RADIOMarch 28, 2022

Trump details his ‘VERY STRONG’ case to SUE Hillary Clinton

President Trump is doing what the federal government will not: SUING Hillary Clinton for alleged crimes committed against not only the Trump campaign — but the Trump White House as well. He joins Glenn to detail the ‘very strong’ case, the judge who has a pro-Clinton past, and how he thinks everything will play out…

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Number 45, and probably number 47, president of the United States, Donald Trump. Hello, Mr. Trump. Or President Trump. How are you?

TRUMP: Hello, Glenn. How are you?

GLENN: I'm good.

TRUMP: Good.

GLENN: Thank you for coming on and talking about this. You are -- some of the claims in this suit, a Rico conspiracy, injurious falsehood, conspiracy to commit injurious falsehood, malicious prosecution, Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, theft of trade secrets. The list goes on and on and on. This is really not -- is this about the 2016 election, or is this really about what they did to you, this whole time?

TRUMP: Well, I think it's about everything. It covers a lot of territory. It was totally corrupt what they did. If this were done -- and you know this perhaps better than anybody else in the universe -- if this were done the opposite way -- as you know, they spied on my campaign.

GLENN: Yeah.

TRUMP: When I made that statement, everyone thought, oh, my God, what a horrible thing to say. I said, Obama spied on my campaign. And the Democrats. And all hell broke loose, if you remember. In fact, I put it out. And I never seen -- I don't think I saw a reaction. Which usually makes it guilty. Normally, if they didn't do it, they wouldn't have that kind of -- but they spied on my campaign. If this ever happened the opposite way, if I spied on Obama's campaign or on Hillary Clinton's campaign, it would have been treason. It would have been everything, right up and to the death penalty. And that might have been included too. But it would have been over. It would have been the biggest thing ever. But it didn't work that way. So we caught them. We caught them cold. And we've just been building it up. And building it up. And watching. And, frankly, we wish Bill Barr had the courage to do it. Or do it also. But we have decided to do it. Bill Barr was so afraid of being impeached, he didn't want to do anything. At the end, he was petrified of being impeached. So he didn't want to do a damn thing. But how do you not get impeached? Let's not do anything. And all of a sudden, that talk started dying down. But we've been building this up for a long time. The Durham Report, you know, the early -- hopefully just the early moments of the Durham Report came out. And that added to it. And a lot of things are happening. A lot of things. But they all knew it. Look, Obama knew about it too. It wasn't -- it wasn't just crooked Hillary. So we expect that names will be added to it, as it goes along. This is very important. But can you imagine if it were the opposite way, and I spied on let's say, Obama's campaign. And not only that. Much of the stuff, when you think about it, took place beyond the campaign. It was when we were beyond the Oval Office.

GLENN: I know.

TRUMP: They spied when we were in the Oval Office, so it wasn't just the campaign, which in itself was really bad, but it took place when we were in the Oval Office. Unbelievable.

GLENN: So the problem here is, nobody ever pays for anything. There are no consequences anymore in government, if you're on the right side.

TRUMP: Yeah. That's right.

GLENN: And people are sick to death of it.

TRUMP: Right.

GLENN: But this is going now to -- I think his name is Donald Middlebrooks. And he was appointed by Bill Clinton.

TRUMP: Which is a conflict of interest, in my opinion. That's right. We have a judge that was appointed by Bill Clinton. And who knows Hillary Clinton very well. And we're seeing Hillary Clinton. And Clinton, they were suing the tells me. And when we a judge. This is the way it works for Republicans.

GLENN: Right.

TRUMP: So I think it's a total conflict of interest. And that's unfortunate.

GLENN: Yeah. This is the guy who threw out the lawsuit filed -- against Hillary over her using private email accounts and servers while she served as Secretary of State.

TRUMP: And nobody could believe that he threw that out. Nobody could believe it.

GLENN: So what are the -- what are the odds? What is the plan? How do you think you're going to -- I can't believe I'm asking this question. Because justice should be justice. But how are you going to maneuver around a judge like this?

TRUMP: Right.

Well, I think -- and I talked to the lawyers, they called up and they said, we have good news and bad news. Everyone thinks this case is incredible.

And I don't think I've received more positive remarks. They're so tired of nobody doing anything.

GLENN: I know.

