Best of The Program | Guests: Justin Haskins & Andrew McCarthy | 10/26/20

Bundle and safe with Expedia.

You were made to follow your favorite band and from the front row, we were made to quietly save you more.

Expedia, made to travel.

Savings vary and subject to availability, flight inclusive packages are at all protected.

Hey, Stu, we're eight days away from what?

Either a celebration or suicide.

I'm not sure.

Gloatfest or pity party?

Yeah,

it really is.

We're eight days away from the election.

We want to go over some of the polls today,

see what's happening.

They seem to be tightening a bit.

Yeah, there's some evidence of that.

I kind of expect that to happen, but we'll see how it goes.

It's too close to call in most states.

Yeah,

amazing.

It's an amazing thing.

Amazing thing to watch.

I'm ready for it to be over, though.

Including Texas.

We'll get into all of that here in just a second.

Also,

the great reset and what it means if Joe Biden is elected next week.

What will America go through?

We're doing a special on Wednesday night at 8 p.m.

Eastern Time about

what does the first hundred days of Joe Biden look like if he would win.

It's more terrifying because we're using their own words and their plans.

It's more terrifying than even what we lay out today.

And what we lay out on today's podcast is pretty bad.

That and also the Hunter Biden scandal.

What's new?

Is the press still not saying anything about it?

And what is the cure for the Facebook, Twitter banishing of the First Amendment?

All that more on today's podcast.

You're listening to

the best of the Blenbeck program.

Mr.

Pat Gray joins us from the

Pat Gray Radio Roundup with his cowboy orchestra.

Welcome.

Thank you.

Good to be here.

Pat Gray Unleashed is the podcast.

You can hear him on Blaze Radio.

He records it every morning before this program.

And then you can hear it wherever podcasts are

heard, which I don't know where that is.

Phone booths, you know, in some of the sketchiest parts of town.

Hardware stores.

I've heard, yes.

A lot of hardware stores carry the podcast.

Welcome to the program, Pat.

Thank you.

We're just talking about the polls and

if they're accurate or not.

And, you know, I hope that everybody is a little freaked out.

I hope that Trump supporters are freaked out because you should be.

You know, the Biden people, the polls are showing.

The polls are showing Biden, you know, ahead by 47 points.

And Biden people are freaking out.

Now, part of that is PSD from last time.

Yes, I think that's a big part of it.

Right, but they are, but they are freaking out, which means they're really motivated to go to the polls.

I think Trump supporters are very motivated, but we are also a little,

I think Texas could be very surprised.

I just saw Paul where he's down by three in Texas, which I don't believe.

But

I also saw where, okay, 60 million people have voted already.

They keep saying 60 million people have already voted.

And they claim that it's a 51-26 Democrat to Republican split on that.

5126?

What?

With 60 million people?

But that's what they've been telling people to do.

What?

Go out.

Go out vote early.

Everybody else has been like, I'm not voting early.

I don't think my vote's going to count.

But I think I would not be stunned that after this election, we realized that was the single biggest strategic mistake of the Trump campaign.

Yeah, I kind of of feel like

they encouraged people to say, no, look, the mail voting thing is a fraud.

Don't do that.

Go on election day.

And they did it for weeks and weeks and weeks and weeks.

And, you know, look, Democrats are always a little bit more likely to do early voting, but not like this.

People are like, okay, I'm not going to do it.

I'm going to go to the polls.

And you should.

Go to the polls today.

If you have

today.

We're saying, go vote early.

Just vote with the regular way.

Don't do a paper paper ballot.

That's what the message has been.

But

vote early.

Go vote early.

As you point out, you guys done that yet?

I'm going to go today, hopefully.

Me too.

As we point out, Pat, there is this, if you have 60 million votes and it's basically two to one, you're talking about.

So right now,

banked votes, and we don't know exactly because we're only talking about party registration.

But at this point, it's basically that would give you a 20 million vote lead for Joe Biden going in

if you kind of summarize this, right?

Now, look, I don't know for sure if that's real, but the point is

you expect the election day vote to go heavily in favor of Trump.

The bigger this gets, though.

Yeah, the worse it is.

