Best of the Program | Guests: Alan Dershowitz & Robert Roos | 6/21/23

For a limited time at McDonald's, get a Big Mac extra-value meal for $8.

That means two all-beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun, and medium fries, and a drink.

We may need to change that jingle.

Prices and participation may vary.

All right, today's podcast.

Uh, there's a lot, a lot to learn.

First hour, we take you through history and compare then and now.

What are the seeds that we're seeing not only planted, but beginning to bear fruit that not really a good, not really good.

Don't eat the fruit.

Don't eat the fruit.

I think somebody else said that.

Oh, yeah, it was God.

Don't eat the fruit.

Unfortunately, they went on and did.

The next hour is a fascinating hour with a guy from the Netherlands, Sweden,

Czechoslovakia.

I don't know.

Finland.

He's from Norway, and I don't know what that can take.

It's from...

No, he's not from Norway.

Just say it's from overseas.

Oh, yeah.

The Netherlands.

The Netherlands.

That's where he's from.

I thought you were kidding.

You don't really, really don't remember where he was from.

Yeah, no,

I really.

I know he's in the general cold region that everybody avoids.

Anyway, so he was on.

He's an outspoken EU member of parliament who is.

He knows his business on food, on energy, and everything else that is going on in the world.

He's got quite a warning and a plea as well to Americans.

And then we take on the Donald Trump case and we look at both sides.

Or at least we thought somebody who was very strong for the case on Donald Trump saying, no, it's no big deal.

And we thought somebody, because we listened to the media, was saying, no, this one is serious.

This one really could do some damage and he might go to jail.

Alan Dershowitz.

We find out in this interview, that's not what he said.

And he addresses that.

It's a very frank interview with Alan Dershowitz, all on today's podcast.

Brought to you by Jace Medical.

Jace Medical is, I mean, I think they're a godsend.

For anybody who will take them up on this, I think you will not regret it.

Doesn't have to be catastrophic failure and, you know, pigs and dogs making out at porno clubs.

It doesn't have to be that.

Well, that'll happen soon.

Oh, it'll happen.

Anyway,

Jace Medical has introduced JACE Daily.

Now, this is for, let's say,

we have a shortage of drugs.

Oh, that'll never happen.

Let's say we have a shortage of medication.

Let's say we have another

supply chain breakdown.

All of these things could happen.

What happens to all of those people who are on high cholesterol drugs, diabetes drugs, blood pressure, mental health, what happens to those people if they can't get any of those medications for a month, two months?

How many people are alive, including me, that probably shouldn't be alive, but through pharmaceuticals, you're reducing your blood pressure and everything else and you're still alive?

Jace Medical has put together Jace Daily, which will allow you to get a prescription supply service to get 12 months backup supply of your prescription medication just in case of an emergency.

Be prepared.

JaceMedical.com.

Enter the promo code Beck at checkout for a discount on your order.

That's promo code Beck.

Jace, J-A-S-E, JaceMedical.com.

JaceMedical.com, promo code Beck.

You're listening to

the best of the Blend Blenbeck program.

Rob Rose is a member of the European Parliament.

He is Dutch and he is with us now.

And we were just talking off the air a little bit about your history.

Tell me,

what did you do before you got into politics?

I was an entrepreneur.

I founded a couple of companies.

I bought companies.

I merged them.

And in 2016, I sold most of my companies.

And

well, that was at the moment.

I was...

No, it was starting earlier.

I thought it's not going very well in the Netherlands

with

our politicians and the way we are heading.

You have the new Green Deal, we have the Green Deal.

I had an engineering, I'm an electrical engineer, that's my background.

And I had an engineering company

in energy, so I know pretty much about that

and

and also in telecom but in 2016 I sold the most of it and well I had some extra time by then and I

well I start I start helping a new political party in the Netherlands and yeah I know you weren't you weren't a member of any party

I sponsored them but I was not even

I I didn't become a member of that party because that was a very intelligent young guy and he was very very enthusiastic.

