Schiff Is Now SPYING on Trump. Are We Next? | Guests: John Solomon & Nick Di Paolo | 12/4/19

Wow.

That was quite the statement from the president to France.

And, you know, it's kind of like

Mr.

Gorbachev, tear down this wall.

You know?

Take all the ISIS fighters you want is the same as Mr.

Gorbachev's tear down this wall.

It is this.

It is the president saying things that everyone said you should not say.

And sometimes they need to be said.

That's true.

From that perspective, I'll give you that.

Yeah.

I mean, he definitely, probably a lot of people would advise him not to say that.

But I mean, like, they're talking trash about him in the hallways

in front of the cameras, like getting caught on the hot mic, like trashing the guy.

Right.

So, no wonder he's like, why does he care?

At least he's saying it to their face.

Yeah.

You know, with them standing next to it.

You give him that.

Yeah, for sure.

Okay.

Who do you

have?

Wow, we have some incredible

news on

impeachment and what

was said yesterday as we go into the impeachment inquiry all over again.

I've never seen anything like it.

Oh, and by the way,

Jiff just decided he could get anybody's phone records that he wanted.

Cool.

The fusion

of entertainment and enlightenment.

So, in the report yesterday that came from the impeachment hearings from the Democrat, the only thing that was a real surprise or shock there was the new revelation in the report,

which

showed that Chairman Schiff

had obtained the phone records of Donald Trump,

Nunez,

Rudy Giuliani, all from AT ⁇ T.

Was there some sort of a

court that was involved in that?

How did those phone records fall into their hands?

Is this the way we run a republic?

Or is this the Chiquita Banana Republic?

I mean, because we are, quote, capitalists, so maybe it's the Chiquita Banana Republic, just so we can make some money off of it.

How do you get the phone records of the President of the United States?

How is that a surprise to the guy who is supposedly your partner, Nunez,

who is the co-chair?

How did he not know his phone records

had been taken?

Lots to talk about in one minute.

This is the Glenbeck program.

Giving gifts is a great part of the holidays, but you want to give somebody, you know, a gift that doesn't harm them.

You know, generally, you know, don't eat this.

It could cause choking in small kids.

Well, you're giving people,

you're giving people a free gift and you don't even know it and it's really bad and you're the one that's going to have the choking hazard.

If you're shopping online using unsecured Wi-Fi, even if it's password protected, you could be giving the gift of visibility into your personal information to hackers whose interest is to hack your Wi-Fi connection, watch your activity, and jackpot, steal the information you send and receive.

That's your credit card, your social security number, any financial account information.

You need protection that can evolve with the changing times.

The new Norton 360 membership provides multiple layers of protection, including a secure VPN to protect your privacy on public Wi-Fi and provide real-time security for your devices.

Not only can prevent all cybercrime, but Norton 360 is a powerful ally for your cyber safety during the holidays and beyond.

And until December 8th, get a special radio offer of up to 60% off the annual subscription on your first year at norton.com/slash back.

That's norton.com/slash back.

Up to 60% off now at norton.com/slash back.

Wow.

I don't even know where

to begin today.

I've got an unbelievable Washington Post story that is, I mean, my blood is boiling from it.

But

maybe we'll

maybe we'll just start here

with the cell phone records.

House Intelligence Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff said cell phone records obtained by impeachment investigators show considerable coordination among White House officials who Democrats believe tried to bribe Ukraine, the government officials, into investigating Joe Biden and Democrats.

A 300-page impeachment report that was issued yesterday afternoon

includes records of calls between President Trump and his personal lawyer.

Between President Trump and his personal

lawyer.

How?

What?

Excuse me?

Schiff said the calls mirrored the impeachment inquiry's determination that the Trump administration coordinated to bribe Ukraine into investigating Trump's political opponents by dangling the $391 million in security aid.

The records in the report include several calls between Giuliani and the top Republican on the intelligence committee, Devin Nunez.

I find it deeply concerning at a time when the President of the United States was using the power of his office to dig up dirt in a political rival, that there may be evidence of members of Congress complicit in that activity, said Schiff.

ATT provided the call records, likely,

likely under subpoena.

Who granted that subpoena?

How do you go

and

get a subpoena for the records of the guy who is sitting on the committee as your co-chair without your co-chair knowing about it?

Particularly when you're trying to make the case that it's wrong to use your power to investigate your political opponents.

Their entire case is based on you should not be doing those things.

Now, my guess is what, they got the records from the other side, right?

It's from Lev Parnas or one of these other guys, and they're trying to show.

No,

I've got the records here that show calls from Rudy Giuliani to Devin Nunez.

Let me give you,

hang on just a second.

Let me give you, let me show you what they have.

Amazing.

At 12 o'clock, 36 seconds Eastern Time on 4:10, 19, Rudy Giuliani called Devin Nunez.

The duration of the call was 35 seconds.

Then at 12:10.35, Devin Nunez called Rudy Giuliani.

The duration of that call was zero seconds.

Then on the same day at 12.10, Devin Nunez called Rudy Giuliani back.

The duration of that call was 31 seconds.

Then at 12.12, Rudy Giuliani called Devin Nunez, and that call lasted two minutes and 50 seconds.

Then, after that, Rudy Giuliani called

Devin Nunez, and the duration of that call was zero seconds.

So that's pretty damn incriminating right there.

What that shows you is somebody was trying to get a hold of him, and then he called back, and then the other guy called back, and they kept missing each other.

They're playing phone tag.

They never talk to each other.

And when they do, they're on the phone for two minutes and 50 seconds.

Wow.

What kind of diabolical plot could you possibly hatch in two minutes and 50 seconds?

now um our chief researcher uh

jason buttrill uh is has read the entire uh house report and uh is ready to give us his reading of this first of all your first thoughts on on this

i i'm feels like the soviet union that was my first uh that was my first thought after seeing that i have no idea even if you have to even if you're getting a warrant for getting some of these things like, first of all, you can't go through FISA.

I saw a lot of people asking me on social media if they could use FISA because you can't use FISA, so that's out.

It has nothing to do with it.

Why can't you use FISA?

Because it has nothing to do with a foreign national and collecting intelligence.

So, FISA is completely out.

A warrant, you need some kind of criminal proof to get that granted.

So, I don't know.

I mean, this is.

Is there any indication in the report that they did get a warrant?

Because it just says, likely

issued a warrant.

Well, likely, that should be led someplace that, yeah, we did get a warrant.

You don't get phone records for anybody,

anybody without a warrant.

I mean, this is, this is why you use the House Intelligence Committee.

I mean, this is one of the dirtiest things I've ever seen.

This is, I mean, would Ken Starr been able to say, hey, ATT, give me all your phone records?

No, not without a warrant.

Not without a warrant.

And you don't, you're tracking the president's personal attorney and the president of the United States.

And who's granting that?

And with what evidence

was that granted?

If you have evidence, fine, let's see the evidence.

And why was this put into the report?

He's making this case that look at how dirty this is.

They're all calling each other.

Why is this in the report?

If it was so important, why didn't you have anyone testify about that?

Because they don't want it challenged at all.

They just want want to put that out there and then just leave it out there is it possible this comes from another source like the southern district of new york uh in another giuliani has been reportedly been in being investigated over various things and potentially that's where they're getting these records from although i don't know that that's i mean it's not like they just share them It's not like it's an overt legal process to be like, hey, we have an investigation too.

Here's all of our stuff.

That shouldn't be how it works, at least.

But maybe that's where it came from.

That's the only thing I can think of is the Southern District of New York.

Because they seem to be doing the work,

I mean, straight out of the Democratic Party.

Yes.

Right.

Where they just everything that is conveniently investigated comes from there.

Now, look, I don't know.

Some stuff they have found legitimate problems with some of the people in the orbit of

these storylines, but that doesn't mean that it started with the best of intentions.

Why couldn't you use FISA on Rudy Giuliani?

Because he was talking to foreign nationals.

And you have to do it on parness, right?

In this context.

Yeah, but he's an American citizen, isn't he?

I don't know the answer to that, actually.

Is he dual?

I'm fairly sure he's an American citizen, so you wouldn't be able to use

a Pfizer

against him.

I think they're both American citizens.

So

my question is, because I want to get into this a little deeper here in a second, but my question is, first question,

is there any outrage?

Is anybody going to do anything?

Is anybody today going to demand answers?

Where is the outrage from the Senate and the House?

Where's the outrage from the media?

One of their own was targeted in this.

John Solomon.

They got the phone right now.

He's not one of their own.

He was until he started disagreeing with

their storylines.

I mean, this is absolutely one of their own.

This is crazy.

They're now spying.

They're now spying

on

just the House.

Just the House.

not the administration, just the house is spying on our president and his personal attorney.

We have not seen, if they have records and they got a subpoena, I want to see the evidence that allowed them to do this.

There maybe, maybe in the real world, in an actual republic, they would have to produce those documents and say, how did you obtain this warrant?

And if you can show reason for obtaining this, but you're spying on a member of the press.

You're spying on the president and his personal attorney.

I mean, that is craziness.

Look,

let's just say you are

being investigated for a crime.

And you didn't do that crime.

And you know you didn't do that crime.

And so you hire a a really good attorney and you tell him look i'll tell you what i think is going on because if it's not my head they're going to demand blood so who's doing this to me who's setting me up you have a personal attorney and he starts to do investigations to be able to exonerate you

But you're up against the United States government.

And the United States government just goes and gets all of your phone records between you and the attorney and then tracks what your attorney is going to and who he's talking to?

Do you realize how dangerous this is?

If they can do that to the President of the United States and his personal attorney, do you think they'll hesitate for a second to do that to any of us?

This is madness.

If you're looking for any proof to justify what they did in the report after a long night of reading that bad boy, you're going to be disappointed because there's nothing in that report.

You can read their page and a half summary and pretty much get everything that you're going to find in the in fact you're going to get

you're going to get old news old news that we have already shown is not true with audio tapes, with documents, with court cases.

We've already shown you that these facts are not true, but it's in there as if they're facts.

We'll go there here in just a second.

Give me one minute, then we're we're going to come right back to the right back to the broadcast.

When you say the word luxury, what pops into your head?

A Lamborghini, perhaps?

Man, I pulled aside a guy who was in a Lamborghini at a stoplight the other day.

I've never seen one.

I mean, I've never, you know, I go to car shows and stuff.

Yeah.

But I've never, have you ever driven in one?

I have never driven in one.

I don't think I'd ever be able to get out.

But I've never driven in one.

And man, that is just a wicked looking car, isn't it?

Yeah, they're so low.

This guy had

like the top of the car is at your waist.

Yeah, there's no way you're getting out of it.

There's no way you're getting out of it.

But this guy, it was like carbon fiber and it was like, oh my gosh.

They're cool looking cars.

Cool looking cars.

If you got an extra $400 or $500K laying around,

highly recommend.

Why not?

If you have the means.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So anyway, if I say luxury, you probably think of something like that.

Now a luxury chair.

Now I don't think about the Lamborghini because I am not getting out of that chair.

There's no way.

Luxury chair is an X-Chair with its patented, dynamic, variable lumbar support, 10 different settings.

The X-Chair is what you and those around you need for a comfortable workday.

Truly the next generation in office chairs.

And thanks to the X-Chair 30-day, no questions asked guarantee of satisfaction.

You have zero risk.

Most companies can't make this kind of offer.

Most companies aren't the XCHAR.

Don't settle for less than the best.

X-Chair on sale now for $100 off.

Just go to XChairbeck.com.

That's X-ChairB-E-C-K.com or call 1-844-4XCHAR.

XCHARB.com.

Use the promo code Beck.

You'll receive a free set of the new X-Wheels with your chair.

It's XCHARB.com.

10 seconds, station ID.

We, by the way, have John Solomon on the program in about an hour and a half.

Also, Nikki Haley, I did an interview with her.

I love Nikki Haley.

I just love her.

