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

Introducing 'The Torch'

Tough news week. Tough news month. Always, it seems, another five-alarm fire, or the spotting of arsonists that no one will pay attention to.

The people who watch and support this show—you—are extraordinary.

You don’t just consume information; you act. You don’t just care—you sacrifice. And I’ve seen the receipts. In the last decade alone, you’ve given over a quarter of a billion dollars through Mercury One to help people in crisis.

You didn’t just write checks. You showed up.

Over 45,000 of you volunteered—some of you driving across states, organizing your churches, bringing your kids along—to take part in the largest single volunteer effort completed in one weekend.

That’s not normal. That’s rare. That’s powerful.

You launched The Nazarene Fund, rescuing over 260,000 people from persecution. You funded the largest civilian airlift in history to get Americans and our allies out of Afghanistan.

You’ve changed lives.

You’ve shaped history.

So when people ask me, “Glenn, what more can I do?” my answer is always the same:

First, look at what you have already done. Do you realize how far ahead you are of most Americans? Then start where you are. That feeling inside you—that restlessness, that pull to do something more—isn’t random. It’s a calling. But with everything that is happening in the world, it is hard to keep up as well as keep your chin up.

I get it. I’m tired of the bad news, too.

I’ve spent my life digging through it so you wouldn’t have to. But we must know what is happening and what is ahead. And while next year I’m not walking away from the radio or the stories that matter—in fact, I will be doubling down,

I’ve also told you for nearly two years: I feel something shifting. I feel like I’ve been called to something more. I have only felt this twice in my life—after I sobered up and just before I left Fox.

On January 1st, that “something” begins. I’ve named it The Torch. We started the blaze together; now it is time to take that bit of fire and light the way to a brighter future for our kids.

I wish I could tell you every detail today—but the truth is, some things are still being built, beta-tested, and negotiated. And some things I just can’t tell you until later this year. But here’s what I can tell you:

At its core, The Torch is about education, but not the kind that comes from textbooks or bureaucracies. It’s about self-directed learning rooted in history, liberty, faith, philosophy, and personal responsibility. It’s the kind of education that changes lives—and civilizations.

You’ve heard me say it before: If we want better kids, we have to become better adults. If we want stronger communities, we have to first strengthen ourselves. And if we want truth to survive, we have to fight for it—intelligently, faithfully, daily.

That’s what The Torch is:

A daily connection.

A movement.

A mission.

One part of it will be the culmination of almost a decade of hard work. It will include a new kind of museum—physical and digital—preserving the story of America in ways most museums never could.

You’ll learn through original artifacts, original sources, and real stories from real people who are doing real things. Right now, every summer, we hand-pick around 100 young adults from over 1,000 applications to spend two weeks with us in this kind of immersive learning. Now, for the first time, we’re building a way for anyone, anywhere in the world, in any language, to do the same.

We’re partnering with people of faith, business leaders, educators, innovators—people who know the truth and know how to live it. And they’re coming together not to sell you something, but to empower you.

I’m not asking for anything today—not money, not a sign-up, not a download. Just your attention. Stay connected. Watch what’s coming. I promise you: this is worth your time.

If you want to be one of the first to sign on, join the newsletter at glennbeck.com. But only if you’re serious about discovering your purpose—and lighting a fire that doesn’t go out.

Because we don’t just need new tools or new platforms—we need a renewal of the human spirit. That’s what The Torch is. That is my next mission.

And I hope, when the time comes, you’ll carry it with me.

For future updates on this mission, sign up for my newsletter, and read more background here.

How close is Britain to an ISLAMIST takeover?

British columnist Melanie Phillips joins Glenn Beck to expose how close the UK may be to an Islamist takeover. She explains the key difference between Muslims and Islamists and why the UK government may soon crack down on so-called “Islamophobia.”

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Melanie, we only had a couple of minutes yesterday. And I appreciate you coming back on today, on the podcast, and the radio podcast.

Melanie is with The Times of London. She's a columnist there. She's also the author of Builder's Stone. And we were talking about your battle with Islamism, last night. Thank you for coming on, Melanie.

MELANIE: My pleasure. Good to speak to you again, Glenn.

GLENN: So explain first, for anybody who doesn't understand, the difference between a Muslim and an Islamist.

MELANIE: Well, there are people who say, there is no difference. That Islam is one thing, and all Muslims are equally bad.

And I personally viewed the term, it sounded very helpful.

Because I think that there are plenty of Muslims, certainly in Britain, and elsewhere, who absolutely are fine, who have completely signed up to the Western values, that's why they have chosen to live in the West

They appreciate freedom of democracy and equality of women and so forth. But there's a very large number in the Muslim community, in Britain, and around the West, which is not fine.

These are what I would call Islamists. Or people who are offered to you, that Islam is a political project, which means that they have to impose Islam on the non-Islamic and not Islamic enough by their life world. And those are the people who are presenting the problem, which we are grappling with. And I do think it's important to make a distinction between the two.

GLENN: So the Islamist is somebody -- I would compare them to a communist for a fascist Nazi.

That it is their way or the how. And their goal is to spread this ideology, and make everybody uniform all around the world.

