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

I have a theory about Trump's nuclear testing…

President Trump recently ordered the Pentagon to resume nuclear testing after Vladimir Putin announced a new underwater nuclear device. Are we heading towards a potential nuclear war, or does Trump have another goal? Glenn Beck explains his theory: Trump just won this fight...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Well, President Trump said yesterday, truly great meeting with President Xi.

This is a the problem. So much is hyperbole is -- truly. Like everybody said that meeting couldn't happen. It happened. And they said couldn't be done. It was done.

I got up this morning. People said I couldn't open the door, and I opened the door. Okay? It was the greatest door opening I've ever seen.
But from all accounts, this was a really, really good meeting.

Let me just say this: He's getting ready to meet with Putin. And with what Putin has done in the last couple of days, and now everybody is upset.

Oh, my gosh. Donald Trump said he's going to start testing nuclear weapons again!

Yeah. Yeah.

You know why?

Well, China is testing them.

And Russia is testing them.

We've had a moratorium on that. And here's what he's really doing. If I -- if I heard the news. And I was in the Donald Trump White House, I would be -- I would have walked in, after I heard the news, especially yesterday.

That Vladimir Putin has a new nuclear missile, that he can shoot 6,000 miles away.

Underwater. And it can navigate, and then blow up like a hydrogen bomb under the water, just off the coast of California, which would create a radioactive tsunami. This is what I would tell the president. Congratulations, Mr. President. You've won.

Now, why would I say that?

Because Vladimir Putin is not going to do that.

He's not going to do that. It would make him the pariah of the entire world. You're not going to set off a nuclear, radioactive tsunami to cover Los Angeles.

Because here's -- if I'm the president, and maybe this would make me a very bad president. But if I'm the president. And I hear that he has just launched a nuclear missile, towards Los Angeles, my decision is: Do I stop it?

Yes, I do everything I can to try to stop the missile from hitting. Do I respond before it hits?

All unconventional wisdom is, you've got to launch now, Mr. President. You have to launch now!

Hmm. Now, maybe this makes me a very bad president. I don't know.

I think it probably does. But I would say, no.

I'm not launching. Let it hit. And then I'm going to say to the rest of the world, immediately after it hits, this man just bird Los Angeles, killed all of these people, by launching a missile, a hydrogen bomb, underwater. God only knows what it's done to the environment.

But here's what it's done to people. And here's what it's done to Los Angeles. I give the world an hour before I respond.

I don't want a nuclear war. Because we all know what that means.

But rest of the world, you need to condemn him, and he needs to go on trial for crimes against humanity.

Nothing -- nothing warrants that kind of abuse of nuclear weapons.

That's what I would do as the president. Because I know the rest of the world, would not be kind to anyone who launched a nuclear weapon at the West Coast.

Wouldn't. If we launched a nuclear weapon, you know, even if we blew up Israel, with a nuclear weapon, the world would be like, look at what America has just!

They've killed all these Jews. Wait a minute. I'm so confused right now, what I'm for and what I'm against. But they would still condemn it.

Nobody can get away with that. He knows. Putin knows, the president is the most concerned about nuclear weapons. So what does he do?
He describes two nuclear weapons he has.

He's pulling out all -- there's nowhere to go from there. What are you going to do next? I'm going to blow up the moon?

He's just used everything in his bag of tricks. There's no place bigger that he can go. Other than actually launching those things. Mr. President, Congratulations, you've just won. So that's what I think is happening with -- with what Donald Trump has done this week. And the way Putin is now reacting. And he's about to turn his sites on Putin and Ukraine.

So let's start and see what happens.

What the Fed’s interest rate CUT means for YOU

The Federal Reserve has cut interest rates for the second time in the 2025 fiscal year. Glenn sifts through all the economic jargon and translates it into plain English to explain what this could mean for the average American.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Let me talk to you a little bit about the fed rate and what it means. Most people don't spend their evenings reading the Federal Reserve statements. And I don't blame them. Because I don't do it either.

It's like background noise from an alien planet.

The Fed has cut the rate by 25 basis points. I don't even what a basis is or a basis -- what the hell does that even mean? Why should I care about that?

