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

THIS could COLLAPSE every major civilization at the SAME TIME

The United States, Europe, and China are all preparing for a coming global reset. Throughout history, civilizations have risen and fallen according to the same cycle of prosperity and debt. But never before has EVERY major civilization been on the verge of collapse at the same time. Glenn Beck breaks it all down.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Because for the very first time in world history. There's something new that has happened. The entire globe is riding the same wheel at the same time.

Okay? We're all in this debt cycle. And this has never happened before.

The cycle always begins the same way. The first step in this at the time cycle is discipline.

Discipline equals prosperity. Okay.

It goes right into prosperity. And every great empire starts with discipline. Rome did, you know, rebuilding after all the wars, strict budgets. Every great empire starts with discipline. Rome did. You know, rebuilding after all the wars. The strict budgets. Silver coinage. Land reforms. It helped restore, you know, the battered middle class. The Dutch Republic did the same thing: They invented modern finance, turning the swamp into the world's largest trade hub. Then the British empire did it after the glorious revolution. It brought fiscal stability and a gold-back pound, that the world trusted for over 200 years.

When that fell, America did it. After World War II, our debts were manageable, our currency was solid, backed by gold, productivity was unmatched, and we prospered. That is stage one. Discipline into prosperity. And prosperity if not darted, always leads to the second stage. Complacency into excess, okay? So excess creates this fatal illusion. The moment, you know, where we all look at each other, and go, this is great. It's going to be like this forever. It was always like this. It will always be like that.

Rome began borrowing heavily to pay for endless bread and circuses. France, funded the palaces and the pensions and the perpetual wars, through loans it could never repay.

Britain, in the late 19th century, took its global empire for granted, and levered -- levered itself into World War I.

Then came World War II. And then America beginning in the 1970s, untethered from -- untethered the dollar from gold. And discovered that debt could replace discipline.

So the second stage of the debt cycle is the age of entitlement, expansion. Imperial overreach.

Cheap credit.

And political bribery disguised as compassion.

Any of that sound like we've been there?

Done that?

The Dutch called it win handle. The trade in the wind.

Paper promises that replace real production.

We call it stimulus.

Easy money. Deficit spending.

Different words. Same exact sin.

That lees you to stage three. Financialization.

That goes to fragility. This is the most seductive stage. Rome debased its money until it was worth less than 2 percent of the original silver. The Byzantines watered down their unshakable dollar, if you will, and confidence collapsed. France printed their money, backed by land, until they were worth less and used as wallpaper.

Weimar, Germany, did the same thing. They destroyed a thousand years of savings in 18 months. Japan, 1990. Papered over its real estate collapse, with 30 years of zero interest rates.

And America, after 2008, discovered this intoxicating illusion, started by George W. Bush. I can violate the free market system, to save the free market system. That's quantitative easing. Money conjured up, without cost. Without any restraint. Without any consequence.

In stage three, nations convinced themselves, they're immune to any kind of gravity. Okay?

This time, it's different! We can manage this debt. Well, modern tools, you just don't understand. You know, the rules no longer apply.

You don't understand. Really?

Don't understand. The older rules always apply.

Because math is math.

And stage three always ends exactly the same way. Wherever it's tried!

The markets no longer trust the promises they're being fed, which leads us into stage four, the breaking point. Every empire eventually reaches a moment where its debts cannot be serviced. They can't be inflated away quietly. They can't be rolled over without consequence.

Rome reached it when they froze prices and shattered the last productive parts of its competent multiply France reached it in 1788, when it can no longer borrow. And that whole thing came to a head. Britain reached it in 1931 when it abandoned the gold standard.

Weimar reached it when inflation ate the soul of the nation. And extremism took over. Yap reached it, when its bond market effectively became nationalize. Propped up by its own central bank. Right now, America, Europe, China, Japan. And every other major power, listen to this carefully, have all hit stage four at the same time.

Never before in human history has this happened.

The bond markets are shaking. The currencies are all volatile. Politicians are praying that no one notices the numbers.

You know, that they no longer add up.

Stage four is not coming. We are now living inside the opening act. This is so important.

Yesterday, there was a story that said, that this is going to be the biggest Christmas season ever. And I'm wondering to myself, I see the prices. I go to McDonald's.

I go to the grocery store.

Any of us Walmart this weekend. I see the prices. And I'm looking at the prices.