And I said, I'm so happy that someone is picking up the glass to do this.

And

well, but to make a long story short,

I ended up in the European Parliament.

And it's incredible what I see there.

It's all about

it's all about gender, it's all about climate.

And

I thought that politics was meant to be to make people's lives better and not more expensive and more complicated.

I am

amazed that

people all over the world have put up with what they have already gone through.

We are being told to disregard what we see, disregard common sense, scientific method.

None of it makes any sense.

And yet we're still kind of taking it.

You seeing a difference in

I see exactly the same.

And that's why I'm here in the United States, to create

an alliance,

because

our Western way of life is in danger.

And

in the European Parliament, I'm the vice president of the European Conservatives and Reformists.

And that's one of the groups.

But it's common sense.

It's what President Trump said.

Call me a

conservative, call me a classic liberal.

For me, it's just common sense.

And I have exactly the same.

There is no common sense anymore.

What they are doing is

we're heading in a certain direction.

And that certain direction, that means that democracy is moving away from people.

It's all top-down.

that

the things are coming in like Agenda 2030, this gender policy,

also this

climate policy.

Hang on just a second.

Do you have your phone on you?

Yes.

Can we remove it from the studio?

Yeah.

Or turn it off.

It's just creating a little interface.

But go ahead.

Yeah.

Sorry about that.

No, no.

So

democracy is moving away from the people.

It's not what people ask for, and it's all top-down.

For example, Agenda 2030,

I was one of the negotiators on that file in the European Parliament, and

it was welcomed by most of all my colleagues

with a big applause.

But if you look at this 17 sustainable development goals, it's not helping the people.

For example,

zero hunger,

no poverty.

It's not possible.

Well, it is possible, but I'm from the Netherlands, and we have

the Netherlands is 16 times smaller than Texas.

We are a very tiny country.

And I will say, you're a wonderful country.

Yes.

And I love the way you look at things and the system works for you.

But you're not the United States of America.

We are the most diverse society ever.

And now with the diversity that is coming into the Netherlands, it's getting dicey.

Isn't it?

Yes,

we have a lot of the same problems yeah um

but but but making my point about this uh zero hunger yeah um

we we are the second largest food producer of the world after the united states

i didn't know that until recently it is astounding and but but now they want to get rid of 50 percent of the cuddle

our government because we have a nitrogen problem uh-huh it's it's it's it's too too stupid to explain because i

if I tell the story, you cannot believe it.

But

also we have to get rid of 3,000 of our farmers.

But if you want zero hunger,

you have to produce food.

If we need more farmers,

but our farmers are very, very efficient and also

huge innovation and they are doing so well.

So it doesn't make sense.

Because if you look, they say we have to save the planet, but we have to produce that food somewhere else so

they yeah well I mean I don't know if they've noticed this but a lot of people live where you can't grow food that's the point you know what I mean and so when you talk about in one of the sustainable

ideas is to get rid of shipping get rid of shipping yes yes

Where are the people that live in the actual food deserts going to get their food?

And if you're the second largest producer because they are putting the they're just grinding the farmer here in america and the rancher into the ground exactly the same but you guys are ahead yes you guys are ahead we are the first and uh but we see this also have you seen that in in ireland they the 60 000 cows they have to they get rid of and it's also happening in france and in spain already and i had a

very

wonderful discussion with commissioner uh sid miller and he said said it's it's it's also happening now in the United States.

He had an example of

a family, they had a farm for

centuries, generation on generation,

17,000 acres and they had a problem with the fence and

so they tried to

repair it, but there was still one nail not right.

So they took off this 17,000 acres of this farmer here in the United States also.

And

so they they they're making it impossible.

Yes, but that's also with the climate.

The climate policy.

We have

created our own energy problems.

In 2010, Europe was energy exporting, like the United States was energy exporting under President Trump.

Now we depend on, let's call them, not the most

friendly and reliable and freedom-loving.

That's the point.

So

we can produce our own energy very easily, but we make ourselves depend on Russians.