Okay. Let me explain what it is, and why you should care. Because the Federal Reserve -- the quiet, most powerful group in the world has decided to cut rates. And that changes the rules of your financial life. From your mortgage to your job security. From the cost of groceries. To, you know, the health of your savings account.

What they did yesterday is not going to help your savings account. What they did yesterday, will help your job. Okay?

A little bit. Now, think of the Federal Reserve as hmm. I don't know.

The most corrupt bank -- I'm sorry. I mean, the central bank.

Think of it more like the mob that -- think of it like a very credible bank that you don't know who even owns it. Okay?

It is not part of the federal government. It's not a federal agency. That's a really important part. They don't print the money. Not directly. Okay? That's up to the Treasury.

But they control the flow of money, and if the economy slows down, this is what they say they do. Okay?

If the economy slows down or starts to break, the Fed tries to fix it by lowering the Federal Funds Rate.

That's the interest rates that the banks charge each other to borrow money overnight. And when that rate drops, supposedly, borrowing becomes cheaper for you! But does it?

Yes. But it takes time to get to you. When borrowing becomes cheaper, you can start a new business.

You can get a house. You can borrow more money.

And when people borrow more, they spend more. Which in theory, keeps jobs going. People are creating jobs. Businesses start to open up.

Et cetera, et cetera. That's the lever the Fed just pulled again. Twenty-five basis points. That means .25 percent.

It doesn't sound a lot -- like a lot. Especially if your credit card is at 21 percent. Or your car loan is at 8 percent. Or your mortgage is just choking you to death. But it is a small ripple that will go outward. And it may just be the beginning.

So if you own a home, and you have an adjustable mortgage, you'll see a slightly lower rate. Maybe -- maybe you'll save a couple hundred dollars every month. And that's nothing -- you know, that's not nothing. If you have credit card debt -- and this is my favorite part. If you have credit card debt, don't hold your breath. You're not going to see anything. Why?

Oh, because when they're raising the rates. Oh, those banks, they raise it right away. Oh, it costs us so much money to be able to borrow money. And you're going to borrow it from us, so we have to raise that rate right away, because it will cost us money. Once they lower the rate, they're not in any hurry.

They're like, you know what, let's slow down just a little bit. We don't need to lower that interest rate on the credit card, right away.

Remember I said, think of them as a Mafia -- as a really good bank. Okay?

Now, if you're shopping for a car or a small business loan, this could be your window. Because lending is going to get a little bit looser. When the money is flowing a little bit more.

Because the Fed lowers the interest rate. Then the lending gets a little looser. You can buy a car.

If you're retired or you're saving. You know, you have money, you know, in a CD or a savings account, think of this as a move from the Mafia. Your savings account will drop just a little bit. Because your savings. You'll earn less, your CDs, and everything else.

You'll earn less when the interest rates fall. Okay?

So in short, what this means yesterday, is it will help people who are borrowing money. But it will hurt people that are not savers. Now, it's not dramatic. But that's -- you know, going -- interest rate going down hurts people saving money, but helps people borrowing. Interest rates go up, it helps people who save money and hurts the people borrowing money. Okay?

So why is the fed doing this? Well, the president has been saying, can you do this, for quite some time. Because this is what spurs an economy. This is what spurs jobs being created. Because people can borrow money, and they can expand their business.

The reason why they said they did this yesterday is because, quote, the downside risk to employment has risen. What does that mean?

People are losing their jobs. That's what that means. Okay? I don't know why they just can't speak English. You know what, we have to do this because people are losing their jobs. Maybe we need to lower this down, so people can hire some more people. That's what they should say. Inflation, they said, is still somewhat elevated.

Okay. Let me translate again. We don't have -- we don't know our butt from our elbow on what we're doing with inflation.

We're out of magic tricks.

And we still have it tamed inflation. But it's getting better.

Okay. So they're trying to ease the pain of people getting fired or no job creation.

Without setting all of our money on fire.

This is the real trick and the real balance. And when I say setting our money fire. The lower the interest rates. What that means is, they're -- your money will be worth less.

Okay?

But here's the -- here's the bigger move that's buried in the fine print.

They're also stopping the shrinkage of their balance sheet. Love that.

