Best of the Program | Guests: Senator Ted Cruz & Bill O'Reilly | 1/24/20

Hey, it's Friday.

Got a great Friday show for you.

Right out of the box with Senator Ted Cruz.

Then we go over some of the evidence that, you know, they, if I can use the word evidence, can I use the word evidence?

For day two of the impeachment trial, Bill O'Reilly stops in.

Then we continue on this crazy timeline that the New York Times was actually defending from the trial.

What's good in theaters this weekend?

And Elizabeth Warren is confronted by a dad who is not, I don't think, even political at all.

Just mad, he's lived the right life.

He's worked hard to save money for his daughter's college.

She's worked since she was 10 to save money.

Does he get his money back?

Elizabeth Warren's response is unusual and expected, but you're looking at another Joe the Plumber against a socialist.

You're listening to the best of the Glenbeck program.

All right, let's go to Senator Ted Cruz.

Hello, Senator.

How are you, sir?

I'm doing terrific, Glenn.

How are you doing?

Good.

I want to talk about your new podcast on this.

Every day, you're distilling all of the things that you are, but I also want to ask you personally: I can't take this, this just relentless going over the same quote-unquote facts over and over and over again and the lies.

What is it like to have to sit there and not say anything and not have any distractions?

What is this like for you?

Well, it has been pretty relentless.

You're right that the

House Democrats, their strategy has apparently been to just be so redundant, to repeat the same things over and over and over again.

and to try to,

I guess, bore the American people to death.

It's a strange strategy.

I've never seen anyone try a case by repeating the same point 100 times and playing the same video clip 100 times.

But it's what they're doing.

And they've got another day of it.

We start today at 1 p.m.

again, and

they have another nine hours left of their 24-hour opening argument.

So at least that will be done by this evening.

Has there been anything that has opened anybody's mind and went, no, wait a minute, hang on.

I didn't know that.

they, have they made any good points?

You know, look, I think there have been moments, I will say, Adam Schiff is a talented trial lawyer.

Really?

He has done, he is effective at walking through information.

Now, he at times gets condescending and begins lecturing people, and I think that becomes much less effective.

But when he's not on his high horse,

he does an effective job of walking through various facts.

Now, he ignores the other side completely.

He ignores the counter arguments.

And I'll tell you, I think yesterday was a very consequential day because yesterday, the House managers effectively threw Joe Biden under the bus.

And I don't know if they did so intentionally or not.

But the reason they did so is they doubled down on what they had started doing on the first day of arguments, which is making the case, their entire case now is based on the proposition that there is zero evidence that justifies investigating Burisma.

Burisma is the Ukrainian natural gas company on whose board Hunter Biden, Joe Biden's son, sat and was paid a million bucks a year.

And their whole case now is based on the proposition that

there was an investigation into Burisma was a fraud, a sham, it was bogus, that it was completely without merit.

And the only reason anyone might want to investigate Burisma is because of improper political motives, because Joe Biden would be the president's,

one of his possible opponents in 2020.

Now, as you know, and you've done some great reporting on this, Glenn,

that proposition that there's zero evidence to investigate Burisma is utterly and completely absurd.

And so I am looking forward to Saturday.

when the president's lawyers will begin presenting his case because what the Democrats have done is they have opened the door to this and i hope that the that the president's lawyer lawyers will stand up and systematically lay out the case glenn you mentioned i've launched a podcast the podcast is verdict with ted cruise and what i'm doing is every night when this thing ends even if it ends at two in the morning i'm heading over to the studio jumping in the truck heading to the studio and recording it that night typically within the hour.

My thoughts, my assessments, about a half hour each night, and last night's podcast that we recorded just after midnight, went through systematically, here is all of the overwhelming evidence of corruption from Burisma that any president not only had the authority to investigate, but the responsibility to investigate.

And that ultimately is why President Trump's going to be acquitted at the end of this process.

So you made quite a statement the other day.

You said, hey, they just opened themselves up for Hunter Biden being a witness.

