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.

TN Attorney General EXPLAINS why Supreme Court should BAN trans hormones for kids

The Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments over a Tennessee law that bans doctors from giving transgender puberty blockers or hormone treatments to minors (or, as supporters call it, "gender-affirming care"). Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti, who argued for the law in front of the Supreme Court, joins Glenn to review what happened, what’s coming next, and what evidence he has that these procedures should be banned for kids.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Many of us look at transgender care, as butchering.

As insanity. As something that honestly returns to the Weimar republic of the 1920s.

This has been around for a while, and it's junk science. And it's dangerous to our children. Look, you're an adult, you can do what you want, I guess.

But when children are affected. That's what's in front of the Supreme Court, and the guy who brought this case to the Supreme Court, is the Tennessee attorney general.

Mr. Attorney General, Jonathan, how are you, sir?

JONATHAN: Great. Great. Thanks for having me on.

GLENN: So I listened to the case. And I don't know how you your head didn't explode with some of the questions that were coming from some of those on the left. Sotomayor for one. But overall, how did you feel it went?

JONATHAN: I think we did a great job of getting our points across. I mean, it went on for two and a half hours or so.

The court asked a lot of questions. They're clearly thinking hard about this.

It will be a long time, before we get our opinion. I think we did everything we could, to win this case. I feel really good about our part about this.

And now it's up to the justices.

GLENN: You know, there was a -- well, first of all, tell me exactly what the case was.

What does it actually cover, and what will it do, if it's decided in -- in favor of Tennessee?

JONATHAN: So we have a law in Tennessee, a journal assembly law that prohibits giving juveniles puberty blocker, hormone treatments, or surgery for the purpose of gender transition. Surgery was not an issue in this case.

So this was just about whether the Constitution presents the state from banning puberty blockers or treatments for the purpose of gender transition.

So if we win, our kids will remain in effect, and kids won't be able to be subject to that in Tennessee.

Potentially, depending on how we win, it could mean that all laws dealing with gender identity, are reviewed under a rational basis standard.

Which gives the people's elected representatives, a lot more latitude. As to how they regulate.

GLENN: You know, when you were -- when you were discussing this, and it was Justice Sotomayor that said, every medication has, you know, side effect.

Even aspirin has side effects.

I don't know how you took that question seriously.

But you answered it very well.

Explain to the average person, why this is so different, than anything else, that is prescribed for kids.

JONATHAN: Every systematic analysis of the evidence shows little to no benefit for kids.

From these treatments for gender dysphoria.
Meanwhile, the risks are enormous. They face losing fertility for the rest of their lives, never being able to have children.

They risk having -- kids don't know what they're giving up. They risk tumors and blood clots and cognitive disorders and bone density disorders. All sorts of serious life-long medical complications.
And, meanwhile, the evidence is, this doesn't help them.

You're talking about very severe physical interventions for psychological

Problems.

With no evidence, that it's helping them with the psychological problems.

And so we're looking at a situation, where kids are really at risk.

Where there's not a good medical reason for putting them at risk.

And whether these people say, the Constitution prohibits the state from protecting kids. Even where the evidence is so powerfully in opposition to allowing this to happen, going forward.

GLENN: I think it was Justice Souter who asked the opposite side. What -- you know, you said that the -- the science backs this up.

Well, now we have all this new science, that is coming out.

You want to where a that statement?

What -- what has happened since you started this process, to the evidence, that's coming out, from everywhere now?

VOICE: So there was a lot of evidence beforehand, but the review in England is a large-scale, long-term study by an extremely respected pediatrician, that looked really hard at these issues. It's controversial around the world. You know, England is not a red state. It's not Tennessee. They were making these procedures widely available to kids for a while.

And they looked at the evidence, and they determined that they should not be doing that. That the evidence showed, that this was hurting kids.

They should severely restrict access.

And they did.

And the report gets into it thoroughly.

It's discussed with a lot of specificity with the court.

It shows there's no redemption in suicide. Which is one of the things we constantly hear.

If you don't let kids do this. They will kill themselves.