What is it going to take for people in your country, in our country, to wake up to this?

Well, this is the problem.

For me, it's the fight for freedom.

That's why I went into politics.

And what I discovered is this fight for freedom is not for

scary people.

You have to speak out.

And but most of the people are are captured in a system.

That's what I call it.

They can lose the jobs.

They they need a job because they need an income to to to

to to survive, to live.

And

but when you speak out, that was also during COVID.

Whatever you think about that, but these restrictions were ridiculous.

But but people kept silence.

Even m the people in my own political party said, Rob,

you should not speak about this because there is no

political advantage in doing that.

I said,

but you called yourself a classic liberal and you're not fighting for freedom?

Yeah.

So what are you doing here?

Correct.

Classical liberalism is really, truly, I think, what could unite all of us

again.

But it's a little frightening to be in the same position that the world has been in before.

I mean, China said, hey, we're going to farm everything differently.

And that was, what, 11 million deaths?

Or was that 20 million deaths in their five-year plan?

Yes.

Then you had

Russia do the same, killing millions, but they knew better and they'd replace the farmers.

We're doing all of these things over and over again.

When these things have happened in the past in the United States, but I think think we're different now, and not in a good way.

The United States always had the Bill of Rights, and so we had an understanding of what we were fighting for.

We weren't fighting for freedom, we were fighting for universal rights that were clearly spelled out and opportunity to be who we want to be and pursue our own happiness.

In Europe, you don't have you, your left and right can be

fascism and communism.

And the same people try to just play in the middle there a little bit.

You can keep both of those things away.

What does it mean to be a conservative in Europe?

Because I'm afraid of

nationalism and fascism rearing its ugly head again here in my country.

but also in Europe.

Yeah,

I think we have a lot of things in common.

We have a shared past and I also believe that we have a shared future.

Because the Western society, in 1950, we were 30% of the population on this planet.

Now we are only 14%.

So the Western society is shrinking.

And we have, of course, external threat.

You meant China already.

But

I think the most important threat is our cultural war.

And you name it left and right, but I call it, let's say,

the globalist and the sovereignist.

I agree.

And

the fight to,

yeah, I call it the fight for freedom because what we see is

free speech is under attack.

The fight of disinformation.

I'm doing a lot of legislation.

I'm in the environmental committee and I'm also in the energy committee.

And

we see the central bank digital currencies coming up,

the digital identity.

If you combine those two,

you have a perfect way to control people.

Okay, will you explain that?

I think this audience, for the most part, understands that, but a lot don't.

And I think it was only 20%, if I saw a poll, only 25%

even know what a CBDC is.

And they confuse it with Bitcoin.

It is absolutely not Bitcoin.

So let me take a one-minute break, and then we'll come back and have you explain what you just said.

What does that mean?

This is the best of the Glenbeck program.

And don't forget, rate us on iTunes.

We're with Rob Rose.

He is a member of the European Parliament from the Netherlands.

So explain

to somebody who really doesn't understand what CBDC is and how it will control every aspect of your life.

I can explain it in a very simple way.

It's not money.

It's a coupon.

It's a what?

A coupon.

A coupon.

It's a coupon.

And you can...

Wait, wait, wait.

Explain that.

Yes, I will explain that.

It's a coupon

because they can,

if it's programmable, and that's the discussion now,

they can say,

okay, we put your money on the central bank digital currency.

And you can use that money in that time of period, and you can spend it on that and that and that item.

So,

boy, this is a brilliant way to explain it.

I never heard anybody say that.

It's a coupon, which at the bottom of the coupon, it always says some restrictions do apply, expires at this date.

Yes, that's how you can.

You can't,

you, you, and there's no way to withdraw from the system.

Can you imagine that we had this

problem in Europe with this Swiss bank, but also here in the United States with

SVB.

Yes.

And of course,

if things getting out of hand and there is a bank run, then

things get nasty.

But if you have a central bank digital currency, it's not a problem anymore because you switch off the system.

No one can do anything.

Correct.

And they are in complete control.

