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.

Brand new show takes you backstage with Glenn

Everything changes January 5th

Enter your email to be the first in line for groundbreaking Torch reveals:

Hey, it’s Jason Buttrill, Glenn’s head writer and chief researcher.

Have you ever wondered what’s going on behind the scenes of Glenn’s radio show?

What’s happening right before he starts the show? How do he and his staff get ready? Is it chaotic during the show as Glenn adapts to breaking news?

Glenn has decided to bring you all in on the action. Introducing the Torch Insider Feed—a new segment running throughout the daily radio program. I’ll be your guide during the entire show, popping in just before it starts and at other times when non-Insiders typically see commercials.

I’m going to give you a behind-the-scenes inside look that hasn’t been seen before.

But beyond that, we’re going even deeper. We’ll use Glenn’s new content tools to rapidly access the information he’s shared with you over the past two decades—all the dots connected, all the history explained… EVERYTHING. And we’ll—somehow—fit it all in before Glenn returns from commercial.

As an Insider, while Glenn does his daily radio program, you and I will push the boundaries of what we can learn and experience during his show. You’ll be able to comment on everything we’re talking about, and I’ll respond in real time. It truly is a one-of-a-kind experience that I don’t believe has ever been attempted before.

Coming January 2026.

This plan could FINALLY FIX our broken immigration system

Is it enough to just stop ILLEGAL immigration in America? Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) joins Glenn Beck to explain his proposal to stop ALL immigration until we fix our broken system…

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Anyway, let me go to Chip Roy.

Hello, Chip, how are you, sir?

CHIP: Glenn, how are you? Merry Christmas, bro.

GLENN: Merry Christmas. This is our Congressman from the great state of Texas for Texas attorney general.

Talk to me about your bill on immigration.
Does it have a chance -- tell me what it is. And I want to know if it has a chance of passing.

CHIP: Sure. I mean, you know, you opened this segment by talking about our need to focus on not just illegal immigration, but legal immigration. And I strongly believe that that is true. I think for way too long, we have been getting loose. Fast and loose overly corporate. Overly driven by, you know, your kind of chamber of commerce crowd.

All of a sudden, we now have a situation where we have millions of people in our country, that are not seeking to assimilate, not seeking to assimilate, not seeking to be, quote, the melting pot.

But rather trying to reestablish their cultures from other countries, rather than becoming fully American. And that's been a long string of -- of decisions. And we go back and put it in perspective. We have 51 and a half million foreign-born people here in the United States.

The vast majority of whom, did not come here illegally, right?

But came here legally. Then they've been abusing the process and the system, because we've got this broad use of H-1B one visas. We have diversity visas. We have chain migration. We have everybody's cousin. Uncle, aunt, whatever. And there's the growing population here.

And this is now, unlike it was a century ago, right?

When we had the mass migration. The late 1800s, the early 1900s. And at that point, we didn't have a welfare state. We have schools that were teaching that America was great, or even the Constitution. And we had, you know, God in the schools, and we had our culture being elevated, not being criticized. And at that point, we stood for immigration in the 1920s. Right? We still flatlined it because everybody said, whoa, whoa, whoa. We have so many people in.

Our country was stronger for it. Today is worse. Because we have so many people coming here, who are not assimilating. We have schools that are not teaching people that America is great.

And we certainly are continuing to have a welfare state now, that is causing a big problem. So I think we should pause it. It's called the Pause Act. We should pause legal immigration, until we fix a lot of things.

Fix diversity. Fix chain migration. Fix H1 --

GLENN: Wait. Can you tell me what a diversity visa.

What is a diversity visa? I don't even know what that is.

CHIP: Diversity visas. Chain migration, these are all things being used currently to have expansive use of the ability of people to come into the country, and -- and say that they're -- you know, a family member, right.

An extended individual, in what we're calling chain migration. So you'll have a person come in, and instead of it being a close knit family member, right?

Instead of it being, okay. This is my spouse, or this is my child. It's cousins and aunts and uncles, and so forth.

And, you know, this is the kind of thing that we've got to reform. And including, H-1B visas. And including all the problems that we have here with birthright citizenship.

