Best of the Program | Guests: Steve Baker & AG Andrew Bailey | 8/9/23

This podcast is supported by Progressive, a leader in RV Insurance.

RVs are for sharing adventures with family, friends, and even your pets.

So, if you bring your cats and dogs along for the ride, you'll want Progressive RV Insurance.

They protect your cats and dogs like family by offering up to $1,000 in optional coverage for vet bills in case of an RV accident, making it a great companion for the responsible pet owner who loves to travel.

See Progressive's other benefits and more when you quote RV Insurance at Progressive.com today.

Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates, pet injuries, and additional coverage and subject to policy terms.

A very important show today that you don't want to miss a second of.

Great laughs, hard, hard belly laughs,

but also

some of the most important things.

In fact, we have an argument about what the most important thing

in the history of man, what is the discovery or the news story, if you will,

besides the resurrection and the crucifixion of Christ, what is the biggest impact story?

It's happening right now, and I tell you about that in the podcast today.

Also, we talked about Andy No and what's happening with him, with Antifa, and that led to a very deep conversation on, you know, kind of

what Sean Connery said in The Untouchables.

What are you prepared to do?

It's the Chicago way.

What are we prepared to do?

All that and more on today's podcast.

This is sponsored by our good friends at Preborn.

One of these days, maybe in our lifetime, an end will come to abortion.

I used to think that if women's wombs were transparent and we could see the baby, that abortion would stop.

Well, we can now through ultrasound.

And it does change about 50% of the minds.

If you're a mom and you're going in and you're going to have an abortion, and if you have an ultrasound, the chances of saving that life double because of the ultrasound.

That's incredible.

We're not to the window of the womb yet, and we're not,

we're still losing this fight, but we are making great

inroads on this fight.

And the Ministry of Pre-Born stands every day for the helpless among us.

They give the free ultrasounds and the postnatal help for up to two years so the moms don't feel alone.

They feel like they have an option.

They feel like there's a loving place to go.

And they can save their baby.

Chances are that she'll choose life.

It doubles when you have an ultrasound.

Be part of that, will you?

An ultrasound is $28, $28 to save a life.

Dial pound250, say the keyword baby.

That's pound250, keyword baby, or go to preborn.com/slash glenn.

That's preborn.com/slash glenn.

You're listening to

the best of the benefit program.

Steve Baker, investigative journalist, joins us now.

Hello, Steve.

Hey, Glenn, how are you?

Well,

I'd be better if your story wasn't popping up on my radar.

Tell me how much of your

videotape that you have.

It's pretty much all available, right?

You're not hiding anything.

No, I'm not hiding anything at all.

I mean, other than the

unfortunate video that I took that day where I filmed my shoelaces at certain points, getting jostled around in the crowd.

But other than that, it's pretty much all out on the internet.

Right.

And

when they originally called you a couple of years ago, you said, hey, if you need the tape, you want anything,

you can have it.

I'll turn it over to you, right?

Yeah, that's exactly what happened.

I did a two-hour interview back in October of 21, and then they threatened me with prosecution in November of 21.

And then after that initial threat, we didn't hear from them again for 20 months, and that happened on this past Friday.

And what was it exactly that they were threatening you with?

Prosecution for what?

Well,

this is the absurdity of the original threat.

My attorney received an email the week before Thanksgiving of 21 from Assistant U.S.

Attorney Anita Eve in Pennsylvania saying that his client, meaning me, would be charged within the week.

And then there were some additional back and forths in which we learned that they were going to charge me, first of all, with property damage because at one point I stood on a bench inside the crypt area of the Capitol building.

I didn't damage the bench, but I was standing up to get above the crowd so that I could film what was going on.

And then the most absurd charge of all was that they were actually going to charge me with, and you're not going to believe this, interstate racketeering.

I'll let that sink in for a second.

Let me just say, interstate racketeering.

Yes.

I'm trying to make that work.

How did they make that work in their heads?

Well, assumably, I must have known about an illegal event that was taking place in D.C.

on January 6th.

Therefore, I colluded apparently with someone else, traveled across state lines, and then profited from the licensing of my videos to HBO, etc., etc.

This is insane.

This is insane.

We all knew.

I was on the air two days before or the day before saying, please don't go to Washington.

