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 Biden’s Pardons for Fauci, Family, & J6 Committee May BACKFIRE

Famed attorney Alan Dershowitz tells Glenn that he would be “very upset” if he was one of the people Biden pardoned in his last few days in office. Members of Biden’s family, Dr. Fauci, Gen. Mark Milley, and January 6th Committee members all received preemptive pardons, allegedly to stop Trump from taking revenge on them. But Dershowitz argues that now, they look guilty and have lost their right to plead the 5th. So, if they’re subpoenaed before Congress, they MUST admit the truth. Dershowitz also reveals why Trump’s promise to end DEI was his favorite announcement of Day One. Plus, he explains why he’s “much more optimistic” about America than before and why he will “never” call Trump a convicted felon.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: I don't know about you, but I have a real problem with somebody giving people who work in government blanket pardons for anything that they might have done wrong.

It just doesn't seem like American justice. And it doesn't seem like a system where you can hold people accountable for what they've done. It just seemed like that is ripe for corruption, in every way possible. What does it all mean?

Well, Alan Dershowitz is here with us now, to talk to us about the future of pardons. Or the pardons that Joe Biden made. And said he wouldn't just a few years ago. Alan Dershowitz. Harvard law school. Professor emeritus. Host of the Dershow. And the author of get Trump. Welcome, Adam.

ALAN: Thanks for having me. Appreciate it.

GLENN: You bet. So can you -- I mean, everything that these guys have done, when they try to force their hand. It seems to backfire on them.

I'm hoping this is the case. But, I mean, it just screams trouble, for the future.

ALAN: Look, if I were one of the people that Biden pardoned, I would be very upset.

First of all, it makes it sound like, he did something wrong. Even if they didn't. And second, you know, it denies them their fifth amendment right. So they can go in front of Congress. Investigated completely, as to all of their actions.

So I don't think Biden did them any favors. And he also set a dangerous precedent.

Look, when Ford pardoned Nixon. That was the national interest. Because Nixon was under investigation.

This was a special prosecutor, still operating.

But these folks, the relatives. They weren't under any investigation. And really, weren't under any cloud.

And I just don't understand, why Biden did that, after violating his own promise to the American public. When he said, he wouldn't pardon his own -- all right. I understand your son has been convicted. He's about to be sent to jail. He's a young man, who has had all kinds of troubles with drugs and other things. I understand the father doing that. What I don't understand is on the way out, literally, literally as he's sitting on the platform in Washington, he issues these last-minute pardons to virtually everybody in his family, and the surrounding people. It just -- it establishes a precedent for President Trump. And probably establishes a precedent, because he now has flexibility in the pardons he can issue.

Look, the most important thing -- many of the important things that President Trump said at his inauguration. One of that is that he wants to put an end to lawfare.

And if we put an end to lawfare, which is one of the worst things that has ever happened to this country, you know, I coined that term back in the 1960s in a very negative way.

And it's used in a very negative way.

But if we can end lawfare, then we may see an end to these promiscuous use of pardons as well. Because I think the pardons are seen as an antidote to lawfare. And I'm hoping, we can get back to a situation, which the Framers intended, where people prosecuted not for what party they belonged to.

But for what they've actually done. If we can see a return to that. Maybe we can see a return to the more normal use of pardons as well.

GLENN: Well, I don't think that Fauci is in danger of being prosecuted for what party he belonged to.

I mean, you know, he got along with Donald Trump famously. But if we can't -- if we can't prosecute people, and this becomes a habit of every president. Just blanket pardoning people that were involved in anything.

Then we have a real issue here.

There's nobody that can ever be held accountable.

Who will be held accountable for what happened with COVID?

ALAN: No wonder our system of federalism. You can be held accountable by the space.

As you know, Trump was prosecuted by New York, and that invalid, unconstitutional conviction still stands.

Now, you and I disagree with Dr. Fauci. Now, we may agree that COVID wasn't handled properly.
But, you know, I'm pretty experienced as a criminal lawyer. I can't find any criminal conduct, in what Fauci did.

What he thought was --

GLENN: So I don't think, Alan. I don't think that we disagree.

I just want an investigation done. And if there was something that was criminal, we must -- I don't care who it is.