Obviously, the Supreme Court is going to hear the Trump administration's executive order on that.

But we should codify a new view of how we deal with birthright citizenship. You can only be a citizen, if you're born of citizen parents. Not because you were on our dirt. So these are -- in Texas, right?

We had a Supreme Court opinion, in the 1980s to educate the children. Of illegal aliens. Illegal alien children. We do challenge that, overturn it. And we should fix it.

Until you fix all those things. Fix illegal immigration.

Then we're going to lose our country. We're going to lose our culture, and I think we need to do that. So that's why we have to have a bill to pause it.

I just talked to police officer, the day before yesterday. And I was walking down the street, going into the store for Christmas. And he said, hey, Glenn Beck.

And he had this slight accent. I couldn't tell exactly what it was. And then he said, eventually, I'm Irish. I came from Ireland. I've been here for 20 years. My wife and I lived in Ireland.

I said, my gosh, does Ireland even exist anymore?

And he said, Glenn, it used to be. I go back every year, it used to be you could go anywhere, and you would have the Irish public.

And, you know, you could see Irishmen everywhere. And, yes, there were people from other parts of the world, et cetera, et cetera. But it was Irish!

He said, I can go down into my hometowns, small ones, and he said, I don't see another Irishman.

He said, the Irish culture is completely annihilated. He said, it's all mosques and Pakistanis and whatever.

And he said, is there ever anyone who will say, hey, wait a minute, the Irish culture, the American culture, the English culture.

The -- the whatever culture, that's important too! When is anybody going to step up and say, you know what, we -- we don't want to lose this!

By embracing that! We can have both. But not like this!

CHIP: Well, Glenn, and you know. And, by the way, the thing I -- since I got up and I started talking about chain migration. But just so you know, right? That's a program very specifically designed to bring people in from countries that we don't have significant immigration from. It's literally designed to diversify our immigration population.

GLENN: What!

Who cares?

CHIP: Right. And that's my point. And this is what's so wrong about our immigration system.

And it's being done that way. And by Afghanistan, all of it is being abused. And we have had this mass migration. And, again, you are the ardent defender of the First Amendment. So am I, and you can believe what you want to believe. Right?

And we would never want to insert the federal government into your belief system, like between you and God.

But what we have to remember about Islam is that it is a politically motivated group of individuals. Right?

This is -- when we look at the core, and we look at what -- you look at what the Muslim government is talking about. When you look at Sharia law, when you look at the tenets of Islam, there's a massive political component to it, and we have to remember that.

We have to remember. You actually read the words. Read what's being said. And look what's happening in Dallas.

Epic City is not just an accident. What happened was the growth and the promotion of Sharia law in the United Kingdom, in France, in America.
It's not an accident, okay? And this is well beyond, hey, you can believe what you want to believe. You can be agnostic. You can be Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Muslim. We stand for that principle.

When you come here to annihilate and change your culture. Then you've got to approach that.

We -- we Americans to have approach that in a different way.

And I believe, we should pause immigration. We should be doing what the President is doing.

Remove a whole lot of the people dumped into our country under Biden with illegal immigrants, asylum, that were abused for all those abused by Biden and Mayorkas, and go around and make sure that we are resetting the table and reset our laws. And we should just pause for a while. And reclaim our American culture to your point about what you just said about Ireland.

GLENN: You -- you lay out -- I saw your press release, and you lay out what this bill will do, and I got to read this to the audience.

Because I can't believe you have to say this. It would end the practice of automatic citizenship, yeah, and chain migration.

Yeah, that's not what the Fourteenth Amendment says. That's not what it is about. That's not what it was written for. And the H-1B one visa program. Got it. Ensure immigration assimilation, got it. Now, listen to these last three.

This is what he is proposing we do.

Okay? We're not doing it. He's proposing we do this: Deny entry to Sharia law adherence.

Oh, I don't know. Yes!

I can't believe we have to even say that, out loud. Deny entry to Chinese communist party members. I don't know. Yes!

And the third one: Deny entry to terrorists!

This is a civilization that is on a suicidal path. If that can't happen. That's not -- it's crazy that that's not already happening!

Suicide. Just committing suicide.