We don't want kids to kill themselves.

The evidence is doing these life altering interventions doesn't make a difference.

You know, they just looked at a lot of evidence from a lot of kids.

And it showed what we already knew.

Which is that there's no benefit to justify these radical interventions.

GLENN: So what does this mean, if it comes you out, the way we hope it does?

Does this have any effect on bathrooms and -- and -- and sports, or anything else?

JONATHAN: It really depends on what the court does.

There's a way that we could win. That's at that only deals with kid's transitions. Or there's a way that we could win that's broader. The court says the gender identity issues do not rise to the level of intermediate scrutiny of the Constitution.

In which case, a lot of the litigation of what we're facing with bathrooms. And school sports.

All the things that people have sued over. Are pretty easy to solve.

GLENN: Did you see any indication that any of the judges were leaning that way.

Were there any questions that made you -- gave you any indication that that was possible, or probable?

JONATHAN: It's -- there are -- there are indications that the justices are thinking about it. There were questions about sports that came up.
But I don't know whether that means, they're thinking about issuing a broad opinion, or they're just concerned about, you know, the potential effects.

And, you know, they want to think through exactly how this is going to play out. Because there's no constitutional law from the Supreme Court, on gender identity stuff.

We have one case about a very narrow, very he specifically worded statute.

And the lower courts have been all over the place. They need guidance. They need clarity on this issue.

GLENN: You know, you can't go into a tattoo parlor, if you're young, without parental -- parental permission.

You can't buy a gun, at 12, or 16.

You can't get married. There's all these laws, because we know, there -- you're not mentally prepared to make those kinds of decisions.

How does that logic not work for this issue?

JONATHAN: You know, there's this argument that it's sex discrimination.

Therefore, the Constitution provides a heightened level of scrutiny.

But we have done this forever.

To treat people differently based on their age. Kids can't consent to things that will have lifelong consequences.

Whether it's entering a contract or smoking a cigarette, the consequences for these procedures are so much more profound, and we think we have a strong argument that the state should be able to regulate this. Particularly, given the evidence, that it makes no difference. That it does not help. And it increases the risk of all these different horrible outcomes for the kids.

GLENN: The other side just seems, quite honestly.

And I don't mean to slam people. They seem unhinged.

I want you to listen.

This is a mom standing outside the Supreme Court building while you're arguing the case.

Listen to what she said about her child. Cut four.

VOICE: What motivated to you come out today?

VOICE: We're supporting our child violet.

And her access to the medical care that she needs.

VOICE: Yeah. We're here for her rights. And her ability to be who she is. And she's not going to let anybody silence her. And we're not going to stand in her way.

VOICE: And what age do you think most trans kids determine that they're trans?

VOICE: Mila told us, when she was one and a half. She's been telling us since she could speak.

So she knew since birth.

GLENN: Eighteen months? Eighteen months, she knew?

JONATHAN: Wow. That -- I have a 3-year-old. Last week, she told me she was a pirate.

Like, that's a true story, by the way. Gender dysphoria is a real thing. And it's really hard for kids to deal with it.

We have seen an explosion on these cases, that sure looks like something weird is going on.

And we -- I don't see how it doesn't come out, eventually, that there's massive over diagnosis.

In England, the doctors had over a 4,000 percent increase in the number of girls seeking hormone treatments.

And, you know, the evidence is very, very strong. That the large, large majority of kids, who have any sort of gender identity confusion grow out of it, unless they're put out on medications.

For most kids, this is a passing thing. It doesn't mean that it's not hard for them. Adolescence is really hard, and I have to think gender confusion makes it that much harder.

But most of them are going to grow out of it. And for all of them, the evidence of a benefit is minimal at best.

GLENN: Well, we'll be praying for the Supreme Court, and I thank you so much for you filing suit. And trying to get this corrected.

It's -- it's truly madness.

I don't -- you know, I don't -- I don't care what you do, as an adult.

I mean, I actually do. But it's not my business if you're an adult.

But if you can't decide things like smoking, drinking.