You know what's crazy is I've said this.

I don't know if you know who Ray Kurzweil is, but he is a guy I've read for decades.

He's a futurist, and he's part of

this transhumanism kind of stuff.

Oh, yes, yes, yes.

And he was talking to me about, this is 15 years ago, about the things that were coming and how we're going to be able to implant things and you're going to have the two-way control.

All of it's horrible.

And I said, Ray, if you are keeping me alive by the things that I'm transmitting and you're putting into me,

what happens if I fall out of favor and you just turn me off?

off his response was oh we would never do that yes I didn't feel comfortable with that and Amazon just shut down here in Americas

somebody's smart home just shut them down for a week

because an Amazon deliverer said that they had made a racist comment which the tape shows didn't happen but Amazon didn't even call they just shut them down you're no longer a part of this no if they say we should never,

no,

we will never do that.

Our system is not based on trust.

Our system is based on checks and balances and oversight.

So

we,

and if you look at history, we can learn from Trump.

Thank you.

The best of the Glen Beck program.

Welcome to the Glen Beck program.

So when

Trump was indicted last week, I I was on vacation and I was not paying attention to the news.

And I mentioned it on Monday when I came back, but I told you I wanted to really get the best minds on both sides and talk to them.

And because there's people who

like,

have defended Trump and may like Trump, but

one of those, who I think is very credible on this, because he has defended Trump time and time and time and and time again, written books about it,

now says this is real trouble.

And his name is Alan Dershowitz.

So I just had this is no big deal.

We can win this.

And he says there's real trouble.

So let's get the real trouble side now from Alan Dershowitz.

Hi, Alan.

How are you?

Hey, how are you?

There's real trouble, but that doesn't mean that it can't be won.

This is a very, very serious charge.

You know, in my book, Get Trump, I predicted all of this.

I also predicted the indictment of Hunter Biden on minimal charges in order to demonstrate the claim that there's equal justice.

But the problem with Donald Trump is illustrated by that plaque that some people have in their homes with a stuffed fish on it that says, if I had only kept my mouth shut, I'd still be swimming.

All of Trump's problems come from his own statements.

What he said, the most serious one, is what he said to a writer who was writing a book on Meadows, in which he allegedly showed him some classified material.

He says it wasn't.

He said it's just newspapers.

You hear on the tape apparently rustling, and I don't know what the facts are.

And saying, I could have declassified this, but I didn't, so it's still secret.

That seems like the government will use it as an admission that he didn't declassify everything.

If he hadn't said that, his claim of declassification would be very strong.

Then he spoke to his lawyers.

Now, I don't think those statements should ever be admissible.

Those are lawyer-client privilege statements.

Where I would be fighting like hell to keep those out because I can't talk to my clients anymore as a result of that ruling.

So I watched enough Perry Mason, and I know that's not actual law.

But

if you break the bond of attorney-client privilege,

sometimes you're working with a dummy like me, and I'm like, I don't know what happens if we don't give them to them.

Well, I'm asking for your legal opinion.

What if you tell it to a priest?

What if you say to a priest,

you know,

I know this would be a sin, but I'm thinking perhaps maybe of not giving it over.

And the priest says, no, you must give it over.

Or you talk to your doctor.

All these privileges are now at risk.

as a result of this terrible decision made by judges who were handpicked by the special prosecutor.

Remember, the case is in Florida, but this special prosecutor brought these legal motions to compel the lawyers to speak in D.C.

where he knew he'd get a more favorable court.

So he was judge shopping, and then he got his favorable rulings, and then he takes the case to Florida.

Wow.

And I would hope the Florida Court would look at that in a very, very critical light because, as I say, I have to tell my clients now, don't ask me any questions because I may have to disclose them.

I'm not taking notes anymore with clients.

I'm not turning over anything that my clients tell me in confidence just because some court says, you know, and then there's this absurd thing of a tank team where if you say something's lawyer-client privilege, the government says, all right, we'll pick some government lawyers who have lunch every day with the prosecutors.

and who stand next to them in the urinal every day, and we will allow them to look at the lawyer-client privilege material, read them, and oh, they promise they won't with a wing or not say anything to the prosecution.