And every time I'm looking at the prices, I'm like, how's the average person afford any of this?

And yet, we're spending. Spending. Spending.

And I don't understand it. And I fear we're doing what the government is doing. We're just spending because we can -- we think we can get out of it.

Then comes stage five. It's called the reset. Hmm.

Every debt system ends in one of three ways.

They inflate the money, so they can pay off the debt. And that's just an absolute wipeout. Weimar republic did it. France did it. Rome did it.

Just a wipeout. Then there's a hard default and political upheaval. Russia did that in 1917.

Argentina did it over and over again.

War leading to a new monetary order. That's another one.

And the neo -- the -- the Napoleonic wars. The British gold standard. World War II. Bretton Woods.

All of that. But there's always a reset. Always a new order that's born from the ashes of the old.

And here's what makes this moment unprecedented. Rome collapsed by itself. France collapsed alone. Weimar collapsed by itself.

Britain declined while America rose.

It was always one country coming down, and another one coming up.

This time, all countries. All countries, on both size, the free world and the not so free world, there's no one rising.

China is drowning in its local government debt. It's never going to say this, but it's a paper tiger.

Europe is fractured. And coming apart at the seams. Japan, demographic time bomb.

America is politically frozen and insolvent fiscally.

So for the very first time in world history. Every major civilization has reached its peak of the debt cycle.

This time, all at the same moment.

No one is coming up!

So what does that mean?

Well, for the very first time in human history, it means, when it arrives, it will not be regional. It will be global. It will not be slow. It will be systemic. It will be everywhere. Now, the hope, the history books don't tell, and nobody in the media will tell you this, is when every one of those resets, every collapse, every crisis, it created the conditions for renewal.

Rome, its fall opened the door for a new Christian civilization. France, the revolution there, birthed the modern nation state. Britain's decline cleared space for America's rise. The devastation of World War II led to the great expansion of prosperity, the greatest the world has ever seen. So the next chapter is not written. What happens to us is not written.

And it -- whether we rise or fall, from what's coming depends not on Washington. Not on Wall Street. But on us. In our homes, in our families. In our churches. And our communities.

The debt cycle is not prophecy. It is a warning.

You cannot borrow your way out of moral, fiscal, or spiritual bankruptcy.

Now, I don't feel like I chose this path. This -- with Bretton Woods and then 1972 coming off the gold standard. And what they did in 2008, to bail out all the banks. I didn't have anything to say. Did you have anything to say about that?

I didn't. I didn't. I wouldn't have chosen those things. But the world is putting something together.

And I want to show you what our choices are. Because right now, people say, you know, I don't like what Donald Trump is doing. Or, I don't like the World Economic Forum.

Or, I don't like what China. Okay. Great. But I want you to know, it's going to be one of these systems. Because it's being built.

It always happens. When one is coming down, some new system, usually a country.

But not a country this time. A new system begins to rise.

And it happens before the fall.

Sen. Mark Kelly's outrage over Franklin meme EXPOSED

Sen. Mark Kelly recently raged over War Secretary Pete Hegseth’s decision to post a meme portraying the children’s character Franklin the turtle blowing up Venezuelan drug boats. But Glenn Beck points out the insane hypocrisy of Sen. Kelly’s outrage…

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: First of all, the New York Times. The New York Times has refuted the WaPo reporting on the Hegseth story. Now, if you remember the Hegseth story from the Washington Post is -- was playing backup to people like Mark Kelly, who, you know, were part of that video where like, oh, you know. War crimes. And you will be tried for war crimes. And if you see a war crime. And an illegal border. You should disobey that.

Yeah. They're taught that. And everybody should know that. Again, the Pentagon teaches that to the sorrels. This has never been done by members of Congress. And they were going for something. I don't know what they were going for. But WaPo, of course, you know, sends the message to the rest of the world. That, well, it was our Secretary Hegseth. Who ordered the killing of some people that survived this launch on a boat. They survived. And then Pete called them up and said, kill them!

And that's what Mark Kelly was saying this last weekend. Okay. Washington Post. Now, the New York Times, not exactly a Trumpy kind of paper. Comes out and says, no. We actually have five sources on this.

That's not true. That's not what happened. White House responded yesterday, and they said, yeah. It was the commander that made that call. It was all within the law. Yada, yada.

So it wasn't Hegseth.

