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.

Glenn's BIGGEST CONCERNS about "Trump Accounts" addressed

President Trump recently announced a plan to give Americans born over the next few years $1000 in a "Trump Account" as an investment in their future. Is this a good idea, or a redistribution of wealth? US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent's counselor Joseph Lavorgna addresses concerns Glenn has with the program.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: We're waiting on a counselor from the US Treasury. US Treasury secretary Joseph Livonia. He is -- he is a counselor to the Secretary. He was in I think the first administration. Right now, we were trying to get the Treasury Secretary on with us. But he is speaking. And secretary Bessent just talked about the Trump accounts at the Deal Book Summit. And he said an amazing thing. He said, the Trump accounts, quote, this is the beginning of a shareholder economy. That's a little frightening because we've been warning against the stakeholder economy.

How far down the road does Secretary Bessent think we were on the stakeholder, if this is the beginning of a shareholder economy?

We have -- we have the counselor to the US Treasury Secretary on with us now. Joe, welcome!

JOE: Thank you, Glenn!

GLENN: What did -- what did he mean by that, this is the beginning of the shareholder economy?

JOE: Yeah. Well, so what he -- what he meant by that was that the US economy is the one that thrives when you've got incentives to produce and work, which in this bill, as President, trying to work the Family's Act, if you will. Encourage the capital in your bank to grow.

And the -- the ability to invest and to teach, in many cases, boys and girls the power of compound interest in the stakeholder, capitalist system is my interpretation of what he meant.

We're making an investment, and in young America's future.

GLENN: So, in other words, it -- in other words, if you have a stake in the system, you don't want to burn it down?

JOE: Right. Yeah. It's the American dream. It's a way to build wealth creation.

Just to give you an example. The powers of compound interest, if you put a thousand dollars in, 65 years ago, it's roughly in the S&P 500, that $1,000 would be worth nearly $650,000 today. So truly, building the American dream, helping people build wealth.

GLENN: Right.

JOE: And, you know, a great investment for the future, when you think about what's going to be on taxation, scores it. Costing over a ten-year period, just under 15 billion. I mean, that's not a lot for a real payoff for people to have an incentive in the system, for the US economy to thrive.

GLENN: So be honest with you, Joe, I understand the reasons why it -- it should be done. I think there could be real benefits from it.

But I'm stuck on a couple of things. And I would like to you talk me off the ledge on this one.

This was proposed before. During the founding era, it was called agrarian justice. And Thomas Paine said we should give 15 pounds to everybody who turns 21. And that 15 pounds, at that time, would be in today's dollars, about 2500, to $3,000. So it's about the same kind of money, except, you're giving it at birth.

The Founders rejected it. Redistribution of wealth.

It becomes a right. You know, you're taxing people.

You know, and giving it to somebody else.

It's just -- it's not good in any way. It's not government's role.

So talk me down. Tell me how that -- why this is government's role. And where you get the authority to do this!

VOICE: It was a signature piece of legislation. Congressional approved. The forms that people will be 547. Obviously, to account for President Trump's win in '16. And, of course, in '24.

GLENN: Yeah.

JOE: You mentioned Thomas Paine, an agrarian society. I think, Glenn, that right there kind of addresses the issue. That was over a couple of hundred years ago, and the economy and the capitalist system has evolved significantly.

This isn't a redistribution of wealth. This is an investment in the future and people's livelihoods. Hopefully, they will keep the money in and add to it, between now and when they're 18. They will have access to it. This is just a savings vehicle.

And it's a way to build wealth.

It's had a stake in the system. And to generate policies that are positive for the corporate sector. Because the corporate sector is the one that hires people.

And giving people the American dream. And the ability to reach a higher rung.

That's how I look at this bill.

I don't like at this as government intrusion or anything along those lines.

I look at it, as an investment in the future. Along the way, Glenn, we will get tremendous amount of financial literacy out of it, with what the Treasury Secretary wants, but for what I would argue, is a very, very small amount of money in the big picture.