You don't know what's going to happen.

You don't know infiltration.

You don't know who's good, who's bad.

Please don't go to Washington.

Because I felt that there was, well, this kind of danger,

especially from the federal government.

And

now,

what, because you went, you had

foreknowledge?

Please,

everybody, all of the press was there on January 6th.

They were all there.

Oh, yeah, there was at least 100 reporters and journalists of all types, independent and otherwise, including some, at least one from the Blaze at the time, was there inside the building.

And then, of course,

the absurdity of that is that somehow, little old me from Raleigh, North Carolina, I had knowledge of a huge illegal event about the place.

Somehow the intelligence from the FBI, the Capitol Police, and et al.

They didn't know about it.

Yeah, except they did know about it.

And, you know,

of course, we communicate in the conservative circles through invisible smoke signals at night.

So, of course, you knew about it, too.

Now, you are only one of five journalists that have been given access to the 4,100 hours of January 6th video.

You've been meeting with Congress members and congressional investigators about the charges or the discoveries that you have found.

You were going to do, I assume you still are, going to be releasing a story on the blaze all about this.

I don't want to get ahead of the reporting here, but

do I have that understanding right first?

You've got all of that correct.

Okay.

And for some reason, as we're getting close to publish this story, for some reason, they come out of the blue to one of the five journalists who have had access to all of this, and now they're going to press charges.

Yeah, and let me give you kind of an exclusive advanced bombshell on this case, my case in particular.

I mentioned earlier that this original effort back in 2021, over 20 months ago, was presented to my attorney from Assistant U.

S.

Attorney Anita Eve out of Pennsylvania.

She also happens to be the exact same U.

S.

attorney who ordered the SWAT raid on the Pennsylvania abortion clinic protester

after his attorneys had cooperated for so many months with them, and then she would not return their emails, return their calls.

And then just one day on September 23rd of last year or the year before, twenty nineteen, maybe whatever it was, they suddenly showed up at his door with the red dots on his chest.

So how do you feel?

I mean, it's the same person.

It's the same DOJ,

the same kind of scenario.

I mean, are you married?

Do you have kids?

Have you talked about, you know, somebody coming to the front door and trying to pound it down with a SWAT team?

Yeah,

I am not married, but I have two grown children, and they are well aware of my activities and what I'm doing.

I've forewarned them that this day was potentially coming.

And they're proud of me.

They're proud of the work that I do, and they're fully supportive of me.

So I'm not worried about them and their reactions.

But, you know, I do have a dog with a loud mouth.

So obviously I'm concerned that if the red dots come through my bedroom window at 6 o'clock in the morning, that

we've seen how they treat dogs that bark at them.

So what does your attorney say?

I have a couple of attorneys.

I have my local Raleigh attorney, and then I engaged an attorney who practices in D.C.

back when the original threats of prosecution were taking place.

And they

have told me that this is obviously a, first of all, it's an intimidation

effort by the DOC.

But secondly, it appears that they're trying to entrap me in some sort of process crime because they didn't subpoena me directly.

They subpoenaed my videos.

And so whatever it is that they're looking for is what I think is that they're going to try and build a case of some sort of obstruction of justice, something like that, if they find missing elements or things don't line up with all of my stories for the last two and a half years, that sort of thing.

But

the reality, Glenn, is that simply

moving forward with this myself, I have no intention of stopping.

I mean, I was warned in the subpoena itself by

AUSA Anita Eve.

I mean,

I just want to read you one sentence from the subpoena cover letter.

She said, although you are not required to do so, you are requested not to disclose the existence of this subpoena.

Any such disclosure could impede the investigation being conducted and thereby interfere with the enforcement of law.

And that's what they're trying to do.

They're trying to entrap me in a process crime.

And they will keep your mouth shut.

And if you don't, if you do what you're doing right now, they're going to charge you with obstruction of justice because you were impeding the law enforcement just doing what it was trying to do.

That's exactly what it is.

And the worst aspect of all of these January 6th cases, and this is the thing that I've been warning America about through my own podcast and

blog and et cetera, et cetera, is I've been saying all along that the most dangerous aspect of nearly all of these J6 cases is the Department of Justice focus on speech and the

limiting of speech.

