RADIODecember 13, 2023

Levin: Why the Supreme Court should STAY OUT of the Trump/January 6 debate

The Supreme Court has announced that it will hear an appeal that could have a big effect on the January 6th-related case against former president Donald Trump. But while this case has to do with charges of obstruction of an official proceeding, there's also another case that the Supreme Court could hear. Special counsel Jack Smith has asked the court to rule on Trump's claim of executive immunity. But BlazeTV host Mark Levin has some choice warnings for the Court: "The Supreme Court should NOT take this case up." Mark and Glenn review what a positive and negative ruling in this case would do to the country and Mark explains why he believes one of those rulings would "destroy the office of the presidency."

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Mr. Mark Levin. How are you my friend?

MARK: Mr. Glenn Beck. I mean, look, good. Thank you.

GLENN: Good. Good. I'm pretty good.

I'm a little concerned about, you know, 2024. I can't come up with a scenario, where it ends well, but maybe you can.

MARK: It's such a mess.

I mean, you can have people talking third party. I think if Nikki Haley -- who I really oppose. I mean, I call her George Bush in a dress.
She pretty much is.

GLENN: With her foreign policy, she is. With her foreign policy, she absolutely is.

MARK: Well, look at her domestic policy. She wanted to invite the Palestinians and Gazans into our country. What, has she lost her mind?

GLENN: Yeah. That's true.

MARK: She gave land to Communist China in South Carolina. And now she pretends she's a hard-liner. She's never been a leader on any of the issues that matter to us, whether it's abortion, whether it's the border, whether it's tax cuts. And I looked at these allegations by DeSantis, and he's right. Go into Google.

Look at them, she refused to sign a bill, that said men use men's room. Ladies use lady's rooms.

Now, when it came to the woke war, she sided with Disney. I'm going, what's going on here? This woman will not be able to fight the Marxist revolution that's swirling around us today.

Which is why Karl Rove and Romney, and this guy at Blackstone or BlackRock, whoever the hell they call themselves. All these people, he put in liberal Democrat billionaires who will vote for Biden are backing her.

So she goes third party. You know, the RINOs are the fifth column. They're the fifth column in our party.

And, frankly, they're the fifth column in this country.

The Democrats, once they get their fighting out of the way, go back Biden.

They would back a kumquat for president. And our guys, they'll splinter. The base is always supposed to march behind whatever the establishment does. But this goes to your point, doesn't it?
Which is: It's concerning.

GLENN: Yeah. Yes, the way you feel about Nikki Haley. Would you fall in line behind her?

MARK: I don't have to. But she will fall before --

GLENN: No. But if she were the candidate?

MARK: No, I've had enough. I'm not falling in line --

GLENN: Me too. However, it's Biden or I think Michelle Obama, I would vote for a kumquat.

MARK: Yeah. I don't think it will be Michelle Obama. You haven't heard a word from her, have you?

GLENN: No, we haven't. But I just -- it's the only scenario that works out.

I mean, let's --

MARK: They have the convention.

GLENN: Yeah. That the -- you know, the superdelegates. They just forget the vote. They just say, you know what, he's too ill or whatever. He's too frail. You know, the Democrats want another choice. Let's just. We nominate Michelle Obama.

MARK: If that happens, I think they will turn to Hillary.

But it doesn't matter what we think.

The problem is, what's happening right now subsidy this grotesque effort to try to put Donald Trump in were an.

GLENN: Yeah, I know.

MARK: You read. You read this A-hole who files this, with the Supreme Court. He always wants him to cut the corners.

He doesn't get attorney-client privilege.

All these privileges.

Presidential privilege.

Executive privilege.

All denied Donald Trump.

He doesn't want to go to the normal appellate process.

Because he can't get his trial going, before the election.

You know, it takes years to have a full-baloney criminal trial. Particularly when you're raising. You're creating constitutional issues of depression.

So he brings us to this point. Now he demands that the Supreme Court hear his motion against Trump as soon as possible.

And they do it, they say, okay. We'll consider your argument. Trump's voters will get one week to respond. What?

You have a case in Pennsylvania, during the course of this election. Not about ballots. Not about voting machines.

A pure constitutional question, a legitimate question. About who gets to decide and write election laws in the state.

The governor?

