RADIOMay 30, 2024

How Trump’s Jury Was Transformed Into a DANGEROUS Commission

The jury in former president Donald Trump’s New York hush money trial is deliberating on whether to convict him. But there are some major issues: For one, the judge didn’t give the jury a printed copy of the jury instructions — something Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey says he has “never” seen before. Plus, the jury doesn’t even have to agree on WHAT crime Trump committed. Attorney General Bailey joins Glenn to explain why this is dangerous: This isn’t the American justice system. The judge has created a “roving commission” more akin to the system the British used to jail dissenters in the colonial era.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: The judge in President Trump's hush money trial, told the jury, that they don't even have to agree on the crime. They could all think, you know, I think his hair is a crime.

You know, four of them. I think his suntan is a crime. And four of them can say, I think, you know, he falsified checks. Whatever.

Whatever they think the crime is! Because it wasn't really defined.

Even if they don't agree on the crime, if 12 of them thinks he committed some crime, well, then he's guilty. I've never heard that before.

I've served on a jury. I've served on a jury with multiple counts.

We had to discuss each count!

And we found this person guilty on some counts. And not on others.

It would have been the easiest thing ever. We could have been done in ten minutes! If all we had to do was just, hey. These seven counts on this guy. Does everybody agree, he did one of them?

Yeah. Okay. We're out of here.

Is this normal? Andrew Bailey is here. He's the Missouri attorney general. Kind of knows the law.

Attorney General Bailey, welcome to the program.
ANDREW: Thanks for having me on.

GLENN: So, again, I don't know the law. But this does not seem like the American way of I couldn't wait if had our courts. Am I wrong?

ANDREW: No. You are absolutely right. This reeks of desperation by the prosecutor and the judge to obtain a conviction. If people were not previously convince that had this was an elicit witch hunt prosecution. They should be so now.

This is insane. Look, since 2020, the United States Supreme Court has said that jury unanimity under criminal law is required under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution. It was not always that way. There were two states prior to 2020, that did not require jury unanimity under the Sixth Amendment criminal trials. Louisiana and Oregon for lesser offenses.

And the Supreme Court fixed that in 2020. And so for this prosecutor and this judge to say, hey, whatever you think. Go ahead and do whatever you want. It violates the Sixth Amendment. It violates the president's due process rights. Because how many folks know how to offer a defense, if he doesn't even know what the -- the target crime is.

That he's -- that is an element of the office for which he's charged. It also empowers the jury to be a roving commission.

And, again, that reeks of desperation. They don't care. They will throw everything against the wall.

This is not giving the jury instructions, and convict them of something, whatever you want.

GLENN: Well, there is -- 32 charges. Thirty-two counts. Thirty-four counts. So if two of them believe, you know, he's guilty on 29, and two of them believe something else.

But they don't agree on the same counts. How is that justice?

ANDREW: No. I think that's absolutely right. And, again, it creates a roving commission. And that violates the basic constitutional tenants that underpin the due process clause of the Sixth Amendment rights to a jury trial. That's been incorporated against the state, and certainly at least since 2020.

And again, I think it's desperate. It's throw everything against the wall. It also reminds me of, there was a Roman emperor who used to nail the walls to the highest points on the columns. So the Roman citizens wouldn't be able to read them. That's a lot what this is like. The judge is saying to the jury, I will charge you to find a crime. Any crime you want. And I'm not going to let you read the jury instructions.

Trust me. You guys go back and convict him on something they want to convict them on.

GLENN: Okay. So tell me what the jury instructions mean. And why would he not print. Because I understand also, that it is clearly printed all the time. So --

ANDREW: That's right. I would never try a case, where you didn't give the jury, the jury instructions. Why would you not want to. Again, that's the law. Judges determine law. Juries determine facts. And it's up to the jury, to apply the facts to the law.

And so in closing arguments, the prosecutor gets up and says, here's the elements of the offense. Here's the evidence that proves each of these elements. And it's like a checklist. Then you tick down it. Then you show them the verdict form.

And say, this is how you find them guilty.

And if you're the defense, you stand up and say, the state didn't prove this! They didn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt of that. And it etches in the jury's mind, what to look for, in that instruction packet, when they go back in delivery. But how is the jury supposed to look back to the law, if they can't see the law in front?

GLENN: Also, may I ask, when -- when the -- oh, shoot.

He did something. Oh, in the closing arguments, for the prosecution. Didn't they introduce new evidence or evidence that wasn't presented, and he let it ride?

ANDREW: Completely objectionable. It should have been stricken from the record. And the jury should have been admonished to ignore that. It's called facts not in evidence.

It's one of the first objections you learn in any evidence class in law school, and to have the prosecutor for the state of New York. Matthew Colangelo, Alvin Bragg. Having that team stand up and testify, as if they're witnesses. The fact that it has not been introduced. It's completely impermissible. It demonstrates an abuse of the judge's discretion. It should have been stricken from the record.

But, again, I will go back to this idea of a roving commission. The -- think about our experience under colonial England.