CHIP: Well, the other element that we have to factor in is the welfare that is being doled out.

GLENN: Yes.

CHIP: To noncitizens in the form of not just food stamps. Medicaid.

All of the social programs in the federal government. But also our local schools and local hospitals to get inundated by people coming into the United States.

Knowing that they will get free health care and free education, and they might be able to then use birthright citizenship, to come here, to grow here. And none of this is about the melting pot.
And, Glenn, that's what I'm trying to make the case here to people. When you have people who came here, who largely shared our values. And when they came here, they wanted their kids to learn English. They wanted their kids to love America.

They wanted their kids to love our history and our founding. They appreciate what our country stood for. By the way, that mass migration occurred right after the Civil War. So our country has literally been at war. And people said, I want to go there. Because this country stood for something bigger and better. And people knew it. But they wanted to be apart of it. And they wanted to embrace it.

They didn't want to change it. That's not true now. Right? That's definitively not true.

United States Congress. Ilhan Omar.

When we openly and outspokenly, committed to changing America to be like her home country!

That's a problem. That is what is happening. And if we don't -- you can't win a war, that you don't acknowledge exists, Glenn. And there is a war being waged against our way of life. And against our culture.

So look, I've increased the legislation here. But it's also why I'm running for attorney general. And a campaign speech, you hear me.

We have to have states. That are standing up and leading this fight as well.

If we're going to save America.

GLENN: You brought up, you know, there's a war being waged.

I -- every alarm bell in me is going off.

Every alarm bell within me. We are -- we're in a war. We won't even recognize it.

I think the president has. But I think it's going to take a lot more than what we're doing right now. Look at what's happening in Europe.

France just happened their -- their ball drop, you know, for New Year's Eve.

They have it -- every year. They cancelled it. And said, just stay at home. And watch a rerun of it from another year.

That's insanity!

They just have surrendered.

The -- how serious are we at -- at preparing for a civilizational war.

CHIP: Well, I think on the positive side, we have an increasing number of people in leadership, who were understanding the threat.

In a way that they didn't a year ago, or five years ago.

That being said, we also have a long way to go and a very short time to get there. Right?

We have got to move quickly. If you see what's happening in Europe, right? And we go, well, they're 20 years ahead of us now. I don't think that's true.

I think Europe is a mere months, years, few years ahead of us, in terms of how bad it's gotten.

And I think we're now realizing, how much damage we've done over the last decade, in particular. Certainly, the last two decades in terms of the mass influence of people, that do not ultimately share our values. So I do think it's important that we support the president on what he's doing and removing bad actors, and making sure that we're removing people that need to be removed, or here illegally.

But if we don't reform our illegal immigration system immediately. And pause it. And freeze it. And reset who we are as Americans. And get people to understand that when you're here, you're going to embrace being an American. Then we're not going to save the country. Right?

So that's why I wanted to introduce this bill. It's why I introduced this bill. That's why I had to introduce several legislation to defend people from Sharia bill. That's why I've given a bill to take away the tax status for CAIR. We've got to get people to realize, that we need immediate change. That we can't wait. So right now, Congress is not codifying or advancing the ball on this front yet.

The president is doing it unilaterally. And I think that's a problem.

GLENN: Can the house actually get it done? Are we going to pass it? Does it have a chance of ever getting to the president's desk?

VOICE: Right now, we are socializing it, and there's a growing number of people who support the concept. And it's not on social media.

But we've got to get it socialized with the White House and the leadership of the House, to get it to the point of trying to enforce a vote. There's going to be a lot of resistance. There's going to be a lot of people, that are going to be listening to business interests. A lot of people who will say, well, I've got a certain culture in my particular district and so forth.

And we've got to ride the (inaudible) act and recognize, if we don't do this, then we have no chance to save the country.

Because if another 55,000 people come in on diversity visas this year, and another 55,000 coming next year, and then another 55,000 the following year, all from these supposed low immigration countries for purposes of diversity. In addition to the chain migration, in addition to H-1B visas. Right? Do the math. See what's happening.

And how many things are happening. So we've got to freeze that. And reset what we want to do for our country.

GLENN: All right.

