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

SHOCKING: "Several boats a week" dropping off UNVETTED illegals on California beaches

The Biden-Harris administration claims that illegal immigration is down, but San Diego County Supervisor Jim Desmond joins Glenn to expose the reality in southern California. From September 2023 to June 2024, Border Patrol dropped off 155,000 illegal immigrants into the county, he argues. But although this suspiciously stopped right before the election heated up, Desmond says that tons of illegals are still being shipped out of the city every day by bus to Arizona and every week by plane to Texas. And to make matters worse, “several boats a week” have been dropping off UNVETTED illegal immigrants into San Diego County for months. We have no idea who these people are, he argues, and thanks to California’s sanctuary state laws, local law enforcement can’t do anything about it.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Let's see. We have Jim Desmond on with us.

I look at what's happening at our border. And they keep saying that they've gotten it under control.

Now they're trying to convince people, that it's, you know, lower numbers coming across, than when Trump was in office.

This is absolutely not true. So we have the supervisor for San Diego.

He's on with us. He is the county supervisor, and he has information on Border Patrol. On something that is, you know, now apparently happening, again on our border.

Welcome, Jim.

JIM: Glenn, thanks for having me this morning.

GLENN: You bet. So tell me what the Border Patrol informed you of.

JIM: Well, the numbers are down, but from record highs.

GLENN: Yes.

JIM: We still have more capacity. More people coming across the border, than we can actually handle here in San Diego County.

Or in the San Diego sector.

And what happens, you know, from September of last year. Until June of this year.

The Border Patrol dropped off over 155,000 people. To send sound bite streets of San Diego County.

GLENN: 155,000?

JIM: Yes. Absolutely.

They dropped off over that nine-month period of time.

And we had to absorb them. Or most of them left. And went to other parts of the country.

So they were just dropping off the excess here. In our -- in our transit stations here in San Diego County.

That stopped in June.

But what they have been doing every since, is we're still taking more people in that we can manage here.

There's about three buses a day. That they're taking migrants. Border Patrol is taking migrants in Yuma, Arizona, which is right outside the California/Arizona line. So about three buses per day, and they have about three to four flights per week, leaving San Diego, going to Texas.

Primarily McAllen, Texas.

So it's just smoke and mirrors. What they're doing is they're taking these numbers. They're no longer putting them on our streets.

Which is very in the open. And press and everything else.

Had access to that. And they're hiding them by busing them to Arizona or flying them to Texas.

GLENN: Well, I want to thank. I want to thank them for that. This is -- I mean, if -- if Trump doesn't win, what do you think is coming our way, Jim?

JIM: Well, I think it will go back to where it was before. Where we got several hundred dropped off each day, here in San Diego County.

And unfortunately, we became the number one spot for border crossings.

Or the number one spot for fentanyl.

We're up in one of the top spots for human trafficking.

You know, all of these things we don't want.

It's in June, right before the election, as far as the street drop-offs. That was the most visible thing that we could see.

I think unfortunately, we will go back to the mayhem we had, in the last -- you know, previous months. Where they were just dropping off more and more people, here in San Diego County.

That's what I hear.

GLENN: So you are a county supervisor.

What can you do, if anything?

JIM: Not much. Other than reporting it. What's happening.

And of you with the other things, what's happening here, in San Diego County.

We're getting several boats. A week. Just, where people run up on to our shores.

With boats. And smugglers. And people just getting off the votes. And walking into the -- our neighborhoods. And they just abandon the boats on the beach.

Those people aren't even checked or go through Border Patrol.

They're not fingerprinted. We have slightly no idea.

And that's been happening for months. And if you remember 9/11, was only a couple dozen people. Well, two votes say couple dozen people, coming on to our shores.

And that's happening, you know, several times a week, where we have these people, just completely unaccounted for.

GLENN: It is crazy. Let me play something here that came from Dr. Phil.

This -- he is talking to a special agent with ICE.

It's cut ten.

VOICE: So you're telling me that DHS has acknowledged that Venezuela, for example, is empty in their prisons. And their rehabilitation centers, with the understanding that you get out, if you leave here, and go to the United States?

VOICE: Yes.

VOICE: And DHS has in writing said, we know that's happening. We know they're coming here. We're processing them in. And have no idea where they are?

VOICE: Correct.

VOICE: How many people are we talking about?

