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.

SHOCK POLL: The % of Young People Who Support SOCIALISM is Insane

New polling reveals a shocking truth: young Americans aren’t just open to socialism... they overwhelmingly want a socialist president in 2028. Glenn Beck and Justin Haskins break down five alarming surveys showing massive ideological shifts among voters ages 18-39, including young Republicans. Why is socialism exploding in popularity, and what does this mean for the future of America? Are we on the brink of a political transformation or potentially even a national crisis?

Watch This FULL Episode of 'Glenn TV' HERE

Property Taxes are OUT OF CONTROL - And Here's Why! | Guest: Texas Gov. Greg Abbott

Texas Governor Greg Abbott joins Glenn Beck to expose why Texans are being crushed by skyrocketing property taxes — and how local governments, not the state, keep driving homeowners deeper into financial distress. Gov. Abbott breaks down his five-point plan to impose strict spending limits, force voter approval for tax hikes, reform out-of-control appraisals, empower citizens to slash taxes themselves, and eliminate school district property taxes for homeowners altogether. Glenn argues that property tax is morally wrong because it prevents Texans from ever truly owning their land, and Abbott lays out his strategy to fight both parties in the legislature to finally deliver lasting relief.

Joe Rogan & Glenn AGREE: We just got CLOSER to civil war

Joe Rogan recently warned that we may have gotten to Step 7 of 9 in the lead-up to civil war. Glenn reviews the 9 Steps and explains why he believes Rogan nailed this one. But Glenn also lays out what Americans MUST do to reverse this trend...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So if you take what Fetterman said yesterday about how people are cheering for him to die on the left, and then you couple it with something that was on the Joe Rogan show on Tuesday. He was saying that the reaction to the death of Charlie Kirk makes him think that the US is closer to Civil War than -- than he thought.

Now, let me quote him. He said, after the Charlie Kirk thing. I'm like, oh, my.

We might be at seven. This might be he step seven on the way to a bona fide Civil War. Charlie Kirk gets shot, and people are celebrating.

Like, whoa. Whoa. Whoa.

You want people to die that you disagree with?

Where are we now on the scale of Civil War?

Well, let me go over the scale of Civil War, because it's sobering.

Now, none of this has to be true. If we wake up and decide, I don't want to do this anymore!

Okay?

Here's step one.

Step one. Loss of civic trust.

Every civil conflict begins when people stop believing that the system is fair. Are we there?

We're so far -- we're so far past the doorway, we are comfortably asleep on the couch on this one. Gallup and Pew both show trust in Congress, the media courts, and the FBI government are now at record lows.

The Edelman Trust Barometer classifies the US now as severely polarized. Majority of Republicans distrust federal elections. Majority of Democrats don't trust the Supreme Court.

Americans are really united on one thing, and that is the other side is corrupt!

When faith in the rules collapses, the republic begins to wobble. But that's step one. Step two, polarization hardens into identity!

Political disagreement is normal!

Identity conflict is fatal!

But that's what Marxists push. Identity politics. This is when politics stopped being about policy, and started being about who you are as a person.

Have we crossed this one into step two?

I mean, we're neck deep into this. A study on this, from PRRI.

It's a survey, found 23 percent of Americans believe political violence may be necessary to save the that I guess.

I think that's an old study. Americans now sort themselves by ZIP code into ideological enclaves. The big sort: Universities, activists, corporations. Everybody is promoting oppressor versus oppressed.

And that -- does what?

It puts us into incompatible tribes. Opponents aren't wrong anymore. The opponent is dangerous!

If I go back and you look at civil wars, Lebanon, before 1975. Yugoslavia, before 1991. That's -- we're doing that. Okay?

Step three. Breakdown of the gatekeepers. The gatekeepers are kind of like the referees of society. It's the media, political parties, churches, civic leaders.

When they fail, extremism fills the vacuum. Okay. Where are we on this? Have our gatekeepers failed us?