I think she is the real deal.

And she talks about,

you know, I took her through

her time from,

you know, being for Marco Rubio and everything else and how she changed, then how she turned down the job at the State Department and

what her relationship was like, and then all of the inner workings of, I mean,

she was there and they were trying to recruit her to thwart the president.

And she

left and she's like, you guys are crazy.

Not the way the system works.

Yeah, you don't do this.

And it's fascinating.

That podcast is out tomorrow.

Did you get any indication that would disagree with my belief that her chances of running in 2024 are 100%?

Oh, I think it's

not high 90s, is it?

No, I think it's probably 110.

Okay, all right.

It's happening, right?

No, she didn't say that.

Oh, I'm sure she didn't announce.

Yeah, but she interviewed her.

She was like, I'm just, you know, I'm just going to go to work and just kind of put my head down to the ground and we'll see what happens.

She's been like the only person who's been able to walk this line of, you know, still remaining independent and not coming off as just a cheerleader for the president, no matter what's happening.

But also, like, you know what, being honest and saying when the president does a good job, he's done a good job in defending him when he should be defended.

And she's done a good job with that.

She's handling herself really, really well.

And she has taken on

some mad dogs and won.

I mean, she is a, she's, you know, did you read the story yesterday about how which Democrat flipped on impeachment and said, no, don't impeach because they're not going to go with Mike Pence.

They'll go with somebody like Nikki Haley.

And

we don't want to go up against Nikki Haley.

I thought that was, I thought that was stunning.

Anyway, that podcast comes out, if you're a Blaze subscriber, comes out tomorrow.

And so you can listen to it.

We have some clips of it today, but listen to it for the next couple of days at Blazetv.com and you can actually see it and everything else.

Then it will go up on Saturday for everybody else.

But you, if you're a Blaze TV subscriber, you get it a couple of days early.

Okay, so let's

go.

I still am not in control of myself enough to read the Washington Post article, but it is coming.

That one's unbelievable.

Unbelievable.

I had to pause

after the un because all of these words were coming to my head that would nicely fit in between un and believable that I shan't say.

So let's just talk about a couple of things

in the actual committee report.

and

what Adam Schiff said about it.

Okay, so tell me some of the things that are in the report that just

blew your mind.

Well, first and foremost, I was looking very specifically for things that they would maybe add to our case.

Like anything that we have done, anything that we've said over the past month and a half or so in our chalkboards and our shows, specials.

You mean anything that would debunk what we've said?

It would debunk it, yeah.

And because I think we've been pretty vocal about that.

Like we want them to do it.

You know, we criticize us, please.

It's going to help us.

We want to know.

We want to know.

We want to know.

If we got anything wrong.

So I looked specifically because a lot of the accusations accusations or a lot of the case boils around that uh lutsenko the former prosecutor general because he said a lot of things he's the one that talked about the do not prosecute list he's the one that said that the ambassador yovanovich was bad um that's the entire case kind of goes around him as far as getting rid of that ambassador a lot of this stuff and runo giuliani has even said he's not the best He's not the best guy.

You know, you don't know because he's kind of said

a little of both.

So you can't take his word as gospel.

Okay, I'm for that.

I think everybody in Ukraine is corrupt.

That's evergreen for any Ukrainian official.

So

I looked through that after I read through it, and I just saw how many times they mentioned Lutsenko over 60 times in this 300-page report.

Over 60 times.

He's sprinkled throughout the entire thing.

So you know, this is the guy that Joe Biden said they finally put a good guy in office.

They got rid of the bad guy, and they put this guy in.

Okay, well now they're saying he's totally dirty.

Do they have any evidence at all?

All they said, and this is what we've seen in the past, is they kept saying, well, he was corrupt.

He was corrupt.

He was corrupt.

I was like, okay, fine.

Let me show me evidence.

I looked at the footnotes, everything.

They never gave a specific charge for the same thing with Shoken, his predecessor.

They never actually

threw a specific charge at him.

It was all just, oh, he was corrupt.

Take our word for it.

In fact,

if I'm not mistaken, the State Department actually came back and apologized for what they did to Shokin.

Right.

Correct?

That's correct.

To the Ukrainians.

So, where is the evidence?

And we're not saying this like, yeah, well, there's no evidence.

If there's evidence that he's corrupt, where is it?

In this official report, the only thing they gave for any kind of evidence was this recant.

And the recant, they linked back to the same article that we've already debunked.

Unbelievable.

So incredible.

Thank you so much.

Listening to Glenn.

Don't go anywhere because because

I might

have it in me to go after the Washington Post next.

All right, Christmas is on its way.

You want to get some shopping done?

This is something that anybody like me is going to love.

Omahasteaks.com.

Enter the promo code Beck and order the favorite gift package.

Remember that favorite gift package.

It is $69.99, but it's from Omaha Steaks.

That's America's original butcher.

The steaks are so unbelievably tender.

I mean, you can take, look, I'm a cattle rancher and I eat my own cows, but I have to tell you, the Omaha steak, you can cut it with a fork.

It is so, so tender.

You'll get four six-ounce bacon-wrapped fillets.

You'll get four premium pork chops, four Omaha steak burgers, perfectly browned augratten potatoes, made from scratch, caramel apple tartlets.

I mean, this is really good.

Plus, you get a six-piece cutlery set and a cutting board, all for $69.99.

Order right now.

Go to omahastakes.com.

Omahastakes.com.

Make sure you type in Beck in the search bar.

That'll take you to this offer.

Assuming it doesn't have an aneurysm from this Washington Post story, Glenn will be in Salt Lake City this Saturday, December 7th.

Go to Glennbeck.com/slash Christmas.

There's a few tickets available.

Welcome to the Glenbeck program and welcome to Mr.

Pat Gray, who does Pat Gray Unleashed every day prior to this broadcast on the Blaze Radio Network.

And you can listen to him wherever you hear podcasts.

Hello, Pat.

Can and should.

Well, you know, you can.

I know where you live.

Okay.

I'll track you down.

All right.

Now,

we were talking about how Adam Schiff has just gotten the phone records from AT ⁇ T

on his co-chair of the committee.

It's unbelievable.

And was not given a chance to defend himself.

And I don't know, Pat, if you have read, and I don't know if I have the strength right now to read the Washington Post article.

It's an article,

not an opinion piece.

GOP embraces a debunked Ukrainian conspiracy to defend Trump from impeachment.

Republicans' promotion of Trump's Ukraine conspiracy theory is the latest example of their capitulation to him and of the GOP's rapid transformation on Russia from a party that for decades celebrated its hawkish stance towards the Kremlin to one that is reluctant to take a hard line and risk Trump's wrath.

I take a hard line all the time against Russia.

I know a lot.

Now, there are some people who are on television, some people that are in Washington that are not, but Donald Trump has a much harsher

policy

on Russia.

Than Obama ever did.

They sold the Kremlin uranium.

They sold our uranium to the Russians.

And let's not forget the Obama conversation with Medvedev that was captured on camera and microphone about after the election, he'd have a lot more leeway to do what Putin wanted him to do.

And let's not also forget that the Democrats have done the exact opposite of some Republicans.

And now all of a sudden to them,

Russia is the greatest threat on earth.

And

it never was before.

Before it was the 80s are calling and they want their policy.

We were voting for that guy.

We were voting for that guy

when the republic or the democrats and the press uh went and decided they were going to vote for the guy who said yeah right well the 80s called they want their policy they want their policies back right and we should point out the frontrunner of the democratic uh for the democratic nomination right now was in the administration that believed that russia was such a non-threat that they could mock and say that you know uh mock them as an 80s you know ivan drago situation yeah it's not they've been a big threat the entire time and the fact that you're on the bandwagon now i guess is

good.

But I mean, it's not real.

It's not real.

I mean, it's just appropriating Trump.

If it was real, did you guys know that

I think it was Ohio was just hacked in the last 2018

election?

They were hacked by the Russians.

They tried to.

We should point out that they stopped it.

Well, they said that it was a very, very low-budget kind of attempt.

Well, okay,

we can stop low-budget.

What are the Russians doing?

doing?

Are we, is anyone even looking at this?

By the way, none of us have ever cozied up to the Russians.

We've never said the Russians aren't a threat.

We've never said Putin is a good guy.

I've never, none of us, I don't think, have ever said any of that.

There was a Tucker Carlson monologue that said all of those things just the other night.

Yes, I know there are some.

There are some.

There are some.

There are some.

But

it's exaggerated to say that most Republicans are.

I'm talking about the people in this room.

Right.

Because I know you've got to be careful.

Because there are some people who have.

They're right.

Some Republicans have totally capitulated to everything Trump says and does.

And

they just have.

It's insanity.

It's insanity.

Follow his policies.

Right.

Not his words.

Follow his policies.

He is very tough on Russia.

Tougher than anybody has been since, I think, the Cold War.

By far.

Yeah.

So

it's tougher than Russia.

Obama.

It's not even close.

Not even close.

Not even close.

And

this phone tapping situation, they better have a warrant for that.

And I'd like to see how they got that warrant.

Can you do that through FISA?

It's not a FISA.

I don't think so.

We don't think that it's a FISA.

I don't think you could.

Because

who's the foreign agent?

Yeah.

Yeah.

It does look like, by the way, we talked about Parnas and those two guys.

Lev.

Lev, Parnas, and I can't remember the other guy's name.

But bottom line, they look like they immigrated early in their lives.

So, yes, they would be U.S.

citizens, would not qualify here.

Right.

But they can claim it's part of the Russian investigation, maybe?

Possibly.

You still have to be able to present evidence.

You're going after...

What kind of evidence, Pat, would you have to have to go after somebody that

you are going after,

and he's the president of the United States, and you say, I need all of the phone records between the president and his personal attorney.

I don't know.

I mean, mean, that's insane.

You'd have to have solid evidence, you would think.

The only explanation

that makes any sense is that it was caught up in another separate investigation, like the Southern District of New York, where they were able to access the records, though I don't, that does not seem to be a mistake.

And they're just handing those records over to the...

And that wouldn't be a FISA situation, though.

Maybe someone just mailed them to them.

You know, maybe it's just some

helpful person.

Just like, you know, like, let's say in Ukraine, where there is a big situation going on, and they just happen to have all the records of Paul Manafort put together in a nice ledger, and they just happened to get to the press somehow.

That's not Ukraine investigating

inserting themselves in our election process at all by getting the guy who was running one of the campaigns fired and arrested and put in prison.

But maybe there was just a helpful person who was walking down the street, saw the records on the ground, picked them up, and put them in the mail right to Adam Schiff.

Something like that, maybe.

They happened to be on the ground.

You know what?

Sometimes people drop things, and maybe he thought they were Adam Schiff's and just sent them there.

And Adam opened up and said, Oh my gosh, I didn't ask for these, but look at this.

Is important information, and I think we have to bring it to the American people.

I will tell you, I talked to Mike Lee yesterday, and I said,

So, Mike,

what's the Senate going to do?

And he said,

I don't know yet.

And I said,

They're not pushing for a trial?

Well, he's meeting with the White House attorney today, and the White House is kind of dictating kind of the plan.

Mike thinks there should be a trial.

Absolutely.

I think.

I think he said that on the air, didn't he?

Yeah, I think so.

And I said to him, Trump.

He also said there should be.

Yeah, he did today.

But

there's something else.

I said, so if there's not a trial, Mike.

If some reason why, God only knows why, Trump says, you know what, they have nothing here, just

blow it off, which I think is a mistake.

Will you open up on the intelligence committee for the Senate, will you open up an investigation on the whistleblower and everybody else and how this happened?

Because if there's not enough evidence and this is the show that we all know it is,

these people have to pay for that.

They have dragged us through four

years of this, spent millions of dollars, lied, deceit,

hiding witnesses, working and colluding with the press.

I mean, somebody has to pay for that, or we're a banana republic.