And God forbid there's a terrible snowstorm on

Election Day, which could happen.

Shut up, shut up.

You have to shut up.

Shut up.

Or

hurricanes.

Storm Superstorm Sandy.

Shut up, shut up, shut up, shut up.

And this is the reason why people like the early voting thing when you're a candidate, right?

Is because you get to lock these people in, right?

They've already voted.

And then you, not only do you have the vote for sure, so the person does it, can't come up with an excuse on election day, you know, because what if there's a COVID flare-up or something?

There's a lot of reasons you can't get to the polls.

The other thing they like about it, though, is they no longer have to spend resources to make sure that person goes to vote.

So this entire time for Republicans, they need to come back and harass these voters over and over again to go to the polls.

Once these people vote on the Democratic side, they're like, okay, zero dollars get to go towards that person.

And I know it's not exactly said like that, but they can take large swaths of their expected electorate and stop spending resources on them.

So it's a money thing, too.

It's a money, it's a resource thing.

It's why they like the early vote so much, right?

And it is, I think, a legitimate point that Republicans have made during this process to say, hey, is it sensible for people to be voting four weeks before a a debate?

Like, that's not a good idea.

It's not at all.

There's too much to learn.

No.

And there's too much that happens between late September and November 3rd when you're supposed to vote.

Yeah, it's way too long.

I think, you know, if you want to vote early, isn't the two-week time period

kind of a nutshell?

It seems sensible.

It's reasonable.

Look, I mean, even within that two-week time period, look at what we have seen now happen with Joe Biden.

Right.

I mean, look at that information.

Is there there anyone that regrets it or will regret it by the time the election comes?

Is there anybody that voted for Joe Biden?

I doubt it.

I don't think they do.

Oh, no, man.

This is really bad.

This is really, really bad.

They don't believe it.

They don't believe it.

He's just passing it off as Russian disinformation.

He knows.

Well, then, explain why the New York Times in 2018 did a story on the very thing that we now have proof of.

The New York Times said it looks like, and if this is true, it's really bad.

And now we have the evidence of it.

I mean, I know.

I mean, it's crazy.

It's just.

I know, but they let him off the hook.

Savannah Guthrie last night on 60 Minutes just let him say it without challenging it at all.

She doesn't say, no, Joe,

the computer has been verified as his, and so have the emails.

So don't tell me this came from a Russian.

Here she is.

Here she is last night.

Do you believe the recent leak leak of material allegedly from Hunter's computer is part of a Russian disinformation campaign?

From what I've read and know, the intelligence community warned the president that Giuliani was being fed disinformation from the Russians.

And

that is that Putin is trying very hard to spread disinformation about Joe Biden.

We know that.

And so when you put the combination of

Giuliani, the president together,

it's just what it is.

It's a smear campaign.

Just what it is.

There's nothing he wants to talk about.

What is he running on?

What?

I don't know.

It's incredible.

It's incredible.

Did you notice the way he put it, though?

It had nothing to do with her question.

Nothing to do with her question.

Yeah, good thing she asked a follow-up.

Oh, no, no, she didn't.

Yeah.

But let me ask you this.

Does it matter

that the excitement level is so different?

The excitement level for, for instance, on Saturday, 130 cars pulled up to a Biden drive-in rally.

That wasn't as bad as the Barack Obama rally

where 400 people total showed up.

For Barack Obama.

For Barack Obama and

the Democrats.

There's nobody showing up to these things.

I was at a Trump rally, you know, the Trump train.

My wife is like, she is the conductor of the Trump train.

Oh, my gosh.

Yeah, she is just like, she said to me, I think Friday night,

tomorrow morning, we're going to the Trump store.

And I'm like, Trump store, what is the Trump store?

And she's like, there's a Trump store.

You don't know there's a Trump store?

There's a Trump store and then blah, blah, blah.

And she says, and I'm like, okay, why are we going to the Trump store?

Because we're going to the Trump train on Sunday.

We're We're going, what?

When?

What are we doing?

Sunday afternoon.

There's a big Trump rally.

We're going to the rally.

And I'm like, oh, oh, okay, dear.