Tell me about, because you've mentioned it in, I think, Wednesday's podcast,

the Republican secret weapon.

Tell me what you mean by that and how you see this playing out.

So the phrase, open the door, it's a phrase you'll see trial lawyers and litigators often make reference to.

And what it means is when one side makes an issue contested, makes an issue important to their case, It opens the door then for the other side to bring in the reputation of that.

So when they stand up, yesterday, the House managers stood up absurdly and argued for about an hour that there's no reason at all to investigate Burisma.

That opens the door to, well,

here are all the reasons.

And that means they've been arguing Hunter Biden is completely irrelevant to this case.

Well, the House managers have now,

through their arguments, made Hunter Biden not only relevant, he was always relevant, but critical now because their case is based on that they've built the entire case like a house of cards on the proposition that that that that that there was no reasonable basis to investigate burisma and and that that's just absurd so i haven't heard your uh your podcast yet on on burisma and everything else but do you tie in the fact that what was his name kalov kolovshovsky i can't remember his name but the the head guy of burisma is also the head guy of pravatbank and the money was going through

uh going through burisma to Provat Bank, and then it all disappears.

I mean, it's the same guy, and

they're doing an investigation now.

Yes,

and he's a Ukrainian oligarch

who has been investigated, has assets seized for money laundering.

And Joe Biden was right in the middle of this.

And as you know, but not enough people across the country know, Joe Biden bragged about, I mean, was proud of that he threatened to hold up a billion billion dollars in Ukrainian aid in foreign loan guarantees

unless and until Ukraine fired the prosecutor that was investigating Burisma, the company that was paying his son $1 million a year.

I mean, it is.

I mean, he also claims that there wasn't an investigation going on at the time, and we have the court documents to show that it was filed, and we also have inside State Department memos where

they are notifying and saying

there's an investigation starting.

What should we do?

Blah, blah, blah.

I mean, we know they knew there was an investigation going on, and Hunter Biden was one of the targets when Joe Biden sat down and said, You gotta, you, you gotta, you gotta fire this corrupt prosecutor.

So, their entire case is built on

really, I don't know how to say it other than this, lies,

verifiable lies.

That is exactly right.

You know, last night after I did the show, I tweeted out a timeline.

My Twitter handle is at Ted Cruz, and you can see the timeline.

If you want to look at one document, it just lays out some of the key facts that played out.

And the timeline is damning.

If you want to understand what happened, you just look at the timeline of the key facts.

And as everything played out,

it appears clear on its face that Burisma was paying a million bucks a year to the vice president's son because they wanted to curry favor.

They wanted the vice president to help him out.

And it sure looks like Joe Biden was

in on the deal and more than happy to apply because he delivered everything they wanted.

So

the thing with the witnesses,

John Bolton, what are your thoughts on John Bolton and the whistleblower and Hunter Biden?

Any of this going to happen?

So I don't know.

It's an open question, and it's not clear.

The way it's going to play out, House managers have another day of opening arguments today.

The President's lawyers have up to three days.

They have Saturday.

They have Monday.

They have Tuesday

if they want to take it.

I don't know that they'll take all three days.

We then move into questions from senators, 16 hours of questions from senators.

We don't ask them directly.

Instead, we write them out and the Chief Justice asks them for us.

At that point, there is a scheduled vote, and the Senate will vote on whether or not it is an order to subpoena and call additional witnesses and additional documents.

If 51 senators say no,

that we've got plenty, we've got all we need to decide this,

then it's over.

Then we'll move directly to final judgment.

We'll vote, and the president will be acquitted because the House managers haven't proven their case and they haven't met the constitutional standards for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Okay, so Ted,

let me ask you this, because there's two trials going on, and I want you to take off your lawyer hat for a second, and even your political hat.

You know, the president,

if he is indeed

not guilty, which I believe he's not, and he should not be removed, when you've won the case, lawyers should sit down and not, well, let's roll the dice.