TRUMP: And we have them. And we've caught them. And then Barr didn't act because Barr was lazy and scared. And he was just -- he was scared. Contempt. They were holding it -- they wanted to hold him in contempt. You remember those days? He didn't want any part of contempt. Which means going to jail. And he didn't want any part of impeachment. They were going to impeach him numerous times. So he didn't do his job. And frankly -- and it's very sad that he didn't. Because this case is incredible. Now we have a judge that was appointed by the Clintons. And who threw out stuff like it was -- like it was wastepaper. And it's very unfair.

GLENN: So, Mr. President, you have government officials like Ohr, Comey, McCabe.

TRUMP: Right.

GLENN: Seemingly actively engaging in this. We're waiting for the Durham Report. But you have Bruce Ohr funneling the Steele dossier to the DOJ and the FBI. They knew that it was false. They need a harsher punishment than just a lawsuit. But do you have any confidence that the Justice Department now is anything other than a political organ?

TRUMP: Well, it would be wonderful. We'll have to see. And, you know, we had -- this was accumulating for a long time. It's -- you know, one of those things. We're going to have to see. We're hitting them hard. More and more information is coming out. Even since we filed it. All of a sudden people are calling -- people are so happy that a case is being filed against these people. Where they -- the two lovers. They go out. And then they sue the government. Because they haven't been treated well. Yet they were using servers and everything else. The whole thing was crazy. I said, I have to do it. You know, I would rather not have to do it. I would rather have the government handle it. This could be handled by government. But it could be handled by us very strongly, and this is a very strong case. People that read this case said, wow. This is a strong case.

In this case, we'll build. Now, the problem we have though, is if you have a judge that's going to throw out the case, and you have to go through appeals. Yep, I think you have a great appeals section. But we'll see. So we'll probably ask for a recusal. Maybe a change of venue. But not a change as much as a recusal.

GLENN: I think it's amazing. One of the defendants in this case, is a former State Department official and spokesperson for Clinton, Philippe Reines. And he said -- he tweeted yesterday. I think this is hysterical. He looks forward to deposing President Trump. I don't -- I'm not too concerned. They're laughing at this. And I have to tell you, just as a spectator here, you are probably the most investigated man on planet earth.

TRUMP: Yep. Yeah.

GLENN: Every single intelligence agency, at least in five eyes, and I'll bet you, it's all around the world. Every newspaper, every reporter, every journalist had dug through everything, and you're pretty clean. So what do they think they're going to get from you, in a deposition?

TRUMP: Yes. Beyond pretty clean. I have a friend, a very successful guy who said, you're the cleanest man in history.

GLENN: Oh, yeah.

TRUMP: And how about this, where Paul Weiss, a big law firm, that's a total Democrat/Hillary Clinton firm -- sends one of their partners. Robert Schumer heads it, or one of the big partners. Robert Schumer -- that's Chuck Schumer's brother. Sends one of their big partners into the Manhattan DA's office. Take two of our people to three of our people, your top, you know, smart, young guys. And go into the Manhattan DA's office. Never happened before. Because they have hundreds of lawyers, do a good job. They took their partner, top guy, an anti-Trump. A Trump hater, like you wouldn't believe. All of them made massive contributions. One of the biggest donors to Hillary Clinton. Put him in the DA's office, to prosecute Trump. Let's get Trump. Now we can get him. And Vance -- Cy Vance, whose father sold the Panama Canal, as you know, for 1 dollar. One -- in the worst -- perhaps the single worst business transaction ever made by our country. And Cy Vance, instead of using one of his hundreds and hundreds of lawyers -- of course, he used 20 percent -- I heard close to 20 percent of the da's office, hundreds of -- 20 percent was -- the murders, the drug dealers, the crime, the street crime in New York, which is at a record level.

GLENN: I know.

TRUMP: They were all focused on getting Trump. But how would you like it? And in all fairness, the new gentleman who came in, Alvin Bragg, who is a -- you know, considered liberal. He looked at this thing. And, I mean, I'm reading the papers. But what he said was such an honorable thing. He couldn't believe it. I heard he was very disturbed by the fact that they sent a team of Hillary Clinton Trump haters in to prosecute Trump.

GLENN: Yeah.

TRUMP: From a firm that's 100 percent. You know, that's totally against. It's one of the main Democrat firms. I think the main Democrat firm. And I think they have tremendous legal liability. But he sent this sleazebag in, to get -- think of this. They sent this guy in, to get Donald Trump. So he acted as a prosecutor.

GLENN: Right.

TRUMP: He's a never Trumper, who contributed to -- so it continues. But Alvin Bragg saw that -- and he also saw. By the way, the banks were hurt. Trump's statement was very powerful -- I have a great statement. My statement is so strong. And all the other things. And think of that. They sent a Trump hater into the -- act as the DA, to bring down Donald Trump. And they still couldn't find anything. I got to live with this. Glenn, and I have to live this life.