VOICE: Millions, and in just Venezuela alone.

GLENN: How does a country survive that? How does a country survive that? How does San Diego survive that?

JIM: We don't. We're getting overrun.

And to be honest with you, the state of California, say sanctuary state.

Which means, that our local laughter cannot enforce immigration law.

So even these people that are getting off the boats and walking into you're neighborhoods.

Local laughter can't do a thing about it. They pull somebody over.

They can't ask them about their immigration status. And so, you know, we're a sanctuary state because of that. There's very little, you know, locally, that anybody can do about this stuff.

So that -- one of the issues. The other thing, that the federal government just did to us, recently.

They gave us $19 million for a migrant processing center, here in San Diego County.

Right after the -- right after the June drop-offs.

They gave us $19 million.

And that's FEMA dollars. That could have been going to hurricane relief.

Right now, we're not using that money at all.

But it's 19 million FEMA dollars, sitting in our pockets, waiting for a migrant center. Which probably, if Kamala wins, we will have to put up right away.

GLENN: Jeez. God bless you, Jim.

Thank you for breaking this news. I appreciate your courage. Thank you.

JIM: Glenn, thanks for putting it out there. I love it.

GLENN: You bet. That's county supervisor from San Diego. Jim Desmond, who posted, I think it was, what?

Last night, or the night before, about what's happening now. They are flying them out.
Flying them out!

Congratulations, Arizona. You get some. Texas, you get some.

STU: It's like Oprah.

Everyone has some under their chair. Congratulations.

GLENN: Actually probably -- kind of like literally that.
(laughter)
Oh, man.

STU: Disturbing.

THESE Harris & Walz picks reveal how global elites are LYING to you

If you want to know who Kamala Harris and Tim Walz really are, look at who they’ve picked to work in their campaign and administrations. Glenn and Stu review Team Harris-Walz’ pick for Climate Engagement Director, Camila Thorndike, who has called oil and gas WORKERS dangerous for the environment. So, why did she join the Harris campaign, which is now saying it WON’T ban fracking? If that wasn’t disturbing enough, Glenn and Stu introduce you to a man who’s helping shape Minnesota’s schools under Tim Walz. The propaganda machine insists that Critical Race Theory is harmless and barely used in our schools. But you have to hear what this appointee said about “deconstructing” the U.S. for yourselves. While the government lies to you, Glenn brings on Justin Haskins, the co-author of his new book, "Propaganda Wars," to explain how to cut through the propaganda and find the truth.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: We were talking last hour about the new appointee for Harris' campaign. She's a global warming extremist. That says, if you are in the oil and gas business, at all, you're a terrorist. You're an eco-terrorist.

She is somebody who is so extreme, on global warming. She doesn't like capitalism. She doesn't like oil and gas or anything like that.

So why would she join the Kamala Harris campaign, leave Bernie Sanders' legislation team, and go and be the spokesperson on economic -- or I'm sorry. On ecological issues.

Why would she join Kamala Harris? Because an extremist would say, she's changing everything she's doing.

She's saying, she's not even going to go after fracking anymore. That she's going to approve new oil leases.

STU: She's opposed to the green new deal.

GLENN: Right. She's a traitor to everything I believe.

That's what she should say. But she didn't. She joined on.

And then said, no. Kamala has really changed her mind. She's -- she's not going to do any of those things. Okay?

You have to ask why. Why?

So we went into that yesterday. Now, let me -- or earlier today. Let me go into the education czar. What's the title.

STU: Yeah. It's he actually is one of the people helping implement the framework, or curriculum.

For the new ethnic studies standards. In the state of Minnesota.

GLENN: Okay. Remember, you were told by the propaganda machine, that CRT is nothing. First of all, it's not anything. It doesn't even happen. It doesn't exist. We're not even doing that.

STU: Just a bunch of academics talking. We got to that phase.

GLENN: We got to, okay. It's in there. But it doesn't mean what you think it means. It's totally harmless.

Now, we don't even talk about it anymore.

Remember, this came in under Biden Harris.

This came into our schools.

They didn't dare release it, under Donald Trump.

But they put it into our schools, after the election.

Now, what does it mean?

Well, it certainly doesn't mean an end to the United States of America.

That's what Tim Walz would say. Then if that's true, why would he hire this guy?

STU: And it's Brian Lazinski.