And it doesn't matter whether you're a parading grandma through the Capitol or it was the scary words of an oathkeeper leader, which, by the way, had nothing to do with January 6th.

It's those words that are being used to establish these incredibly ominous precedents in hundreds and hundreds of federal court cases

against political expression by those who deign to think, act, speak against the approved narrative.

Well, you're not alone.

Soon I will be

sharing some things

that

I've seen a letter very similar to that.

In fact, had that exact paragraph in it.

And

my family is being targeted, and

it will not stand.

It will not stand.

And

when we are ready to expose, we will.

But same with you.

Thank God you are brave enough to do this.

I want to talk to you about

what you

learned on January 6th and what you learned from the 41 hours without getting into the

story that you're writing.

Can you give us a little bit of a hint of what you found?

We'll do that coming up in just a second.

Steve Baker, investigative journalist, now being investigated.

Now he's an investigated journalist.

He's just received

a grand jury subpoena over the January 6th reporting that he did from the Capitol.

This is bad, gang, if they will do this.

I'm telling you, they will do this to anyone.

Everything they're doing to Donald Trump right now is not about Donald Trump.

It is about

Ron DeSantis.

It's about Vivek Ramaswamy.

It's

about you.

It's about me.

It's they're saying,

don't you ever, ever even think about challenging us because we have all of the tools and one way or another, we will destroy you or your family or your loved ones.

I don't want to get into it now, but I had a real spiritual experience where I believe

at one point, Satan just grabbed me by the throat and he said, You think, you think you know how I can destroy you?

I will destroy and tear your family apart.

That is exactly what our government is doing.

Steve, can you give us a little

hint of what you've found?

And also,

can you tell us, do you think that this

is because of your ongoing work in looking, being one of the five that have seen all of these

videotapes?

Or is it just a coincidence?

Well, it would be easy to

get conspiratorial about it because the timing is absurd and it's obviously suspicious.

But in terms of what I've found,

and I do believe that they are aware of what I'm looking at because I have been working directly not only with actual congressional investigators, I've been working with the Oversight Project investigators from the Heritage Foundation after the discoveries that I've made.

I felt like that it was important that I not keep this to myself as being the sole

person

with this information.

So I've read about 10 people in, including obviously the Blaise, into

this particular story.

But it all began for me when I began to watch the courtroom proceedings themselves.

I was actually there every single day of the first Oath Keepers trial for nine weeks, and I was in the media rooms at the courthouse covering that event.

And then what I learned was, and this was, you know, I wouldn't say it was shocking to me, but it was

definitely stark.

And that was that I was seeing the Department of Justice and and the FBI colluding in creating evidence that didn't exist out of whole cloth, and then also, of course, suppressing exculpatory evidence that should have been allowed into those trials.

And so after viewing that,

there was a particular moment, which I won't give away right here because it would reveal what the story is itself, that I had this eureka moment, and I went, oh my God.

This is a conspiracy onto the part of the Department of Justice to convict these men, and I think I can find it.

Well, it took many months before I was finally granted access to that $41,000 worth of tape.

So I knew what I was looking for when I got there.

And I had about six or seven other stories that I wanted to review during the three days of access that I had.

But as I began working on this one particular story, it became a day, then two days, and then I ended up spending all three days on it because it became bigger and bigger and bigger.

So while I won't reveal what that story is right now, because we'll do that later when the time is right, but the point is, is that I have, I'm just telling you, I'm telling the country right now, I have found the kill shot of actual Department of Justice FBI collusion in suppressing evidence and also in creating evidence that does not exist.

When are you expected to release this?

Has this

delayed things?

No,

the only delay that we're facing right now is that the

McCarthy team there at the

House offices where these videos are archived and presented,

they've hit the pause button on access.

I need about two more days in there to tighten it up, button it up, make sure that there's no loose ends.

And then I have been told that I will have a first

shot back into the video room once they issue a press release on their new media guidelines, policies, and procedures because the mainstream media coalition, New York Times, Politico, et cetera, et cetera,

sued the government for access because of the exclusive stories that Tucker was given access to at the time.

So, in response to that, they've had to create this new policy where they're going to grant everyone access.

And that I have been promised by those congressional staffers that I'm going to be first in.

That was supposed to be today, but that policy still has not been released yet.

Andrew, I'm anxious to see what you have.