Yeah, I mean, it's, but it was, it was amazing to see because it was peaceful, it was really upbeat, it was packed.

And people said, when I started talking to people,

the

one thing I heard that

I thought

this is who the Trump people are.

They said, I have no problem if Trump loses and

it's real.

I have no problem with that.

But I am so terrified.

They have problems with it.

Yeah, they have problems with that.

Yeah, you're not going to go to the city.

They're not going to say it was a fake election.

Yeah.

And they said, if he would just, if it was fair and that's what the American people said.

You accept it.

They said we would accept it.

And they said,

and I asked, so if that happened and you thought it was fair, would you tell Donald Trump to leave if some reason?

And they all laughed and they're like, of course he would leave.

And I said, right.

But

if they were right and he didn't, would you be on this?

And they said, of course we would.

We want the American system and we want it to be fair.

But all of them thought that there's no way it was going to be fair.

And that's, and that I get up this morning, I'm listening to, I don't know, NPR or something.

And

there are these people on who are, you know, working to secure the ballots, and we're fighting in court to make sure that we can count them nine days later.

And they said, you know, the problem is that Donald Trump is going to steal this election.

So both sides are thinking that it's going to be a stolen election.

It's so dangerous.

So dangerous because that's the one thing that would cause us to be at each other's throats.

Did you see Biden bragging about the largest fraudulent voter organization he's ever put together.

It's not yes, it is.

No, it's not.

Play it.

Play it there.

Yes, it is.

And you guys

did it for our administration, the President Obama's administration before this.

We have put together, I think, the most

extensive and inclusive voter fraud

organization in the history of American politics.

That's his own workers.

That's its own

work.

And to be clear, he looked like he looked out in Red Bay.

So he meant it.

He meant it.

Yeah, that was.

He's put together the largest voter fraud organization in American history.

There's so many proud of it.

Right.

There's so many people that are retweeting this with that point of view.

They're like, look, he's admitted it.

No, that's not what he was talking about.

That's not what he said.

He also, this weekend, thought he was running against George W.

Bush.

So you can't really trust that

he knows what he's talking about.

I'm just saying.

The best of the Glenbeck program.

Justin Haskins, he's the editorial director for the Heartland Institute.

He's also the co-author of

a new book we're working on right now

called The Great Reset.

He's editor-in-chief of stoppingsocialism.com.

Been a fan of the program for a long time, and I've been a fan of his for a long time.

It's funny because, Justin, you called me, what was it,

two months ago, and said, We've got to do a book on the Great Reset.

And then I was just about to call you and say, We've got to do a book on the Great Reset.

Because it is terrifying.

It's out in the open, shockingly going to be the full issue of Time magazine.

They don't seem to be afraid of it, and it is barreling towards us.

Yeah, that's exactly exactly right.

And just think about how astounding it is that Time magazine, just less than two weeks before the election, would devote an entire issue to this one topic.

That shows you just how important it is to people on the left and just how powerful this movement is going to be if Joe Biden wins.

Okay, so here's the thing I want you to know: if you go to theblaze.com or you go to glennbeck.com, we have an article on it right now that you can spread with your friends.

So remember, listen in the the next few minutes.

And when you want to share with your friends what's going on, make sure you grab the article at glennbeck.com or theblaze.com on the Great Reset.

So where do we begin?

I mean, I feel like we should start with this is not a conspiracy theory.

This is the world leaders are all involved in this.

Yes, that's right.

I mean, the Great Reset is an extremely well-documented idea.

The Great Reset isn't something that you or I came up with.

This is the language that they've used.

They've branded it as part of a marketing campaign calling the Great Reset.

And the whole concept of the Great Reset is they're going to push the reset button on the global economy.

That's what they want to do.

And so I don't think, I think it is important for people to understand that this isn't some right-wing conspiracy.

This is what they want.

The head of the World Economic Forum, Klaus Schwab, the biggest advocate of the Great Reset I know, in the world,

says that every country from the United States to China must participate in this great reset, and every industry from oil and gas to tech must be transformed.

In short, we need a great reset of capitalism.

And he talks about revamping all aspects of our societies and economies, from education to social contracts and working conditions.