We must make sure that it doesn't happen again.

All I want is the truth. I'm not after anybody.

And -- go ahead.

ALAN: The investigation is made easier now with the pardons. Because now Fauci can claim the Fifth Amendment.

He has to go in front of congressional committees, and they are controlled by Republicans now. And he can be asked a disclosure of all of his records. He can't destroy records. They're not his records.

They're the records of, you know, government health agencies. And we can have a full and complete and total noncriminal investigation of Fauci and everybody else. And that's what our system is all about.

And I would like to see investigations.

For example, I think one of the best things that President Trump said in his inauguration yesterday.

Was he was putting a final end to DEI.

Diversity, equity, and inclusion.

Which is the single worst thing that has happened to our system of equality and universities in the United States. As you know, DEI stands for diversity, equity, and inclusion.

What it really means is lack of any diversity, except based on skin color. Lack of equality and the substitution of group equity, and exclusion of Asians, Jews, and other less popular minorities.

So, you know, I love to see -- and I would love to see Congress investigate universities that still have DEA programs that end up being hotbeds of anti-Semitism, anti-Americanism, anti-Catholicism. You name it. Anti-religion.

It's the worst thing that's happened to universities. It's turning their universities into second and third class institutions, that can't compete in the world today.

GLENN: I really don't like this idea, that we have presidents come in, and dictate through president -- presidential Fiats and executive orders.

We can't -- you just can't run a country that way. You know, flipping one direction, and then entirely the other direction.

Things have got to go through Congress. However, in this particular time period, how else are you going to do it?

How concerned are you, about the -- about the precedent that we're now sealing, from the last two presidents and executive orders?

ALAN: Well, it starts with Thomas Jefferson. Of course, he runs for president in the 1800s. Saying the presidents have too much power. I want to restore Congress.

And the power of Congress, one of the first things he does is buys Louisiana.

It doesn't give Congress any influence. Through executive order.

One of the best things that ever happen to America. You know, Alaska was purchased by presidential order.

So, you know, they're good, and they're bad.

And the one thing about presidential orders as we saw yesterday, is they can be rescinded the moment the new president comes in. The first thing the president -- the first act was to rescind 70 some odd presidential executive orders. So, you know, they're only temporary.

The Constitution doesn't mention executive orders.

It just gives power to the president. And allows him to have that power.

So I would love to see more going to Congress. Look, I think Congress is supposed to declare war.

And yet, we've had so many wars since the last time we declared war. That, you know, presidents have assumed far more power, than the Framers of our Constitution, ever intended.

GLENN: Correct.

ALAN: Remember, Article I is the Congress. Article II is the President. Congress is supposed to be the govern body of America, with the president administering the laws, not making the laws.

GLENN: Correct. Correct.

But people of the administrative state -- I mean, I know we're in an argument now of, you can't fire them.

All of these protections. But if they don't work for the executive. And the executive branch. Who do they work for?

ALAN: Oh, they're supposed to work for the people of the United States.

And it's so complicated. Take, for example, the Justice Department. We have a new attorney general. She's wonderful. I work with her. She's a great lawyer.

She's a great person. But she has an impossible job. She's supposed to be the president's loyal adviser of legal issues. Part of his cabinet, designed to make him look good.

That's part of her job. The other part of her job is to be the chief prosecutor.

For that, she can't be political at all. She has to be completely objective. In most western democracies, those two jobs are divided. We have the director of public prosecution, who decides who to prosecute.

And the attorney general, the minister of justice, who decides policy. But in this country, we have the two -- to merge. And it creates an impossible job. And I think Bondi is capable of doing it. Garland was not. He couldn't strike the appropriate balance, between politics and law. And so these are very, very hard questions. You remember the Bible instructs judges and prosecutors. He refers to (foreign language). Do not recognize faces. Do not do justice based on who the person is. Only do justice based on what they've done. And we have to return to that. It's Biblical. It's Constitutional. And it's the right thing.

GLENN: Correct.

What was your response yesterday when the way everything came off, how do you -- are you more optimistic about our country? Or less?

ALAN: I'm much more optimistic about our country. I spoke to President Trump twice, between the time of the election -- three times, actually.