Keep digging.

Continue to stand.

We will pray for you and your family.

Keep us up to speed on what's happening to you personally.

And we will look for your story with the blaze, hopefully very soon.

And

we want to thank Steve for being on with us.

Thank you, Steve.

This is the best of the Glenn Beck program, and we really want to thank you for listening.

Welcome to the Glenn Beck program.

We're glad you're here.

It's been incredible.

The last, well, the last two hours of this podcast.

If you've missed any of it, go and get the full thing wherever you get your podcast and subscribe and

also rate and review, if you will.

That helps the algorithm so new people will discover the show.

Andrew Bailey is with us now.

He was just sworn in as the Attorney General of the State of Missouri just last

23.

Yeah, last January.

He's a constitutional conservative.

He is a former military veteran.

He has two Army Achievement Medals, Army Accommodation Medal, Combat Action Badge, and two bronze stars.

He is currently focused on protecting the Constitution, enforcing the laws as written, defending the state of Missouri, supporting the counties, and training a whole new generation of service-minded attorneys, which is so important.

He's going to be in front of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday, tomorrow, and he's going to be arguing on behalf of you and the state, trying to get the stay that he has already won from the court that the government cannot continue to coerce and collude with social media companies to censor free speech.

He is with us now.

Hello, sir.

How are you?

Doing well, and thank you so much for having me on.

You bet.

So, by the way, you're a great replacement for

your last Attorney General, who

is now the Senate

of the United States.

You've already won in a lower court.

You are just saying you believe, and I do too, this is the biggest violation of freedom of speech in our nation's history.

COVID was the Trojan horse,

and

you've got to stay so

the government has to stop doing this.

What is the argument against this?

Well, that's a great point.

And this is all about protecting our constitutional right to free speech.

You know, the left has bought in completely that the government somehow gets a say in what we should and shouldn't be talking about on big tech social media.

that they get to any viewpoint that they disagree with, they will label as misinformation, disinformation, or malinformation, and then we'll demand censorship of that speech on big tech social media.

And it doesn't just harm the speaker, it harms the listeners as well.

The right to free speech is not just the one saying the words, it's the one receiving the words.

And so this is

the worst First Amendment violations in this nation's history.

History is not going to look kindly on the position the left has taken on this.

And it's amazing that the very people who are supposed to be, quote unquote, protecting us from misinformation are actually spreading misinformation by denying what core political speech is and it's the legacy of freedom of protecting that speech in this nation's history.

I'm trying to look up on one of the books.

I've narrowed it down to two books that I've written and I can't remember which one.

But I talk about the Sedition Act

and the arguments back and forth.

And

the founders and the people that were involved in the Alien and Sedition Act with John Adams and Thomas Jefferson,

they had brutal discussions and they finally came down on the fact that even lies,

knowing lies, need to be protected.

Otherwise, the government is the arbiter of all truth.

And we know that freedom of speech is to make sure that you can keep the government in check.

That's one of the most important parts of the First Amendment, is to be able to keep the government in check.

And if they can tell us what to say and not to say, and they can say, nope, that's a lie, that's not true, if they're the arbiters of that, then there is no freedom of speech to protect yourself against an out-of-control government.

So the First Amendment is meaningless.

That's absolutely right.

I mean, and I personally believe that like the founders, that the rights codified in the Bill of Rights come from God, not man, and the whole purpose is to protect us from government.

The idea that we would put the right to free speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion in the same very First Amendment because they're rights of conscience.

You know,

that symbolizes and signifies how important those rights are to the founders and that legacy of freedom that we've inherited from previous generations.

And it's up to us to protect it.

And just like the Sedition Act, history does not look kindly.

The Sedition Act was wrong when it happened.

Correct.

But a huge distinction, the Sedition act was passed by the people's elected representatives.

Now, they made a legal error in passing that legislation, but this is being done by federal bureaucrats with no congressional authorization.

So it's actually even worse.

Correct.

Correct.

Correct.

Do you believe that COVID was the trial run for all of the it gave them the cover to be able to figure out how to just circumvent entirely the First Amendment and really get it down with these social media companies?

Yes, COVID was the excuse that allowed the federal government or encouraged the federal government to coerce and demand censorship on big tech social media.

