RADIOMay 21, 2024

Why Michael Cohen's CONFESSION Could TANK the Trump Hush Money Trial

Former Trump attorney Michael Cohen keeps making things worse and worse for the prosecution that he's supposed to be helping. Glenn and Stu provide the latest update: Cohen has admitted to stealing from the Trump Organization and lying about it. The media has tried to paint this confession as just "another big ding." But Glenn argues that this is more akin to a massive car wreck that could topple the trial. However, has this jury already made up its mind — similar to what happened in OJ Simpson's case — so that nothing can change its mind?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: All right. Let's get an update here on what just happened in the -- in the Cohen and Donald Trump trial. There's -- Cohen is still on the stand. Oh, my gosh. It's going to be the longest days of his life. He is being cross-examined.

Remember, he's the key witness, in this Donald Trump trial with Stormy Daniels.

STU: And he's really -- without Cohen, there isn't even a case to be brought. You have to believe Cohen. Because much of the evidence that you would need, to make Donald Trump into the bad guy here is specifically based on things that Cohen has said or done. And has sole knowledge of.

He's the only person who has knowledge of it. So you have to trust Cohen.

GLENN: Yeah. It all went true him. He's the guy, who if he dropped dead, hit by a bus, the whole thing would be gone.

STU: And just to remind listeners, the -- you know, the -- the Michael Cohen situation is not a good one. It was never a good one when Trump was there. I believe he won our least reliable human being on earth competition for five straight years.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

STU: He was not reliable back then. Substantiate reliable now. The media has tried to rehabilitate him, because they need him for this case.

So the attorney for Trump is questioning, and going after Michael Cohen to try to make him look as credible as he actually is. Which is not at all.

And he went to him, and talked to him about a specific transaction with a company called Red Finch. Red Finch was an IT kind of company that Michael Cohen was kind of dealing with. And what they were doing with this company, at the time was somewhat embarrassing, I suppose.

They were trying to rig online polls in Trump's favor. So remember about the time, these polls would come out. Who do you think should win the Republican nomination?

This is the 2016 election.

And Trump would win overwhelmingly

Even when he wasn't winning in the normal polls.

He would win on the other polls.

GLENN: This is why we said, the online polls are ridiculous.

Everybody rigs it. Everybody.

STU: Yeah. Although, this is --

GLENN: No. No. No. To some degree.

People will be like, I will vote. Hey, vote on this. Vote on this.

Vote a million times. Whatever it is.

STU: This is apparently a professional effort to do that. And they were owed $50,000 for their efforts in this front.

Now, Cohen, apparently. And this all happened on the stand.

Cohen was supposed to pay $50,000 to this company.

But ended up only paying them $20,000.

He still, however, asked for a 50,000-dollar reimbursement from the Trump organization.

Blanch, the attorney asked Cohen, hey, did you lie about this?

Cohen, on the stand says, yes.

Admits that, yes. He did lie about this.

GLENN: Wait. Wait. Wait.

He just admitted. I just want to make sure everybody understands.

He just admitted to cheating a company out of 30 grand.

Asking his own company. Or his own firm.

Donald Trump's firm to pay the 50,000 to him. Which he was supposed to pay. He only pays 20.

And what does he do with the other 30?

STU: I mean, he pockets it.

It's interesting. The reporting on it. It's a little hard to tell, whether he actually said this. Or whether he just sort of agreed to it.

But he was -- blanch, the attorney, brought up the possibility of him having the money in either a tussle bag, or a brown paper bag.

GLENN: That's where I like to keep my money.

It's safe that way.

STU: It's the Fani Willis banking system. That's -- that's the way that works.

So he -- he goes to this. And he says, okay. You have this duffle bag of cash.

Where was the cash?

He goes after him on this.

He then tries to focus. What he says true. Of course, if you're an employee of a company. And you're working on a company. And you charge someone $50,000.

And then pocket $30,000. That's -- what we all recognize, is theft.

GLENN: Embezzlement or theft.

STU: Yeah. You're just stealing money from the company that gave you $50,000.

GLENN: Wait a minute. I just want to make sure, Stu, Sara, you both understand that concept, right?

That's theft.

STU: I'm not sure what he's saying. Sara.
(laughter)

STU: Are you there?

GLENN: Okay. Go ahead.

STU: So the Trump attorney says, and tries to get this down. Get everyone to understand it.

In case people don't understand. This is stealing.

He says, quote, you stole from the Trump organization. Right?

He, by the way, was -- Cohen was reimbursed for about $100,000 in these expenses. Because he was always double the expenses from taxes.

About $100,000 in all.

GLENN: Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait.

What do you mean he was getting doubled for taxes?

STU: If he took $50,000 to do one of these shady dealings. Like he did with Stormy Daniels. The Trump organization would pay him basically double. So Cohen wouldn't get stuck with the tax bill.

So Cohen would pay the taxes as if it was income. And then he would still be left over with the same amount he paid to Stormy Daniels or in this case, this IT organization.

GLENN: Got it.

