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

Are Antidepressants (SSRI's) Worsening America's Mental Health Crisis?

A former FDA psychiatrist reveals what Big Pharma never told the public: the “chemical imbalance” story behind antidepressants was never proven — and SSRIs don’t fix a biological defect, they numb the brain. Glenn Beck and Dr. Josef Witt-Doerring break down how America became the most drugged nation in the world and how millions are being overprescribed medications that can cause paradoxical agitation, emotional blunting, and even suicidal behavior. With 15% of Americans — including millions of children — on SSRIs, are we facing a public health crisis hiding in plain sight?

Was the Cracker Barrel Rebrand a SABOTAGE?! - Glenn Beck Reveals what REALLY Happened

Cracker Barrel’s massive public meltdown didn’t happen by accident. Behind the scenes, the company was bleeding institutional knowledge, taking disastrous advice from DEI strategists, and making decisions that alienated the very customers who built the brand. A major board shake-up, the quiet removal of DEI frameworks, and the sudden resignation of a key DEI-linked board member reveal how deep the problems ran — and how desperate the company was to course-correct. This breakdown uncovers what really went wrong, how Cracker Barrel was influenced internally, and why the Glenn Beck interview triggered major internal moves that the public was never supposed to see.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So, Stu, you can just questions about the special tonight.

STU: Yeah, for sure. I'm interested in this.

It's a big -- you know, a big special. You're back and forth with it. With them there. Was kind of fascinating. Right?

You have a situation where they -- they do seem to be sort of avoiding the question there on DEI. Is that how you read it? Oh, we lost connection with Glenn. Is that what's about to go?

Well, that's how I read it at least. You know, you listen to that clip of them going back and forth and it does appear to be them just sort of avoiding the question. We should get back to Glenn. Because I know he has this breaking news on this happen. Should we go to another clip on the Cracker Barrel thing, while we're waiting for Glenn to reconnect? Because it sort of sets the stage. You know, it was interesting to see their approach here, which is to try to explain themselves and try to work themselves through what is one of the biggest PR disasters probably in our lifetimes.

And let's go to this next clip.

VOICE: If we came out of COVID, A, trying to hire 50,000 people, we have a lot of our employees, original -- we did -- we lost a lot of very long tenured employees. A lot of them, a little bit older, and scared to come back into the -- into the environment.

And so --

GLENN: That's a lot of institutional knowledge.

VOICE: Oh, it hurt. I mean, it really hurt.

And in '22, as we started opening back up, we had the new menu that we had. So we lost a lot of people. We put a ton of training into that new menu.

Now we're coming back to open up, guests, any way we can get them. We had patio dining. We were testing a rock garden.

They were going to sit out in the landscape. And I always say that co-ed even made Cracker Barrel start drinking alcohol.

Because that's how -- it was out of COVID, that it was like, how are we figuring out how to drive top line sales and try to get a guest in.

GLENN: Okay. So that is a good example of you don't know any of the story. You think Cracker Barrel has never served alcohol before. Why are you shoving alcohol? That's a cultural. So it's easy to think, you're selling people alcohol now. What other values are you --

VOICE: And it's fair.

GLENN: That one, is at least understandable. Now that I understand the story.

VOICE: Yeah. Exactly. And so as we got into '23, I came out of my office administration role, and came into operations.

And I was leading field operations. And the best way for me to describe it, we were throwing Velcro balls at a wall to see what would stick.

STU: And it's understandable. You know, it's easy to kind of look at the Cracker Barrel situation and get lost at how badly it went.

A lot of these decisions come down to the information they had at the time. Right?

And they're looking at the time as a place that maybe people aren't coming into as much as they would like.

They are trying to -- maybe it's fading a little bit. Maybe some people find it's stale.

They think the situation at Cracker Barrel is not one that they're not necessarily trying to get involved with on a week to week basis, like they used to.

Maybe they had those warm feelings of the past. But they're not going in it anymore. Well, we'll freshen it up. We will do all these new things.

This will be great! And you realize, sometimes, when you're in that moment, you hit a -- you hate a vein. Right?

You're trying to do something positive for the company. And you hit a vein, and everything starts bleeding all over the place.

Let me give you another piece of this interview. Glenn Beck, up in the headquarters of -- of Cracker Barrel.