Oh. Then you have Mark Kelly coming on and saying, more things. This one is about the Franklin meme. You know, Franklin. The turtle. The kids book about the turtle.

Apparently, Hegseth retweeted or tweeted a picture of, you know, like Franklin magazine. And he's, you know, up on an American chopper. And he's firing down on, you know, drug runners and a boat.

And this causes Mark Kelly to say this.
MARK: -- global mission. And instead, he runs around, on a stage, like he's a 12-year-old playing Army. And it is ridiculous, it is embarrassing, and I -- I can't imagine what our allies think of looking at that guy, in this job, one of the most important jobs in our country. In my view, after the president of the United States, it is the next most important job. He is in the national command authority for nuclear weapons. And last night, he's putting out on the internet turtles with rocket-propelled grenades, killing -- I mean, have you seen this?

GLENN: Oh, it's outrageous. Let me ask you: Where were you on the leadership of the Pentagon when they pulled out of Afghanistan?

Were you saying, what are our allies thinking about that?

How about when, what's-his-face, decided to go get. What was it?

Surgery. Was out on surgery.

Didn't alert anyone that was -- what was his name, Lloyd Austin, right?

And he's out on surgery. And he didn't tell anybody.

Then he goes on vacation. Something happens.

Where are you?

He said, I'll come back, when I come back. Wait. Hold it. You want to talk about being in line with the nuclear weapons. Where was that one?

More importantly, Mr. Kelly, let me ask you: What do you think our allies thought about the health of our nation, when several democratic senators got together, and the for the first time in American history, pulled a Venezuela. And questioned the military and said, we will hold you responsible for any crimes against humanity. By the way, we're not telling you what those are. We'll judge, when we get back into power. And don't listen to the commander-in-chief. Let me ask you: If people -- if people in the Duma would have made that exact same video, and said, question the authority of Putin. And if he's telling you to go into Ukraine. That's going to be a war crime. And we're going to prosecute you.

And -- and don't listen to them. And don't listen to his secretary of war either. What do you think -- how would we analyze that?

Would we think that Putin was strong?

Would we think that their society is strong?

Would we think that they're a nation that can defend itself? Will defend itself?

Is willing to go to war?

Does that -- would we look at that and go, that's a strong nation, don't screw with them. Or if we had designs on that nation, would we say, you know what, up the pressure. Up the pressure.

Because this thing is about to fly apart. So, Mr. Kelly, let me ask you that.

Did you think about what our allies might have been saying, when you made the video and released it to the world?

Bueller.

Anybody? Anybody?

That -- that's the outrage here. The outrage is not that they said it. You can go to the Pentagon and say that. You can go and bring the Joint Chiefs of Staff in. And you can call them on the carpet and say, look, I've got to tell you something. We can investigate this, if we have control. But you bring that into a private room, and you say that to all your like-minded senators in a private room.

You don't make a video and release it to the world.

I'll never forget, George Bush called me into the Oval Office. And he was a little upset.

And I had said, you know, you want to impeach the guy, you can impeach him on this. Look what he's doing in the Middle East. Look what he's doing. I don't even remember what it was. That's the stuff that at least if it's true, is impeachable.
That day, I get a call. And Mr. Beck, the president would like to see you in the oval tomorrow.

I go in. And I knew this would be the longest hour of my life. And I sit down in the -- honest to God, it was in the -- the Zelinsky chair. Okay?

And I got -- I got from George Bush what Zelinsky got from Trump.

And he starts out, a lot of people think they know what it's like to be the President. You have no F-ing idea what it's like. And I was like, oh, my gosh. This is going to be very, very long and agonizing.

And we get about a half our into all of this stuff. And he's telling me what's actually going on, on the ground.

And he knows it all. And he's not hesitating. He's not like, and let me search for a word here.

None of that!

And I screw my courage to the sticking place, and say, excuse me. Mr. President, this is the President that America needs to see.

This is the guy. Why don't you say these things to the American public?

And he goes off on another tirade, and he tells me about how he's made deals with the Pentagon. He's made deals with the military. He's made deals -- he's also had all of the eyes. Listen to this. All of the eyes with all of the leaders of the world, including all of their intelligence officials.

And they watch everything that every major official says in the United States, especially the president. And whatever the President says, they analyze. He said, I shift my eyes at the wrong time, they think, well, that means he's not saying this. What he's actually saying is this.

