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

Brand new show takes you backstage with Glenn

Everything changes January 5th

Enter your email to be the first in line for groundbreaking Torch reveals:

Hey, it’s Jason Buttrill, Glenn’s head writer and chief researcher.

Have you ever wondered what’s going on behind the scenes of Glenn’s radio show?

What’s happening right before he starts the show? How do he and his staff get ready? Is it chaotic during the show as Glenn adapts to breaking news?

Glenn has decided to bring you all in on the action. Introducing the Torch Insider Feed—a new segment running throughout the daily radio program. I’ll be your guide during the entire show, popping in just before it starts and at other times when non-Insiders typically see commercials.

I’m going to give you a behind-the-scenes inside look that hasn’t been seen before.

But beyond that, we’re going even deeper. We’ll use Glenn’s new content tools to rapidly access the information he’s shared with you over the past two decades—all the dots connected, all the history explained… EVERYTHING. And we’ll—somehow—fit it all in before Glenn returns from commercial.

As an Insider, while Glenn does his daily radio program, you and I will push the boundaries of what we can learn and experience during his show. You’ll be able to comment on everything we’re talking about, and I’ll respond in real time. It truly is a one-of-a-kind experience that I don’t believe has ever been attempted before.

Coming January 2026.

This plan could FINALLY FIX our broken immigration system

Is it enough to just stop ILLEGAL immigration in America? Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) joins Glenn Beck to explain his proposal to stop ALL immigration until we fix our broken system…

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Anyway, let me go to Chip Roy.

Hello, Chip, how are you, sir?

CHIP: Glenn, how are you? Merry Christmas, bro.

GLENN: Merry Christmas. This is our Congressman from the great state of Texas for Texas attorney general.

Talk to me about your bill on immigration.
Does it have a chance -- tell me what it is. And I want to know if it has a chance of passing.

CHIP: Sure. I mean, you know, you opened this segment by talking about our need to focus on not just illegal immigration, but legal immigration. And I strongly believe that that is true. I think for way too long, we have been getting loose. Fast and loose overly corporate. Overly driven by, you know, your kind of chamber of commerce crowd.

All of a sudden, we now have a situation where we have millions of people in our country, that are not seeking to assimilate, not seeking to assimilate, not seeking to be, quote, the melting pot.

But rather trying to reestablish their cultures from other countries, rather than becoming fully American. And that's been a long string of -- of decisions. And we go back and put it in perspective. We have 51 and a half million foreign-born people here in the United States.

The vast majority of whom, did not come here illegally, right?

But came here legally. Then they've been abusing the process and the system, because we've got this broad use of H-1B one visas. We have diversity visas. We have chain migration. We have everybody's cousin. Uncle, aunt, whatever. And there's the growing population here.

And this is now, unlike it was a century ago, right?

When we had the mass migration. The late 1800s, the early 1900s. And at that point, we didn't have a welfare state. We have schools that were teaching that America was great, or even the Constitution. And we had, you know, God in the schools, and we had our culture being elevated, not being criticized. And at that point, we stood for immigration in the 1920s. Right? We still flatlined it because everybody said, whoa, whoa, whoa. We have so many people in.

Our country was stronger for it. Today is worse. Because we have so many people coming here, who are not assimilating. We have schools that are not teaching people that America is great.

And we certainly are continuing to have a welfare state now, that is causing a big problem. So I think we should pause it. It's called the Pause Act. We should pause legal immigration, until we fix a lot of things.

Fix diversity. Fix chain migration. Fix H1 --

GLENN: Wait. Can you tell me what a diversity visa.

What is a diversity visa? I don't even know what that is.

CHIP: Diversity visas. Chain migration, these are all things being used currently to have expansive use of the ability of people to come into the country, and -- and say that they're -- you know, a family member, right.

An extended individual, in what we're calling chain migration. So you'll have a person come in, and instead of it being a close knit family member, right?

Instead of it being, okay. This is my spouse, or this is my child. It's cousins and aunts and uncles, and so forth.

And, you know, this is the kind of thing that we've got to reform. And including, H-1B visas. And including all the problems that we have here with birthright citizenship.

