RADIOJune 12, 2024

Why Hunter Biden's Conviction Could BACKFIRE

Many conservatives celebrated when Hunter Biden was convicted and Glenn think he got a fair trial. But now, there's a chance his trial could be appealed to the Supreme Court and become a gun rights question. So, will gun control activists find a way to spin this? Is there a constitutional argument against this even being a crime? Should conservatives and Second Amendment supporters root for Hunter going to jail for THIS crime? Or will it just distract from all the other evidence we have: "Out of all the stuff he did, this is like the preschool stuff. There's 170 [potential] crimes" he could be tried on! Or...will this all end with Joe Biden pardoning his son after the election?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: The verdict came in. On -- on Hunter Biden. And he was found guilty on all three counts. And I -- I don't know if people were celebrating or what.

I think this is -- as I said to Stu, this is comparing to Donald Trump trial, to this one, is comparing apples to eggs. They are completely different. They don't even -- they both don't come from a tree. One is from a really rotted rooted tree. The Donald Trump trial. And this one, I think just comes from the butt of a chicken.

The Hunter Biden trial, first of all, only happened after the FBI did everything they could, to make this go away.

Then, what do they do?

They take on the least important one. Now, I am all for the rule of law, obviously.

I am a responsible gun owner. You don't lie on your form, when you're doing a background check. You don't lie.

I would go to jail. You would go to jail. Hunter Biden should go to jail. I don't know what the usual is, on jail time for this. I know that it's -- I think it says, on the form, I couldn't find it yesterday. I think it says something like a 20-year prison sentence. Twenty-five-year prison sentence for lying under oath, blah, blah, blah. But I don't know what the usual is for a first time offender. But he should get it now.

There's the constitutional part. And I can't believe this. Because I think the left thinks they're going to win because this is going to go to trial. To the Supreme Court perhaps.

And it's going to become a gun question. A gun rights question.

And if he -- if he wins that, then the -- what? The right will get exactly what they want. More rights. Less regulation?

Okay. I'll take that. Yeah. But he'll lose him not going to jail. Yeah. But he's going to jail out of the worst stuff he did.

This is like the preschool stuff. What are you talking about.

There's 170 crimes, that he has been implicated in.

170.

When he was in Arizona, he was on his way to rehab.

He dropped off his car, at the rental facility, near the airport, where he accidentally left personal ID and a crack pipe. Oh, and a bag of cocaine in the car. And nothing was done.

I don't know. I don't know. That's kind of a big deal. A woman who is currently in jail, in Connecticut, for other crimes, apparently arranged a meeting with Hunter to bring him crack cocaine, later that month.

According to Hunter's texts, which, by the way, all the evidence that was in -- used in this trial, all came from the laptop. So I would like an apology from the mainstream media, that there was nothing there. Nothing credible.

That that was totally hyped up. That that was Russian disinformation. I would like an apology. Because apparently, the court system found that it was okay to look at. And was credible.

Later that month, the texts on his laptop, showed that he was not only consuming drugs, but trafficking them.

As well as arranging sex with women. The sex crimes in Connecticut, are -- let's just say. Wow.

In -- I mean, it would take a drug-fueled -- I mean, I don't know how he performs. Anyway, he solicited women for sex.

One after another, as they would leave his room. Then he solicited more prostitutes. The next day, he solicited a third prostitute.

But he didn't stop there. He continued to solstice prostitutes throughout his time in Connecticut. Even recording a video of him having sex with a prostitute and smoking crack.

The money transfers revealed thousands of dollars paid to these prostitutes.

And is prostitution, is doing all of this, is this legal in Connecticut? Are you cool with that?

By the way, he took his crimes to Delaware, where he was doing drug deals. One with a registered sex offender. And smoked crack with them. Hunter made sure that his crack use was on camera. Again, he was caught naked doing drugs at a public spa. He then bought the fun. Lied about his drug use. And continued to have more fun with prostitutes. In Florida, when Hunter sent money to a Ukrainian escort, the transfer was flagged by JPMorgan as possible human trafficking.

Okay. We haven't even gotten to the good stuff yet.

Okay? I'm just going to -- I'm just going to leave you with the note from JPMorgan.

There were 170 times banks sent out a yellow flag, to the federal government, saying, there's something wrong here.

This is human trafficking. This is money laundering. But there's something wrong. 170 times.