The board of elections? Or the legislature, like the Constitution says in black and white?

They wouldn't even take up that case. You have other cases. That people are waiting for in front of the Supreme Court. And not to get too much in the weeds. These Enron cases. They use obstruction for the Enron cases, against these January 6ers, which doesn't apply.

It doesn't even meet the elements. So they appeal to the Supreme Court, and the same day the Supreme Court says, okay. We want to hear these arguments from Jack the Ripper Smith there.

The court says, we're going to pound this for now. Well, maybe we will consider it later in the year or next year. You have people sitting in jail. So this is really amazing.

You have a case -- this Judge Chutkan. I had a great lawyer on my program. Shone is his name. David Shone. And he said, Mark, I think in three years, waiting for a decision from this judge, who wants to have a trial on Trump in a five-month period.

It's all a setup.

And so this guy Jack Smith, the courts are bending over backwards. To accommodate this guy.

He wins every single motion.

Trump loses every single motion, in front of this radical Obama judge. The appellate court is overwhelmingly Democrat. Because when Perry Reid was the Senate leader and Obama was president, they added a seat to the DC circuit and filled it with Democrats.

This recent panel had two Obama appointees. And one Biden appointee.

The judge that he was filling was an Obama appointee. A judge Trump was dealing with, was another Obama appointee.

And now we go to the Supreme Court, and I'll tell you, Glenn. John Roberts is a huge problem. John Roberts is like this guy Michael Lewis. They hate Trump.

The Republicans. But, you know, they're proper Republicans. They don't like the tweeting. You know, they don't like the language.

Oh, my goodness. All the stuff going on here. It's just so unseemly.

It's so improper.

You know, they're just used to losing the country very properly, you know. But what's happening here, in my view, is we have a potential criminal justice system.

We have judges that wear black robes, going to these mahogany-paneled courtrooms. You have a prosecutor standing over there. He gets his desk. They get their desk.

Eventually, the trial. The jury sits over there. It all looks so proper. It all looks so constitutional.

And it's all bullcrap. Because all these movements and actions before this trial. The motion filings. The decisions on the motion filings and everything. They will determine the outcome of this elections. And just finally -- I know I'm rambling a bit, but I tend to do that.

One of the things that has troubled me a lot here is this.

GLENN: Yeah.

MARK: This guy charges Trump with a Klan act violation. With two Enron violations. And a federal contractor violation. These four statues, so it was bogus.

It is bogus!

But his arguments, which have been allowed by this judge. His paper filings are all about insurrection.

And seditious conspiracy.

In other words, this is a grotesque violation of -- of a prosecutorial ethics.

Grotesque.

He is making the case, without having proved the elements of the crimes that he's basically arguing for. That Donald Trump knew or had to know.

That what he was saying, what he was doing, what he was texting. What he was reading, proved that he wanted a violent event to occur that day. So why didn't you charge him with that? They didn't charge him with violence about anything.

He charged him with the Klan act, and obstruction, and all the rest of these things. And the judge ruled, oh, that's okay.

What's okay? So he's charged with four phony charges. But this guy is arguing something completely different. And other serious litigators or former federal prosecutors whatever, say this is not the way this is supposed to be done.

And it's all happening.

The Supreme Court should not take this case up.

There's no reason why this case has -- if you read this motion, this clown keeps talking about the public interest.

People have a right.

What does he about an the public interest?

He sits holed up. He is in a room with ten other reprobates.

They're making all these decisions, and then they speak for the public. Well, they for sure don't speak for 80 million people.

And so the judiciary, I would argue is doing severe damage to this country.

Allowing incredible interference in this election process.

And when it's all said and done. They will never recover.

GLENN: Well, I will tell you that John Roberts is the kind of guy that thinks, we should rule on this. And let this go forward.

Otherwise, we'll be blamed for it. And they will say, oh, it's the judicial activism of the Supreme Court.

So we're protecting the Supreme Court. By letting this small injustice, they would think.

Just let this past.

Let them do it. Then they hash it out, and our hands are clean. It's an act of Pontius Pilate quite honestly.

MARK: One hundred percent.

I call him Hollywood John.

He's very worried about what's said about him and thought about him. And his wife, and Thomas Friedman over there at the New York Times.

They're best friends.