And somehow, I will give Glenn credit. Not eating throughout the interview.

I kind of thought, when they put food in front of him. He would just be shoveling it down his gullet the entire time.

You wouldn't be able to hear him. It would be like talking with his mouth full.

He got through it, without taking as many bites. Here is Glenn with the CEO of Cracker Barrel.

GLENN: Let's just get this out.

VOICE: Okay.

GLENN: What happened to the choices that were made?

I said on day one of this. I remember when they rolled out new Coke. And I thought, that was the dumbest marketing move, the dumbest thing I've ever seen.

We're taking the original formula and ditching it. And let's start over with a brand that people love.

The day this broke, I said on the air, new Coke!

That's what this is. And it was -- no offense. Stupid!

Just stupid from start to finish.

Can you walk me through how that happened?

VOICE: Yeah. Sure.

Look, our guests have every right to be upset.

GLENN: Yeah. You want to watch this. And I -- you know, what I really want to you watch for is a moment where I said to her, are you surprised you haven't been fired yet.

That spoke volumes. Her answer, and I hope it is captured on camera.

But that answer was the first non, you know, when you're a CEO. You know, I've -- Stu, do you remember when we used to have to do really important interviews.

And our PR people would be like, drill, drill, drill.

No, don't say that. Don't say that. And we would be like, yeah. Whatever.

And when you are in charge of a Fortune 500 company. And you're in the trouble that they're in, you do -- you know, you follow the people that you have hired to make sure crisis management. You don't make any more mistakes.

And so everybody was very, very careful.

They were very honest. But, you know, like that DEI thing.

She didn't really answer the question.

Of course, we want everybody to be welcomed. Yeah. I know. But that's not answering the question.

When I asked her, are you surprised you still have a job, and you haven't been fired yet. Her answer spoke volumes.

Now, the other thing that you need to know, that while she didn't answer me on the DEI thing. And I -- I -- you know, I can't tell you exactly how this happened.

I just know that they knew, that they didn't answer the question.

And somebody has been in touch with my people. And said, hey. You might want to watch the board meeting that is happening.

We can't tell you that anything is going to be happening. But the DEI thing may be solved. At the board meeting. That happened this morning. And they were going to release something at 11:15 today.

We didn't know exactly what it was.

We had -- we had an indication that it might be about DEI.

And what they've done, at first.

Remember, in August. You know, they just deleted the Pride pages. And the DEI pages.

And they just got rid of it all, at Cracker Barrel. That is just hiding who you are. The real problem was, they had a guy who was on the board of directors. Named Gilbert Davila.

And he's just resigned from the board, today!

Okay? They had a meeting with the board, and shareholders and everything else. And they voted on all of these people. And they did not renew him. And so he is -- he has resigned.

Now, his job -- he was a member of the standing board committee.

And his job was to assess the social and political risk to the company's business.

Well, who is he?

Well, he's also the CEO of a company called DMI Consulting.

That's a DEI strategy firm, that's been in business since 2010.

So he's one of the guys. He was the guy who, his job as the CEO -- as the CEO of DMI, is to promote, you know, DEI.

To make sure everybody is living up to the DEI standards. So Robby Starbuck, who is a friend of the program and, you know, great conservatives, who has been responsible for -- you know, getting a lot of these people out of these companies, or at least drawing attention on what these companies are really standing for.

He's been asking trial. What does he do to deserve this seat on the board?

Well, that's it. He owned a DEI consulting and strategy firm. That was pushing DEI and DEI advertising. So what's happened here is I think while she couldn't answer that question at the time, because the board hadn't acted, I think it's -- I think it's not not coincidental that the day the interview with her drops. With us.

Which they've known for a couple of weeks. This is when this interview would drop.

They -- they announced that morning, that seat has been eliminated. DEI is gone from Cracker Barrel. So I think that's really, really good news if you're a fan of Cracker Barrel.

And the things that I saw at Cracker Barrel, I'm -- I'm going to tell you some stuff tomorrow.

I just have to make sure that it's exactly accurate. Because I don't want to cause more problems.

For us!

And I want to make sure that I get it exactly right. But there were some things that I learned in the show prep.

And, you know, studying up for this interview.

That no one was prepared to talk to me on camera about. And always says to me, oh, well, there's something there.