GLENN: So what is -- how do you mean?

Because I read that he had said, that, you know, this is financial literacy. What his that mean?

JOE: Well, financial literacy, you're essentially going to teach people. Index future funds. And you're going to -- so that --

GLENN: All right. We have such a horrible connection. I'm only getting about every third word here. I'm just getting -- we're getting horrible connection. So I'm losing you. So can you start that again?

JOE: Saying, that the financial literacy part comes down to people realizing that when they put money aside, that money will grow and do wondrous things, through the power of compound interest.

And they also can add to it.

In other words, if you add an extra $10 a month, from what the government is providing, that will take that -- if you look at the math, instead of roughly 650,000 over a 65-year period, it's almost one and a half million. So, you know, there are things on financial literacy, which I'm sure, that using the Trump accounts as a tool and the vehicle to help market that. But I think in general, people need to understand that savings for the future is important. And these accounts are going to go and take a very important step in moving us down this path.

GLENN: You know, I so respect the Dell family for what they're doing. And they're getting raked over the coals today, for all the wrong reasons.

That's a private individual that's saying, I want to do this.

And I think that is fabulous!

I really do.

Again, we're $38 trillion in debt.

I -- I really do.

I'm so torn on this. Because I really do understand, we don't -- people feel like they don't have a stake. They're never going to get ahead. They're never going to get a house.

All of this stuff that's leading them to this lie of socialism.

We have to do something.

But again, I'm so concerned about opening up a can of worms here that just gets out of control again.

JOE: No. In this case, because the money is going back into the capitalist system. See, it's not consumption. When we're thinking redistribution. We're thinking giving people money to spend. This is money -- and I understand your point on the debt, and the debt is too high. And it's growing at a historic rate over the prior administration. But I can tell you, Glenn, the only way that we are going to be able to deal with the debt situation, is to grow, and to grow fast. Which is what we saw during President Trump's first term.
Because if you don't grow, you will not get revenues. And it just exacerbates all of the other factors.

And if you look at the tax bill, which the Trump accounts were a very big part of, we are going to be able to lift worker wages, because we're getting a CapEx boom, which lifts productivity. And when that happens, worker wages always grows.

GLENN: So will you --

JOE: To lower inflation. That will increase your real wage.

And then, of course, the no tax on tips and overtime will encourage more labor supplies, which is inflationary. And after tax wages are going to go up for working-class Americans.

To me, those are very pro-growth.

GLENN: So will you at least put a time limit on it, that says you can't withdraw it? Because if you want it to grow --

JOE: Yeah, this is just from children born from 2025 to 2028, and that's it. And people will not have access to this, until they turn 18.

And hopefully, when they see that account, both significantly over the next 18 to 22 years, they will keep their money in that account and add to it. So, yes, there are certainly limitations on it.

GLENN: Who is controlling how it's invested?

JOE: It's going to be -- the forms will be available when you file your taxes in the new year. It's 445. Forty-seven, as you mentioned. And then you can deposit additional money in your employer hood.

Your charitable contribution. Et cetera.

And you can put extra money in, on July 4th, when you officially sign off.

And then, of course, if you sign up before then, the monies will go out sometime around July 4th. That's when the Treasury will put the money in one's account. And essentially, it will be invested in low costs mutual funds, the S&P 500.

GLENN: Okay. Let me just switch because I know I have to let you go. Let me just switch topics here for just a second. Thank you for what you guys are doing with the Somali fraud in Minnesota.

And the food stamp fraud. The SNAP fraud. Thank you.

I mean, I don't know how people are not just falling all over themselves to say, thank you for stopping this incredible fraud, that is so dangerous!

So thank you for that!

JOE: Well, thank you. And let me say, people -- I've said, the portfolio treasury -- Secretary Bessent said is large indeed. In that is a terrorism and financial intelligence area. There's an undersecretary.

It's a very key role. The most senior roles in the treasury.

And the administration takes fraud and financial abuse. And certainly, anything related to terrorism with the utmost concern.