That's what's happening now.

And Judge Cannon had the courage to write a decision saying, No, she was going to appoint an independent judge, a former judge, a great judge in New York, to look over the lawyer-client-classified materials.

And the court said, No, no, no, no, that's special treatment for Trump.

No, that's what everybody should get.

So, the crime, uh, the crime fraud exception to attorney client privilege, you don't buy into that here?

I buy into it in general, but I have to tell you, I've done 250 cases involving criminal defendants.

I would say in half of them, the conversation included some reference to maybe if I went to Brazil, I couldn't get caught.

No, you can't do that.

You'll get caught.

But, you know, the client raises all kinds of questions.

That's what ⁇ that's why it's confidential.

Correct.

It's the same as the

correct.

Isn't it the same reason why we have the presidential confidentiality when you're talking to the president in the oval and you're brainstorming?

People don't want to say things that maybe are unpopular or will say things that are maybe crazy in hindsight, but you're brainstorming.

I don't want that on the record.

I want to be able to have a private conversation.

If you can't have that, you don't really have anything.

No, I agree with you.

Look, when I taught at Harvard for 50 years, I would say to my students, what you say in in this class is confidential.

And you can be as speculative as you want.

You can say any wild thing about criminal law.

You can make statements that you would be ashamed to have made public.

This is for a Socratic discussion.

And in Socratic discussions, anything goes.

The indictment doesn't ever mention the Presidential Records Act.

Or the word espionage.

Or the word espionage.

That's being thrown around all over the place.

Yeah.

So

where is, I mean, because I have gathered from what I've read from you that this serious charge, and he's going to have a hard time.

Why?

It sounds like there's a lot of other legal issues to really go after.

There are.

And that's why it's not a slam-done case.

That's why the case should never have been brought.

I said that you don't bring a case against a man, forget about former president.

You don't bring a case against the man who's running to become the president against the incumbent head of your party unless you have a slam-dunk case.

Now, I think they have a case, but it's not a slam-dunk case.

There are these legal issues involving lawyer-client privilege.

The government doesn't have the piece of paper that was waved allegedly in front of this writer, so they have a hard time proving that.

They have to deal with the classification issue.

It's a winnable case, but it's also a losable case.

Whereas the case in New York is absurd.

Case in New York, the prosecutor should be disciplined disciplined for bringing it.

In 60 years of this, doing this business, I've never seen a weaker indictment than New York.

I cannot say that about the Florida case.

That doesn't mean it's going to end up with Trump being convicted, particularly since the trial is in a fair district, unlike Manhattan.

I love Manhattan.

I live in Manhattan, but you can't get a fair trial for Donald Trump in Manhattan.

Maybe you can in Palm Beach County.

Okay, so

let me take you through the crazy scenario that

he goes to trial in the middle of an election season.

He's convicted, sentenced.

What does this look like?

We've never, we didn't do this with Nixon.

We've never done this before.

What does this look like?

Hope we'll never do it again.

Nobody knows what it looks like.

The only thing we know for sure is he can run for president even if he's in prison.

Eugene V.

Debs ran for president when he was in prison.

Curley became mayor of Boston while he was in prison.

The Constitution specifies only several criteria, and the Constitution means what it says.

So you can run.

You can even serve as president while in prison.

That's not going to happen.

Judge is not going to sentence him to prison.

So these crimes, these crimes did not endanger national security.

They are not espionage.

The media is throwing around the term espionage.

The first thing that has to happen is this trial must be on television.

We, the American people, do not trust the media to tell us the truth about the trial.

If you watch MSNBC and CNN and read the New York Times, you're going to think it's an open and shut case of guilt.

And if you see other networks, you're going to see it's an open and shut case of innocence.

You know, I was a lawyer in the O.J.

Simpson case.

There was a poll that showed that people who actually watched the trial on television were not surprised at the murder, but people who read about it in the newspapers were shocked beyond belief.