And he did come out and say, I can't tell you who, he said, but there are a couple of people who are chair people on a couple of committees, and they are talking privately about

we want to open up investigations because this is all dirty.

I hope they do that.

I hope they do, too.

Too often, the Republicans just roll over and play dead.

Too often, they just capitulate and they forget about it and they sweep it under the rug.

This needs to be dealt with.

I think it's really important to deal with this.

We should point out that they have a real opportunity to do that, and they haven't failed yet.

I mean, we kind of

assume the failure going to.

Because they always suck.

They always let us always suck.

I mean, it's true, but they do have a Senate trial coming up, and they control it constitutionally.

They can do whatever they want with it.

So let's see them do it.

Yeah, like overturning Obamacare.

Well, they don't have a constitutional right to overturn Obamacare.

They do have a constitutional right to handle the Senate trial however they want.

And so they need to utilize that and actually make the case.

I'm not giving them a pass here, but we should at least wait until they fail or at least begin failing before we say they failed.

I'm not saying that they fail.

I'm just saying there's a really good chance.

There's a really good good chance they're going to.

And I'm going to be really pissed.

Over under the chances Nikki Haley runs for president in 2024.

Because that's 110%.

What is your percentage in your mind that they fail here?

That they fail?

Yes.

140.

Yeah, right.

That's what I'm saying.

Definitely over the chances of Nikki Haley.

Okay, so one other thing I want to talk about.

You were on a transgender

athlete,

and you have so much hate that's inside of you.

No, I just want to show you that there's no difference between a trans woman, you know, who's actually biologically a man still,

and the actual biological woman.

You won't be able to tell.

Now, they're lined up here in Australia.

Hang on just a second.

If you need to go to the cry room, you can go to the cry room.

It's still your safe space right now because Pat only goes worse from here.

No, this is better.

I'm going to show you that there's no

difference.

Difference.

Okay.

What was that butter commercial?

There's no difference.

Remember that one?

No.

There's no difference here.

So they're lined up, and they're about to play Australian rules handball.

And if you could play the video for us, you'll see that you can't play.

Playing 100 kilos and blessed with a mighty kitchen.

Can you pause it for the 10 count seats?

Pause it right there.

No, I don't.

No, you can't.

You cannot tell.

I can't tell.

I can't tell.

Which is

a 6'2, 220-pound man, and which are the women?

There's no way to tell.

No, it is.

It's on the line.

It's on the line.

I will say she does have breasts.

Not like my breasts.

She's had implants.

She's had implants.

Okay, so she's living her life.

She was quite recently a he

and was playing Australian Reals football, which is rugby to us.

But apparently didn't dominate the men.

And so now

dominating the women to the extent in rugby where they kicked her out of the league and now she's playing handball and dominating that league instead i got

i just come on can we not i think johnny not still made a movie that was roughly similar to this uh except he was i think i think he was saying he was going to be in the special olympics and dominate the special olympics

and you know i'm very compares how oh my i i not comparing i'm saying uh and i don't know why you're saying that would be a bad comparison what are you saying um i i it is interesting.

Who's saying the worst thing, though?

One of us.

I don't even know.

One of us.

Glenn's saying quiet, so he's not.

What I'm saying

is totally fine.

You can't just

categorize it as totally fine.

You have to say something.

Until people can read minds.

Yeah.

And that's coming soon.

It is.

I'm totally good.

First of all, the Knoxville movie, how was it made this recently?

It was only, what, 10 years ago?

It was okay to say

you could pretend to be in the Special Olympics and dominate.

Like, that was okay that recently.

But beyond beyond that,

Stephen King called me Satan's

mentally challenged younger brother.

So

doesn't that qualify me as a Special Olympian?

It's fair.

It's a fair question.

It's a fair question.

But that is a, it's like a joke, right?

Like, you to be able to just change.

I'm no longer a boy.

I'm now a girl.

And then you dominate women's sports.

Yeah, can I, can I?

Like, and it's happening all over the world.

All over.

And it is hurting hurting women.

It's hurting women.

What happened to the sensibility of protecting women?

By the way, the left is supposedly

so concerned about protecting women.

Where are they now?

What a sexy thing.

Now he's much worse than me.

I think the line is clear.

Now, Pat is a big violation here.

Wait a minute.

What is it you're actually thinking, though?

What?

Huh?

He's thinking of something much worse than I'm thinking.

I'm thinking something.

We don't even have to be able to read minds.

We just know.

I'm thinking something that is absolutely not problematic.

That's what I'm thinking.

All right.

Thanks, Pat.

Appreciate it.

Pat Gray unleashed on Blaze Radio and TV.

We're going to see Nick TiPaolo today.

Also, John Solomon, who is suddenly, it's totally okay to have the government

gather

his phone records.

Totally fine.

Totally fine to spy on a journalist now in America.

Geez, if Adam Schiff hasn't become Putin, well, no, you actually have to throw people off the top of a roof.

And he's only doing that figuratively at this point, not literally.

So he's not Putin yet, but he's on the road.

All right,

our sponsor this half hour

is RechTech.

RekTech is the greatest, the greatest grill.

I love, we grill all the time, especially living out here in Dallas.

You can grill almost year-round, and I love to grill.

I love the taste of real grilled meat.

Unfortunately, I'm lazy, and I don't want to put the wood in, and I don't want to, you know, do the charcoal thing.

It's a mess.

It's a hassle.

I'm just not going to do it.

So I've had gas.

That's a different story.

But I had natural gas

in my in

my barbecue grill.

And that doesn't, I mean, that doesn't give it any flavor at all.

You're just cooking outside.

RekTech, this is smart grilling,

and it's a system made by grillers, people who love to grill.

And they've made, I think, the ultimate grill.

And when I say that, I first want to talk about just a little bit of the quality.

Its nearest competitor is 80 pounds lighter, and it's the same size.

It should go to tell you about the quality of the construction of this.

It is truly amazing.

It is all smart technology if you want it, so

you can put a roast in there and

control it from your phone.

It can rain and

the temperature would normally come down, but this is smart technology.

It keeps the temperature up.

It is the best.

If you're looking to really grill, RekTech, RekTech, R-E-C-T-E-C

grills, RekTechgrills with an S dot com.

Go there now, rech techgrills.com.

This is the Glenbeck program.

Let me go to Steve.

Hello, Steve.

Welcome to the Glen Beck program.

Glenn, how are you this morning?

I'm very good.

You're a former Army security op kind of guy?

Negative.

Do you know what SIGINT is?

No.

Signals Intelligence Electronic World.

Okay, yes, yes, yes.

Okay.

We did SIGINT for the special operations community.

Okay.

One of the guys that I worked with some years ago was actually on the team that found Saddam.

Okay.

So that kind of stuff.

All right.

Quickly.

Phone numbers.

Yes.

And

there's no way they're doing that without doing what's called traffic analysis and net analysis.

These guys are engaging in SIGINT against U.S.

politicians and everybody around them.

Can you think of any kind of

legal way they're doing that?

Yes or no?

Gosh, the is not yes or no the word yes or no was what was required

to answer that sorry

i'm so excited to uh to share with you our next restoring event especially in context here um and uh hope to do that uh

very soon maybe tomorrow maybe next week we'll uh we'll see pray for us though uh on that

Okay, Nick DiPaolo is supposed to drop by sometime this hour.

We also have Jonathan Turley,

who is, you know, remember he was for the Clinton impeachment.

He was

for charging Bush and others with war crimes,

and he is vehemently opposed to this impeachment.

We're going to hear from him.

He's written a 54-page

dissertation on it.

I don't think he's going to go through all 54 pages, but just his conclusion is stunningly clear.

And

I don't know.

Something in me says it might give Nancy Pelosi and the House a way out of actually pushing this to the Senate.

We'll see.

We'll see.

Coming up in just a minute.

Stand by.

the fusion of entertainment and enlightenment.

Hello, America.

It's Wednesday and

We have the House impeachment hearings going on again today, except this one seems interesting.

Jonathan Turley, along with other experts, is going to be testifying and he is a constitutional scholar.

He was for the impeachment for Bill Clinton.

He was also for holding Bush people responsible for war crimes and torture.

And this one, where does he come down?

Oh, you really have to hear what he is going to say to the Democrats today.

I think it's an escape hatch for the House.

Will they take it?

I don't know.

But we'll cover that also, Nick DiPaulo, in one minute.

This is the Glenbeck program.

Okay, so here we are trying to unseat an American president.

Huge corporate interest undermining our values and our Constitution on a daily basis.

You know that AT ⁇ T is,

you know, selling

or taking the money that you are paying for your cell phone coverage and they're sending it to different things like Planned Parenthood, things that you just totally disagree with.

By the way, it was ATT that we found out yesterday.

I handed over the phone records to Adam Schiff

and the committee where they were investigating and

following the phone records of the President of the United States and his personal attorney, plus members of the press.

You comfortable with that?

Because that's ATT.

Comfortable?

Patriot Mobile, America's only cell phone service that donates a portion of your monthly bill to conservative organizations that are fighting for the values that you believe in.

And this month, if you switch, you can get a free Moto Z3 play when you open a new line of service.

Plus, get a signed copy of Donald Trump Jr.'s new book, Triggered.

Free phone.

Free copy of Don Jr.'s book, all while helping to support conservative values with every call you make.

Choice is really clear.

Switch today, Patriot Mobile.

Get reliable nationwide service, no hidden fees.

PatriotMobile.com/slash Beck.

Use the promo code ZFREE, ZFREE, or call 877-367-7524.

PatriotMobile.com slash Beck promo code ZFRE.

We have John Solomon coming up.

The testimony also of Jonathan Turley and Nick DePaulo joins us now.

He is the host of the Nick DePaulo Show, and you can find him at his website, nickdip.com.

How are you?

Way you been, lover?

This impeachment hearing thing is just relentless.

I gave up on it.

We already know how it's going to work.

Impeached in the house, and then he's not going to get convicted.

It's like following a bad Judd Appetal movie.

You know, the boyfriend's going to be the idiot at the end, and the girlfriend's the hero.

So

I suggest you start watching more wrestling and football, Glenn.

Don't follow this crap.

I think, you know,

I really follow it against my will.

I follow it because I'm paid to follow it.

But I honestly

know.

I have no idea how anyone thinks this is going to end up in their favor.

How does any Democrat think this is going to end up in their favor?

I think at this point, they're just doing it because they're not legislating.

They're not doing their jobs.

So they have to look busy.

And they've wanted Trump's head since he came down the escalator.

But you're right.

It's going to blow up in their face.

And I went to school with Jonathan Turley.

I went to George Washington and he tried to cheat off me.

Did he really?

You don't think I went to that school.

Well,

there's a chance.

You're a pretty smart guy, but sounding like that, I don't.

I had a 2.4 in business administration at the University of Maine.

And that's with cheating.

Right, right.

But Turley's good.

So, Nick,

what have you been paying attention to?

What have you been following?

What is

the NFL?

I've got got a real gambling problem.

So, what do you think of this Colin Kaepernick thing?

What was it?

Detroit had an opening.

They're going through everybody.

I think they called my daughter.

You know, would you be willing to try out Kaepernick?

Nothing.

I called your daughter, too.

Yeah.

Okay, that's disturbing.

That's really.

I have no idea how old she is.

That was just a joke.

Even I have a daughter who's

31.

That's still disturbing that you're calling.

No, it isn't.

Yes, sir.

That would be, oh, come on.

Kaepernick is a

patriot.

He's a true American.

He loves this country.

Let me, just his haircut says I hate Whitey, okay?

I can't stand his terrorist beard.

He's biracial.

He acts like he's 2,000% black.

He's at Alcatraz the other day talking to Native Americans.

Did you really think a team was going to bite on him?

The stadiums are still empty because of the crap he pulled.

And

who would be dumb enough?

Hey, when the Detroit Lions pass on you,

I mean, not exactly the New England Patriots there.