GLENN: I know. I know.

TRUMP: And I certainly was a great job as president. Right now, you wouldn't be in Ukraine. 100 percent, Russia would not be there. 100 percent. And I spoke to Putin about it. I know that Putin's attitude toward Ukraine, better than anybody but his closest girlfriend. Okay? I know his attitude. I know all about him and Ukraine. I said, don't ever do it. Don't ever do it. And I told him why. And I'm not going to tell you right now, but I'll tell you at the right time. But he would have never, ever made the move. So we have a rigged election. And because of a rigged election, we have potentially millions of people dying. Because this thing could spiral into a nuclear war. I think it's the most dangerous time in the history of this world, because of nuclear. Because we've never had power like this. And right now, we have a president that is grossly incompetent, that's being laughed at over there. That has no relationship. He just sits there. Everybody is talking, screaming. And, you know, the other leaders, they're all at the top of their game. And he's just watching them talk. This whole thing is horrible. This should have never happened. Ukraine should have never happened.

GLENN: I find myself in the weirdest position at night, praying hard for the health of this president. Because I think Kamala Harris would be even worse than this president.

TRUMP: Yeah. When she laughed at the immigrants, and they called them immigration. It's immigration. And you see people coming in on stretchers with their arms cut off, with their face smashed. And horrible, horrible. And she's laughing about it.

GLENN: Yeah.

TRUMP: I said, that's just not -- that's not the right person. It's terrible.

GLENN: Kim Jong-un also tested a new ballistic missile.

TRUMP: Yeah. He's having fun.

GLENN: What are -- are we looking at a split world? They're now talking about, you know, the dollar going away. And getting a new digital currency.

TRUMP: Yeah.

GLENN: This is insanity. And I don't think people understand what this administration has done with these sanctions, that will crush the dollar. I don't think people understand how that will affect their lives.

TRUMP: That's true. That's true. Well, I know sanctions better than anybody. Because I sanctioned the hell out of Iran, and they were ready to make a deal, until the elections. We would have had a deal within one week after the election. They were ready to make a deal. And I had the sanctions. But people don't understand, when you do sanctions, it hurts us as much, and sometimes more than the country you're sanctioning. And what it does, is it forces these big companies, like Russia or others. That doesn't mean that you don't do them. But you have to be very careful. Because it forces them to use other instruments, not the dollar. They go different ways. They sell their oil for gold. Or they sell -- and then all of a sudden, you say, wow. Half the world is off the dollar. It used to be the currency, when I left. It was very powerful. As an example. We use very strong sanctions on Iran. The strongest ever used up until that point. But that deal would have been solved. And we would have been right back on the dollar. And they would have been fine. And everybody would have been happy. That was all set to happen.

GLENN: Do you think -- Mr. President, that if this continues to spiral out of control, with Joe Biden threatening China, which is just a joke. But do you think -- I don't see anything standing in their way, if we're busy over in Europe, with this president. Of China just taking Taiwan.

TRUMP: Well, except the only thing is that Putin has done very poorly, and he is looking at that. And he's saying, I bet Putin wished he didn't do that one. I guess that one is not working out too well. Let's see what happens. The problem is -- the danger is, does Putin say, all right. Now we're going to escalate into the next level of military. And you know what that is. And if that happens --

GLENN: Do you think he would?

TRUMP: Well, he doesn't want to lose, I can tell you that. It will be very interesting to see. Because he doesn't want to -- look, I know him very well. This would have never happened, would have never happened. Now people say, now what would you do now? And there are things that you can do now. But we had all the cards before he did it. All the cards. And I thought he was negotiating when he moved the troops. I didn't -- I really thought it was a great negotiating -- seriously with troops. And he wanted to get certain things. And they should have been able to do something. But -- but he wouldn't have done it, whether he got it or not. He would have never done it with me there. Never.

GLENN: But he's a guy that you cannot have him lose face. How do you give him a win here? How would you solve this, if you had to walk in right now, he's -- he's not going to -- he's not going to walk away a loser? How do you give him a win? How do you end this?

TRUMP: Well, you see, I don't think the win anymore is the NATO thing. You know, they're not going to go into NATO. Because you could have had that before. They should have had that before. In all fairness, it was never put on the table.

GLENN: Right.