Yeah. I think both parties, especially the left, you know, everything I predicted that the left was going to be eaten by the extreme left, and then the communists and the socialists is now happening.

They've lost control of the fringe of each party. Media transformed, you know, from referees into team coaches. Tech platforms. It's outrage for profit. Universities are not there to cool things down. They heat them up.

Churches. Churches are useless. Useless.

When the referees leave the field, the game devolves into a brawl. And the refs are gone off the field. So there are only nine steps. We're at step four. Here's step four.

Are you ready for this one?

Parallel information realities.

Civil wars don't require different opinions. They require different realities.

I remember reading about Germany, at the beginning of, you know, the Nazi era. How the two new newspapers. One was propaganda for the government.

And the other one, it was the last one that was kind of the holdout.

And they said, you could read them, and they would cover the same thing.

But they had almost no information was the same. Except, that happened yesterday.

Here's what they said. And then everything else was different. That's exactly -- I mean, step four is complete!

We can't agree on facts, right?

Crime rates. Border numbers. Inflation. Election security.

Two Americans can watch the same video. And see opposite truths.

Social media algorithms are creating customized political universes.

Digital echo chambers. Deepfakes. We're just at the beginning of that. And both sides accuse the other of running disinformation machines.

Why? Because we don't have a shared reality. So if you don't have a shared reality. How do you settle any dispute?

On the nine steps, we're up to number five. Coming in at number five.

Loss of neutral rule of law.

This out of the nine steps with, five is the pivot point.

It's not corruption, it's the belief that the law is no longer neutral.

Are we there yet?

Let me tell you the CBS you.gov poll. 67 percent say the justice system is used for political purposes.

I think that's low. January 6 defendants given years in prison, 2020 rioters were released. High profile political figures, prosecuted or shielded based on party.

FBI whistle-blowers alleging pressure to inflate domestic extremism numbers. States like Texas, directly defying federal directives, on border enforcement.

And now, leading the way, with the federal government.

History is really cold and unforgiving on this point.

Once the people believe justice is political! Remember, this is the turning point.

The republic stands on borrowed time. Once you no longer believe that justice is achievable. Step six.

Are we there?

I think we are.

Step six. Normalization of political violence!

This is where violence stops shocking the system. Are we there?

Remember, where violence stops shocking the system. Look at evidence just from Virginia. What they just voted for.

He was calling for the death of a -- a political opposition.

Calling for his children to be killed.

Was called on it, never apologized.

Never said anything other than, yeah. I know. He dug it deeper.

Was anyone shocked by it? Apparently not. They elected him. Here's the evidence. 2020 riots.
574 events. $2 billion in damage. Was anybody outraged by that? Or was it downplayed and excused?
Assassination attempts. Assassination attempts against the president. Supreme Court justice.

Fistfights. And mob actions on college campuses. To silence speakers. Rising to do for punching a fascist or stopping genocide. Depending on the ideology. Online chatter discussing Civil War, national divorce, and revolution.

When violence becomes part of the political language, a nation crosses an invisible line. We're now up to step seven out of nine.

This is where Joe Rogan said, are we at step seven?

The rise of militias and parallel forces.

When a state loses he is monopoly on force.

Countdown accelerates. So where are we on this one?

I think we're seeing, maybe early signs of this.

You're starting to see the -- the states kind of organize these mobs, you know, to go after ICE.

Right?

Armed groups, right-wing, left-wing radical secessionists. Anyone.

Once they start forming their own police forces. Or their own option forces, then you have -- then you have everything really falling apart.

Entirely!

I don't think we're there, yet!

But we're starting to see the beginnings of this.

Step eight. The trigger event.

Civil Wars don't begin with a plan. They begin with a spark.

So where are we?

We're not here yet. The conditions are right. Potential triggers, disputed election in '26 or '28.

Political assassination or major attack.

Supreme Court decision that ignites mass unrest.

Financial crisis or dollar crisis.

A state federal standoff turning violent!

