Best of the Program | Guest: Jason Buttrill | 4/18/19

Welcome to the podcast.

Today, it's Muller Day.

Another Mueller Day.

I hope these never end.

I hope every two or three days you have yet another Mueller report day.

That is happening today, and we're going through the report.

We get the Bar press conference that happens during the show.

We go over what he said, break it down for you.

And if you have not followed this that closely, we try to get you up to speed.

And if you have followed it, there are things you will notice in Barr's press conference that are really amazing, including the fact that there i mean it's it's a more it's a more convincing case i think they were more convinced than they even let on in the initial letter that there was nothing going on with pollution i mean they could find no evidence of that there's this list of 10 things that they describe in the obstruction of justice part of it that are going to be the focus of the media we go into what they're going to try to do why that matters and the report kind of gets released in the middle of the show so we go through as much as we can and uh i mean it's it's one of those days a breaking news day we dive into all of that on today's podcast.

Make sure you listen to for further breakout at 5 p.m.

Eastern on Blazetv.com/slash Glenn.

Of course, you can get it at any time when it comes to on-demand.

Use the promo code Glenn and save $10 on your membership.

But you get a free trial, check it out.

We're going to break down the entire Mueller report at 5 p.m.

Eastern on Blaze TV.

Now, the podcast.

You're listening to

the best of the blend back program.

So here we are.

It's Mueller Day part two.

And it seems as if that we are going to get some expanded picture as to what's in the Mueller Report.

Now, if you're like me, I think you don't salivate over these things like the media does.

The media loves to talk about this because there's this great time that they have in this window of open speculation where they can say whatever they want because they there's no evidence as to what's going to be in the report yet.

Like we know that Barr came out and said there's no collusion and he's not exonerated from

the obstruction of justice, but there's nothing there to actually make it rise to criminal level.

And

you have to think about what do we expect here.

The press has had a field day since this letter came out because what they've been able to do is say,

Why did we get this summary from Barr?

We don't care about some summary from some guy who works for Donald Trump.

We want to see the whole thing.

We want to see every little bit of it because when we see every little bit of it, we know we're going to catch him in something.

We know that he was protected somehow.

This guy, Mueller, who we all said was the gold standard, was going to be able to go into this and find every little detail because he's so well respected by both sides.

But when he didn't come up with a conclusion that we wanted, now we have to,

they're still holding on to just that little string, like that little kitty hanging from the string.

He says, hang in there.

They're still kind of just hanging in there, hoping that they can now dig through 400 pages instead of four and find something really damaging, which

I understand what they're doing, right?

These are Democrats trying to control the narrative.

And they went into

ridiculous mode last night because of the announcement of this press conference, which is again coming up in about 20 minutes.

We'll have it here for you as it goes.

The idea that

they're trying to make the American people believe

is that

Barr is protecting Donald Trump by having a press conference before

they actually release the report.

So in theory, you'd have the report released and then people would be able to go through it and then you'd have a press conference about it.

What they're trying to say is, all right, well, no, they're doing this in advance.

So we don't have the report to ask ask sensible questions about yet.

And they're doing this to essentially ease whatever's going to come out.

And we know it's going to be something bad.

They're trying to ease

the horrible effects on the president's administration.

Now, is this true?

I don't know.

I mean, look,

every presidential

cabinet, every presidential administration, when they think that something could be damaging to them,

if they don't take steps to protect themselves from that thing, they're morons.

Everybody does it.

Everybody tries to control the narrative in Washington.

What do you think the nonsense of the last 24 hours has been about?

What are Democrats doing?

Democrats are stepping up, and Democrats are saying, well, if he's having this press conference, that means he must be hiding something.

They're trying to control the narrative.

And what's interesting here, and you see this all the time, is when Republicans are trying to control the narrative, you see extensive coverage as to what they're trying to do in that process.

This is how they're trying to protect the president.

This is what they're trying to do.

Well, you know what?

Allies of the president are trying to protect the president.

Of course they are.

I mean, that does not mean that there's anything bad in here.

We will find out relatively soon what is in there.

But the Democrats are doing the same thing, and they're just treated as the experts on the topic.

No one says, hey, Democrats are also trying to control the narrative.

The Democrats don't care what's in this report.

The Democrats care about what they can use against Donald Trump and

whoever else in the administration is their next big target.

And that's what I think you have to look back at as we're going through this process.