I mean, this is DEFCON 4 in terms of importance. So the American people should know that the Treasury of Safety is investigating. And then we'll see what happens with it. But I appreciate it.

GLENN: Well, you bet. Will we see indictments for, you know, NGOs, et cetera, that are using foreign money to, you know, at worst, you know, perform a Colour Revolution on America?

JOE: Well, Glenn, if there's illegality, without question. Too soon to say where -- where this investigative work is going to go, but absolutely. This will be -- if there's laws broken, this administration will prosecute the perpetrators to the full extent of the law, no question about that.

GLENN: Good. Joe, thank you so much. I appreciate everything you're doing. Everything you coming on such short notice. You bet. You bet. Buh-bye.

Did the Minneapolis mayor just put Somalis before American taxpayers?!

Minneapolis mayor Jacob Frey recently kowtowed to Somali immigrants, even speaking Somali in a speech, amid a fraud scandal. But his decision to do so doesn't just appear to put Somalis before American taxpayers. Glenn Beck explains the dangerous secret it reveals about how the Democratic Party really views immigrants...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: I've been talking about not making enemies, but speaking the truth.

That's the important part. Speak the truth.

Because I have now in my life, and you do too. I have evidence now, I've always -- I've always felt God existed. I feel like I know him.

I -- I have accepted him into my life. I have asked for forgiveness. And asked for salvation. I've received it.

I feel these things. And I have personal witnesses of a testimony to say, he exists. But for the very first time, we all have, as a collective, evidence that not only does he exist, he is involved in the affairs of man.

And the first one, that we all can agree on, is the assassination attempt on Donald Trump.

That was an act of God. I'm sorry. But it was.

There was no way. There is no way, that was an act of God. God inserting himself in the affairs of men.

Because he's not neutral on things. That doesn't mean he's a Donald Trump guy, or a MAGA supporter.

It means, he will use things, you know, whether we like it or not, he will use things to further his agenda.

And that's not a political agenda. I also feel that it was a miracle. And this gets a little more sketchy. But I think it was a miracle in retrospect, what happened in 2020. Because we wouldn't have the president that we had today, if he had been elected in 2020. The other miracle is what we saw after Charlie Kirk. So why we don't put more faith into God. We're not alone.

We're seeing, he's showing up for the first time.

And we don't need to have these big arguments on big esoteric things.

We -- you know what, we just need people -- here's one. Let's agree that we should arrest people, that break the law.

Whether they're the president, or an illegal alien that has nothing.

You break the law. You pay the price!

Why -- how is it we can't agree on this. I don't know. Did you hear the Minneapolis mayor on this fraud? This taxpayer fraud?

We're talks about a billion dollars in fraud. Okay?

Your tax dollars going to Somalia, and going to some of it, Al-Shabaab, one of the worst terrorist organizations in the world. Your tax dollars, in fraud.

And here's the Minneapolis mayor. Play cut one please. Listen to this.

VOICE: Good afternoon, my name is Jacob Fry. I'm the mayor of Minneapolis. And we are here to respond to a number of credible reports from several media outlets relaying that there are as many as 100 federal agents, that will be deployed to the Twin Cities with a specific focus, targeting our Somali community.

To our Somali community, we love you. And we stand with you. That commitment is rock solid.

Minneapolis is proud to be home to the largest Somali community in the entire country.

They've been here for decades, in many instances.

They're entrepreneurs, and fathers. They benefit both the culture and the economic --

GLENN: Is anybody arguing with this?

Is anybody arguing with the Somali community?

They are not coming in to target the Somali community. They are coming in to target the fraud that is happening in the Somali community. See, he immediately jumps to race.

Because that's what that means. Once you tart talking about a collective. They're coming after the Somali community. You know you're into racism. You're into some ism, okay?

That's very reminiscent of Hitler. Because that's what he did, and everybody is the same. Only the certain German elites. Only the certain Germans with blue eyes and blond hair. Well, except for the Hitler leader, can rule the world. Okay?