Where general warrants were issued by magistrates, and the British soldiers could search your home and quarter in your home for no basis whatsoever, just on any -- any level of suspicion.

And you didn't even have to be charged with an actual offense. That you would then be able to defend against.

They, allegations were sufficient to jail you. And so the Founders erected these Constitutional barriers, that kind of government intrusion into our individual liberties.

And again, the Sixth Amendment requires your anonymity which has been violated here. It also prevents the due process clause. It prevents a roving commission, where the law is so abstract. That the jury can roam freely through the evidence. And choose any fact it wants to create liability.
That is not -- again, that is not what this country is founded upon, that violates the Constitutional rights. And it's to demonstrate. This was never about a legally valid conviction. There's never about an actual crime.

There was never a crime. It's always about taking President Trump off the campaign trail, and that has been violating all of our rights.

GLENN: Okay. So -- so, Andrew, I'm -- I'm thinking about why this guy would do this. Because I would imagine with be this is a slam dunk, overturn.

Wouldn't it be?

ANDREW: Yeah. Absolutely. Absolutely.

It should have been dismissed at the state's evidence for failure to actually prosecute a criminal defense. Failure to offer, prove beyond a reasonable doubt on some of the elements. It then should have been dismissed once again, disclosed of all the evidence. This shouldn't have even gone to the jury.

And the fact that they have now rigged the jury process, to avoid the anonymity requirement, and to create this roving commission.

It's just once again, just one more piece of evidence to prove, the witch hunt nature of this prosecution.

GLENN: So do you believe this was done possibly. Excuse me.

Do you believe this was done possibly, because they just want the none name after. And then just dispute. Well, it was some conservative court that overturned it.

You know, we know the truth. And that's the only reason I can think of -- why you would do this. Why would a judge want to be overturned, especially when it is so clearly going to be overturned.

ANDREW: Glenn, I think you're absolutely right.

I think two other points to make here. The process and the timing.

This is a crucial period. Where President Trump needs to be courting the electorate and republic. Instead, he's tied down in a Manhattan courtroom.

But secondly, think about how long an appeal takes. That doesn't happen overnight. To the extent he's convicted, to the extent they obtain an illegal illicit conviction this week or next, sentencing will be pushed out 45 to 60 days at most. And then an appeal will take a year or more.

And so this takes us in. Even if President Trump is elected president, this will haunt him and this will undermine the first few years of his administration.

GLENN: This is just nuts.

ANDREW: They poisoned the well we will be drinking from for years now.

GLENN: I mean, you want to talk about the end of the republic. It's this kind of stuff that ends the republic. You don't. And because it's not just about him.

This goes back to what Stalin created. What the king. King George created.

Find me the man, I'll find you the crime.

You know, it -- it -- there is no justice, if things like this happen. One last question: I served on a jury once. And it was a serious case. But not a -- not a murder or anything else.

But it was -- it was, you know, abuse of a wife.

And we had, I don't know how many charges. And we kept calling the judge in. Because we thought the judge was, you know, our friend. And fair.

And we would ask him. And he would say, I can't tell you that. I can't tell you that.

Here are the instructions. You would have to go. And we would call him back in.

I can't tell you that. Here are the instructions. And we couldn't agree on all of the counts. And so we ended up, I think on maybe two counts out of eight. Or something like that.

Because we were split.

If we would have been able to say. Oh, you four want this. And you four think that case.

And that four think this. We would have been out of there by now.

Does it say anything, that they have such a wide berth to agree on anything?

And it -- it takes them a while to get through this. I mean, I would have been done. We would honestly, if we had those instructions, we would have been done the first day.

ANDREW: Yeah. That's right. I mean, that's why jury anonymity is so important to our constitutional structure, to our individual rights.

You know, and also the due process clause. To prevent that kind of roving commission. The prosecution here is best summed up as, there is no crime. So let's see how much garbage we can throw on a wall. See if any of it sticks. And try to convince someone that it's criminal behavior. And the judge is going to collude with us. Not allow the jury to see the law. And then agree that, yeah, you are a roving commission. Anything that you want to find that is criminal, it's a grab bag. You pick it. You choose it. You don't have to agree. Let's get out of here with the conviction as fast as we can.

It undermines the credibility of our criminal justice system. I also think it's dripping with irony, that this is happening in a state like New York, where they're not prosecuting actual criminals. This is a state the prides itself on criminal justice reform and bail for everyone. Cashless bail for everyone. And one standard of justice, as Alvin Bragg launched on his website.

How can he even look himself in the mirror and keep a straight face with that kind of nonsense going on.

GLENN: I know I promised one last question. But, again, one last question.

The jury just sent the judge a note. They want to reread the instructions, beginning with how they should consider facts and what inferences can be drawn. What have what do you take from that?

ANDREW: I think it's problematic. It means that they know they don't have direct evidence to prove some of the elements of the event. But remember, there are two attorneys on that jury. And those attorneys are telling them, look, we don't need direct evidence.

Circumstantial evidence which includes reasonable inferences is sufficient to obtain a conviction stop it means they're stretching.

And I think it's a reasonable inference for us and outsiders to draw.