And they did that by threatening to repeal Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which is the economic boon to these companies that have allowed this monopoly to grow.

And when President Biden from the White House law said, Facebook, you're killing people.

We're going to take care of business if you don't up your censorship game.

That's a coercive threat.

And look at the emails that came out in the Facebook files that Congressman Jordan released just within the last few weeks.

I can, in my discovery, in my lawsuit, I can show you the rock being dropped in the pond and how the specific demands from the White House and across a spectrum of bureaucratic agencies to big tech saying, hey, take down these posts, de-emphasize that speech, de-platform those speakers.

But what Congressman Jordan has shown you is the ripples in the pond.

What was going on internally to Facebook as they were receiving these demands from the federal government and clearly

understood that they were acting at the demand of Joe Biden's White House and that they understood they were violating the First Amendment.

This is scary stuff.

I go back to my first question.

I know the Democratic attorney generals

have

filed a friend of a court brief, an amicus brief, to support Joe Biden's position.

What's their

They believe that it's a public safety issue, that the people can't be trusted to have free, fair, and open debate.

I mean, think about how frightening that is.

And if I'm on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, if I'm one of the judges on the three-judge panel that's going to hear oral argument this week, I'm going to look at the Department of Justice in the face and say, why is big tech social media any different?

Would you be allowed to mute a cell phone if Glenn Beck and Andrew Bailey were talking on a cell phone and said things you didn't like?

Would you be able to redact in a newspaper?

Would you be able to silence

a talking head on the television?

Why is big tech different?

The founding fathers understood that freedom of speech is a timeless principle.

It didn't matter that in the 1700s it was pamphlets.

In the 1930s, it was radio.

In the 1950s, it was television.

In the 1990s, it was internet.

Now it's big tech.

That doesn't matter.

The timeless principle remains the same.

And so, why is big tech any different?

So, you know, the First Amendment, I think people just think that it's,

I have a right to say these things.

The whole Bill of Rights was meant to control the government, to handcuff the government.

And there are five rights in the First Amendment.

The first one is freedom of religion.

Why did they have that?

Because the government had colluded and become a state religion.

And so religion was controlling people.

in cahoots with the government.

So that's why you don't have to be freedom of religion.

Government can't establish anything with religion.

You don't have to belong to a certain religion.

You can be an atheist if you want.

It doesn't matter.

The government cannot collude or tell religion what to do.

The next one is freedom of speech because, as you pointed out, the pamphlets.

You have to have a right to communicate and question things

and not just because I have a right to say he's a fatty, fat, fat so.

Yes, we have to tolerate all the speech that we find offensive, but it is made mainly so you can question your government.

Same with freedom of the press.

Same with right to assembly.

You can go and assemble in a group, and you have a right to do that because the government was breaking up groups that they didn't like.

And then the last one is the right to petition your government.

The entire First Amendment is not about, hey, I have a right to make pornography.

It is the right to question the government and say they are wrong.

How could you possibly lose this?

I completely agree with you.

And I would point out, too, the evidence that we put on, this isn't just Andrew Bailey making an argument and speculating.

We put on evidence in court back in May at the district court level.

And that's what led to the nationwide injunction.

And the evidence that we put on, three points to make.

Number one, exactly like you said, the speech that was censored was core political speech.

It was people questioning the effectiveness of the government's response to COVID.

That is core political speech.

It was illegal for the government to censor.

But secondly, all the speech that was censored as misinformation ended up being true.

So the people were denied the necessary information upon which they could have made personal health decisions.

It makes us less safe.

Third, the speech that was censored was exclusively conservative.

It's viewpoint discrimination because Joe Biden wants to silence and stifle any political opponent he's willing to weaponize the federal government to do it and violate our First Amendment rights in the process.

What does it mean

if you lose this tomorrow?

I mean, it'll go to the Supreme Court, but what does it mean

if this is not upheld eventually?

Well, I have confidence that the court's going to do the right thing here.

I mean, if you read the district court order from July 4th, 155 pages, but the majority of that document is just a recounting, an enumeration, a recitation of the evidence that we adduced.

That's how voluminous the evidence was in support of our position.

Only a small fraction of the 155-page order was the actual court directing the government what not to do.

And all the district court said was that the federal government is prohibited from colluding with big tech social media to silence political speech protected by the First Amendment.