That's racism. When you're saying, they're coming after the Somali community, what you're saying is, oh, well, they're racists coming in. But what he's actually saying is, look, we -- we're lumping every Somali in our community as clean!

Well, no. No. You can't say that. That's racism.

Just like I can't say, every Somali is dirty. You send in teams of professionals to find out, who is involved in this.

And I don't care if they're Somali or they're the governor, if they broke the law, they need to go to jail.

But let me tell you what's actually happening here. What's actually happening here, is 100 percent all about politics.

If he doesn't protect or appear to be on the side of the Somali community. If he doesn't make -- if he allows Feds to come in and mess with the Somali community, even the lawbreakers, he feels he can't win.

If you don't have the Somali community in many Minneapolis, you're not going to win.

Now, how un-American of me to say that.

Well, it's funny. Because he speaks about how un-American it is for Donald Trump to come in and send people into the community. To fight crime. How un-American.

Play what is it? Cut 42?

VOICE: That's not American. That's not what we are about. We're going to do right by every single person in our cities.

And to our Somali community (foreign language).

STU: Oh, my God. At least practice it in the mirror first.

GLENN: That's like me doing it.

That's like me speaking English. I mean, that is just -- that's embarrassing. That's embarrassing.

I mean -- and to follow that. Or to proceed that with, that's just un-American!

We're going to support every member of our community. That's un-American.

And so to our Somali community, you mean the American community? That has been here for decades?

Why are you speaking Somalian to them?

Why? Have they not melted in? No. Because we're a salad bowl. We're not a salad bowl.

You want a salad bowl, go over to Europe. And you'll have that delicious salad, that will not satiate any kind of hunger, ever!

We're a melting pot. Which would imply that you speak English, especially when you say, you know, everybody here, they're great Americans. They're great Americans.

Great. So let me say in English, because I know you're learning English, oh, you're not learning English. Oh, okay.

Well, that -- oh, that's right. We're a salad bowl. That's un-American. That's un-American.

I want -- somebody said to me the other day, you know, Glenn why -- why -- why -- why don't people understand immigration?

And I said, what do you mean by that? Well, you know, people want immigration, and they don't want people coming in. And they're saying they're for immigration.

Wait a minute. Hang on just a second. Everyone I know, that I think is reasonable, everyone that I know, they love immigrants. They love immigrants.

The immigrants that come over and they're like, thank God I'm here. I got here as fast as I could. I mean, I'm a citizen. And they light up when they say they're a citizen. They'll talk about our Founders. They've -- and they'll speak English.

They want to be citizens. Because they know what freedom actually means. Okay?

I want those -- I want those people in every day. I would love to have Somali citizens here, that realize what they escaped.

And realize, wow. That was a really bad scene. I'm glad I'm out of that. And I'm here.

Because I have the opportunity to be me.
I don't want the ones that were here, that are just trying to re-create Somalia. Go to Somalia. What! Why are you here?

Hang on -- you moved from Somalia so you could create another Somalia, except with loads of snow? I mean, help me out with that one.

STU: That was the problem with Somalia. Too warm. That was the big one.

GLENN: Too warm. Too warm. Not --

STU: Just everything else about it was great.

GLENN: Not just endless mountains of snow for months on end. I mean, come on. Come on.

STU: It's so strange.

You know, the -- the instinct behind a politician to think that the right thing to do is to come out, in the most awkward way possible and fumble your way through the language of a few of the residents of your city.

Like, what -- it's so pathetic, the pandering is just awful. And, you know, look, no one cares. I'm sure there's plenty of people in the Somali community that are entrepreneurs. And I'm sure they're doing a great job. And for the people that came here legally and are doing a great job, great. Those are not the people being charged with these crimes. Those are not the people who are defrauding autism programs to bilk the state out of millions and up to a billion dollars. That should be going to kids who actually have autism. Right?

GLENN: How about food?

STU: Food. Housing.

GLENN: How about food?

STU: Basic human needs, these programs that obviously, shouldn't exist to the levels that they do. As they're being manipulated this way.