We're just going to stop the shrinkage of our balance sheet.

Okay. What kind magic Fed Viagra are you using here to stop that shrinkage?

What it means is they're done pulling money out of the system. They're going to start adding money back in. More liquidity. More dollars that they throw in, the -- the more fuel.

And it's a soft rolling start from fighting inflation to fighting a slowdown. That's what this is.

Now, here's how it's going to hit you in the real world. If you're living paycheck to paycheck, this might feel like some relief in the short-term. Okay? Maybe your payments start to ease up.

Maybe if you're looking for a car. Maybe you get a little bit more bang for the buck. But this is just a small move in that direction. Maybe credit gets a little more available.

Maybe you can afford a little bit more of a better house.

But here's the hidden cost in the long-term.

Every rate cut makes your dollar worth a little less.

By the way, may I just side note here, Your Honor. I don't know why we accept the Fed saying, "We have a target of 2 percent inflation, every year. Two percent is -- that's our target."

Why shouldn't they be -- why shouldn't they be targeting zero percent inflation? Why do we accept that?

You know what that means? That means 2 percent, two cents on every dollar goes away every year.

I don't know. After ten years, that adds up. Why do we accept that? Because they say it in a way, nobody understands!

And so nobody pays attention. So the prices at the store, they don't fall with things like that. They usually rise.

The assets of the rich, the stock, real estate, they start to inflate again. The working class, once more, will pay for the cure. With the value of their labor. And, but this is how the cycle works. Okay?

When things tighten, the powerful scream louder than the average person, and the Fed listens. They open the money spigot. The markets rally, and the average American gets another inflation hangover at some point. Hopefully, it won't happen, at least right away.

Hopefully, we will balance things out. Because Donald Trump, with what he did in Asia yesterday, there's a huge -- there's a lot of money coming in. And he has reshaped the Western world. This guy is not going to be appreciated for -- if J.D. Vance wins. And just assuming it's going to be J.D. Vance and Marco Rubio as the president.

But if they win, after his first term, and maybe into the second term, if he's given a chance for the second term, that's when you're going to really see everything that Donald Trump is doing right now. You're going to see the effects. And you're going to realize, holy cow. I thought that guy made a huge difference at the time.

Look at what he did. He is a long-time. Long-term player.

He's looking way over the horizon. And this week in Asia was a big, big deal. So let me get back to the Fed rate.

Here's what you need to do. You need to first understand the game. This is not a bailout for you. It's a pressure valve on the system. Okay?

If you have debt, this is a signal, that you can make pay it down fast enough, while the interest rates are starting to ease. Same with our government. Interest rates are going down, don't borrow more money, spend less money. And pay things off faster.

If you have savings, look for hard assets, things that will hold their value. Real estate. Blah, blah.

If you're in business, this might be the window to shore up your position.

Don't overextend yourself. Things are still tenuous. Because this is a pivot.

This is a -- a swingback to cheap money. Hopefully not 0 percent again. But the Fed believes that the storm isn't over. And they're right.

It's not. We're in a very precarious situation between employment and runaway inflation. Now, Javier Milei has tamed this thing. And luckily, Donald Trump and Javier Milei get along, and I hope we take a few more things from Argentina.

But the Fed, almost against their own will, is trying to steer us out of a slowdown. But if we're not careful, it will set us up for another round of inflation. But the pivot point is here from the Fed, and every time they pull that lever, remember, it's -- it's you and your dollar that ends up footing the bill. One paycheck, one grocery bill, one devalued dollar at a time.

But right now, it is important for it to happen, so we balance the losing of jobs, maybe some more job creation is coming our way.

We've lost a lot of jobs just in the last week. Because of AI. And I don't know -- did we talk about this yesterday? I'm not sure we did. This week, there's been two. It's been UPS and Amazon, that have cut, what? About 100,000 jobs between the two of them. That's a lot of jobs.

But notice, it's not the guy on the front line. It's not the guy at the dock. Right now, it seems to be the white-collar worker. So the guy who didn't go to college right now, right now, is more safe than the one who did go to college and is trying to pay off all of that stuff. They're being replaced by AI before the dock worker is.