TRUMP: There was nobody saying, let's do this. And certainly, it should have been. Because I guess they didn't believe, you know, they didn't really think he was really serious about building it. Very few people did. Maybe nobody did, except him did. And, you know, I think he made a tremendous mistake, and on a humanitarian basis, it's as bad as anyone has ever seen. It will take 100 years to rebuild that country. And they're knocking down buildings and things that are magnificent. Old. You know, we have in this country, we have 200-year buildings, and we think they're great. They have buildings that are thousands of years old. You know, it's like, they have things that are very old and very beautiful. And they're gone. And they're wiped out. A lot -- most importantly, the people. But artwork and so much is -- is just -- that country is devastated. It's going to take 100 years to rebuild that country.

GLENN: Mr. President, thank you so much. Are you -- are you looking forward? Do you see more things coming from the Durham report that will help your case?

TRUMP: Well, I think so. It looks like he set a foundation. And if you look at what he's got. These are Hillary Clinton people. And he's got a very strong foundation. And you look at that. And now you look at the times. When they did -- I thought that was another terrible story. Really terrible. They knew all about Hunter Biden. They said they misread it. They knew all about Hunter Biden's criminality, made a 17-point difference. But we won it anyway. We got 75 million votes. We got more votes than any sitting president has ever gotten. I was told if I got what I got the last time, we got 12 million more votes. I was told if we got what we got the last time, we would -- so, you know, I think a lot of things are going to be happening over the coming -- you are very lucky to be doing what you're doing, because your show is going to get very interesting.
(laughter)

GLENN: So is the world unfortunately.

TRUMP: Unfortunately. Yeah, because much of it is sadly, I have to say.

GLENN: Yes. Yeah. Mr. President, thank you so much for talking to us. I really appreciate it. This is something that every American -- I don't care who you voted for, how you feel about any of the people that are involved here, every American should care what happened. And the power that has been gathered by Hillary Clinton and the DNC. And how corrupt we have become. This -- we won't have fair elections. And won't have freedom, until somebody pays a price for what has happened. Thank you very much, Mr. President. Appreciate it.

TRUMP: Thank you, Glenn. And we have a very corrupt media. Remember that.

GLENN: I know. Yeah. Next time, I will ask, where the media is, in the lawsuit. Thank you so much. God bless.

EXPOSED: Tim Walz's shocking ties to radical Muslim cleric

Minnesota Governor Tim Walz is directly connected in more ways than one to a radical Muslim cleric named Asad Zaman. Zaman's history and ties are despicable, and despite Walz's efforts to dismiss his connection to Zaman, the proof is undeniable. Glenn Beck heads to the chalkboard to connect the dots on this relationship.

Watch the FULL Episode HERE: Glenn Beck Exposes TERRORIST SYMPATHIZERS Infiltrating the Democrat Party

Is there a sinister GOP plan to SELL national parks?

Is Sen. Mike Lee pushing a sinister plan to sell our national parks and build “affordable housing” on them? Glenn Beck fact checks this claim and explains why Sen. Lee’s plan to sell 3 million acres of federal land is actually pro-freedom.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Now, let me give you a couple of things, from people I generally respect.

Chris Rufo, I really respect.

I'm totally against selling this land.

Nobody is going to build affordable housing deep in the Olympic Peninsula, which is one of the most beautiful places in the country.

I agree, it's in Washington State. It's on the coast. And it's a rain forest.

I want my kids hiking, fishing, and camping on those lands, not selling them off for some tax credit scam. This is a question I want to ask Mike Lee about.

That's really good. Matt Walsh chimes in, I'm very opposed to the plan. The biggest environmentalist in the country are and always have been, conservatives who like to hunt and fish.

We don't just call ourselves environmentalists, because the label has too much baggage.

And the practice always just means communist. Really, we are naturalists in the tradition of Teddy Roosevelt, and that's why most of us hate the idea of selling off federal lands to build affordable housing or whatever. I want to get to affordable housing here in a second.

Preserving nature is important. It's a shame we haven't -- that we've allowed conservation to become so left-wing coated. It never was historically.

No, and it still isn't.

You're right about one thing, Matt. We are the best conservatives. We actually live in these places. We use these places. We respect the animals. We respect the land. We know how the circle of life works. So I agree with you on that.

But affordable housing. Why do you say affordable housing or whatever?

Are you afraid those will be black people? I'm just playing devil's advocate? Are you just afraid of black people? You don't want any poor people in your neighborhood or your forest?

That's not what they mean by affordable housing.

And I know that's not what you mean either.