If they're going to exist, they should be going to people who need the help.

People that might exist.

GLENN: And you know who is really hurt?

You know who really this mayor and this kind of philosophy hurts?

The Somali that wanted to come here, because they knew what America was.

What's happening is, they are allowing this growth of crime, corruption. You'll have warlords. You'll have Sharia law.

You'll have all of it.

The Somalis that came here for a new life, that wanted to escape all that, they're being forced right back into it by the politicians they thought represented the United States of America and our Constitution. And our rule of law!

Instead, they're speaking Somalian. Somalis. Somali -- instead, they're speaking that language, and -- and the Somali that came here for a better life has got to be like, what the hell? What? You've got to be kidding me! You're going to create what we just left!

It's sick. It's really sick.

And dare I say, un-American.

The peril of rewriting history: Hitler's villainy cannot be redeemed

Attempts to recast Hitler as a misunderstood figure and paint Churchill as the true villain are spreading again... and the historical consequences of that distortion are dangerous. The reality is that Hitler sought domination, not coexistence; prepared for war long before Britain acted; and pursued a worldview fundamentally incompatible with Western civilization. Revisiting these facts matters now more than ever, as modern ideological confusion threatens to blur the line between tyranny and freedom. This is a sober reminder that history’s villains are clearly identified, and the record proves it.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: I saw an interview yesterday, talks about Hitler again. Trying to make Hitler into the good guy.

And Winston Churchill into the bad guy.

I just don't get it. I really don't get it.

History. Really history is not a choose your own adventure kind of thing. It's ink on paper.
Orders in filing cabinets. Telegrams, diaries. Bodies.

It's what actually happened, not what we hope happened.

So let me just set the record straight on something, again, that is circulating. And it just -- somebody just has to calmly just say, what the truth is.

The thing is now that -- that Hitler had no intention toward the West.

That Britain didn't have to enter the war. That Winston Churchill. Not Adolf Hitler is the villain, who dragged the world into conflict.

Oh, my God. Let me just say this calmly, factually, and finally. Germany's plans for Poland were not reactive.

They were premeditated. The argument says that Britain roped the West into war by promising to defend Poland. No. Germany had already prepared to destroy Poland long before Neville Chamberlain ever made a pledge. How do I know this? Because in my history valuate, I have one of the clearest pieces of proof. It's called fall vice.

It's Hitler's operational blueprint for the invasion of Poland, drafted in 1938, a year before Chamberlain said, we're going to guarantee their safety.

So Poland was not a spontaneous reaction. Hitler was a liar. I know that's hard to get your arms around. But Hitler was a liar.

It was not about German minorities. It was not about self-determination. It was about conquest.

A step in Hitler's explicitly stated road map. Austria. Czechoslovakia. Poland. Then the east.

Britain didn't pull Germany into war. Germany was already marching toward war. Global war.

The second thing that has to be said, clearly. Hitler didn't have designs on Britain and the West.

Really?

Well, Hitler wanted peace with Britain. Because we have the paper trail again.

No, no, no. He wanted peace. He had no western ambitions.

Well, how do you explain Operation Sea Lion?

Hitler's detailed plan to invade and occupy Great Britain. You don't draw amphibious landing schedules across the English Channel, just in case.

And before that, Hitler deployed a different strategy. Diplomacy, and subterfuge. In May 1941, the deputy furor Rudolf Hess, that's a name, flew solo into Scotland, hoping to secure a deal with sympathetic elements with Great Britain. He parachuted down. He claimed he was carrying an offer: Let Hitler dominate Europe, and Germany would leave Britain alone.

Well, that sounds really peaceful, unless you forget what Hitler meant by dominance. He meant dismantling sovereign nations, annihilating the Jews, the Slavs, the -- the -- the gypsies. Any political opponent. Millions of human beings. Just eliminate them.

It -- in what world? In what world could a democratic nation be friends with that?

Britain had internal Nazi sympathizers. And Hitler counted on them.