He's like, I'm juggling so many things in my head, that I can't say or can't do, because of X, Y, or Z. And he said, that's the job of the president.

Now, whether you agree with that or not, it doesn't matter.

The reason why I tell you that story is, Mark Kelly, did you seen consider what Five Eyes might be saying about that video? What China, how they might be analyzing that video?

How Russia is analyzing that video. How that affects our national stability in this country.

Screw you're trying to, in my opinion, start a Colour Revolution!

Screw that. Let's just talk about, how's this make us stronger with national defense.

You call people into a private room and say that. Like has always been done in the United States of America.

What you did has never been done in the United States.

Not at the time of the Civil War even. Never has this been done!

Why?

Because people respected the republic. They respected the military.

They respected the fact that their voice would be heard by foreigners. And foreign nations. Many of them, adversaries.

And so they showed just a modicum of -- of restraint. That you, sir, couldn't find.

So please, don't preach to me about how embarrassing it is that he's putting a cartoon out. Yeah. I would rather have my secretary of war not put cartoons out. But unfortunately, that's the way of the world now, isn't it?

I mean, you know, you can only get attention by people doing stupid memes. You didn't need a meme. You didn't need a video.

You needed all of you, to get together, and say, we would like the Joint Chiefs to meet us at the Capitol.

Because they also answer to us. And we have a few things to say to them.

And then you say to them privately. And you make it very, very clear.

That's what you should have done.

I mean, unless you're trying to collapse the United States, make our enemies stronger. And foment a Colour Revolution. Which I'm not sure -- what?

Colour Revolution. I'm not even sure what that means.

Country Music star John Rich reveals shocking truth about child predator epidemic

Country music singer John Rich joins Glenn Beck to expose the staggering reality of America’s child predator epidemic, a crisis far larger and darker than most parents realize. With 36 million online targeting reports in a single year and less than 1% of trafficked children ever returning home, Rich argues that parents can no longer be passive; predators, platforms, and cultural forces have infiltrated homes through screens, games, and social media. From demonic networks preying on kids to entertainment giants openly bragging about shaping young minds, this conversation delivers a wake-up call: if American parents don’t go on offense now, the wolves will keep winning.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: It's called the Righteous Hunter, and John Rich is with us now. Hey, John, how are you, man?

JOHN: I'm great, brother. It's been a long time since I had the pleasure of talking to you. So thanks for having me on.

GLENN: I know. You bet. So, first of all, what a great song. Powerful, powerful video. Really powerful. Why did you do this?

JOHN: So I'm a dad. I'm sure there are a lot of moms and dads, listening to you today. I know there are.

And when I started realizing the extent of child predators in the networks they have, in America, I was so overwhelmed by it. I couldn't believe the numbers. The Department of Homeland Security told me that in a 12-month period, they received 36 million reports of -- of kids being targeted online by child sex predators. I said, 36 million?

They said, yes. It's over three million a month. It is so huge and so massive, that regular parents, even Christian parents, patriotic parents, you know, the ones that pay attention, even we can become victims of these people. They are that tricky, that illusive, that demonic.

So that led to me writing the song. I'm sick and tired of us sitting around, hoping they don't get our kids next. You know, it tells us in the Bible, to go on the offense when you're a parent. You're supposed to not just defend, but go on defense.

You know there's a wolf in the front yard, you go out there and handle the wolf.

And that's how I look at these predators.
So The Righteous Hunter, that song was born from that thought.

GLENN: You know, you say, it can even hit us.

I've only told this story once before. But my son, when he was probably hmm. Fourteen.

He was playing on a PlayStation.

And it's, you 1 o'clock in the morning.

And the phone rings.

And we were lucky enough at that time, to have land lines. And the -- and we had multiple lines.

And it rang once. And then it hung up. And my wife was like, what was that?

And I said, I don't know. And then it bothered her so much.

She stayed awake. And she watched the lines. She saw line two light up.

She's like, somebody is on the phone.

And we went up.

We found out that my son was on the phone with a gamer. And we called the FBI. And my son was freaking out. He's like, Dad, he's just a normal kid. Blah, blah. Called the FBI.

They do an investigation. He was an adult. He was working at let's just say a major amusement park in the Los Angeles, Orange County area.

JOHN: Hmm.