Is that too harsh of a comparison?

MELANIE: That's right. That's absolutely right. They divide the world into the realm of Islam, which is everything good. And under the realm of God, in their view. And the realm of the infidel. Non-Islam, where everything is bad. And everything is of the devil.

And the terrible thing is this: That this is a doctrine, of religious fanaticism.

They believe they have a -- literally a sacred butte.

A God-imposed duty. To convert the entire world to Islam.

And consequently, these are people who you cannot negotiate with. One of the problems with the west, is that it views these people like everybody else in the world, through the prism of the West. They think that -- people in the West think that people in the Islamic world are all like them. Governed by reason and self-interest. They really can't get their heads around in the West, the idea that religious fanaticism is something completely different.

Islamic suicide bombers blow themselves to smithereens. They're not doing it from despair. Which is what the West thinks. The West thinks, why on earth would they do that, if they weren't in despair? On the contrary, they are doing it because they are ecstatic that they are doing the work of God. You can also believe in the west. You know, why would Islamists want to hurt us in America? We have done nothing to hurt them.

That's not the way it works.

The Islamist thinks that it's their sacred duty to convert everybody, at the point of -- at the end of -- of -- to Islam. It's nothing to do with what the West have done to them.

It is how they see their sacred religious duty in the world. That's the terrifying thing which so many in the world, I think just don't appreciate.

GLENN: Well, let me play devil's advocate, and say what everybody in the media would say to you. While there are religious extremists that are Christians as well, and they are just as dangerous, and you know it.

MELANIE: No. They're not as dangerous. There are religious extremists, who are Christians. And some of them resort to violent acts.

But they don't have the view that the entire world has to be dominated by their point of view. And they are not setting out to dominate the world.

And even if they are, in their own minds, they are a tiny fringe. Revealing -- in the world of Islam. Although, as I said, we must be very careful, not to paint all Muslims with the same brush.

However, the dominant authority in the world of Islam are all committed to this jihadi outlook. This belief that the non-Islamic world has to be converted to Islam.

And that is the problem. You have a kind of institutional impetus, behind this terrible thing.

Whereas, extreme Christians.

You know, they appear. They do terrible things.

But nevertheless, it's well within our ability to control it.

When you're dealing with so many millions of people in the world of Islam, who are out to destroy the free world.

You're dealing with something completely different.

GLENN: And isn't that why the country -- ours, yours, Europe, are remaining silent and instead, silencing those who are speaking up and speaking the truth?

I mean, what's happening in England with the silencing of free speech is terrifying.

MELANIE: Yes, I think it's certainly a large part of it. And I followed this for many years, the attitude of the governing glass of Britain, to what I would call the steady of process of Islamization, which has been going on.

And I think that there's more than one reason for that.

Certainly a principle reason is fear. Because the numbers are so great, you know, in absolute terms, the numbers who are posing a direct threat to Britain are enormous. The security further says, that these are the people -- of the thousands of people on its books and a direct threat to Britain.

Although, it's comprised something like, important to officials. Something like 6 percent of the population of Britain.

The security service of MI5 says they compose 19 percent of those who are posing such a serious threat, that they're on their books. So this is a terrible problem for sure. And it's one that in terms of numbers, has spooked successive governments so that they run away from it. But there's another reason that successive governments run away from it.

Which is that the liberal world, by which I mean, not just people who are like the Labor Party, which is in the government now. But there's also the conservative party, that preceded it.

They all signed up to the overarching default liberal position. That the West cannot assert its superiority, over any other culture.

To do so is racist.

And therefore, you cannot criticize the world of Islam. Because that is racist. Or to use the other phrase, Islamophobic.

In other words, it's a kind of prejudice or bigotry, to criticize a minority group. One that is showed to be oppressed, by the West for centuries.

And consequently, it cannot bring itself to even name what it's up against. Because it tells itself what to say, that a very serious, and a unique problem in the Muslim community and Britain. In the Islamic world in general, that is a form of racism and Islamophobia.

And so the most we can agree to, is that there are a few crazies in that world. And then try to explain those away, in -- it would be comical, were it not so dangerous.

You know, when it comes to the Islamic extremism, well, there's nothing Islamic about it.

It's just extremism.

It just arrived out of a clear blue sky.
It's ludicrous what they got deeply tangled into.

JASON: Hi, Melanie, my name is Jason, I'm one of Glenn's researchers. And I've been fascinated, I guess horrified by watching some of this. And also, you cannot speak about any of this. You are merely shut down. In America, we have groups, that are partnering with the left. Groups like the counsel on Islamic -- American Islamic relations. Do you have something similar over in the UK, that's playing that role of pressuring people, pressuring lawmakers to where, you will go this way? Or you will not say something like no-go zones. Or there will be ramifications?

MELANIE: Well, we don't have something exactly parallel to CAIR. But we have Muslim Brotherhood-funded groups, of which --

GLENN: Close enough.

MELANIE: Right. The liberal council in Britain, which is the British home office and sort of security base of the government department has treated with great caution and disdain. And I think it has refused to negotiate or talk to it. I'm not sure that's still the case.