They got caught up in these social circles, which always goes the way of the left.

And I don't trust this guy. I don't even trust Kavanaugh. And Barrett is a complete disappointment because she's right under Roberts' wing. Really, three tremendous constitutionalists. Then you have a couple of RINOs. Then you have a couple of Democrats. I'm worried about this.

GLENN: So Alan Dershowitz said, just based on the speed of this trial.

He said, there's no way Donald Trump could even prepare for a -- a defense.

And he said, we are at a banana republic if that doesn't stop. He said, there's no way that this trial shouldn't go forward next year, only because of the amount and volume of documents, that have to be processed.

He said, it's -- it's criminal, if they speed this trial up. Or they let it go, at this rate. Do you agree with that?

MARK: I mean, you denied him a time privilege. You did it in a secret proceeding. That's a violation of the Fifth Amendment.

The phony claim of a crime, fraud exception. So his lead lawyer, the January 6th case, had to testify in front of the grand jury. And he had to provide his notes that he had taken with Donald Trump. And we've never seen anything like this.

We don't know what they're talking about. It's all done in secret. That happens. I'm told other things happened in front of that grand jury that were absolutely unacceptable by some of the lawyers working on this case.

So what he's talking about, there's a violation of due process. Fifth Amendment.

And the Sixth Amendment. Which is the right to effective counsel. You can't have effective counsel when they're drowning in documents and witnesses and everything else.

And for no reason. No --

GLENN: He said, there's no way that he said, if that lawyer stands in front of that judge and he says, no. You have to proceed.

And they aren't ready because they -- there's no way possible. He said, he should quit immediately.

And say, I'm sorry. I'm not going to abide.

And if that means you're going to hold me in contempt.

Hold me in contempt.

But this is a travesty of justice.

MARK: Well, I think that's right.

Every lawyer has to make that decision on how to proceed.

So I don't know if I would do that or not. I really haven't thought go.

That said, he's right on the substance of the issue. 100 percent right.

The problem is that this lower court judge and this prosecutor. Oh, no, that they're setting Donald Trump up for conviction. So when he runs for office, as president in the general election. Beating everyone else. They'll keep calling him a convicted felon, a convicted felon.

So the people who are kind of on the edge, kind of leaning toward Trump, because they can't stand Biden. We know who these people are. We have lived with people like this right in our communities, in our neighborhoods. We meet them. He might lose them, and that's the goal.

GLENN: Right.

MARK: And you can see there are hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign funding, that's going to be spent by the Democrats. The Biden campaign, or in your case, the Michelle Obama campaign. Talking about how Trump is a convicted felon. And then -- so we won't be talking about inflation.

And the border.

GLENN: All right.

So can we gain this -- I don't know how much time you have allotted in your schedule. I know you're so busy. All right. All right.

MARK: For you, the whole week.

GLENN: I want to war game this out with you a little bit. Because I have no idea, it's my understanding the Constitution will allow him to run and to be president. And run a campaign from jail.

But I don't know.

So can you go through this?

What happens if the court comes back, and the jury comes back, and says, he's guilty.

And he's a convicted felon.

What happens then?

We'll get into that in 60 seconds.

First, let me tell you about MyPillow.

If you've slept on a MyPillow, you know they're great. Now they have the MyTowels out. And, yeah, we have in the bathroom, in case, Mr. Levin, a guest in our home today needs to use the restroom.
He has the special towels. You know, he has the -- he has the towels for our guest. Our visitors.

You know, mom, we never use those towels.

Because we don't ever have guests.

They're guest towels.

Okay. Well, they're out for Mark Levin today.

And you get 50 percent savings. Whether you get the regular one, for I guess the poor schlubs in our family.

Which are great towels. Or the designer premium line. A/k/a guest towels for just $20 more. But no matter what, 50 percent savings.

You can also get free shipping. No minimum spent required.

But today is the last day to find this offer.

Free shipping. No minimum spent required.

If you haven't gotten your husband or somebody you love the my slippers, you are missing out.

You are missing -- I help -- I already have like three pair. I'm ordering them. Some day, they will stop making them.