You know, be responsible for -- enough with a gun. You certainly should not be able to do things to your body.

That are permanent. And game-changing.

It's insanity. It's insanity.

We have to stop. Jonathan, thank you so much.

JOHN: It's an honor to be on the show. Thanks for having me, and Merry Christmas!

STU: Merry Christmas!

Jonathan Skrmetti. He is the Tennessee Attorney General, who argued just the day before yesterday, at the Supreme Court.

To protect children from gender procedures.

STU: We should, by the way, take what he said, seriously.

If his 3-year-old is about to plunder passing ships. We should report that to maritime authorities.

GLENN: And don't forget the pillaging and the raping.

STU: Yes!

Immediately. We must take it seriously.

GLENN: We must. If we can save one pillage, or -- pillagette -- pillage -- somebody. If we could save one person from being pillaged.

STU: One. Pillaged, uh-huh.

GLENN: We need to act now.

Isn't it worth it? Isn't it worth it?

The TERRRIFYING theory for DRONE sightings near Trump golf course

Mysterious drones have been spotted near the Trump National Golf Club Bedminster in New Jersey and the surrounding areas. The drones, which are large and loud, have reportedly caught the attention of local law enforcement and the FBI. So, who’s controlling them? Glenn explains who he believes are the 2 most likely culprits: Our own government and the Chinese Communist Party. Glenn also discusses a terrifying possibility: drones could drastically change the nature of warfare during the next World War …

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: All right. So let me just start with the -- the drone sightings here for a second.

Because I don't know what's happening.

And, you know, the Department of Homeland Security is Mayorkas. Does anybody think he has any credibility, whatsoever?

He's like, well, I don't know what's going on. Well, you didn't know what was going on on the border, either.

The state police of New Jersey.

The FBI. And I don't know -- I don't know who to believe. I don't know if you can believe.

But apparently, everyone is saying, they don't know what's happening. And there are these -- these drones, that are now flying in for some reason, et cetera, et cetera.

And they were flying over the bed minister golf course. That's Trump's golf course.

They've been flying over Air Force bases. Et cetera, et cetera.

Do we have -- oh. We have a -- we have a clip from New Jersey news.

Listen to this.

PAT: The FAA has placed a temporary restriction on drone flights over Picatinny Arsenal, and over Trump national golf course in Bedminster.

When these drones were first spotted two weeks ago, the Morris County prosecutor's office said they posed no known threat to public safety.

But people want to know. What the heck are they? And what are they doing?

VOICE: It's normal to see red and green lights in December, unless they're coming from mysterious drones in the night sky.

VOICE: That's kind of unsettling. They're not up for 15 minutes. They're up for hours.

Some are very big, probably the size of a car.

VOICE: Mike Walsh says he's seen hundreds of them in the past two weeks from his Randolph backyard, and has the video to prove it.

VOICE: They kind of go slow. They come towards you. Then they'll change direction a little.

They're all going different ways. The drones have been spotted all over Morris County. Morris Town police sent an alert to residents Sunday, saying they are aware of drone activity.

And if the drone crashes or lands, do not approach or handle it. The FBI's Newark field office will only say, it's working with other law enforcement agencies to figure out what's going on.

But at the moment, doesn't have enough information to share.

STU: Hmm. Those are big too.

GLENN: What the hell is that? What is that?

I mean, that could very well be, you know, surveillance on the average American because maybe they're doing police work, or whatever.

STU: It could be.

GLENN: It could be our government doing it. It should not be. But like at the border, we do have drones, that are up in the sky. These are very large. Some of them are very large. You don't. You know, those aren't cheap.

And the very large ones aren't something that I -- I don't think the average person can purchase. Can they?

The really large ones?

STU: I mean, you might be able to purchase them. I know there's a size requirement for registering them.

And, of course, you know, we know that not everyone follows those rules.

But when you have a -- you know, the size is pretty small, to not register those. Those are way over the limit.

GLENN: Right, and they have the red and green lights.

And I don't remember which one means, you know, right and left or whatever.