That -- that's the crime here!

That's the crime.

And what they're trying to do is -- they only prosecuted when they absolutely had no other choice.

They couldn't do anything else.

I think justice was served.

We'll see what the -- the sentencing is.

But this is not the thing to prosecute him on.

This is the thing to prosecute him, and then say, oh, come on. He's going to jail. He's doing his time.

And see, he was -- he was convicted of a felony. So -- so was Donald Trump. In fact, the health of our republic has never been stronger.

Because look, Donald Trump, he -- he was president. He's probably going to jail. And the first time ever, the son of a president, is also going to jail on a known. That's not good for the health of a republic in the first place.

That shows, if both are true. Shows we have a real problem with the people in leadership.

But both of them aren't true. Again, apples and eggs.

This one was prosecuted on me when they couldn't get away with everything they were trying to do to get away with sweeping this under the rug.

So then they prosecuted him. He was convicted by a jury of his peers.

The one up in New York, every possible thing, every dirty trick. Every twist of the law. Even to the point of making up a law. Where the federal government said, no.

That's not a violation of the law. But then they took it to a state court. And said, yes. That is against the law.

But it would be a federal crime. And so state courts have no jurisdiction. I mean, they did things that have never, ever been done did before.

And I think Alan Dershowitz was right. When he said, the best thing that could happen, is that Hunter Biden could be set free. Hunter Biden would be found not guilty.

He said, because then, at least people would start to realize, that we are the laughing stock of the world.

Aren't -- our justice system, which used to be the most admired, is now the laughing stock of the world.

I mean, how do you go for him, with -- with this gun charge, when he -- we know what he did with Ukrainian and Chinese patrons. He -- he was soliciting money.

He never registered as a foreign agent. He avoided all oversight and regulation that comes with that. They're completely ignoring the, hey, hold back 10 percent for the big guy.

When under oath, several witnesses have said, the big guy was Joe Biden.

I mean, they -- they raked in millions of dollars, selling our country out!

I don't know. I think that's a bigger crime, myself. You know. Jesse James. You know, he wasn't -- he wasn't wanted for jaywalking. Just -- you know.

I'm just saying.

Bonnie and Clyde. You know, they -- when they were at the bank. They wrote the note that said, give us all your money. And they took the pin along with him. Can we get him on the pin thing.

Am I wrong with this, Stu? Is this how we see this whole thing.

STU: They did take the pen.

GLENN: I know. They did take the pen.

STU: The pen was taken. I find it. Yes. I think it was interesting.

As we said before, the verdict even came out: It's the least interesting of all the things against Hunter Biden. There is a constitutional amendment against -- constitutional argument against this even being a crime in the first place.

But, in theory, he should still go to prison.

You know, the -- the -- the sentencing guidelines for this crime. Are 15 to 21 months.

So 2019 to 2023. Just 53 defendants were sentenced in a similar category, as Hunter Biden. But 92 percent of them were sentenced to serve prison time. Median prison term of 15 months.

Only 8 percent of people in that category received probation or a fine. So he should --

GLENN: I would like to see him go to jail for 18 months.

That's fine. Something to jail for 18 months. And you know why I say this. Not only do I want the fair -- I don't want the judge to take into consideration anything else, other than the crime they've just convicted him for.

And if the average is 18 months, then great. Give him 18 months. Whatever.

But Joe Biden, I believe, after the election, is going to pardon his son. To get him away from prison. He probably will serve maybe a month.

Maybe a month. He's not going to be sentenced, until when? October.

STU: I thought the sentencing will be a little bit more than that. That doesn't mean necessarily he goes to prison. Like for example, he also could stay out, while his appeal is pending, which would definitely push past the election.

GLENN: Correct. Right. And after the election, Joe Biden will do what this dad has done, that has made his son into the monster that he is.

And that is pardon him, lessen the consequences.

You know, help him out, because I really believe in you, son. You know, at times, you just have to let them fall.

STU: Yeah. And that's a normal parenting move, if you don't have a large international illegal business working with the guy that he's the kingpin of.

Like, you need to have him covering for you.

GLENN: On your side. Yeah.

STU: Every step of the way. So you really can't do the thing that a parent should do. And let him fall.

You can't do that.

GLENN: Yeah. So yesterday, Joe Biden gave a speech about gun control. Of all things.