So if you didn't go to college, now is the time to go, suckers!

Because you don't to have worry about all the things that the people that are still paying for that they can no longer use.

Why this Deep State spy campaign is the WORST scandal of my lifetime

According to the records released now by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and the House Judiciary Committee, The Biden era DOJ and special counsel Jack Smith drove an investigation that sprayed subpoenas like a firehose. There were 197 subpoenas sent to 34 people, over 160 businesses, and vacuumed up communications tied to more than 400 Republican individuals and entities. Fox News, Turning Point USA, OAN, all engulfed in what has been called "Operation Arctic Frost." And all this was predicated on NEWS CLIPS?! Glenn explains why this Arctic Frost is MUCH worse than Watergate.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: While we're talking about winter, let's talk about Arctic Frost. That's the code name. And according to -- according to the records released now by senator chuck Grassley and the -- and the House Judiciary Committee. The Biden era DOJ and Special Counsel Jack Smith drove an investigation that sprayed subpoenas like a firehose. We now know, there were 197 subpoenas, spanning more than 1700 pages. Sent to 34 people. One hundred sixty-three businesses, and then vacuumed up communications, tied to more than 400 Republican individuals and entities.

Okay? That's reaching into everything. They reached into media companies. CBS, Fox, Fox Business, NewsMax, Sinclair, into financial institutions, into political organizations.

Even members, employees, and agents of the legislative branch. So now you have congressmen and senators being vacuumed up into this whole thing.

This is not a precision rifle shot. This is a net and a very big dragnet.

Okay? This is not the way justice in America works. You do not go after, you know, an entire party, 400 people? Now, what were they looking for? How did it start?

Well, let me say, the opening memo to justify Arctic Frost is to call -- does in legal terms, it would be called the predicate.

And it was stamped sensitive investigative matter, okay?

And it's cited. And I love this. Listen to this language. It's cited, evidence suggest a conspiracy around alternate electors.

I'll get to that here in just a second. But it -- it relied on -- leaned on news clips. News clips!

To vacuum all these people up, to get the -- to get the engine turning. News clips were used.

Suggesting, not proving. Suggesting, and it just rose up the ladder.

Ray, Garland, Monaco, even coordination with the White House counsel's office. It surfaces now in the record. This went all the way to the top.

This is not my language. This is what the documents now on the table imply.

Okay? Now, let me just pause for a minute, in the reading room of American memory. What is this all about?

Alternate electors. That's not a Martian invention. Okay?

That's not something completely foreign. We've seen it before. 1876, and 1960. They were messy. Contested. Deeply political moments that produced zero criminal prosecutions for their existence of rival slaves.

In fact, Al Gore, if he didn't set an alternate slate of electors, he was counseled, and I've talked to Dershowitz about this.

He said, they're counseled to have an alternate set of electors. Because once -- if you don't do that, and the tables turn and you're like, you know what, there was a problem -- if you haven't ceded those electors before a certain time, you have no case. You can't change anything. So it has to happen. And it has happened two times before, I think three, but definitely in 1876 and 1960.
In Hawaii, in 1916, Democrats signed certificates while a recount was still underway. The recount flipped. So it was ultimately certified. The democratic slate was certified. Ugly? Yes. But that's the way it worked.

It's not criminal. And history has said no. It's not criminal.

But it doesn't matter, when it's about Donald Trump. So let me go back to Arctic Frost thousand. As the subpoenas flew, the FBI reportedly snooped phone records of Republican members of Congress!

The scope widened to donor analytics. Broad financial data. Trump world advisers.

The lawyers. The media contacts. We said, during January 6, we said, internally, if you don't think they are going after a massive tree, because remember, this is -- this is what the Patriot Act allows you to do now.

You go after one person. If anybody is calling somebody else, well, that person now can be Hoovered up. And who has that person called?

So you can get pretty much everybody that you want, with one subpoena.

But that's not where they stop. They didn't stop with one subpoena. Okay?

When the state casts a dragnet over the opposition's political ecosystem with the authority to seize all their communications, compel testimony, and chill the donors, that's not tough politics.

Okay?

That is the government, with badges and grand juries, leaning its full weight into one side of the national scale.

Watergate. Please!