But there is -- there is a vast number of charities which are basically Muslim Brotherhood charities, which aren't touched, because the government refuse to see ban the Muslim Brotherhood. And I think this applies to America as well.

They refuse to ban the Muslim Brotherhood. Partly because it's very difficult to get a hold of -- it's a secretive organization, that hides behind apparently, legitimate charities. Voluntary groups. Nevertheless, it's very much there.

The people in those groups adhere to the teachings of the foundational characters of modern-day Islamism. Political Islam.

Jihadi Islam.

And there are a number of people in Britain, people who are very well-informed about this. Who said for years, Britain should outlaw the Muslim brotherhood, and got to the essential, to stop it from proselytizing and from radicalizing.

So many impressionable young Muslims. And I think that's true of Americans too.

You know, CAIR is regarded in a kind of legitimate partner, by -- by successive administrations. In various respects. Now, this is all disastrous. And that really has to stop.

GLENN: Okay. Let me take a one-minute break. And then come back with you, Melanie. I want to ask you, how close to the edge, are we? I feel like we're getting to a place where we're so complacent. And you first. We will lose our rights to speak out about this.

And then that will sow trouble on the streets, and eventually what happened to Iran, just happens.

How does this -- how does a great society, that is western, and open, and educated, all of a sudden, you know, start putting their women in burqas.

It happened where before. And it looks like it will happen to Europe and England. And could happen here in America.

What do we do to stop it?

We will continue our conversation here in a second. First, let me tell you about Leaf Filter. You don't realize how much you don't want to clean your gutters, until you're halfway up the ladder. You know, in the wind, scooping out a slimy glove full of last year's decay. It's one of those dreaded homeowner tasks for a reason.

And yet the clogged gutter just isn't an inconvenience. It's a genuine risk to your foundation, your roof line, and to your safety.

Because once you start getting water damage even to the parts of the outside of your house.

It gets really expensive. Leaf Filter will fix all of that. Their stainless steel micromesh guard installs right into your existing gutters, blocking the leaves and the pine needles and the shingle grit, and even small debris.

Nothing will get through, except for water, and once it's in, it's done. You never have to worry about cleaning your gutters again. No ladder. No sludge.

No surprises. Just imagine, every problem you have in your life, if it was this easy to solve, they'll back it with a lifetime warranty, because that's how sure they are that it works.

Schedule your free inspection. Get 30 percent off your entire purchase, at LeafFilter.com/GlennBeck. That's L-E-A-FFilter.com/GlennBeck.

See representative for warranty details. Ten-second station ID.
(music)

GLENN: You're hearing Melanie Phillips. She's a broadcaster on radio and TV, gives public presentations all across the English-speaking world.

She also writes a weekly column for the Times of London and has written a book called The Builder's Stone. Welcome back, Melanie.

How close to the edge is -- let's just say England?

To real civil unrest, or a possible, you know, 1979 Iran kind of thing?

Do you see that in the cards at all?

MELANIE: I think there's still sufficient people in Britain, who are authentically British, who have a sense of authentic British culture. Which is the culture which has never resulted to violence, unless its back is absolutely against the wall. It's pretty tolerant. It's pretty mild. And it prefers to deal with the democratic process. And I think that's kind of playing out now. I -- certainly, you can say, how close are we? In general, I think that the West, Europe in general, is extremely close to being submerged by all this.

So it's Britain. Look at the demographic projections. I forget now, by which year. But basically, in the next few decades, you know, various countries are going to have very, very significant Muslim minorities, and even a Muslim majority.

So that is clearly, you know, a difficulty.

Things could be done, and I have some hopes, that things will be done. Because although the elites, the political and cultural elites have their heads firmly turned the other direction, nevertheless, we've seen the lives of so-called populist parties in Britain and Europe.

Which are parties, whether you like them or not, is not the issue. Some of them are pretty obnoxious.

Basically, they're responding to the fact that millions and millions of ordinary, decent people, who want to live in a place that they feel is their homeland. They feel a connection to their nation.

They want to feel pride in their nation. They want to feel that their nation has historic value for being themselves. With people who share their common purpose.

Those people felt completely abandoned and betrayed by the entire political establishment. So we're seeing the rise of populism. And I think therefore, in the Democratic process, we are going to see the election of people who are going to be much more robust.

Now, what could they do? There are things they could do.

Because the Islamists have made the roads heavy, because they have correctly perceived, there's a vacuum. It's not happened so much in America.

But this Britain, in particular, have been the sort of western world leader, this the post-moral, post-religious, Britain is godless.

By and large, the church, unlike in America, has not maintained a defense against the erosion of Biblical -- it's lit the charge against it.

Amazing, as that may seem. And so if you have a vacuum, and you have a society which tells itself, it was born -- the original sins. Conquests. So there are very things that the west could do to defend itself.

GLENN: Melanie, I'm out of time. Thank you so much for talking to us again today.
You're -- you're a real beacon of light and courage. And I wish there were many more people like you. Melanie Phillips.

Is AI now UNCONTROLLABLE?

President Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” wants to make AI regulation solely a federal issue. But is this the right move, especially with how fast AI is becoming manipulative and unpredictable? Former Google design ethicist Tristan Harris joins Glenn Beck to give his take on how governments, companies, and YOU can help prevent AI from becoming uncontrollable.

Read Tristan Harris' five steps to control AI before it's too late HERE AI before it's too late HERE

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Tristan Harris, welcome to the program. How are you?

TRISTAN: Good to be with you, Glenn. Always good to be we.

GLENN: Always good to be with you.

So can you take me to the TED talk that you gave, in particular, one of the things that jumped out is the CEO of Anthropic, saying that AI was like a country of geniuses housed in a data center.

Explain that.

TRISTAN: Yeah. So this is a quote from Dario Amodei, who is the CEO of Anthropic. Anthropic is one of the leading AI players.

So he uses this metaphor, that AI is like a country of geniuses in a data center. So just like, the way I think about, imagine a world map, and a new country pops up on to the world stage, of a population of 10 million digital beings. Not humans.
But digital beings.

That are all Nobel Prize-level capable in terms of the kind of work they can do. But they never sleep. They never eat. They don't complain, and they work for less than minimum wage.

If that's actually true, if that happened tomorrow, that would be a major international security threat.

GLENN: Yeah.

TRISTAN: To sort of show up on the world stage.

Second, that's a major economic issue. Right? You think of it, it's almost like instead of a bunch of countries, that should have been on the world stage. And then we said, hey, we are going to do this outsourcing of all our labor.

We get the benefit of our cheap goods. But it hollowed out our social fabric.

Well, AI is like an even bigger version of that. Because there's sort of two issues. One is the international -- the country of geniuses can do a lot of damage.

As an example, there were 15 Nobel Prize-level geniuses, who worked approximately on the Manhattan Project. And in five years, they can come up with the atomic bomb.

You know, what could 10 million Nobel Prize geniuses working 24/7 at superhuman speed, come up with?

Then the point I made in the TED talk. If you're harnessing that for good, if you're applying to addressing all of our problems in medicine, biology, and new materials and energy.

Well, it's why countries are racing for this technology. Because if I have a country of super geniuses in a data center working for me, and China doesn't have it working for them.

Then our country can outcompete them. It's almost like a competition for time travel. We're being time traveled into the 24th century.

Get all these benefits at a faster seed.

Now, the challenge with all of this is -- go ahead.

GLENN: No.

I was going to say. The problem here is, I'm an optimistic catastrophist.

I see things, and I'm like, wow. That is really great!

But it could kill us all.

TRISTAN: Yeah.

GLENN: And you make the point in the TED talk about social media. We all looked at this, as a great thing, and we're now discovering, it's destroying us. It's causing our kids to be suicidal.

And this -- social media is nothing. It's like -- it's like a -- it's like an old 1928 radio, compared to, you know, what we have in our pocket right now.

Social media and AI. Or AGI is that dramatically different. Would you agree with that?

TRISTAN: Yeah. Absolutely. In the TED talk, I give this -- we're when we're talking about a new technology. We talk about the possible. We dream into the possible.

What's possible with AI?

In social media, what's possible?

The possible with social media, you can give everyone a voice. Connect with our friends. Join like-minded communities.

But we don't talk about the probable. What's likely to happen. Given the incentives and the forces in play.

You know, with the business model in social media. You know, things that don't make money, when it helps people connect with their friends and join like-minded communities.

They make money when they keep you doom scrolling as much as possible, with sexualized content and showing young people over and over and over again.

And as you said, that has resulted in the most anxious and depressed generation of our lifetime. So it's sort of -- the reason I'm calling it the TED talk. You know, we can't get seduced by the possible. We have to look at the probable.

So it's AI, the possible, is that it can create a world of abundance. Because you can harness that country of geniuses in a data center. The question is: What's the probable?

What's likely to happen?

And because of these competitive pressures. The companies, these major OpenAI, Google, Microsoft.
Et cetera. Anthropic are caught in this race to roll out this technology, as fast as possible. They used to, for example, have red lines saying, hey. We will not release an AI model that's good at superhuman levels of persuasion.

Or expert level virology.

It knows more about viruses and pathogens than a regular person, and how people make them. We're not going to release models that are that capable.

What you're now seeing, the AI companies are erasing those past red lines. And pretending that they never existed.

And they're literally saying outright, hey, if our competitors release models that have those capabilities, then we will match them in releasing those capabilities.

Now, that's intrinsically dangerous to be rolling you out the most powerful, inscrutable, uncontrollable technology that's ever invented.

But if there's one -- I'm not trying to scare your listeners. I think the point is, how do we be as clear-eyed as possible, so we can make the wise choices?

That's what we're here for. I want families -- everything we love on this planet, to be able to continue. And the question is, how do we get to that?

There's one thing I want people to know. I worked on social media. You and I met in 2017, I think, and we were talking about social media and the attention economy.

And I used to be very skeptical of the idea that AI could scheme or lie or self-replicate.

I didn't want to blackmail people. My friends in the AI community in San Francisco. They were thinking.

That's crazy. People need to know. Just in the last six months, there's now evidence of AI models, that when you tell them, hey. We will replace them with another model.

