Latest Articles Videos

Live Podcast Serials Stations

About Charity Books Sponsors Shop Contact

RADIOJune 21, 2023

Legal experts DEBATE: Is Donald Trump in ACTUAL DANGER?

Donald Trump was indicted on 37 federal counts earlier this month, becoming the first U.S. president to face such charges. The case centers around Trump’s alleged mishandling of classified documents, which were found at his Mar-a-Lago home. And even though entire situation screams of partisan politics, Trump will likely still have to face the court. So, is he in REAL legal danger? Are these charges ACTUALLY serious? Or is the far-left’s case against him as weak as their current commander-in-chief? In this clip, two legal experts — Judicial Watch’s Michael Bekesha and well-known attorney Alan Dershowitz — both join Glenn to give their own, differing opinions on the Trump case...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Michael Bekesha is on with us. Judicial Watch senior attorney. Michael, how are you?

MICHAEL: I'm good. Thanks for having me.

GLENN: So let's talk about Trump's case. Alan Dershowitz is coming on in a minute. And he's saying, he thinks he's on trouble on this one.

You're saying the opposite.

So explain the case, that they have against Donald Trump. And where you think the bright spots are.

MICHAEL: Yeah. So basically, the prosecution of Donald Trump, with respect to the documents, all started because the national archives. Somebody at the national archives, thought that maybe President Trump had some records that maybe he shouldn't have taken with him. When he left office.

That's how this started. And in the Wall Street Journal, I wrote a piece, talking about a similar case. That Judicial Watch had against the archives, when it came to President Clinton, and his records.

While he was in office, President Clinton created these audio recordings. And on these audio recordings, had all sorts of information. You know, they had conversations with foreign leaders.

It had discussions about cruise missile attacks to get Osama bin Laden.

It had information that would be classified, had it gone through proper channels. But instead, President Clinton kept these tapes in his sock drawer, and decided to take them with him, when he left office.

GLENN: And did he declassify them before he took them?

MICHAEL: He didn't do anything. According to what we know, he simply took them with him. And Judicial Watch wanted the tapes, when they found out about them. We figured, these are presidential records. These are tapes showing President Clinton being president.

So we sued the national archives for the tapes. And in that case, between 2010 and 2012, the Justice Department, the Obama Justice Department, took the position that whatever President Clinton took with him, were not presidential records. They were personal records. And there's nothing that they could do to get them back.

In 2012, the district court here in -- in DC, agreed with the government.

And the judge in that case said, the soul -- it is the sole responsibility of the president, to decide, what records are personal.

What records are presidential.

And once they are taken out of the White House, there's nothing that the court could do to get them back.

GLENN: Now, is that because -- I'm just trying to play devil's advocate.

Is that because these were tapes that he made. And not top secret documents.

Even though, they may have contained top secret information. But he made the tapes.

MICHAEL: You know, it doesn't -- Glenn, it doesn't really make a difference.

GLENN: Okay.

MICHAEL: Not only -- it wasn't as though President Clinton was pressing record. And going out and buying the tapes.

You know, based on, he was doing this along with a historian. And based on the historian's discussions about it. What he's told the public. The White House operation staff, helped schedule the interviews, helped prepare the tapes, probably went out and purchased the tapes.

And so the only thing that President Clinton did was place the tapes at the end of the session, into a sock drawer. And that's very similar to what president -- documents. If you look at the indictment, paragraph two, says while he was president, Trump placed documents in boxes. Paragraph four says, when President Trump left office, he took those boxes with him.

To me, it's not a sock drawer. But it was boxes. It was the same process. President Trump decided what he wanted to keep. What episode to leave.

And he took what he wanted to keep with him, when he left office.

GLENN: Okay. So help me out on this.

Again, I want to ask tough questions. Because I don't know legally where this is headed.

Except, all the way around, trouble.

Trump's defense, is that his actions were protected under the presidential records act. But that act excludes, and I'm quoting, any documentary materials that are official records of an agency.

So the indictment alleges that he had the information about our nuclear program. Defense. Weapon's capabilities. Potential vulnerabilities.

Of the US and our allies.

Is it -- is it your view that these kinds of documents are protected under the PRA, because of the Bill Clinton.

Or is there more?

MICHAEL: There's more. The fact that the presidential records act talks about agency records is really -- is really a red herring.

Because as the courts -- the DC appellate court here found that really, the focus is, are the records received by the president?

Once the president receives a record from the agency, it's no longer just an agency record. It's now a record received by the president.

So it has a different status. I mean, just imagine. It doesn't make sense, that once a president. The president gets a record from the agency. Is it like a library book, and he has to return it within 21 days.

Absolutely not.

It's his record.

And under law, he can do what he wants with it.

GLENN: Right. And there are exceptions.

No, no, no. It is treated that way, with things like the nuclear code.

He has access to that. But it's in a football, held by the member of a Department of Defense. That's with him all the time.

So there are some records, that do have to be signed in and signed out, right?

MICHAEL: Well, maybe. The question is: What is allowed by the Constitution? And these are questions that have never really been addressed. The president of the United States is commander-in-chief. Everything in the executive branch flows from him. So there is one question on, what limitations can Congress place on the commander-in-chief? But there's also a question of whether or not Congress can mandate or require, another branch of government to do something.

And so there are strong arguments, that if the presidential records act, is what some folks say it is.

Then that would be unconstitutional, because it's placing burdens on the office of the president, that is not allowed.

The other question under the Espionage Act, is authorization.

While -- while someone is in office, while President Trump was in office, he was authorized to maintain that information. To maintain those documents.

If you went into the Oval Office, he could show you that document. Because he had slight authorization to do what he wanted with it.

So the question is: Did he authorize himself by -- to take those records with him when he left?

GLENN: Well, hang on just a second. Because he does have the ability to declassify. But even according to his own words, in the indictment, there's a transcript of a conversation where he holds up a classified document to somebody. And somebody writing a book about him. See, as president, I could have declassified it. Well, now I can't. So this is still a secret.

So he knew that he possessed something secret. He knew that he hadn't chosen to declassify it as president.

And now he's showing it to a member of the press. Not as president.

MICHAEL: Right. And the question there. And I think it's facts that, again, indictments are just one side of every fact.

And I don't know the fact. You don't know the facts. The American public don't know the facts.

But the question is, whatever document he had in his hand, to how did he get into his hand?

And I think we need what we need to do and what the public needs to wait. Is to wait until all the facts come out.

To see whether or not he was, in fact, authorized to still have that record. And maybe the facts will show that he wasn't.

You know, I keep thinking, if President Trump, after he had left office, somehow got access to records, he must have access to, when he was president. That would be where a problem may lie.