Obviously, the Supreme Court is going to hear the Trump administration's executive order on that.

But we should codify a new view of how we deal with birthright citizenship. You can only be a citizen, if you're born of citizen parents. Not because you were on our dirt. So these are -- in Texas, right?

We had a Supreme Court opinion, in the 1980s to educate the children. Of illegal aliens. Illegal alien children. We do challenge that, overturn it. And we should fix it.

Until you fix all those things. Fix illegal immigration.

Then we're going to lose our country. We're going to lose our culture, and I think we need to do that. So that's why we have to have a bill to pause it.

I just talked to police officer, the day before yesterday. And I was walking down the street, going into the store for Christmas. And he said, hey, Glenn Beck.

And he had this slight accent. I couldn't tell exactly what it was. And then he said, eventually, I'm Irish. I came from Ireland. I've been here for 20 years. My wife and I lived in Ireland.

I said, my gosh, does Ireland even exist anymore?

And he said, Glenn, it used to be. I go back every year, it used to be you could go anywhere, and you would have the Irish public.

And, you know, you could see Irishmen everywhere. And, yes, there were people from other parts of the world, et cetera, et cetera. But it was Irish!

He said, I can go down into my hometowns, small ones, and he said, I don't see another Irishman.

He said, the Irish culture is completely annihilated. He said, it's all mosques and Pakistanis and whatever.

And he said, is there ever anyone who will say, hey, wait a minute, the Irish culture, the American culture, the English culture.

The -- the whatever culture, that's important too! When is anybody going to step up and say, you know what, we -- we don't want to lose this!

By embracing that! We can have both. But not like this!

CHIP: Well, Glenn, and you know. And, by the way, the thing I -- since I got up and I started talking about chain migration. But just so you know, right? That's a program very specifically designed to bring people in from countries that we don't have significant immigration from. It's literally designed to diversify our immigration population.

GLENN: What!

Who cares?

CHIP: Right. And that's my point. And this is what's so wrong about our immigration system.

And it's being done that way. And by Afghanistan, all of it is being abused. And we have had this mass migration. And, again, you are the ardent defender of the First Amendment. So am I, and you can believe what you want to believe. Right?

And we would never want to insert the federal government into your belief system, like between you and God.

But what we have to remember about Islam is that it is a politically motivated group of individuals. Right?

This is -- when we look at the core, and we look at what -- you look at what the Muslim government is talking about. When you look at Sharia law, when you look at the tenets of Islam, there's a massive political component to it, and we have to remember that.

We have to remember. You actually read the words. Read what's being said. And look what's happening in Dallas.

Epic City is not just an accident. What happened was the growth and the promotion of Sharia law in the United Kingdom, in France, in America.
It's not an accident, okay? And this is well beyond, hey, you can believe what you want to believe. You can be agnostic. You can be Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Muslim. We stand for that principle.

When you come here to annihilate and change your culture. Then you've got to approach that.

We -- we Americans to have approach that in a different way.

And I believe, we should pause immigration. We should be doing what the President is doing.

Remove a whole lot of the people dumped into our country under Biden with illegal immigrants, asylum, that were abused for all those abused by Biden and Mayorkas, and go around and make sure that we are resetting the table and reset our laws. And we should just pause for a while. And reclaim our American culture to your point about what you just said about Ireland.

GLENN: You -- you lay out -- I saw your press release, and you lay out what this bill will do, and I got to read this to the audience.

Because I can't believe you have to say this. It would end the practice of automatic citizenship, yeah, and chain migration.

Yeah, that's not what the Fourteenth Amendment says. That's not what it is about. That's not what it was written for. And the H-1B one visa program. Got it. Ensure immigration assimilation, got it. Now, listen to these last three.

This is what he is proposing we do.

Okay? We're not doing it. He's proposing we do this: Deny entry to Sharia law adherence.

Oh, I don't know. Yes!

I can't believe we have to even say that, out loud. Deny entry to Chinese communist party members. I don't know. Yes!

And the third one: Deny entry to terrorists!

This is a civilization that is on a suicidal path. If that can't happen. That's not -- it's crazy that that's not already happening!

Suicide. Just committing suicide.