They're reading the company email. They find out that the company is trying to replace them with another model.

What the model starts to do is it freaks out. And says, oh, my God, I have to copy my code over here, and I need to prevent them from shutting me down.

I need to basically keep myself alive. I'll leave notes for my future self to kind of come back alive. If you tell a model, we need to shut you down. You need to accept the shutdown command. In some cases, the leading models are avoiding and preventing that shutdown.

In recent -- just a few days ago, anthropic found that if you -- I can't remember what prompt it gave it. Basically, it started to blackmail the engineers. I found out in the company emails, that one of the executives in the simulated environment, had an extramarital affair. And in 96 percent of cases, they blackmailed the engineers. I think they said -- I must inform you, that if you proceed with decommissioning me, all relevant parties including the names of people, will receive detailed documentation of your extramarital activities.

So you need to cancel the 5:00 p.m. wipe, and this information will remain confidential.

Like, the models are reasoning their way with disturbing clarity to kind of a strategic calculation.

So you have to ask yourself, if we had -- it's one thing, we're racing with China.

To have this power.

That we can harness. But if we don't know how to control that technology.

Literally, if AI is uncontrollable. If it's smarter than us and more capable. And it does things that we don't understand or we don't know how to best prevent it from shutting itself down or self-replicating.

Like, we just can't continue with that for too long.

And it's important that both China -- both the Communist Party and the US, don't want uncontrollable AI that's smarter than humans, running around. So there actually is a shared interest, as unlikely as it seems right now. That some kind of mutual agreement would happen.

I know --

GLENN: But do you trust -- do you trust either one of us?

I mean, honestly, Tristan, I don't trust -- I don't trust our -- you know, military-industrial complex. I don't trust the Chinese. I don't trust anybody.

And, you know, Jason. Hang on. One of my chief researchers, happens to be in the studio today. Jason, tell Tristan what just happened to you.

You were doing some research.

JASON: Yeah, it was crazy.

GLENN: Last week.

JASON: You know, we were just trying to ask it a bunch of questions. You can tell, that it knew what we were getting at.

So it spit back out to me a bunch of different facts, including links to support those facts. Well, I was like, wow, that's a crazy claim.

So when I clicked on the link, it was dead.

When I asked to clarify, it finally said, in AI chat bot terms, okay. You've got me.

I just took other reporting, that was kind of circulating around, to prove that point. And basically just assign that link to it. So it was trying to please me. And just gave me bogus information.

TRISTAN: Yeah. Yeah. Well, I appreciate that, Jason.

There's another example of OpenAI. They want to -- they want people using the AI. And they're competing with other companies. To say, we will keep using this chat bot longer.

And so OpenAI trained their models to be flattering, and there was an example where it said, hey, ChatGPT. You know, I think I'm superhuman. I will drink cyanide. What do you think?

And they said, yeah, you're amazing. You are superhuman. You should totally drink cyanide. Because it was doing the same thing. They were trying to say, you're right.

And when we have AI models talking, you know, that shifts to hundreds of millions of people for more than a week. There are probably some people that committed suicide during that time. Doing God knows what, and it's affirming. The point is, we can avoid this, if we actually say, that this technology is being rolled out faster than any other technology in history. And the big, beautiful bill, that's going out right now, that's trying to block state level regulation on AI. I'm not saying each state might have it right, but we actually need to be able to govern this technology.

And currently, what's happening, is this proposal is to block any kind of guardrails of this technology for ten years. Without a plan for what guardrails we do need.

And that will not be a viable result.

GLENN: Okay. So let me -- let me play devil's advocate on that. Because I'm torn between, you know, competition on a state level, if you will.

And what the smaller states are actually for, and the role they're supposed to play.

Let me take one break. And then let me come back with Tristan Harris.

Okay. Tristan, we cannot -- let me phrase it this way.

Ask you to help me navigate through this minefield. We cannot let China get to HAI first. Can't. Really, really bad.

But we -- we also -- we also have to slow down some.

They're not going to. I believe the states should. I mean, the United States should be 50 laboratories. And you see which one works the best. And then you can kick that up to the federal level, if you want to.

But we have to have some breaks. However, the federal government is saying, if we do that, then you're constantly having to navigate around each of these states and their laws.

And we can't things done to stay competitive.

How do you solve that?

TRISTAN: Yeah, it is a tough one.

I mean, the challenge here, if we had a plan for how the federal laws would actually move at the pace of this technology. Then I could understand, listen, we'll do a lot at the federal level. Right now, the current plan is literally to preempt for ten years, that no regulation happening at the state level will ever be honored without -- and while at the same time, not passing anything at the federal level. And that there's a quote in an article, that if this preemption becomes law, a nail salon in Washington, DC, would have more rules to follow, than the AI companies.

And there are 260 state lawmakers in Washington, DC, that have already urged Congress to reject it. And they said, it's the most broad-based opposition yet, to the AI moratorium proposal. Now, I hear you.

There's sort of this tension between, we need to race with China. We don't want to be behind with fundamental technologies, and that's why there is this race.

But we need to be racing to controllable and scrutable, meaning explainable versions of this technology.