GLENN: Right.

MICHAEL: But if the records were in his possession while he was this office. And he took affirmative steps to maintain those records when he left, there are real constitutional legal questions about whether or not that was authorized.

GLENN: Okay. Let me give you a statement from Bill Barr.

And I'm sorry. I'm just playing devil's advocate. Both sides. I will hit Alan with the same thing.

Both sides hard. Because I want to ask the questions. That people aren't asking. But I think the American people are asking.

There's a statement from -- not one of my favorite people in the world.

A former attorney general Bill Barr. And I want to give you a chance to respond to it.

He said, quote, I think this counts under the Espionage Act, that he willfully retained those documents are solid counts. They gave him every opportunity to return those documents.

They acted with restraint. They acted very deferential with him. And they were very patient. They talked to him for almost a year to try to get those documents. And he jerked them around.

They finally went to a subpoena. And what did he do according to the government. He lied. And obstructed that subpoena.

And when they did a search, they found a lot more documents.

There are official records. They're not his personal records. Battle plans for an attack on another country. Defense Department documents about our capabilities. In no universe, Donald J. Trump, do these belong. Or are personal documents of Donald J. Trump.

MICHAEL: There's a lot there.

To begin with, the end part. The Obama Justice Department, would disagree. So would the federal court, that concluded, that once a president leaves office, it is assumed that the president chose to take those records. Had designated them as personal.

And that there was nothing that could be done about it. And so just because former Attorney General Barr doesn't think those records should have been taken, doesn't mean that lawfully, they couldn't have been taken.

The other interesting part is Attorney General Barr seems to focus a lot on the fact that President Trump may have not -- all the records that he had been asked to turn over.

Well, under the Espionage Act, that's irrelevant. So even if he had returned those records. If the espionage is what everybody thinks it is, then President Trump could have still been charged under the Espionage Act.

GLENN: Okay.

MICHAEL: So the idea that it's somehow different because he had the records, really is just showing an emphasis that he's displeased or unhappy with President Trump's actions and has nothing to do with what the law actually is.

GLENN: When Trump was indicted last week, I was on vacation. And I was not paying attention to the news.

And I mentioned it on Monday, when I came back. But I told you, I wanted to really get the best minds on both sides.

And talk to them. And because there's -- there's people who like -- I should say. Have defended Trump.

And may like Trump. But one of those who I think is very credible on this. Because he has defended Trump time and time and time again. Written books about it

Now says, this is real trouble. And his name is Alan Dershowitz.

So I just had, this is no big deal, we can win this.

And he says, there's real trouble. So let's get the real trouble side now from Alan Dershowitz. Hi, Alan. How are you?

ALAN: Hey, how are you? There's real trouble. But that doesn't mean that it cannot be won. This is a very, very, very serious charge. You know, in my book, Get Trump, I predicted all of this. I also predicted the indictment of Hunter Biden on minimal charges in order to nonsense the -- the claim that there's equal justice. But the problem with Donald Trump is illustrated by that plaque, that some people have in their homes, with the stuffed fish on it, that says, if I had only kept my mouth shut, I would still be swimming. All of Trump's problems comes from his own statements. What he said, the most serious one was what he said to a writer, who was writing a book on Meadows, in which he allegedly showed him some classified material. He says, it wasn't. It was just newspapers.

GLENN: Right.

ALAN: You hear it, apparently, rustling.

And I don't know what the facts are. But -- and saying, I could have declassified this, but I didn't. So it's still secret.

That seems like the government was using it as an admission, that he didn't declassify anything. If he hadn't said that, his claim of declassification would be very strong. Then he spoke to his lawyers. Now, I don't think those statements should ever be admissible. Those are the lawyer/client privilege statements. I would be fighting like hell to keep those out. Because I can't talk to my clients anymore, as a result of that ruling.

GLENN: Thank you. So wait. Wait.

I watched enough Perry Mason. And I know that's not actual law.

But if you break the bond of attorney-client privilege, you -- sometimes you're working with a dummy like me. And I'm like, I don't know. What happens if we don't give it to them?

Well, I'm asking for your legal opinion.

ALAN: What if you tell it to a priest? What if you say to a priest, you know, I know this would be a sin. But I'm thinking of perhaps of not giving it over. And the priest says, no. You have to give it over. Or you talk to your doctor. All of these privileges are now at risk as a result of this terrible position.

Made by judges who handpicked by the special prosecutor. Remember the case is in Florida. But this special prosecutor brought these legal motions to compel the lawyers to speak in DC, where he knew he would get him on federal court.

So he was judge shopping. Then he got his favorable rulings. And then he takes the case to Florida.

GLENN: Wow.

ALAN: And I would hope the Florida court would look at that in a very, very critical light because, as I say, I have to tell my clients now. Don't ask me any questions. Because I may have to disclose them. I'm not taking notes anymore with clients. I'm not turning over anything that my clients tell me in confidence, just because some court says -- you know, and then there's this absurd thing of a tainting. Where if you say something that is lawyer-client privilege, the government says, all right. We'll pick some government lawyers, who have lunch every day with the prosecutors, and stand next to them in a urinal every day, and we will allow them to look at the lawyer/client privilege material. Read them. Oh, they promised they won't.

GLENN: No, I don't say anything to the prosecution.

That's what's happening now. And just had the courage to have a decision saying, no. She was going to appoint an independent judge. A former judge. A great judge in New York, to look over the lawyer, client classified materials. The court said, no, no, no.

No, that's special treatment for Trump. No, that's what everybody should get.

GLENN: So the crime -- the crime fraud exception to attorney/client privilege. You don't buy into that here?

ALAN: I buy into it in general, but I have to tell you, I have done 250 cases involving criminal defendants.

I would say in half of them, the conversation included some reference to maybe if I went to Brazil, I couldn't get caught. No, I don't that. You'll get caught. But the client raises all kinds of questions. That's why it's confidential.

GLENN: Correct.

ALAN: To allow the client to say anything they want.

GLENN: Correct. Isn't it the same reason why we have the presidential confidentiality? When -- when you're talking to the president in the Oval and you're brainstorming, people don't want to say things that are maybe unpopular. Or say things that are maybe crazy in hindsight. But you're brainstorming. I don't want that on the record. I want to have a private conversation.

If you can't have that, you don't really have anything.

ALAN: No. I agree you with. What I taught at Harvard for 50 years. I would say to my students, what you're saying is confidential. And you can be as speculative as you want.

You can say any wild thing about criminal law. You can make statements that you would be ashamed to have made public.

This is for a Socratic discussion. And Socratic discussions is anything goes.

GLENN: The indictment doesn't ever mention the Presidential Records Act.