He is an associate professor of Urban and Multicultural Education in St. Paul.

He was helping, with not just the ethnic studies, but also the social studies standards. Citizenship and government. Economics, geography, history, and now ethnic studies. This comes from Stanley Kurtz, by the way.

He did a great job reporting on that.

GLENN: Amazing.

STU: Let me give you his thoughts now on CRT. And what its role is in the schools. But also, what it actually means. And what he believes about it.

VOICE: And we're also sometimes lying on ourselves, when people say, like, oh, we can.

We use Critical Race Theory in school.

We don't use Critical Race Theory in school.

The first tenant of Critical Race Theory is that the United States, as constructed, is irreversibly racist.

STU: Hmm.

VOICE: So if the nation state as constructed is irreversibly racist, then it must be done with. It must be overthrown, right?

And so we can't be like, oh, no. Critical Race Theory is about telling our stories. It's not about that. It's about overthrow.

It's insurgent. And we need to be, I think more honest about that.

And it's funny that they -- they don't understand Critical Race Theory.

But they actually tell some truth, when they're like, yeah. It's antistate.

You can't be a critical race thirsty. And be pro-US.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: Okay. It's an antistate theory.

That says that the United States needs to be deconstructed period. Right?

That's -- and so I think -- I think it's an interesting argument there.

And that's why I'm a critical race thirsty.

STU: Oh. that's why he's a Critical Race Theorist.

Because the overthrow of the government, and the insurgency and all.

Now, you might say, if you had a picture taken with you at a party with this man, you know, you will deny that.

You will --

GLENN: You would say, I didn't have any idea who that guy was.

STU: I had no idea who that guy was. Think about the prospect of not only associating yourself with him. But also promoting him to design the curriculum for the students of Minnesota.

This guy is out there.

He's a teacher. He's a football coach.

A hunter. He's America's dad.

What you just heard is who Tim Walz actually is.

What he's telling you is that he's America's dad, but that's who he really is. That's what he wants.

His education department chose that guy, to design your kid's classes.

GLENN: So the first thing to avoid propaganda, is to constantly ask why. And be willing to accept the truth.

So there are so many Democrats right now, that won't accept that, why?

Because they'll hear it from me. Or they'll hear it from Fox News.

So it's a convenient way just to dismiss it.

But there's the audio of the guy, Tim Walz, put in charge of the history and critical race curriculum, in Minnesota schools.

JUSTIN: Right. Yeah. I think what's so important about propaganda wars is we want to equip people with the ability to figure out these things on their own, all right? We don't want people to rely just on shows like this. We need people to become trusted sources of information in their own lives. Teach people how to be citizen journalists. This is what we desperately need. And what you find, when you go to the original sources over and over and over again, what we discovered and what we outline in this book, is that there is a propaganda industrial complex, that it goes well beyond just what's in the media. That there is a vast network of left-wing groups. And big money organizations.

And others. Many of whom, people listening to these shows.

As active listeners as they may be. Have never heard of these organizations. Now, you brought up the education thing. This is really interesting.

So in the first chapter of the book, where we just talk about how screwed up everything is, it's called welcome to the clown world.

We talk about this nonprofit organization called education trust west.

That's the name of it. Education trust west.

They are one of these people that believe that there's all this racism, inherently in mathematics. They believe that public education has a responsibility to inject social justice ideology, into every subject, including mathematics.

They said, and this is a direct quote. That finding -- not this first part of it is not the correct quote. But finding the correct answer to a math problem, is, quote, white supremacy culture.

Unquote. Now, they've been distributing these workbooks all over the company.

In California. In Georgia. In Ohio. Are those far left-wing states. California is. But not Georgia and Ohio.

These things are everywhere. Now, we get into who these major players are. Not just these organizations. But who is funding them.

Where do we get their money? Because they're not selling their money to the public. Well, they just so happen to get their money from a little organization.

Just a tiny, little one. Most people have never heard of. Call the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. So they're pumping all of this money into these textbooks that are teaching kids at the local level, that racism is everywhere.

You're a white supremacist, if you're trying to get people to find the right answer.

This is everywhere. So what you have to do, and what we try to show people in this book, is that you have to find the sources of this misinformation.

It's not just enough to say, well, that's crazy. That's the kind of thing that happens in Portland. Well, yeah.

That does happen in Portland. But it's also happening in Portland. It's also happening in Georgia.