You know, I was just, I was thinking about it when he did this.

You know, he did his own tryout, and then he wanted his own place to do the tryout.

And I thought,

what team, even if he was great, what team wants this kind of hassle

all the time, this kind of drama all the time?

It would destroy a team.

I agree with that.

But then, you know, Belichick went after Antonio Brown, so I started to have second thoughts.

But yeah, the guy's a cancer.

He did such damage to the NFL.

I really believe these half empty stadiums, which you don't hear about,

have to do with that whole thing about about kneeling down.

He started all of it, and there's no team desperate enough

to bring this on.

I really believe that.

He's finished.

He's got to find something else.

Nike's made him a zillionaire.

So

why does anybody even buy anything Nike anymore?

I don't know.

I honestly don't know.

Let's not forget that Colin Kaepernick lost his job to Blaine Gabbert before he started kneeling.

This is not enough.

Don't bring logic and reason into it, too.

It's a free form.

It's wrong.

This is about emotion emotion and the racist country and gender and the systemic racism that keeps this guy down.

I have to tell you, I think there's a massive backlash coming to all this.

It is everything in me says that

it's falling apart, and there's just going to be just a large group of Americans who just stand up and go, shut up.

up.

Shut as they stand up during the national anthem.

I won't have a problem with it.

When you say back, I thought you were talking about the impeachment again.

Are we talking about Kaepernick or the impeachment?

Who's more anti-American, Adam Schiff or Colin Kaepernick?

Did you see what ATT and Schiff did?

They somehow or another got the phone records of the co-chair

Nunez and the president

and

his personal attorney.

That's insane.

How did they do that?

That's hacking.

The Washington Post said,

presumably with a warrant.

Well, right there, you're supposed to,

as a journalistic publication, isn't presumably the thing you don't want to say?

We heard fourth hand that they got a.

I mean, we just presume that they're doing this the right way.

The bathroom attendant at the Verizon building heard a guy talking to a guy who got nunez.

This is all underhanded.

It's all baloney.

Adam Schiff is creepy.

He's drunk with power.

And just after two and a half years of the Russia investigation, I can't believe people

are still saying, yes, Trump should be impeached.

This country deserves what it gets.

I'm telling you, I don't think people are saying that.

Nobody I talked to over the holidays.

Nobody was talking about this.

Well,

that's a great sample size, size, Glenn.

You and your uncle and

John Hansen.

But no, no, no.

But I've asked other people as well.

I mean, were you really having arguments about this at the dinner table?

Because at the dinner table, even my dinner table, during the election, there was all kinds of back and forth and, you know, polite, but all kinds of back and forth.

Not on this.

Here we're just like, I don't care.

Well, I got my sister-in-law in a headlock.

We knocked over the turkey and the cranberry sauce.

I almost choked her out, and then she saw it my way.

Trump is clean as a whistle.

We're going to get back to the news here in a second, but Nick, before we take a break here,

this Saturday, Glenn Beck is going on the stage in Salt Lake City for his Christmas show, which some have described as stand-up comedy in the past.

Now,

I'm interested to see what your opinion would be.

This is something

friendly.

And I'm wondering if there's a way, if we were to get you video of some of this performance,

if you would critique it

and let us know if Glenn is actually good at this activity.

Oh, sort of like a dancing with a stars thing.

Oh, my gosh.

Oh, my gosh.

I would love that.

I don't want to say the word roast, but I mean...

No, I don't think.

I couldn't do a roast on the Glenn Beck show.

I can't even say poop without getting arrested.

How am I going to do a roast?

But I would love to see this footage.

No.

Are you dressed like an angel?

No.

No, I have thought about that in the past.

You know what, Nick?

Honestly,

this was something they've been asking me to do this because I used to do about 30, 40 shows a year.

And as you know, stand-up comedy is really hard.

And you have to really, you know, you work on it.

Well, this is a one-off show that, you know, I'm just going out and doing.

And I'm so nervous.

It's just going to be flop sweat the The alcohol is for Glenn.

For the love of that's the first thing you put in your rider.

I want a six pack of Mick Ultra

in my dressing room.

Seeing that I'm an alcoholic, that might work.

Well, it would work for a good show.

Quickly.

A thousand apologies.

Weed is what you look at.

No, I would love to see that.

You're a funny guy.

You did radio.

You shouldn't be nervous.

You talk to 10 million people a week.

Come on, relax.

They're Mormons.

They'll laugh at everything.

All right.

Nick DiPaulo, Nick Dip.

You can find his comedy special, A Breath of Fresh Air.

You can find that at nickdip.com.

You can watch it for free.

NickDip.com.

Nick DePaulo.

Thank you so much for joining us.

You bet.

We're going to go to

maybe some of the opening statement from Jerry Nadler here in just a second.

I don't know if that's worth it, but we want to make sure that that

we get Jonathan Turley's testimony in and John Solomon, who was spied on.

I mean, does anybody have a problem with the journalists being tracked by the United States government?

Because that's what they just did.

Well, presumably they did it the right way, though.

Presumably.

Yeah, that's how I'm going to say everything now.

Because they certainly don't presume Donald Trump's innocence ever.

Ever.

Right?

Presumably, he had the best interests of the nation in mind when he made the call to Ukraine.

Because you could certainly presumably say it was all about his own political gain, but you could also say presumably he cared about the country.

He's the president of the United States.

Maybe that's what's happening.

Well, the surprise here is that the press is presuming innocence when it comes to

Schiff and the Democrats and their impeachment.

I'd like to see presumably how they did that

and how they presumably did that legally.

But

what the heck?

That's just me.

And apparently

Jonathan Turley as well, as you will hear in a few minutes.

All right, my Patriot supply.

Prepping is not like it used to be.

I mean, if you were stocking up food as a hedge against disaster, you were thought of as a bit of a nut.

And the food you were able to put back,

the stuff would go bad quickly.

It tasted horribly.

It was just really bad.

My Patriot Supply revolutionized things.

More people today understand that being prepared for any kind of disaster is important, natural or otherwise.

Prepping went down a bit when Donald Trump went into office because some people thought the danger that we were all prepping for, you know, was tied directly to Barack Obama, but it wasn't.

It's our financial situation,

it's our electrical grid, it's our communications with one another.

If you're responsible, I want you to check out my Patriot supply.

Right now, you can save

$70 on a two-week food kit with guaranteed two-day delivery at preparewickglen.com.

The offer is not going to last, but here's the good news.

My Patriot Supply will.

If you think you just can't afford to prepare, you're wrong on all fronts on that.

My Patriot Supply has payment plans and options that will fit any budget, so don't wait.

Believe it or not, this makes a good grandfather or father gift to your children if they are grown and out of the house.

Save $70 now on a two-week food kit with guaranteed two-day delivery at preparewickglenn.com.

Preparewithglenn.com.

10 seconds break for station ID.

Let's quickly pop in to Doug Collins.

He is a Republican from Georgia.

He is now

a ranking Judiciary Committee ranking member.

He's making an opening statement for the

new room.

It's new rules.

It's a new month.

We've even got cute little

stickers for our staff so we can come in because we want to make this important.

This is impeachment because we've done such a terrible job of it in this committee before.

But what's not new is basically what's just been reiterated by the chairman.

What's not new is the facts.

What's not new is it's the same sad story.

What's interesting before I get into my

part of my opening statement was just what was just said by the chairman.

We went back to a redo of Mr.

Mueller.

We're also saying, quoting him, saying the attention of the American people should be on foreign interference.

I agree with him completely, except I guess the American people did not include the Judiciary Committee because we didn't take it up.

We didn't have hearings.

We didn't do anything to delve deeply into this issue.

We passed election bills, but did not get into the in-depth part of what Mr.

Mueller talked about, taking his own report and having hearings about that.

We didn't do it.

So I guess the American people doesn't include the House Judiciary Committee.

You know, the interesting, we also just heard an interesting discussion.

We're going to have a lot of interesting discussion today about the Constitution and other things, but we also talked about the founders.

What's interesting is that the chairman talked a lot about the founders from the quotes, and again, this is why we have the hearing, about the founders being concerned about foreign influence, but what he also didn't quote was the founders being really really concerned about political impeachment

because you just don't like the guy you haven't liked him since november of 2016

the chairman has talked about impeachment since last year when he was elected chairman two years ago november 6th 17th before he's even sworn in as chairman so don't tell me This is about new evidence and new things and new stuff.

We may have a new hearing room.

We may have new mics and we may have chairs that aren't comfortable, but this is nothing new, folks.

This is sad.

So what do we have here today?

You know what I'm thinking?

I looked at this

and what is interesting is there's two things that have become very clear.

This impeachment is not really about facts.

If it was, I believe the other committees would have sent over recommendations for impeachment.

No, they're putting it on this committee because if it goes badly, I guess they want to blame Adam Schiff's committee and the his and others want to blame this committee for it going bad.

But they're already drafting articles.

Don't be them fooled.

They're already getting ready for this.

We've already went after this with the Ukraine after numerous failings of Mueller, Cohen, and Nullmutz.

The list goes, emoluments, the list goes on.

But the American people are actually failing to see us legislate.

But if you want to know what's really driving this, there's two things.

It's called the clock and the calendar.

The clock and the calendar.

Most people in life, if you want to know what they truly value,

you look at their checkbook and their calendar.

You know what they value.

That's what this committee values.

Time.

They want to do it before the end of the year.

Why?

Because the chairman said it just a second ago.

Because we're scared of the elections next year.

We're scared of the elections that we'll lose again.

So we've got to do this now.

The clock in the calendar of what's driving impeachment, not the facts.

When we understand this, that's what the witnesses here will say today.

What do we have here today?

What is really interesting over today and for the next few weeks?

is America will see why most people don't go to law school.

No offense to our professors.

But But please,

really, we're bringing you in here today to testify on stuff that most of you have already written about, all four, for the opinions that we already know,

out of the classrooms that maybe you're getting ready for finals in,

to discuss things that you probably haven't even had a chance to say, unless you're really good on TV of watching the hearings for the last couple of weeks, you couldn't have possibly actually digested the Adam Schiff report from yesterday or the Republican response in any real way.

Now, we can be theoretical all we want, but the American people is really going to look at this and say, huh?

What are we doing?

Because there's no fact witnesses planned for this committee.

That's an interesting thing.

Frankly, there's no plan at all except next week an ambiguous hearing on the presentation from the HIPS, the other committee that sent us the report and Judiciary Committee, which I'm not still sure what they want us to present on, and nothing else.

No plan.

I asked the chairman before we left for Thanksgiving to stay in touch.

Let's talk about what we have because history will shine a bright light on us starting this morning.

crickets until i asked for a witness the other day and let's just say that didn't go well there's no whistleblower and by the way it was proved today that he's not or she's not afforded the protection of identity it's not in the statute it's just something that was discussed by adam shift we also don't have adam shift who wrote the report he said yesterday in a press conference i'm not going to i'll send

staff to do that he's not going to but you know know, to me, if he was willing to, he'd come begging to us.

But, you know, here's the problem.

It sums it up very simply like this.

Just 19 minutes after noon on Inauguration Day 2017, the Washington Post ran the headline, the campaign to impeach the president has begun.

Mark Zad, who would later become the attorney for the infamous Whistleblower, tweeted in January 2017, the coup has started.

The impeachment will follow ultimately.

And in May of this year, Al Green says, if we don't impeach the president, he'll get re-elected.

If you want to know what's happening, here we go.

Why did everything that I say up to this point about no fact witnesses, nothing for the Judiciary Committee, which spent two and a half weeks before this hearing was even held under Clinton?

Two and a half weeks.

We didn't even find your names out until less than 48 hours ago.

Wow.

This is an absolute circus.

And I think Jonathan Turley is about to say it best on what they should do.

And we'll cover that coming up in just a minute.

You're listening to Glenn Beck.

Okay, the holiday shopping season.