You've won the case.

Close it.

However, there's another trial going on, and that is this.

I sat down with Stu, and I was going over yesterday's

impeachment hearing, and I said to Stu, I have no faith.

If this is what this government can do to the president of the United States and get away with it,

even if he is voted to remain in office, I don't have any trust in our judicial system.

I have no trust in our system.

How can you make sure that the American people

see it as a fair trial

and do enough to hear from people that on both sides are like, well, I wouldn't mind hearing from that person without torching the other side, which is the legal side of, hey, why open any doors?

He's one.

Well, I think the Senate has already done much, much better than the House in that the House did a one-sided partisan show trial.

They only allowed witnesses for the prosecution.

They would not allow the White House to call witnesses.

They wouldn't allow the White House to cross-examine evidence.

It was a kangaroo court.

It was only prosecution witnesses allowed.

The Senate has already done much better.

We're in the middle of

giving the House managers 24 hours to fully present their case, to argue it, to argue it ad nauseum.

They've now argued it a thousand different ways to Sunday.

We're going to give the president that same opportunity, the first opportunity the president has had to argue his case.

We're respecting due process and we're holding a fair trial, as is our constitutional responsibility.

I hope what happens is I hope the president's lawyers do an effective job making this case, laying out the defense.

I pulled the president's lawyers aside last night and urged them that they need to systematically walk through less of the process, but the substance.

Make the case why the president is innocent.

And I think Burisma is front and center.

And so

what I walked through on the podcast last night of the evidence of corruption at Burisma, I encourage them walk through that, play the clips, play the clip of Joe Biden bragging about forcing Ukraine, pressuring Ukraine to fire the prosecutor.

He admits it out of his own mouth.

You don't have to infer that he did that.

He admits that.

Make that case.

And once that case is made,

There are one or two paths will go down.

If 51 senators say, you know what, we've got enough to decide that, then it's fine.

And you're right.

Once you've won your case, you don't need to do anymore.

So I'm perfectly fine with that outcome of saying, we've got enough.

Let's move to judgment.

Let's vote not guilty and acquit the president.

On the other hand, look, I can't control how the other 99 senators vote.

47 senators, all of the Democrats, will vote for more witnesses because they want a fishing expedition because they know they haven't proved their case.

It is at least possible that four Republicans will join them.

There are several Republicans that have talked about joining them.

The case that I've made to the other Republican senators is: I've said, listen, if we go down the road of witnesses, then at a minimum, we can't be unfair and partisan like the House was.

We need to respect the principle of reciprocity.

That means if the prosecution gets a witness, the defense gets a witness.

So if the prosecution gets John Bolton, then the defense gets Hunter Biden.

And I think there is widespread agreement among the Republican Conference that we will do that, which means it's either over next week with final judgment and acquittal, or this thing is going on for potentially weeks or months, but we're going to be even-handed, which means we'll get to hear from these defense witnesses that the House Democrats wouldn't allow to testify.

Senator Ted Cruz, you can follow him at Senator Ted Cruz.

And I have verdictpodcast.com, but that's different than what you said.

What is the

verdictpodcast.com is it.

You can download it on

Apple Podcasts?

You can subscribe and put five stars.

And I tell you, Glenn, to look crazy.

We launched it three days ago, and it's already become one of the top 10 podcasts in the world.

Great.

And so it's nice to see that people are

watching for substance, which you put out every day as well.

And that's why your listeners keep coming back.

Thank you very much, Ted.

I appreciate it.

It's VerdictPodcast.com.

He records it right after the trial ends every night in the middle of the night.

VerdictPodcast.com runs 30 minutes.

Well worth your time.

Thank you so much, Ted.

The best of the Glenbeck program.

Hey, it's Glenn, and you're listening to the Glen Beck program.

If you like what you're hearing on this show, make sure you check out Pat Gray Unleashed.

It's available wherever you download your favorite podcasts.

Mr.