Hess wasn't flying blind. Hitler believed Britain was divided, and he was right. You know why he was right?

Again, in my vault, I have it from Hitler's own schedule that was on his assistant's desk, the whole time!

Now you have the name and the time that he arrived. Former king Edward. He abdicated in 36. He had clear documented sympathies for the Nazi regime. He met Hitler in '37. I know! I have the documents!

He was courted as a possible puppet monarch. He said, reinstall me, and you can do what you want. I'll help you.

The Nazi files recovered after the war, showed explicit German plans to reinstall him, after an occupation. Hitler was not avoiding conflict with Britain. He was planning a subversion.

Well, yeah. But Hitler's ideology. You know, made friendship with the West possible. What? What?

Even if you pretend not to see the invasion plans and the Hess mission. And the internal sympathizers. Even if you erase every map, every memo, every military order, Hitler's ideology made an alliance with the Western democracies absolutely impossible. And I'm going to get to Stalin here any a second. But hear me. Hear me on this.

Hitler believed that the state was supreme. That the German people existed for the Reich.

In America, the Constitution is supreme!

And it exists to limit the states. Rights come from the fewer or and the government in Germany.

In America, rights come from God. And the government is the servant, not the master.

The individual in Germany, spendable. The West is built on the sanctity at this time of the individual.

Racial hierarchy, is destiny in Germany. The West at its best, rejects racial supremacy.

The Declaration starts with all men are created equal. Not some races are destined to rule.

Nowhere in our document does it say, the state must expand endlessly. That's not compatible with anything. Anything.

You cannot align with a regime whose foundational premise is that human dignity is a myth.

Well, well, the West chose Stalin. Because we thought he was better.

No. We chose survival. People are arguing now that the allies should have sided with Hitler instead of Stalin. No rational reading of history supports any of that.

Hitler and Stalin were both monstrous. Monstrous.

And the RIPA PAC proved that they were natural partners in evil, carving up Poland like a holiday roast, okay?

But here's the brutal truth: Once Hitler launched Operation Barbarossa, is that -- was that what it's called, Stu, you know? Barbarossa, right?

STU: Barbarossa.

GLENN: Barbarossa. When they turned to Russia. The question for us was no longer, hey, which dictator was better?

The question was, which outcome prevents Hitler from ruling all of Europe?

Because if Hitler defeated the Soviet Union, the resources of the east. All the oil. All the grain. All the industry. All the manpower, would have made the Third Reich unstoppable. So the choice was between two horrors. Which one?

Or do you want to stay out, and let them have all of that power. Well, yeah. Nowhere -- he's.

Only one Hitler had a trajectory of global domination at that time. Also, racial extermination.

And total state worship, that could not coexist with Western civilization.

We knew at the time, Stalin was just as bad. We knew we were going to be in war with Stalin at some point. And you know who really knew that?
Winston Churchill? He was the one saying, we can't have this guy as an ally. Britain did not drag the world into war.

Hitler did. And so let's go back to the central point. Churchill did not force a war. Chamberlain didn't conjure up a conflict out of thin air. The West didn't provoke Hitler. Hitler provoked history. He's the one who built the camps. And if you want to say you don't believe in the camps, God help us all.

He's the one who wrote Mein Kampf. He's the one armed in secret. He invaded without cause. He sought domination, not coexistence. To suggest otherwise, I mean, what is your intent, to rehabilitate him?

Hitler?

I mean, you're repeating the arguments Hitler made to excuse his aggression.

This is not about defending Churchill, who I think is a hero. But it's about defending the record, the truth. So in our moment of confusion and upheaval and ideological extremism, we don't lose our footing on the bedrock of fact.

This is the dangerous door we must not reopen. When we begin to question whether the West should have resisted Hitler, where are we going?

Would we entertain the idea that freedom and tyranny could have co-existed?

You're not just rearranging interpretations. You're reopening a door millions died to close.

History is not there to flatter us. Did the United States do bad things in World War II? Yeah. Did England? Yeah. Were we perfect?

No. Did we do the best we could?