You know who loves it more than anybody else that you might know?

Cyber criminals.

They're out there right now and they love the fact that we are now buying everything online.

They are hoping to get rich off of the masses shopping online.

So here's some tips.

to shop safely while you're online.

Make sure that you use a device security on your computers and your devices confirm that there is an HTTPS lock symbol up at the top in the URL on any website that you're shopping.

You need that lock symbol.

Search only on trusted vendor sites rather than search engines and always use unique passwords and login information.

Somebody's identity gets stolen every two seconds and it's just going to get worse and worse and worse from here.

LifeLock will detect a wide range of identity threats and they alert you when a threat is detected.

Now, nobody can prevent all identity theft or monitor all transactions at all businesses, but LifeLock will see the threats that you might miss on your own.

And until December 8th, you get a special radio discount.

You'll save 30% or more off of your first year by using the promo code BEC.

1-800-LifeLock or Lifelock.com.

Use the promo code BEC and save 30% off or more.

Spend some time with Glenbeck, of course, in Salt Lake City.

This Saturday, December 7th, go to Glenveck.com/slash Christmas.

There's a few tickets left.

Pick them up now.

Mr.

Raskin?

Aye.

Mr.

Raskin votes aye, Miss Jayapal.

Aye.

Ms.

Jayapal votes aye, Miss Demings.

Aye.

Miss Demings votes aye, Mr.

Correa.

Aye.

Mr.

Correa votes aye, Miss Scanlon.

Aye.

Ms.

Scanlon votes aye, Miss Garcia.

Aye.

Miss Garcia votes aye, Mr.

Nagoose.

Aye.

Mr.

Nagoose votes aye, Miss McBath.

Aye.

Ms.

McBath votes aye, Mr.

Stanton.

Aye.

Mr.

Stanton votes aye, Miss Dean.

Aye.

Miss Dean votes aye, Miss Mucarcel Powell.

Aye.

Ms.

McCarcel-Powell votes aye, Miss Escobar.

Aye.

Ms.

Escobar votes aye, Mr.

Collins.

Mr.

Collins votes no, Mr.

Sensenbrenner.

Mr.

Sensenbrenner votes no, Mr.

Shabbat.

Mr.

Shabbat votes no, Mr.

Gomert.

Mr.

Gomert votes no, Mr.

Jordan.

Mr.

Jordan votes no, Mr.

Buck.

Mr.

Buck votes no, Mr.

Ratcliffe.

Mr.

Ratcliffe votes no, Ms.

Roby.

Ms.

Roby votes no, Mr.

Gates.

Mr.

Gates votes no, Mr.

Johnson of Louisiana?

Mr.

Johnson of Louisiana votes no, Mr.

Biggs.

Mr.

Biggs votes no, Mr.

McClintock?

No.

Mr.

McClintock votes no, Ms.

Lesko?

No.

Ms.

Lesko votes no, Mr.

Ruschenthaler?

No.

Mr.

Ruschenthaler votes no, Mr.

Klein?

No.

Mr.

Klein votes no, Mr.

Armstrong?

No.

Mr.

Armstrong votes no.

Mr.

Stuby?

No.

Mr.

Stuby votes no.

Has everyone voted the wishes to vote?

Ms.

Bass?

Ms.

Bass votes aye.

The clerk will report.

Mr.

Chairman, there are 24 ayes and 17 noes.

The motion to table is agreed to.

Mr.

Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

15 seconds.

Gentleman will state his parliament.

This is just insanity.

It's just insanity what's happening

in Washington, D.C.

They're now arguing over what's an objection and what's a proper objection.

They're doing all these parliamentary things, and Nadler is behaving a little like shift on this, just pushing it through.

And,

you know, I can't even ask questions about the parliamentary rulings.

Go ahead and bring some of this up.

Period.

That's the reply.

I'm asking how will they be applied here, sir?

They will be applied according to the rules.

But not answering your question.

A circular response.

Thank you.

And Mr.

Chairman, can you please also iterate the schedule going forward?

In other words, that is...

It's time to hold additional hearings, and if so, when do you have a pressure?

The gentleman will suspend.

That is not a proper parliamentary inquiry.

Without objection, all other opening statements will be included in the record.

What's going on here is a bunch of nonsense, basically.

But the interesting part about it is, for whatever reason, Democrats want this to go fast.

I don't think Republicans honestly have much of a preference.

I mean, I think you can make an argument that fast or slow is better for Republicans, but they're just trying to slow it down because the Democrats don't want it to go slow.

And I just have a feeling

that

Swalwell switched his vote,

said I don't think we should impeach him.

That's

pretty incredible,

or at least he hinted in that direction yesterday.

And I'm wondering if the GOP isn't right, that they've kind of moved this over to the judiciary,

so you don't know who to put the blame on on where it fell apart.

And the co-director of the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic at Stanford Law School.

She is the co-author of several leading case books, including a monograph entitled Keeping Faith with the Constitution and dozens of scholarly articles.

She served as a law clerk to Justice Harry Blackburn of the United States Supreme Court

and as a Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice, where she was responsible, among other things, for reviewing the work of the department's voting section.

Professor Carlin earned three degrees from Yale University: a BA in history, an MA in history, and a J.D.

from Yale Law School.

Michael Gerhardt is the Burton Craig Distinguished Professor of Jurisprudence.

So, now what they're doing today, and the only reason why I'm covering any of this, is I really want to hear Jonathan Turley.

He's the one that

people know.

He pisses people off on both sides.

He was for the Clinton impeachment.

He was then also for

war crimes

against George W.

Bush and his administration.

And he is vehemently against this.

And his reasoning is quite remarkable

and very, very well stated in his 54-page

statement.

Chair of Public Interest Law at George Washington University Law School, where he teaches torts, criminal procedure, and constitutional law.

After a stint at Tulane Law School, Professor Turley joined the GW Law faculty in 1990 and in 1998 became the youngest chaired professor in the school's history.

He has written over three dozen academic articles for a variety of leading law schools of leading law journals, I'm sorry, and his articles on legal and policy issues appear frequently in national publications.

A Chicago native, Professor Turley earned degrees from the University of Chicago and Northwestern University School of Law.

Well, now we welcome all our distinguished witnesses.

We thank them for

these resumes of these guys.

It's interesting that Jerry Nadler has essentially lost an entire current Jerry Nadler from himself, from former Jerry Nadler, who was approximately 934 pounds.

Wow, I didn't even notice that.

Yeah, he has lost a ton of weight since the Clinton.

You go watch the Clinton impeachment clips, where he's on the exact opposite side of all of these issues, and that's why they keep getting posted.

But I just keep seeing

did past Jerry Nadler eat current Jerry Nadler?

What?

How?

Do you think he maybe vomited this Jerry Nadler?

I think it's possible.

Yeah, it could be.

We need another investigation.

Get Mueller on the phone.

I just want to see.

They just took the oath.

And

now they're telling him when you have to shut up.

And I wish that light would go off, but hopefully they're going to start with Turley.

No, they're not.

I don't think you're on the mic.

The selection of witnesses here is interesting because there are plenty

of Republican-leaning and libertarian-leaning legal experts that have been critical of Trump here.

They have the opportunity to call three legal experts, and they call all liberals.

They don't go to like someone who can maybe understand both sides but is siding with them.

They call all liberals, and then Turley is the Republican witness here, who is very often been on the side of the liberals, but here he is.

And there's no Republican.

What I like about Jonathan Turley is he's been outspoken many times against Donald Trump.

He does not have any love for Donald Trump at all.

He's just saying, this is the wrong way to do this.

If you have a case, make it.

Go ahead.

Make the case.

Call the witnesses.

Go through the difficult process of impeachment if you believe impeachment is the right thing.

Don't just jam this through before Christmas.

Let's go through a little bit of his conclusion as we're hearing some of the others and keep the hearing up so we can

dip in and out.

Let me give you a little bit here.

This is Noah Felden.

And last,

how it applies to the question before you and before the American people, whether President Trump has committed impeachable offenses under the Constitution.

Let me begin by stating my conclusions.

The framers provided for the impeachment of the president because they feared that the president might abuse the power of his office for personal benefit to corrupt the electoral process and ensure his re-election

or to subvert the national security of the United States.

High crimes and misdemeanors are abuses of power and of public trust connected to the office of the presidency.

On the basis of the testimony and the evidence before the House, President Trump has committed impeachable high crimes and misdemeanors by corruptly abusing the office of the presidency.

Okay.

Specifically,

let me go off there.

You have the guy from the Democrats saying yes, based on the evidence, he has done that.

Okay.

I want you to listen to what Turley has to say, and I'm not sure we're going to be able to squeeze him in because we have John Solomon also coming up on the program.

He is really important to talk to today because we found out that Adam Schiff was tracking his phone calls.

Yeah, the entire impeachment inquiry is revolving around John Solomon and his reporting.

He's literally named all over the place in this investigation and

been treated completely unfairly by the media.

And we'll talk to him coming up in about 20 minutes from now, so stand by for that.

But I want to give you some of the highlights from the conclusion of Tourley.

Now, listen to this.

He says, let me be candid here for a second at the end of my statement.

I get it.

You're mad.

The president is mad.

My Democratic friends are mad.

My Republican friends are mad.

My wife is mad.

My kids are mad.

Even my dog is mad.

And Luna is a golden doodle, and they are never mad.

That's a legalistic opinion, apparently.

We are all mad, and where has it taken us?

Will a slipshot impeachment make us less mad, or will it only give us an invitation for the madness to follow in every future administration?

That is why this is wrong.

It's not wrong because President Trump is right.

I mean, you could see he's trying to appeal to

a sensible Democrat or someone in the middle or someone who's on the right.

Somebody who takes their oath seriously.

His call was anything but perfect and his reference to the Bidens was highly inappropriate.

It is not wrong because the House has no legitimate reason to investigate the Ukrainian controversy.

The use of military aid for quid pro quo to investigate one's political opponent, if proven, can be an impeachable offense.

It is not wrong because we are in election year.

There is no good time for an impeachment, but this process concerns the constitutional right to hold office in this term, not the next.

No, it is wrong because this is not how an American president should be impeached.

For two years, members of this committee have declared that criminal and impeachable acts were established for everything from treason to conspiracy to obstruction.

However, no action was taken to impeach.

Suddenly, just a few weeks ago, the House announced that it would begin an impeachment inquiry and push for a final vote in just a matter of weeks.

To do so, the House Intelligence Committee declared that it would not subpoena a host of witnesses who have direct knowledge of any quid pro quo.

Instead, it will proceed on a record composed of a relatively small number of witnesses with largely second-hand knowledge of the position.

The only three direct conversations with President Trump do not contain a statement of quid pro quo, and two expressly deny such a precondition.

The House has offered compelling arguments why those two calls can be discounted by the fact that President Trump had knowledge of the underlying whistleblower complaint.

However, this does not change the fact that it is moving forward based on conjecture, assuming what the evidence would show if there existed a time or inclination to establish it.

The military aid was released after a delay that the witnesses described as not uncommon for this or prior administrations.

This is not a case of the unknowable.

It's a case of the peripheral.

The House testimony is replete with references to witnesses like John Bolton, Rudy Giuliani, and he says Mike Mulvaney in the text, but it's Mick Mulvaney.

who clearly hold material information.

To impeach a president on such record would be to expose every future president to the same type of impeachment.

Absolutely true.

And what he talks about there

is

to go to the enchote

shot.

That's the last line.

Inchote impeachment.

To impeach a president on such a record would be to expose every future president to the same type of

impeachment.

Okay, so

an enchote crime is an attempted crime.

Okay.

So enchote means

do you want

based on hearsay

of some people,

but not the whole group, not all the available witnesses?

Do you want to put a position out that any president can be impeached with only half of the story on a crime that was enchoke, that was only possible

and attempted,

not committed

when you don't know the facts?

It's an alleged crime that he attempted.