If those attorneys are inviting them to stretch and use circumstantial evidence to try to find any crime.

GLENN: Jeez. Thank you so much.

Andrew, I appreciate it. Andrew Bailey. The Missouri attorney general. I -- I really appreciate it.

Thank you.

ANDREW: Appreciate you having me on. Thank you.

GLENN: You bet.

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

"Everything is For Sale" — How the Cartels Control Mexico's Government

It is widely accepted that the cartels in Mexico not only control significant swaths of land, but they also have incredible influence over how the country's government operates. Border Expert Brandon Darby sits down with Glenn Beck to explain exactly why this is the case and what the Trump administration's strategy truly needs to be in order to crush these powerful cartels.

Watch Glenn Beck's FULL Interview with Brandon Darby HERE

We're being played. THIS is the REAL threat to America

Conservatives in America are being divided over the wrong things. Glenn Beck asks: Who’s the real threat to America: Sen. Mike Lee, who wants to sell 3% of federally-owned land to states and cities, or the rising radical communist wing of the Democratic Party, who recently chose Zohran Mamdani as their NYC mayoral candidate?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: I want to talk to you about the enemy being clear. Crystal clear!

But I'm not sure to everybody.

I'm so sick and tired of us turning on each other.

We saw it with Elon Musk and Donald Trump. I like both men. Can we stop?

Thankfully, they did.

You're seeing it with Trump's bombing of Iran. Where you were either a Jew-loving Zionist or raging anti-Semite, or if you're me.

Both!

And then there's something that really caught me off-guard. The people who are turning on Utah Senator Mike Lee over a housing proposal, he's had this housing proposal since 2022.

But if you go on X, you're going to learn, apparently Mike Lee, one of the most Constitutional loving conservatives I know, wants to sell off our national parks and forest.

You know, he was probably in Coeur d'Alene lighting the matches, because he hates our forest so much. He wants to make sure you never get to hunt.

All he wants to do is take away your fishing and hunting rights. And build cheap housing complexes. Amazon warehouses. And whatever China and BlackRock want.

You know, I addressed this a few weeks ago. I invited Mike to clarify where he stands. Because some of my family are very concerned.

You can find the segments on my YouTube channel. Go and subscribe to my YouTube channel. Will you please? But since then, apparently, there's a crusade out to cancel Senator Lee.

There have been a few major updates. So today, let me just take a look at just the facts here, where we stand on this right now.

Over the weekend, Mike Lee decided to withdraw his federal land sale provision from the big, beautiful bill.

He said, quote, while this has been a tremendous amount of misinformation, and in some cases, outright lies about my bill. Many people brought forward sincere concerns.

Because of the strict constraints of the budget reconciliation process, I was unable to secure clear, enforceable safeguards to guarantee, these lands would never be sold.

Only to American families. Not to China. To not BlackRock.

And never to any foreign interests.

Wow! What a shill for the globalists, right?

Or maybe how it should work. Members of Congress propose something presented to the people. And then they listen to the community. Instead of just insisting, we have to pass it, to know what's in it.

And I didn't hear this kind of outcry for that!

Here's one of the bigger issues here. We're speaking two different languages.

A lot of criticism online is that Mike Lee wants to sell off our public lands!

Our public lands. Pragmatism to a lot of Americans, those lands are the lands we use for recreation. And hiking. And haunting. And fishing.

And things like that. That's whatnot he wanted to sell. And he promised to make that much clearer in the revised bill.

Now, let me remind you, on the public lands. President Biden, under his administration. The federal government was ordered to conserve 30 percent of our lands. And our waters by 2030. So apparently, our public lands are being gobbled up even more.

That's another, I think six percentage points. Another 6 percent of the entire land in the United States, going to be seized by the federal government, by 2030. And it falls directly in line with the UN's 30 by 30 plan.

It's an initiative for governments to seize 30 percent of all land and water by 2030. Now, do you think the UN wants to give you more hunting and fishing land?

Do you think they're all for that? Or do you think these radical environmentalists want to restrict your access in the name of fighting climate change?

By the way, current -- currently, the US government owns 640 million acres of land. That's nearly a third of the country. So they've almost met that 30 by 30 goal.

And they will meet it, and then what's next? The 50 by 50 UN goal.

And in order to seize the rest of the land, there's the Sustains Act that passed. Do you know about this? I didn't hear about any outcry for this.

Where was the right on this one? It was enacted in 2023, allows the government to receive private funds to advance conservation programs.

So BlackRock, if they wanted to, could buy up the conservation lands! Does your property contribute to pollination, photosynthesis. The air we breathe. The water we drink?

Well, as I -- as I exposed, on a show back in September, the Sustains Act allows all of that to be monetized through the relationship of private investors like Bill Gates. And the government!

And it occurs without the landowners permission.

So they can take your land. Or tell you exactly what you want to do, or what they want you to do on that land, what you cannot do on that land, because photosynthesis happens.

Where was I?

Where were you on that?

This is the real seizing of American assets.

This is the real seizing of American assets, by the global corporations. That you were all so afraid of!