We have to be able to see this trial.

And the word espionage should not be allowed to be used in the trial by the prosecutor.

And if he does use it, there should be a mistrial with prejudice.

Why is espionage, where did they even get that?

It's the name of the statute.

It's as if Congress passed a statute entitled the Child Molestation and Insider Trading Act.

And they indict somebody for insider trading, and they go in front of the jury and say, this man has been indicted under the child molestation and insider trading act.

Wow.

That's the name of the statute.

It was passed in 1917 to go after war resistors, mostly religious people who had a conscientious objection about going to the First World War.

And Woodrow Wilson passed the Espionage Act, which had very little to do with espionage.

It had mostly to do with dissent and whistleblowing.

And all of the whistleblowers have been indicted under the Espionage Act.

I've defended many anti-war protesters and other dissenters under the Espionage Act.

And the government loves to use the word espionage.

But there's no allegation here that Alan

went to foreign enemies.

Real quick, I've only got about two minutes.

We're talking to Alan Dershowitz, host of the Dersh Show.

It's a podcast.

It's great.

Also, the author of Get Trump.

Tell me your thoughts on Hunter Biden and what's just happened.

What's happened is we don't know.

If he just did the three things he was indicted for, then it's a fair plea bargain.

Most people who are late in their taxes don't even get indicted.

I do think that

filing a gun license application if you're a cocaine addict and not disclosing that is actually a more serious crime.

But that's a fair result.

But what about what he wasn't indicted for?

What about the investigations that are going on about Barisma, about those alleged 17 tape recordings, including two with the president?

What about

the

other information that we have, the laptop, a laptop top?

We don't have anything about that, and therefore I think there's a special obligation on this prosecutor to issue a report.

He has to issue a report to Garland, but then Garland should make it public.

So we should know whether there was an adequate investigation from what he was charged with.

The sentencing seems correct.

But if there was information that we don't know about that would incriminate on these other things.

Why would this thing take four years?

Four years.

I can't imagine the resources that they spent for misdemeanors.

Well, the only explanation is that they did look into barisma.

They did look into the laptop

and they found nothing.

But I want to know that.

I want to see that with my own eyes.

I don't want to read that in the New York Times or MSNBC or CNN.

I don't believe them.

I want to see it with my own eyes.

I want to hear that tape with my own ears.

And I want to see the trial of Donald Trump on television.

So I can make a judgment, and you can make a judgment for ourselves.

We will believe our eyes, not what we read in the papers.

I will tell you that you are a great example of that.

Just now, I had a different opinion of what you had said on Donald Trump than I do walking away.

Of course.

My wife said the same thing.

My wife came to me and said, oh my God, did you see what they say you said about Donald Trump?

I said, that's the headline.

Read the article.

Read the actual quotes.

And she reads the actual quotes and said, oh my God, you didn't say anything like that.

Unbelievable.

But CNN did that to me.

They doctored a tape of what I said on the floor of the Senate and made me say, which I didn't say, that a president could commit murder and not be impeached.

They just doctored a tape, and the Times believed it, and other newspapers believed it.

Now there's a lawsuit.

So you've got to see it with your own eyes more today than ever before.

Alan Dershowitz, thank you very much, sir.

My pleasure.

Thank you.

Always great to have you on.

Our sponsor this half hour is Lifelock.

Is that what you thought his opinion was?

No.

No, I think you nailed it.

The summaries have not been accurate.

It's like, wait, what?

Hang on.

Anyway, what he just said seems reasonable.

Seems reasonable.

Say hello to the next generation of Zendesk AI agents, built to deliver resolutions for everyone.

Zendesk AI agents easily deploy in minutes, not months, to resolve 30% of customer and employee interactions on day one, quickly turning monotonous tasks into autonomous solutions.

Loved by over 10,000 companies, Zendesk AI makes service teams more efficient, businesses run better, and your customers happier.

That's the Zendesk AI effect.

Find out more at zendesk.com.