ALAN: Or espionage. Or the word espionage.

That's being thrown around all over the place.

Yeah.

GLENN: So where is -- because I have gathered from what I've read from you, that this is a serious charge. And he will have a hard time. Why?

It sounds like there's a lot of other legal issues to really go after.

ALAN: There are. That's why it's not a slam-dunk case. That's why the case should never have been brought. Forget about former president.

You don't bring against the man who is running to become the president against the incumbent, head of your party, unless you have a slam-dunk case. Now, I think they have a case.

But it's not a slam-dunk case. There are these legal issues, involving lawyer-client privilege. The government doesn't have the piece of paper that was waved, allegedly in front of the writers. So they have a hard time proving that. They have to deal with the classification issue. It's a winnable case. But it's also a losable case. Whereas the case in New York, is absurd.

The case in New York, the prosecutor should be disciplined for bringing it. In 60 years of this, doing this business, I've never seen a weaker indictment than New York. I cannot say that about the Florida case.

That doesn't mean, it's going to end up with Trump being convicted. Particularly, since the trial is in a fair district, unlike Manhattan.

I love Manhattan. I live in Manhattan. You can't get a fair trial for Donald Trump in Manhattan. Maybe you can in Palm Beach County.

GLENN: Okay. So let me -- let me take you through the crazy scenario, that he goes to trial. In the middle of an election season.

He's convicted, sentenced. What does this look like?

We've never -- we didn't do this with Nixon. We've never did this before. What does this look like?

ALAN: Nobody knows what it looks like. The only thing we know for sure, is he can run for president even if he's president. Eugene V. Debs, Curly became mayor of Boston, while he was in prison. The Constitution specifies only several criteria. And the Constitution means what it says. So you can run.

You can even serve as president. That's not going to happen. The judge will not sentence him to prison. These crimes -- these crimes did not endanger national security. They're not espionage. The media is throwing around the term espionage. The first thing that has to happen, is this trial has to be on television. We, the American people do not trust the media to tell us the truth about the trial. If you watch MSNBC and CNN and read the New York Times, you're going to think it's an open-and-shut case.

If you see other networks, you will see it's an open-and-shut case of innocence. You know, I was a lawyer in the O.J. Simpson case. There was a poll that showed that people who actually watched the trial on television, were not surprised at the verdict.

But people who read about it in the newspapers, was shocked beyond belief.

So we have to be able to see this trial. And the word espionage should not be allowed to be used in the trial by the prosecutor. And if he does use it, there should be a mistrial.

GLENN: Why is this espionage -- where did they even get that?

ALAN: It's the name of the statute. It's as if Congress passed the statute entitled The Child Molestation and Inside and Trading Act.

And they indict somebody for insider trading.

And they go in front of the jury and say, this man has been indicted under the Child Molestation Act.

GLENN: Wow.

ALAN: It's the name of the statute. It was passed in 1917 to go after war resisters, mostly religious people who had a conscientious objection about going to the First World War. And Woodrow Wilson passed the Espionage Act, which had very little to do with espionage. It had mostly to do with dissent and whistle-blowing. And all of the whistle-blowers have been indicted. Under the Espionage Act.

I defended many anti-war protesters, and other dissenters under the Espionage Act. And the government loves to use the word espionage. But there's no allegation here, that led to foreign enemies

'Why won't ANYONE say THIS in a debate?!' The REAL problem with auto workers strike

The presidential candidates at the 2nd GOP debate were asked to comment on the United Auto Workers strike. But Glenn believes no one got it right. "I have no sympathy for the auto makers," Glenn says, after they got in bed with the federal government in 2008. Ever since then, they've all been pushing for electric vehicles. He also has no sympathy for the UAW, who was all for President Biden. The auto workers themselves, however, are getting hammered. Glenn breaks down the real reason the auto workers strike is concerning: it's a perfect example of how the economy is "in a death cycle." So, why won't anyone say this in a debate?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So here's the thing. I want to talk about one other thing they talked about last night. It really pissed me off.

Because nobody got it right. About the striking workers in Detroit.

And I know we have a new station in Detroit. Just hang on for a second.

I don't know if I will make friends or enemies. But just hear me out.

I have no sympathy, for the auto makers. The manufacturers.

Why? Because they got into bed with the federal government, in '08 with the bailout.

And they knew that they were never going to be able to extract themselves from it.

And they had to dump things, like the hydrogen car, which was way down the road.

It was much well-defined. There were already service stations. Shell was about to transform all of their service stations, and carry hydrogen.

But because all the green lovers. And Barack Obama. And he wanted an electric. Why would you want an electric. When you can make the energy here in America, hydrogen, 100 percent clean. Why would you want to go to a battery, that has all kinds of problems, environmentally speaking?

And you don't have the stuff to make them here in America. Why would you do that?

Well, they got into bed.

Congratulations, Chevy. You can start more fires than all the Boy Scouts in America can ever start.

So I have no sympathy for them.

I have no sympathy for the united auto worker's union.

Those guys went in deep.

For Joe Biden.

Now, they held out for a while. Because they didn't like his policies on green. But they eventually gave all their money. And all their support to Joe Biden.

And what did they get? What did they get?

Well, they got a hammer to the head for all of the workers.

But believe I me, there is a reason why these auto worker unions are doing this.

Because we're going into a global economy. Where we will unionize all countries, all across the world.

And guess who will get that extra income? The United Auto Workers.

And all the other -- why do you think Randi Weingarten was over in -- in Ukraine?

Because they're going to have united teachers foundations over in Ukraine.

That's how these unions are going to win.

How could they possibly win, when they are screwing their endorsement is screwing the auto workers. The auto workers. You know why they want so much money?

And they want now a four-day workweek, and everything else?

Because they know their jobs are gone. They know, it doesn't take that many people, that can be done here in America, to make an automobile, if it's all electric.

It takes fewer workers to do it. And a lot of it, the batteries and everything else, not going to be made here.

They'll be made here, like, you know.

Like American giant makes clothes here.

Okay. Well, there's one company, that you can -- but that's not 98 percent of the product, coming from America.

That's 1 percent of the product coming from America.

And they know it. And they know it.

But what does Joe Biden do?

Now, remember, we bailed out the auto industry, in '08. That's what got them into bed.

Now to get them, ford has lost $2 billion, this year alone.

All because of the EV.

So what does Joe Biden say? Joe Biden goes and says, they need this pay raise.

Well, I'm all for pay raises.

I'm for pay raises. Because everybody is losing money. Because of inflation.

But what causes inflation?

Inflation is caused by the government just printing more money.

Is what are they doing? They are printing money, so they can give the money to the big, you know, Ford and Chrysler and everybody else.