It's called the pause act. Get online, and support Chip Roy at the pause act. Ask your Congress man. Your senators.
To join Chip on the pause act. Again, you can follow him on X, at Chip Roy.

TX. He's also running for candidate for attorney general. What is your website? Chip.

CALLER: ChipRoy.com. Pretty simple. Pretty straightforward, and I appreciate it. And look, this Christmas Eve and for everybody out there, Merry Christmas. We have the greatest country in the history of the world. We have to keep our heads up and put our faith in Jesus, and remember that it's on us, to pass it down to our kids and grandkids.

GLENN: Thank you so much, Chip Roy.

The END of 'Glenn TV': 14 Years of Truth Bombs, Tears & Glenn's NEXT Revolution | Glenn TV | Ep 475

It's time to say goodbye to "Glenn TV," but Glenn's radio program and "The Glenn Beck Podcast" will continue to be main staples on BlazeTV. After 14 years of "Glenn TV," Glenn Beck looks back at the warnings and predictions that defined the show. From predicting the Islamification of Europe to exposing the corruption in Ukraine years before the mainstream media, Glenn revisits the moments he challenged the experts and sounded the alarm early. He rewinds his predictions on Russia, ISIS, socialism, and the coordinated collapse of capitalism and Western civilization. Glenn also revisits his early reporting on Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and the COVID lab leak — stories the media originally dismissed. Plus he gives a first look at what's to come with his new project, the Torch, debuting January 5, 2026.

The Western World is UNDER ATTACK... And THESE Shocking Stories are Proof

A wave of global instability is forcing Western nations to confront hard truths they’ve ignored for years. From Australia’s deadly attack and a media narrative that excuses extremist violence, to France canceling its iconic New Year’s celebration over “security concerns,” the cracks in Western resolve are becoming impossible to hide. This conversation exposes how denial, mass migration without assimilation, and media double standards are eroding public safety, cultural confidence, and the West’s ability to defend itself from growing threats.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: You know, there's more on the -- the shooting in Australia. Did you see the comment from the mom?

The -- the hero who disarmed. He's a hero. He's getting a lot of accolades.

But here's the family of Ahmed al Ahmed. No, no, no. That's the good guy. Hang on just a second.

That's the hero. I'm just looking through all of the stories. Here it is. Here it is.

Mother of the Bondi beach shooting suspect. The mother of Naveed Akram, who along with his father, allegedly killed more than a dozen people at a Hanukkah celebration, said on Sunday, insisted her son was a good boy.

Now, I mean, I can understand, you know, you wanting to believe that, because your son is your son. You know, but I don't think -- I don't think anybody in Rob Reiner's family is thinking the brother is a good boy. They might love him still, but he's not a good boy if he indeed did that.

STU: Yeah, there could be an element of thinking, right? Like, you know, he's been overcome by addiction, or overcome by mental illness. And I think he's a good boy underneath hat. You can have that Islamic extremist terrorist son if you want.

But what you would have to say I think accompanying that, was he got infected by this extremism. And, you know, by his dad who, you know, led him down a terrible path.

GLENN: Right. Her husband.

STU: Right. That's a plausible thing, if you believe. He can't be a good boy if he's murdering people, unless, of course, Glenn, you believe that the outcome was positive.

GLENN: Well, it was positive, yes.

She said, he doesn't have a firearm. Yeah, he does.

He doesn't even go out. He doesn't mix around with friends. Well, now you're describing a loner.

He doesn't drink, smoke, or go to bad places. Anyone would wish to have a son like my son. He's a good boy.

No. No. I'm safe to say, I don't want a son like that.

STU: No. Yeah, I'm pretty sure she was about to say, and he stays away from trans fats.

That's great, just doesn't have much to do with this particular incident.

GLENN: Yeah, I would say that. Also --

STU: Can I follow up, while we're in this realm here real quick with this audio. This is -- you mentioned this briefly. But let's play a game here: Can you find the logical problem with this particular audio from ABC News?

This is about the somewhat associated shooting of the pro-Palestinian group. Or the pipe bombing, from the pro-Palestinian group you discussed earlier this hour. This is a real clip, not edited.

GLENN: All right.