And it's because these organizations exist everywhere. The network is vast.

George Soros and people like that are pouring hundreds of millions and billions of dollars worldwide, into these kinds of efforts.

And if you don't know who they are. You don't know what to look out for.

GLENN: So one of the biggest questions I have gotten asked over the years, and I hear it asked very seldom now. And I wonder why.

Used to be, why do these people do this? Why would Bill and Melinda Gates do this?

Why would they teach that math is racist? Because you have to now start to think, unlike Americans used to think.

Americans used to think. Well, we all want what is best.

You now have to understand what the elites think is best. Is best for them. Not for you.

They are teaching our children, to be slaves.

They are teaching them not to ask questions. Let me ask you: If you believe that math is racist, therefore I don't really have to do it. It's racist to ask me to do it. It's racist for me to try to figure it out on my own.

How do those people build bridges? How do those people even -- even measure a wall to make a house?

How do you do the basic stuff that you have to do? If you can't do math.

You -- Elon Musk what he did, it already kind of looks like magic to me.

But I know it's all based in science.

But if I find out that science and mathematics is racist, I can't do what Elon Musk -- I can't even explain, what Elon Musk is doing. It does become magic.

These people are training a whole continent. In fact, the whole world. The Western world, to be slaves.

You cannot think for yourself. Why would they do that? Because they have control.

They want the money. They want the power.

And they actually believe and so do I, in many ways, that if they control AI. They win.

Once they control AI, and Putin has said this. Whoever gets it first. Controls the world.

They're putting all of their eggs in that basket. And we unfortunately, have been saying to ourselves, you know what, AI. Why even learn that?

AI will teach you. You can just go online and just say, hey. How do I build a bridge? And it will show you.

So why do I even have to learn math? Why do I have to learn to read, when I can just say, AI. What does this say?

What is that about? Can you write a paper on that for me?

We're being taught to rely, not on technology. On those who control the technology.

CBS News EXPOSED its REAL agenda with 60 Minutes editing scandal response

After 2 weeks of criticism, CBS News has finally released a statement on its “60 Minutes” editing scandal … and it was very snarky. CBS News insisted that its editing of Kamala Harris’ answers wasn’t “deceitful.” It also claimed that the 2 cuts of Harris’ response to a question about Israel were from the same question/answer segment, and not taken from another part of the interview. But Glenn still has a few questions: Why did it take so long to put this statement out? Why was it so snarky? And will CBS News release the interview’s full transcript? If you’ve had enough of the mainstream media’s games, Glenn and Stu share the most effective way for you to let your voice be heard.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So 60 minutes, finally came out.

Now it's been what? Twelve days. Fourteen days.

STU: A couple of weeks, yeah.

GLENN: A couple of weeks.

And there's been one question. Hey. Why is one answer different in the promo, than the answer you aired the next night, in the special, from Kamala Harris?

Kamala Harris was asked a question, and she gave this long convoluted answer pop Face the Nation. From that interview.

Then when it aired the next day, on CBS. The whole interview. It wasn't anything like that.

So people have been saying, can you release the transcript and release the video footage?

They always do that. For the full unedited interview, go to 60minutes.com, right?

They always do that, at least the transcript. So we've been asking for the transcript. You've been asking for the transcript.

The government has been asking for the transcript. Of the unedited interview.

So 60 minutes takes them two weeks to respond over the weekend with this. Sixty minutes gave an excerpt of our interview to face the nation, that used a longer section of her answer, than on 60 Minutes.

The statement claimed. Same question. Same answer. But a different portion of the response.

It was more succinct, which allows time for other subjects in a wide-ranging 21-minute long subject.

Then they said, but remember, Mr. Trump pulled out of his interview with 60 Minutes. And the vice president participated.

So, wow. Is that -- why was that last line necessary in answering the other question?

That shows, they have an agenda. Why wouldn't they release this?

It's taken them two weeks.

STU: I really don't get it. Other than, there's something there, they're literally trying to hide.

GLENN: Clearly. Clearly.

STU: You can argue, in some way -- like, if someone demanded to us release a transcript of something.

Screw you. We will do what we want.

Like you could see sort of an indignant response. It's our material.

We will release what we want.

That's not the argument we're making. They're not making any argument. They're not even addressing why.

They keep saying, well, we edited to make a 20-minute segment. Well, you have 45 minutes with her.