But they have the red and green lights on each side. I don't think the ETs are like, you know what, we should follow the standard of putting, you know, the red and green lights on each side. So they know --

STU: Right. People think they're aliens.

GLENN: Some people think that this might be some alien thing. I don't.

STU: Okay. No.

GLENN: I think this is -- I think this is most likely our government.

Second most likely, you know, this is a China balloon.

Balloon. But a drone. This is just another thing that Biden knows about.

But I can't do anything about it anyway. What is it?

STU: Yeah. I don't know. That's a good question. It could theoretically.

You think of like an incoming president, who spends a lot of time, in one of these areas. Maybe they're doing some sort of security setup.

But, I mean, they would just tell us, if that was true. You would think. They would be like, hey. This is the federal government, doing these things.

This is why we're doing it. So I don't know.

GLENN: I mean, I was just at Mar-a-Lago with the president.

There were no drones, that, you know -- that I saw or anybody was talking about.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: They're pretty good at security.

And they would just say, yeah. This is closed airspace.

You would know immediately, when they say that they're closing the airspace. If it's flying over that airspace, then it's obviously hostile.

Or ours!

STU: Yeah. You would -- I mean, I can't imagine. I could be wrong on this, of course.

We've seen some incompetent moments over the past few years.

I can't imagine if you've had hours of hovering over a property, owned by the incoming president, that this wouldn't be noticed and wouldn't be something that they were dealing with, if it wasn't -- if it wasn't the US government.

Right?

That's why that seems to me, the most likely explanation. That it is something that we're doing. For whatever reason.

You could say nefarious or positive.

But they wouldn't just let -- again, they let a guy just get on the roof in the middle of a rally. So, I mean, maybe they would just let.

It seems like they would stop this, if they didn't want those things there.

GLENN: Have you seen the drone fleets in China? Oh, my gosh.

STU: Oh, yeah. You've obviously seen like the drone shows that the -- the ones that are cool, and like for your entertainment.

I mean, you realize, with nefarious ideas, you could do lots of damage, with -- with just those.

GLENN: Oh, the Chinese military drones.

STU: Armies. Yeah.

GLENN: I mean, that are in these gigantic fields, and thousands of them are flying in formation.

I'm telling you, you watch. God forbid we get into World War III.

Our aircraft carriers are going to be the horses of World War I.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: They're just going to be mowed down.

STU: I was watching a documentary. It was a series of nine documentaries.

And this was, I believe, number three?

GLENN: Uh-huh.

STU: Because me and my daughter went through all the Star Wars recently.

And they have that moment, where they go to the planet, where they've just been making all of these clones.

Or was it clones or drones? Two armies.

But it's clone wars, right?

And they just have a zillion of them ready to go. At my moment.

I kind of feel like, that wasn't a crazy sci-fi prediction.

Like, that is really going to be where we are with war, at some point, relatively soon.

Where it's not clones.

But --

GLENN: No. But it will be droids.

STU: It's drones and droids. Right?

And you have those situations, maybe not -- this is another documentary, I once saw.

But this one was -- it was something somebody had fallen.

I don't remember what the name of -- because they had about 12 of those in the series. It was like Morgan Freeman was the president. And they're out there at the lake.

GLENN: Yeah. Something is falling.

STU: Something is falling. At the very beginning. And 100 million drones come over the trees.

And just try to assassinate the president.

GLENN: Absolutely --

STU: Totally real.

GLENN: Totally real.

STU: Could easily happen at any moment.

You know, it --

GLENN: We have that technology.

STU: Yeah. I think a lot of normal people could put that together.

With not that much effort.

I mean, that's terrifying.

You look at what happened in New York, with the guy just walking up behind him.

Who -- you know, what's to stop somebody from doing that type of thing, with the drone? Except, they don't have to be standing there.

GLENN: Have you seen the video of the guy. I know I've shown it two or three years ago. The guy comes on stage. And says, this is the new weapon of war.

And he opens his hand. And it's about the size of a dragonfly. And he's got a mannequin on the other side.