This is coming straight from his mouth.

This is an incredibly radical and dangerous idea.

And corporations from all over the world,

the International Monetary Fund, the United Nations, Prince Charles, all sorts of Americans are all lining up behind it.

And this is not, again, this is straight from their mouths.

This is what they want.

They want to blow up the world economy and start all over again.

Well, then.

And that's what the Great Reset's all about.

The crazy thing is, is that we have blown up the economy.

And

I'm not saying that

I'm saying that Corona was a

very useful emergency, but it is why everything is being shut down.

It is why everyone keeps saying, keep the economy closed, we can't go to school, we can't, they need the economy of the West to collapse to be able to do this.

It will only be in a collapse, that a full collapse, that they will be able to convince the American people to go along with this.

And it's a new sort of capitalism, and you'll read about this in Time magazine, a new sort of capitalism that is,

wow, strangely sounds like Chinese communism.

It is a capitalism where, sure,

you're allowed to own your own business, but...

You have to change the way you look at things.

The government, you'll be partners with the government, and the government will tell you what is really needed, and they'll tell you exactly how to run everything.

And you're going to pay a lot more in taxes.

But that's because we're more community-minded.

It's terrifying.

Yeah,

that's exactly right.

It's the state managing private property ownership.

But really, is it private property ownership if the state is the one forcing you to behave in certain ways, telling you who you have to have on your board of directors, heavily incentivizing people with gigantic infusions of government printed cash or punishing people with taxes, of businesses that they don't like.

I mean,

it's the state managing the economy under the guise of private property ownership and, you know, let's just do what's in the best interest of the collective.

And they call it stakeholder capitalism.

Stakeholder is just another way of saying the collective.

It's collectivist capitalism, essentially, which I think is an oxymoron.

It is.

And really, it's not capitalism at all.

What it is, is it's a form of socialism or some kind of fascism or we've seen this all the time.

Let's call it what it is.

Wait, wait, wait.

Let's call it what it is.

It has been practiced before.

It is currently being practiced in China and it was practiced the last time in Nazi Germany.

You were allowed to own your own properties, but the state told you exactly what you had to do with it, and

they had the power to take away or to punish anyone who didn't fall in line with what the state said was best for the collective.

Period, that's what it is.

It is communism in China today, where they call it this quasi-capitalism, or it's the fascism of the Nazis.

That's what it is.

Period.

Yep, that's right.

And just going back to what I said before when I was quoting Klaus Schwab, and he says, every country must participate, must participate, and every industry must be transformed.

I mean, that's, it doesn't get any clearer than that.

What they're after is putting the elites,

not just in America, but all over the world, completely transforming society so that elites are controlling the entire economy because, you know, we're a bunch of stupid sheep and they're much smarter than we are.

That's how they look at the world.

And now they're seeing COVID-19 as a convenient justification for starting this process.

And they use climate change as the long-term justification for keeping it going when the pandemic eventually ends.

And again, this isn't a theory.

This is them talking about these things.

They're the ones calling this a justification.

Prince Charles called COVID-19 a golden opportunity to enact this

great reset.

So do all of the people involved.

Listen to this quote.

This is from Time magazine.

In September,

my belief was a more virtuous capitalist system is possible.

And it was reaffirmed by an initiative of the Forum's International Business Council led by Brian Monahan Monahan of the Bank of America.

They released the stakeholder capitalism metrics.

So the metrics are, what is the gender pay gap in Company X?

How many people of diverse backgrounds were hired and promoted?

What progress has the company made towards reducing its greenhouse gas emissions?

How much did the company pay in taxes globally per jurisdiction?

And what did the company do to hire and train new employees?

They will have a federal office, I'm sorry, a global office, if they get their way,

that

will

go and look at all of these metrics for every single business in the world.

I don't know about you, but that doesn't sound fun.

No, no, that's exactly right.

And a lot of this stuff was spelled out.

The principles were spelled out in Agenda 21, the United Nations Agenda 2030, the sustainable development goals, and all of these these things.