What happened to the other 24 minutes. Why didn't you release that? You didn't to have put it in the show, even. As you point out, you could put it online.

GLENN: So here's what you need to do. You need to email. Or write snail mail.

I would suggest email. Email the stations. Make it to the general manager.

You look for your local CBS television station.

And you ask them, why they are not demanding for their own local audience. To be informed on what looks like CBS news election interference.

Here's why you write that.

Because a letter has to be saved. Any complaint like that, has to be saved for the FCC.
That's how you get their license pulled.

You don't do it, you know, nationally. CBS news doesn't have a license. But the local stations have licenses.

And those local stations will call up to CBS. And say, what are you doing to us?

Release that information.

So if you want results on this, call -- I'm sorry.

Write snail mail. Or email the general manager of your local CBS station. Do it today.

GLENN: Big news, tomorrow, I'm releasing my next book. Propaganda Wars. How the global elite control what you see, think, and feel.

We all know that we're watching propaganda. It dominates every part of our lives now. From our children's biology textbooks to presidential debate stages.

But what most people don't understand is how powerful and well-organized this propaganda scheme has become. Who are the main players that are transforming our un.

What do they have planned?

What can we do to stop them?

Find out tomorrow. Join me in the fight to take our country back.

Preorder propaganda wars now at GlennBeck.com/books or Amazon.

Wherever you get your books.

It's out tomorrow.

The -- the audiobook is tremendous, I think.

It's really, really good.

This one will tell you how to stop things.

For instance, not in this book. But let me give you one of the things that will be helpful for CBS.

We were just talking about it a minute ago. You want to stop the propaganda. Well, it seems like you can't get any answers from CBS, right?

Even Congress won't give it. They won't give an answer to Congress.

So they're hiding something. So how do you get to CBS?

CBS cares about its local affiliates.

And if the local affiliates are squeezed, they will report that to the -- to the FCC. Because they have to! So I want you to write a letter to your local CBS affiliate. Your local television.

CBS affiliate. And write it to the general manager.

CC the FCC.

So they know, there's record of this. Because all of those letters have to be saved for their renewal of their license.

And if there is an overwhelming number of letters, addressing this propaganda. And using language, about your local community.

We don't care what the rest of the country might be thinking. But we believe this is propaganda from the network.

How can you, as a local station stand by, and allow this to happen. We demand answers, from CBS.

They won't give them, the answers.

Well, you should be asking for those answers.

Otherwise, you're not serving your community. Make sure you put that in.

You're not serving your community. That's how license challenges come up.

And there isn't anyone who is a general manager, who likes to see a letter like that.

No one. Because that just gives the FCC ammunition. You just want the FCC to walk in. See your public file. And go, okay. You're good.

You don't want anything that just makes that sticky. They will call if you're starting to give them lots of letters. They will call CBS and say, can you edit this please, because this is killing us?

STU: It's a similar approach, that many took toward -- and you discussed earlier about Bud Light. It wasn't called Bud Light.

It was a tweet to Bud Light. It was talk to the distributors. And that made a real difference in that moment.

GLENN: Yeah, it was the distributors that broke the back finally. Because, remember, the distributors said, we're not going to take Bud Light.

We're not going to take it. The local bars, we're not going to take it.

And so once those distributors fall apart, they're in trouble.

STU: And it's important to understand, with 60 minutes. This is a supposedly -- a news organization.

A news program.

The news program.

GLENN: Right. Right.

STU: We are not asking them, hey. You need to ask tougher questions of Kamala Harris.

Obviously, I feel like they should.

But it's their editorial control on that aspect.

What we're asking for is what actually occurred.

We've got a presidential election decision to make. Can you tell us what went on here?

And I will be honest. At the beginning of this. They edit.

GLENN: We always do.

STU: I try to give the benefit of the doubt, whenever necessary.

Or wherever possible.

Because, you know, I'm a conservative.

And my personal political bias, is to want one side to win.

So I try to question that all the time, so I'm not just randomly. There's so many people, on the freaking internet.

Saying, everything that is good for their side.

I don't want to be that person.

GLENN: I don't either.

STU: So at the beginning of this, I kind of suspected.

60 minutes edits this stuff all the time.

You're right. They will typically release larger portions. Or context alone.

GLENN: Especially if there's a problem or question.