Yes!

You know, sometimes -- sometimes your only choice is between bad and worse!

You cannot allow somebody like Hitler just to continue to grow and grow and grow and gobble the resources. And then take over the Soviet Union.

And then what? Have all of those resources to take the rest of the world?

My God!

It's so -- hmm. Sorry. I want to just keep this about facts. History is there to warn us.

And the warning is really, really simple.

Be very careful when someone tells you the villain wasn't really the villain.

Whoa, unto him, who makes evil good and good evil.

We know who the villains were. The documentation is very clear.

Trust me, I have a vault full of it.

You want to see it?

Come. Otherwise, you're just full of it!

When you have somebody telling you the villain is not the villain, that story never ends well. Fix reason firmly in her seat.

THIS could COLLAPSE every major civilization at the SAME TIME

The United States, Europe, and China are all preparing for a coming global reset. Throughout history, civilizations have risen and fallen according to the same cycle of prosperity and debt. But never before has EVERY major civilization been on the verge of collapse at the same time. Glenn Beck breaks it all down.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Because for the very first time in world history. There's something new that has happened. The entire globe is riding the same wheel at the same time.

Okay? We're all in this debt cycle. And this has never happened before.

The cycle always begins the same way. The first step in this at the time cycle is discipline.

Discipline equals prosperity. Okay.

It goes right into prosperity. And every great empire starts with discipline. Rome did, you know, rebuilding after all the wars, strict budgets. Every great empire starts with discipline. Rome did. You know, rebuilding after all the wars. The strict budgets. Silver coinage. Land reforms. It helped restore, you know, the battered middle class. The Dutch Republic did the same thing: They invented modern finance, turning the swamp into the world's largest trade hub. Then the British empire did it after the glorious revolution. It brought fiscal stability and a gold-back pound, that the world trusted for over 200 years.

When that fell, America did it. After World War II, our debts were manageable, our currency was solid, backed by gold, productivity was unmatched, and we prospered. That is stage one. Discipline into prosperity. And prosperity if not darted, always leads to the second stage. Complacency into excess, okay? So excess creates this fatal illusion. The moment, you know, where we all look at each other, and go, this is great. It's going to be like this forever. It was always like this. It will always be like that.

Rome began borrowing heavily to pay for endless bread and circuses. France, funded the palaces and the pensions and the perpetual wars, through loans it could never repay.

Britain, in the late 19th century, took its global empire for granted, and levered -- levered itself into World War I.

Then came World War II. And then America beginning in the 1970s, untethered from -- untethered the dollar from gold. And discovered that debt could replace discipline.

So the second stage of the debt cycle is the age of entitlement, expansion. Imperial overreach.

Cheap credit.

And political bribery disguised as compassion.

Any of that sound like we've been there?

Done that?

The Dutch called it win handle. The trade in the wind.

Paper promises that replace real production.

We call it stimulus.

Easy money. Deficit spending.

Different words. Same exact sin.

That lees you to stage three. Financialization.

That goes to fragility. This is the most seductive stage. Rome debased its money until it was worth less than 2 percent of the original silver. The Byzantines watered down their unshakable dollar, if you will, and confidence collapsed. France printed their money, backed by land, until they were worth less and used as wallpaper.

Weimar, Germany, did the same thing. They destroyed a thousand years of savings in 18 months. Japan, 1990. Papered over its real estate collapse, with 30 years of zero interest rates.

And America, after 2008, discovered this intoxicating illusion, started by George W. Bush. I can violate the free market system, to save the free market system. That's quantitative easing. Money conjured up, without cost. Without any restraint. Without any consequence.

In stage three, nations convinced themselves, they're immune to any kind of gravity. Okay?

This time, it's different! We can manage this debt. Well, modern tools, you just don't understand. You know, the rules no longer apply.

You don't understand. Really?

Don't understand. The older rules always apply.

Because math is math.

And stage three always ends exactly the same way. Wherever it's tried!