STU: So he's -- the quote is, you stole from the Trump organization, right? From the attorney. Cohen admits, yes, sir. He says, on the stand.

Now, even the New York Times writes this up this way, there is another -- this is another big ding to Cohen's credibility.

GLENN: Ding?

STU: Yes. Jurors have heard he's lied to Congress, tax authorities, and on the witness stand. And now they are hearing that he stole from the Trump organization.

GLENN: Now, I've had dings in my car.

STU: Yes.

GLENN: I would say this was a massive wreckage, where the car would be totaled.

STU: I would argue they totaled the car on this one. I don't know how you could possibly believe this guy anyway. Now, if there were text messages or other things supporting it, maybe you could say, all right. Well, he's telling the story.

There are a few other pieces of evidence that agree with it. And that has happened on some points during this case.

But generally speaking, they are relying almost solely on Michael Cohen to be the voice of credibility.

And now we know that not only has he lied to everyone else in his life. By the way, including his wife.

We didn't even include that on the list. Who he lied to, when he took out all of this money on a second mortgage, and tried to hide it from her by his own admission. He's admitted to lying to all of these people.

Basically, you're supposed to believe, that he's taken every moment of his entire life. And filled it with lies.

With every person he's ever dealt with, except this one moment where he's sitting in front of you, on the witness stand.

GLENN: Okay. So here me out on this theory.

O.J. Simpson.

I think this is a -- this is a political version of what happened to O.J. Simpson.

And I hope it doesn't turn that way in the end. But if they find him guilty, it will be exactly what happened with the O.J. Simpson case, except this is political, not racial.

The jury hates him. Donald Trump so much, that no matter what the facts say, they'll deem him guilty.

Where O.J. Simpson, the jurors wanted a black man to beat the system. Beat the man.

So badly, that they admitted now, they voted for not guilty, even though they believe the facts led to guilty.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: I hope that doesn't happen. But that's what this feels like to me.

Because it's in New York. Any other place. But in New York, can you get -- with this judge, can you get a trial, that -- and with the jurors, enough jurors to tell the truth?

And, by the way, just like, you remember -- were you old enough to remember the O.J. Simpson trial?

STU: Oh, yeah. I certainly do.

GLENN: So O.J. Simpson. If you remember right, there was speculation, can the trial -- can the jurors ever identify themselves, if they find him guilty?

Because the black community was so for O.J. Simpson. And I would ask the same thing.

Can these jurors, all from New York City, can they live a normal life and not -- and live without danger, if they release him?

STU: Because -- certainly won't get invited to many parties, I will tell you that.

GLENN: No. What are all of the other factors that are coming into this?

This is tough.

STU: Isn't there a moment here for you, Glenn. Where you think a little bit about the legal system, and the fact that it's supposed to work.

And that we have a tradition of people, judging these people honestly. Isn't there at least a possibility that the hung jury. Isn't there one or two people on this jury, maybe, that look at this as this is a joke?

GLENN: It only needs one. It only needs one.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: And it is my hope, that there is one that will hold out and say, no way. No way. I will not change my vote. No.

I don't care what you guys say. No.

Hopefully, we can pray that there's one person.

I mean, assuming, we're not in the jury room.

But what it looks like here, this is -- this is a -- this is an assault on our judicial system. Just like I think O.J. Simpson was an assault on the judicial system.

I understood that one a little more. Because the black man had been, you know, just raped in our judicial system for so long.

That I kind of -- it was still a travesty, and awful. And I hated it. But you could see it.
This one is merely politics. That's it.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: Politics.

STU: They see this as their last opportunity to win an election in a way.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

STU: And the other three trials probably aren't going to happen before the election. Obviously, if Trump wins, he will throw out two of them. Right? The federal stuff will all be thrown out.

This is a -- this feels like their last chance, and they're looking at this like an opportunity.

And, you know, coming into this case, Glenn. It was a weak case. Everyone knew that. The fact that it's gone so much more poorly than they even expected.

Has to rise to some level of -- of --

GLENN: You would think.

STU: Of opportunity for this to be -- I mean, doesn't it?

If you have any faith in the legal system. And look, criminals do go to jail in New York.

It's not like every single time they're wrong.

GLENN: Do they?

STU: Yeah. I think that's true. I'm pretty sure. I'm sure Harvey Weinstein is out there walking around. Forget that example.

GLENN: The plans of New York are all just -- keep Harvey away from me.

STU: Right. I mean, they don't charge anybody in New York, for crimes anymore, unless your last name is Trump.

But if you think about the average person in New York. Again, remember, the Trump attorneys had a chance to throw out anyone they thought was massively liberal and against Trump. To an extent.

GLENN: To an extent.

STU: To an extent. They did their best to find people they thought would be fairly by.

I mean, if we were really at the point where they can't find anyone to judge this rationally. We are at a real crossroads, as far as our legal system goes entirely. Right?

This is not just a question about Donald Trump and this election, it's far beyond that.

PAT: Alan Dershowitz said it. This is banana republic time.

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.