Nothing is ignited yet, but the room is soaked in gasoline. So we don't have seven. We're on the verge of eight, at any time. And here's nine.

This is the point of no return.

When police, military, or federal agencies split, even if no one calls it that, well, where are we?

Well, I just read a story about how with the Mamdani election in New York, a good number of the police force is going to leave. And they're going to go join police forces elsewhere. You also have the tension between the state National Guard, and the federal directives, the state guard and the state directives. Law enforcement recruitment is at crisis lows. The distrust of the FBI, DOJ, CIA. Tens of millions of Americans. I always really respected those institutions. I have no respect for them now. If you have states openly defying federal rules on immigration, drug laws, sanctuary policies.
Whistle-blower claims of internal politicization.

All of these things are in play for the first time in 150 years, people can imagine!

So I give this to you, not to be fearful of, but to know where you are. As a map!

Know where you are.

And hopefully, it might wake some people up, if you chart America on, on the nine step model of Civil War. Steps one through four, completed!

Step five, happening!

Step six, happening! Step seven, beginning! Step eight, just waiting for it. And step nine, avoidable, only if step eight, never happens. Again, I'm not telling you for doom purposes, this is diagnosis. This is a doctor going, I want you to look at the chart.

And this is a doctor saying, I want you to look at -- do you see what's happening to your body?

If you don't stop this habit, you are going to die. You don't have to die. You can stop smoking and drinking right now. You can start exercising. But if you don't, you are going to die.

The question is, are we the nation that says, nah, that's not going to happen to me. Or are we the nation that wakes up and sees our chart and says, good heavens, it's way far more gone than I thought it was. But I feel something in the air.

I'm going to change my behavior. The nation that refuses to look and wake up and stop calling their neighbors enemies, is the nation that fails!

We have to strengthen these things that have already fallen. And, you know what, the easiest one to do is?

Church. Where are you ministers and pastors priests and rabbis?

Where the hell are you?

I think there's going to be a special section for you, when you cross over to the -- because you're doing things in the name of God!

So when you get to the other side, I think there's going to be a special section for those who remained silent. While his rights were being taken away.

You don't own that right.

I don't own that right.

The Lord gave us those rights, and said, protect them!

By you, being the representative, the voice box, if you will, of the Lord, to shepherd his people. By you not standing up and saying, hey, by the way, we have -- we have a moral responsibility to protect these rights for the next generation! By you refusing because you're afraid. Because I think, there's no politics in the Bible! There's no politics in the Bible. Really?

The whole thing is about politics. Is about the moral way you have to live your life.

Calling things as you see them. Calling them back to eternal principles.

He didn't tell anybody how to vote. Render to Caesar what is Caesar's.

But there are certain principles that you have to have, or you lose not only this citizenship, but the next citizenship. The one that really matters. And, boy, if you are doing it because you're a coward, you are in the wrong business!

Get out of the pulpit, and go to work at Jack in the Box.

Democrat “SMOKING GUN” on Trump & Epstein gets DESTROYED by facts

The House Oversight Democrats recently released "new" emails allegedly proving President Trump lied about his knowledge of Jeffrey Epstein's crimes. However, Glenn points out a glaring issue with these emails that destroys their entire narrative...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Well, let's dive right into the Epstein Maxwell emails. My gosh, Stu!

Why are they trying to cover up that Donald Trump had sex with children!

STU: I mean, it's just clear, as -- as day, in the emails!

GLENN: Yeah. No.

STU: He spent hours with one of the victims. What else could have possibly have occurred in that arrangement? We don't know!

GLENN: And it's -- it's one of the victims, Stu. One of the victims!

STU: One of the victims, that's all we know. One of the victims.

GLENN: Let me read what Jeffrey Epstein wrote. I want you to realize that the dog who hasn't barked is Trump. Victim redacted. Victim spent hours at my house with him. He has never once been mentioned. Police chief, et cetera.

Okay. New information, just released. Or is it?

Because in 2011, 2011, that was released and everybody knew it. It's been out floating around. Here's the change: In 2011, this is what it read.