The markets no longer trust the promises they're being fed, which leads us into stage four, the breaking point. Every empire eventually reaches a moment where its debts cannot be serviced. They can't be inflated away quietly. They can't be rolled over without consequence.

Rome reached it when they froze prices and shattered the last productive parts of its competent multiply France reached it in 1788, when it can no longer borrow. And that whole thing came to a head. Britain reached it in 1931 when it abandoned the gold standard.

Weimar reached it when inflation ate the soul of the nation. And extremism took over. Yap reached it, when its bond market effectively became nationalize. Propped up by its own central bank. Right now, America, Europe, China, Japan. And every other major power, listen to this carefully, have all hit stage four at the same time.

Never before in human history has this happened.

The bond markets are shaking. The currencies are all volatile. Politicians are praying that no one notices the numbers.

You know, that they no longer add up.

Stage four is not coming. We are now living inside the opening act. This is so important.

Yesterday, there was a story that said, that this is going to be the biggest Christmas season ever. And I'm wondering to myself, I see the prices. I go to McDonald's.

I go to the grocery store.

Any of us Walmart this weekend. I see the prices. And I'm looking at the prices.

And every time I'm looking at the prices, I'm like, how's the average person afford any of this?

And yet, we're spending. Spending. Spending.

And I don't understand it. And I fear we're doing what the government is doing. We're just spending because we can -- we think we can get out of it.

Then comes stage five. It's called the reset. Hmm.

Every debt system ends in one of three ways.

They inflate the money, so they can pay off the debt. And that's just an absolute wipeout. Weimar republic did it. France did it. Rome did it.

Just a wipeout. Then there's a hard default and political upheaval. Russia did that in 1917.

Argentina did it over and over again.

War leading to a new monetary order. That's another one.

And the neo -- the -- the Napoleonic wars. The British gold standard. World War II. Bretton Woods.

All of that. But there's always a reset. Always a new order that's born from the ashes of the old.

And here's what makes this moment unprecedented. Rome collapsed by itself. France collapsed alone. Weimar collapsed by itself.

Britain declined while America rose.

It was always one country coming down, and another one coming up.

This time, all countries. All countries, on both size, the free world and the not so free world, there's no one rising.

China is drowning in its local government debt. It's never going to say this, but it's a paper tiger.

Europe is fractured. And coming apart at the seams. Japan, demographic time bomb.

America is politically frozen and insolvent fiscally.

So for the very first time in world history. Every major civilization has reached its peak of the debt cycle.

This time, all at the same moment.

No one is coming up!

So what does that mean?

Well, for the very first time in human history, it means, when it arrives, it will not be regional. It will be global. It will not be slow. It will be systemic. It will be everywhere. Now, the hope, the history books don't tell, and nobody in the media will tell you this, is when every one of those resets, every collapse, every crisis, it created the conditions for renewal.

Rome, its fall opened the door for a new Christian civilization. France, the revolution there, birthed the modern nation state. Britain's decline cleared space for America's rise. The devastation of World War II led to the great expansion of prosperity, the greatest the world has ever seen. So the next chapter is not written. What happens to us is not written.

And it -- whether we rise or fall, from what's coming depends not on Washington. Not on Wall Street. But on us. In our homes, in our families. In our churches. And our communities.

The debt cycle is not prophecy. It is a warning.

You cannot borrow your way out of moral, fiscal, or spiritual bankruptcy.

Now, I don't feel like I chose this path. This -- with Bretton Woods and then 1972 coming off the gold standard. And what they did in 2008, to bail out all the banks. I didn't have anything to say. Did you have anything to say about that?

I didn't. I didn't. I wouldn't have chosen those things. But the world is putting something together.

And I want to show you what our choices are. Because right now, people say, you know, I don't like what Donald Trump is doing. Or, I don't like the World Economic Forum.

Or, I don't like what China. Okay. Great. But I want you to know, it's going to be one of these systems. Because it's being built.

It always happens. When one is coming down, some new system, usually a country.

But not a country this time. A new system begins to rise.

And it happens before the fall.