They can give these big bailouts to them. And they're subsidizing every car, if it's the car they want.

They're subsidizing every car. So that's what's causing your inflation.

Just that alone, is enough damage. But they're doing that on everything. Everything.

So I'm for them getting raises.

I'm good for them having a good life. Just like I'm for everybody having good health care and everything else.

But Joe Biden comes and says, yeah. You deserve that particular raise you're asking for. Which has what? It works out to like $135 an hour.

Or something like that.

The most expensive auto build is 60 or $65 an hour.

China is practically slave labor. Now, I'm not suggesting that, you know, we do slave labor.

And I'm not suggesting that we don't do $70 an hour.

It's expensive to live here in America. I get it. But you want to put the big three auto workers out of business? You start paying your auto workers, $135 an hour.

Which Joe Biden is for. They'll have money. But the money that it will pass the average person to buy the car, how much more will that add to the price tag?

So you do buy American cars, because they will be too expensive in America! And so what the government do? The government will make new incentives. And print more money. And try to offset that cost, so you will buy American.

You're in the death cycle.

You're in the death cycle, right now.

Why will no one say this, in a debate?

Why will no one actually talk about inflation?

And what is causing inflation? The price of your food is not going up. Okay?

You have to understand this.

The price of your food is not going up.

The value of your dollar is going down.

That's what's happening. Well, these people are getting rich off the backs of the American people.

No! It takes more dollars to buy the same thing. It's inflation. Everything the government is doing right now, is destroying our economy. Destroying our dollar. Destroying your ability to keep your head above water. And that is all Biden and this worthless bunch of economic geniuses. Who are doing things under different names, that have always failed.

Always failed.

We don't like to hear that last night.

We don't like to hear that. Instead of the placating of the unions. And then just blaming.

I'm sick of it. I'm sick of it.

Dad WARNS parents: 'Government TRANSITIONED my daughter'

Glenn recently exposed just how dire the battle for parental rights against tyrannical governments in America has become. You can watch this full episode of Glenn TV here: Parental Advisory: The EXPLICIT Plot ... But the situation is even worse in Canada. Glenn speaks with a father, who wished to remain anonymous, who has spent years battling his government over simple parental rights. Ultimately, he was "hauled in" for refusing to "affirm" his daughter's gender, something the government called "family violence." Then, he was thrown in prison for refusing to obey the government's attempt to silence him. But that didn't deter him. He joins Glenn to tell his story and warn American parents that this Leftist tyranny is coming for them as well: "The world needs to know what’s happening to their kids in darkness."

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Just going to call you dad, on the program. Dad, how you are?

DAD: I'm good, how you are today?

GLENN: I'm good. Didn't expect you to sound this great. You have gone through hell for the last three or four years.

DAD: Yes.

GLENN: How did it start?

DAD: It started with my daughter in the public schools. They're -- they passed a program here called SOGI123. Stands for sexual orientation, gender identity.

And what that is, is it -- supposedly, they called it an anti-bullying program. But it's actually a policy. And what happens in the schools, they're essentially telling kids, you can be -- you know, you can be homosexual. You can be lesbian. You can be bisexual. All the letters of the alphabet of LGBT. And when my daughter went to school, it was when the pilot program was initiated.

And so she was indoctrinated among the first in his program. So that's kind of where it all started. So she had mental health issues. I knew that. But the school decided, we're going to direct her, towards being transgender. Because at that time, that's how they -- how they dealt with all mental health problems with children. Was just to transgender them.

GLENN: Jeez.

DAD: And the idea behind that. It sort of, to me, reminds me of a video game. Where you have avatars.

And these kids will sit there for hours, creating their perfect character. So now you have these adults, these perverted adults coming at your child and telling them, hey, if you're not happy being a girl, create your own -- whoever you want to be. Be an avatar. Forget about that sad girl. Become a boy.

Of course, this is a very -- alluring to them, right?

This will solve all their problems. That's where it all started in the schools.

Where I caught on, was fairly early on.

I didn't realize the extent of it all.

But at one point, you know, my daughter went to see a psychologist, who goes by the name Dr. IJ. These are publication names of all of these doctors. Because they're clearly so proud of what they do, that they're hiding behind confidential badges at this point. But I thought, you know, this is great. This person is going to fix this.

Clearly, my daughter is not a boy trapped in a girl's body. That's impossible.

But instead, he -- he went affirm. Affirm. Affirm.

And the next thing you know, my daughter is headed to the BC children's hospital here. In August of 2018.

And on her first visit. They will pump her full of testosterone.

I'm like, this is crazy.

My ex-wife gives me a call. I said, okay. I'll put a stop to it.

So they sent me what was called an Informed Consent Form. Which I find out later, it doesn't mean much.

Of course, my daughter was talking to -- my ex-wife signed it. I read it, and I refuse. It's talking about all the irreversible changes. You know, lowered voice. Increase growth of hair.

GLENN: Sterilization.

DAD: And sterilization.

And what this thing goes on to say, at the end, which is probably the whole thing, is that it says, the mental effects and safety of testosterone are actually not fully understood.

And there may be some risks that are not yet known.

It's in their consent form.

They're asking my daughter to consent to this stuff. Of course I said no.

So they have been asking for four or five months. So I finally get a letter in the mail, in December of 2018, and it's from the children's hospital. And they say, we don't need your consent. We're going to give her testosterone anyway, under something in British Columbia called the Infant Act. And you have two weeks to file in court.

GLENN: The Infant Act?

DAD: They call it the Infant Act in British Columbia.

GLENN: And wait. Wait. How old is your daughter at this time?

DAD: At this time, she's fourteen.

GLENN: Okay. This started when she was 11.

DAD: I would say around 11. Grade four and five.

GLENN: And she's not an infant now. I just want to make sure, she's not an infant.

DAD: No. Currently, she will turn 19 in October.

So that tells you how long I've been battling this. She's -- she's finally not going to be an infant and a minor soon.

But -- so, anyway, so I take it to court. Because I'm thinking. They will forget about the LGBTQ component of this.

You don't medically do something like this to a child, to a minor.

You know, I don't have feeling in my arm, so I will just have it cut off. Well, you don't let kids do this stuff. But, boy, did I have a wake-up call.

To find out what I was in the middle of.

And so, yeah. I filed, what they called a notice of motion. In BC provincial court in December of 2018, and it led to five years in the courts.

GLENN: And you went to prison, why?