I want you to realize that the dog hasn't barked is Trump. Virginia spent hours at my house with him.

Why would you redact a name that is already out in the public square!

It's already out!

The memo is already out. The email is already out. It's been out for years. Why would you redact that name now?

Well, because it makes it all of a sudden, new and shiny. Shiny and new. If you don't know who said it, you see victim, and you're like, oh, you see victim. Who is the victim?

I don't know. But when you know it's Virginia, you know this has already gone to court. This is -- she already testified about this!

He didn't partake in any of this, any sex with any of it. It's true. He didn't partake in any sex with us, and I'm quoting, this is from the testimony. But it's not true, that he flirted with me. Donald Trump never flirted with me. Have you ever met him?

Yes, at Mar-a-Lago, my dad and him. I wouldn't say they were friends, but my dad knew him, and they would talk. Have you ever been in Donald Trump or Jeffrey Epstein's presence with one another? No!

What's the basis of your statement that Donald Trump is a good friend of Jeffrey? Jeffrey has told me that Donald Trump is a good friend of his.

He didn't partake in any of -- any of the sex with any of it. He flirted with me.

It's true, that he didn't partake in any sex with us. But it's not true that he flirted with me.

So I don't understand that. But she goes on. Donald Trump never flirted with me!

Okay. So what -- what's new about this?

This is the same girl, this is the same person that -- didn't she work at Mar-a-Lago?

Or she was going to get a job at Mar-a-Lago.

STU: Yeah. I believe she did at one point.

GLENN: Yeah. So we know they know each other. We know they know each other.

We know that at Mar-a-Lago, Jeffrey Epstein would come, and he was poaching the employees. The girls there. To go work for him.

And Donald Trump went to him. And said, "Hey, man. Stop it. Stop poaching people from me. That's not cool. Don't do it." And then he said, "Oh, yeah. All right." And then he did it a second time. And he's like, "You know what, you're out. I don't want you here anymore. I asked you not to do it, and you did it." Now, that doesn't mean that he knew what was happening to the girls or what was happening or anything else.

And even if it did mean something was happening with the girls, he was saying, "Hey. Stop it! Don't take any of the girls or the women here.
Don't do it." I don't believe he knew anything about any of this. But God only knows! And really, God only knows!

This is not new news. Donald Trump, he might end up beating Bezos as the richest man on the planet! When all is said and done!

Because, again, the -- they're presenting this as new fact, a giant scandal. Stu, I don't know if you know this. This is -- this breaking news is a giant scandal.

STU: Yeah. I've heard democratic representatives saying that over the past 24 hours. Yeah. We need to investigate this.

This is shocking stuff. It's a massive scandal. Even ABC News, I heard, pushed back against this. And said, well, what scandal? What are you implying occurred here?

We know who the victim was. We know the victim. Like why. Why did you even redact that name?

And they're like we always redact name of victims.

Do you really? When they're already out publicly?

Not to mention, this particular victim is not even alive.

You know, she sadly died. I mean, it's a terrible, terrible story.

GLENN: Terrible story.

STU: Yeah. She passed away.

A suicide. It was at least the report I believe. But she has a posthumous book coming out. But like a terrible, terrible story.

But, you know, to act as if you have to protect her identity when, number one, she's dead.

GLENN: Is ridiculous.

STU: Number two, everybody already knows who she was, including the news sources, who also have a policy, you would think.

And ABC has a policy. They redact, that was in this type of situation. But it's already been out. We already knew who it was.

So they redacted to make it look like he's with other people who have not already told us nothing bad occurred! You know, and it is an absolutely awful tactic. And at least --

GLENN: I think litigation should follow again. I think he should sue them again. Anyone who is presenting this as new information.

ABC did their job. Congratulations for ABC. They did their job.

They pointed out, this is not new information.

Why would you redact. Why are you releasing this now? And you're redacting a name this -- this email is already out!

You're presenting this as a new scandal.