GLENN: And was as the FBI agent told us, this is the way it happens, you don't see it. It's in the middle of the night. They had just caught somebody who had just -- in our general area, just caught somebody whose daughter was taken. And taken across state lines. And they said, you know, they just said, hey. We'll send you an airline ticket. Just come and visit us.

And, you know, it didn't turn out well. And they caught that person as well. But that doesn't happen all the time. You usually don't catch it. We were really blessed.

JOHN: Yeah. The stats are that less than 1 percent of kids who -- who wind up being trafficked are ever returned to their parents. This video that you're talking about, that I shot. I had to take some time to think about it.

I wrote this song almost a year ago. And it is such a disturbing subject. But I knew it was written for a reason. It was written to make parents wake up. It was written to make predators hopefully shake in fear from the wrath of God and the American parent. Because I don't think they have any fear. I know they don't have any fear of God. But they need to fear us.

So I took a lot of time shooting it. In this video, Glenn. There's a reenactment of adults, purchasing children in somebody's house.

GLENN: Yeah.

JOHN: Which is accurate because we had -- we had actual supervision in the room, from people who would do this for a living.

They would sting these people. They set them up.

They arrest them. We had them in the room to make sure everything they did was accurate. I urge people to watch it. As hard as it is for people to watch it, you need to look at it.

GLENN: Was the girl who was returned, was that just off the top of your head?

Was that just a hope or a true story?

In the video.

JOHN: There are kids who get returned. But it's less than 1 percent. Less than 1 percent, Glenn. I mean, that is --

GLENN: I can't imagine.

JOHN: That's unacceptable. When there's tens of millions of moms and dads who would go to the ends of the earth to get them. But less than 1 percent get them back. It is one of the most horrific blights, sins existing in the world today. I would say the most.

I mean, Jesus himself. Probably the most aggressive thing the son of God ever said.

STU: Oh, yeah.

JOHN: Is that you would be better off dead, than to hurt one of these kids. A millstone around your neck, as we know this phrase.

GLENN: Yeah. Did Sean Combs and what he was going through, play a role into bringing you this message?

JOHN: Sean Combs. You talking about Diddy?

GLENN: Yeah.

JOHN: Yeah. Well, I saw a video of him, about a year ago, on stage at some award show. And he looked right into the camera, and he said, I own your kids. I determine what they listen to. What they wear. What they think is cool.

I'll take your souls. He looks at the camera, with this demonic look in his eye. And proclaims this to American parents. And, you know, music is his weapon. Sean Combs and the industry, a lot of them, they use their music as a weapon to steal our sons and daughters, as the song says. To take them from us. To wreck their lives. To veer them off the path that God has intended for them to live.

They use their music to do it. And I was so enraged when I saw that demoniac say that with such arrogance. And we know the devil is the most arrogant creature ever created.

I said, oh, let Sean Comb's music, it's his weapon. Well, music is my weapon as well.

So I will write something. Let Sean combs. And the rest of the Sean combs of the world know, how the American parent feels about it. And what we're willing to do to protect our kids.

Because I don't think you guys are really aware of that.

And so that's -- that's where the song came from. I went to Sean Ryan.

A lot of people know Sean Ryan from his podcast. I asked him. He played the dad from the video. This is not a guy that will do music videos. I thought he would say, I appreciate it. But no.

But he said yes!

So Shawn Ryan is playing the dad, and it's his daughter being reenacted that's been taken.

GLENN: Well, it's very -- very powerful.

Let me ask you. What is the -- you know, I was thinking about what TikTok is here in America. And what TikTok is in China.

And TikTok in China is all positive.

It's all positive.

It's all kids doing amazing things. Et cetera, et cetera.

Because they know it's good for society. Here, they perverted it. Went the other direction.

What is it about our society that is attracted to stuff like this?

Why do we consume this garbage?

JASON: I think we have been programmed for decades, you know this. Programmed little by little by little.

Things that were shocking in the '80s, now would be rated PG. Things that were shocking even ten years ago, now you can click on it, and watch it on TikTok.

Degree by degree, they have come further and further into the -- the households of Americans. And conditioned those kids and parents, to just consider it normal.

And that's the trick. That's the deception.

That's why you have 36 million reports in one year in DHS alone. Of kids being targeted online.

Listen, this road is not just to yell into the void.

It's not just, hey. All these predators. We see you.

Yeah. That's part of it.

But bigger. The bigger point of parents watching video.

