because of the second apple.

And -- you can argue reasonably, what the Second Amendment means.

But, you know, conservatives -- many conservatives take the view that it has to be a single standard for the United States.

It can't vary in their decision how to control -- I'm your favorite --

GLENN: Isn't that -- doesn't that -- doesn't that just take what the -- what the Bill of Rights is about, and turns it upside the head?

I mean, it says, anything not mentioned here, the states have the rights.

But they -- they cannot. The federal government cannot get involved in any of these things.

And these are rights that are enshrined.

So, I mean, because you could say that, but, I mean, when it comes to health care, that's not in the Constitution. Not in the Bill of Rights.

ALAN: Oh, no.

There's a big difference, of course.

The Second Amendment does provide for the right to bear arms.

The question is whether it's interpreted in light of the beginning of the Second Amendment. Which says, essentially, a well-regulated, well-regulated militia. Whether that applies to private ownership as well.

Whether it could be well-regulated by states.

Look, these are interesting debates.

And the Supreme Court, you know, decides these.

But all I'm saying is that many of these decisions are in some way, influenced by ideology.

The words of the Constitution, don't speak like, you know, the Ten Commandments and God, giving orders from on high.

They're often written in ambiguous terms. Even the Ten Commandments. You know, it says, thou shall not murder. And it's been interpreted by some to say, thou shall not still, the Hebrew word is (foreign language), for murder, not kill. And, of course, we know that in parts of the Bible, you are allowed to kill your enemies, if they come after you to kill you, rise up and kill them first.

So, you know, everything -- human beings are incapable of writing with absolute clarity, about complex issues.

That's why we need institutions to interpret them. The institutions should be fair.

And the Supreme Court is sometimes taking over too much authority, too much power.

I have an article today, with gay stone.

Can had starts with a quote from the book of Ruth.

And it says, when judges rule the land, there was famine.

And I say, judges were not supposed to ever rule, going back to Biblical times.

Judges are supposed to judge.

People who are elected or pointed appropriately. Are the ones supposed to rule.

GLENN: Quickly. Two other topics. And I know you have to go.

If I can get a couple of quick takes on you.

The Democrats that are being handcuffed, and throwing themselves into situations.

Do you find that to be a sign of a fascistic state or a publicity stunt?

ALAN: A publicity stunt. And they would knit it. You know, give them a drink at 11 o'clock in the bar. They will tell you, they are doing this deliberately to get attention.

Of course, a guy who is running behind in the mayor race in New York, goes and gets himself arrested. And now he's on every New York television station. And probably will move himself up in the polls.

So no.

Insular -- I don't believe in that. And I don't believe we should take it -- take it seriously.

GLENN: Last question.

I am proudly for Israel.

But I'm also for America. And I'm really tired of foreign wars.

And I think you can be pro-Israel and pro-America at the same time.

I don't think you can -- you don't have to say, I'm for Israel, defending themselves, and then that makes me a warmonger.

I am also very concerned about Iran. And have been for a very long time.

Because they're Twelvers. They're Shia Twelvers. That want to wash the world in blood. To hasten the return of the promised one.

So when they have a nuclear weapon. It's a whole different story.

ALAN: No, I agree with you, Tucker Carlson, is absolutely wrong, when he say he has to choose between America first or supporting Israel. Supporting Israel in this fight against Iran, is being America first.

It's supporting America. Israel has been doing all the hard work. It's been the one who lost its civilians and fortunately, none of its pilots yet.

But America and Israel work together in the interest of both countries.

So I'm -- I'm a big supporter of the United States, the patriarch. And I'm a big supporter of Israel at the same time.

Because they work together in tandem, to bring about Western -- Western values.

GLENN: Should we drop a bomb?

ALAN: Yes, we should.

GLENN: Our plane drop the bomb?

ALAN: Yes, we should. And without killing civilians. It can be done. Probably needs four bombs, not one bomb. First, one bomb to open up the mountain. Then another bomb to destroy what's going on inside.

And in my book The Preventive State, I make the case for when preventive war is acceptable. And the war against Iran is as acceptable as it would have been to attack Nazi Germany in the 1930s. If we had done that, if Britain and France had attacked Nazi Germany in the 1930s, instead of allowing it to be built up, it could have saved 60 million lives. And so sometimes, you have to take preventive actions to save lives.

GLENN: What is the preventive state out, Alan?

ALAN: Just now. Just now.

Very well on Amazon.

New York Times refuses to review it. Because I defended Donald Trump.

And Harvard club cancelled my appearance talked about the book. Because I haven't been defending Harvard. I've been defending President Trump's attack. By the way, they called Trump to Harvard: Go fund yourself.
(laughter)

GLENN: Okay.

Let's -- I would love to have you back on next week. To talk about the preventive state. If you will. Thank you, Alan. I appreciate it. Alan Dershowitz. Harvard Law school, professor emeritus, host of the Dershow. And the author of the new book that's out now, The Preventive State.

I think that's a really important topic. Because we are -- we are traveling down the roads, where fascism, on both sides, where fascism can start to creep in. And it's all for your own good.

It's all for your own protection. Be aware. Be aware.

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

They want to control what you eat! — Cattle rancher's stark warning

American cattle rancher Shad Sullivan tells Glenn Beck that there is a "War on Beef" being waged by the globalist elites and that Americans need to be prepared for this to be an ongoing battle. How secure is America's food supply chain, and what does the country need to do to ensure food shortages never occur in the future?

Watch Glenn's FULL Interview with Shad Sullivan HERE