We know, one thing we know, is that there was nothing, a criminal level of collusion in this case.

We know that.

That's already kind of done.

As far as obstruction of justice, there was nothing that rose to an obvious level of criminal

issue.

And that does not mean, however, that the Democrats won't, A, be able to find things that they will try to convince America of criminality.

They may.

They may find something that's juicy enough that they can go in there and say, well, here's this part of it is criminal, and we need to go after it.

Why aren't they investigating this?

They can use their investigative powers to go in and look for additional documents.

They can use these things as sort of like lead paths into a new investigation.

And then they can drag this out over the next couple of years.

And believe me, this is too much of an asset to them for them to let it go.

They are going to find something in this report that they are going to claim, and they won't believe it, but they were going to claim is serious enough for them to be able to go through this and

justify additional

show in court.

They're going to be able to find something that they can put a show on.

That's going to happen.

And then additionally, beyond that, they're going to get to a level where

there's a strong possibility they're going to be able to find something embarrassing at the very least.

So that's kind of where I think this is realistically going to land.

Is there going to be a text exchange related to this investigation where a prominent Trump official says something negative about Trump, where they say something negative about the way something was handled, where they say something that's critical of their own administration.

All these things are legitimately possible.

And, you know, that's the type of thing that is going to control a news cycle for a week or two.

It doesn't make, it has nothing to do with the actual real problem we have of a foreign power, Russia, trying to influence our elections.

That was the point of this.

And I think at the end of the day, you may look back at the Mueller investigation and say, wow, like,

because, you know, the investigations would have gone gone on anyway.

They would have been throwing these things out anyway.

If the Democrats could control the House, they would have launched investigations anyway.

Now you have someone who every Democrat on the record has said is incredibly credible who said, well, there's nothing there.

So it might wind up being a huge positive overall for Trump.

But if you remember when the hacking went on with the DNC,

and a lot of this was obviously tied to the Russian investigation, when that happened, what came out of it?

What came out of it?

Anything of value?

Not really.

What came out of it was embarrassing things for some of the key Clinton players, right?

It was, oh, well, you know, we think Bernie, basically, we think Bernie sucks, and we don't want him to get the nomination because he's going to lose.

He's a freaking socialist.

So what can we do to help Clinton win?

Is there any evidence that they moved 4 million votes to Hillary Clinton?

Remember, she won by 12 points in the primary.

12 points.

This was not that close.

But she won the primary election, and Bernie has held on to that as essentially he was wronged in the primary campaign.

There was a lot of infighting.

There were certain officials and people who had high-level Democratic ties that were mocked by people like Podesta, and those things were embarrassing to the Democrats.

Will that type of thing come out here?

It's possible.

It's legitimately possible.

And that's all you're going to be hearing about for a few weeks if that's what happens.

But these things are not of fundamental importance to the United States of America, which is supposed to be what we actually care about.

That is supposed to be the end game here.

It's just very rare that you actually see that occur.

So as we go through this report,

you're going to have something in there that's going to lead the news for at least some time.

The idea that this is coming out, I mean, you see this, it comes out on a Thursday.

Tomorrow is Good Friday.

Then you've got Easter weekend.

How long of the legs is something in here going to have?

The Democrats and the media are going to do as much work as they can to make sure the legs are long.

They want NBA-level legs.

They want legs.

They want

plastic man, stretch Armstrong legs.

That's what they want.

And they're going to stretch this out as long as they can because this is what they have right now.

They certainly can't talk about the economy.

You know,

they're going to make their case and they're going to come out and they're going to say that what went on here is obstruction of justice.

Literally,

no matter what is in this report, that is what they're going to say.

Is there something so serious that it's going to convince the American people, people who are in the middle, who are looking back and forth and saying, you know, I don't know who to believe here?

Are they going to be able to pull those people over?

They're going to be able to pull someone over to the Democratic side from the Republican side because of this report?

I mean, I'm incredibly skeptical of that idea.

And the reason is that if they had something,

there would have been more here.

Remember, there wasn't even an attempt by Mueller to

subpoena Donald Trump to testify in front of him.

He could have.

He could have done that.

Now, whether it would have worked or not, there would have been all sorts of court fights over that.

Instead, he asked email questions, essentially, had him answer with the help of his attorneys, and had Donald Trump answer questions in written form.