That's a whole different story.

And he makes a very strong case in his outline that

you cannot set this precedence.

He says, in this age of rage, many are appealing for us to simply put the law aside and just do it like this is some impulse by Nike sneaker.

You can certainly do that.

You can declare the definitions of crimes alleged are immaterial and this is an exercise of politics, not law.

However, the legal definitions and standards that I have addressed in my testimony are the very thing dividing rage from reason.

That's so, so accurate.

And remember, this is not a guy who likes Donald Trump.

He's not a big Trump guy.

He's not at all.

Listening to these calls to dispense with such legal niceties brings to mind a famous scene with Sir Thomas Moore and a man for all seasons.

In a critical exchange, Moore is accused by his son-in-law, William Roper, of putting the law before morality, and that Moore would give the devil the benefit of law.

When Moore asked Roper Roper who would instead cut a great road through the law to get to the devil, Roper proudly declares, yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that.

Moore responds by saying, and when that last law was down and the devil turned around on you, where would you hide, Roper, with the laws being flat?

This country is planted thick with laws from coast to coast, man's laws, not gods.

And if you cut them down, you're just the man to do it.

And you are just the man to do it.

You really think that you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?

Yes, I'd give the devil the benefit of the law because i have even for my own safety's sake

that is like you know uh uh

an american principle yeah i mean like yes even the terrible people get the benefit of law even the white supremacists get the benefit of the first amendment even someone you don't like gets the benefit of the second amendment let's just say if you're a democrat and don't like the color of their skin and their name is martin luther king they still get the benefit of the second amendment these things apply to everyone even a president you don't like.

So I'm reading a book, Poisoner in Chief, and it is fascinating because it's about a guy who did wicked medical

experiments at Fort Dietrich.

Horrible, horrible guy.

And it starts with him being a good guy, but then they start to not really worry about all of the laws because this is just too important.

And the excuses they make for the Japanese mad scientists and the German mad scientists, they skirt all the way around the laws for a lot of them and they bring them in because it's just too important.

Every time we say it's just too important,

we do something really, really bad.

We have these laws and emotion.

And Americans made the right choice on that.

Americans said, no,

no Operation Paperclip.

You're not to excuse these people.

But what did Congress do?

Congress started having hearings and they started saying, you know, look at these people.

They don't care about your safety.

Look at all these people over here on the Republican side that they don't care about your safety at all.

They'd rather have you die than work with these guys.

When you get into anger and emotion, you always make the wrong move.

John Solomon coming up in just a second, you don't want to miss this.

Now, if you don't know your numbers and you run a small business or a big business, if you don't know your numbers, you don't know your business.

How do you know I can expand?

How do you know I can launch a new ad campaign?

How's revenue pacing against last year?

Most companies don't have a clear picture of their finances and they make key business decisions without critical information based on their gut or worse, based on fear.

This is why a lot of businesses fail.

Are you confident that you have the right numbers at your fingertips?

Serious entrepreneurs and financial teams run now on NetSuite.

It's by Oracle, the number one

cloud business system that is available.

It's NetSuite.

It offers a full picture of all of your finances all in one place in real time from your phone or your desktop.

No more guessing.

You know exactly what's going in, what's going out, what payable is, what sales are doing, all of it.

All of it.

Now, this is why people who use NetSuite, they grow three times faster than the SP 500.

That could be you and your company.

What are you doing?

Schedule a free demo right now and receive their free guide, seven key strategies to grow your profits.

You can find it at netsuite.com slash Beck.

Set up your free demo.

Get your free guide today.

Netsuite.com slash Beck.

Netsuite.com slash Beck.

This is the Glimpeck program.

So, do you have lingering questions about the DNC's corruption in Ukraine, the Democrats' case for President Trump's impeachment, or how George Soros fits into all of it?

Now is your chance to ask me your questions.

Tweet your question to the Twitter account at TheBlaze.

Use the hashtag AskGlenn, and you may see your question and your answer in tomorrow's Glenbeck TV broadcast.

5 p.m.

Eastern.

Trolls and critics are welcome.

You're listening to Glenn Beck.

I love how all these people who had just so much love for socialism and diversity, the minute they're given an offer from a billionaire white guy,

they're off.

All right, our sponsor, we have a great hour coming up for you in just a minute.

John Solomon is going to be joining us.

Don't miss a second of this.

But let me tell you about our spotlight sponsor.

It is American Financing.

American Financing can help you consolidate your debt with the lowest interest rate possible.

We're talking about mortgage refis, and with mortgage rates, the lowest they have been in over a year, credit cards are charging double-digit rates.

You're never going to be able to dig yourself out.

And I think that credit card rates are going to go up.

Mortgage rates are going to continue to go down.

With American Financing, you're going to get straightforward and effortless mortgage experience.

10-minute phone call is all that it takes.

Doesn't matter where you are in the process.

If you're already in the process with somebody else, get a second opinion.

on the kind of rates that you can get.

There's no hassle, there's no fees, there's nothing.

They work for you.

AmericanFinancing.net.

They can tell you in 10 minutes whether they can help you or not.

Call 800-906-2440.

It's AmericanFinancing.net.

AmericanFinancing.net.

John Solomon is an award-winning investigative journalist who has worked at the AP, The Washington Post, The Washington Times, and The Hill.

He is a credible journalist that is being thrown under the bus by Schiff, his allies,

and apparently all of his friends that he used to work with in the media as well.

He is instrumental to the impeachment hearings, especially now that we find out that Adam Schiff was collecting his phone records from AT

We don't know how he got those.

The Washington Post said, presumably with a warrant.

Oh, we're going to presume things now.

Interesting.

We get his feelings on being followed by the government and where does that stand with freedom of press

and how he's been smeared.

A lot of information coming your way with John Solomon in one minute.

This is the Glenbeck program.

Okay, I I want to thank Mike Lindell and My Pillow for being a sponsor on this program.

And I love MyPillow.

I really do.

I use it every night.

I really didn't think I would like it.

I like down and, you know, everything else.

And I really don't like the fake, foamy kind of pillows.

I don't even know how this is made or what's in it, but I really didn't think I'd like it.

I started sleeping on it.

I sleep on it every single night.

I absolutely love it.

I don't wake up with a crick in my neck.

I don't toss and turn anymore.

It strangely never seems to get warm.

It's my pillow, mypillow.com.

The sheets are just as great.

They're the Giza Dream sheets.

Right now, you buy one set, you get one free.

These are really breathable.

They are durable, and they are super soft.

Go to mypillow.com, click on the new radio listener specials, buy one pair of Giza Dream sheets, and get the other one free plus free shipping.

Also, deep discounts on all other MyPillow products.

Enter the promo code Beck

at mypillow.com or call 800-966-3117.

Mypillow.com.

Promo code Beck.

All right.

I hate when John Solomon is on because I've just got to rattle through so many questions because he is a treasure trove of information.

Welcome to the program, John.

How are you?

Good to be with you, Glenn.

Thank you.

Good.

I want to just try to keep this as rapid fire as we can

because I've got about 14 pages of questions.

Wow.

The Democratic report is out.

Your name is all over it.

It includes your name on a list of AT ⁇ T phone records.

Does Schiff have the legal grounds to do this?

How did he obtain it?

Can he legally unmask an American citizen and the name in an official report like this?

Well, first off, I don't have AT ⁇ T as a phone service, so those most likely aren't my records.

They're likely someone else's records where my phone calls show up.

And, you know, anytime the government uses its power in a subpoena or a warrant or a

I think these are probably congressional subpoenas.

We know they announced subpoenas for Lev Parnes and Rudy Giuliani.

My suspicion, without having been able to get confirmation yet, is that my phone records just simply show up in some of their call logs that we know were subpoenaed.

Anytime the government uses that power, it has a chilling effect on you as a reporter.

Who wants to call me the next time if they think their records could be subpoenaed or shown on screen?

But at the end of the day, what does it show?

It shows I'm a reporter that was engaged in reporting.

In March and April of 2019, the Russia Mueller report was coming down.

Of course, I was talking to Rudy Giuliani.

So was the New York Times and every other major news organization in America.

They've made to look scandalous what is supposed to be what reporters do every day, talk all sides of a story and do journalism.

I wonder if you're going to file a lawsuit at all about

being followed by the government or with AT ⁇ T or the government if they didn't obtain it the right way,

or really a lawsuit against the smears that are coming your way.

Let me read something from the Washington Post last night.

There was never any real story here.

There were only an effort by Giuliani to scare up a bogus line attack against Democrats in preparation for the 2020 presidential election.

The record demonstrates that Solomon's work advanced that campaign.

End quote.

Yeah,

I guess if you want to ignore the facts, you can take that position.

And then the Washington Post has a good history of ignoring the facts.

That's why they got large parts of the Russia collusion story together.

I'd compare my reporting on Russia collusion against theirs any days, and I think the American public's verdict will be clear.

But let me describe what are the political issues, and then people can judge for themselves.

Isn't it a fair issue to ask whether Joe Biden created the perception of a conflict of interest when he fired a prosecutor who he knew was overseeing an investigation of his son, regardless of his motive, because I never established one way or the other what the motive was.

I established the timeline and the facts that had happened.

Those are public interest issues.

And what did Adam Schiff's witnesses tell us?

The State Department, two years, three years before I wrote my story, shared those same concerns and tried to raise them with Joe Biden.

So there was a public interest there.

The Washington Post apparently doesn't see that because it affects a Democrat.

The second issue was there was a dysfunctional relationship between our U.S.

Embassy and the Ukraine prosecutors charged with fighting corruption.

Donald Trump's talking about corruption.

They're criticizing him for maybe considering withholding aid because of corruption.

Well, if the State Department has a bad relationship with the people fighting corruption, you're never going to solve the problem.

I highlighted those issues.

Every one of those issues were confirmed in Adam Schiff's testimony.

And then the third issue was there were isolated incidents by government officials in Ukraine to interfere in the U.S.

election.

Now, was it as systemic as Russia was found to be by our U.S.

Intelligence Committee?

No, nor did I ever claim it.

What I said was there were these isolated instances where a DNC contractor seeks dirt from the embassy, where the ambassador writes an op-ed criticizing Donald Trump in the mid-election, and where two government officials knowingly and willfully released evidence they weren't supposed to release to force Paul Manafort's resignation.

And by the way, a Ukraine court concluded that was an intrusion on the U.S.

election.

Those are three legitimate journalism storylines.

And the Washington Post,

by its own admission, shows its bias by not acknowledging the importance of those issues to the American public.

It's something I have just never

seen anything so obvious as this before.

They are trying to make it look and paint this picture that you, Giuliani, and his two associates,

they used you as the engine for some sort of giant propaganda and smear operation.

Can you address the relationship and communications with Giuliani and his two associates?

Absolutely.

So I have acknowledged from the beginning, and my bosses were fully aware and approved of this,

that in March of 2019, after more than a year or nearly a year of reporting on Ukraine issues, I was still at

a loggerhead.

I couldn't get some of these Ukraine officials to talk on the record.

I knew everything on background, had lots of documents, but after a year of reporting, I didn't have anyone on record.

Joe, the gentleman, Victoria Tensinger, are two of my lawyers.

I sent a draft or went over a draft with one of my stories with them saying, hey, can you go over libel and help me on some issues here?

And they said, listen, you're struggling with this issue of being on the record.

And I said, yes, I want to get people on the record.

I want people to believe it because people put their name to it.

And they said, well, we have this guy named Lev Parnas that we work with on some of our Ukrainian cases.

He's a translator.

He's a facilitator.

He knows a lot of people.

Maybe he can help you get those people to talk on the record.

And so before I knew Rudy was involved or had anything to do with it, I talked to Lev.

Lev Parnas said, I know some of these people.

Give me a list of people you want to interview.

I gave him a list of four or five people.

And he opened the door.

When he opened the door, when he went out and got people, say, listen, can you try talking to John Solomon?