Bill O'Reilly,

I want to start right at the impeachment with you, and we can get into specifics, but overall, what is your impression?

Well, I call it Adam in Wonderland.

Adam Schiff has dominated the proceedings, and he's an interesting guy, Adam.

He's demanding a fair trial that removes Donald Trump.

All right.

That's not how fair trials work, Bill.

Yeah, if it doesn't remove him, it's not fair.

We want a fair trial.

And he's talking to the teacup, and he's talking to, you know, all of the Adam and Wonderland characters.

So

the big story is how Americans are processing this.

Do they like this?

Do they feel that this is beneficial to their lives?

Nope.

I have to say, I mean, I'm asking everybody that that I run into.

I mean, we're talking about

waiters and deli counter people and

mechanics that fix your car.

You know, is this good for you?

You think this is worthy?

I said 100%,

no.

I mean, I don't get anybody who goes, oh, yeah, this is really good for the nation.

It shows we're a vibrant democracy and we're interested in fairness.

So I think that once it's over, and I hope that's pretty soon, maybe another 10 days, it wipes out, by the way, the Iowa caucus.

It just wipes that off the face of the earth.

Sure does.

I think that people will say, you know what, we don't want a replay of this.

We've got to really re-examine who we're going to vote for.

So

we have members of the House right now, Maxine Waters is one of them, that says, we're going to try him again.

We'll do it again.

No, that won't happen.

I mean, Maxine Waters, come on.

That's not going to happen.

Once this is over, then it'll be full-time

campaign.

And the media, which is driving this, if you read my column last week, you know that.

The media is driving impeachment.

It would not have happened without the New York Times, Washington Post signing off on it.

That gave Pelosi and Schiff and now their cover, and they were assured of being heroes if they did it, and that's why they did it.

But the media is not going to get behind another another one.

They're going to basically throw all their energies into getting whoever the Democratic nominee is elected.

So

let me ask you this.

Have you ever seen a memo like the one that came out of the Biden campaign that said, get in line, press.

You are

committing journalistic malpractice if you don't debunk every conspiracy theory out there on Joe Biden.

And they went in and said, you have to say every time it's not enough just to dismiss it, you have to say there's no evidence of any of these things being true when there's plenty of evidence.

Have you ever seen a memo like that from a candidate?

And what would your, let's say Trump did that, and we were both still at Fox News.

How do you think Fox News would have responded to that kind of memo?

Well, number one, I don't know even why they bother with the memo because the media is already doing that.

Is there one media operation, hard news operation,

that is scrutinizing Vice President Biden?

No.

No.

Even Fox News,

basically they're saying, oh, well, he's this, he's that.

But they don't have people over in Ukraine

hunting around.

I don't have anybody like that.

Nobody's doing that.

So I don't know, you know, Biden was, he's a very funny guy, Biden.

I really get a kick out of him.

So he's in Iowa, and he's got a huge advantage now, again, because

everybody's burning

trail.

Yeah, and Warren and Klobuchar doesn't matter, but

they're sipping milk in the Senate and they can't get out.

And then Biden and Budajudge running around.

Oh, yeah, this is great.

So one reporter had the temerity, word of the day, Stu,

to ask Biden, hey,

you know, if you get called, subpoenaed by Republicans in the Senate, are you going to go in there?

Oh, no.

Oh, no, no, it's a constitutional issue.

I go, whoa, wait, wait.

Isn't that what Trump is saying?

Trump says we have executive privilege.

We're not going to parade you guys in there.

That's ridiculous.

Biden's saying exactly the same thing.

Exactly.

I'm not showing up there.

Are you kidding me?

I was vice president.

I'm not going to violate executive executive privilege, so forget it.

And nobody, of course, reported or picked it up.

It's exactly the same thing.

So, I think at this point, everybody knows this is a hollow exercise.

Nobody's watching it.

You see the TV numbers?

Awful.

And nobody's covering it.

ABC, NBC, CBS.

They're not even forcing us to watch it.