But what -- what we mean by affordable housing is, if you take a look at the percentage of land that is owned in some of these states. You can't live in a house, in some of these states, you know. Close to anything, for, you know, less than a million dollars. Because there's no land!

There's plenty of land all around.

Some of it. Let's just talk about Utah.

Some of it is like the surface of the moon!

But no. No. No.

Not going to hunt and fish on the surface of the moon. But we can't have you live anywhere.

I mean, you have to open up -- there is a balance between people and the planet. And I'm sorry. But when you're talked about one half of 1 percent, and we're not talking about Yellowstone.

You know, we're not. Benji Backer, the Daily Caller, he says, the United States is attempting to sell off three million acres of public land, that will be used for housing development through the addition of the spending bill.

This is a small provision to the big, beautiful bill that would put land in Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado. Idaho. New Mexico. Oregon. Utah. Washington, and Wyoming at risk.

Without so much as a full and fair debate by members of both sides of the political aisle.

You know, I talked -- I'll talk to him about this.

The irony is, the edition of this provision by Republican-led Senate goes entirely against conservation legacy of a conservation. President Trump made a promise to revive this legacy.

Yada. Yada. Yada.

More about Teddy Roosevelt.

Then let me give you this one from Lomez. Is Mike Lee part of a sinister plan to sell off federal land?

This plan to sell off public lands is a terrible proposal that doesn't make any sense under our present circumstances and would be a colossal political blunder. But I'll try to be fair to base Mike Lee.

And at least have him explain where this is all coming from.

Okay. I will have him do that in about 30 minutes.

Let me give you just my perspective on this.

I'm from the West. I love the west.

I don't hike myself.

I think there's about 80 percent of the people who say, I just love to hike. And they don't love to hike. They never go outside.

I'm at least willing to admit. I don't like to hike. But I love the land. I live in a canyon now. That I would love to just preserve this whole canyon in my lifetime. I'm not going to rule from the grave. But in my lifetime, to protect this, so it remains unspoiled. Because it is beautiful!

But we're talking about selling 3 million acres of federal land. And it's becoming dangerous.

And it's a giveaway. Or a threat to nature.

But can we just look at the perspective here?

The federal government owned 640 million acres. That is nearly 28 percent of all land in America!

How much land do we have?

Well, that's about the size of France.

And Germany. Poland.

And the United Kingdom, combined!

They own and hold pristine land, that is more than the size of those countries combined!

And most of that is west of the Mississippi. Where the federal control smothers the states.

Okay?

Shuts down opportunity. Turns local citizens into tenets of the federal estate.

You can't afford any house because you don't have any land!

And, you know, the states can't afford to take care of this land. You know why the states can't afford it?

Because you can't charge taxes on 70 percent of your land!

Anyway, on, meanwhile, the folks east of the Mississippi, like Kentucky, Georgia. Pennsylvania.

You don't even realize, you know, how little of the land, you actually control.

Or how easy it is for the same policies, to come for you.

And those policies are real.

Look, I'm not talking about -- I'm disturbed by Chris Rufo saying, that it is the Olympic forest.

I mean, you're not going to live in the rain forest. I would like to hear the case on that.

But we're not talking about selling Yellowstone or paving over Yosemite or anything like that.

We're talking about less than one half of one percent of federal land. Land that is remote.
Hard to access. Or mismanaged. I live in the middle of a national forest.

So I'm surrounded on all sides by a national forest, and then BLM land around that. And then me. You know who the worst neighbor I have is?

The federal government.

The BLM land is so badly mismanaged. They don't care what's happening.

Yeah. I'm going to call my neighbor, in Washington, DC, to have them fix something.

It's not going to happen.

If something is wrong with that land, me and my neighbors, we end up, you know, fixing the land.

We end up doing it. Because the federal government sucks at it.

Okay.

So here's one -- less than one half of 1 percent.

Why is it hard to access that land?

Well, let me give you a story. Yellowstone.

Do you know that the American bison, we call it the buffalo.

But it's the American bison.

There are no true American bison, in any place, other than Yellowstone.

Did you know that?

Here's almost an endangered species.

It's the only true American bison, is in Yellowstone.

Ranchers, I would love to raise real American bison.

And I would protect them.

I would love to have them roaming on my land.

But you can't!

You can't.

Real bison, you can't.

Why? Because the federal government won't allow any of them to be bred.

In fact, when Yellowstone has too many bison on their land, you know what the federal government does?

Kills them. And buries them with a bulldozer. Instead of saying, hey. We have too many.