Mike Lee, oh, my gosh.

What about the Sustains Act?

In his revised bill. Which he's still working on.

Lee has promised to remove all forest land. Good. Significantly reduce the amount of BLM land in the bill.

Good. Only land within 5 miles of population centers is eligible.

Yeah. But when he gets that, then he'll build buildings there, and then he'll have another five.

And next thing you know, he will be putting a cap on -- on Old Faithful.

He'll establish freedom zones to ensure these lands benefit American families. Ranchers. Recreational users. But there's a lot of claims online.

Whatever.

Charlie Kirk said, the Democrats -- this is their war on single family housing.

Hmm.

Do you remember when we talked on the program about the globalist plan of 15-minute cities. That all of BlackRock and everything else is for.

Remember when BlackRock came in, and just started buying up whole neighborhoods. Just priced every regular citizen out of the neighborhood.

Why?

Because it's part of the plan to pack the majority of humanity into easily controllable cities where everything you need is just 15 minutes away. And you never need a car. But is that the American dream?

Currently, rural land is getting so expensive. Most Americans can't afford rural land!

I know. I'm living in a place that has a population of 400 -- I think it's 51. Might have had a baby, so maybe it's 452. And nobody can afford it.

How is it possible you're living in the middle of nowhere, with a population of 451 people, and you can't afford a house!

The elites don't need Mike Lee's proposal. But take more of your land.

They're already doing that. But here's my biggest issue.

This is not about Mike Lee's proposal. Okay?

It's not.

There is a much bigger issue.

And I'll share that when I come back.

GLENN: Welcome to the Glenn Beck Program. So I was talking about federal -- I want to get off that. I want to change to, instead, what the real problem here is.

What the real problem is. The real problem on the seizing of the federal lands. Is that we are so quick to turn on ourselves.

We are so quick, lately, to turn on our -- our allies.

See, that's -- the issue isn't Mike Lee's proposal.

It's how fast we turn on each other!

If you believe Mike Lee's proposal didn't go far enough to safeguard our land from adversaries. Great!

That's fine. And, you know what, you won!

He's revamping that.

He listened.

The government listened. Good!

But can you say that without calling him a traitorous shill for the elites?

I mean, I don't know what traitorous shill for the elites that actually listens.

Do you?

Donald Trump Jr. He was against my plan. He thanked him over the weekend for pulling the proposal saying, quote, Mike is a great friend. And we usually agree on almost everything. But this was a rare exemption of where we didn't! Hello!

We don't need to hear people tear each other down. Who is our real enemy?

Who is -- who is more dangerous?

Can we go to -- can we go?

I don't have number on these, unfortunately. Six.

Seven, eight, nine, ten. Let's go to cut ten, please, on whiter neighborhoods.

VOICE: I realized there's a policy proposal, and I'm going to quote it for folks to shift the tax burden from overtaxed homeowners in the outer bureaus toward expensive homes in richer and whiter neighborhoods.

Explain why you are bringing race into your tax proposal.

VOICE: That is just a description of what we see right now.

It's not driven by race.

It's more of an assessment of what neighborhoods are being undertaxed versus overtaxed. We've seen time and again, that this is a property tax system that is inequitable. It's one that actually Eric Adams ran on, saying that he would change in the first 100 days.

He since sought to defend it, and lost at every juncture in court.

VOICE: And I understand, you're saying, we're simply describing the types of neighborhood that would see these increases in taxes.

And yet by invoking race, do you run the risk of potentially alienating key constituents.

STU: I think I'm just naming things as they are. And ultimately, my -- the thing that motivates me in this, is to create a system of fairness.

It's not to work backwards from an original assessment of our neighborhood or our city. Rather, it's to ensure that we actually have an equal playing field.

And right now, what we see with the property tax system, is one that is overtaxing a number of New Yorkers and undertaxing others. And inability of political will to resolve that.

VOICE: So no plans to change that language on your website?

VOICE: The focus here is to actually ensure a fair property tax system, and the use of that language is an assessment of the neighborhood.

GLENN: Just want it to be fair. Just want it to be fair. Play the next cut. This is Mamdani, by the way, the candidate in New York, that looks like he might win, to become the next mayor of New York. Next cut.

VOICE: You are a self-described democratic socialist. Do you think that billionaires have a right to exist?
(laughter)

VOICE: I don't think that we should have billionaires, because frankly it is so much money, in a moment of such inequality.

And ultimately, what we need more of is equality across our city, and across our state, and across our country.

And I look forward to work with everyone. Including billionaires. To make a city that is fair for all of them.

GLENN: Wow!

That is fantastic.

We shouldn't have billionaires.

Hmm. So how would we get there?

What would be his ultimate goal?

Listen.

VOICE: Do you like capitalism?

VOICE: No. I have many critiques of capitalism.

And I think ultimately, the definition for me, of why I call myself a Democratic Socialist.

Is the words of Dr. King decades ago. He said, call it democracy, or call it democratic socialism.

There must be a better distribution of wealth for all of God's children in this country.