STU: And didn't mention. Incredible that he doesn't mention this at all.

He doesn't mention the Hunter thing at all. While he's pushing for this new restrictive laws. Incredible.

GLENN: Right. Right. Right.

But, again, in this, he talks about.

Let me give you a couple.

Here's the gun sense speech. Cut four.

You can't be pro-law enforcement. And be pro-law enforcement. And abolish the AFT.

GLENN: Now, I don't know what the AFT is. Do you know what the AFT -- I know what the ATF is.

I don't know what the AFT is.

STU: The American Federation of Teachers.

So he's talking. I don't know why that was relevant, per se, to this.

That's what he --

GLENN: Yeah. But he went through.

Cut six, please.

BIDEN: By the way, if they want to take out government, if they get out of line. Which they're talking again about.

Guess what, they need F-15s. They don't need a rifle.

STU: Oh, God.

First of all, it's hard to understand anything anyone says. Secondly, that's the dumbest point in the world.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

Tell that to the people who are now running Afghanistan.

And if anybody should have learned that lesson, it would be Joe Biden.

I don't know. They must have F-15s. They seemed to do pretty well!

STU: They weren't really as well off as the American people are.

GLENN: No. No. They're not.

STU: They were able to do that against the world's most powerful military, because of one terrible leader, who happened to be the commander-in-chief.

GLENN: No. Right.

Let me -- let me go to -- let me go to Biden here. One more time.

Play that. You need F-15s. Play that again.

By the way, if they want to take on government, if we get out of line. Which they're talking again about. If we say what, they need F-15s. They don't need a rifle.

STU: That's so stupid.

GLENN: Is he the Biden. Have we mixed this up? Is he the Biden that is on crack?

STU: I don't know that crack makes you that lethargic. Again, maybe never having done it myself. Just for the show, do something.

Just understand.

GLENN: Right. Let's try to actually -- one more time. Try to understand, what he is actually saying there. Go ahead.

BIDEN: By the way, if they want to take on government, if we get out line, which they're talking again about. Well, guess what, they need F-15s, they don't need rifles.

GLENN: I don't know what he said. I have no idea what he said.

STU: Oh. I think he said, if you want to take on government. And then he says something like an aside where he says, and they're talking about all doing that again.

So he's trying to basically say that they're --

GLENN: Who is talking about that?

STU: Oh, it's a huge piece of conversation.

GLENN: It's happening daily?

STU: A lot of people online, talking about that.

GLENN: Let's take care on the government.

STU: This is so specifically designed to say, they just want that picture.

You look down your driveway. And tanks are rolling up. And all you have is your AR-15.

And it's like, again, I guess there is a scenario, where they could defeat every American by just nuking every city.

But like, what is the use of -- of govern over such a society? After it's a nuclear wasteland.

Like, yeah. The whole point --

GLENN: We won!

STU: Yeah. We won. Hang on, my ear fell off.

STU: I mean, this is -- over and over and over again, we've seen people with small arms, be able to repel.

It's really hard to go door to door and overwhelm a population. Really freaking difficult to do.

We found it very difficult. The land war in Asia from Princess Bride was specifically designed to remind him --

GLENN: Land war in Asia!

Has THIS Islamist organization BROKEN state laws for YEARS?!

A new report accuses CAIR Action, the political arm of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, of breaking state laws with its political activism. Glenn Beck reviews this story...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So let me go over what is -- what's happening with -- with CAIR.

You know, the Founding Fathers were obsessed over accountability.

Because they knew one thing. You know, they did. They must get suggestions from people on, you know, through tweets. They studied every single system of government.

Every single republic that survived. That didn't survive.

Why didn't it survive?

They studied all forms of government. They were trying to come up with something that could -- could set people free.

And they -- they worked really hard on putting our checks and balances in place, because they knew, once power slips into the shadows. They knew, once power slips into the shadows, once influence becomes unmoored from law, what rises is not a republic.

It's a machine. And that's what you're seeing right now. We're not living in a republic. We're living in a machine.

We -- I think we're staring at one of the largest unregulated political machines operating in the United States ever! Okay.

There have been a couple of groups that are doing sweeping investigations, two watchdog groups. One of them is NCRI and the Intelligent Advocacy Network.

And they have concluded now that the political arm of CAIR, he known as CAIR action, has been operating nationwide with no legal authority, to do the things it has been doing for years now.