And I want these slippers for the rest of my life. They're fantastic. Fifty percent in savings right now in the six-piece towel set and other savings. You can find them all at MyPillow.com. That's MyPillow.com to get the savings. Enter the promo code Beck, or you can call them right now at 800-966-3117. Ten-second station ID.
(music)
So all of the best legal minds, that I know, all say, that no matter what the evidence, in Washington, DC, he's going to be convicted.

Do you believe that?

MARK: I share that.

GLENN: Yeah. Okay. Go ahead.

MARK: And I'll tell you why.

Because you're not really able to present your case.

If you're not really able to study the evidence.

GLENN: Right.

MARK: And in addition to that, for counter evidence. Exculpatory evidence.

Because you can't get your head around it, because of the time frame.

If you're in a city that goes 94 percent of from Biden.

Out of that population. If you have an Obama judge that's ruling in every single instance, for the government.

When you have a prosecutor who is ultra and completely unethical.

Who is using tactics, that in most courtrooms would be rejected.

You're setting up a scenario, where nobody, nobody could survive.

Because you're targeting this defendant.

The charges are preposterous.

And by the time you can actually get to an appellate court, it's over.

And so that makes what Jack Smith is doing.

Is so horrific.

Because he's trying to jump the appellate court on a constitutional issue, to get to the Supreme Court.

And the court is at least entertaining the idea. Whereas, the defendant, Donald Trump, can't get his constitutional issues up there.

That fast. Because the Supreme Court has decided over and over and over again.

No. You go through the trial. You go through the appellate court.

You need to fine-tune the constitutional issues. Then we might take a look at it.

So the whole system. And really, as you well know. And your listeners well know.

You can have the best Constitution on the face of the earth.

The best judicial system on paper. But if you don't have people of virtue.

Particularly judges, none of it works. It doesn't matter what's on paper. There's no due process. There is no right to counsel. Effectively that's what's going on here. So the likelihood is very high.

Now, here's the problem: If the court does take up this case, and rules against Jack Smith, that is that Donald Trump does have immunity from actions he took while president, after he leaves the presidency, then the government really doesn't have a case.

They're in huge trouble.

And this case will go on.

GLENN: No way. No way that John Roberts allows that to happen.

No way.

MARK: That's my fear. But I want your audience to understand why this is important.

It's important because if you don't retain the protection when you leave the presidents, any opposing administration of the Department of Justice will wait for a president to do whatever he does.

And then when he leaves, indict that president.

You will destroy the office of the presidency. That's the problem. So when this judge says, he thinks he's a king. He can have immunity.

That's not what he thinks. He is saying, look, all these bogus allegations you're making against me occurred when I was president.

As president, you certainly couldn't indict me for these, so you can't indict me now. Oh, no, no. That protection doesn't go beyond the time that you're in the office of the Presidency.

Has THIS Islamist organization BROKEN state laws for YEARS?!

A new report accuses CAIR Action, the political arm of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, of breaking state laws with its political activism. Glenn Beck reviews this story...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So let me go over what is -- what's happening with -- with CAIR.

You know, the Founding Fathers were obsessed over accountability.

Because they knew one thing. You know, they did. They must get suggestions from people on, you know, through tweets. They studied every single system of government.

Every single republic that survived. That didn't survive.

Why didn't it survive?

They studied all forms of government. They were trying to come up with something that could -- could set people free.

And they -- they worked really hard on putting our checks and balances in place, because they knew, once power slips into the shadows. They knew, once power slips into the shadows, once influence becomes unmoored from law, what rises is not a republic.

It's a machine. And that's what you're seeing right now. We're not living in a republic. We're living in a machine.

We -- I think we're staring at one of the largest unregulated political machines operating in the United States ever! Okay.

There have been a couple of groups that are doing sweeping investigations, two watchdog groups. One of them is NCRI and the Intelligent Advocacy Network.

And they have concluded now that the political arm of CAIR, he known as CAIR action, has been operating nationwide with no legal authority, to do the things it has been doing for years now.

They're not allowed to raise money. They've been raising money. Coordinating political campaigns.

Not allowed to do it. Endorsing candidates. Not allowed to do it, they're doing it. Mobilizing voters, shaping policy, functioning as a national advocacy network.

They don't have the legal authority to do any of it. And no one has said anything.

Now, according to the report, CAIR action doesn't just have a paperwork problem.