What this is is it's an attempt to take those sustainable development goals that came from Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030 and impose those on corporations and businesses and how they behave so that it's not just what government is doing in government programs, it's how government can force businesses and corporations to do those same things, to enact those sustainable development goals.

So it's forcing businesses to become leftist institutions, engage in social justice causes, and you're going to use the power of the government through regulations, through taxes, through incentives, and all these other things to force these companies to engage in this behavior.

That's the plan, and it's incredibly well documented.

And it is being sold now by Time Magazine, the entire

edition of Time Magazine.

Is it this week or next week?

Do you know?

It already came out.

It already came out.

So it is out now, and I suggest that you get it and read it.

The Great Reset calls for the introduction of far-left progressive and socialist policies such as government-run health care, imagine that, basic income, and the Green New Deal.

If adopted, the Great Reset won't be subtle.

a radical and dramatic departure from the existing capitalist system and one that would demand changes to America and the the world's social contract.

In an article published on the World Economic Forum's website, Schwab said,

The world must act jointly and swiftly to revamp all aspects of our societies and economies, from education to social contract to working conditions.

Every country, from the United States to China, must participate, and every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed.

In short, we need a great reset of capitalism.

End quote.

This is something you must understand before Election Day.

If the Democrats get in, the great reset will be part of the American society.

It will become what we are,

a stakeholder capitalist society.

That's how they're selling either fascism just exactly the way the Nazis had it or Chinese communism.

If you believe that that is the way America should go, then you should vote for the Democrats.

If you believe it shouldn't,

you might understand why they're fighting so hard to make sure that Donald Trump is destroyed.

This is something that you must understand and the article is available now at Glenbeck.com.

Also, theblaze.com.

Don't miss it.

It is

the full edition of this week's Time magazine.

This is the best of the Glenbeck program.

Andy McCarthy is a contributing editor at the National Review, senior fellow at the National Review Institute, and former chief assistant U.S.

Attorney.

He has written

an article that I think is worth your time, How to Put a Stop to Twitter's gameplaying on censorship with the Hunter Biden emails.

Welcome to the program, Andy.

Glenn, great to be with you.

So it is really hard to keep all of these leaks straight.

I mean, they seem to be coming from everywhere, the laptop, the emails from Schizer, the Bevan Cooney emails, and now text messages from Tony Bobolinski.

Any reason to believe that these things are illegitimate?

I don't think so, Glenn.

I thought that even before

we got the

later two strands of information, so when the story was just the post story before we got the

latest stuff from Schweitzer and the Bobolinski stuff,

I thought

if you looked at the computer, the evidence, and the first thing a prosecutor or any investigator looks at when they're trying to decide an

authenticity question is the stuff itself.

Because if it looks fraudulent or if it doesn't look like it is what it's represented to be, then you don't have to go to all the other questions about its provenance.

And contextually,

the emails fit with a lot of stuff that Peter Schweitzer had already done a lot of investigative scut work on.

So contextually, it fit, and there's thousands of these photographs.

So the idea, the photographs and videos, the idea that they had been phonied up seemed highly unlikely.

And of course, the most important thing was they wouldn't come out and say it was fake.

In fact, the first impulse the Biden campaign had when they were asked about whether Vice President Biden had met with this Barisma official was to check the official calendar.

You know, if they thought the stuff was fraudulent, you would figure their first impulse would be, why should we check the calendar?

It's all fake, phony, whatever.

So, you know, I thought that was pretty strong.

And now we have these two other entirely separate streams of the same information, which are both corroborative.

and very informative in their own right.

So the notion that this is not authentic to me is just, it's frivolous at this point.

Okay, so I just want to ask you

as a

U.S.

attorney, you were a U.S.

attorney at Southern District of New York as a prosecutor.

Some of the messages revealed by the Daily Caller have been criticized because they came apparently from a phone that appeared to be connected to a Russian cell service.

A, what do you make about that?

I haven't seen anybody say that they were falsified.

Is it fair?

I mean, I feel uncomfortable with things coming from Russia.

Should these outlets be more clear where they came from?

And just because it's connected to a Russian cell phone, does that make a difference to you as a prosecutor?