We will thin the herd.

We will put them on a truck. Here's some ranchers that will help repopulate the United States with bison. No, no, no. You can't do that.

Why? It's the federal government. Stop asking questions. Do you know what they've done to our bald eagles.

I have pictures of piles of bald eagles.

That they'll never show you.

They'll never show you.

You can't have a bald eagle feather!

It's against the law, to have a feather, from a bald eagle!

If it's flying, and a feather falls off, you can't pick it up. Because they're that sacred.

But I have pictures of piles of bald eagles, dead, from the windmills.

And nobody says a thing.

Okay.

But we're talking about lands.

States can't afford to manage it.

Okay. But how can the federal government?

Now, this is really important.

The federal government is, what? $30 trillion in debt or are we 45 trillion now, I'm not sure?

Our entitlement programs, all straight infrastructure, crumbling.

And yet, we're still clinging to millions of acres of land, that the federal government can't maintain. Yeah, they can.

Because they can always print money.

We can't print money in the state, so we can't afford it.

Hear me out. The BLM Forest Service, Park Service, billions of dollars behind in maintenance, roads, trails, fire brakes.

Everything is falling apart..

So what's the real plan here?

Well, the Biden administration was the first one that was really open about it, pushing for what was called 30 by 30.

They want 30 percent of all US land and water, under conservation by 2030.

But the real goal is 5050.

50 percent of the land, and the water, in the government's control by 2050.

Half of the country locked up under federal or elite approved protection.

Now, you think that's not going to affect your ability to hunt, fish, graze, cattle. Harvest, timber, just live free. You won't be able to go on those. It won't be conservatives, who stop you from hunting and fishing.

It will be the same radical environmental ideologues, who see the land, as sacred, over people!

I mean, unless it's in your backyard. Your truck. Or your dear stand, you know, then I guess you can't touch that land.

Here's something that no one is talking about, and it goes to the 2030.

The Treasury right now, and they started under Obama, and they're still doing it now.

Sorry, under Biden.

And they're doing it now. The Treasury is talking about putting federal land on the national ballot sheet. What does that mean?

Well, it will make our balance sheet so much better.

Because it looks like we have so much more wealth, and we will be able to print more money.

Uh-huh. What happens, you know. You put something sacred like that, on your balance sheet, and the piggy bank runs dry.

And all of the banks are like, okay.

Well, you can't pay anymore.

What happens in a default?

What happens, if there's catastrophic failure. You don't get to go fish on that land. Because that land becomes Chinese.

You think our creditors, foreign and domestic, won't come knocking?

What happens when federal land is no longer a national treasure, but a financial asset, that can be seized or sold or controlled by giant banks or foreign countries.

That land that you thought, you would always have access to, for your kids, for your hunting lodge, for your way of life.

That is really important!

But it might not be yours at all. Because you had full faith in the credit of the United States of America.

So what is the alternative?

Dershowitz SLAMS ‘expert’ lies in explosive trans surgery debate

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor a Tennessee law that bans transgender surgeries for minors. But famed attorney Alan Dershowitz explains to Glenn why “it should have been unanimous.”

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Alan Dershowitz, how are you?

ALAN: I'm doing great, how about you?

GLENN: It has been a really confusing week. I'm losing friends, I think, because I stand with Israel's right to defend themselves. And I'm pointing out, that while I don't want a war, Iran is a really bad place.

And then I see, the Supreme Court comes out best interest there are three justices are like, I don't know. I think children, you know, can change their identity before we even let them drive or carry a gun. Or enlist in the military.

It's insane!

ALAN: It is insane. Especially since the radical left said that -- 17 and a half-year-old -- voluntary sex with their boyfriend. That would be sexist, that would be horrible.

But they can consent to have an abortion. They can consent to have radical surgery, that can't be reversed.

By the way, the decision is like six to two and a half. Elena Kagan, my former colleague at Harvard, didn't reach the merits of whether or not a state could actually ban these operations on a minor. She got involved in whether or not you need super, duper scrutiny, or just super scrutiny, a kind of, you know, a very technical thing.

But she didn't rule on whether under any kind of scrutiny, the state could do that. So definitely, two of them said that the state could do it, but not necessarily a third one.

GLENN: Okay.

Can you break this argument down? And why it should have been unanimous?

ALAN: Oh, it should be unanimous. There's no question.

States under the Constitution, have the authority to decide medical issues. States decide a whole range of medical issues. I remember when I was a young professor, there was an issue of whether or not one twin could be operated on to remove a kidney, to be given to another twin.