And he says, watch what it can do. And he kind of just lifts his hand. And it flies up. And it flies around the audience.

And it has the -- it has the targeting on a screen, behind.

Okay?

And it shows his facial recognition, and then the target is the mannequin, facial recognition.

And it comes so fast. And it just goes exploding, goes through the guy's head.

Through the guy's head. The manakin's head. I mean, that's what's coming. There's no defense against stuff like that.

We are entering such a Brave New World.

And, you know, all the -- all the people that are in charge of this stuff, they all know, but why aren't we being informed of where we are?

STU: Yeah. I mean, because they are developing defenses for this.

And they might be able to come up for a defense for an aircraft carrier, possibly.

Yeah. They are developing those things.

GLENN: What are those ageist?

Ageist guns?

Ageist defense system? That are like 50 cal, and they fire like a thousand rounds a minute, or some crazy thing.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: They can't -- they can't stop us.

STU: No, I don't think it's guns that they're trying it with, right?

There's -- again, I watched another documentary, but it was -- you know, you're talking like microwaves and things like that nature, to disable these things as it comes down.

But that doesn't protect the average person walking down the street.

You know, that might -- you might be able to protect at some level, against those things, when you're -- you're defending the president of the United States.

But when you -- when you're talking about, you know, the other sides of these things, not terrorist attacks. Who knows.

GLENN: Something the size of a fly. That could fly. Somebody opens the door of the West Wing.

And just flies. And then hides.

I mean, imagine.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: We're there.

STU: You think of intelligence operations. You know, think of -- you know, think of what happened with Hezbollah. Right?

With pagers. And what happened when they -- you have officials going to Qatar. And what they think is an Airbnb, and then the whole thing just blows up.

People will have really intricate uses for these, and I think the truth is that a lot of these things end up. We have know idea what happened.

GLENN: Well, here's the other problem.

There's a story today. Marco Rubio is just pissed. So is Rick Scott. With the, you know, cyber security officials. You know, we have that, what is it, CISA? The Cyber Infrastructure Security Agency, or whatever it is.

And it's supposed to protect all of our cyber electronics and everything else. And be detecting things.

Well, you remember when the phone systems just went out, trial?

The global telecommunication systems went out, with several companies.

Well, we now know, that it was China that did that.

So China has infiltrated our telecommunication system. And they shut it down, to show us, we can shut you down. Right now.

CISA doesn't have any answers.

They're like, we -- we don't have any idea, who really it was, or how they did it.

What the hell are you doing?

You can't tell me how our cyber communications -- how our phone systems went down?

What good are you?

How Trump is putting the world ON NOTICE

Axios recently released an article titled “Trump's shadow presidency clouds Biden's final weeks”, and Glenn has a few thoughts: “The only ‘shadow presidency’ that we should be talking about is, who the hell is president right now? It’s not Biden.” Glenn explains why Trump’s actions as President-elect are “promises kept” and a return to common sense. The world is being put on notice that a new sheriff is coming to town. Glenn also reviews some of Trump’s biggest moves, like his tariff threats to Canada and Mexico.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: There's this story in Axios today that just kills me.

Just the headline kills me: Trump's shadow presidency clouds Biden's final weeks.

Here's the only shadow presidency that we should be talking. Who the hell is president right now? It's not him. I don't care what anybody says.
It's not him!

Who is the president of the United States?

Interesting question. Nobody seems to want to talk about.

STU: I mean, it's going so poorly. It's hard to believe it's not him. You know, I've got to -- it kind of seems like central to his governing philosophy.

But I -- I -- I think you're right. It doesn't seem like he's really the president. And, by the way, you mentioned this the other day.

By the way, you mentioned this the other day, where did Kamala Harris go?

Haven't seen her, since I think the day after the election.

GLENN: No. Gone. Just gone. I have no idea. No idea.

Now, Axios says, here's why this matters. There can only be one man that occupies the White House.

Yeah, you're right. You're right.

They go on. Let me quote.

But the norm-busting assertiveness of Donald Trump and his transition team, and the rapidly fading relevance of the presidency in the US. It's something of a two-headed presidency.