Between the time of the election, and the time he assumed the presidency.

And we had good discussions about Israel, about the Middle East, about anti-Semitism.

But also about lawfare and the rule of law.
And I think he was a very different person, in these kinds of, one on one conversations. Or one on two conversations. Than he is, you know, when he was on television. And in front of large crowds.

I'm hopeful, that they'll really take advantage of the fact. You know, he's the luckiest guy in the world. That he didn't win the last election in 2000 -- if he had that election turned around.

And they had traditionally ruled that he was the president.

He would have had four miserable years. In which half the country wouldn't have accepted him.

And now we would -- as of now, he is the most -- the president with a mandate. With a popular vote.

The best thing that ever happened to him. And I told him that. Most recently, I said, basically, get over it!

You're so lucky. That you're now the president. You have a full second term ahead of you.

And he smiled. And I think he'll do a good job.

GLENN: Yeah. I have to tell you. I told him similar, but I said, you know, it wasn't necessarily about him. Look how grateful we should be.

Because look at -- if we would have had him in 2020. So much wouldn't have been exposed, that has been exposed over the last four years.

And he would have been doing the same thing. That he was doing in the first four years.

This gave him a chance to step away from it. Reassess. Watch what's going on. People wake up. And now he has a chance of really making an impact.

ALAN: Yeah. I'm calling him now President President Trump because, you know, he's been president twice.

He would like to call himself President President President Trump. But you can't be president three times. So just President President Trump.

And I will never call him a convicted felon, ever. He was not convicted of a constitutionally permissible crime. He is totally innocent. And people should understand that. The New York case is unconstitutional. Nobody can even describe what he was convicted of.

So I'm never going to call him a convicted felon, any more than I would call a civil rights worker who went down south with me, in 1960s and was convicted of a felony for spitting on the sidewalk a convicted felon.

We have to look at what the surrounding circumstances. So President Trump is our president. Whether you voted for him or against him.

Everybody should be praying and hoping for four freight years for America.

GLENN: Alan, thank you so much. Appreciate it.

ALAN: Always my pleasure. Great talking to you. You too.

GLENN: Thanks. You bet.

Are DC Prisons IGNORING Trump's J6 Pardons?!

Rumors have spread that prison officials in Washington DC are refusing to release many January 6th prisoners, despite President Trump’s pardons for 1500 of them. Sen. Mike Lee tells Glenn that this appears to be true. He explains how he has looked into the situation and argues, “from what we can tell, they haven’t complied with it yet. It’s yet another reason to revisit DC’s Home Rule, which I think should be repealed.” Sen. Lee also weighs in on why he believes Biden’s decision to pardon members of the Jan. 6 Committee will be GOOD for the Republic: since they can no longer plead the 5th, “we can finally get to the bottom of exactly what happened.” So, will Congress “subpoena the heck out of” them?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So I wanted to ask you, you tweeted something last night. Is DC ignoring Trump's pardons? If it is, then this is definitely a time to repeal DC home rule.

You had me at the word "repeal." DC's government has no right to exist constitutionally. Congress shouldn't have delegated its law-making authority over DC. It's time to take it back.

I love you. Okay. Tell me what this means.

MIKE: What this means is that Congress needs to do its job. We've had a problem for a long time with Congress delegating its lawmaking power to unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats.

We've got a corresponding problem, in that, we're supposed to be the lawmaker for the District of Columbia. Article one, section eight, clause 17, sometimes known as the enclave clause, gives us that power.

We've been delegating that to the DC government for about a half century. The results have been disastrous. The results have been a government that doesn't serve the interest of the people well. It's a radical leftist regime that runs it. Our schools are failing. Crime rates are soring.

And last night, from what we can tell, after Trump issued a pardon for a number of prisoners involved with January 6, there were only two released last night. And I spoke to someone last night. Who had gone down personally to the DC jail. Saw that only two of them had been released. And jail officials at the DC jail, announced that they would be releasing any more last night.

Now, this is not hard, Glenn. Did he have names? And they have pardons. They can identify those prisoners who have been pardoned.

Trump's direct influence is that they were to be released immediately, as one should, when one sees that somebody has been pardoned.