Watergate. Let me compare Watergate. You know what Watergate was?

Watergate was a gang of political operatives who broke into an office to get information. They weren't even. They weren't even losing the election. Nobody even knows why they would even do this. It is so stupid that they would even do this. But it was a local office. They broke in. They wanted to get some information that was there, you know, on the -- on the candidate and on the race.

And then they covered it up.

And they tried to keep the public from the truth.

It was wrong!

It was criminal.

And it forced a president to resign. And people went to prison over it. But Watergate was a private burglary, executed by a campaign, and covered up. By the White House.

Terrible!

Awful.

That's not the DOJ blanketing the opposing party's entire world, with federal subpoenas while citing news hits as the predicate.

Do you see the difference?

Watergate was an attempt to weaponize a campaign. Arctic Frost, if the emerging records hold, was the attempt to weaponize the entire state against a political party.

The difference there is the whole ball game. Under a constitutional republic.

You don't have a constitutional republic, if that's allowed to happen.

In America, the state is supposed to be the neutral referee. Not a sideline enforcer wearing one team's colors under the stripes.

And don't even start with me on, well, what about Donald Trump?

We'll play that game all day long. And you know where that gets us?

Nowhere. You want to make a charge against Donald Trump and what he's doing.

Good. Let's take that separately.

Let's do that. I'm willing to. Let's take that separately. Let's deal with this one, first. Okay? The moment the referee picks up the ball and starts running, the game is over!

It's not a fair game anymore. And if it can be done to them, today. It will be done to you, tomorrow.

That's not a slogan. That's a law of political gravity.

Yeah. But Trump did -- okay. Let's have that conversation.

But can we at least have it honestly?

Because if you think this is about, whataboutism. You believe so see the nose on the front of your face.

You're completely missing this.

You cannot make a weaponization of a government, a partisan inheritance that each side can claim when it holds power.

If any president, any prosecutor red, or blue, uses federal power to criminalize political opposition, rather than prosecute clear crimes.

It is an offense gets an equal protection under the law. So let's -- let's lay down a standard here, that I'm willing to apply to Donald Trump and to Joe Biden and any other president that comes our way. Because if we don't lay this clear standard down, we're done.

The predicate. Predication. It has to be real. Not rhetorical.

Evidence suggesting via TV interviews, is circular sourcing, at its best.

It's not something that you launch a sprawling investigation on into a presidential rival's universe. If you can't articulate the crime, specifically, you don't get to launch a dragnet on the people that are running against you!

The scope has to be narrow, and tied exactly to the alleged crime!

Not a sweep through media organizations, and donor records, and opposition infrastructure, under vague theories, that come from TV reports!

Journalism.

Political advocacy.

Fundraising.

All of those things are protected activities. Separation from the White House, also must be unmistakable. If the White House Counsel's office is coordinating device transfers into an investigation of its chief political rival, alarms should clang in every corridor of every main justice call hall.

Everywhere! The alarm -- the Claxton should be going off right now. Also, historic practice matters!

If prior episodes -- by the way, this was all thrown out by the Supreme Court. So you know. Okay? Nothing there.

If prior episodes, 1876, 1960, and I believe 2000. If they were treated as political, not criminal, especially where alternate electors were explicitly conditional, then you need compelling new legal theories and clean facts to criminalize it now.

You can't just say, yeah, well, history, never did anything about it before. And, actually, they said it was fine.

But now, now it's going to be a crime.

Wait. Can you be specific on what has changed? Well, we really just liked the people that are doing it this time. That doesn't count. That doesn't count.

Now, before anybody clips this monologue and screams, so Glenn Beck said, nobody -- the Trump administration did anything wrong. Well, I don't think so.

But that's not what I'm saying, because I'm not the judge. I'm not your juror. I'm the guy insisting that the rules are rules, and they should be applied to everyone on all sides.

Smith has his report. He says, he wants to tell his side. Great! Put him under oath. If he didn't do it, then he should be set free.

But it should be on a clear set of laws! What's happened in the Biden administration, they just kept changing laws. Well, yeah. I mean, the bank said there was no crime. But Donald Trump. And so all of a sudden, there was a crime.