They're not allowed to raise money. They've been raising money. Coordinating political campaigns.

Not allowed to do it. Endorsing candidates. Not allowed to do it, they're doing it. Mobilizing voters, shaping policy, functioning as a national advocacy network.

They don't have the legal authority to do any of it. And no one has said anything.

Now, according to the report, CAIR action doesn't just have a paperwork problem.

Investigators found, state by state, that it lacks the license, the registrations. The charitable authorizations, required to legally solicit money.

Excuse me. Or conduct political activity, in any of the 22 states in which it operates. Think of that!

I know how serious this is, because I remember what it took to get the license in each and every state, for Mercury One.

So we could operate. We could raise money. We could do things in those states. It's a lot of work. And if you don't do it, you go to jail. And they find out pretty quickly.

Okay?

22 states, they operate not one, zero legal authorization.

In Washington, DC, the city where CAIR action is incorporated, the department of licensing and consumer protection told investigators, they have no record of CAIR action ever obtaining the basic business license required to solicit funds or to operate.

Imagine how long would you last in business, especially if you were controversial.

How long would you remain in business, if you never had a business license?

You think somebody would figure that out?

In a sooner time than I don't know. A couple of decades!

This report means, that the organization if true, is engaging in unlicensed inner state solicitation.

It has exposed itself to allegations as serious as deceptive solicitation. Wire fraud and false statements to the IRS. These are big things.

And this is not political rhetoric.

Are these phrases written in black and white. In the law.

And by investigators. In California, one of CAIR's most active hubs. The state attorney general has said, the state attorney general of California has said, same pattern here!

The state of California, to say, yep. That's what's happening here.

CAIR action has never registered with California's charitable registry.

Never filed the required CT1 form. And has no authorization whatsoever to request donations. But they've been doing it in California anyway.

Fundraising, selling memberships. Issuing endorsements. Mobilizing voters. All of that has been done by CAIR action. There's no record of any license. Any permission, ever. Going to CAIR. From California. That's according to their attorney general.

Wow!

That's pretty remarkable, huh? How does that happen?

It's not just the coast. It is also happening to the Midwest, the South, the Mountain West. Every state hosting its own CAIR action fundraising page, complete with the donate now and become a member portal, despite no trace of the legal filings required to operate. That's bad!

Now, here's where the stakes rise.

Because CAIR action presents itself openly, as the political arm of CAIR National.

Investigators are now warning that any unauthorized fundraising or political activity.

Could become CAIR's national responsibility as well.

So, in other words, the parent, CAIR itself, might be held responsible.

Meaning, this is want just a rogue subdivision.

This could implicate the entire National Organization of CAIR.

Now, this is happening at the same time it's coming under national scrutiny. It's also Texas.

And I think Florida have designated the group a foreign terrorist organization. Members of Congress are now asking the IRS, the Treasury, the Department of Education to investigate all of its partnerships, all of its financing, all of its influence operations. I mean, I think they're going to be in trouble.

How long have we been saying this?

But every time, I have pointed out anything about CAIR, I have been called an Islamophobe, which shuts everything down. That is a word, developed by people like CAIR, to shut people down, so you'll never look into them.

So what happens next?

First of all, the reports have to hold up.

Regulators now have an obligation. Not a choice. An obligation to act!

State attorneys general in these 22 states, they might pursue fines, injunctions, criminal referrals.

All of them need to take action!

The IRS, needs to take action. Investigate tax exempt fraud. Treasury Department may review foreign influence or money flow violations.

Anything coming from overseas.

Oh, I can't imagine it. They're so buttoned up, right now.

DC regulators may determine whether CAIR actions entire fundraising operation has been unlawful from the beginning.

But here's the deeper question. And it's not bureaucratic. This one is constitutional.

Can the United States tolerate an influence machine, that operates outside of the legal framework, designed to prevent corruption, foreign leverage, and untraceable money?

If I hear one more time, talking about how AIPAC has just got to be investigated. Fine. Investigate.

I'm not against it.

Investigate.

Why aren't you saying anything about CAIR?

It feels like it might be a tool in the hands of a foreign operation.

Why aren't you saying anything about this?

Because here it is! It's not like, hey. I wonder why.

This is it! This is it! This isn't about silencing CAIR. Muslim Americans are -- that are full citizens, they have every right to speak. Every right to vote. Every right to organize. Participate in public life. No question! They can disagree with me, all they want.