And they still weren't out. So we're still trying to get names, numbers. And verify it, how this is happening. But from what we can tell. They haven't complied with it, yet.

It's yet another reason to revisit DC's home rule. Which I think should be repealed.

GLENN: That's extraordinary.

That they would be that bold and say, because everybody was watching them. Last night.

I haven't heard this reported, I mean, CNN is the only thing I can get in this hotel. By the way, if anybody on my staff, books me at a hipster hotel one more time, heads will roll! I want actual furniture, not bean bags. Thank you.

STU: The hipster hotel feels exactly the same way, by the way.

GLENN: What did you say?

MIKE: They were very popular with the deputies. I will say.

GLENN: Oh, they're very popular. And who wouldn't love them. I'm not 18 years old anymore, please book me in an adult room.

Anyway, I was watching CNN last night, and they had, you know, people stationed out there. And they were just complaining that criminals that had killed police officers on January 6th were just being released. You're saying that there's only two that were released last night?

And nothing yet this morning, that you know of?

MIKE: That's right.

Former staffer Sean Peterson was down at the DC jail. And he said, that they released two of them through a back door, and then a jail official said, we're not releasing any more tonight. Even though, there were apparently many more to be released.

Now, again, Trump did -- Glenn, these are people, who have been pardoned. And this is a government that has done like -- things like this for a long time.

I've got story after story, of horrible things. You know, DC allows noncitizens voting in your local elections. You know how difficult that can be. To disentangle people who were casting votes in local elections. From those who were voting in true federal elections.

That is a problem in and of itself. You've also got the fact that they've just -- time after time.

They've taken positions that harm the people of DC. Make everything more expensive.

These guys have high tax rates. They spend like crazy. In education. Yet, they have one of those failing school systems in the entire country.

You want to know something interesting. Four years ago, an elite unit from the Utah National Guard was out here in DC. Protecting DC. Protecting the White House from the violence that was erupting in the summer of 2020, in the city.

In the middle of the night, after they had gone through a 36-hour shift. None of these guys had slept in 36 hours. They had worked all night and all day. And all day the next day.

They were evicted by the opposite of the mayor of the DC government. These are the kind of people these are. And they've been begging --

GLENN: Well.

MIKE: For a long time. We need it now. They've been begging for it, by the terrible things they do.

GLENN: I want to cut the mayor of DC some slack. Because they might have been high on crack. And -- and I think that -- because that is a tradition, isn't it, Stu?

For DC mayors to be high on crack.

STU: Yeah. I think it's part of the job subscription.

GLENN: Part of the deal.

You have to at least be high on crack occasionally, at least.

So, Mike, is this going to gain any traction?

What are you going to do?

MIKE: Well, the first thing we have to do is make sure that these prisoners who have been pardoned are, in fact, released.

But I think the word needs to spread. Obviously, this is a niche issue. It really is a local issue, and it's an issue that is very emotional for many of the people who live and around the area.

But I think more and more residents of DC are getting wise to the fact, that something is not working right.

GLENN: Well, hang on. What would this mean for the judicial system?

Because you can't get a fair trial here, in Washington, DC.

And, you know, anything goes wrong in Washington, DC. Anybody commits any crimes, in the Capitol, or in the White House. It's all tried here, in Washington, DC.

And it's so corrupt. It's got to stop. What would this mean, for that system?

MIKE: Well, look, at least for the system of deciding who will be prosecuted. Who will be running the city, would change.

And you would start to see people prosecuted for more things like property crimes.

Sort of the Soros-funded prosecutor of the county has infected this city. And it shows. I lost count of how many members of Congress.

And how many staff members, of members of Congress. People I interact with most when I'm in Washington, of course. Have been assaulted. Have been carjacked. Have been stabbed.

Have been robbed. Often in broad daylight. Often within a block or two, of the US Capitol. Which is one of the more heavily policed. Heavily secured locations anywhere in America.

And yet, this happens here. Because there is an environment of lawlessness. The more this happens, the more members of Congress are seeing that this isn't working. This is our Capitol city. It should be a shining city on a hill. We can't let it flip into this state of disrepair and other lawlessness.

GLENN: It would -- it would be helpful if people started tweeting. And started calling the senator or House member, and started some grassroot effort to repeal DC home rule. It might gather some attention. If people started doing that today.