No, but

NBC, again, very funny.

They were the MSNBC, the commentaries are going, some of the Democrats aren't even paying attention to this.

Do your job.

You know, they're sobbing that senators are nodding out.

And then who is it that was playing a little game, Olizabeth Warren?

Apparently, it was playing a little tic-tac-toe.

But, you know,

Bill, honestly.

I would be fashioning a noose for myself if I were sitting in the Senate right right now.

This is what the Democrats have done for 24 hours is made the same case with no new evidence

over and over and over again.

At some point, you're like, I got it.

I got it.

You know, if it was Jennifer Anniston doing it, okay, but do I have to look at Nadler for hours?

No.

And it's not just,

it's not just that you've got the spooky, creepy eyes with Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler.

It is there is nothing interesting.

I would chew my own arm off to get out.

Well, I'd like to see that back.

You chewing your own arm off.

Well, I'd have to be a senator.

That would be very interesting.

Do you think they have

the old-timey rule about the milk and the water just because they knew senators would just be drinking?

Maybe.

I mean, the best rule is no electronics.

I mean, they're in detox.

Yeah.

You know, these feet, their thumbs actually move if you watch their hands.

There's nothing in them, but the thumbs move like in a spasm.

No, they're torturing.

You know, McConnell is torturing these senators.

And he's saying, you know,

this is ridiculous, so we're going to torture you.

And so you will do it again.

So here's the thing.

There is nothing so far that I've heard that would sway

anybody either way.

And people show that.

Right.

Americans say,

number one, I think this is boring.

And number two, if I'm a Democrat and I hate Trump, I want him out of there.

And I don't really care whether there's any evidence.

I just want him out.

And if I'm a Republican and I love Trump, I don't even care if Trump went over there with a baseball bat like Al Capone and the Untouchables and killed everybody.

I still love him and he's not going anywhere.

So

how does this end?

Do you think that the Trump lawyers, because I just talked to Ted Cruz a few minutes ago, and

he is looking for a very interesting Saturday and next week when the president steps to the plate

because he believes that the Democrats have opened themselves wide open

for all of the stuff

that is the president's

vindication.

All of the corruption that was going on with Burisma and Pravat Bank, all of that stuff looks like it's going to come out next week.

But Americans aren't going to pay attention back even if it does come out.

Just as we just said two minutes ago, they don't care.

It's if they like Trump, let's get this over with.

If I don't like Trump, I don't care what you have.

Let's throw him out.

So, you know, the people who are really micro-involved in this,

I guess they'll be excited next week, but it's Super Bowl week.

I'm actually going to the game, and that's what people are going to be talking about next week.

That's so stupid.

Stu's going to be there.

I'll be there too, Bill.

You want to hang out?

You want to maybe grab dinner?

I'll meet you in Orlando, Florida, Stu.

Oh, okay, great.

Just right there at that place.

Yeah.

Okay.

I'll just wait there for you.

Yeah.

Just wait.

If I'm a little late, don't get nervous.

Okay.

But anyway,

Beck, I disagree with you.

I just don't think there are any headlines coming out of this.

Well, there won't be any headlines.

They're done with it.

It's over.

Yeah, there won't be any headlines because the press is not going to report on what was said, and no one is actually watching this thing.

So that leads me to this question, Bill.

We are in a situation right now that I, I, you know, I've always believed in truth, justice, and the American way, and I know we have problems and we've had problems.

I know that injustices have been done in the court system, et cetera, et cetera.

But this is

the eyes of the world are upon it.

Everybody is watching this

in a way.

History is watching this.

If this is the kind of lies, deception, corruption that they can get away with

the president of the United States.

What chance does the average human being have if you cross these people?

This is so obscene, it makes me lose complete faith in justice.

Because it's not enough.

That's a very interesting thesis.

But number one, they're not going to get away with it because

wait, yes, they are.

It's like Jesse Smallet.

He can disrupt.

He can make all kinds of charges.

He can split us apart.

And then where's the penalty?