And so we have done even more homework on it. And tomorrow, I will tell you about something that you might have heard about. This guy who owns, what is it?

Steak and Shake?

STU: Yeah. He's a big activist shareholder, isn't he?

Kind of against some of the leadership there at Cracker Barrel. I think I read about that.

GLENN: Correct. Yes. Yes.

And he has an interesting history.

And I want to -- I want to take you through some of that tomorrow.

I think by tomorrow, you're going to understand, what you saw with the DEI vote on the board today. Get that gone. That's gone.

The interview that you'll see tonight with Julie. The CEO. She's not who you think she is.

It doesn't mean she didn't make huge mistakes. She says she makes huge mistakes. But she's not who you think she is.

You may not agree with her or whatever. But it's important you know who she is. And what she said.

And the key tonight is that question: Are you surprised that you haven't been fired yet.

And really, what happened after she answers the question. And she's very uncomfortable. Answers the question.

And then she immediately switches topics. And I'm like, wait. Wait. Wait.

Stop. Stop. Go back. Why are you switching topics here?

Because it was an amazing moment. Is she immediately changes the subject. After she answers. And then she comes back, and she he says a few things. You'll see.

And then I bring it back to her again. And she switches topics again. And I'm like, why are you doing that?

Why are you doing that?

And she said a very interesting answer on all of that.

That is one of the most honest things I think I've ever seen a fortune five company or CEO ever say.

It was really uncomfortable. But really, really honest.

I think once you see this. And then I tell you tomorrow about the -- the board member, on the things that I can verify. I'm not sure what we can verify yet.

But the things that I've heard. And the things I think I can verify tomorrow. You will see that -- that I think they made stupid moves. They have really bad advice from DEI people.

And they were set up.

To some degree.

They were set up.

The company was. Not individuals. The company was set up.

I think it will -- I think you will have every question you needed to know about Cracker Barrel and what happened answered.

WARNING: The Threat of Sharia Law in American Cities is Now a Reality

Texas is becoming the front line of a growing ideological struggle. While courts block the Ten Commandments from classrooms, public schools are opening Islamic prayer rooms as CAIR and other Islamist political groups gain influence across the state. Glenn Beck and Chip Roy warn that this isn’t about private worship, but rather a coordinated movement to weaken the nation’s Judeo-Christian foundations, undermine constitutional law, and smuggle Sharia-aligned norms into American institutions. As judges enable these shifts and political factions fracture, a broader conflict is emerging that most Americans refuse to acknowledge. Texas may be the battleground that determines whether the West wakes up in time.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: We're talking to Chip Roy about the Islamification of Texas and the United States. What's going to be done. A -- a -- a -- a new attitude from Governor Greg Abbott yesterday. And a new proclamation that came out and said, enough is enough.

On CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood. We're going to deem them terrorist organizations. We were just talking about what's happening with the Ten Commandments. And before we -- before we switch here, one more thing on this -- this Muslim thing. In schools.

You know, we can't have the Ten Commandments, Chip.

However, at liberty High School in the Frisco ISD in Texas, they now have prayer rooms for Islamic prayers.

How is it we can't have the Ten Commandments in Texas, but Frisco ISD public school, Liberty High School, can have prayer rooms, and nobody says anything?

CHIP: Well, first of all, this is the double standard of the left. But let's take a step back. What you just said out loud. Frisco, Texas. Frisco. My daughter was born in Frisco.

GLENN: Yeah.

CHIP: Has now got Islamic prayer rooms, okay? That should concern you.

GLENN: It does.

CHIP: And by you, I mean the listeners out there. Like, Texas listeners.

And, yes, the Ten Commandments case. It's judicial activism. The Supreme Court has upheld the ability to have the Ten Commandments displayed in public form.

Again, the Ten Commandments sits on the grounds of the Texas Capitol. And the case like I said, Ted Cruz litigated as solicitor general. Working for then attorney general Greg Abbott. Governor Rick Perry, and we won that case.

And I think we will be able to win that case, when it goes up, and it's no doubt, it's being challenged in the fifth circuit.

Then likely the Supreme Court would look at it.

With past presidents and say, we have the Ten Commandments.

Look, we have to decide who we are as a people.

And we got to start acting like it. Because this nation has been blessed because we are a Judeo Christian people who formed a country. That is a -- liberal, in the classical sense. You know, republic liberal democracy.