Nobody has ever been prosecuted. Ever before that. Even the bank said, this is ridiculous.

There's no crime here.

It didn't matter.

That's not justice.

I want real justice. Smith says he has a side, let's hear it. Bring forward the memos. Publish the predicate. Let the country see where weather we had a criminal case or an election cycle dragnet. Because that's what it looks like. If the emerging picture looks like, if the Arctic Frost opened up on thin evidence, escalated on political pressure, and metastasized into a government-wide sweep of the sitting president's chief rival and his entire ecosystem, then this is not just like Watergate. This is much, much, much worse than Watergate. In kind.

Not just degree.

Watergate tried to steal the information. That's it. They potentially attempted to steal legitimacy to criminalize opposition by wielding the sword of the state.

That violates, you know, more than statutes. That violates our creed, that free men govern themselves by consent, and the process is sacred. And the law is the wall that even presidents and prosecutors can never climb over. If proven, the remedy is not a sternly, terse letter, or an op-ed, and a shrug.

The remedy is the full force of the law. Inspector general referrals. Special counsels where appropriate, prosecution where crimes are clear. Statutory reforms to bar this from ever happening again from -- from press clippings?

Being your predicate? Bright lines need to be drawn. Protections for the press, for donors, and legislators in political cases. Sunlight. All the sunlight on how this began, who approved it, and why no one in the administration said stop.

And to my friends saying, well, Trump is doing the same thing. I hear you. I don't agree with you, but I hear you. Why don't we codify the guardrails right now?

So when emotions are high and temptations are strong, the republic doesn't survive by trusting that our guys will be angels. It survives on the chains on power. Everyone's power.

You know, when I hold a founding sermon in your hand, when you read the ink of Washington scratched in the margin notes of James Madison. You discover that America's miracle wasn't that we selected saints. It's that we built a system where even the sinners are fenced in by law.

That's the process. When justice is blind, to banners and bumper stickers and political parties, that's when America is America. Arctic Frost. If the record stands, it took a blowtorch to that fence.

So the choice is really simple. Retreat into teams. Each side cheering for its prosecutors. And its dragnet. Or you can do the harder, nobler thing, just like our founders did. And insist that the same rules that bind all power, especially when it's aimed at people that we dislike, are enforced. That's how you keep a republic.

That's how you make sure that there's not a second Watergate. Because we learned the lesson the first time. But it we?

Because if we haven't. If we don't learn it this time, and by God, we are done!

The story of America is not a story of who got whom. It's a story of the people who refuse to let the government become a weapon. And if that spirit still lives in us, then this cold wind called Arctic Frost will pass. And the Constitution will withstand. Because you stood for equal justice. For due process. For truth. That doesn't bend to politics.

And that, that is how we relight the torch of America!

Disease-Infested Monkeys LOOSE in Mississippi?!

A truck carrying 21 'aggressive' monkey's allegedly infected with contagious diseases such as COVID-19, herpes, and Hepatitis C crashed in Mississppi, causing the monkey's to be let loose. While most of the threat was taken care of, one monkey is reported to still be on the loose. This sounds eerily similar to the beginning of an outbreak movie...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Big thing some good news. Let's start with some good news.

President Trump has just -- is touring Asia and making all kinds of deals.

Donald Trump is single-handedly reshaping the earth!

He really is. He is reshaping everything. Single-handedly.

STU: Big job.

GLENN: I know. He's done more than The Great Reset did with all of that money. All of the campaigns. Everything that they were doing.

Listen to this. What he's just done. Signed a framework agreement, August 28th, between Trump and the Japanese Prime Minister, mutual stockpiling of rare-earth elements, REEs. Okay?

To ensure supply security. That's Japan. Cooperation with international partners, US allies, to shield the supply chain from disruptions.

The goal is to reduce China's 90 percent control over the global rare earth minerals.

For tech, EVs, defense, and AI. Okay. They have a 90 percent stranglehold.

So that's what he did in Japan. Now, also bundle that with the 550 billion dollar strategic investment from Japan, in the US. Including a 490 billion-dollar launch phase. 200 billion for nuclear AI and energy projects, small modular reactors with Westinghouse and Mitsubishi, and supply chain boosts in critical minerals.