CHIP: Well, the other element that we have to factor in is the welfare that is being doled out.

GLENN: Yes.

CHIP: To noncitizens in the form of not just food stamps. Medicaid.

All of the social programs in the federal government. But also our local schools and local hospitals to get inundated by people coming into the United States.

Knowing that they will get free health care and free education, and they might be able to then use birthright citizenship, to come here, to grow here. And none of this is about the melting pot.
And, Glenn, that's what I'm trying to make the case here to people. When you have people who came here, who largely shared our values. And when they came here, they wanted their kids to learn English. They wanted their kids to love America.

They wanted their kids to love our history and our founding. They appreciate what our country stood for. By the way, that mass migration occurred right after the Civil War. So our country has literally been at war. And people said, I want to go there. Because this country stood for something bigger and better. And people knew it. But they wanted to be apart of it. And they wanted to embrace it.

They didn't want to change it. That's not true now. Right? That's definitively not true.

United States Congress. Ilhan Omar.

When we openly and outspokenly, committed to changing America to be like her home country!

That's a problem. That is what is happening. And if we don't -- you can't win a war, that you don't acknowledge exists, Glenn. And there is a war being waged against our way of life. And against our culture.

So look, I've increased the legislation here. But it's also why I'm running for attorney general. And a campaign speech, you hear me.

We have to have states. That are standing up and leading this fight as well.

If we're going to save America.

GLENN: You brought up, you know, there's a war being waged.

I -- every alarm bell in me is going off.

Every alarm bell within me. We are -- we're in a war. We won't even recognize it.

I think the president has. But I think it's going to take a lot more than what we're doing right now. Look at what's happening in Europe.

France just happened their -- their ball drop, you know, for New Year's Eve.

They have it -- every year. They cancelled it. And said, just stay at home. And watch a rerun of it from another year.

That's insanity!

They just have surrendered.

The -- how serious are we at -- at preparing for a civilizational war.

CHIP: Well, I think on the positive side, we have an increasing number of people in leadership, who were understanding the threat.

In a way that they didn't a year ago, or five years ago.

That being said, we also have a long way to go and a very short time to get there. Right?

We have got to move quickly. If you see what's happening in Europe, right? And we go, well, they're 20 years ahead of us now. I don't think that's true.

I think Europe is a mere months, years, few years ahead of us, in terms of how bad it's gotten.

And I think we're now realizing, how much damage we've done over the last decade, in particular. Certainly, the last two decades in terms of the mass influence of people, that do not ultimately share our values. So I do think it's important that we support the president on what he's doing and removing bad actors, and making sure that we're removing people that need to be removed, or here illegally.

But if we don't reform our illegal immigration system immediately. And pause it. And freeze it. And reset who we are as Americans. And get people to understand that when you're here, you're going to embrace being an American. Then we're not going to save the country. Right?

So that's why I wanted to introduce this bill. It's why I introduced this bill. That's why I had to introduce several legislation to defend people from Sharia bill. That's why I've given a bill to take away the tax status for CAIR. We've got to get people to realize, that we need immediate change. That we can't wait. So right now, Congress is not codifying or advancing the ball on this front yet.

The president is doing it unilaterally. And I think that's a problem.

GLENN: Can the house actually get it done? Are we going to pass it? Does it have a chance of ever getting to the president's desk?

VOICE: Right now, we are socializing it, and there's a growing number of people who support the concept. And it's not on social media.

But we've got to get it socialized with the White House and the leadership of the House, to get it to the point of trying to enforce a vote. There's going to be a lot of resistance. There's going to be a lot of people, that are going to be listening to business interests. A lot of people who will say, well, I've got a certain culture in my particular district and so forth.

And we've got to ride the (inaudible) act and recognize, if we don't do this, then we have no chance to save the country.

Because if another 55,000 people come in on diversity visas this year, and another 55,000 coming next year, and then another 55,000 the following year, all from these supposed low immigration countries for purposes of diversity. In addition to the chain migration, in addition to H-1B visas. Right? Do the math. See what's happening.

And how many things are happening. So we've got to freeze that. And reset what we want to do for our country.

GLENN: All right.