VOICE: Nowhere did they allege that any of these individuals wanted anybody to be harmed as a result of these pipe bombs. Specifically, it does appear that their aim was to sent a political message, as they said, prosecutors yesterday in this news conference.

VOICE: Carol and Page also discussed plans for follow-up attacks after their bombings, which included plans to a target ICE agents and vehicles with pipe bombs.

STU: Now, can you detect any issue with that?

GLENN: I found two.

I found two.

One, they're not targeting anybody with the use of the pipe bomb!

STU: Right.

GLENN: Now, maybe. Maybe nobody gets hurt like that.

But experience and history tells me. Sometimes when you don't know what you're doing, pipe bombs hurt people.

STU: Right. Yes.
GLENN: And sometimes when you do know what you're doing, pipe bombs hurt people.

That's the -- that's problem number one. Problem number two was, they stated they were then going to target ICE agents?

STU: Right.

GLENN: As if ICE agents aren't people?

STU: You know, Glenn, that is exactly what I came up with. I think, I've heard this statement. You mentioned the same sentiment earlier on the program. A lot of people are saying this. I guess, in their conversations that were, you know, picked off as we were going through this investigation. There were some similarities. If you think back to early environmental terrorist attacks.

ALF and ELF, some of those attacks -- not all, but some of those attacks were targeted at infrastructure, and things around the -- you know, the oil industry. But not -- you know, intentionally trying not to harm the workers or whatever.

And some of their I guess conversations back and forth echoed that sentiment. Like, let's put them this a place where people aren't going to be.

Again, I don't think that's good. I don't think of these people as heroes. But Hollywood would make movies over people like that and how wonderful and glorious they were.

But at the end, they seemed to ignore, that they had attacks planned against ICE agents. And the only way that makes logical sense is if you don't think ICE agents are people.

GLENN: Are people. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. Dehumanize. Dehumanize. Dehumanize. That's why I've been saying, we've got to stop MAID. We have to appreciate life again.

We have to stand for life. All life!

If we don't, you can just say, well, that's not really a person.

You've got to stand for life.

One more story in this, just to show you how close we are to losing Europe.

The French who aren't -- are not used to waving the white flag.

You know, they're -- they're -- they're tough. They have decided on New Year's Eve, that they are not going to hold the fireworks show, that they always hold at the art drive.

So they always have a New Year's Eve concert and fireworks show, but this year, they've decided that they're going to scrap it, wait until you hear what they were going to replace it with. But they're going to scrap it because there are security concerns such as, quote, unpredictable crowd movements.
You mean, like the crowds that are coming over on boats and coming on to your shore? You mean those crowd movements? Because, I mean, I think we know what they're saying here. They're saying that they're very concerned that there might be trouble. There might be some sort of, you know, shootings or activity or terrorists. But they're not -- they're just saying, it's unpredictable crowd movements. And so we're -- we're suggesting that we cancel the decades old fireworks celebration on New Year's Eve.

That's like canceling Times Square. Okay?

We're going to cancel that. And instead, replace it with -- this is a quote.

With a prerecorded video to be viewed in the safety and comfort of your French living room.
(laughter)

GLENN: Oh. So we're watching an old celebration.

Why not? Dick Clark. We got all those tapes of Dick Clark. Let's just cancel New Year's Eve and Times Square and just play one from 1977. I mean, who didn't love that?

STU: Not only is that completely insane. It's also a great example of why virtual school didn't work.

Right?

You know, that's not the same thing. My wife say big fan of around this time of year. Every television has the Yule log on it, you know. And at his help you. It's nice. It helps you celebrate the season, a little bit. But it's not the same as going around the fire, and feeling the heat, it's not the same.
GLENN: Right. Yeah. There's no warmth. There's no warmth. But leave it to the French to surrender. I mean, we've lost France. We've lost France.

If they're not willing to say what's going on. Look, there's terrorists here. And we're afraid of a large crowd. And we're lost, because we let too many people in here. We have no idea who they are. And they're dangerous. And they want to kill us and kill our civilization.

We're working on that, so we can have this next year.

This year, we will to have cancel it.

But they're not saying that. They're saying, you know what, watch it from home. And it will be a videotape of an old one. Oh, okay.