Trump tied that to the tariffs. Japan got an auto import tariff slashed from '27 to 15 percent in exchange for the investments. In two weeks in the last two weeks, listen to what he has done. He has made multiple pacts with allies. Australia, critical minerals framework, mining processing, and rare earth mineral recycling scrap. Then in Japan, I just told you, Malaysia, he just did a memo of understanding on critical mineral diversification. In Ukraine, a ten-year access to titanium and rare earth minerals.

In Thailand, an MOU on rare earth mineral supply. Add that to what else he has done. He is -- he is outflanking China. He is trying to break the back of China! He is friend shoring, is what he's actually doing.

He is -- he is putting all of this emphasis on rare earth minerals. He's cutting Asia away from China.

He's cutting Europe away from China. He's cutting South America away from China. He has moved all of the resources of rare earth minerals to us. Anything outside of China, is coming our way now!

That is massive! Massive! We were sitting ducks with rare earth minerals, six months ago, a year ago. Total sitting ducks! They had everything coming their way. We were not doing any kind of -- any kind of strategic thinking on this, at all!

And this isn't piecemeal. This is operation warp speed for rare earth minerals. He is -- the guy is so ahead of everyone else. He is reshaping global trade and permanently, hopefully, sidelining China.

So we are never having to put our hand out to China.

It's remarkable, what is happening. Just remarkable! Now, let me give you another story.

A truck halling 21 monkeys to a testing facility in Florida, overturned in Mississippi.
(laughter)

STU: How did -- how did we make this jump? Has he signed a memorandum of understanding with the monkeys?

GLENN: Nope. Nope. They're still negotiating. According to the Jasper county sheriff's office, the accident occurred on Interstate 59, near the 117 mile-marker just north of Heidelberg. Six recess monkeys from Tulane University escaped. Officials said, five of the six that escaped have now been destroyed.

We've been in contact with an animal disposal company to help handle the situation. The Mississippi Department of Wildlife Fisheries and Parks and I guess now monkeys is still looking for one diseased monkey, still on the loose.

STU: A hundred percent, the beginning of an outbreak movie. That's exactly how it happens. The one gets away. Oh, we've got five of the six. What's the big deal?

GLENN: What was the one. What was the movie with -- oh. What's his name?

Tommy -- remember, he was the escaped convict. He was the doctor, and they were hauling him. He was the doctor from Ohio.

Based on a true story. And he -- they're hauling him. And he escapes. He has to try to prove himself innocent. Remember?

STU: Fugitive?

GLENN: Fugitive. Yeah. That's right.

STU: I was looking for a deep cut there.

GLENN: Fugitive. Sorry, I couldn't remember. It's a fugitive, and outbreak. That's what this is.

STU: That would be a good movie. I wouldn't want this in real life.

GLENN: I prefer a lot of this to not happen in real life.

STU: What are the diseases? We have help C going on?

We have COVID. I think there's three of them. Help C. COVID. And what was the other one? Herpes.

What happens if we combine all three into one monkey, and then release it into the wild?

What could possibly go wrong?

GLENN: Let me tell you something.

You know, we are in real trouble. I mean, I hate to bring this up too. Okay. Did you need diseased monkeys on the loose today from me?

No. No. Can I make it worse?

Absolutely, I can make this worse.

You know when we have the COVID thing. And we were all like, we shouldn't have these labs everywhere, you know.

STU: Oh. Like the labs.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: Gain-of-function research, and things like that.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

We've built hundreds of new labs now. Hundreds of new labs. There are more than 35 hundred BSL3 and over 110BSL4. Bio safety level four laboratories. And all of them are now working on pathogens that could kill all of us.

So a 2025 journal of public health study reveals over90 percent of the countries that operate these labs have no oversight whatsoever!

STU: All of them are working on diseases that can kill us all?

GLENN: Uh-huh.

STU: There's not one that is doing yogurt flavors or something?

There's not one.

GLENN: No. There's not. There's not one. I wish there were!

You know, they keep saying, these are shields from -- no. These are match sticks. That's what these labs are. These are giant match sticks.