STU: Journalists would react that way.

We're not asking for them. We're not micromanaging the way they ask questions.

Or why didn't they follow up on this. We can complain about that all day.

We just want to know what occurred.

There's a 45-minute interview. In which they aired 21 minutes. Why are we not knowing what happened in the other 24 minutes?

Why? What happened there?

At the beginning, I was skeptical, it was something really bad for the Harris campaign. The way they're acting here, the fact that after all this pressure, they haven't just said, okay. Here it is. Just look at it.

We didn't do anything wrong.

You might have thought we made a wrong editorial choice, but it's all right there. The fact that they haven't done that in 2 weeks, makes me think, something really bad happened.

Something where she really said something, that might really damage her campaign.

And I don't know -- I don't know what to think, other than that.

This is bizarre behavior from an organization that is supposed to be protecting its journalistic credentials.

GLENN: And, you know what, it may not even be on that question.

That question --

STU: I know. It might not at all.

GLENN: Yeah. But that leads us to believe, if they're editing that question, what other questions did they -- did they do anywhere?

You need the full transcript. And the full tape.

STU: Exactly.

GLENN: Like you said, 41 minutes.

Here's what really doesn't make sense to me.

You have a woman, that is not doing interviews.

At the time, this aired. She had just started giving interviews.

So it's her first major interview, since. Who was it? ABC, I think.

STU: Dana Bash did one, with both of them. Remember that?

GLENN: Right. So it's her first major network solo interview. All right?

STU: Solo.

In a time, where everyone wants to see it. I mean, we watched it. I don't want to watch -- I'm not watching it, if Joe Biden is giving an interview. I've seen it.

Been there, done that. I've got it. I and everyone else in America. Even her supporters, wants to know where she actually stands on things.

So why would you have a 40-minute interview.

You have 41 minutes in an hour.

Okay.

And why would they only use 21 minutes with all of the setup and everything else.

That's probably. They probably used. I'll be generous.

They used 16 minutes of her actually speaking.

Okay?

Why wouldn't you -- why wouldn't you want to drive traffic even to your -- your website?

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: Why wouldn't you make the entire thing.

It's not your Sunday, typical 60 Minutes. Why wouldn't you make the whole thing. Just that we sat down for an hour long interview. And you'll see it this week, on 60 minutes. Why wouldn't you do that?

STU: And I watched that whole hour, Glenn, as I mentioned. They had Tim Walz on for a second, which is moderately defensible. It's kind of a strange choice. When you have more material from Kamala Harris. Why wouldn't you air that. Instead of a Tim Walz interview, which no one cares about.

But he's on the ticket. Okay. Kind of defensible. The last 20 minutes of the show, was some produced piece about whether the Arizona election was stolen in 2020.

Like I -- and obviously, with the very heavy tilt, that it was not. And look at all these poor people that -- like campaign workers. Who got bad tweets sent to them. And things like that.

Like, you want to cover that. Right?

I don't see why it's really relevant right now. All right. Maybe you think it is.

But the idea that you would bump 15 minutes of a Kamala Harris interview with this context around it.

To air a pre-produced piece about what happened in the 2020 election in Arizona. What the hell is that -- that's the most insane decision of all time.

You want to throw stupid Tim Walz on there for a few minutes. Maybe you can defend that. Indefensible.

To leave 24 minutes on the cutting room floor of Kamala Harris.

When you're airing that. Air that another week. This is a prime time special.

This makes no sense at all.

GLENN: I would post your letter to the GM or the vice presidents of your local CBS stations.

I would post them on X.

Let people see that.

STU: Yeah. Tag us as well.

GLENN: Yeah. Tag the FCC. Make sure you tag the FCC.

STU: Note, as Glenn noted. The words, community, standards.

GLENN: Yeah. You're not serving your community.

STU: Serving your community.

GLENN: This is not helpful to our local community.

Because that's the directive, that they have to hit.

The SHOCKING TRUTH about Trump's McDonald’s appearance

Donald Trump recently stopped by a Pennsylvania McDonald’s to make French fries and work the drive thru. But, according to the media, this is actually a big scandal! It’s McDonaldsGate! - McGate? - And Glenn is here to expose it all: Did you know Trump didn’t ACTUALLY get a job at McDonald’s?! And those customers he served were – gasp! – screened beforehand! Can the media be any dumber, Glenn asks? Of course the customers were screened before meeting a man who has already survived 2 assassination attempts! But did the media see the crowd outside the venue? And do they really want to bring up “authenticity” when Kamala Harris is Trump’s opponent?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: All right. I have to get to this McDonald's gate. McDonald's gate is really bad, Stu.