His career is over, he's done, he's finished.

And what I was going to say is they're not going to get away with it because there's a good chance Donald Trump will be re-elected.

And this will play into that.

So, but I agree with you.

But

nobody is paying for it.

You know, they've wasted millions of dollars.

A direct price for it, yes.

And I agree with you that the justice system in the United States no longer exists.

Once in a while you'll get lucky and you'll have a jury that actually listens and a judge that will actually obey the law and go by the tenets of evidence, due process.

Once in a while, but the media will never do that again, ever.

You're convicted.

You're guilty if they want you to be.

And that's what we're witnessing.

And that, I think, is the most important story.

It really is.

So how do we survive as a republic if that's not corrected?

Because

it's basically we're a balkanized country now.

We're no longer a united country.

And the only thing that would ever bring that back would be a foreign attack on us.

And we're going to have to, in the rest of our lifetimes, deal with a country that really is two countries.

One country believes that America is noble and always has been, despite slavery and despite mistakes that we've made in our historical past.

Any other country believes we're a bunch of exploiters, white supremacists, all of that.

That country doesn't

change.

Yeah, and that country doesn't last.

It just doesn't last.

There's no way you can serve two masters like that.

But

they're not there yet to control.

That's why this coming election is the most vital in our lifetime.

And I'm hoping, I'm praying that a message will be sent to the radical left and the corrupt media.

You You lose.

Okay, I want to talk to you about that message in Iowa, and

because

we have the Super Bowl, then we have Iowa, then we have the

State of the Union.

All boom, boom, boom.

So we really do have a divided nation, but I am still holding out hope that

there are many Democrats in the middle of the country that may just be tired of all of this.

I'm white and I'm really ashamed because I have privilege.

I should sit in the back of the bus.

And everybody is guilty without proof.

They want to fundamentally transform America into a socialized

country.

And I think there are a lot of people that are very uncomfortable with the democratic message as it's coming from these extremists, which is why I think such a weak candidate like Joe Biden is holding up nationwide.

And that's because

at least they don't think he's a communist or socialist, and they don't think he'll be a radical.

Agree with that?

Yeah, I think that's true.

I think that's Biden's only advantage,

but it's a disadvantage in the sense that the progressive press does not like him, which is why you saw the New York Times endorse Elizabeth Warren.

Just step back from that.

Step back from that a minute.

You have a major corporation, the New York Times, sells on the New York Stock Exchange, basically saying to its employees and the nation, we want a woman who's going to come in and confiscate private property.

We want a woman who does not believe in due process, as we saw in the Kavanaugh hearing.

We want a woman who's going to come in here and basically take apart the entire country piece by piece.

That's what we want.

I mean, it's staggering.

It's stunning.

Could not have happened four years ago, but it is happening now.

But

it's bigger than Joe Biden because Joe Biden is basically a guy who it's going to be demonstrated over the next 10 months is a very corrupt individual.

You're going to see that.

Now, you can make an argument that President Trump has delved into corruption.

You can make an argument for that.

But Biden, his corruption is a lot easier to understand.

His family are all multi-millionaires because he was vice president.

His corruption also is in the name of the state.

What do you mean by that?

His corruption, Joe Biden's corruption is

based on him being a

U.S.

senator, but more so a vice president of the United States.

He turned his office, his public office, and our tax money into a ATM machine for his family.

But he didn't do that really as a senator because he didn't have that kind of juice.

Correct.

But once he got into being a vice president

and having an authority worldwide, because Obama ceded that, Obama wasn't interested in Ukraine or China.

He couldn't care less about either of those things.

So he said, You dig it, Joe.

You go over there.

I'm not going over there.

You just do it.

And then Biden, whatever,

allowed.

i don't know how much he knew i'm gonna give biden due process um i don't know how directly involved he was but certainly he allowed his family to enrich themselves to a point that u.s grant would be embarrassed now i know that's an oblique reference yeah that's a good one but uh but grant's brother caused all kinds of trouble because of the exact same thing uh he was running around making all kinds of money because his

u.s was Ulysses was president.