All the court order says is the government can't violate the First Amendment.

What is there to appeal?

How can the Court of Appeals not affirm the district court decision?

It's okay to violate the First Amendment now?

I mean, the Department of Justice's position is laughable.

They say, well, we don't understand what we can and can't do.

Well, wait a minute.

The Department of Justice

Attorneys doesn't understand First Amendment case law.

It's laughable.

I mean, if it wasn't our constitutional rights at issue, it'd be a lot more comical.

I can't thank you enough,

Andrew, for standing up.

We're talking to Andrew Bailey.

He's the Missouri attorney general um we will keep you in our prayers tonight and tomorrow as you prepare and you deliver this argument uh tomorrow this seems like a no-brainer unfortunately there are many people that have no brains uh or have a political agenda that does not coincide with the bill of rights so we'll keep you in our prayers andrew thank you so much Thank you so much for having me on.

We'll keep fighting for our freedom of speech.

You're listening to the best of the Glenn Beck program.

Hey, Jack,

welcome to the program.

I am

shocked.

Thank you.

Shocked at

this story about Andy No

and what happened in this courtroom in Portland.

It is, I mean,

it's absolutely a movie that you wouldn't believe.

Well, Glenn, it's even beyond that because one of the only journalists that's actually been covering this every day was Katie Davis Court of the post-millennial.

And she's in there not only accosted by Antifa throughout the proceedings, following the proceedings, Glenn, when she walked back to her car, which was not parked near the courtroom, by the way, she found that all of her car windows had been smashed.

Items had been stolen.

She's still going through to figure out what was stolen.

She's got threats all across her Twitter just for the very act of reporting on journalism in which you have a journalist, Andy No,

attempting to find some way to receive justice for the fact that his own First Amendment rights, freedom of the press, we all used to agree on things like this, you know, little basic stuff there.

It's called the First Amendment.

And he's trying to find some way to get justice for what was done to him.

Because, Glenn, keep in mind, this is not the first time Andy has attempted to use the legal system

or at least go to the legal system for some kind of recompense.

He first filed charges for the assault that was later found not.

The judge found him guilty or found Andy to be a victim, but then also found that the Antifa attacker was not liable because he said Andy

provoked it.

He said that Andy had provoked it by tweeting about the man earlier than the actual event, even though the man tracked Andy No to a judge.

Oh,

Okay, so if you say something about

you say something about somebody, and they have a right to track you down and beat you within an inch of your life.

Huh?

Of course.

That's a new crime.

That's justice in Portland.

It's a different kind of justice, Glenn.

It's a little different than what the founders outlined in the Federalist Paper.

It's slightly different.

Maybe the son's a liberty.

Yeah, it's called social justice.

Now, listen,

the attorney, tell me about the attorney for the Antifa people, because I take this as an absolute threat, and I'd love your thought on this.

Well, so you're right.

So, this attorney who's representing, yeah, and you actually had two attorneys, one representing Hacker, one representing Richter, who are the two members of what I would say in the military was essentially a targeting cell of Antifa.

Now, because Antifa operates in black block, we can't know.

We essentially don't know exactly who the members of the black block were.

That's when they dress in black, they run up in masks and beat you within an inch of your life, has been done to Andy No.

multiple times, and yet he keeps going back because he wants to get the story.

He is that dogged about this, even knowing that, as happened in this situation, if found out, they will do exactly this to him.

He's doing his job for the post-millennial.

In this case, these two individuals, we know for a fact, targeted Andy, they doxxed him, and they were giving live updates in real time on Twitter as they were chasing Andy Nose through the streets of Portland one night.

He's gone down this street, he's just made a right, it's like you're in mission impossible.

The guy's over the ear.

Oh, he we found him, he just went into this hotel, he's holed up inside the hotel, you know, the hotel's trying to get rid of him.

These are the people that in the military, we would call this essentially a terrorist targeting cell, where they're giving the directions to the terrorists that are on the ground, trying to potentially chase an operative or maybe an infiltrator, an agent, maybe even an interpreter, like something you would see in Afghanistan or Syria.

This was happening on the streets of an American city, which, oh, by the way, was around the same time that another member of Antifa, Michael Forrest-Reinhole, decided to summarily execute a Trump supporter on the streets of Portland.