STU: I know. What do you mean?

It was a nice moment. Here's a guy, who is a billionaire. Who goes through, the McDonald hiring process.

GLENN: Please, do not spread any more mis or disinformation.

Here's the audio of Trump, managing the drive-thru at a McDonald's. Okay?

DONALD: Well, that's a good-looking group. Hold on, everybody. This is not a normal situation.

What a good-looking family. How did you produce those good-looking kids? Oh, they look -- how are you?

Nice to see you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you!

And there will be no charge, is that okay? Oh. You're doing some extra stuff.

This is all on Trump.

I'm allowed to do that, right?

VOICE: It's everything you've ever said it would be.

DONALD: It better be. I made it myself.

GLENN: Now. As could you tell as that is. Here's, quote, working, end quote, the fryolator.

STU: Okay.

VOICE: Bring that one up. I will take care of these.

STU: He's training.

GLENN: And he's making fries. Making fries.

Okay. Now, I found out, after I was bamboozled, by this video.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: I found out today, from the press, that he didn't actually work at McDonald's.

STU: What did you mean? I just saw it --

GLENN: This was a, quote, publicity stunt.

STU: What do you mean a publicity stunt? I --

GLENN: No. No.

They -- the people in line, they were all hand selected. So they weren't just strangers driving up to the drive-thru.

STU: They weren't?

GLENN: No. No.

They checked to make sure they were the right people. And you know what I mean by right people.

STU: No.

GLENN: People without guns.

STU: Oh, my gosh. So they screened.

GLENN: They screened them. Has that ever happened to you at a McDonald's drive-thru.

STU: Glenn, I have to tell you, I worked at McDonald. That was my first job. At no point, did they screen customers to come up and make sure that they were people I liked, or supported me in any way. These were just random people who walked into the McDonald's. And came up and put in the order, that they wanted at that time.

GLENN: And I bet you, had to go through an application --

STU: Yes.

GLENN: -- situation.

STU: I had to do an interview.

GLENN: You didn't just walk in and say, I'm here to work at a McDonald's.

And then they hand you the apron. That's the way it happened with him!

STU: So he didn't take the test beforehand.

GLENN: He didn't take the McDonald's test.

STU: Well, they have a little, hey. Review thing.

If I remember back in the day.

GLENN: So it's kind of a test like, are you crazy? Are you going to shoot us?

STU: No, that's not required at all.

They didn't care about that. They just wanted to make sure that I could make the fries. This is a disgrace!

GLENN: It's a disgrace. Yeah. Yeah.

STU: After all I went through to get that job, he walks in there. By the way, you have to get up in the organization to be working the drive-thru. It's not the first thing he's doing.

GLENN: Skips all of it. Skips all of it.

STU: This is unbelievable.

GLENN: He is practically the president of McDonald's.

STU: How did they uncover this stuff?

GLENN: Good journalism. Good journalism.

STU: I guess so. And they're not saying the video is AI.

GLENN: No. It's real video.

STU: What a scam. I'm voting for Kamala Harris.

She's the only honest person who seeming has worked for McDonald's. But has no evidence of it whatsoever.

GLENN: No. We don't think that she worked for McDonald's.

She just doesn't have.

By the way, here is the crowd, in front of the McDonald's.

Look at this. My gosh.

STU: Thousands of people out there.

GLENN: I mean, thousands and thousands of people out there. I've never seen an election like this.

I mean, it is -- it is crazy. Is that not just nuts?

But it goes on and on and on.

STU: It really is an impressive crowd.

Look, Donald Trump does not have a problem to get crowds to go see him.

They love him.

GLENN: People stand across the street for McDonald's.

STU: I wish I was dedicated enough for he never to do that happen.

I can't think of anything. Maybe if they were releasing a new McFlurry. I might do something like that.

GLENN: By the way -- because I want to be fair and balanced. Let me put in this message. Cut five, please. This message from Kamala Harris.

KAMALA: And, look, we all see sing Happy Tunes and Merry Christmas. And wish each other Merry Christmas. These children are not going to have a Merry Christmas.