Mike, let me ask you --

MIKE: I've been tweeting from my at base Mike Lee account. Repeal DC home rule.

So if people want to join in on this, you can retweet me. You can tweet on your own.

Send out a post on X, on any other social media platform. Contact your members of Congress, and tell them. Message is very simple: Repeal DC home rule.

GLENN: Mike, the idea that we can no longer go after Fauci or any of the people on January 6th.

What does that mean, to you?

MIKE: Well, what it means to me, first of all, is that these guys will have a hard time, perhaps an impossible time, invoking the Fifth Amendment.

Not if, but when. They're subpoenaed to testify with Congressional hearings.

Because if they've been pardoned, then one can rationally, logically conclude, that there's no risk of prosecution. And if that's the case, I don't think they can invoke their fifth amendment rights to remain silent.

And we can finally get to the bottom of exactly what happened.

It also means, that there was an understanding, that some things happened.

Some things happened, that would otherwise, likely be likely to lead to an investigation, if not criminal charges to be brought against some of these people.

GLENN: What are you -- because I watched enough CNN yesterday.

I watched CNN enough yesterday, to know that they're spinning this as, they're just doing this, as preemptive against Trump. Because he will go after these poor people.

MIKE: Yeah. So if you believe that, then you're likely somebody who believes Fauci in the first place. And you're quite possibly somebody who even after Anthony Fauci was caught repeatedly lying, in some cases under oath, to Rand Paul, and to -- and others who asked them questions.

But remember, Rand Paul was raising the question very early on. About gain-of-function research.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

MIKE: Tony Fauci repeatedly denied, that there was gain-of-function research happening. Of course, there was all the time.

They were covering it up.

They tried to use a different name to characterize it. It was still gain-of-function research.

Tony Fauci also spread the false rumor, that this was the result of, I don't know, haggling at a monkey, holding hands in a park somewhere, in Wuhan, and that produced the virus.
(laughter)

MIKE: And, you know, a lot of people were harmed as a result of this. The COVID deaths and illnesses, in and of themselves, were bad enough. And the predictable, foreseeable outcome of the US government funding gain of research activities, in places like Wuhan, a place that was known, to have a horrible hygiene record.

And that's how things like this happened.

People get hurt.

And then the country overreacts, and more bad things happen all over the place.

Yeah. This has got to be investigated.

And, yeah. President Biden to Tony Fauci placed real problems here. That's why Trump needed to act. And I'm glad that Trump is going to see to it, the truth comes out.

Biden may well be able to pardon. And he, in fact, did. But in some ways, that helps us get to the bottom of the truth. We've got to subpoena the heck out of these guys, and get the truth out of them.

GLENN: Because if they -- if they tell a lie on the witness stand.

If they know it what we now know, because of documents, to be the truth, they can be prosecuted for that lie, can they not?

MIKE: Yes. Yes.

Of course. Look, the whole point here, is we can't undo the damage these guys did.

And the point here is not to torment them for the sake of tormenting them. The bottom is that we've got to get to the bottom of the truth. Otherwise, this kind of pattern of abusive government continues to happen.

And I will flag here the fact, that if we understood the nature of the federal government. If we read the Constitution and understood the twin structural protections at the heart of it, the vertical protection that we call the federalism, the horizontal separation, we would call separation of powers.

This crap would end!

And so we've got to -- we've got to restore the movement in America.

Getting people to read and understand the Constitution.

Particularly, the structural Constitution, which has been badly neglected and bastardized over the last 80 years.

STU: Senator, somewhat related question, there was a Friday news dump from the New York Times, that outlined the six people who basically covered Joe Biden's decline, mentally over the past three years.

They identify them. They talk about them. And their motivations. And their tactics.

While -- you know, the way they describe it to the Times. It seems really, really bad. Maybe it's not illegal. But my if we say is there's a lot of texts and discovery that would lead us to a different conclusion on that. Is there a possibility that we look into that?

Is that the type of thing that we could do?

MIKE: It's certainly something that ought to be the topic of congressional investigations.

You know, whether or not people will testify, whether or not they will be able to invoke the Fifth Amendment. Privilege and self-incrimination.