And the whole thing, by the way, is posted at John Rich on X. That's just at the top of my page, if you want to watch it.

The bigger point is that American parents start looking into their kids' devices. They go online. And figure out how to safeguard against this stuff. Don't let them in your house. Listen you wouldn't let a predator come through your front door, or play glass window in the middle of the night.

He would be met with gunfire. He would die! Inside your home, if he tried to take one of your kids. But we sit here. As we're following up on our emails or whatever we're doing. And our kids are off in the bedroom, they could be getting taken by Roblox.

GLENN: Big time.

JOHN: I mean, all these innocuous games that seem like nothing. These predators are coming in and posing as a kid and doing what you said in that story earlier, and they're very successful at it. We've got to stop that. Parents have to go on the offense. And it starts inside of your own home.

GLENN: Well, the one thing that you could do is cancel Meta. Make sure you don't have Meta. I don't know if you know this.

But Meta, if you were an account that engaged in trafficking of humans for sex, Meta doesn't believe in three strikes and you're out. They believe in 17 strikes and you're out.

Seventeen chances!

I don't know.

I don't know. I don't know what parent that would agree with that.

JOHN: Well, no parent agrees with that.

GLENN: No.

JOHN: But listen, we're up against an Army.

Battalions. Legions of demons in this world.

They are there. They possess people. Just like you and I are possessed by the Holy Spirit.

Because we gave our lives to Jesus Christ.

We're possessed by him. We're possessed by the Holy Spirit.

They're possessed by the spirit of their father. And it's an actual straight-up war.

If you think about it. What probably puts the most tears down the cheeks of Jesus Christ.

When you --

GLENN: Children.

JOHN: When you hurt the kids. Yes. Absolutely.

That's their motive. If they can derail the kids. They think they can win. But we can't let that happen.

Tennessee Special Election is a MASSIVE Wake-Up Call for Republicans Ahead of 2026 Midterms

A Tennessee district that voted for Trump by 22 points is suddenly a 2-point race, and the warning signs for Republicans couldn’t be clearer. With a strong GOP candidate, a weak progressive Democrat, and a deep-red electorate, this race should be a blowout. Instead, low turnout and December timing have turned a safe seat into a dangerous toss-up. What happens here could preview 2026 and whether the GOP is ready, or already slipping.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Well, it's an interesting day in Tennessee.

There is an election going on today in Tennessee.

And it's kind of an important one. Because this is a -- this is a district that, you know, went to Trump by 22 points.

And the Democrats are not spending as much money as the Republicans are, which kind of tells you go. We better not lose this one.

Stu. Welcome.

STU: Yeah. It's an interesting one, Glenn. Seventh congressional district in Tennessee. And it is a race, as you point out, that should be very, very friendly to Republicans.

This should not be what they have to worry about. As you noted, a 22-point margin for Donald Trump, in 2024. And this race is going on because of a representative who stepped down and took a job with the private sector.

And so right off the bat, you know, the important part of right now, is the fact that the Republicans have a very small majority in the House. They came in with a small majority. So losing any representatives is a big deal. They've had to deal with a few months of this going on and on. They have to defend this seat.

The two in the race, Matt Van Epps is the Republican.

He is -- you know, you never know in one of these cases. When you have a bright red district, sometimes you get a candidate that is not very good.

Sometimes you get a candidate, you know, where you kind of get a crazy person who wins the primary. Does not seem to be the case here at all.

Matt Van Epps is a West Point graduated, a decorated helicopter pilot. He is seemingly a fiscal conservative, does not seem to be some crazy person with lots of wild tweets or anything like that. He seems to be a --

GLENN: Hasn't been on an island, Epstein or otherwise.

STU: I don't think so. Has avoided all pedophile islands, which is great. Really want -- even peninsulas. He doesn't even go anywhere that has the word pedophile on it. He's stayed away from it, which is fantastic.

GLENN: Yeah, that's great. That's great.

STU: That would be the type of risk that you might have, in a situation like this.

Where you have a fringy type candidate.

He does not seem to be that.

Also, when you look at the Republican side of the aisle, sometimes you get a candidate who is like super Trumpy. And maybe the old school conservatives aren't on board with it. Or you get an anti-Trump Republican that runs, and Trump won't stores endorsed.

It doesn't seem that either of those have happened. This is a guy that the club for growth seems to like.