No. Here's what's happened. This is not a shadow presidency. This is promises kept.

Okay? The world is being put on notice right now. There's a new sheriff in town.

I'm not there yet.

But I'm coming.

Now, we can play this two ways. You can understand that the time of insanity is over. And you can start preparing right now, to fix that.

Or when I get into office. Because I have promised the American people, I am going to fix this at lightning speed. I'm giving you the opportunity to get ahead of the curve.

Because Mexico, you don't fix the drug problem, you keep shipping people across your border.

I'm going to put a 25 percent tariff on everything you sell.

I'll cripple your markets.

Okay. Are you threatening? Yeah. I am. I am threatening you.

I mean, that's what I would say if I were the president. Why mess around?

This is what he means, what he says. Tariffs are coming.

So when he calls the new president of Mexico, and says that, it's not a shadow government.

It's somebody saying, this is what's coming.

You want to play ball? Or do you want to be outside?

And he's doing that, with almost everything. I mean, he did it with -- with Trudeau. Yeah. Yeah. I'm going to send up additional helicopters and drones to protect the border.

And I'm -- I'm also going to put tariffs on you, Canada. And I personallily.

I love Canada. You should be the 51st state, okay?

You're not playing -- he's playing hardball with Trudeau.

He's telling Canada. We love you.

We love you. I don't have any problem. Just stop what's coming over the border.

Because we're not doing it anymore. What is the difference between that and when Joe Biden was the elect, and he was saying, we're not going to prosecute anybody?

What's the difference?

The difference is Donald Trump is telling heads of state, return to law and order.

Joe Biden was saying, there's no law and order here! There's no sheriff in town, soon!

On foreign policy. He -- they're criticizing. He's claimed credit for Iran's apparent decision not to retaliate against Israel for its October attack.

Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Who doesn't believe that?

Honestly, who doesn't believe that?

You've gone from Joe Biden, who has made them wealthy again. Give up them everything they want. Opened our coughers. Opened our doors.

Allowed them to get away with anything. And the guy who just four years ago had them on the brink of bankruptcy, had them on the brink of internal revolution. Which would have set a great people free, he's coming back.

Now, you're just one of the mullahs.

You might believe the, you know, 80 or 90, or however many virgins you're getting.

You know, you might think, hey, that's coming.

That's coming my way. Uh-huh. But there's also somebody else around you, that's a little pragmatic. That will go, yeah.

But we may just be blown up, ourselves.

You know, at some point, you ask yourself, I've got a pretty good life.

I'm not -- I mean, we're making some progress. Do I really want the United States to kill me? Do I?

That's what's happening in Iran.

They know. This is -- this is why he is such a great negotiator.

Because everyone knows. Do you know how he bought Mar-a-Lago?

Mar-a-Lago, I will get the numbers wrong. But it was like $30 million.

It had been given to the United States by Merriweather Post in like '70 something, '72.

Been given to the United States government, as the Southern White House.

Okay? And when Jimmy Carter got in. He said, it's too expensive to keep up, we're just going to give it back.

So he gives it back.

Somebody else buys it. I think it was given again to the United States as the Southern White House. They give it back again.

And so Donald Trump buys it. Now, that thing was selling for -- and I will get the numbers wrong. It was selling for $30 million. Something like that.

It was worth so much more now.

But it was $30 million, and $10 million just for the -- just for the furniture.

This was built by E.F. Hutton and his wife, Merriweather Post, who Post -- as in Post cereal. Okay?

So it's a remarkable piece of property.

Donald Trump came in and said, okay. I'm going to buy it. But I won't pay $40 million for it.

Because it will take $40 million at least to get it back in shape. I want it for at least -- I'm making the numbers up. For 10 million. With the furniture.

Or 10 million, and then 2 million for the furniture.

They said, no. How dare you. How dare you.

Okay. So what did he do? He went and bought the little sliver of beach, right across the street from the mansion. That provided the view, to the ocean.

And then he went back, and he said, I just bought this.