I then went through the official channels as I had been trying for months.

I went through the press office of the prosecutor general and the press office of Sergey Lishenko and others, and I confirmed these are legitimate interviews, these are going to be done free will, and that we can put them on videotape so the world can see them.

And I did exactly what a journalist does and then and I got those interviews.

Now, after my stories began emerging,

Rudy Giuliani, who I

talked with a lot about the Russia case, because he was the president's defense man on that case, occasionally would call me and he would tell me something or he'd offer to help.

In the end, nothing, I can say this and I know Rudy would confirm this.

Why Rudy did pass some information to me in June when he finished his investigation, that was long after my columns were done, nothing he gave me at any time or that he suggested or texted to me or emailed me ever showed up in any of my stories.

Why?

I either had it already or it didn't check out for me.

There are some things he's mentioned publicly that he's passed on to other reporters, myself included.

They didn't check out, so I didn't report them.

I don't report things that aren't true.

So that's what reporters do on a daily basis.

And the idea that the Washington Post and Schiff could demonize us is bad for journalism, bad for free speech, and certainly hurtful to me.

All right.

So

you are all over this.

Again, you are the propaganda machine.

I guess you're like the gerbils, maybe, of this story, according to

the press and

the left.

But did they call you to testify?

Have you been, did you expect to be called?

Are you expecting to be called by the Senate?

I don't.

And again, I'd have to, there are lots of obligations I have as a journalist, including the IP is owned by the Hill.

So if that event ever occurred, if I ever

sought to participate, I'd have to go through a process that all journalists have to go through.

But there is a lot of supposition that in all of these accusations and all of this smear campaign against me, nobody wants to look at the facts.

It's all designed to distract from the facts that I actually have reported.

The facts I have reported are incontrovertible.

They actually happened.

Joe Biden did force the firing.

He did use aid.

He knew the guy that he was firing was investigating his son.

He says he had one intention.

The prosecutor suspects he had another.

That's he said, she said.

But those facts are not in dispute.

And all of this effort by Adam Schiff, the Democrats, and his allies in the media are designed to distract from the fact that the factual trail in my stories is true and unassailable.

So they engage in character assassination, in assassination by affiliation, or by assassination by phone records with no context.

I guarantee you, if you ran Rudy Giuliani's phone records, you'd find lots of other reporters in them.

I'm not the only one.

Why did they single me out?

Because my reporting has been inconvenient to the Democrats and the Washington Post and the New York Times for three years.

So I helped unravel the Russia collusion bogus narrative.

And now I put another narrative out there that's important, factual, worth debate.

that they don't like either.

All right.

I'm going to take a one-minute break and then I come back because I want to talk to to you about that factual information and why the Republicans don't seem to be using the actual documents and the recordings and

the taped testimonies.

Why are they not using any of that?

What is the game plan that maybe you could see in one minute?

Stand by.

If you're looking for the perfect handgun, one that is great for self-defense as well as the days of the gun range, I've got some good news.

I'm a proud Second Amendment supporter, which is why I'm a USCCA member.

And right now, the USCCA is giving away 19 lucky listeners, giving away $1,000 to 19 people.

You can buy the gun of your dreams, perfect, you know,

for the holidays.

19 of my listeners could take home $1,000 for free.

All you have to do is text the word Beck to the number 87222, get the official rules, and lock in your 19 chances to win.

It ends on the 31st, so there's not a lot of time to waste.

The clock is ticking.

You could be one of those lucky people, and remember, you have 19 chances to win.

All you have to do is just text the word Beck to the number 87222 right now and get registered.

It's easy.

You can enter in seconds.

Confirmation text is going to be sent, but time is running out.

Text the word B-E-C-K to the number 87222 for your 19 chances to win.

That's Beck to the number 87222.

For more information and rules, go to protectandefend.com.

Standard message and data rates do apply.

We pause for 10 seconds.

Station ID.

We're talking to John Solomon.

He is the guy who has really busted this story wide open, done all the research, and he is being smeared by the press.

He is being smeared by Congress.

Just one quick cleanup question.

Do you have any inkling or any feeling that you will go after the media or shift with some sort of a lawsuit on what's happening?

Listen, my lawyers and I are taking a look at some of the more outrageously false

claims that are in some of these news articles, and we'll make a decision soon on whether to take some action.

If I do so, it's not to make money.

It will be to correct the factual record so that the American public can make a better judgment about what's going on.

But, you know, it's sad.

It's sad to watch a profession ignore the facts and engage in ad hominem attacks when they have so many of the facts wrong.

I mean, I can go through any story and disassemble half the facts, and they're just simply wrong.

And I have great moments.

I've talked to, I had a Washington Post reporter call me one night, and they said, we're writing a story debunking your story.

And I said, which one?

Oh, I don't know.

The one they're talking about on the Hill.

And I said, well, have you read the story?

And she said, no, I haven't.

And I said, well, how can you debunk something you haven't read?

It said, I don't have time to read it.

And I said, well, there's a very important document story.

Well, you'll have to send it to me because I don't have time to go get it.

That's how American journalism has been committed against me.

And it's really scary.

All right.

So it's not just about you, but I want to talk about Lusanko.

Now, I've talked to Rudy Giuliani, and he's even said, Lusanko is, you know, he says one thing, then he says another.

So you can't always take everything that he says at face value.

You know, and they're all corrupt, as he said.

Everybody, you just have to assume going in, don't trust anybody.

However, with Lusenko, his name is in this report over 60 times.

And every single time he's mentioned, they call him corrupt,

but they never cite a charge.

Why is he considered corrupt now when Biden labeled him as one of the good guys just, you know, the years prior, what did he do?

Is there any charge?

Is there anything?

Because they all call him corrupt, but there is no evidence that we can find anywhere that he was charged or questioned about anything.

Yeah,

in every column I wrote on Ukraine, I carefully noted to the reader that everything in Ukraine is a wild west.

There's a lot of corruption, a lot of politics.

Take everything with a grain of salt, but there's enough that here in the factual evidence that you should look at.

And again, I don't know of any corruption charges that were lodged against Lucenko formally,

certainly not in the time when I interviewed him.

He was the sitting attorney general of the country, pretty senior official.

But I didn't just take Lucenko's word for things.

I went and got the State Department's side of the story.

And here's the important part.

There's very little difference between the State Department and Lucenko.

They want to argue over the word whether a list was given from the ambassador to him.

Whether it was a list or a set of names, the State Department has testified under oath.

Yes, we did pressure the Ukrainian prosecutor's office on multiple cases not to pursue certain people that we liked or that we considered anti-corruption

activists.

So the thing that Lusenko was highlighting, that there was this pressure that created resentment between the Ukrainians and the State Department,

remains true today.

Whether there was a list or just some names discussed, the State Department was interfering in internal investigations of the Ukrainian government, and that made the prosecutors mad.

And that's what created that dysfunction I highlighted.

And I think that's the part that the Democrats want to ignore because it's true.

Okay, so this is so easy to explain with Lusenko, but I know you saw the Kent testimony.

When Kent was asked, did we pressure, is there any pressure on the embassy,

you know, from the embassy or from the State Department

to not prosecute anybody?

He said, absolutely not.

I can't imagine we did this.

I know you have it.

We have it as well.

A three-page letter written by Kent.

So

here's where the State Department officials get exposed for their diplo speak and their double speak.

They'll say, it really wasn't pressure when we wrote a letter saying...

There's no evidence and you shouldn't be pursuing George Soros' group called Antac.

It wasn't really pressure when we told them we don't think you should investigate the parliamentary member Leshenko.

It really wasn't pressure when we told them not to investigate the journalist named Shabanin.

Well, guess what?

The Ukrainians took that as pressure, and why?

Because they're relying on the U.S.

Embassy and their aid to survive as a country.

So they can play semantics with pressure.

They can play semantics with list.

But what they did was specifically instruct.

the

Ukrainians on multiple occasions, we don't want you pursuing, harassing, investigating, prosecuting these people.

And before I did my stories, I interviewed the State Department and they said, yeah, we did that.

Yep, that name we did.

Yep, that name we did.

And I put that in the story.

I did a lot of reporting that didn't rely on either Jovanovich or Lucenko's account of the meeting.

It relied on the bigger issue.

Is there a dysfunction and pressure going on between the embassy?

And that remains true today.

So, John.

I mean, the volumes of information that you have,

the documents that

have

shared with you,

you've given to us, and we have found additional stuff.

Why, this case is so clear.

Why are the Republicans not sitting down when they called a conspiracy theory, why are they not sitting in front of television saying,

here's the document?

Why is this not happening?

You know, I don't know.

I don't know the answer.

In some cases, they have.

I mean, Devin Nunez has made some pretty strong statements during the hearings, and I think Lindsey Graham now is requesting some of these documents, right?

There was a document request just last week.

I think at the end of the day,

you know, each side, each party is going to come to whatever they think their best strategy is, both for resolving impeachment and for 2020 politics and just for traditional oversight.

But there is a body of evidence that you have, I have, Rudy Giuliani has, ABC News has, New York Times has.

Remember, before the New York Times, Washington Post, and ABC and all these others turned on me, they confirmed my stories back in May and April.

Then they abandoned them when the criticism of the Democrats began, which is a really odd dynamic in America.

But there is a body of trail that those three issues we talked about are true, and they're important oversight issues, and somebody should step to the plate and look at them.

That's why I wrote the columns, not to demean any ambassador or cause anything to cause, to highlight public interest issues that probably needed oversight.

And, you know, I think the country, most of many people in the country appreciate what I did.

Hopefully, Congress will do its job and do the oversight and get to the bottom of these issues.

I hope so, too.

I hope so, too.

John, thank you so much for your reporting.

And I feel for you.

I know what it's like to be.

You've been there.

Yeah.

And

where do you go to get your reputation back?

I want you to know

we are grateful, and there are millions of Americans that are grateful for what you've done.

John Sullivan.

That means a lot.

You bet.

You're listening to Glenn Beck.

American Financing Corporation, NMLS 182334, www.nmlsconsumeraccess.org.

When you're trying to save for a down payment on a house, sometimes it can seem like you're trying to do the impossible, but I'm here to tell you, it doesn't have to feel that way.

If you are a responsible human being with your money, the best thing you can do is give American Financing a call.

They have a salary-based mortgage consultant that believes that you shouldn't have to put 20% down in order to pre-qualify for a mortgage if you're a responsible human being.

They have access to down payment assistant programs and customize any loan in the industry for you.

You could be looking at spending a whole lot less on a down payment than you originally thought.

Now, here's the thing.

10 minutes, 10 minutes of your day will find out if you qualify for any kind of loan for mortgage, refi,

or for a consolidation loan.

It's the responsible thing to do in 10 minutes.

American Financing, a mortgage company for everybody, has you covered coast to coast.

It's worth 10 minutes of your time to see if you can save from $500 to $1,000 every single month.

Call American Financing 800-906-2440 or AmericanFinancing.net.

Just a couple of days, Saturday.

Glenn is in Salt Lake City.

Go to Glennbeck.com/slash Christmas.

There's a few tickets left.

Be there.

Stu, how does this work out in your head, the impeachment?

Because

I have a theory,

but I have no idea other than they've just been bitten by the madness.

But how does this work out well for the Democrats?

Let's say by Christmas they pass articles of impeachment.

Well, that means coming in January, when people are paying attention again, the Senate now has control, and the Senate is not going to run the impeachment like the House did.

They're going to call witnesses that are going to completely turn this thing upside down, and it will keep some of their candidates off of the campaign trail.

Yeah, was there five senators running now?

Booker, Bobichar, Sanders, Warren.

They all have to be at this trial.

So how does this work out?

You know, first of all, it's the first time it's ever been done in U.S.

history.

People talk about it being the third or the fourth impeachment that's been close or has been voted on.

Yeah, but none of those were in the middle of an election, right?