But no organization. None! Not mine. Not yours. Not theirs. None. Should operate a nationwide political network, in the shadows and be immune from all of the guardrails that every other group must follow!

That's called a fourth branch of government!

That's how a fourth branch goes.

By the way, CAIR has placed all kinds of people in our Department of Homeland Security. Et cetera, et cetera. This organization has done it!

This is -- you cannot have a fourth branch of government.

They must abide by the laws.

No -- you can't have a branch that nobody elected. Nobody oversees.

Nobody holds accountable.

We talked about this yesterday, on yesterday's podcast. So what needs to happen is total transparency. CAIR action has to release its filings. Its donor structure. Its compliance records, if they exist. Equal enforcement under the law. I don't want them prosecuted in special ways.

Look, if AIPAC is doing the same thing. AIPAC should be prosecuted exactly the same way.
I want it equal. I want constitutional rule.

If conservatives, if Catholics, pro-Israel, environmental, Second Amendment groups, if they have to comply by the state law, so does CAIR action.

And if CAIR action has to do it, so do the Second Amendment groups and environmentalists, and pro-Israel and conservative groups. The law cannot be selective. It can't be!

I don't know how that's controversial in today's world. But somehow or another, they will find a way.

The Feds have to review all of this. If the report is accurate, the IRS and the Treasury have to determine whether false statements or unlicensed interstate solicitations have occurred.

Americans deserve to know what exactly, who is influencing our elections. Who is shaping our policy? Who is raising money in their state?

Especially physical the organization claims political authority, that it doesn't legally possess.

Because history will teach us one unchanging lesson. When a republic stops enforcing its own laws, someone else will always step in to fill that vacuum because power abhors a vacuum!

Unregulated, political power abhors a free people. So while it's about CAIR, it's not about Muslim Americans. It's not about religion.

As always, at least on this program, we try to make it about the rule of law.

One standard for everyone or no standard at all!

And that more than anything, will determine whether or not our institutions remain worthy of the freedom and responsibility that we have entrusted to them.

Glenn Beck WARNS Democrats Will Return with VENGEANCE in 2026 | Glenn TV | Ep 473

America is entering a year of historic upheaval from Charlie Kirk’s assassination and the spiritual shock that followed, to Trump’s tariff revolution, China’s rare-earth war, collapsing energy grids, AI displacement, and the looming fights over Taiwan and Venezuela. Glenn sits down with BlazeTV hosts ‪@deaceshow‬ and ‪@lizwheeler‬ along with his head researcher Jason Buttrill, to break down the biggest stories of 2025. Plus, they each give their most explosive prediction for 2026 that could shape our politics, economy, national security, and civil rights in ways Americans have never experienced before.

Trump Just SHATTERED the “Expert Class” - And the Deep State is in Total Panic

For nearly a century, Washington DC has been ruled by an unelected “expert class” operating as an unconstitutional fourth branch of government — accountable to no one, removable by no president, and shielded from all consequences. Glenn breaks down why Trump’s firing of the Federal Trade Commissioner could finally dismantle the 1935 precedent that empowered technocrats, how Ketanji Brown Jackson exposed the Supreme Court’s embrace of expert rule, and why America cannot survive a government run by people who never face the voters and never pay for their failures.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Okay. So President Donald Trump fired the federal trade commissioner Rebecca Slaughter. Federal Trade Commission is an administrative position. I mean, this is under -- the head of the federal trade commission is a cabinet member.

And if the justices uphold Trump's firing of Slaughter, that will overturn a precedent that was horrible, that was set in 1935. Remember, 1935, we're flirting with fascism. You know, everybody thinks. Because they haven't seen the horrors of fascism yet.

Everybody thinks fascism is neat, blah, blah. So what they do is they say that this is an independent person. And the president can't fire them. Because they're, you know, an independent agency.

Well, wait. That would make a fourth branch of government. Our Constitution is really clear.

There is no such thing as a fourth branch of government. Right?

So that's what they're deciding. Now, here is Ketanji Brown Jackson, who is talking about how we really need to listen to the experts. Cut four.