Investigators found, state by state, that it lacks the license, the registrations. The charitable authorizations, required to legally solicit money.

Excuse me. Or conduct political activity, in any of the 22 states in which it operates. Think of that!

I know how serious this is, because I remember what it took to get the license in each and every state, for Mercury One.

So we could operate. We could raise money. We could do things in those states. It's a lot of work. And if you don't do it, you go to jail. And they find out pretty quickly.

Okay?

22 states, they operate not one, zero legal authorization.

In Washington, DC, the city where CAIR action is incorporated, the department of licensing and consumer protection told investigators, they have no record of CAIR action ever obtaining the basic business license required to solicit funds or to operate.

Imagine how long would you last in business, especially if you were controversial.

How long would you remain in business, if you never had a business license?

You think somebody would figure that out?

In a sooner time than I don't know. A couple of decades!

This report means, that the organization if true, is engaging in unlicensed inner state solicitation.

It has exposed itself to allegations as serious as deceptive solicitation. Wire fraud and false statements to the IRS. These are big things.

And this is not political rhetoric.

Are these phrases written in black and white. In the law.

And by investigators. In California, one of CAIR's most active hubs. The state attorney general has said, the state attorney general of California has said, same pattern here!

The state of California, to say, yep. That's what's happening here.

CAIR action has never registered with California's charitable registry.

Never filed the required CT1 form. And has no authorization whatsoever to request donations. But they've been doing it in California anyway.

Fundraising, selling memberships. Issuing endorsements. Mobilizing voters. All of that has been done by CAIR action. There's no record of any license. Any permission, ever. Going to CAIR. From California. That's according to their attorney general.

Wow!

That's pretty remarkable, huh? How does that happen?

It's not just the coast. It is also happening to the Midwest, the South, the Mountain West. Every state hosting its own CAIR action fundraising page, complete with the donate now and become a member portal, despite no trace of the legal filings required to operate. That's bad!

Now, here's where the stakes rise.

Because CAIR action presents itself openly, as the political arm of CAIR National.

Investigators are now warning that any unauthorized fundraising or political activity.

Could become CAIR's national responsibility as well.

So, in other words, the parent, CAIR itself, might be held responsible.

Meaning, this is want just a rogue subdivision.

This could implicate the entire National Organization of CAIR.

Now, this is happening at the same time it's coming under national scrutiny. It's also Texas.

And I think Florida have designated the group a foreign terrorist organization. Members of Congress are now asking the IRS, the Treasury, the Department of Education to investigate all of its partnerships, all of its financing, all of its influence operations. I mean, I think they're going to be in trouble.

How long have we been saying this?

But every time, I have pointed out anything about CAIR, I have been called an Islamophobe, which shuts everything down. That is a word, developed by people like CAIR, to shut people down, so you'll never look into them.

So what happens next?

First of all, the reports have to hold up.

Regulators now have an obligation. Not a choice. An obligation to act!

State attorneys general in these 22 states, they might pursue fines, injunctions, criminal referrals.

All of them need to take action!

The IRS, needs to take action. Investigate tax exempt fraud. Treasury Department may review foreign influence or money flow violations.

Anything coming from overseas.

Oh, I can't imagine it. They're so buttoned up, right now.

DC regulators may determine whether CAIR actions entire fundraising operation has been unlawful from the beginning.

But here's the deeper question. And it's not bureaucratic. This one is constitutional.

Can the United States tolerate an influence machine, that operates outside of the legal framework, designed to prevent corruption, foreign leverage, and untraceable money?

If I hear one more time, talking about how AIPAC has just got to be investigated. Fine. Investigate.

I'm not against it.

Investigate.

Why aren't you saying anything about CAIR?

It feels like it might be a tool in the hands of a foreign operation.

Why aren't you saying anything about this?

Because here it is! It's not like, hey. I wonder why.

This is it! This is it! This isn't about silencing CAIR. Muslim Americans are -- that are full citizens, they have every right to speak. Every right to vote. Every right to organize. Participate in public life. No question! They can disagree with me, all they want.

But no organization. None! Not mine. Not yours. Not theirs. None. Should operate a nationwide political network, in the shadows and be immune from all of the guardrails that every other group must follow!

That's called a fourth branch of government!

That's how a fourth branch goes.