It would put my antenna up,

but at the same time, you know, I think you have to bear a few things in mind since we've become so irrational about Russia in the last four years.

One of them is that the fact that something comes from Russia doesn't mean it's false.

You know, a lot of times the Russians dump information on us that is embarrassing and difficult to deal with because it's true.

And, you know, for example, the Democratic, the DNC emails in 2016,

the reason the hacking and the publication of them was an embarrassment for Democrats was because they were authentic.

So, you know, the fact that Russia rears its head in something

is a red flag for an investigator, meaning you always have to be on guard that you're getting something that could be misinformation or could be phonied up.

But it's at least equally likely that there's true information that is embarrassing and difficult for us to deal with.

So you do what you would do in any instance.

I mean, I learned when I was a prosecutor that, you know, we took information from terrorists, we took information from hitmen, we took information from the most awful people on the planet.

You do your homework, you know, they give it to you and you take it because they may be the only sources of that kind of information that you get.

You know, we don't get upstanding members of the community to give us information about criminal activity, but then you do your homework on it and try to corroborate it.

So the

laptop itself was given to the FBI,

I believe last December.

Rudy Giuliani didn't get a copy of it until a week ago.

I think it was a week ago last weekend.

And

he then pushed it out.

Why wouldn't the FBI release this information?

Why has it taken so long?

I assume that some of it may have been that they were slow to act on it.

I understand that the first FBI office that got offered the information didn't accept it.

Why?

And, you know, we still haven't got, I don't know the answer to that.

We haven't gotten good answers from the FBI about the way this has been handled.

And that's the kind of thing Congress really has to bring Ray in and ask them some questions about what they did here.

But to give them the benefit of the doubt,

I think it looks like

there is a serious ongoing investigation about this that is centered in the Baltimore field office.

I think, Glenn, the story I heard was that

the fellow who had the computer first tried to give it to the FBI in Albuquerque, and then ultimately it was taken by the FBI in Baltimore by virtue of a subpoena, grand jury subpoena that was issued by the U.S.

Attorney in Delaware.

And there's no reason to think that they're not doing a serious investigation on it.

But, you know, if you're investigating, evidently they're looking at money laundering.

That's according to the coding that we have from some reporting about how they opened the investigation.

And, you know, we know from the Manafort investigation that

Mueller did, when you're dealing with funding streams that are from outside the country or a lot of the information, a lot of the records, a lot of the witnesses are outside the country, that stuff is not easy to run down.

With the questioning by the Senate of Tony Bobolinski,

do you think we'll see any criminal charges for Biden without direct evidence that he was personally receiving some of the money?

I mean, is it enough to go on the email that says, hey, 10 needs to be held for my dad, or I'm sorry, for the big guy, when you have Bobolinski saying, you know, he was the big guy.

That's Joe Biden.

To me, that's not enough evidence to bring a charge, but it's enough evidence to build a case on.

And I think what you would want is

to see is this a one-off, which might make it very tough to prosecute, or is it a pattern of behavior that

you can prove?

And the other thing to bear in mind about this is that the Supreme Court has made these corruption cases very difficult to prosecute since the McDonnell decision about three or four years back involving the governor of Virginia.

You almost have to have strong bribery type evidence of a clear quid pro quo.

And part of the reason this is all going to be difficult is for a lot of this stuff, I think that sort of smoking gun

text message or email that we're talking about, my recollection is that Biden wasn't in office at the time.

I think that was 2017.

So, you know, they may have a, obviously it stinks to high heaven, and it's obvious corruption in a common sense kind of way.

But in terms of, is this a

crime that you could prove in court, where you can prove a quid pro quo beyond a reasonable doubt under circumstances where you're dealing with all these different entities and people will come in and say, well, you know, Hunter Biden was a really bright guy.

That was why we wanted him on our board.

You know,

you have to make sure you have evidence to overcome all that.

I wanted to get you on to talk to you about

the whole smell of this Hunter Biden thing.

And there's another stench that is coming up, and that is the fact that this is really kind of becoming dangerous to talk about.

Twitter and Facebook shut down the New York Post, social media making it hard for anyone else, and not only on this story, but but anything they deem damaging to their chosen candidate.