VOICE: Because presidents have accepted that there could be both an understanding of Congress and the presidency. That it is in the best interest of the American people to have certain kinds of issues, handled by experts. Who, and I think you -- in your colloquy, Justice Kagan, have identified the fact that these boards are not only experts, but they're also nonpartisan. So the -- the seats are actually distributed in such a way, that we are presumably eliminating political influence because we're trying to get to science and data and actual facts, related to how these decisions are made.

And so the real risk, I think, of allowing non- -- of allowing these kinds of decisions to be made by the president, of saying, everybody can just be removed when I come in, is that we will get away from those very important policy considerations.

VOICE: We will get away from US policy considerations, and it will create opportunities for all kinds of problems that Congress and prior presidents wanted to avoid, risks that flow inevitably, just given human nature, the realities of the world that we live in.

GLENN: Okay.

Now, remember, what she's saying here is, we have to have experts.

We have to have experts. We have to have experts that don't really answer to anybody. Okay?

They're appointed. And then they're just there. This from a, quote, judicial expert, who cannot define a woman, because she's not a doctor.
She's not a scientist.

She needs an expert to define a woman.
That's how insane her thinking is. Okay?

Now, I would just like to ask the Supreme Court, when you want things run by experts, do you mean things like the State Department, or the counsel of foreign relations, that have gotten us into these endless war wars for 100 years?

Because these are the things that Woodrow Wilson wanted. He wanted the country run by experts.

Okay. So is it like the Council of Foreign Relations, that keep getting us into these endless wars.

Or is it more like the Fed, that directs our fiscal policy, that has driven us into $38 trillion of at the time. We have all powerful banks. That strangely all belong to the fed. And endless bailouts for those banks. Are those the experts that you're talking about?

Or are you talking about the experts that are doctors, that gave the country sterilizations, lobotomies, transgender surgeries. You know, or should we listen to the experts, like the ones that are now speaking in Illinois, to get us death on demand like Canada has, with their MAID assisted suicide, which is now the third largest killer in Canada. MAID, assisted suicide, third largest killer in Canada. Experts are saying, we now need it here, and they're pushing for it in Illinois. Or should we listen to the experts? And I think many of them are the same experts strangely, that brought us COVID. Yeah. That was an expert thing. They were trying to protect us. Because they need to do this for our protection. So direct from the labs in China with the help of the American experts like Fauci. We almost put the world out.

Should we listen to those guys?

Or the experts that brought us masking, and Home Depot is absolutely safe. But Ace Hardware wants to kill grandma. Which are the experts that we want? That we want to make sure that we have in our lives? That they don't answer, or can't be fired by anybody. Because I'm pretty full up on the experts, myself. I don't know.

But you're right. These experts would keep the president in check, and they would keep Congress in check. And you in check!

And the Supreme Court, which would be really great. You know, and you know who else they would keep in check? The people.

So, wow, it seems like we would just be a nation run by experts, and our Constitution would be out the window, because that's a fourth branch!

And if you don't believe me, that, you know, these experts never pay a price. Can you name a single expert?

Give me a name of an expert, that gave us any of the things that I just told you about.

Give me the name. I mean, give me the name of one of them. Give me the name of one of them that went to jail. Give me the name of one expert that has been discredited.

You know, where your name will be mud in this town. Do you know where that came from?

Your name is going to be mud. It's not M-U-D. It's M-U-D-D, that comes from Dr. Samuel Mudd. Okay? He was a docks man. He was an expert. He was that set John Wilkes Booth' broken leg. He made crutches. He let him stay there for a while. He claimed he didn't know him, but he did know him.

In fact, one of the reasons they proved it.

Is because when he pulled the boots off -- when he pulled both of his boots off, right there, in the back, you couldn't have missed it. It said "John Wilkes Booth."

He's like, I have no idea who he was.

Yeah. Well, you knew him in advance. This was a predetermined outpost where he could stay. It's clear you could know him.

The guy was still discredited, we still use his name today. Your name will be mud in this town.

And we think that it's like dirt, mixed with water kind of mud. No, it's M-U-D-D, Dr. Mudd. The expert that was so discredited, went to jail, paid for his part of the assassination of -- of Lincoln.

Give me the name of one of the experts in the last 100 years, that has brought us any of the trials and the tribulations. The things that have almost brought us to our knees. Give me the name of one of them. Can't!

Because once an expert class, they don't answer to anyone. So they never go to jail.

Wow! Doesn't that sound familiar. People never going to jail!

There's a rant that's going around right now, that I did in 2020. And everybody is like, see. He's talking about Pam Bondi.