And that's what I'm focused on, is dignity and taking on income inequality. What the purpose is about, about this project, is not simply to raise much consciousness, to win socialism.

And obviously raise class consciousness. We were a part of that. But making sure that we have candidates that both understand that and are willing to put that forward, at every which moment they have.

Every which moment that they are given.

We have to continue to elect more socialists. And we have to ensure that we are unapologetic about our socialism. And there are also other issues that we firmly believe in.

Whether it's BS -- right? Or whether it's the end goal of seizing the means of production, where we don't have the same level --

GLENN: Wait. Can you say that again for me?

Whether it's the end goal of ceasing is the means of production.

Let me ask you the question: Which is more dangerous to our country, and our heritage?

Is it the -- the senator?

That controversial maybe. Says 3 percent of federal land should be transferred back to the states?

Or is it the politician standing at a modem declaring, you know, not in some offhanded gap, that he has a real problem with capitalism. That he wants to tax white neighborhoods. That he wants to get rid of billionaires. And seize the means of production.

Now, for those who studied history. I don't need to tell you why your blood has suddenly run cold. Seize the means of production, that's not economic theory.

That is a revolutionary war cry. It always has been. It's the heart of Lenin, of Marx, of Mao. Of Gulags. Of five-year plans. A food line. Total state control. It is the slogan, whispered in the barracks of all of the camps.

Printed on the walls of the Khmer Rouge Torture cells.

That's not American. That's not a goal any of us should look for. But let's take down Elon Musk.

Let's -- let's take down our FBI.

Let's -- let's take down Mike Lee. Let's take down Tucker Carlson. Let's take down at the scene. Because we don't have enough enemies. Riley rightfully, somebody on this program, asked around on this time, on Friday. Glenn, why did you have Steve Bannon on? This is why I had Steve Bannon. We have enough enemies, don't we?

Can we find people we generally agree with, maybe 80 percent. Even if that 20 percent is massive!

If I'm going to be friends with anybody, for the times I'm going to be friends with.

Then I have to say, I part with you here.

You will have to go on your own way. But when you come back to this, I'm with you.

We are -- we are being -- our college campuses, the floor of our own legislative bodies. As if it were another just regular day in paradise of America.

You know, let me -- we want to talk about highway funding and seizing the means of production.

Wait. What?

Meanwhile, the man who says, we should return a tiny sliver of public land. Land that Washington hoards like a miser. While local communities struggle to pay for schools and police.

Why you can't afford a house!

That's an extremist. A radical. A threat. But this guy, I don't see anybody on the right, really standing up against this guy. Where is the big movement against this guy? It's almost as if, that whole federal lands thing, was orchestrated. And so many of our side played right into it!

That man who says, let the states manage their own forests, their own minerals, their own resources.

Just give us 3 percent of our land, so we can actually have a tax base, so we can build some houses there that people can afford. Let's make sure that the land is controlled by the people, who are closest to that land.

Let them be the stewards of it. Not the bureaucrats 2,000 miles away, who have never set foot in a pine thicket, or a desert mesa.

Which one is more in line with the Constitution? Which one is our bigger enemy here? Which one echoes Jefferson's belief in a government closest to the people? Which upholds the vision of the Founders who feared centralized power, more than foreign armies. Which one is calling for the seizing of the -- of the production?

You know, not all ideas are morally equivalent.

We're not dealing here with difference of opinion on tax rates. Or zoning codes.

One wants to give power back to the states.

And, you know what?

People rose up, and said, I don't like that idea.

So that idea has to be closed and forfeited.

Great! But where are the people standing up saying, seizing the means of production?

This guy wants to take control of your factory. Your farm.

Your business, your labor.

One believes in federalism. The other believes in collectivism. One respects the individual as a moral agent of society. And the other sees the individual as a cog in the great machine of the state that's just going to make utopia. Because they always do!

As you just -- you just can't see it. Because you're behind the barbed wire fence!

When somebody shrugs and says, you know, both sides are really pretty extreme. You know, it's time we say, no, no, no, no.

It's that kind of false equivalence that got us into this mess. That's how the frog stays in the pot as the water slowly boils. You know what, they're both really kind of extreme, no, they're not. No, they're not.

If you believe in America, is a place where rights are granted by God, not government.

Where property is yours. It is sacred!

The fruits of your labor belong to you. That we cannot pretend these are equal threats.

Because they're not. Because one man questions how much land the federal government should own.

The other questions whether you should be allowed to own anything at all!

If the government should not own everything!

Which one is dangerous? Which one snuffs out your rights?

It's not about land. This is all about economics. It's about freedom. And history has already told us where these roads lead.

One road leads to liberty. One road leads us to having a discussion and a debate.

Without calling each other names and killing one another.

The other road doesn't allow debate. And if you try to debate, you're disappeared, or you're killed! One leads in liberty, one ends in chains!

What do you say, we -- we have enough enemies. Why do we need to turn on ourselves? And do you think there's a possibility that the communist, the socialist, the anarchist, the Islamist will all band together, to destabilize the Middle East. Europe, come America to destabilize that, to end the Western world. Do you think there's a chance you're being played?