So it's been going off a long time.

But in the Biden situation, even Maxine Waters could understand it.

And that, I mean, we're breaking it down so Maxine could get it almost immediately.

And that's going to hurt Biden big time.

Okay, so let's talk about Iowa specifically.

Yes.

We're a week away.

We can change.

What do you think is happening?

The Hawkeye State.

People need to understand the Iowa caucus is controlled by the Democratic Party.

It is not a statewide vote.

Very few people in Iowa actually cast ballots in the caucus.

Most of those who do on the Democratic side are radical progressives.

So

Sanders has an advantage.

Do you remember when you said about the anchor babies that there's nothing you can do about it?

And I said, yes, there is.

And I was right about that.

No, you weren't.

I was right on the anchor baby.

The courts have ruled twice against the anchor baby stuff.

You'd have to get a constitutional amendment passed to overturn that.

You might be able to do it.

You might be able to do it, but you just don't have to do a constitutional amendment around it.

You need an act of Congress.

I don't know how you two are friends, but I like it.

You are absolutely, you were absolutely right on that.

I don't know when that came from,

but Trump has put another rule in to try to stop anchor babies without going through for a constitutional amendment.

Your thoughts?

Well, I'm glad you know I was right when I was telling the candidate.

Yeah.

He was then a candidate that you just can't blow out

something in the Constitution.

But cleverly, it's pretty clever.

He's basically now saying that it's illegal to come to the United States to give birth.

If that's your goal, that's illegal.

You can do that.

It's going to be hard to enforce it,

and I don't think he's going to, there'll be a lot of enforcement going on, but that's what he wants to do, basically sending a message that he hasn't forgotten about the issue.

And by the way, it's a valid issue because it is a con.

I mean, people are coming here to give birth, so their kids are American citizens.

They're going around

the legal immigration process.

So I'm not sympathetic to the anchor baby industry, but it is in the Constitution.

It's what they call a loophole.

All right, let me go to, speaking of babies, let me go to Trump, is the first president to speak at the big

pro-life rally, March for Life.

Yeah,

today.

Very interesting.

If you

read the United States of Trump, he was never real interested in this issue.

And most of his life, he was pro-choice.

Now,

the conversion to pro-life, I can't tell you how that happened,

but he knows that his base is primarily pro-life people.

But I think it would be wrong and cynical of me to say it's a political play.

There are people who

have thought about the issue and says, look, you know, unborn babies need protection too.

So it is a historical thing that's happening today.

It'll get no media coverage, as you know.

But it is a huge development, at least for those members that believe in life.

All right, let me go to Clinton and Tulsi Gabbard and her lawsuit against Hillary Clinton.

Yeah, it's going nowhere.

It's an opinion.

She's not going to be able to show damages, Tulsi.

You have to do that if you're a famous person.

Tulsi's a really interesting person,

keeps herself in the limelight by doing all this, genuinely despises Hillary Clinton.

Really doesn't like her.

And it's giving her some jazz, giving her a hard time.

See, I don't think this is giving her jazz.

I think if that was me and I was running and trying to, you know, be president and have credibility.

If another candidate came out and said, yeah, they're grooming her, and

the Russians have her

on their radar, and they're helping her right now.

That's really damaging.

Really damaging.

She has to show it, though.

She has to show, look, this, I lost this amount of votes, and I can prove I did.

And I, you know, she might be able to say she didn't get into the debate.

That's, you know, probably her strongest argument.

I just don't, in America's court system, we talked about this in the last segment, very little justice going on.

Did Hillary Clinton defame her?

Yeah.

Yeah.

And if we had the British system of litigation, civil litigation, Mrs.

Clinton would be in trouble.

Is this bill here in the United States?

You can say and do anything to famous people almost and get away with it.

Is this bill just about settling scores for Clinton?

Because she keeps coming out.