So this is all going around around the same timeframe.

And so, Andy knows that potentially he could be killed because of the actions by these Antifa members.

This is on video.

You have them actually showing up to the hotel after the beating.

We have them on video there, egging it on.

We have their tweets, we have their text messages, they had signal messages, ones that came up in discovery, but the judge later said the jury wasn't allowed to take a look at because they were deemed immaterial.

They were then found not liable.

And

the attorney for them essentially stated that

the whole thing came down to this.

The whole argument came down to, well, Andy does it too because he posts people's pictures after they've been arrested.

That's a journalist.

I mean, every newspaper has done that forever.

So

you have this

attorney and says, I'm going to remember all of your faces.

Is that just a,

because you were such a great jury and I just always want to remember you fondly?

Or was that a threat?

Glenn, when you're operating in a situation like this, the jury and in these courtrooms, keep in mind that that justice center of Portland is right down the street from where the federal courthouse in Portland was ransacked for 57 nights during the George Floyd riots by Antifa members.

Night after night after night, federal law enforcement tried in vain in

many cases to arrest and protect the courthouse, but they were not allowed out into the rest of the area because the governor didn't allow it.

The governor didn't

call for the activation of federal assets.

And so these jurors that are coming in there understand.

right they implicitly understand that they still have to live in portland they still have to go to work in portland their children their family members, elderly family members, their friends, wherever they're going around, they're all still there.

So that lawyer says to them, I will remember your faces.

And the judge even said, and Glenn, it was multiple times throughout the trial that there were threats of doxing, of releasing the identities of the jurors that were going on.

This is the same type of stuff that echoes some of the darkest moments of America's history.

It is.

I mean, I honestly, if you're you're a reasonable human being, I do not know why after this ruling, after everything else, but this, the way this was done,

get the hell out of Portland and Oregon.

If this is going to be tolerated, you're living in,

I don't even know,

Nazi Germany or you're living in some drug cartel

country.

This is not America.

And Antifa says that they're anti-fascist and they were they were really formed to go against the nazis at the nazis had the brown shirts at the time these were the black shirts they were both just as bad the nazis were uh perhaps a little worse because they had organizing powers in the government which I think is happening here.

They would get all kinds of breaks, you know, in court and everything else.

But they are using exactly this this is the brown shirt army it's just a black shirt army on the streets of America doing exactly what the Nazis did to the population to get them to obey turn a blind eye and shut up you disagree with that Jack

oh I think that's exactly right and I would even add that they the original iteration of Antifa as you correctly describe in Weimar Germany they didn't directly go after the Nazis they like to say that today, but they actually, in many cases, worked with the brown shirts because their real target was what they called the fascism of their day.

What was that?

It wasn't Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party.

It was the ruling government.

It was the republic.

The republic was their target for destabilization and the later overthrow.

And so everyone must understand that when they say they are talking about fascism,

they're describing the current government of the republic.

That's what they define as fascism.

They define banks as fascism, churches, any institution in the country, the legal system itself, even though in this case they've threatened the legal system to do their bidding.

That is what they define as fascism.

And at the time, it actually came down directly from Stalin that they were to focus on the Weimar Republic, destabilizing it because they thought that they'd be able to take over the Weimar Republic.

That's not exactly how it worked out.

So, Jack, I need to take a break.

And then

you tweeted something.

Results like Andy No ruling today show the nature of the fight for 2024.

If you don't have the guts for that fight, get out of the way.

This is not time for a policy debate.

Marquesse of Queensbury Republicans are not built for this.

I want to understand exactly what you mean by that, because I think it's really important that

we know what each other are saying and what we are preaching for.

Jack, what did you mean by that tweet?

So, Glenn, what I mean by this is that you've got so many Republicans up in Washington, D.C., and really throughout the country, quite frankly, that still think that this is the 1980s, the 1990s, and we can just go along to get along.

We can play fair.

We can sort of

keep the gloves on and shake hands and go hang out with Tip O'Neill after a hard-fought legislative session.

Meanwhile, though, you've got one side that's willing to use lawfare, that's willing to abuse the system, that's willing to put political opponents in jail.

And regardless of what you think of Trump, that is exactly what they are doing right now.

They've arrested him

twice now, by my count, at the federal level, once

at the state level, and there's probably another one coming up.