And we allow the full range of views to be discussed. And for people to believe whatever they believe.

And you and I will die on the hill to protect that. To protect the government over the mind of man. But we are also are a group of people that's bound together by a common sense of ideals, in our history, in our founding. And when you break that down, you will no longer have a country. And that's what we've got to -- you know, when those men --

GLENN: Go ahead. Well, you were saying a minute ago. You know, that should concern you, that there are prayer rooms in Frisco, Texas. It doesn't concern me that there are prayer rooms.

What concerns me, this is a coordinated effort to bring Sharia law into our country.

I don't care if you're Muslim. And you respect the Judeo Christian laws that we have. That's what our country are built on.

That's what our laws are based on.

And you say, this is a really great system. Because it allows me and everybody else to worship God of our own understanding.

When you're part of a movement to subvert that law. And to fundamentally transform the United States into something that it is not.

That's when I have a problem! And that's when we should stand up, but that's one of the things that CAIR does. CAIR makes anything that we have said, Islamophobia. And so they shout you down, and make you afraid and try to paint you as a hater.

I don't hate. I don't hate Muslims.

I don't. I do despise Sharia Law, and I despise anyone who comes here, and wants to supplant the United States Constitution, and replace it with Sharia law. That's -- that's a no-go zone.

No. Sorry. Not going to do it.

JASON: And the history of Sharia law. And the history of those inherent to it, which would suggest that that is the goal.

GLENN: Yes.

CHIP: And that's what we've seen borne out in countries across the world. So we should recognize that in carrying out our policies and these activist judges, and they are going to cede the ground. Okay?

In the name of the First Amendment, they are going to cede the ground with a supposedly secular society.

And, you know, essentially, genuflecting to -- the Bill of Rights, while walking away from God.

They're going to cede the ground for a world in which we are going to invite those who wish to destroy America, to have a front row seat right here to do it, and we've got to stop those judges.
And we've got to act. And so, you know, the House of Representatives should act on such an obvious case like Boasberg.

We should -- and I know that my religious liberty friends will do that on the Ten Commandments.

And they're going to be litigating that. And I will be quite confident the state will litigate that to defend the state law and defend the schools.

Then you go to the -- you know, redistricting opinion. Right? It's really extraordinary. I don't know if you read the scathing rebuke of the two judges. The -- particularly, the one judge, Judge Brown by Jerry Smith, right? Who was dissenting judge in the three-judge panel. So for those of you who don't understand, when you have a case on the redistricting issues. Right? It goes to a three-judge panel. And this three-judge panel, it was a two-to-one opinion, and it was a Democrat appointee. Appointed judge.

It was a Trump-appointed judge. Judge Brown. And then Judge Jerry Smith, who has been on the bench for a long time. Very respected, conservative --

GLENN: Thirty-seven years.

CHIP: Yes, and Jerry was basically cut out. They didn't do their normal deliberation. He wrote a scathing letter yesterday.

In addition to them filing a dissent. Because he was blocked out of the process.

It was an extraordinary essentially power grab by the two judges.

Just to run this thing through. I don't think the Supreme Court will take kindly to that.

I think that the stay application that will be filed with the United States Supreme Court. I think that by tomorrow. They filed the stay last night with the strict.

In the district court.

But I think they will go to the Supreme Court, with the stay, probably tomorrow.

That attorney general Paxton and Abbott to strategize for the timing.

But I think that's right.

And, you know, I think the you court. Judge Roberts, his faults on many opinions, has been pretty good on race. You'll remember, the Supreme Court opinion that -- that struck down the abhorrent, you know, language in section five that was unconstitutional, Voting Rights Act. And they cleaned that up.

And in that opinion, Robert said, that divvying us up by race was a distorted business. That was his quote. And I think Roberts will be on the right side of this. I hope so.

Because this is very clearly political exercise by the legislature.

The judges tried to indicate that it was racial gerrymandering. No! It's the opposite.

Texas is trying to undo racial gerrymandering, which we believe is unconstitutional on its face. You've got California out there, who is taking five of the nine Republican seats away.
So it's currently, what?

I think, what? 45 to nine?

And it's now going to be something like 50 to four? My numbers may be off one or two. It's crazy.

And then in Texas, we were kind of trying to rebalance it a little bit.