Whether or not we'll find anything that is a game changer. Remains to be seen.

But we need to try. We need to ask questions. Because there's enough just on the face of things.

A lot of us saw the mental decline unfolding in real time, in slow motion. Only we saw just the small sliver of what was actually going on.

And then when you add to that, the fact that there was this sham debate, set up in June.

What was it?

Like the fourth week of June.

That was very curious.

That they were agreeing to a general election debate, before either candidate has gone through his national convention phase.

Before either candidate was officially the party nominee. And normally, you don't do that. Until the week before the general election.

And if they were doing this, I thought that was really curious, in and of itself.

But I think the fact that they scheduled it for June, without precedent in modern history. Is just as far as I can remember, indicates that there was some people, on the inside. Including on the inside of the White House.

Who knew there was a problem.

They needed a way to elbow Joe Biden out.

So if they knew that, at least by then, certainly they knew of more things that were happening.

And yet, nobody in the White House, nobody in the administration, was willing to support a 25th Amendment type of discussion. They just covered it up, and that's a real problem, especially when you look at all the problems that the Biden administration was creating. And the fact that we now have plenty of reasons to doubt, whether Biden was even conscious of all these decisions he was making. Somebody was doing that. Somebody was messing with America. But we need to know why, and how, and from whom?

GLENN: And who? And who?

You know, the revelation that came out from Mike Johnson about having -- Joe Biden having no idea what he was doing with natural gas is really very disturbing.

Is This the REAL Reason Trump’s Inauguration Was Moved Indoors?

President Donald Trump’s second inauguration ceremony was moved indoors allegedly because of cold weather – the first time the ceremony hasn’t been held outside since Ronald Reagan’s 1985 inauguration. But Glenn believes there was another reason for the move. Glenn speaks with former Department of Defense intelligence analyst and security expert Jason Buttrill, who agrees that Trump’s staff was likely concerned about security. But the possible threat is likely not domestic. Jason explains why he believes it’s international. Plus, Glenn reveals what he was told by a “cabinet level” source about the Secret Service’s preparedness.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Just saw Marine One moving towards the White House. That would probably be for the departure later of Joe Biden? They're having tea at the White House now. What is this? We're not England. Stop with the tea.

And if -- you know what, if I'm sitting in the morning, and I have to sit there with Jill and Joe Biden, put some whisky in that tea. In fact, just hold the tea. Just whisky. It will be an interesting day. Jason Buttrill is with us now. He's our head researcher, and national security kind of guy. And we're glad to have you here. It's been an interesting weekend, to see security. They put up, what is it? 34 miles of fence?

And this isn't chain linked. This is like especially designed fence for the Capitol. It is -- it's quite amazing, this fencing. You noticed it?

JASON: Yeah. I have. And the other thing I noticed. Coming in like on Saturday, they were dismantling, a lot of the security fencing around the Capitol mall area.

And a lot of people are just kind of wandering around, wondering, well, what do we do?

What's going on?

GLENN: I haven't heard a single complaint from anybody who flew in from some part of the country. And wanted to watch it.

You know, they're all kind of wondering. What are we going to do?

I haven't seen. I haven't heard anybody, but say, if this is security, I am happy.

JASON: Oh, that's absolutely been the main perspective that I heard everyone talking about.

Let's protect the man, and also protect the people.

GLENN: Yeah. And this is not -- at least, I don't think, Jason, you would know better than I would. But from the signs of the kind of security that I'm seeing being implemented, this is not domestic terror they're worried about.

This is international terror.

JASON: From the moment we started seeing video of the president's motorcade, with an electronic devices on top of the vehicles.

I've seen them before. But, Glenn, only in war zones.

I've never seen that just rolling around American cities before.

And those are -- that's the kind of equipment you're using to disrupt IED signals.

GLENN: Right. Or drones. Or drones.

JASON: Or drones. And who has that capability?

Not your average --

GLENN: Well, space aliens. Space aliens, have it.

JASON: Obviously space aliens.

GLENN: They're worried about a space alien invasion at some point today, obviously.

To me, it's very clear, that one of two things happened. Now, I -- I don't want to say, who told me this.

I will just say, it came from cabinet level.