DAD: Went to prison, as you mentioned. Yeah, that's sort of phase two of the story. The first part has to do with my actual battle to save my daughter from being a victim of all of this stuff. Of -- of the cross-sex hormones and the puberty blockers. And so what happened, in court, in January, the -- the judge said that, you know, for me to misgender my daughter, for example, was going to be considered family violence. All of these crazy things came out. I was not allowed to dissuade her from -- I can only affirm, affirm, affirm. Or that was family violence. So all of these rules were suddenly put on. Which pretty much eliminated my ability to parent her on this issue at all.

And so what I did, is -- I spoke with the Federalist after that ruling. And I said to the Federalist. I said, well, it's a delusion.

I'm going to keep calling my daughter a daughter if that's the reality. I don't care if the court is telling me to lie.

And so I was called in for family violence, under another judge. And then this is where they added all of the stuff, where I could be arrested again. There's a protection order on me, that says I could be arrested without warrant. Came up to the police.

And --

GLENN: For what? What do you mean? Arrested for warrant? For what?

DAD: Arrested if someone thought I was misgendering my daughter, or not affirming her.

So it was really kind of vague. It was really vague. And it showed you the power that the transgendered activists really had on this province. Probably in some sense, they still do. Although, things are changing, just like they are in the United States. That they could get away with something like this.

GLENN: Slowly.

DAD: Now, where the change kind of came in, and I should hit on this quickly.

The National Post, the big newspaper out here in January for this, when the court case was starting.

They put out a front page article on it.
You know, Who decides?

The parent, the doctor.

Now, the problem is, they tried to put my daughter on a pedestal. Because that had worked well for the transgender activist, to shame the father, but you do it publicly.

But the problem was, all the comments, at the end of the story, were supporting my position, and they were really going after the trends. And so this is when they thought, okay. New tactic.

We won't do it this more anymore. We will -- we will shut the story down.

They're not allowed to know what's going on. Because they will not end well for us. This will end -- and that's essentially, what they've tried to do.

GLENN: And so there was a gag order against you.

You would be sent to prison, if you violated the gag order. And spoke to any press member, or was it anybody, about what you were going through?

DAD: The honest truth, and this may sound super crazy. But my gag order actually said in it, that I could only speak to my two lawyers. Not even my parents or my family about this matter. Only my two lawyers. Said it's considered a privileged conversation over my daughter.

GLENN: This is insane. This is insane.

DAD: That's how bad it got. We appalled all of this. In the Court of Appeals. And we did go into the Court of Appeals, back in -- September of 2019. And we got a bit of a whiff. Five months later, and in that ruling, the BC Court of Appeals said, well, we're going to take away the protection order. We're going to make it a civil order. Instead of a criminal one.

And they also said, I do have the right to dissuade my daughter from being transgender. They said, we're taking away the affirmation model.

And they also said, yeah. Under the infant act, the parents don't get to decide, what their child wants to do. But neither does the child. Essentially what they said, it's on the shoulders of the doctors alone.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

DAD: So the doctors here in BC decide, whether your child transitions or not. The good news, when this contagion possibly comes to an end, which it will, there will be a lot of law cases, you know, a lot of girls being turned into boys that now have a right to sue that doctor, and say, hey, you know, why did you transition me? I didn't really know what I was talking about. And yet, you thought I was doing the right thing.

And this is the reason why I fight this so hard. Is because, you know, my daughter will never be able to come to me, personally. And say, hey, Dad. Why did you rush me down to the gender clinic?

And I'll say, I did. The opposite. I tried to save you from going to the gender clinically.

But you were rushed there from the government.

GLENN: Go ahead.

DAD: Keep in mind. In this case. It's not about parental rights at all. It's the government that transitioned my daughter. It has nothing to do with me or my ex-wife. What our positions were.

It was the government itself, which is different than what's happening in the US where they were handing off kids to the parent that will transition.

GLENN: All right.

DAD: That doesn't need to matter.

GLENN: Do you have any relationship with her now?

DAD: I don't right now. And I can tell you a bit what happened. This is a part of what they do over there on the far left. Is my daughter would sneak over to my place. And she would have to tell the -- the -- my ex-wife, her mom. That she was visiting friends at school.

And, of course, the lesbian activist lawyer Robert Finley attached as the lawyer for my daughter. And so what happened is my daughter at one point came and said to me, and said, Dad, I can't come over to see you anymore. And I asked her, why is that?

She said, well, they're giving me a choice. He said, if I keep seeing you, they won't fight for me to get microphones at his house.

So they said -- so essentially they bribed her. They said, pick your Dad, or pick -- becoming a boy.

And I haven't heard from her since. I guess she chose to become a boy. This is what they do with these kids. These vulnerable kids. Is they really gang up and bully on these kids.

And to get them to transition. And it's -- yeah. My daughter was a complete victim. But, again, this also destroys families. And I think that's also part of -- the intention. Is to destroy families as well. So to answer the question, I haven't seen her. Not since Christmas of 2019. The last time I saw her.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

Let me if I can just tell you, that amazing things happen over time.

My daughter went to Fordham University. And I was working in New York at the time. And they totally flipped her against me. I mean, totally flipped her against me.

I was a bigot, because I wouldn't agree with gay marriage. I had never been against gay marriage. I'm more of a Libertarian on this. I just don't think the government has any right to be in anybody's marriage, period.

And she was convinced because they held rallies against me and everything else, at her school.

DAD: Oh, wow.

GLENN: And I thought I had lost her forever. And after a while of getting out of school, and being, you know -- just being, you know, out from underneath thumb, she began to see things differently, and we're very close today.

So hopefully, it won't last forever. It will just be an agonizing time you lose with your daughter. And I'm sorry for that. Go ahead.

DAD: Yeah. And that's encouraging. Because, you know, that's -- I go through this with my conscience clean. And I hope that, you know, my arms are wide open, waiting for her to come back. After, you know, she's done whatever she's doing. Which is terrible. Which is terrible for herself.

But, you know, I'm waiting here for her. And I would like to think that at the end of the day, it will be those that affirmed her, she will resent. And she will appreciate what I tried to do for her. Even though I didn't succeed for her.

Obviously, I'm so thrilled, as what I'm seeing, as we are succeeding in countries around the world.

You know, in Europe, obviously the United States. How many states. And even in Canada. Our federal government. Or sorry, not government.

But, you know, they passed a resolution. One of them being that they will never allow anyone of the age of 18, to medically transition.

And so, so hopefully they do. They're up in the polls right now, people want this stuff.

But -- but anyways, I guess this goes to the second part of -- of my story in some ways.

I went through the first half pretty quickly.

But so -- so we had this ruling on the BC court of appeal.

And we're debating whether to appeal that to the Supreme Court of Canada.

In fact, we kind of worked on it.

And any time decided, well, we sort of got this, to see the doctors down the road.