And, you know, that case went all the way through -- the federal government never got involved in that. That was up to the state of Massachusetts. They made interesting decisions.

Some states go the other way.

Half the countries of Europe go one way. The other half go the other way. And just as Justice Brandeis once said that things are the laboratories of Constitutional experimentation.

They have the right to do things their own way. And then we'll see over time. Over time, I predict that we will find that this kind of surgery, is not acceptable scientifically for young people.

And the New York Times had an absurd op-ed yesterday. By the mother of a transgender person.

And it never mentioned. It originally said that the person was now 18 years old.

And the decision does not apply to anyone who is 18.

You know, just wait. Don't make irreversible decisions while you're 12 years old. Or 13 years old.

Because we know the statistics show, that some people, at least, regret having made these irreversible decisions, particularly. Yeah.

GLENN: So why is it -- why is it that the state. Why wasn't the argument, you can't do this to children?

ALAN: Well, you know, that's the question.

Whether or not if the state says, you can do it to children, that violates the Constitution. I think states are given an enormous amount of leeway, this. Deciding what's best for people.

You leave it to the public.

And, you know, for me, if I were, you know, voting. I would not vote to allow a 17-year-old to make that irreversible decision. But if the state wants to do it. If a country in Europe wants to do it. All right!

But the idea that there's a constitutional right for a minor, who can't -- isn't old enough to consent to a contract, to have sex, is old enough to consent to do something that will change their life forever, and they will come to regret, is -- is absurd.

GLENN: So I don't know how you feel about Justice Thomas. But he -- he took on the so-called experts.

And -- and really kind of took him to the woodshed. What were your thoughts on that?

ALAN: Well, I agree with that. I devoted my whole life to challenging experts. That's what I do in court.

I challenge experts all the time. But most of the major cases that I've won, have been cases where experts went one way, and we were -- persuaded a jury or judge. That the expert is not really an expert.

Experts have become partisans, just like everybody else.

And so I'm glad that expert piece is being challenged by judges.

And, you know, experts ought to challenge judges, judges challenge experts. That's the world we live in. Everybody challenges everybody else. As long as all of us are allowed to speak, allowed to have our point of view expressed, allowed to vote, that's democracy.

Democracy does not require a singular answer to complex medical, psychological, moral problems. We can have multiple answers.

We're not a dictatorship. We're not in North Korea or Iran, where the ayatollah or the leader tells us what to think. We can think for ourselves, and we can act for ourselves.

GLENN: Yeah. It's really interesting because this is my argument with Obamacare.

I was dead set against Obamacare. But I wasn't against Romneycare when it was in Massachusetts. If that's what Massachusetts wants to do, Massachusetts can do it. Try it.

And honestly, if it would work in a state, we would all adopt it.

But the problem is, that some of these things, like Romneycare, doesn't work. And so they want to -- they want to rope the federal government into it. Because the federal government can just print money. You know, any state wants to do anything.

For instance, I have a real hard time with California right now.

Because I have a feeling, when they fail, we will be roped into paying for the things that we all knew were bad ideas.

Why? Why should I pay for it in Texas, when I know it wouldn't work?

And I've always wanted to live in California, but I don't, because I know that's not going to work.

ALAN: Yeah. But conservatives sometimes take the opposite point of view.

Take guns, for example.

The same Justice Thomas says that I state cannot have the authority to decide that guns should not be available in time square.

Or in schools. There has to be a national openness to guns. Because of the second apple.

And -- you can argue reasonably, what the Second Amendment means.

But, you know, conservatives -- many conservatives take the view that it has to be a single standard for the United States.

It can't vary in their decision how to control -- I'm your favorite --

GLENN: Isn't that -- doesn't that -- doesn't that just take what the -- what the Bill of Rights is about, and turns it upside the head?

I mean, it says, anything not mentioned here, the states have the rights.

But they -- they cannot. The federal government cannot get involved in any of these things.

And these are rights that are enshrined.

So, I mean, because you could say that, but, I mean, when it comes to health care, that's not in the Constitution. Not in the Bill of Rights.

ALAN: Oh, no.

There's a big difference, of course.

The Second Amendment does provide for the right to bear arms.

The question is whether it's interpreted in light of the beginning of the Second Amendment. Which says, essentially, a well-regulated, well-regulated militia. Whether that applies to private ownership as well.

Whether it could be well-regulated by states.

Look, these are interesting debates.

And the Supreme Court, you know, decides these.