To me. But I -- I got word last night, that it's not only the threats that they have internationally. But also, the fact that the Secret Service appeared to be wildly unprepared. To secure the president, today.

That made them -- made the administration. The incoming administration say, enough is enough. We're moving inside.

JASON: Okay. And that is infuriating.

GLENN: Yes, it is.

JASON: Because the Biden administration has known for four years, that there was a credible Iranian threat.

Four years!

GLENN: Uh-huh. And it seemed like they refused to do anything to beef up his security, once the president declared he was running, and once he was running away in the polls.

It seemed like they were just -- I don't know what they were doing. But we've known about this threat for a long time. Yes. It is a credible threat. Yes, they have said they wanted to do something ever since the Trump administration took out Soleimani of the RJC. This is known. This does not surprise me. Now Trump as he's coming in.

His people are saying, guys, can we for once, he's been a target twice for assassination.

Can we for once take this seriously?

GLENN: I am also very concerned.
There's one place that was very tense, in 2016. And the Secret Service was beg him, please, please, please, don't do this, and I think they'll do it again today.

That is, in the middle of the parade. He is going to say, let me out of the car. And he will walk with Melania and maybe the family.

And I -- pray that doesn't happen. He does not -- likes to project strength. Without fear.

And I know, because he told me what was going through his mind, when he was shot.

Or shot at.

And shot at and hit.

When he went down on the stage.

All he could think of was, this is pathetic. Get up. You're not afraid. You're not somebody who cowers. Get up.

And you can hear that in the audio, if -- if you would go back and listen to it. You can hear him say, get up. I want to get up. I want to get up. Let me put my shoes on. I want to get up.

He was embarrassed by that. He likes to project who he really is. That's not something who you fake. That is who he is. He is not afraid of things. And keeping him in that car, I think is really important.

But I don't think he will stay. We'll see this afternoon on our live coverage on Blaze TV.

Blaze47.com. Save 47 bucks off of your Blaze TV plus subscription. Today is the day to become a member of TheBlaze.

It's going to be great.

So what else are you expecting?

What are the key moments you're looking for, today?

JASON: Well, can I just say, before I get into that?

Hearing you say that, does my heart so well.

Because how many times when I was on your security detail, where we have credible threats. Where you were like, I'm just going to go down there. And we were like, what are you doing? No!

GLENN: But I'm different.

JASON: Stay in the car, sir.

GLENN: He's the president, we can't lose him. You can lose me any time.

Nobody -- there will be no one that's in the car on the way to the grocery store, that hears the news. Glenn Beck has been shot, and they would be like, I'm still going to the grocery store. With him, it's a little different.

JASON: Yeah, I am. It's interesting to see a president now, how he is acting in this moment, versus what we've seen from the Biden administration.

He was an absentee landlord it felt like in four years. Did you see at the Capitol one center yesterday. The president came down in the middle of the crowd.

GLENN: I know.

JASON: Walked through the people. And it felt like, this is the people's president. We finally have a people's president back in the White House.

It's a nightmare for security. But it was just amazing to actually see that.

GLENN: He expects people to do their job.

JASON: Uh-huh. Yeah.

GLENN: You know what I mean?

And he -- he trusts, yet verifies, with the Secret Service.

I mean, he's hired an outside security firm.

What's the name of that firm, do you know?

JASON: No. I can look that up in a second.

GLENN: Yeah. Hang on just a second.

Mark, what's the name of that firm? Marcus.

And he has -- he has hired an outside firm.
And they are on top of it!

I mean, I don't know if you heard this. Because any of us traffic, a couple of times. When the motorcade was going by. And there were helicopters, right up above that motorcade. I mean, I've never seen security like this before.

For a president, in Washington, DC. Normally, the motorcade, they just stop across the streets. And the motorcade goes by.

This time, it was stopped for a long time. Before you saw any blue and red lights.

And then you saw them. And you heard the helicopters first. And there was at least two helicopters, over his motorcade.

JASON: Yeah. And it's going to be needed. Today, we're talking 200-plus-ish. Executive orders.

Many of them targeting not only things like cartels. Terrorist organizations.

But also the Deep State. So I -- and on top of that, maybe one of the largest deportation operations, what? Since Bill Clinton, I guess.