It's called the pause act. Get online, and support Chip Roy at the pause act. Ask your Congress man. Your senators.
To join Chip on the pause act. Again, you can follow him on X, at Chip Roy.

TX. He's also running for candidate for attorney general. What is your website? Chip.

CALLER: ChipRoy.com. Pretty simple. Pretty straightforward, and I appreciate it. And look, this Christmas Eve and for everybody out there, Merry Christmas. We have the greatest country in the history of the world. We have to keep our heads up and put our faith in Jesus, and remember that it's on us, to pass it down to our kids and grandkids.

GLENN: Thank you so much, Chip Roy.

The END of 'Glenn TV': 14 Years of Truth Bombs, Tears & Glenn's NEXT Revolution | Glenn TV | Ep 475

It's time to say goodbye to "Glenn TV," but Glenn's radio program and "The Glenn Beck Podcast" will continue to be main staples on BlazeTV. After 14 years of "Glenn TV," Glenn Beck looks back at the warnings and predictions that defined the show. From predicting the Islamification of Europe to exposing the corruption in Ukraine years before the mainstream media, Glenn revisits the moments he challenged the experts and sounded the alarm early. He rewinds his predictions on Russia, ISIS, socialism, and the coordinated collapse of capitalism and Western civilization. Glenn also revisits his early reporting on Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and the COVID lab leak — stories the media originally dismissed. Plus he gives a first look at what's to come with his new project, the Torch, debuting January 5, 2026.

The Western World is UNDER ATTACK... And THESE Shocking Stories are Proof

A wave of global instability is forcing Western nations to confront hard truths they’ve ignored for years. From Australia’s deadly attack and a media narrative that excuses extremist violence, to France canceling its iconic New Year’s celebration over “security concerns,” the cracks in Western resolve are becoming impossible to hide. This conversation exposes how denial, mass migration without assimilation, and media double standards are eroding public safety, cultural confidence, and the West’s ability to defend itself from growing threats.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: You know, there's more on the -- the shooting in Australia. Did you see the comment from the mom?

The -- the hero who disarmed. He's a hero. He's getting a lot of accolades.

But here's the family of Ahmed al Ahmed. No, no, no. That's the good guy. Hang on just a second.

That's the hero. I'm just looking through all of the stories. Here it is. Here it is.

Mother of the Bondi beach shooting suspect. The mother of Naveed Akram, who along with his father, allegedly killed more than a dozen people at a Hanukkah celebration, said on Sunday, insisted her son was a good boy.

Now, I mean, I can understand, you know, you wanting to believe that, because your son is your son. You know, but I don't think -- I don't think anybody in Rob Reiner's family is thinking the brother is a good boy. They might love him still, but he's not a good boy if he indeed did that.

STU: Yeah, there could be an element of thinking, right? Like, you know, he's been overcome by addiction, or overcome by mental illness. And I think he's a good boy underneath hat. You can have that Islamic extremist terrorist son if you want.

But what you would have to say I think accompanying that, was he got infected by this extremism. And, you know, by his dad who, you know, led him down a terrible path.

GLENN: Right. Her husband.

STU: Right. That's a plausible thing, if you believe. He can't be a good boy if he's murdering people, unless, of course, Glenn, you believe that the outcome was positive.

GLENN: Well, it was positive, yes.

She said, he doesn't have a firearm. Yeah, he does.

He doesn't even go out. He doesn't mix around with friends. Well, now you're describing a loner.

He doesn't drink, smoke, or go to bad places. Anyone would wish to have a son like my son. He's a good boy.

No. No. I'm safe to say, I don't want a son like that.

STU: No. Yeah, I'm pretty sure she was about to say, and he stays away from trans fats.

That's great, just doesn't have much to do with this particular incident.

GLENN: Yeah, I would say that. Also --

STU: Can I follow up, while we're in this realm here real quick with this audio. This is -- you mentioned this briefly. But let's play a game here: Can you find the logical problem with this particular audio from ABC News?

This is about the somewhat associated shooting of the pro-Palestinian group. Or the pipe bombing, from the pro-Palestinian group you discussed earlier this hour. This is a real clip, not edited.

GLENN: All right.