Because I do. And I refuse to be played. I'm not a moron. And neither are you.

See, here's the thing. This is why, when Ben Shapiro says, facts don't care about your feelings. This is why that's so important.

Because they've hit an emotional spot with you. They've hit a spot of, they're going to take my right away to fish or to hunt.

And that's not what he was doing. But that's what it turned out to be. Our sacred public lands.

It's not what he was talking about.

And if it was, he's not talking about it now.

He wants to make it very, very clear. Exactly what he was talking about.

But see, the idea of going hunting and fishing and hiking. And these glorious places.

We all love that.

I mean, I don't like to actually -- I like to hunt. I don't like to fish.

I don't like to be outside, really.

But I love the lands. I love to be in an air-conditioned car, driving through Yellowstone, going, wow. Look at that. And look at that moron, trying to feed the car, to feed the buffalo.

That's going to be fun to watch.

Why are we so emotional, about that? When it's not really what the argument is about. And it's coming from our friends, when we really should have listened more and had a conversation.

And we're not emotional about someone who says, the end goal is to seize production.

Seize the means of production.

That's Karl Marx!

Why is that one not emotional for us?

Why is it we cannot see the actual enemy?

“General Lee” stuntman REVEALS ALL about the fountain jump

A stuntman took the internet by storm when he jumped a "Dukes of Hazzard" General Lee replica over a fountain in Somerset, Kentucky. The driver, Northeast Ohio Dukes founder Raymond Kohn, joins Glenn Beck to reveal what happened behind the scenes, why he did the jump, and where he wants to jump next (hint: it would involve President Trump)!

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: There was something just amazing that happened over the weekend in Somerset, Kentucky. It was like a Dukes of Hazzard Show.

Thirty-five thousand people gathered together, to line the streets of Somerset, as a very brave driver, who you're going to meet here in a second. Raymond Kohn. Raymond Kohn got into a car. Was an old Dodge Charger?

He jumped over the historic fountain, in the center of the town.

Can we play a little bit of this, if you happen to be watching?

GLENN: I mean, that is just crazy. It just makes me proud to be American, in a very strange sort of way. I don't even know why. It's just so satisfying. The world is on fire, and you're like, yes! We still got it. Raymond Kohn is on with us now. He is the founder and lead stuntman from the northeast Ohio dukes. And they -- they do this kind of stuff all the time. Raymond, welcome to the program.

How are you?

RAYMOND: Thank you for having me, Glenn. I am great.

I feel like a million bucks.

GLENN: Do you really?

When I saw you land, I thought, ow, my back. Ow, my back. It didn't hurt coming down?

RAYMOND: Well, you know what, we are thankful that the legendary stuntman who inspired me to do this. Like the late great Al White Jr. Ted Barba. Corrie Uvey. Jumping John Kid. (all phonetic)

These are the guys who risk everything, back in the '80s on the set of the Dukes of Hazzard, to figure out, how we can do this safely without killing ourselves.

GLENN: I've got to say -- I have to say, I saw a video from the -- from in front of you, as you landed.

And you hit a wall. And you're just tearing through this wall.

And there is a photographer, that is in front. Did you see him, and think, get out of the way, dude! Almost killed him.

RAYMOND: Yeah. So Centerville is our producer. His series that follows us in -- like a global episode, of what we do.

And Mike Cullvich (phonetic) is the -- the -- the executive producer, and that was him there.

And they carefully --

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

RAYMOND: They know the risks. They know the risks.

He had a little -- just in case, if I go to the left or to the right, that he would be able to squeeze through.

And he did!

So all of the spectators. They were safe.

They were at a safe distance.

You know, we can't do the jump, if we're out there risking people's lives.

And with the help of the summer night crews, the city of Somerset, all the police and fire and EMS, everybody worked together with my team.
I have the best crew in the world.

And, yes, I am the driver that does the jump. And, you know what, we had to build that tarp.
We had to build that tarp, and there was a team of us. And my crew was so great.

They said, look at everything -- we'll get everything done.

Relax. They knew I was nervous.

You know, and they know that my team -- you couldn't ask for a better stunt team.

GLENN: I have so many questions for you.

But let me start here. Before we go too much further away from the town.

Who the hell is the mayor of the city council?

I love these guys.

I can't think of another city in America, that would be like, yeah. We got that historic you fountain, right downtown.

Yeah. Go ahead.

RAYMOND: America is back, baby. I'm telling you. You couldn't have been telling -- from the Dukes of Hazzard. Forty-five years. Forty-seven years after the show ended.

GLENN: Oh.

RAYMOND: I'm telling you, people love -- from all walks of life, people love the Dukes of Hazzard, they love the General Lee.

Listen, if there was -- if there was ever a non-racist TV show for all, it was the Dukes of Hazzard. And that's my main goal.

My pain goal is to get this TV show back on television, that way, we have our children. And our grandchildren. Watching a TV show that has family values good.

GLENN: Okay. So let me -- let me -- one more question on this, before I -- what the hell is wrong we?