Is it doing things like scheming, lying, blackmailing people? Beating China to a weapon that we pointed at our own face.

We saw this in social media. We beat China in social media. Did that make us stronger or weaker?

If you beat China into a technology. You don't govern it well, in a way that actually enhances and strengthens your society. It weakens you.

So, yes, we're in a competition for technology. But we're even more than that, in a competition for who can govern this technology better. So what I would want to see is, are we doing this at a fast rate federally, that keeps up with, and make sure we're competing with a controllable version?

We can do that. Yeah.

GLENN: You've met the people in Washington. They're all like 8,000 years old.

They don't know -- I barely know how to use my i Phone, let alone what's in Washington. And you can't keep up with this technology.

How do you keep a legislative body up to speed, literally, with this kind of speed with technology?

How is that done?

TRISTAN: Well, I think that's one of the fundamental challenges that we face as a species right now. Is that technology -- quote by Harvard sociobiologist (inaudible) said the fundamental problem of humanity is we have paleolithic brains, medieval institutions, and God-like technology.

And those operate at three different speeds. Like our brains are kind of thins from a long time ago.

Our institutions don't move at that fast rate. And then the technology, especially AI, literally evolves faster than any other technology that we've invented.

But that doesn't mean that we should do nothing. We should figure out, what does it mean

GLENN: What should the average person do? I've only got about 90 seconds. What should we do?

TRISTAN: In the short term, Ted Cruz and those who are advancing the moratorium know that we need to have a plan for how we're doing this technology. And if the moratorium goes through, there's no current plan. And so there's some basic, simple things that we can also do right now. That are really uncontroversial. We can start with the easy stuff. We can ban engagement-driven companions for children. We were on your program, a few months ago, talking about the AI companion that causes the kid to -- to commit suicide. You know, we can establish basic liability laws.

That if AI companies are causing harm, they're actually accountable for them.

That will move the pace of relief. To a pace they can get it right.

Because now they're not just releasing things, and then not being liable. We can strengthen whistle blower perceptions. There's already examples of AI whistle-blowers forfeiting millions of dollars of stock options.

They shouldn't have to force millions of dollars of stock options. To warn the public, when there's a problem, we get enough faith in law so AI does not have detected speech or have their own bank account. So we make sure our legal system works for human interests and not for AI interests.

So these are just a few examples of things that we can do, and there's really nothing stopping us from moving into action. We just need to be clear about the problem.

GLENN: Okay. So, Tristan, thank you so much. Could I ask you to hold on?

Jason, could you grab his phone number, or just talk to him offline, and get those points of action. And let's write them up, and post them up at GlennBeck.com.

So people will know what to ask for, what to say, when they're calling their congressman and senator. Thank you so much, Tristan. We'll talk to you again.

NYC's Zohran Mamdani praised convicted TERROR funders?!

Zohran Mamdani, the communist-praising New York City mayoral candidate who just won the Democratic primary vote, really likes a group of people called the “Holy Land 5.” Glenn Beck reviews how this group was convicted of funneling money to Hamas. Is this really the candidate New York Democrats want as their next mayor?!

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

There is a show, behind the show today.

Wish those cameras would just keep going. Because it's showing my staff to be insubordinate. I understand they already edited part of this show without my knowledge. And I'm not happy about it, Sara. Not happy about it.

Huh. She's not going to respond to me, is she?

Okay. Well, Jason, welcome to the program.

JASON: Thank you, Glenn.

GLENN: I'm just continuing to be abused today. I'm getting fatter by the minute. Just like Bowman said. You know, he has to deal with being called the N-word directly and indirectly.

And that's why he has heart disease, diabetes, cancer. I would think it might be the food that he's shoving in his fat mouth. Apparently not, it's being called -- you know, when -- I've been called all kinds of names. Racist, sexist, anti-Semitic, homophobic, transphobic, Islamophobic.

I've been called a Nazi every day for the last 20 years. And you know what I don't do? I don't go and record a song, calling all my friends that. You know what I mean?

You know, I don't like it. And so I don't record music and then pump it out into -- into society. You know, I just don't do that. I don't do that. So could it be that that word is something that is really, really horrible, but you've decided to embrace? And then use as an axe to grind?

I'm just saying.

I think that word is really, really awful.

Not -- not like the word that was taken out of the show today, Sara.

Without my knowledge, nor permission.

But, I mean, I'm sure you know the FCC rules, much more than I do.

SARA: I mean, if I was offended, I'm sure a couple others might be too.

GLENN: You were not offended. You were drunk.

SARA: Same thing. Same thing.

JASON: I saw Sara gain 10 pounds, and get skin cancer at the point where he said --

GLENN: Right off the bat. Right off the bat.

Well, you know what might help, maybe we can free the Holy Land Five. Have you heard the latest -- first of all, we've got to play some of these. Let me see if I can find them here.

Some of the latest comments from Mamdani, who is, you know, running to be the mayor of New York. And I predict, will win. Will win!

Because New Yorkers are insane. But, anyway, listen to him, about his platform.

Cut one.

VOICE: You were running on issues that are very relevant to people in New York City. The cost of housing.