And Trump has endorsed and rallied for.

So you have --

GLENN: Okay.

STU: They didn't blow this. Like, they didn't go in this with like, okay.

We're super confident. Seems to have handled this relatively competently. The other thing. And you kind of noted a little bit of this. Which is interesting. Is they saw this coming.

They were worried about this from the beginning. And decided to actually spend money on this race. Which sometimes, again, can be a problem.

Sometimes, they're like, we have this 22 points, we don't need to do anything.

Democrat comes in. Spends tons of money, and the Republican loses somehow. That didn't happen here. Republicans have spent I think over $3 million. The Democrats spend about two.

Again, they have both been spending.

This is an important race. The Republicans actually spent some cash in this race.

GLENN: Because if the Democrat wins, it's a one point majority?

STU: One, two. There's a bunch of seats in flux. It's very close, to put it that way. You can't lose seats right now. To the extent, the House majority, it's not completely out of the question, they could lose this before 2026.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

STU: With a couple of weird moments happening with -- again, most of these congressmen are over 96 years old, so you never what's going to happen. Retirements. A lot of these people in purple districts are looking at 2026 and are saying, I'm not going to win. So maybe I just bail now, and take a private sector job.

I don't think they will lose the majority because of that. But it is an outlier possibility in this case.

So you look at this race, and the other part about this is, do the Democrats poll a candidate who is great?

Every once in a while, you get a candidate, you know, a military member on the Democratic side who is a smooth talker and can talk to the average person.

Even though, they're a Democrat. And they don't sound like a lunatic.

GLENN: Tulsi Gabbard, that the Democrats would actually like.

STU: Right. Someone they didn't eject out of the party immediately, when they started making sense.

GLENN: Right. There's fewer and fewer of them. But they might still exist somewhere.

I'm not entirely unsure that unicorns don't exist. So it might have.

STU: Did they pull a unicorn. The answer to that does seem to be a flat no.

What they pulled was Aftyn Behn, which this is a candidate running who is seemingly more on, like, the kind of AOC side of the Democratic Party. Not someone who is going to relate to the average person.

Now, she's had a couple of moments, that have made some news as this race has gone on. And she -- this is -- let me give you cut three, first.

This is 2020, a podcast clip of one of her podcast clips of her, that has been resurfaced during this campaign, talking about the area she actually would be representing.

VOICE: Because I hate this city. I hate the bachlorettes. I hate the pedal taverns. I hate country music. I hate all of the things that make Nashville.

STU: So, again, suboptimal, Glenn. You would prefer --

GLENN: That's really kind of a hard thing. It's kind of like saying, I want to represent the part -- or the district, you know, of Orlando, where Walt Disney World is, but I hate Disney.

STU: I hate Disney. I hate talking mice. I don't like dogs without pants on. It's like, generally speaking --

GLENN: Right. I can understand. I don't like Vegas, but Vegas likes Vegas. You know, the states like Vegas. It's really an important thing. I mean, if you happen to have a store or, you know, country music and the stores and the -- you know, the honky-tonks and all that stuff, that's what makes Nashville a destination.

STU: Right. That's the thing.

GLENN: If you want to get rid of that, you're going to not do good things for the economy, just saying.

STU: I mean, Glenn, you and I both know people who live and work in Nashville. They're -- it's not an uncommon sentiment for people to be frustrated about the bachelorette parties and the pedal taverns and the things that go on downtown. It's wild. It's Nash-Vegas, right? It is wild. And it can be that way.

GLENN: Yes. Yes. Yes.

STU: And if you're a resident, there is some of that, that is somewhat common to the area. Though, saying that you hate the city when you're trying to represent the city. Is not necessarily optimal. I would say suboptimal. And I would say it's the economy. Right? It is -- if you hate that, if you're fighting against it, you're fighting against thousands and thousands of jobs, you're fighting against millions of dollars that are coming in.

That's not a great look. Even if you believe it, it's of type of thing that a consultant would correctly advise you to not say when you're running for office.

GLENN: In today's world, that might be the exact right thing to say, the things that consultants say, "Don't ever say that."

STU: Yeah, I think in this case, I would shy away from the city.

GLENN: I would too. I would too.