When did you decide, this is what I want to do with my life?

RAYMOND: Okay. So I was always a fan. I was born in '77. The show came out in '79. And I loved that big orange car. I loved that car.

GLENN: So great. So great.

RAYMOND: So in 2005, I watched legendary stuntman Corey Spence jump over my roscoe cart. By my police car that I have.

They jumped over it, at the very first General Lee jump site, in Oxford College, in -- in Georgia.

And that's when I got bit by, what I called the stunt bug.

And I was like, I've got to do this. I've got to do -- if I on me do it once, I've got to do it.

And this was my 30th General Lee jump.

For our 30th -- Detroit. We jumped the General Lee downtown Detroit. And then for our 30th, we're jumping over the historic fountain in Somerset, Kentucky.

GLENN: I don't know. This is different. You know, downtown Detroit, you crash into buildings. There's nobody around.

Oh, well.

In Somerset, Kentucky, though. It's just a different thing.

Okay. Let me -- let me -- I think this is amazing.

In looking into you, while the jump is phenomenal. And makes you feel good. What you have gone through in the last few years, is even more amazing.

You had a -- a rare brain surgery, right?

A rare hormonal disorder, that you were like, living another classic TV show, the hulk!

You -- it was changing you, right?

Tell me about this!

JASON: Yeah. So in 2015, I started to feel a lot of pain in my knees, and my elbows.

I started noticing my voice was changing.

My face was changing. And then here comes, hey, Ray. You have to give up blood pressure medicine. You're prediabetic.

You're 335 pounds.

You know, I was always around 220 pounds.

And so nobody -- because -- it's over a long, long, long period of time.

The people that are in my life, every day, they couldn't see the changes.

You know, but the people I haven't seen Ray in a year or two years. You look different, Ray.

You know, and so I went to our local dermatologist, because I started getting these creases in my head. It's bad enough. I'm bald. What are these lines in my head now?

So the dermatologist, she said, let me see your hands. Yeah. You have big hands.

Yeah. Every time I shake somebody's hands. It's like shaking hands with a cinder block.

GLENN: Like banana hands.

JASON: Yeah. My feet went from a size ten to 12.

I had to get a 2X helmet. Because my helmet wouldn't fit.

GLENN: Wait. Wait. Wait pick up wait.

Did you think you were ideas just gaining weight. Or did you know it was something more?

You weren't starving yourself, were you?

RAYMOND: Yeah. Because heavy stunt drivers don't make good stunt drivers. You get hurt a lot easier. It's a lot more weight.

GLENN: Of course.

RAYMOND: All of my loved ones and my crew. It's the jumps are tearing you up.

I'm like, no. No. No. No. It's not the jumps. Don't blame the jumps.

So I said, okay.

So went to the doctor. They said, go give this blood work. You may have something serious going on.

The blood work came back. My growth hormone was 900. 900. Now, normally it was 70 to 270. I'm 47 years old, and I'm still a grown boy!

So that opted for me, to get the -- or, the -- yeah, the MRI of my brain. To scan. And say, I had a 9-millimeter tumor on my 10-millimeter pituitary gland.

And we can have it on my body. And the surgeon, up in the Cleveland Clinic said, Raymond, if we don't get this out of you, it's going to kill you.

And my wife is crying. My daughter is crying.

The first thing that came to my lips was, can I still jump the General Lee after the significant other?

And the doctor said, yes, yes. And I'm like, okay. Let's do does this surgery. Let's get the thing out of my head. And then as soon as I was okay, we went up to the radical speech board in Canada. Joe came up there. We did the first international General Lee jump in front of like 30,000 people up there. And it was awesome.

I'm telling you. I'm living the dream, man. I can't believe this is happening to me.

All because of a TV show, called the Dukes of Hazzard.

GLENN: I have to tell you, I have to put an event together, just because I want to invite you to jump the General Lee over something.

We have to do --

JASON: Glenn, we want. We want to build an American patriot be General Lee.

And we want to put like, you know, 47, 45 on the doors. Put a big old American flag on the roof.

And we will call it The Jump for Trump 2045, and we want to jump in front of the White House. That's what we want to do.

GLENN: That's fantastic.

I'll bring it up to him. If there's any president that will do it. It will be him. He told me a story. He will probably do it on the White House grounds.

RAYMOND: Again, that would be awesome. He would want to do that.

GLENN: He told me a story, he said, you know, about the flagpoles. And he said, you know, he was afraid that all of the -- you know, all of the paperwork and, you know, government everything.

And he wanted to build a ballroom, and put the flagpoles up.

And he went to the guy at the White House, who runs everything at the White House. The architect.

And he said, so what is the paperwork like? And he said, you know, Mr. President, the White House belongs to the president while he's there.

So there's no paperwork. You would have to be the one that would sign all of it. And he's like, this is great.

I bet he could build that jump!

I bet he could build that jump, without any permits.

That is so fantastic.

JASON: In a few weeks. My team --

GLENN: That's fantastic.

JASON: We can build a great American -- they'll give us the panels to make the car, red, white, and blue. Big old American flag theme.