But all I'm saying is that many of these decisions are in some way, influenced by ideology.

The words of the Constitution, don't speak like, you know, the Ten Commandments and God, giving orders from on high.

They're often written in ambiguous terms. Even the Ten Commandments. You know, it says, thou shall not murder. And it's been interpreted by some to say, thou shall not still, the Hebrew word is (foreign language), for murder, not kill. And, of course, we know that in parts of the Bible, you are allowed to kill your enemies, if they come after you to kill you, rise up and kill them first.

So, you know, everything -- human beings are incapable of writing with absolute clarity, about complex issues.

That's why we need institutions to interpret them. The institutions should be fair.

And the Supreme Court is sometimes taking over too much authority, too much power.

I have an article today, with gay stone.

Can had starts with a quote from the book of Ruth.

And it says, when judges rule the land, there was famine.

And I say, judges were not supposed to ever rule, going back to Biblical times.

Judges are supposed to judge.

People who are elected or pointed appropriately. Are the ones supposed to rule.

GLENN: Quickly. Two other topics. And I know you have to go.

If I can get a couple of quick takes on you.

The Democrats that are being handcuffed, and throwing themselves into situations.

Do you find that to be a sign of a fascistic state or a publicity stunt?

ALAN: A publicity stunt. And they would knit it. You know, give them a drink at 11 o'clock in the bar. They will tell you, they are doing this deliberately to get attention.

Of course, a guy who is running behind in the mayor race in New York, goes and gets himself arrested. And now he's on every New York television station. And probably will move himself up in the polls.

So no.

Insular -- I don't believe in that. And I don't believe we should take it -- take it seriously.

GLENN: Last question.

I am proudly for Israel.

But I'm also for America. And I'm really tired of foreign wars.

And I think you can be pro-Israel and pro-America at the same time.

I don't think you can -- you don't have to say, I'm for Israel, defending themselves, and then that makes me a warmonger.

I am also very concerned about Iran. And have been for a very long time.

Because they're Twelvers. They're Shia Twelvers. That want to wash the world in blood. To hasten the return of the promised one.

So when they have a nuclear weapon. It's a whole different story.

ALAN: No, I agree with you, Tucker Carlson, is absolutely wrong, when he say he has to choose between America first or supporting Israel. Supporting Israel in this fight against Iran, is being America first.

It's supporting America. Israel has been doing all the hard work. It's been the one who lost its civilians and fortunately, none of its pilots yet.

But America and Israel work together in the interest of both countries.

So I'm -- I'm a big supporter of the United States, the patriarch. And I'm a big supporter of Israel at the same time.

Because they work together in tandem, to bring about Western -- Western values.

GLENN: Should we drop a bomb?

ALAN: Yes, we should.

GLENN: Our plane drop the bomb?

ALAN: Yes, we should. And without killing civilians. It can be done. Probably needs four bombs, not one bomb. First, one bomb to open up the mountain. Then another bomb to destroy what's going on inside.

And in my book The Preventive State, I make the case for when preventive war is acceptable. And the war against Iran is as acceptable as it would have been to attack Nazi Germany in the 1930s. If we had done that, if Britain and France had attacked Nazi Germany in the 1930s, instead of allowing it to be built up, it could have saved 60 million lives. And so sometimes, you have to take preventive actions to save lives.

GLENN: What is the preventive state out, Alan?

ALAN: Just now. Just now.

Very well on Amazon.

New York Times refuses to review it. Because I defended Donald Trump.

And Harvard club cancelled my appearance talked about the book. Because I haven't been defending Harvard. I've been defending President Trump's attack. By the way, they called Trump to Harvard: Go fund yourself.
(laughter)

GLENN: Okay.

Let's -- I would love to have you back on next week. To talk about the preventive state. If you will. Thank you, Alan. I appreciate it. Alan Dershowitz. Harvard Law school, professor emeritus, host of the Dershow. And the author of the new book that's out now, The Preventive State.

I think that's a really important topic. Because we are -- we are traveling down the roads, where fascism, on both sides, where fascism can start to creep in. And it's all for your own good.

It's all for your own protection. Be aware. Be aware.

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

They want to control what you eat! — Cattle rancher's stark warning

American cattle rancher Shad Sullivan tells Glenn Beck that there is a "War on Beef" being waged by the globalist elites and that Americans need to be prepared for this to be an ongoing battle. How secure is America's food supply chain, and what does the country need to do to ensure food shortages never occur in the future?

Watch Glenn's FULL Interview with Shad Sullivan HERE