By the way, CAIR has placed all kinds of people in our Department of Homeland Security. Et cetera, et cetera. This organization has done it!

This is -- you cannot have a fourth branch of government.

They must abide by the laws.

No -- you can't have a branch that nobody elected. Nobody oversees.

Nobody holds accountable.

We talked about this yesterday, on yesterday's podcast. So what needs to happen is total transparency. CAIR action has to release its filings. Its donor structure. Its compliance records, if they exist. Equal enforcement under the law. I don't want them prosecuted in special ways.

Look, if AIPAC is doing the same thing. AIPAC should be prosecuted exactly the same way.
I want it equal. I want constitutional rule.

If conservatives, if Catholics, pro-Israel, environmental, Second Amendment groups, if they have to comply by the state law, so does CAIR action.

And if CAIR action has to do it, so do the Second Amendment groups and environmentalists, and pro-Israel and conservative groups. The law cannot be selective. It can't be!

I don't know how that's controversial in today's world. But somehow or another, they will find a way.

The Feds have to review all of this. If the report is accurate, the IRS and the Treasury have to determine whether false statements or unlicensed interstate solicitations have occurred.

Americans deserve to know what exactly, who is influencing our elections. Who is shaping our policy? Who is raising money in their state?

Especially physical the organization claims political authority, that it doesn't legally possess.

Because history will teach us one unchanging lesson. When a republic stops enforcing its own laws, someone else will always step in to fill that vacuum because power abhors a vacuum!

Unregulated, political power abhors a free people. So while it's about CAIR, it's not about Muslim Americans. It's not about religion.

As always, at least on this program, we try to make it about the rule of law.

One standard for everyone or no standard at all!

And that more than anything, will determine whether or not our institutions remain worthy of the freedom and responsibility that we have entrusted to them.

Glenn Beck WARNS Democrats Will Return with VENGEANCE in 2026 | Glenn TV | Ep 473

America is entering a year of historic upheaval from Charlie Kirk’s assassination and the spiritual shock that followed, to Trump’s tariff revolution, China’s rare-earth war, collapsing energy grids, AI displacement, and the looming fights over Taiwan and Venezuela. Glenn sits down with BlazeTV hosts ‪@deaceshow‬ and ‪@lizwheeler‬ along with his head researcher Jason Buttrill, to break down the biggest stories of 2025. Plus, they each give their most explosive prediction for 2026 that could shape our politics, economy, national security, and civil rights in ways Americans have never experienced before.

Trump Just SHATTERED the “Expert Class” - And the Deep State is in Total Panic

For nearly a century, Washington DC has been ruled by an unelected “expert class” operating as an unconstitutional fourth branch of government — accountable to no one, removable by no president, and shielded from all consequences. Glenn breaks down why Trump’s firing of the Federal Trade Commissioner could finally dismantle the 1935 precedent that empowered technocrats, how Ketanji Brown Jackson exposed the Supreme Court’s embrace of expert rule, and why America cannot survive a government run by people who never face the voters and never pay for their failures.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Okay. So President Donald Trump fired the federal trade commissioner Rebecca Slaughter. Federal Trade Commission is an administrative position. I mean, this is under -- the head of the federal trade commission is a cabinet member.

And if the justices uphold Trump's firing of Slaughter, that will overturn a precedent that was horrible, that was set in 1935. Remember, 1935, we're flirting with fascism. You know, everybody thinks. Because they haven't seen the horrors of fascism yet.

Everybody thinks fascism is neat, blah, blah. So what they do is they say that this is an independent person. And the president can't fire them. Because they're, you know, an independent agency.

Well, wait. That would make a fourth branch of government. Our Constitution is really clear.

There is no such thing as a fourth branch of government. Right?

So that's what they're deciding. Now, here is Ketanji Brown Jackson, who is talking about how we really need to listen to the experts. Cut four.

VOICE: Because presidents have accepted that there could be both an understanding of Congress and the presidency. That it is in the best interest of the American people to have certain kinds of issues, handled by experts. Who, and I think you -- in your colloquy, Justice Kagan, have identified the fact that these boards are not only experts, but they're also nonpartisan. So the -- the seats are actually distributed in such a way, that we are presumably eliminating political influence because we're trying to get to science and data and actual facts, related to how these decisions are made.