Like those were all second-term situations.

This is a first-term situation ahead of the election.

And I think there's a real case to be made, if I'm a Democrat, to not rush through this, to drag it out for a long time,

because you can drag it out.

You can be you can be the sideshow essentially throughout the

primary process, which is going to focus your voting electorate on who's the most electable to defeat Trump because it's going to be the main topic.

It's not going to be, hey, who can come up with the most socialist health care system, which has not benefited them at all.

And they could just keep running this thing because Turley's point, which we addressed earlier, is really clear, which is they have not even attempted to call the people who were actually there during these conversations.

The reason for that is they don't believe they could get it through the court system fast enough because they want to rush it through before Christmas for some bizarre reason.

So, I think there's a real argument they should go the other way here, drag it out.

Then you'd already have a nominee by the time the Senate thing started.

So, it wouldn't matter with all these senators being pulled off of the campaign trail with the possible exception

of what who?

I mean, if Bernie wins or Elizabeth Warren, maybe that could be an issue.

But you could just, you know, continue to drag it out.

There's a million ways to get around that.

What they're doing here is rushing it through.

I think I kind of go back to our initial vibe on this, which is they want to be able to tell the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez,

the squad-esque members of their party, they did what they could.

They impeached the guy.

What else were we supposed to do?

The Republicans stopped us, but believe in us, donate to us.

We're going for it.

Without necessarily focusing the rest of the country on it

in the biggest marquee way possible because they're burying us right around the holidays when no one's paying attention.

But if it goes to the Senate, it then turns against them, holds them in place, unless your plan is nobody likes an impeachment process.

And they're just going to turn on the Republicans and saying, look, we got this done in an efficient manner, and we don't want this to drag on.

And they're just dragging this on for the election.

That's the only game I could, but I think that's a losing game.

Well, nobody's lost money betting on incompetence of Republicans.

That's true.

So it's possible they could actually have a Senate hearing blow it so badly that this all turns around on them.

Hey, tomorrow on Blazetv.com, you can get an interview.

I did about an hour or so with Nikki Haley, commercial-free, and it is on the impeachment

and on her time and what she saw behind the scenes.

And I want to play a couple of clips.

If you're a Blaze TV subscriber, you'll get this tomorrow.

It'll be available online for the next couple of days.

Saturday, it will go everywhere else on my podcast, but you'll get it early, and it is really worth watching.

Here's Nikki Haley on the impeachment.

I think the investigation actually should start here in the United States.

I think we should look at what sort of conflict of interest Biden had, what was said to the prosecutor, because we've got the videos of things that he had said and things that he demanded.

demanded i think we need to look into that but when you look at the facts look at the phone calls that have all been provided look at the facts

he was talking to the president of ukraine about corruption that president was elected to stop corruption to stop corruption so there was a they were two presidents having a conversation him bringing up the investigation the investigation didn't happen there's no sign of browbeating there's no sign of threats and the money flowed i don't know at what point

that even qualifies for impeachment.

And that's the thing, it's just so desperate.

You know, it's been one investigation after another investigation after another one.

The people are getting tired.

But more than that, the Democrats might slightly have an ounce of credibility had they not been trying to do this since the day he was elected.

She goes into how

the attacks on the president are so unconstitutional and within his own cabinet.

Listen to her tell the story about Rex Tillerson trying to, quote, save the country.

This was a real concern for me because I saw that he was slow walking things or I saw that they just weren't doing what the president was asking in the National Security Council meetings.

But on this day, we had had a meeting in the Oval Office and it was about giving Palestinian aid.

And I wanted to pull the aid because they were anti-American.

This agency wasn't willing to reform.

It was a waste of taxpayer dollars.

The president agreed with me.

Kelly brought in Rex.

Rex countered it.

And so he said, y'all go out and figure this out.

So me and Rex and Kelly were sitting there, and we were talking for about an hour.

And I basically was saying, this is what the president wants.

And that's when they came in and they said, look,

we're not undermining the president.

We're trying to save the country.

And if we don't do what we're doing by stalling or changing what he wants, people will die.

Now, this would be different if they thought he was unfit.

This would be different if they thought that he wasn't stable.

That's not what their issues were.

This is the fact that they didn't agree with getting out of the Iran deal.

They didn't agree with getting out of the Paris Climate Agreement.

They didn't agree with moving the embassy from Telugu.

It's not theirs to agree with.

These were policy issues.

So if you don't agree on policy do what i did and go tell the president but they had every opportunity in national security council meetings or quit right and so that was

the bottom line was they just thought they knew better than the president and the reason this touched a nerve with me is i ran for governor i know how hard it is to get elected I know when you make promises to the people that elected you, you want to carry it out.

I was offended that they were looking in the mirror every day thinking that they could be president.

It's quite remarkable.

And this goes to what the impeachment, I believe, is really all about.

The State Department.

That's Rex Tillerson at that time.

The State Department thinking they know best and they will do whatever they want to do.

And they've institutionalized it.

And we've shown you all of the documents that prove that.

But it was in Trump's own house as well, and they are making him pay.

And it's sending a message to any other president.

We control the policy, not you.

So, Nikki Haley, as we're talking, you know, she didn't start out as a fan of the president.

Her mom was always a fan of Donald Trump, but she wasn't.

So,

I asked her to take me through the

hoop here of

how she went from not for Donald Trump to Donald Trump's really

best selection

and biggest defender.

You were not for Trump in the beginning.

In the beginning, I was.

You were Marco Rubio, and then you went to Ted Cruz.

Your mom was...

She was for President Trump the whole time from the very first day.

And

she's an immigrant.

Oh, and she loved how straightforward he was.

She loved the fact that he wasn't going to let the United States get taken for granted.

But more than that, she loved what he was going to do on illegal immigration because my parents came to this country because they wanted a better life for their kids.

And they put in the time, put in the price, and came here legally.

They are offended by those who come here illegally.

So she very much wanted to do that.

And it's funny because we had a lot of talent on that stage, 16 people.

I was so giddy about that slate.

And I put my

backing on Marco Rubio, and I remember the president tweeted, Nikki Haley is an embarrassment to South Carolina, in which I responded and tweeted, bless your heart.

Anybody who knows anything about the Carolinas,

that's just a polite way to say F-E.

I love that.

But, you know, once he won the primary, I supported him in the general.

And we were friends before.

We actually knew each other.

He supported me when I ran for governor the first time, and I got this white envelope with this great gold trim, and there was a support check in it, and there was a note that said, You're a winner.

And we were in touch the entire time.

But I would fax you stories about you.

Oh, yes.

He would, and say, keep up the great work.

So we were, we were acquaintances.

But, you know, I mean, all of us had to choose a horse in 16.

It's a fascinating, fascinating conversation with with Nikki Haley.

You can listen to the podcast.

Free for everybody on Saturday.

If you're a Blaze subscriber, you can get that probably at midnight tonight, but definitely by this time tomorrow, it will be posted.

And

there's a lot of stuff in there.

And if you like Nikki Haley, you're going to come out liking her even more.

Nikki Haley 2024.

It's a great interview.

Very, very, very astute, very, very smart,

and

just well put together.

Couldn't get her to announce, though.

Kind of a letdown.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Wait, wait.

I just said you didn't do your job as

an interviewer, as a host.

I mean, the question.

Well, I did tie her to a stake.

Oh, really?

Yeah.

She still would admit it, but anyway, every year during the holidays, break-ins spike.

And it makes sense.

You know, we're traveling.

Burglars know that we have expensive gifts lying around.

That's why Simply Safe is my choice for home security.

Should be your choice as well.

Simply Safe offers comprehensive professional home security at an affordable rate that's going to put a smile on your face.

And right now is the best time of the year to get Simply Safe and their security system.

It's a huge discount on your system and a free security camera.

They just don't do these specials like this.

If you go to Simply Safe right now, you're going to take advantage of Simply Safe's amazing holiday savings and get a free HD security camera.

The offer is for a very limited time.

It's ending soon, so go right now to simply safebeck.com.

Save big and get a free HD security camera.

It's simply safebeck.com.

That's simply safebeck.com.

You're listening to Glenn Beck.

Looking at our big board here in the Glenbeck studio, we have a giant board that has all of the names, all the people who have dropped out from

the race on the Democratic side.

But I have to take Umbridge, which is

Umbridge.

You had Michael Bloomberg under, eh, probably not.

And that's with Tom Steyer, Andrew Yang Tulsi Gabbard

and you put Michael Bloomberg there he's already doing eight percent so you moved him to I mean maybe if everything goes right yes I think he belongs in yeah he's got a shot

it's not a it's not an implausible decision I mean you can make the argument he's in fifth place in this campaign right now Now, 8% is above where he's normally polling, we should be clear.

He's had one or two good polls, but he's been, he's above the Amy Klobajars, the Bookers.

He's basically tied with Andrew Yang right now.

And Yang has performed very well.

You can make the argument he's in fifth, too.

Yeah, but Bloomberg is a billionaire.

He's a known entity.

He will appear to be somebody who could beat Donald Trump.

He won't be afraid.

And if Joe Biden drops out or

is not winning,

you're going to go to Buddha Judge, Sanders, Warren, Klobuchar, Booker.

It's clearly Michael Bloomberg.

Do you think it's Biden or Bloomberg?

I do not agree with that analysis at this point.

I mean, still

Warren or Butige could easily win, an outside shot of Sanders winning Iowa.

Biden's currently fourth there.

But look at what's happening with Warren.

Warren's fallen off, but

she's still very competitive in those first two states.

And if she were to win those first two states,

This whole thing can change really quickly.

Remember, Michael Bloomberg's not even on the ballot in these states.

So you're going to have

four races that go down and set some sort of narrative.

If it's chaos, it benefits Bloomberg because he's a guy who's essentially right now running in Super Tuesday states unopposed with $53 billion.

That's not a terrible position to be in

unless this plays out in a way where, let's say, Elizabeth Warren wins the first two states, which he's very competitive in.

And

that may create enough momentum for her to win a couple more states and she becomes the runaway nominee.

I think if Biden is to, if Biden wins Iowa, it's hard to argue that without a massive

event,

he would not be the overwhelming favorite.

I mean, that's the one.

He's in fourth place in Iowa, but he's still relatively competitive.

If he could somehow pull that race out, he probably springs to the lead in New Hampshire.

South Carolina, he's destroying everyone.

Nevada, he's been up for a while as well.

He's got a clear path.

If he wins those first four states, Bloomberg can take shots shots at him there, but that's a tough place to come from.

Well, it'd be hard for Joe Biden.

I think Joe Biden, I mean,

if he just doesn't talk about the hair on his legs and things like that, he is going to be the guy.

There's too many Democrats that don't want a socialist.

Just too many Democrats.

I think that's true.

And that's the argument for Budajej here, by the way.

who comes out.

He's a mayor of a small town.

I know, but he's basically in the lead or front runner in Iowa.

If he wins Iowa, he goes to another very white state where he is performing decently well.

It has a lot of sort of

college graduate liberals there that would like Buddha Judge.

I don't know how he does anything in South Carolina.

He'd be the guy, and maybe Andrew Yang.

I don't know how old Yang is, but Buddha Judge and Andrew Yang, those are the two that historically

would perform well

because Democrats always lose in these cycles cycles when it's old.

That is true, yeah.

They always win when it's somebody new and vibrant like Obama or JFK, Clinton.

When it's somebody old, they usually lose.

They lose.

And Kamala gone.

We didn't even mention that today, which shows how well her campaign was going.

We're going to miss her.

Oh, my gosh.

Oh, jeez.

I mean, she really, she's one of those candidates that actually had a shot.

She did and blew it.

Just absolutely.

Her and Betto are the two big examples of that out of this cycle.

There's other people who have come and gone and never really had a chance gillibrand never got a look right harris and bedo both had their chance and people saw it strangely they both did the same thing they just went super super left and got desperate

program program program program