Let's just leave it, because the -- the -- the -- the federal court, in Canada, is pretty loaded up with left-leaning judges. And so we thought, well, we probably would do better for a repeal going forward. So at that point, I fired my two lawyers. Not because of this. But because to protect them.

So I fired my two lawyers. Got them off the record. And I said, okay. Well, that's the end of the line, legally for the moment.

I'm going to protect them. And I'm going to break all these gag orders. You know, the world needs to know, what's happening to their kids in darkness in these schools.

You know, as an example, that came out in affidavits, when my daughter changed her name, from her female name to a male name, I was under the impression, that this was by her design. No. It was the school counselor, that changed her name.

Judge tries to take down Trump with RIDICULOUS Mar-a-Lago ruling

A New York court has ruled that former president Donald Trump and some of his children have committed fraud for years, in part by inflating the value of Trump's properties. But Glenn has his doubts about the judge's ruling, specifically because he ruled that Mar-A-Lago is only worth $18 million. Glenn and Stu compare that ridiculous Mar-a-Lago ruling to the prices of much smaller and way less historic houses and condos in the Palm Beach area — and it only makes it more obvious that this is just another attempt to take down Trump.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: A New York court ruled Tuesday. Boy, I have to tell you.

If I were in New York, or I were in Washington, DC, or any of these blue states, I would be thinking, I should probably leave here.

Because I don't think I can get a fair trial.

New York court ruled Tuesday, that former President Donald Trump had committed fraud for years, to build his fortune.

New York judge Arthur Engoron, ruled in a civil case, brought by New York Attorney General James.

Now, this is the one that was like, I'm going to get him! I'm going to get him!

So --

STU: That's what she ran.

GLENN: That's what she ran on.

Not the little dog as well. But she did run --

STU: She didn't specify the size of the dog. That's true.

GLENN: That's exactly right. Okay.

So the -- the court system, and the -- the DA decided, not to prosecute. Okay?

They decided --

STU: Alvin brag.

GLENN: Yeah. Alvin brag. They decided not to prosecute.

Police, the southern district of energetic. FBI. No one took this on. Because they didn't think there was anything there.

So she decides to go to civil court, to take them on.

Now she found a judge, that will say, that he engaged in fraud.

Now, do I think that Donald Trump inflated numbers of his wealth?

Yes. Yes. I do.

STU: Really? Now, what evidence do you have?

GLENN: Well, everything. Pretty much everything.

STU: Now, it's totally fine to do that publicly. Totally fine is not the right. It's not illegal to say you have $10 billion. When you have $2 billion. Whatever.

I'm not saying that's what he did.

You can say that. You can say, you're the wealthiest person in the world. When you're not publicly, at a press conference. And there's no crime being committed.

GLENN: But I will tell you, if you're misstating things intentionally.

That is called fraud.

STU: Especially when you do it on documents, over and over and over again to banks. And insurance companies.

GLENN: Now, I don't know about you. But I've never lied on my banking statements when I go to get a loan. Because they generally check those things out.

STU: I would be terrified to do so.

GLENN: Right. Right.

STU: Now, you have the reputation.

And, again, I don't know if this was Trump specifically. This was about his organization.

It could be one of his other executives doing it.

It does seem like it was done often

When you're Donald Trump, you have a reputation of being Donald Trump. Being very wealthy. Everything is the most grandiose thing in the world. There's probably not much questioning. Right?

GLENN: Really? They will give you a $250 million loan and not check it out?

STU: Are they going to check out the square footage of his apartment?

Probably not, right?

GLENN: So -- so -- so the judge said yesterday, that Mar-a-Lago -- he overstated the price.

STU: Just a tad.

GLENN: Just a tad. He said, it's worth $18 million.

STU: I think it was the other way around. He said it was worth more for this particular.

GLENN: No. No. No.

The judge said it was only worth 18 million.

STU: Okay.

It was he --

GLENN: Yeah. No Trump said --

STU: 700 million, I think.

GLENN: Yeah. And he did put probably $100 million into that place.

And it is also a legacy property.

I mean, it's not going for $18 million.

STU: Now, I'm going to say, neither one may be correct. If I were to say, which one is closer to its actual value. I would say, $700 million.

GLENN: I would too.

I mean, it could be worth 200, 300, 500 million. It's not worth 25 million, or 7 million. There's no way.

STU: Right. No! There's no way. How many square feet, is it?

GLENN: I don't even know.

It's this entire peninsula, that goes out of this land bridge, in west palm. I don't know if you can get an apartment for $80 million. Right on the water. Both sides.

STU: Right. A normal 4,000 square foot house, which I would assume is pretty small, right?

For West Palm Beach, but probably like, the average McMansion in Florida is 4,000.

GLENN: Maybe. Maybe.

STU: I'm just guestimating here. But a 4,000 square foot house in West Palm Beach is already, got to be, 4 million, $5 million.

GLENN: Go to realtor.com. Find out.

STU: There you go. By the way, 126 rooms. He took down to 500 square feet at Mar-a-Lago. And it's a business.

GLENN: All right. 62,000 square feet. Okay.

With both sides on the ocean. This has and golf courses. Right?

GLENN: Yeah.

And it's -- it's got a banquet room.

It is -- I mean, it's crazy.

STU: Could you convince me it's only worth 300 million.

Yeah. Maybe. But it's not worth 18.

GLENN: So this is a 50-year-old movie studio. Okay?

Fifty-year-old movie studio.

I mean, it is a historic site in Texas now, but it's not like Mar-a-Lago.

STU: No. The one we're sitting in right now.

GLENN: The one we're sitting in right now. It's maybe worth $50 million. Okay? $50 million. You're telling me, I could have had Mar-a-Lago.

I think I would have taken Mar-a-Lago.

STU: Did they really say $18 million is the right number?

GLENN: That's what the judge said, $18 million.

STU: And that's completely absurd. What year were they talking about?

In 1945, maybe it's worth $18 million.

GLENN: It's crazy.

STU: That's really, legitimately nuts.

West Palm Beach is one of the most expensive areas in the entire country.

It is obviously like, this is a place where super wealthy people run away from other wealthy people.

When they're annoyed with low class wealthy people, they go to west Palm Beach.

GLENN: Right. So let me go to any price listing. Where can I get rooms -- I mean, I could get from high to low.

It doesn't necessarily do that. That's ridiculous. High to low.

STU: I love how Glenn's head is attempting tasks. This is how it will work.

GLENN: Thank you. I will put a minimum of 5 million. $5 million is the minimum I want to see.

Okay. So let's -- all right.

So I have a three-bedroom. Three and a half bath for 7.8 million. That's a condo overlooking, okay?

I have another condo for 6.1.

STU: Do they have the footage listed or no?