And so the real risk, I think, of allowing non- -- of allowing these kinds of decisions to be made by the president, of saying, everybody can just be removed when I come in, is that we will get away from those very important policy considerations.

VOICE: We will get away from US policy considerations, and it will create opportunities for all kinds of problems that Congress and prior presidents wanted to avoid, risks that flow inevitably, just given human nature, the realities of the world that we live in.

GLENN: Okay.

Now, remember, what she's saying here is, we have to have experts.

We have to have experts. We have to have experts that don't really answer to anybody. Okay?

They're appointed. And then they're just there. This from a, quote, judicial expert, who cannot define a woman, because she's not a doctor.
She's not a scientist.

She needs an expert to define a woman.
That's how insane her thinking is. Okay?

Now, I would just like to ask the Supreme Court, when you want things run by experts, do you mean things like the State Department, or the counsel of foreign relations, that have gotten us into these endless war wars for 100 years?

Because these are the things that Woodrow Wilson wanted. He wanted the country run by experts.

Okay. So is it like the Council of Foreign Relations, that keep getting us into these endless wars.

Or is it more like the Fed, that directs our fiscal policy, that has driven us into $38 trillion of at the time. We have all powerful banks. That strangely all belong to the fed. And endless bailouts for those banks. Are those the experts that you're talking about?

Or are you talking about the experts that are doctors, that gave the country sterilizations, lobotomies, transgender surgeries. You know, or should we listen to the experts, like the ones that are now speaking in Illinois, to get us death on demand like Canada has, with their MAID assisted suicide, which is now the third largest killer in Canada. MAID, assisted suicide, third largest killer in Canada. Experts are saying, we now need it here, and they're pushing for it in Illinois. Or should we listen to the experts? And I think many of them are the same experts strangely, that brought us COVID. Yeah. That was an expert thing. They were trying to protect us. Because they need to do this for our protection. So direct from the labs in China with the help of the American experts like Fauci. We almost put the world out.

Should we listen to those guys?

Or the experts that brought us masking, and Home Depot is absolutely safe. But Ace Hardware wants to kill grandma. Which are the experts that we want? That we want to make sure that we have in our lives? That they don't answer, or can't be fired by anybody. Because I'm pretty full up on the experts, myself. I don't know.

But you're right. These experts would keep the president in check, and they would keep Congress in check. And you in check!

And the Supreme Court, which would be really great. You know, and you know who else they would keep in check? The people.

So, wow, it seems like we would just be a nation run by experts, and our Constitution would be out the window, because that's a fourth branch!

And if you don't believe me, that, you know, these experts never pay a price. Can you name a single expert?

Give me a name of an expert, that gave us any of the things that I just told you about.

Give me the name. I mean, give me the name of one of them. Give me the name of one of them that went to jail. Give me the name of one expert that has been discredited.

You know, where your name will be mud in this town. Do you know where that came from?

Your name is going to be mud. It's not M-U-D. It's M-U-D-D, that comes from Dr. Samuel Mudd. Okay? He was a docks man. He was an expert. He was that set John Wilkes Booth' broken leg. He made crutches. He let him stay there for a while. He claimed he didn't know him, but he did know him.

In fact, one of the reasons they proved it.

Is because when he pulled the boots off -- when he pulled both of his boots off, right there, in the back, you couldn't have missed it. It said "John Wilkes Booth."

He's like, I have no idea who he was.

Yeah. Well, you knew him in advance. This was a predetermined outpost where he could stay. It's clear you could know him.

The guy was still discredited, we still use his name today. Your name will be mud in this town.

And we think that it's like dirt, mixed with water kind of mud. No, it's M-U-D-D, Dr. Mudd. The expert that was so discredited, went to jail, paid for his part of the assassination of -- of Lincoln.

Give me the name of one of the experts in the last 100 years, that has brought us any of the trials and the tribulations. The things that have almost brought us to our knees. Give me the name of one of them. Can't!

Because once an expert class, they don't answer to anyone. So they never go to jail.

Wow! Doesn't that sound familiar. People never going to jail!

There's a rant that's going around right now, that I did in 2020. And everybody is like, see. He's talking about Pam Bondi.