GLENN: That's fantastic.

RAYMOND: We'll call it the jump for Trump. We love Trump! The jump for Trump, and we will rock the White House.

GLENN: It is so great. I will bring it up to him. I will make sure he sees it, okay?

That is fantastic.

But listen, if he takes you up. I have to be there. I have -- you have to get me invited.

RAYMOND: Yeah. Glenn, I would be honored to put a passenger side seat in the car, and you can ride with me.

GLENN: No. No, no, no. No, no.

RAYMOND: Come on!

GLENN: I saw you come down, and my back -- I have a really bad back. And all I could really think of was, ow. Ow. That must have hurt.

RAYMOND: No. Last year, I hit the ramp at 72 miles an hour. I slide 200 at 17 feet. That's the longest General Lee jump in front of a large audience. And I landed a flat on all four wheels.

Had it not been for the safety equipment. That the legendary stuff that came up.

I would have either been killed or worse, paralyzed for the rest of my life.

And it's because of that safety equipment.

I'm not even sitting on the -- I'm painting from the ceiling with bungee cords.

GLENN: Unbelievable. Unbelievable.

I've got to meet you. I've got to meet you, Ray? Just --

RAYMOND: Let's jump in the White House. Let's jump in the White House.

GLENN: Thank you. Raymond. Northeast Ohio. Dukes founder and lead stuntman. You can find the website, north -- northeast Ohio.
Dukes.net.

Ray, we'll talk again. Thank you so much, God bless you, man.

RAYMOND: God bless you. God bless, America.

Introducing 'The Torch'

Tough news week. Tough news month. Always, it seems, another five-alarm fire, or the spotting of arsonists that no one will pay attention to.

The people who watch and support this show—you—are extraordinary.

You don’t just consume information; you act. You don’t just care—you sacrifice. And I’ve seen the receipts. In the last decade alone, you’ve given over a quarter of a billion dollars through Mercury One to help people in crisis.

You didn’t just write checks. You showed up.

Over 45,000 of you volunteered—some of you driving across states, organizing your churches, bringing your kids along—to take part in the largest single volunteer effort completed in one weekend.

That’s not normal. That’s rare. That’s powerful.

You launched The Nazarene Fund, rescuing over 260,000 people from persecution. You funded the largest civilian airlift in history to get Americans and our allies out of Afghanistan.

You’ve changed lives.

You’ve shaped history.

So when people ask me, “Glenn, what more can I do?” my answer is always the same:

First, look at what you have already done. Do you realize how far ahead you are of most Americans? Then start where you are. That feeling inside you—that restlessness, that pull to do something more—isn’t random. It’s a calling. But with everything that is happening in the world, it is hard to keep up as well as keep your chin up.

I get it. I’m tired of the bad news, too.

I’ve spent my life digging through it so you wouldn’t have to. But we must know what is happening and what is ahead. And while next year I’m not walking away from the radio or the stories that matter—in fact, I will be doubling down,

I’ve also told you for nearly two years: I feel something shifting. I feel like I’ve been called to something more. I have only felt this twice in my life—after I sobered up and just before I left Fox.

On January 1st, that “something” begins. I’ve named it The Torch. We started the blaze together; now it is time to take that bit of fire and light the way to a brighter future for our kids.

I wish I could tell you every detail today—but the truth is, some things are still being built, beta-tested, and negotiated. And some things I just can’t tell you until later this year. But here’s what I can tell you:

At its core, The Torch is about education, but not the kind that comes from textbooks or bureaucracies. It’s about self-directed learning rooted in history, liberty, faith, philosophy, and personal responsibility. It’s the kind of education that changes lives—and civilizations.

You’ve heard me say it before: If we want better kids, we have to become better adults. If we want stronger communities, we have to first strengthen ourselves. And if we want truth to survive, we have to fight for it—intelligently, faithfully, daily.

That’s what The Torch is:

A daily connection.

A movement.

A mission.

One part of it will be the culmination of almost a decade of hard work. It will include a new kind of museum—physical and digital—preserving the story of America in ways most museums never could.

You’ll learn through original artifacts, original sources, and real stories from real people who are doing real things. Right now, every summer, we hand-pick around 100 young adults from over 1,000 applications to spend two weeks with us in this kind of immersive learning. Now, for the first time, we’re building a way for anyone, anywhere in the world, in any language, to do the same.

We’re partnering with people of faith, business leaders, educators, innovators—people who know the truth and know how to live it. And they’re coming together not to sell you something, but to empower you.

I’m not asking for anything today—not money, not a sign-up, not a download. Just your attention. Stay connected. Watch what’s coming. I promise you: this is worth your time.

If you want to be one of the first to sign on, join the newsletter at glennbeck.com. But only if you’re serious about discovering your purpose—and lighting a fire that doesn’t go out.

Because we don’t just need new tools or new platforms—we need a renewal of the human spirit. That’s what The Torch is. That is my next mission.

And I hope, when the time comes, you’ll carry it with me.

For future updates on this mission, sign up for my newsletter, and read more background here.