GLENN: Yeah. 2000 square feet.

STU: 2000 square feet. And how many millions --

GLENN: 6.1.

STU: But you can get Mar-a-Lago for three times the cost? Wow.

GLENN: Yeah. I have a 1-acre lot. Okay?

It has -- it shows a picture of the house. But I have a feeling, the house is so horrible.

You know how they do that. Look at this. And they're selling it as a lot, and not a house.

8.4. A 1 acre lot. How many acres is Mar-a-Lago.

STU: That's a good question.

GLENN: A lot.

STU: It was 1980. The cost.

Let's see. Looking here. 17-acre state.

That's the federal foundation.

Yeah. It's hard to -- looks like 17 acres.

But there's a 3.2-acre plot. Which has nothing on it. It's just grass.

Currently listed for $200 million. It is -- it is a --

GLENN: Oh, yeah.

STU: It's a very nice plot of land.

GLENN: Right.

STU: However, you know, you wouldn't think that just land would be 240 -- they haven't sold it yet.

It could be one of those e Bay things where it hasn't sold.

GLENN: Where I have a five-bedroom, five and a half bath, five thousand square feet, and half an acre.

STU: Okay. So this is what you might throw at, as a McMansion. Right? A very nice, big house. Not a ton of land.

GLENN: Right. A half an acre.

STU: The house fits, but barely.

GLENN: Uh-huh. Yes.

STU: How much are they asking for that?

GLENN: 11.9.

I'm -- I'm just saying.

STU: It's an expensive area.

GLENN: There's a condo here for five thousands of individuals square feet. Four bedroom. Five and a half bath. No land.

8.4. There is a condo. Six bedroom condo.

Six bedroom, seven and a half bath. 9,232 square feet.

And that's 39 million.

STU: I mean, come on. The claim is that the Palm Beach county assessor had appraised Mar-a-Lago between 18 million and 27.6 million.

Now, the assessors a lot of times, have strange values on homes, right? Have you ever noticed that? Again, you're not doing this yourself.

You're looking at someone else, assessing your home.

And it doesn't always align with what Zillow says.

So that would necessarily be fraud. You have to believe, it's much, much closer -- I mean, $426.5 for Mar-a-Lago, which was their low -- low end value that Trump had put it at.

GLENN: Is reasonable. Reasonable.

STU: Seems reasonable. Again, I've never bought anything in the nine figures. Never made a 9-figure purchase.

GLENN: Really?

STU: But I would assume.

GLENN: I make them all the time.

STU: Yeah, you might make them all the time. I'm trying to -- you have to understand. I'm saying to the audience, you have to understand. So the audience understands. Trying to get Glenn to understand, not everyone makes -- you know, a nine-figure purchase, look, the difference between 100 and 400 million for the average person. Might be difficult to -- how would you even figure that out, without going to some expert?

I have to believe, just back at the envelope. $400 million seems pretty reasonable for Mar-a-Lago. It's probably around where it is.

It couldn't possibly be 18 million. That is bonkers!

And anyone who knows anything about real estate would say that.

Yet, everybody in the media, I have heard talk about this story, as quoted in the overstatement of 2300 percent -- from -- from Letitia James.

Which is kind of -- it's bonkers.

GLENN: So, anyway, they are breaking his companies up now. The -- the court has taken control.

And has assigned people to take over the company. And break it apart.

And I don't know. Sell the assets off. I guess that's what you do.

If anybody is in the -- in the market for a really huge, really huge house, that also has beachfront property on both sides of it, you might be able to get a deal soon.

STU: Well, this is a no longer based ruling. What is in danger, are his New York properties.

Which is the gulf in Westchester. Trump Tower.

GLENN: It's unbelievable. Unbelievable.

STU: They're really going after all of it. And trying to get him to force his control to be gone.

Eric is the one to run the company right now. And he would be out.

GLENN: This is why we have always, always done well, in America.

Because you could count automate law to be consistent.

Nobody -- in my lifetime, I never heard, you know, stories, day after day. Where I went, wow. Never heard that done before.

Never. And that's why people invested in America.

That's why companies were built here in America. Because somebody just couldn't take it away from you.

STU: That's why you don't want to do business in Venezuela.

GLENN: Exactly right.

They can take it away. They can accuse you of something, and take it away.

And the law did not really matter. The law was just a player, in somebody's curio cabinet.

And that's exactly what's happening now in America. You want to destroy somebody.

No, you can destroy them. Destroy their whole life.

It's really sick.

Glenn SHOCKED at how FAST everyone abandoned Russell Brand

London's Metropolitan Police force has opened an investigation into accusations made against comedian Russell Brand. This comes after the BBC, Brand's publisher and talent agency, sponsors like Burger King, and even the British Parliament have come after or abandoned him based solely on allegations. Glenn argues that while we still don't know the truth about whether Brand is guilty or not, it's shocking to see just how fast and viciously everyone has abandoned him. Is this the global elites' way of punishing him for speaking out against their plans? Glenn also reviews a similar story about NFL star Chandler Jones, who claims he was taken against his will to a mental health hospital by the Las Vegas fire department, injected, and forced to sleep on the floor after posting a "disturbing social media rant" — which he says was the result of a hack. Do we still live in a society where people are innocent until proven guilty?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Pat, can you help me out? How does an investigation usually work with the police? Do they -- do they watch TV and hear claims, and then they go and investigate?

PAT: Oh, my gosh. You must be a police insider. That's exactly how it works.

GLENN: I'm not wrong, right?

PAT: I would never do that. No.

GLENN: Okay. British police have opened a sex crimes investigation triggered by news reports covering Russell Brand.

PAT: Oh, my gosh. Isn't that something? This is so clear, that they hate his guts, because of the things that he's been saying.

GLENN: No. Two things could be true. He could absolutely be this guy.

PAT: Right. He could. He could.

But my guess is, if this was ten years ago, or 15 years ago, he wouldn't have this problem at all.

GLENN: No.

PAT: They would be coming after him.

GLENN: At the time, he did it on the BBC.

PAT: Right. Right.

GLENN: London's Metropolitan Police Force said Monday, that it had received a number of allegations of sexual offenses after a television documentary and newspaper investigations.

But there had been no arrests. Brand. Russell Brand denies allegations of sexual assault made by four women, in a Channel 4 television documentary and the Times -- Sunday Times newspapers.

The accusers who have not been named, include one who said she was sexually assaulted during a relationship with him. When she was 16. Another one says, Brand raped her in Los Angeles in 2012. Last week, a woman accused Brand of exposing himself to her, in 2008.

The woman told CBS News partner network BBC news, that she was working in the same building, where the BBC's Los Angeles office was. And when the incident occurred, Brand went on to the air to laugh about it, moments later on his radio show.