No, no. I got to play this for you, a little later on in the program. But I want to get to the experts and what the Constitution actually says about that. Because you don't need my opinion. What you need are the actual facts. So you can stand up and say, yeah. I think Ketanji Brown Jackson is an idiot. Okay?

And she's really not an expert on anything. Especially the Constitution. You need the facts, on what the Founders said. Because the Founders would be absolutely against what they did in 1935.

Because that just -- what does it do?

It just sets up a fourth branch of government.

EXPLAINED: Why the Warner-Netflix/Paramount Merger is DANGEROUS for All of Us

The biggest media merger in modern history is unfolding, and Glenn Beck warns it’s the most dangerous consolidation of power America has faced in decades. With six corporations already controlling 90% of the nation’s news and entertainment, a Warner-Netflix or Warner-Paramount megacorporation would create an unstoppable information cartel. Glenn exposes how “too big to fail” thinking is repeating itself, how global elites and “experts” are tightening their grip, and why handing our entire cultural narrative to a handful of companies is a direct threat to freedom. The hour is late — and the stakes couldn’t be higher.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: By the way, it's never good when you consolidate power. It's never good.

And what is going on now, with this Netflix Warner Brothers paramount stuff, I don't care if Larry Ellison is a conservative or not.

No one should have that much power.

I did a show, gosh, four years ago. I don't even remember when I did it.

We looked it up. In the 1980s. 19 percent of American media was owned by over 50 companies.

Forty years later, 90 percent of the media is watched and controlled by six companies.

National Amusements, the Red Stone Family controls CBS, CMT, MTV, Nickelodeon, gaming and internet. Simon & Schuster Books. That's all one.

Disney, ABC, ESPN, History Channel, Marvel, Star Wars, video games and print.

TimeWarner controls CNN, Warner Brothers, HBO, Turner, video games, internet, and print media like TIME. Comcast, MSNBC, NBC.

CNBC, Telemundo, the Internet.

New Corp. Fox. National Geographic. Ton of others. Sony, with a ton of movies, music and more. The big six. They're valued at nearly $500 billion.

Now, this is something I put together five years ago. So I don't even know. This is probably not even valid even today.

And now we're talking about Netflix, Warner Brothers. Paramount, into all of these one giant corporation. It's wrong! It's wrong!

We can't keep putting all -- everything into the hands of just a few! It's what's killing us!

We've got to spread this around. We can't -- the government cannot okay mergers like this.

They're big enough he has

What happened -- what happened when the banks went under, or almost went under in '08. What did they say the problem was?

They said the banks are too big to fail.

Too big to fail.

Because they were providing all of the services, everybody needs. All the time. And there's only a handful of them.

So if they fall, then everything falls.

Right?

That was the problem. So what did we do to fix it?

We made them bigger!

We let them merge with other banks, and gobble up other things!

And started taking on the local banks.

And so now, your banks that were too big to fail. Are now even bigger. And their failure would be even worse!

What is wrong with us?

Seriously, we're not this stupid.

We're not this stupid.

I think we're just this comfortable.

We just think the experts have a plan. No. The experts don't have a plan.

Their plan is stupid. Their plan is to make it bigger.

Every time it fails. Make it bigger. Push it up.

Make it more global.

No. Haven't you seen what the entire world is like?

The entire world is over-leveraged. The entire world is on the edge.

The entire world is being redesigned.
So what do we do? We don't allow them to make things bigger! We need to start taking more individual and local control of things. They're making it bigger. Which will make the problem bigger. And make the problem so big, you won't be able to do anything about it, because all the experts. All of the heads. They'll all -- there will be six of them. And they will all be sitting in one room.

And they will all be making the instigations. And with them, making those decisions will be all the heads of all the countries around the world, that you're not going to have a say in any of that. They're already trying to do it with the WEF.

But if -- if the Supreme Court says, no, experts matter. And the president can't fire them. You will not have any control over anything!

We're at this place, where we can back out. We can turn around.

We can do it.

It's not too late. But the hour is growing very late.

I don't know about you, I don't like being this.

Up to the edge, you know what I mean?

I would rather have lots of breathing room, between me and the edge of the cliff.

But we don't have that anymore.

Everything has to be done right.

And we have to pay attention.

And the worst thing we can do is make things bigger.

Dream big, think small.