VOICE: Nowhere did they allege that any of these individuals wanted anybody to be harmed as a result of these pipe bombs. Specifically, it does appear that their aim was to sent a political message, as they said, prosecutors yesterday in this news conference.

VOICE: Carol and Page also discussed plans for follow-up attacks after their bombings, which included plans to a target ICE agents and vehicles with pipe bombs.

STU: Now, can you detect any issue with that?

GLENN: I found two.

I found two.

One, they're not targeting anybody with the use of the pipe bomb!

STU: Right.

GLENN: Now, maybe. Maybe nobody gets hurt like that.

But experience and history tells me. Sometimes when you don't know what you're doing, pipe bombs hurt people.

STU: Right. Yes.
GLENN: And sometimes when you do know what you're doing, pipe bombs hurt people.

That's the -- that's problem number one. Problem number two was, they stated they were then going to target ICE agents?

STU: Right.

GLENN: As if ICE agents aren't people?

STU: You know, Glenn, that is exactly what I came up with. I think, I've heard this statement. You mentioned the same sentiment earlier on the program. A lot of people are saying this. I guess, in their conversations that were, you know, picked off as we were going through this investigation. There were some similarities. If you think back to early environmental terrorist attacks.

ALF and ELF, some of those attacks -- not all, but some of those attacks were targeted at infrastructure, and things around the -- you know, the oil industry. But not -- you know, intentionally trying not to harm the workers or whatever.

And some of their I guess conversations back and forth echoed that sentiment. Like, let's put them this a place where people aren't going to be.

Again, I don't think that's good. I don't think of these people as heroes. But Hollywood would make movies over people like that and how wonderful and glorious they were.

But at the end, they seemed to ignore, that they had attacks planned against ICE agents. And the only way that makes logical sense is if you don't think ICE agents are people.

GLENN: Are people. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. Dehumanize. Dehumanize. Dehumanize. That's why I've been saying, we've got to stop MAID. We have to appreciate life again.

We have to stand for life. All life!

If we don't, you can just say, well, that's not really a person.

You've got to stand for life.

One more story in this, just to show you how close we are to losing Europe.

The French who aren't -- are not used to waving the white flag.

You know, they're -- they're -- they're tough. They have decided on New Year's Eve, that they are not going to hold the fireworks show, that they always hold at the art drive.

So they always have a New Year's Eve concert and fireworks show, but this year, they've decided that they're going to scrap it, wait until you hear what they were going to replace it with. But they're going to scrap it because there are security concerns such as, quote, unpredictable crowd movements.
You mean, like the crowds that are coming over on boats and coming on to your shore? You mean those crowd movements? Because, I mean, I think we know what they're saying here. They're saying that they're very concerned that there might be trouble. There might be some sort of, you know, shootings or activity or terrorists. But they're not -- they're just saying, it's unpredictable crowd movements. And so we're -- we're suggesting that we cancel the decades old fireworks celebration on New Year's Eve.

That's like canceling Times Square. Okay?

We're going to cancel that. And instead, replace it with -- this is a quote.

With a prerecorded video to be viewed in the safety and comfort of your French living room.
(laughter)

GLENN: Oh. So we're watching an old celebration.

Why not? Dick Clark. We got all those tapes of Dick Clark. Let's just cancel New Year's Eve and Times Square and just play one from 1977. I mean, who didn't love that?

STU: Not only is that completely insane. It's also a great example of why virtual school didn't work.

Right?

You know, that's not the same thing. My wife say big fan of around this time of year. Every television has the Yule log on it, you know. And at his help you. It's nice. It helps you celebrate the season, a little bit. But it's not the same as going around the fire, and feeling the heat, it's not the same.
GLENN: Right. Yeah. There's no warmth. There's no warmth. But leave it to the French to surrender. I mean, we've lost France. We've lost France.

If they're not willing to say what's going on. Look, there's terrorists here. And we're afraid of a large crowd. And we're lost, because we let too many people in here. We have no idea who they are. And they're dangerous. And they want to kill us and kill our civilization.

We're working on that, so we can have this next year.

This year, we will to have cancel it.

But they're not saying that. They're saying, you know what, watch it from home. And it will be a videotape of an old one. Oh, okay.