She did this Tulsi Gabbard thing, and Gabbard famously endorsed Sanders in the primary.

It was a big deal at the time.

She's kind of wanted revenge since.

Then we have the additional thing where two weeks before Iowa, she's on this documentary talking about how no one likes Bernie Sanders.

He's not effective.

I mean, is this just about settling 2016 scores?

She's an unhappy woman.

We all know that.

I mean, you know, she just hasn't been able to realize what she wanted to be, which is president of the United States.

Being a senator from New York, being Secretary of State, it wasn't good enough.

She had to be president.

She's not going to be president.

She doesn't like Bill.

She's just just not in a good place.

And so she lashes out.

I mean, that's my amateur analysis of her.

The coronavirus.

This virus in

China, they have now put, yesterday it was 11 million people.

Today, I think it's 34 million people and shut them off from the rest of the world.

They've just closed these cities down.

You can't come in or out.

And in China, you can do that.

I mean,

they say you're not coming out of your house.

You're not coming out of your house.

So

there's not a lot of constitutional rights in China.

Right.

So

what's really going on?

I don't know much about these

diseases.

It strikes me to be similar to the Ebola virus that some people are going to die, unfortunately, and then it will kind of peter out in a month or so.

I hope that, you know, look,

these are things that happen in life.

They're like disasters.

Australia's on fire.

You know, and you just, there's nothing anybody can really do about it.

One last question on the Australia fires.

Stu gave me a stat last week that I could not believe on the Australian fires.

Basically, the amount of acreage burned in Australia is actually on the the low end of the last 20 years.

In fact, it's, I believe, the second lowest year so far over the past 20 years.

The difference here is that it's hit more populated areas, which is why people are freaking out about it.

But that wouldn't, you know, the populated areas wouldn't indicate an increase because of global warming.

It would be the total acreage that would be the issue there, which obviously is not showing up.

And the media has made it seem as though this is the biggest fire of all time.

And I mean,

things have been crazy to see it.

And you just got this impression that the entire country burned down.

It's the second lowest acreage fire in 20 years.

That's interesting, Stu.

I did not know that.

Good work.

Thank you.

You know,

what caught my eye was Beck went to Australia, and then as soon as he came back, everything went to hell.

I have to tell you, man.

I left that cigarette smoldering there in the ashtray.

I mean, that's what caught my eye.

Yeah.

Look, any excuse to promote global warming and climate change,

the left media is going to use.

As simple as that.

So here in New York, where I am, we've had a very benign winter.

No major snowfalls in December and January.

Yeah, I mean,

this is kind of good for us up here because when it snows, it's crazy.

And

I want to get into

state of the union you wanted to talk about?

Yeah.

Yeah, go ahead.

Okay, so I'm going to predict that the president is going to open the state of the union with a very simple message to the American people.

The call he made to Ukraine was perfect.

All right.

I think we can all assume somewhere in that address,

those words will will be spoken.

I would not bet against that, Bill.

I would not bet.

You know, I'm going.

I want to see.

This is going to be amazing because the trial is either going to continue to be going on or

McConnell's going to get out of it.

You wait and see.

Nobody can stand it anymore.

And nobody.

So I'm predicting that.

I don't know the timeframe, but

they'll suspend it or they'll take a break or they'll all go to Club Med or something will happen.

And they just can't do it anymore.

By the way, I got invited to analyze the State of the Union on the Blaze.

Was that a mistake, or did you guys do that on the State of the Union?

No, I've been pushing for that.

I'd like to have

your analysis on the Blaze

for

all of the big nights this year.

Are you willing to do it?

Yeah, we can do it.

Do you guys have a lot of money?

Well, we can let's discuss details at our Super Bowl dinner in Orlando.

But

I'm going to do the State of the Union gratis.

I'm going to do it free.

Really?

Are you going to go?

Wait, so are you going to be in Washington or in New York?

I'm going to be in New York.

Okay.

The Blaze Radio Network.

On demand.