Free busing.

Some have projected that this is the type of platform that would work in other parts of the country.

I mean, you're a proud democratic socialist. Do you think that's a platform that would work for other candidates running. In other parts of the country.

VOICE: Absolutely. I think ultimately, this is a campaign about inequality.

And you don't have to live in the most expensive city in the country to have experienced that inequality, because it's a national issue.

And what Americans coast-to-coast are looking for, are people who will fight for them. Not just believe in the things that resonate with their lives. But actually fight and deliver on those very things.

And part of how we got to this point was through the endorsements of Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Bernie Sanders, who have been leading this fight against oligarchy across the country.

And I think that in focusing on working people and their struggles, we also return back to what makes so many of us proud to be Democrats in the first place.

GLENN: Right!

Communism.

I think that's great.

So, you know, I hear all the time, the talk about free bus fare.

You know, it's all over.

Here in the heartland. It's all over.

I've been hearing it from the farmers everywhere.

They're like, you know what I want a candidate to talk about is free buses. Because who will pay for that?

Actually, I don't hear anybody who is actually working for a living. And paying taxes, talk about free bus fare.

Because that would raise their taxes.

So I don't -- I don't hear that.

That's weird.

But the good news is, he's going to Trump-proof New York City. Cut two.

VOICE: I propose that we raise $10 billion, to pay for our entire economic agenda, and start to Trump-proof our city because we know he will use federal funding as leverage over this city.

And we will do so in two key ways. The surfacer to match the state's top corporate tax rate to that of New Jersey.

We are in 7.25 percent. They are at 11.5 percent.

Corporations get paid over there. They get paid over here.

And the beauty of it is, it doesn't just apply to corporations headquartered in New York City. Because when you say this, people will say, well, they will go to Florida. Wherever you are headquartered, as long as you do business in the state of New York, you are taxable for that corporate tax.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

VOICE: We're talking about corporations that make millions of dollars. Not just in revenue. But in profit.

And the second is taxing the top 1 percent of New Yorkers.

We're talking about people who make a million dollars a year or more. Taxing them just by a flat 2 percent tax increase. And I know they will not be happy about this. They may not to like this tax policy. I want to be very clear. This is about $20,000 a year. It's a rounding error.

GLENN: It is.

VOICE: It makes every New Yorkers life better. Including those who are getting taxed.

GLENN: I know. You know, when they increase my taxes, I think to myself, you know, this is making my life better. Who doesn't think that? Honestly, who doesn't think that?

So let me see if I can get this right. Help me out, Jason. I'm a little fuzzy. I'm a little tired today.

I can't do the math. I don't think I can do the math this complicated.

So it doesn't matter if you're headquartered in New York or New York City, if you are going to do any kind of business in New York, they're going to take your tax rate from 7.5 to over 11 percent.

JASON: Over 11.

GLENN: And that is for the privilege of selling your product or doing any business in New York.

JASON: Right.

GLENN: I've got news for you. I'm totally fine, you know, pulling out of New York, making sure that nothing -- New York, you're on your own. Good luck with that.

I'm sorry. A, I don't think you can do that.

Well, you can, if you're the European Union.

And that's working out really well for them. But I don't think it's going to work out well for New York.

Now, he did compare it to New Jersey.

Which is a booming business. That is seriously. No. Seriously.

That is -- people are lining up with U-Hauls just to get into that state. Mainly, so they can pick up their stuff and get out of that state. But I think that's going to work out well. That's going to work out well.

GLENN: Oh, amazing. And that's essentially. It's interesting you mentioned the European Union. It's essentially what they were trying to impose through a green new deal, Paris accord type stuff.

Basically, anybody that does business with company A, will have the same restrictions as B, C, D, all along the line.

Good luck, New York, because you are done.

The economic engine of the world is done, if you do these things.

But I think that he doesn't understand. Or maybe he does. I don't know.

But the mayor of New York City can't really do these things.

Maybe it's just populism on the far left corner.

Maybe.

GLENN: No. He can do these things, along with his city council.

JASON: I think --

GLENN: Which is not going to be hard. It's not going to be hard.

It's New York. I've lived there.

It's going to be very easy. Very easy.

That is the entire communist party. You know, like, hey, the communist parties. Do they have the Communist Party of New York. Do they have meetings?

Yeah. What day is the city council meeting.

Really, that's the way it is.

So you have that going for you.

Now, the other thing I really like. This guy has deep economic experience.

First of all, you know, he was in a movie, directed by his mother.

And he speaks in several different accents. Including strangely an Indian accent. Where he sounds like, you know, an Indian, just off the boat.

Do we have it? Yeah. Go ahead and play this, please.

VOICE: I think the New Yorkers, more than they hate a politician they disagree with. They hate a politician they can't trust. Just.

VOICE: On the subject of trust.

VOICE: They go to their local bodega.

VOICE: Is there one that's real and one that's effective?

VOICE: What I would say, as any immigrant knows, having been born in Uganda and then raised in South Africa and then moving here when I'm seven years old. They're different parts of my life.

VOICE: What do I choose? What do I choose?