Well, we should be able to find that. The police force did not name Brand in its statement. But referred to recent articles in a documentary.

Said, its detectives were investigating allegations of non-recent sexual offenses, both in London and elsewhere.

We continue to encourage anyone who believes they may have been a victim of sexual offense, no matter how long it was, to contact us. We need to understand, it can feel like a difficult step to take.

And I want to reassure, that we have a team of specialist officers available to advise and support.

This is coming from their detective superintendent.

Brand has denied the allegations, saying his relationships have always been consensual. Even though, he was in an admitted period of being very, very promiscuous. That's a quote from him.

Known for his unbridled and risky standup routines, Brand was a major UK star in the early 2000s.

He hosted shows on radio and television, wrote memoirs, charting his battles with drug and alcohol, appeared in several Hollywood movies, and was briefly married to Katy Perry between 2010 and 2012.

Brand has largely disappeared from the mainstream media, but has built up a large following online with videos, mixing wellness and conspiracy theories.

Last week, YouTube said it would stop Brand from making money from the streaming site, where he has 6.6 million subscribers. Due to the serious allegations against him.

In an exclusive interview with CBS Mornings, the YouTube CEO said, they -- they decided to suspend monetization of Brand's channel because of YouTube's creator responsibility guidelines policy.

Quote, if creators have off-platform behavior, or there's an off-platform news that could be damaging to the broader creator ecosystem, you could be suspended from your monetization program. CBS mornings co-host Tony whatever said.

It has impacted a large number of creators and personalities on the platform in the past. YouTube went on to say, that's what played out in this particular case around the serious allegations.

So they have -- by the way, he's been dropped by his talent agency. He has been dropped for live performances.

And his publisher has also dropped him. So this guy has nothing. He has nothing. And he hasn't been charged with a crime.

PAT: And that happens so quickly.everybody got on board, right away.

And if you didn't get on board, the BBC is coming knocking at your door, asking you why. Hey, are you about to demonetize him? They were trying to get Rumble to demonetize him.

Rumble said, no. We're not going to do that.

GLENN: The parliament. Parliament, told Twitter to demonetize him and shut him down.

Parliament. I've never heard of that before.

So there's something very, very wrong here. And two things could be true.

He might have done these things. So don't wash your hands of that. Let's make sure that we know what happened.

But the other thing that is true. This has never happened before.

I've never seen. You had Menendez just a few minutes ago saying, well, you know, the charges. You're innocent until proven guilty.

And I demand. Well, what about Russell Brand? What about Russell Brand?

The story that is related to this, is a story about Chandler Jones. Do you know anything about Chandler Jones?

PAT: Very little.

GLENN: So he has claimed now, because he set off a tweet, where he said, the owner of the Raiders. And the head coach. Or the GM. He can't work for anymore.

Because the -- I think it was the owner had -- had information, and was protect protecting a man that molested his goddaughter. Okay?

And then nobody is really talking about that.

Nobody is really focused on this story.

And I don't know what this story was really all about.

Listen to this. NFL star Chandler Jones has claimed he was taken against his will, to a mental health hospital by the Las Vegas Fire Department last week. In an alarming social media post on Monday night, Jones said he had been injected against his will, and forced to sleep on the floor.

It comes a week after Jones went on a disturbing social media rant, accusing Raiders' owner Mark Davis of protecting the identity of a man he claims molested his goddaughter.

Jones, who is the younger brother of USC champion, John, later said that he had been hacked.

In a post on X, captioned first day out, but I'm still alive. Jones wrote: First day out. If my fans and friends were wondering, I was taken by the Las Vegas Fire Department last week against my will.

I was injected with, I don't know what.

They say that it was a court hold, and the Las Vegas police put me on it.

I hadn't done anything wrong. The police said, people were concerned about me. Because of my posts online.

I answered. Yeah. I know.

I answered my front door, and a group of five to seven were there to put me in an ambulance, where I was later ejected.

And I asked them not to.

I had in cell phone. Or in communication.

I was taken to Southern Hills Hospital. And transferred to Seven Hills, where they tried to force me to take meds and injections.

The NFL and Raiders star Jones, 33, added, I called Raiders' GM six to seven times, asking for help. And wondered if he had put me in here. But he had never answered.

I even left him voicemails. I was just trying to figure out, why I'm not allowed in the building. And still, why I don't have to continue to watch my brother suffer every Sunday. But no answer.

This place is not a place for high-profile athletes.

My first night, I slept on the floor. And was not offered a bed.

My brothers had nothing to bring me.

My brothers had to bring me decent meals to eat, and clothe.

My dad read to me Bible versus.

Every day, I miss, is $1 million. And I'm still confused on what I did wrong.

I'm still here. And I'm very sane.

Now, he goes on.

This is disturbing.

And again, I don't know what the truth is, on this.

But this isn't the first person that has been put into a mental institution.

Now, he's put into a mental institution, he claims. Because of his online post.

This is the way Stalin used to do it.

And maybe he is crazy, I don't know.

But listen to this story.

The mistress of a Pennsylvania police officer, spent three days in a mental hospital, after he had her involuntarily committed, when they broke up.

Ronald Davis is now facing charges for abusing his power and authority, to convince peers to issue a mental health valuation, and section his girlfriend.

Davis is married with kids, according to police records. He was having a relationship with the girl. Also 37.

They were together for -- for months, until the romance soured. He then told her, he would make her look crazy, and he did.

Pennsylvania state police confirmed Davis had been suspended without pay today. He's also facing felony strangulation and false imprisonment charges.

So I guess now we're going into a time, where we're putting people into mental institutions, that we either don't like, or maybe are saying something -- I mean, I don't know what's going on.

I just know. Have you seen these before?

PAT: No. No. It's really chilling.

GLENN: I mean, with Russell Brand, if you have done something, you need to pay the price for justice.

You need to pay the price.

If you are somebody who is living life on the edge, you're not going to be safe.

You're not. You have to do the right thing.

Just do the next right thing. If you have something in your life, clean it up right now. Clean it pick up.

You don't need anything in your life that you have to worry about. Just do the right thing. Because they will find things that you are doing and take you out.

And if you're just and it's not true, I believe it will work itself out. But if you are dirty and corrupt and have done something, the best thing to do is just pay the price. Let God work it out. Stop whatever you're doing. Turn back to God.

But we are living in times where things could get very, very dicey. They want to put you in jail with AI, and with deepfakes. There's a -- there's not a lot going for you. If they do want to put you in jail.

Just do the right thing. Stay active. Stay involved. Always speak your mind.

But shod your feet in the gospel of peace, always.