Add four or five new states. A lot of growth in Texas. And now, they will say, that that's somehow not profitable. Because we somehow are doing racial gerrymandering.

We're undoing I think racial gerrymandering with a politically motivated goal of having more Republican seats in a very Republican state. So I hope the Supreme Court sees this for what it is.

And issues a statement. You know, we'll have to see what they do.

GLENN: Let me take to you Washington again. This Comey thing is driving me out of my mind.

Because once again, here's somebody, that looks like they will not pay a price for anything.

James Comey. A judge has said that the government has screwed this -- this up. In gathering information.

And filing.

And so now it looks like the Comey case will not move forward. Any thoughts on this?

CHIP: Well, look, I have not had a chance to dive into this as deeply. I know that the district Judge Nachmanoff, or whatever the judge's name was. Pressed, you know -- this -- this opinion forward.

And, you know -- or I'm sorry. Not pressed the opinion. Pressed prosecutors. A hearing.

And I don't know what the exact result is going to be.

The Biden appointee. And, you know, we're -- we're going it to see what the result is.

Obviously, Comey, we believe lied to I think the Senate judiciary committee, among others. Under oath.

And that is, in fact, an indictable offense.

And so, you know, I'll go look and see what they're claiming in terms of whether the grand jury got to see the final indictment.

Or whatever these issues are.

Obviously, the former prosecutor is important. You have to follow the procedures.

GLENN: You have to.

CHIP: Do it right. But also can't lose the forest for the trees. I think Comey very clearly lied. And so, we're going to -- hopefully, this will proceed. That's about all I've got on that one.

GLENN: All right. Chip, thank you very much. If anyone wants to get involved in your campaign for Texas attorney general, how do they do it?
CHIP: ChipRoy.com. C-H-I-P-R-O-Y.com. You can follow me at Chip Roy TX on X/Twitter.

And, Glenn, always appreciate what you're doing out there. Thanks for being on the tip of the spear. And the forefront of talking about this important issue. About defending Western civilization.

And all the issues. I'm deeply appreciative.

GLENN: I tell you, Chip. I -- I've been saying recently -- I've been saying it for a while, since I wrote the chalkboard on what was going to happen, back on Fox days. And I said, all these people will gather. And then they'll sort it out.

Once they think they have it, they will start eating each other.

And they're starting to see that with the left now eating the Democrats. So Democrats are over. Now it's just going to be Marxists. But it will come down to the Marxists and the anarchists and the Islamists. And as I said then, in the end, it will just be the Islamists, against the Western world.

Because I would bet on people who believe something, much more than the Marxists.

These people have religious zeal. And they will -- they will eat the Marxists. And then it will just be western world against the -- the Islamists. And I think, chip, we are in World War III.

We have just not declared it yet. And people haven't woken up to it yet.

We are in the beginning stages. You will see history in 100 years from now. Will write, this is the 1930s, if you will.

This is the beginning of a world war, and nobody has caught up with it, yet.

Would you agree with that?

CHIP: Yeah. Glenn, I agree with you. You have, and you were a long time ago -- others have caught up to it. And, frankly, caught up to where you were. And, look, it is one of the core reasons I'm running for attorney general.

Look, I can keep doing what I'm doing up here. God blessed me the ability to fight and make changes up here.

We've done some good things.

Look, we have to preserve in the state of Texas. And the battle is exactly what you said. You can't win a war. If you don't even acknowledge that it's happening.

That's the problem. People are asleep at it. Again, like I said, it's what I last talked about. Because of the reality that you just said.

And that vast network, we have got to follow the money and destroy that network. It's an integrated, related network. You know it. I know it. I can promise you, smart people in Washington are looking at this.

I can tell you, I'm building teams in Texas, to look at this right now. And connecting those teams in Texas and in Washington. And other AG's offices, which is what I'll do on day one of AG. Frankly, once I'm blessed with the nomination, I will be working on it all next year. We will build the team, and we will fight to dismantle it.

Glenn Finally Gets a REAL Job: Cracker Barrel Biscuit Maker | Glenn TV | Ep 471

If this whole media thing doesn’t work out, Glenn can always fall back on his biscuit-making skills! Take a break from the apocalypse and enjoy some Cracker Barrel carbs made by everyone’s favorite son of a baker!