GLENN: Oh, no.

KAMALA: How dare we speak Merry Christmas. How dare we!

STU: Wow, that connects with me.

You know, that really pushes me toward her campaign. You know, I'm just like, wow. I also despise all of our traditions, and things that make me feel good about our country.

GLENN: Thank goodness, somebody has finally said it.

STU: Gosh, I feel so in line with Kamala Harris.

Now, that video is so would pop

I don't know why she doesn't bring it back up. It just connects.

Your Christmas memories are disgusting. She's revolted by your holiday.

GLENN: How dare you.

STU: Yeah. That's great.

GLENN: Here's cut 12.

KAMALA: Should never again, have the privilege of standing behind the seal of the president of the United States.

STU: God.

KAMALA: Never again!

STU: This is the typical Democrat mistake.

KAMALA: Never again. Never again.

STU: I have not heard word one from Hillary.

This is what -- you get more desperate from everyone behind. You're not being assertive enough. And now she's out there screaming with that voice.

GLENN: Do you have that one, where she's saying it like -- this was spontaneous.

STU: Oh, it was?

Okay.

GLENN: You just had the one up with like 12 boxes.

To the control room.

Yeah. Play this.

KAMALA: Behind the seal of the president.

GLENN: Look at.

KAMALA: Never again. Never again.

STU: Wait. It seems like she's saying the same thing in venue after venue after venue.

GLENN: Yeah. But she brings that anger with her all the time.

STU: She emphasizes things the same way.

That's strange.

GLENN: Yeah. He should never stand behind the seal of the president of the United States.

Never again! Never again!

STU: Such a dumb, dumb season.

Right?

It's like, I can't believe they're doing --

GLENN: We were the dummies. We fell for Donald Trump actually --

STU: That's what I meant, of course.

GLENN: Yeah. Such a dumb season.

How could we be that. Stupid.

STU: Are you a little surprised?

Because I think Democrats really looked at Hillary Clinton thing that should have been -- they should have won.

2016, they should have won that election. And blew it.

GLENN: They did no introspection.

There was no thought. Like, how did we lose this?

STU: See, I thought there was.

And that's why we started with joy. Right?

I know it was BS.

GLENN: No. I think they started with joy. Because I think that was actually said about the Republican Party.

Everybody was saying that.

STU: Saying what?

GLENN: They were saying, it was so joyful.

It was like happy, at the Republican convention.

STU: So they just copied them.

GLENN: And they were like, we can't let them have joy.

STU: You might be right.

I thought it was more related to the sort of approach that Biden brought to the table. And Hillary as well.

Which was this constant top five -- five alarm fire, sort of, oh, my gosh, get on the edge of your seat. Democracy is crumbling.

Blah, blah, blah. And they stayed away from that messaging for the first month or two of her campaign. Which was interesting.

GLENN: Here's the other thing.

And Donald Trump has captured it. I mean, this is a huge -- huge change.

Donald Trump has captured the magic, the -- the joy. The fun.

You know, while she's like.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: While she's doing that, he's having fun.

STU: Yeah. I feel like they tried the joy thing. Got a little burst.

It faded. Now they're realizing it's empty calories.

Now they're like, well, what do we do? And their only other page of the playbook is scream with the loss of democracy.

And I don't think that connects with the American people.

I really don't.

I feel like people are like, all right. We got it.

They might have really disliked everything that happened around the election.

January 6th, all those things.

But come up with an argument. Come up with an argument that's not just you repeating the same things you've been saying, every day since 2015.

Right?

It's not even since 2020.

It goes back to his initial things. He was stealing elections. Russia was helping him steal elections. Democracy is going to die. Vladimir Putin is going to come in and fix the voting. I mean, it's been constant. People are just bored of it. Bored.

And they don't believe it!

GLENN: Well, they don't believe it this time. Because she's so credible. Like yesterday when she went to church.

Yeah, did you see? She does this every Sunday. Here's cut four.

STU: Does she?

GLENN: Yeah. She walks in just to a church. And just kind of...

I'm just there to seek Jesus. Oh, wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait a minute.

I shouldn't have brought that up. Because it makes me think of saying Merry Christmas, for one.

STU: This is revolting. Celebrating the birth of Jesus say disgusting thing. But let me go to church real quick. It's so fake.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: So fake.