And we're sitting in a bunch of kindling -- they're -- they say they're developing vaccines. But what they're really doing is enhancing the viruses. Which, when I say enhancing, what that really means, they're weaponizing viruses. So don't worry. You know, it's just gain of function, which translated is, loss of sanity.

STU: I mean, because the research makes me very nervous. I mean, the fact that we have more labs that have higher safety standards. In theory, should be -- that was one of the problems with the COVID outbreak. Right?

They were doing research that should have been done at a BSL4. BSL1 and BSL2.

So, I mean, having more fours, that could be good, right?

GLENN: Eh. Did you see the BSL4 in China? In Wuhan?

STU: Well, I think that was the issue, it wasn't a BSL4.

GLENN: I think they called it a BSL4, and then it wasn't one.

STU: I don't think it was. Do we have a BSL4 for monkey research? I think really --

GLENN: I'm not really sure -- I know Georgia.

STU: Don't transfer it. Keep it in one place. You don't need to transfer them anywhere.

GLENN: In Atlanta, they're doing -- they're building another 150,000 square feet of a BSL4 in -- in Atlanta. So that's the place, oh, yeah, where all the zombies will be. Can I just tell you a quick little story? 1979. Soviet Union.

You know, they're trying to maintain this BSL4. They're not very good at it. Because, you know, they're not good at anything in 1979 in Russia.

STU: Except for nuclear power.

GLENN: Exactly right.

Okay. So there was a cloud released from this bio safety level lab four.

No flames. No alarms. Just a faint, invisible mist. It's kind of like hmm, my teenage son's farts. It's invisible, and it's deadly.

STU: Okay. Hmm.

GLENN: And it was carrying anthrax spores, okay? From the weapons lab.

Well, people began to die, clearly. We don't know how many. They think hundreds. Entire families suffocated because the bacteria devoured their lungs. And they were like, I have no lung!

GLENN: Okay. And the Kremlin was like, not happening. What do you say?

People were eating tainted meat. That's what's happening.

And it's eating their lungs.

STU: They Chernobyled it.

GLENN: Yeah. Okay.

So for a decade, nobody really knew what was going on, until the fall of the Soviet Union, and then people were going in. And they were like, oh! Here's what happened.

In one of these bio safety labs, a technician failed to replace an air filter properly.
And that was -- that -- just that allowed this microscopic storm of death to be released into the air.

I don't know! I mean, if your air filter not being installed properly can kill a bunch of people. And only tainted meat. McDonald's. I don't know. I don't -- I don't really think that we should -- we have them all over. 149 nations have them now.

149.

STU: There's definitely not 149 nations that should have stuff like that.

GLENN: You don't think so?

STU: No. I don't even think I can name 149 nations.

GLENN: Try this one. In India, the labs now are experimenting with the Crimean Congo viruses. Fatality rate of 75 percent.

In Russia, under its sanitary shield initiative, they are building 15 new BSL4 sites. In Brazil, Project Orion, a high-containment complex integrated with its particle accelerator.

Oh. And as I said, Atlanta, 160,000 square feet.

Apparently, we don't have enough room for all the monkeys that we're releasing in all the wild. And eventually, we'll find. And put them in there.
And torture them. Or do whatever it is we do. No international body tracks or regulates what's happening in any of these fortresses. What the hell is wrong with us?

STU: We should note an international body does not necessarily solve the problem.

I mean, as we've seen -- when they do monitor it, they usually import people to rape the citizens around the facilities.

GLENN: Exactly right. But you know what I'm really sick of it? There's no international body that does anything, except just let these people put really bad things into our body!

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: Can we -- can we stop with this?

STU: We're good with this on our own. Put all sorts of things in my body. That should not have been in there.

We're good at doing that.

As Americans, on our own. We don't need your help.

GLENN: I really -- just stop.

The arrogance. The arrogance of these -- hey, you know what, we need to fiddle with some more viruses. And let's make a digital God that we can't control!

What the hell is wrong with us?

STU: Especially when the digital God that we can't control can make new viruses.

GLENN: Exactly right! Exactly right.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: And maybe -- maybe -- maybe what we do, is we put it into a self-driving car. And it directs. And monkeys just start flying out of everyone ever seen butt.