And so if you've got one side, that's willing to use the power of the system against their political opponents, and then another side that says, oh, no, we can't do that because that wouldn't be nice.

Which side do you think is going to win?

So

here's my question.

And

I think this is a discussion that we have to have openly.

When I worked at Fox, Roger Ail said something to me.

He said, Glenn, we all love the Constitution, but at times there are things we just have to do.

No, I'm sorry.

The Bill of Rights are the Bill of Rights, and it's the only thing that protects all of us.

And I'm not looking for an unchecked power on the right, just like I don't want a dictatorship on the left.

I don't want one on the right.

George Washington said we didn't overthrow one dictator to replace him with another, or tyrant was his word.

So are you, what are you suggesting?

You're not suggesting that we use extra constitutional powers, are you?

Well, no, Glenn, I mean, keep in mind, if I was going to be announcing that, I wouldn't be posting it on Twitter.

But, no, in all seriousness,

what we need to be doing is looking at the powers of government as they are currently constituted.

For example, did Hunter Biden commit any of these crimes within a jurisdiction that has a Republican Attorney General or a Republican

attorney in one of these cities?

Why not file charges against 100% of bank bank accounts?

Yes.

Tommy Tuverville right now.

Tommy Tuverville is holding up every single higher level

flag officer appointment promotion within the Department of Defense because the Department of Defense is currently allowing, illegally, by the way, allowing for the federal travel funding for the federal travel for abortions.

These are the types of system shocks that Republicans need to start looking at.

Is that the normal course of things?

Is that the way the system is supposed to work?

Yeah, probably not.

But is it within the bounds of the Constitution?

Of course it is.

That's what we need to do.

Yeah, no, I'm speaking of.

That's number one.

System shock.

I want system shock Republicans.

And if people like Tubers are looking at that, that's great.

Jack Smith, how is he getting funded?

Why aren't we bringing Jack?

Why isn't the House, Matt Gates had a thing yesterday?

Why don't we bring Jack Smith up before the House and make him testify?

And if he refuses to testify, hold him in contempt and see how that works.

So, Jack, is this a problem that is really

revolving around old school Republicans like Mitch McConnell that I think are either part of it, sold, they don't know what's going on, they still think it's 1985?

Because I think Chip Roy is a patriot, is a constitutionalist, and he's a shock to the system.

And every constitutional tool we have, we should use.

well, I think that this is something that Strauss and Howe lay out in their book Generations, where they describe the fourth turning.

And Glenn, we are in a fourth turning now.

We are currently in it.

The crisis has not ended yet, by the way.

And so they talk about how in

most people within a generation, their worldview is concrete.

It is formed based on the world as it was constituted during their childhood.

And then they carry that worldview all the way with them forward.

Now, that's not to say that corruption doesn't exist.

That's not to say that people are not bought off, that people who have been in Washington for far too long don't understand what's happening out in the rest of the world because it's like Hungary is right now.

We've got the districts versus the capital, and the people within the capital are using and exploiting the districts for whatever they want, except, you know, our war isn't,

you know, our children aren't going to war in

on TV.

They're just going over to Hungary and Afghanistan and all these other places.

And we watch that on TV.

We support it through Twitter.

And so the problem is you've got essentially two types, right?

But the effect is still the same.

Whether or not they don't get it or whether it's corrupt, the consequences are still the same.

Because whether or not you are willing to face the fourth turning, we are in it.

I agree.

And if anybody's not reading,

what is it?

The fourth turning is now or something like that, the latest

on the fourth turning, you're missing out.

That is a really, really good read.

Jack, I appreciate it.

I'd love to sit down and talk to you some more about these things because I think

we are hitting a moment that the Weimar Republic hit, and we have to be extraordinarily careful on how we play this, but we have to play it with the brass knuckles of the Constitution.

Sorry, violation of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

We're going after you.

And I completely agree.

Where are the local district attorneys that are willing to take on Hunter Biden and all of those crimes that happen all across America?

No, no, no, no.

Your sausage mcbuffin with egg didn't change.

Your receipt did.

The sausage mcmuffin with egg extra value meal includes a hash brown and a small coffee for just five dollars,

only at McDonald's for a limited time.

Prices and participation may vary.