STU: You know, the other part of this is, we saw much, much worse out of Zohran Mamdani, and he won.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

STU: But he won a Democrat plus-20 city. This is a Republican plus 20 type of district. So probably not the approach you want to take. There is another one that is going on. You know, again, she's trying -- she's very much a progressive. But, of course, trying to message herself, as someone who can work across party lines. That's what you need to do as a Democrat to win in a Republican plus 20 district. That just means Republicans will win by 20 points, typically, on a typical cycle. Here is a 2023 political forum with that debate, talking about her ability to work across the aisle.

VOICE: You cannot work with these people. Working across the aisle has rarely been effective in the last ten years. Okay.

So what we need to do, one, we need to continue organizing external pressures in the Republican super majority, which is exactly what happened in April, when students and teachers came together and forced their frustration, and force Governor Lee to call a special session.

STU: So, again --

GLENN: Okay.

STU: -- suboptimal, probably if you're trying to present yourself that way, which is what she's tried to do.

She's tried to present herself -- her messaging and ads is like affordability. And can you believe these Republicans won't release the Epstein files?

It's like, your party had control of everything for four years, and didn't do this.

You are aware of that, right?

GLENN: And you noticed, as soon as they were released, how the Democrats just went completely silent.

STU: Right.

GLENN: Like Epstein files, no. There's nothing there. What are you talking about? So stupid.

STU: In polls, though, people want the Epstein files out. And that kind of goes across party lines. All of this basically set up to say, the Republicans didn't seem to blow this, with any of their decisions.

The Democrats didn't pick some generational talent to come into this race. And this is a race where you would say, normal times, maybe the Republicans win by 20 points.

The polling has not shown that. And nobody expects the Republicans to win this race by 20 points. That's kind of the bad news. A lot of the polling leading -- and it's -- it's a special election. To give you a quick outlier on that. Quick explaining on that. These races are weird. It's December. It's not an Election Day.

No one knows what the turnout is going to look like. It's a very strange, off-year, special election, anything can happen in these. And there's not a lot of polling to tell us what will happen.

GLENN: Yeah. And the really bad thing about this is, you know, you live in a place like this.

It will happen. And you're just so busy with everything else. You just don't even realize, oh, that was yesterday.

I was going to vote! You know what I mean?

STU: We talked about this. We talked about this yesterday in the meeting before the show. And we said, oh, that Tennessee election is going on. Oh, jeez. That's the one with the crazy lady.

It's out of our mind. We just came off of Thanksgiving weekend. I have no idea what the turnout will be on this.

And that is a real concern --

GLENN: Right. And the ones that win are the ones that can turn their base out. And if you have a democratic socialist. If you have somebody who can take these guys and hold them back, you're going to get your people out.

They will be motivated. Because they'll know, it won't take a lot of us to throw this election.

Just hoping that the tell me can -- or, the Republicans in -- in Nashville understand what they're up against today.

STU: It's a great point. If you're a democratic socialist, and you live in this district, there's no way you're not showing up.

You're going to be there. The question are the Republicans, the typical people who will win this race, going to be there?

GLENN: My guess is no. My guess is no.

Yeah. Twenty-two points, you're like, that will be fine.

STU: Every -- every indicator that we have, and I will say, there's not a lot of those indicators. Because it's lightly polled. And it's a weird time.

Every indicator that we have shows that some of those people that would typically come out and vote for Donald Trump in a presidential election, or a senator in Tennessee, are not going to show up for this election, like every indicator we have.

The polling leading up in a couple -- the couple months leading up to this showed typically Van Epps, the Republican, with a high single digits lead. So not a 22-point lead, which you would expect. More like eight or nine. That's still a victory. And it won't change the balance of the House and everything else.

GLENN: If they show up.

STU: If they show up.

Here's the bigger worry. And this is where you get really scared.

The last poll, the only one that we have that is very recent in the last few days, came out from Emerson. And Emerson is a pretty good pollster.

Did well on Trump.

They had this race as a two-point race.

Two!

GLENN: Jeez.

STU: The Republicans still winning.

But a two-point race. If you happen to be in this district, if you know somebody who is in this district, if you have someone who you know who is like, I think I will vote Republican. But we will win anyway. I wouldn't worry about it. Might be worth a phone call today.

Because if that poll is right, and I don't know that it is.

But if it's that close, this is a massively dangerous thing. To be clear, to say this in advance. So I can't take it back later. Would be completely catastrophic if they lost this race.

It's a special election. So there's asterisks around it.

The idea of what this points to in 2026.