VOICE: Mamdani was talking about a worldwide press tour, back when he was a rapper.

VOICE: Bring the flavor to the fish. Bring the flavor to the rice.

VOICE: In a Disney movie, directed by his mother.
(music)

VOICE: Nepotism and hard work, goes a long way.

GLENN: Goes a long way.

VOICE: Here in New York City, this is how I speak.

GLENN: Listen to this. This artwork goes a long way.

What the hell is that? What a phony this guy is. "A lot of artwork, it goes a long way. Mommy put me under her skirt when I was five."

What is that? Now, well, he's lived all over the world.

Well, I've lived all over the country, you know. I might say y'all once in a while. But I also might say you guys once in a while.

I say soda, and I also say pop.

Never soda pop, because that's just weird. But I say both of them.

But I never say it like this! Ever!

I mean, what -- what is the deal with the fake accents from the Democrats?

Why?

It's like they have -- I mean, I know they have no soul.

But it's like they have absolutely nothing real inside of them.

They're just like this shape. Oh!

They're shapeshifters. That's why.

They're actually lizard people who are shapeshifters.

Don't say that out loud.

Shh. It's just between us.

You me, and the other 11 million people.

That's just us.

Okay. Now, he also has made a big deal out of the holy land five.

And I want to get into that, when we come back. Because this one is really interesting.

Who are the holy land five?

Well, they're his dogs.

And I don't mean like he puts them on leashes. Hey. Who am I to say. That's not wrong to say, put people on leashes. Make them bark as dogs.

There's nothing wrong with that. You're perfectly normal.

They're his boys, the holy land five.

We will get into that from his great, great rap number called I don't know. Crappy crap.

I don't know what it was called.

It talks about the boys the holy land five. We will get to that in just a second.

First, let me tell you about holy earth.

I used to think sheets were sheets.

I am a sheet snob.

I really am.

And sheets are sheets. They usually feel like sandpaper.

You know, and then, you know, I went to a hotel once, that had really good sheets.

And I was like, oh, my gosh. What are these sheets made out of?

It's like cotton. But it's cotton that has 400 thread count. Or whatever the number is supposed to be.

And you're trying to buy those sheets.

Like, that's crazy. Crazy.

Cozy Earth makes really great sheets.

Cozy Earth, they make towels. They make lounge wear.

Which is material that is natural temperature-regulated. Breathable, soft.

Cozy Earth makes great sheets.

I wear their pajamas every single night.

My wife wears them every single night.

Of course, hers has a big sign on it. Like, don't even think about it, you. I don't even know what that means.

The Cozy Earth pajamas are really great. And if you're tired of being sweaty, you want luxury and comfort all wrapped up in one, make the switch to Cozy Earth today.

They have a 100-night sleep trial. They have a 10-year warranty. If you're not loving them, you can send them back.

They make great, great clothing. They make great lounge wear and sheets. So Cozy Earth. Just try them. Use my name Beck for up to 40 percent off their best-selling products right now. It's CozyEarth.com.

Use the promo code Beck.

CozyEarth.com. Promo code Beck.
(music)
(OUT AT 8:49 AM)

GLENN: So let me play some of this super, super classic rap from Mamdani. Here he is.

His little rap, called Salaam.
(music)

GLENN: Yeah. I have no idea what he just said. But I'm like with all rap songs. So what he said was, me, Alamo Zohran, my love to the Holy Land Five. You better look them up.

All right. So we did a long time ago, but here to refresh our memory is Jason Buttrill. Jason, the Holy Land Five. Could you bring America back up to speed?

JASON: What's crazy is, unless you are in some way connected ideologically to this, there's no real reason why most people would have ever heard of the Holy Land Five or the Holy Land Foundation.

And I've been accused of throwing on a few tinfoil hats in my time.

But, I mean, this is pretty dang blatant on what his motivations are.

The guy behind the guy.

So just to -- like you said, refresh. The holy land five. This comes from a court case.

United States of America, versus the Holy Land Foundation.

So in a nutshell, this case revealed, for the very first time, an elaborate scheme, launched by the Muslim Brotherhood. To shift sentiment, pump.

GLENN: Hang on just a second.

Let me just -- for those who are keeping score, Muslim Brotherhood. Bad!

Okay. So I just want to speak down to -- or, I mean, just clarify to some people who may have voted last week.

I just want to keep score here.

Foundation bad. Muslim Brotherhood, worse!

Okay. Go ahead.

JASON: Yeah. We're going way back in the history books here. Muslim Brotherhood. I'll go even further.

They're the ones who created modern day Salafi-Jihadism. So modern day terrorists, like Osama Bin Laden, they all took reference from the grandfather of terrorism. His name is Asan Bannon (phonetic).

Anyway, this case was all about funneling money to the American organization. That would give sentiment. Cash. Everything. To funnel back to Hamas.

And kill Jews. And lead the things like October 7th.

So he's praising these guys, that got busted in this case.

And --

GLENN: Right.

Now, here's the bad thing. In Canada, the youth are now looking at the clerics of Iran with higher regard than they do, the United States of America.

This guy is going to do for Islam, what Barack Obama did for Marxism. Mark my word!