GLENN: He will be mighty unpopular with all of the -- with all of the right people in my book. You know what I mean?

All of the people that should sure afraid, are going to be afraid. And try to make him afraid.

And I have to tell you, they -- they -- and this is not going to happen. This is just not going to happen.

But if they ever really try to take him out, and take him out, I just think of the line from Star Wars. Go ahead.

You will make me stronger than you can imagine.

You know, I don't remember what that exact line was. But strike me down. And I'll be stronger.

And that's true. I mean, J.D. Vance would be the LBJ, and he would reverse all of that Great Society. All that FDR stuff. The American people would be united on, this is going to stop right now.

And so the worst thing they could possibly do is kill him. But that's not going to stop some people from trying, you felt.

JASON: Which is essentially what they did to him, after that last assassination attempt. Look how powerful that image became.

STU: Do you think he wins without the assassination attempt?

GLENN: I'm not sure. I don't think so. Maybe. Maybe. I don't think so.

STU: Yeah. It could have gone the other way, court of appeals enough.

GLENN: Well, remember, that's when Elon Musk got in. It was just a few minutes after the assassination, he was like, that's my guy.

STU: My gut tells me, he still wins. But I'm certainly, less sure of it.

I mean, I think he brought -- brought a lot of people on board because of what happened there.

CHRIS: Even sane liberals!

Going on cable news. And saying, okay. No, that's pretty awesome.

STU: Zuckerberg. Look, Zuckerberg.

GLENN: He was a guy who everybody said. And they're still saying it about him.

He only cares about his personal wealth and his fame.

You don't do that. You know, if it's all about money and fame, you don't do that. But he -- he knew. And Americans knew, that's a guy who is brave. We haven't seen courage, in a very long time.

Just for people to stand up and go, okay.

That's a dude in a dress, man. People don't have a courage to say that.

This guy took a bullet. He's bleeding from it, and he stands up and looks right.

Exposes himself. And says, fight, fight, fight.

That was a moment of courage.

STU: Incredible.

GLENN: That inspired the world.

STU: Should make everyone proud watching this. Even if you don't like him.

The fact that that is the way our country freaking responds.

You try to shoot somebody.

We will put him in office. And he will sign a million executive orders, and he will show that we don't get intimidated by that crap.

Like that is -- that is American, it really is.

It's legitimately inspiring.

And I feel like, I mean, feel like, if you get shot on stage, you automatically get the presidency.

If you're at a rally, you run for president, you get shot on stage. You should win.

GLENN: What's amazing is. What's amazing is. We must know that to be true, until Election Day. Where in any other race, that would have been the winning moment.

STU: Yeah. I mean, it's true!

And we all talk about, you know, resounding victory for Trump.

I can understand it.

There were seven states. He won all seven swing states.

He needed to win one of those three wall blue states. The biggest blowout of those three states was two points.

That's how close we were to freaking Kamala Harris in office today, instead of Donald Trump.

GLENN: Which makes you look at California. I talked to a lot of people in California, last night. Who are here. And I felt bad for them. I happened -- from California to Washington DC. I'm sorry. There is other non-prison territory in the United States.

But, you know, I talked to them about, how is the state faring?

What are they doing? And they all said to me the same thing, if they don't wake up this time, they're not going to. They're not going to.

And it was split half and half, from the people that I talked to, that live in California. Whose houses didn't burn town, but all of their friends and neighbor's houses burned down. They still said, I'm not sure. I'm not sure how this is going to shake out. That's a little terrifying.

Glenn Beck’s LIVE Reaction to Donald Trump’s Second Inaugural Address

President Donald Trump’s second inaugural address let the world know that America is back. Glenn Beck, Stu Burguiere, and fellow BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey give their live reactions to the speech. Trump acknowledged God, proclaimed the day as “Liberation Day” for many Americans, and used “revolution language,” or as Trump put it, “a revolution of common sense.” Trump announced that the US Government will only recognize 2 genders and that he will open America up for drilling, rename the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America, restore the name of Mt. McKinley, stop China from controlling the Panama Canal, and end wars. But Glenn also reveals the one thing Trump said that “disturbed” him because he’s never heard a president say it in his lifetime.