What are your thoughts on this?

Well, I'm as astonished as you are, Glenn, by how blatant it is.

It's been obvious for a long time

to conservatives.

Yeah,

but I just think that it's a broad shot of conservatives, and the sort of camouflage of it is Trump.

So, you know, for a long time, they've taken the position that Trump is such an unusual president and he was elected under such unusual circumstances, you know, losing the popular vote by as much as he did, yet eking out a victory in the Electoral College, that the story is that he's illegitimate.

And they have used that as

basically a rationale to treat him differently than any president has ever been treated.

And now it's kind of bled over, I think, to treating

people

in his camp or perceived to be in his camp.

And in particular, any stories that might help him get elected

are looked at with the same taint of illegitimacy that they have basically tried to bake for four years.

And now that we're down to the short strokes, it's really become embarrassingly blatant that they are politically in the tank for this guy.

This is not like a media thing.

This is an adjunct to a partisan political effort.

It's quite amazing because we fight the censors all the time.

They have suppressed us.

Recently, I did a story on the ancestors of

Joe Biden owning slaves.

We had one of the best

researchers and researcher firm of genealogy in the country do the report.

They gave it to us, and it was all clear, all buttoned up.

But it still took us days and days while they were suppressing us.

By the way, we just got a letter last night saying, oh, Joe, guess you're right.

But they suppressed us and suppressed that story.

Yeah, I think it's even

more insidious than that, Glenn.

I've had the experience now three times in the last several days where I sat down and went through Twitter and tried to retweet a couple of things.

Something that we had, an editorial we had put out at National Review about the Hunter Biden stuff, a report by a terrific reporter named Jerry Dunlevy at the Washington Examiner on some of the same information, and one other story, I can't remember what it was off the top of my head.

But as soon as you try to retweet it, they put a little sign up that says, wouldn't you like to read this first?

Like, you know, I mean, they have no way of knowing whether you have or you haven't, but I bet you they don't do that for, I know they don't do it for Google Storyboard.

I can guarantee it.

Yeah, so

I just think it's creepy

how this has happened.

Not just their tactics, but the fact that they

don't seem to be ashamed or embarrassed in any way at how obvious it is that they're putting their thumb on the scale for one partisan side.

So what do you see, Andy, happening if Joe Biden wins and the Democrats win?

I mean, you know, I think even the Republicans have lost their nerve, some of them, not all of them, but some of them have lost their nerve going up against these guys.

And they will, you know, only a few Republicans are actually threatening to do something.

The Republicans that did threaten to do something say,

we're bringing a subpoena against these guys.

You come to

now.

The other Republicans wussed out and said, well, we'll wait until after the election.

Yeah, I'm worried, Glenn, that they will join with, that you'll get elements on the right and elements of the left that'll come together and do something that'll be bad for the country.

I mean, we have a situation here that obviously needs to be addressed, but I think it can be addressed by amending

the provision that controls all this, or is supposed to, Section 230, in a way that takes ambiguity out and makes it clear that if you're going to engage in content editorializing, any way that you're going to shape content, if you're going to let stuff go from one side but not the other side, then you should be treated like a publisher.

And that doesn't mean that you're doing anything that's illegal.

You're allowed to be a left-wing website if that's what you want to be, but that's what you are.

And if you want to have the status of an internet

media platform that

in an even-handed way just transmits information so that you can get immunity from lawsuits, then you can't editorialize by content.

It seems to me that would be the easiest way to do it.

The best line in one of your write-ups was immunity is a benefit.

Lack of immunity is not a punishment.

Yeah, right.

And I think we need to see it that way.

What I'm afraid of is that these guys are going to get together and have a government board

oversee

how

these outfits operate.

And that's a disaster for everyone.

Yeah, that is.

Well, let me ask you, why is that a disaster?

Well, because we'd have the, that's exactly what we have a First Amendment not to allow, which is the government.

to shape content and to shape our political discussions and to decide what is and isn't appropriate political discussion.

It's terrifying what we're facing.

We'll find out which direction the country chooses in eight days from now.

Andy, thank you so much.

We'll check in again with you, my friend.