No, no. I got to play this for you, a little later on in the program. But I want to get to the experts and what the Constitution actually says about that. Because you don't need my opinion. What you need are the actual facts. So you can stand up and say, yeah. I think Ketanji Brown Jackson is an idiot. Okay?

And she's really not an expert on anything. Especially the Constitution. You need the facts, on what the Founders said. Because the Founders would be absolutely against what they did in 1935.

Because that just -- what does it do?

It just sets up a fourth branch of government.

EXPLAINED: Why the Warner-Netflix/Paramount Merger is DANGEROUS for All of Us

The biggest media merger in modern history is unfolding, and Glenn Beck warns it’s the most dangerous consolidation of power America has faced in decades. With six corporations already controlling 90% of the nation’s news and entertainment, a Warner-Netflix or Warner-Paramount megacorporation would create an unstoppable information cartel. Glenn exposes how “too big to fail” thinking is repeating itself, how global elites and “experts” are tightening their grip, and why handing our entire cultural narrative to a handful of companies is a direct threat to freedom. The hour is late — and the stakes couldn’t be higher.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: By the way, it's never good when you consolidate power. It's never good.

And what is going on now, with this Netflix Warner Brothers paramount stuff, I don't care if Larry Ellison is a conservative or not.

No one should have that much power.

I did a show, gosh, four years ago. I don't even remember when I did it.

We looked it up. In the 1980s. 19 percent of American media was owned by over 50 companies.

Forty years later, 90 percent of the media is watched and controlled by six companies.

National Amusements, the Red Stone Family controls CBS, CMT, MTV, Nickelodeon, gaming and internet. Simon & Schuster Books. That's all one.

Disney, ABC, ESPN, History Channel, Marvel, Star Wars, video games and print.

TimeWarner controls CNN, Warner Brothers, HBO, Turner, video games, internet, and print media like TIME. Comcast, MSNBC, NBC.

CNBC, Telemundo, the Internet.

New Corp. Fox. National Geographic. Ton of others. Sony, with a ton of movies, music and more. The big six. They're valued at nearly $500 billion.

Now, this is something I put together five years ago. So I don't even know. This is probably not even valid even today.

And now we're talking about Netflix, Warner Brothers. Paramount, into all of these one giant corporation. It's wrong! It's wrong!

We can't keep putting all -- everything into the hands of just a few! It's what's killing us!

We've got to spread this around. We can't -- the government cannot okay mergers like this.

They're big enough he has

What happened -- what happened when the banks went under, or almost went under in '08. What did they say the problem was?

They said the banks are too big to fail.

Too big to fail.

Because they were providing all of the services, everybody needs. All the time. And there's only a handful of them.

So if they fall, then everything falls.

Right?

That was the problem. So what did we do to fix it?

We made them bigger!

We let them merge with other banks, and gobble up other things!

And started taking on the local banks.

And so now, your banks that were too big to fail. Are now even bigger. And their failure would be even worse!

What is wrong with us?

Seriously, we're not this stupid.

We're not this stupid.

I think we're just this comfortable.

We just think the experts have a plan. No. The experts don't have a plan.

Their plan is stupid. Their plan is to make it bigger.

Every time it fails. Make it bigger. Push it up.

Make it more global.

No. Haven't you seen what the entire world is like?

The entire world is over-leveraged. The entire world is on the edge.

The entire world is being redesigned.
So what do we do? We don't allow them to make things bigger! We need to start taking more individual and local control of things. They're making it bigger. Which will make the problem bigger. And make the problem so big, you won't be able to do anything about it, because all the experts. All of the heads. They'll all -- there will be six of them. And they will all be sitting in one room.

And they will all be making the instigations. And with them, making those decisions will be all the heads of all the countries around the world, that you're not going to have a say in any of that. They're already trying to do it with the WEF.

But if -- if the Supreme Court says, no, experts matter. And the president can't fire them. You will not have any control over anything!

We're at this place, where we can back out. We can turn around.

We can do it.

It's not too late. But the hour is growing very late.

I don't know about you, I don't like being this.

Up to the edge, you know what I mean?

I would rather have lots of breathing room, between me and the edge of the cliff.

But we don't have that anymore.

Everything has to be done right.

And we have to pay attention.

And the worst thing we can do is make things bigger.

Dream big, think small.