And you redacted that name. This is completely dishonest. The news media shouldn't even run with it. They shouldn't even run with it. They should have said, old news. Old news. And if you did run with it, you should have handle it had like ABC handle it had. Wait a minute. Why did you redact name.

What do you mean that there's a new scandal. She already testified exactly opposite of what you're believing Jeffrey Epstein over the victim right now. I just want to make sure you understand the Democrats right here. You're taking the name of Epstein, over the victim.

Oh, okay. All right.

STU: And Epstein doesn't even say that anything occurred.

GLENN: No.

STU: There's not -- it's just -- it would be something you would have to jump to a conclusion, to accuse Donald Trump of something like this.

And we know what happened, because the victim said nothing!

Said, it was nothing!

GLENN: Right.

STU: In fact, it wasn't even a flirtation. Which, by the way, even that, you might have thought was creepy. It wasn't even a crime.

It wasn't even flirtation. So it's a disgrace in every single way.

GLENN: All right. So let me take you here. Let me take you here.

If you remember when the shutdown first started, what did the Democrats say, the reason why they did the shutdown?

Not them! Why Mike Johnson and everybody else wouldn't negotiate!

Why wouldn't -- why wouldn't the Republicans negotiate?

Because the heat was on, to release the Epstein files.

And they didn't want to have to do that. So they shut the government down!

Okay?

They wouldn't negotiate. You didn't hear any of this? Oh, it's so arrogant.

STU: It doesn't make any sense at all. That's probably what they said.

GLENN: I know. I know. So the government is open, and what does Mike Johnson do yesterday?

He said the House is going to vote on a bill to release all of the files related to the late financier, convicted child sex offender, Jeffrey Epstein next week. He said on Wednesday that a discharge position to bypass leadership and force a vote on the bill, hit the benchmark for needed signatures. It's been decided by him to expedite the vote for the bill, which under the current rules could have been delayed until at least early September.

So he says, as soon as that petition hit, the needed 218 signatures, I brought it up. Unanimous consent. Let's go! Release it.

So he's pushing this forward. Good, Mike!
Release all of it. Thank you!

Get it out. Lance this boil.

I mean, if anybody thinks that you're ever going to get the truth on this in the first place, it's madness. It's madness. Everybody -- I mean, so many important people were involved in this, and it was in the hands of the Democrats for the longest time. Okay?

So they had all of this information. You don't think it was all picked through? And if there was anything about Donald Trump, you don't think that would have come up between 2020 and 2024?

There's nothing in there about Donald Trump. These people are so stupid. This time, we've got him, boys. This time, we've got him.

No, you don't. This time, it's like Wile E. Coyote. This time, we've got the Roadrunner!

No. You're never going to catch him on this. It doesn't work. The guy was the most investigated person in the history of the world, and you've got nothing! Now, it's good to come out.

But if you think you're going to catch a bunch of people on the left, you're not going to. Because they had it, you know, in their possession.

You don't think all of the names were taken out? You don't think things were destroyed, if there was anything? I believe there was something. But I don't believe there's any names in it anymore. You're not going to get the truth on this one. You're just not going to get the truth, but release everything that we have. Everything!

Oh. Oh, by the way, also in the Epstein emails. How come nobody is talking about this one, Stu?

This one is from Michael Wolff, to Jeffrey Epstein. And then Jeffrey Epstein responds.

So Michael Wolff writes, "What's the thumbnail on Nes Baum (phonetic) Foster?"

And Jeffrey Epstein writes back, "Nes Baum White House Counsel, dot, dot, dot, Hillary doing naughties with Vince."

Now, Vince Foster killed himself, you know, and then killed himself at the White House. And then drug himself across the street to the park.

I mean, I don't know -- the Vince Foster thing is so old. And it doesn't -- but why is nobody talking about that one?

Why is no one talking about that?

Also, this the Jeffrey Epstein email bundle, ABC, you don't feel that's necessary to bring that one up?

Huh. Interesting.