I will just build a tall building here, that I will live in.

It will wreck your view. I mean, how much do you think your house will be worth then?

He -- he -- they knew, he meant what he said. I think he got it for $10 million total, with the furniture and the house.

Okay?

He -- he is known, as saying what he means and means what he says.

So when he says, you know, this is going to end, yes. It ends.

So he's -- there's no shadow government here.

It's that the leaders of the world know, he will do it. Unlike every other president that we've had, including him the first time. Americans didn't know, neither did the world.

Will he actually do that? When he -- when he says, yeah. You little guy over there, in North Korea.

I might just have to blow you up. They now know, he'll do it. He'll do it.

So I really don't want to die. Also, they're saying, he's not responsible for the booming stock market right now.

You know, I don't know the stock -- I don't -- the stock market is completely unhinged from anything real.

Okay? It's way overvalued. It's -- it's ridiculous, what's going on.

Because we've been printing money and giving it to the banks. And the banks have been investing in their own companies. And driving the stock market up.

It's ridiculous. It's not real anymore. It's not actual capitalism.

However, the first sign of capitalism, that I have seen, is the bump of the stock market, after Donald Trump was elected.

Because everyone with money knew, they're going to increase our corporate taxes. They're going to increase the -- the regulations on everything we do.

They're going to start -- they're going to continue to pick winners and losers.

They knew.

They had to say, we want to save our money.

And buy as much of our company, as we can.

And hold on. And don't spend any money.

Because we have no idea, what these crazy people will do.

They know what Donald Trump will do.

Because he said it, and he's done it before.

And it may not be in their best interest. But it will be in the best interest of their bottom line. Because he's going to fix the economy for the American people.

Meaning, they will have more money to spend. And he will put the focus on American companies, not foreign companies.

So, yeah. Explain crypto without Donald Trump.

Crypto, has it broken 100,000 yet?

STU: It did yesterday. Yeah. Last night.

GLENN: 100,000.

STU: About 102,000 right now.

GLENN: So what do you think that is?

What do you think that is?

You know, another thing he's responsible for. The pardon of Hunter Biden.

Because -- and the blanket pardon, pardon of, no matter what he's done for ten years, that's happening.

They must just pardon him for the taxes and for the drugs and everything else that he was charged with.

For the first time in history. I don't even know if it's legal. First time in history.

They pardon him for anything he might have done.

From 2014 to December 1st.

Okay? Anything. You find anything -- you did anything wrong. He's pardoned for it.

Why is that? Because radical transparency is coming.

He's not going to go on a witch hunt.

He's going to start exposing the truth by declassifying, what's really been going on.

Biden goes to Angola this week.

And he says, we want to rebuild you.

We're going to give you a billion dollars. And yet, there are still piles of houses, 30 feet high.

In Appalachia.

There are Americans struggling. This isn't a shadow government. This is a complete return to common sense. And the world knows, the next president means it!

Glenn & Panel DEBATE Trump’s 10 Most Controversial Cabinet Picks | Ep 397

The last five years, including the pandemic, have destroyed trust in the federal government. The election handed Trump a mandate to do something about it — to root out the corruption and waste at the heart of this distrust. Trump has not taken the safe path with his Cabinet and agency picks: Kash Patel (FBI), Tulsi Gabbard (DNI), Pete Hegseth (DOD), Pam Bondi (AG), Kristi Noem (Homeland Security), Tom Homan (border czar), RFK Jr. (HHS), Dr. Jay Bhattacharya (NIH), Linda McMahon (Education), Lori Chavez-DeRemer (Labor), and Scott Bessent (Treasury). He has mostly gone for firebrands — nominees who are already sending the establishment into a panic. Will this strategy actually work? Or is the firebrand approach doomed out of the gate? BlazeTV’s Steve Deace, Liz Wheeler, Stu Burguiere, and Jason Buttrill join Glenn along with recovering investment banker Carol Roth and FBI whistleblower Steve Friend to break down the Cabinet controversies and debate these nominees. Will the swamp establishment let them survive the nomination process?