If he was sure that there was a borderline claim here, he would have subpoenaed him and pushed this down the road a lot further than he did.

Again, this is someone that both Republicans and Democrats said was very credible, and he didn't even take that additional step to try to subpoena him.

And we've seen before, obviously, Bill Clinton was subpoenaed successfully.

This could have happened.

So, without taking that step, you just, it's hard to imagine they're going to be able to find something here.

Is there stuff on Roger Stone?

We're not going to know.

Is there stuff on one of his kids?

Did Kushner or his, you obviously his son-in-law?

Or did Donald Trump Jr.

say something bad in a text that could be problematic?

It's not impossible.

And we're going to see some of that here.

But you have to remember, you have to set the scene here.

And the scene is the Democrats, no matter what, are going to say that Donald Trump is guilty of obstruction of justice.

The media is going to echo those sentiments.

And it's going to be up to.

The real people in America, people like you, who actually care about Russia's influence in the election, who actually care if Donald Trump did something wrong.

Because if he did, you'd be all over him, I hope.

I know I would be.

But we're going to look at this with an open mind and say, all right, well, here's what he did wrong, and here's what he did right, if any of those things are there.

And I think there's

a great lesson for all of us here to learn about how

inaccurate we are with the direction we go in these stories, because once again, taking precedence over Russian influence over our elections.

This is a foreign power.

We all realize the threat of Russia.

And instead of talking about that, everyone's going to be talking about some salacious text.

So that's the scene that we have today.

And we're going to get into that a little bit more.

Jason Butchell's going to be joining me here in a second to kind of go over the schedule of events today.

We have the press conference coming up in about 10 minutes.

It's Stu on the Glenbeck program.

We're going to take a quick one-minute break, and we'll be back.

If you're catching the show live, we're about 10 minutes away from the press conference supposedly starting here on the Glenn Beck program Glenn's out here for a little bit he's not feeling well he may be joining us here at any point Jason Buttrell is also with us Jason is let's I mean yeah he's got military experience he's Glenn's the lead researcher blah blah blah the main thing that that Jason does on these days is we force him to read all the annoying reports all these dang reports yes and I'm happy to do it it's been two years 24 months I've been dreading today

I mean, how many of these have we had to read and talk about over the last, what, year and a half?

Yes.

There's always like a ton.

I know.

There's always a new 5,000-page government report poor Jason is stuck reading.

And it's not like you and Glenn are like, yeah, can you read all of these like 5,000 pages and have them done by the show today in like two or three hours?

That's all we ask.

I mean, it's not a big deal.

It's not a big one.

So, Jason, can you kind of walk us through the schedule today?

Because the press conference leads the day here in a few moments.

We're going to find out something about this.

Hopefully, maybe a little bit about the process.

Is that what we're expecting here?

Well, that's what I'm hoping.

And

you were talking about how, you know, I didn't ever actually think about that.

That was an interesting way to look at that.

I'm just controlling the narrative because what I was hoping is that the narrative will be squashed.

But I guess that's a way, in a way, that's kind of controlling the narrative as well.

But like, it's been so kind of, it's been so frustrating after the initial, you know, four-page summary was sent out because it's been spun in like a gazillion different ways.

But I was like, please, like, when I heard about the conference, I was like, awesome.

Like, at least just tell us, look, this is why there was a four-page summary because the rules were changed after Ken Starr and the new special counsel rules.

Because I think much of the mainstream media just doesn't even talk about that.

No.

They want to create some kind of clickbaity thing.

You know what I mean?

So like, yeah, tell us all about that.

Lay it all out because we're not getting it on CNN.

Let's just get it straight from Attorney General Barr's mouth.

Then this is why we have to redact things.

We can't talk about certain things unless they

pertain to a crime

or if they have stuff about

non-public officials.

Yeah, and this is an important part.

I think there's four different ways they're redacting this information.

They're going to color-code it so you know the reason they redacted it.

Part of it is grand jury.

So the grand jury testimony cannot be put in a public report like this unless there's a special clearance from a judge, which they do not have.

So some of this will be because it's grand jury information.

And that's so going to happen, right?

It's absolutely going to happen.

They're going to go for that.

That's number one.

You also have, and this is an interesting one.

Basically, they don't want to throw information that could be personally damaging on someone who's sort of a periphery

character in this and ruin their life just because if it's a public report.

So, you know, if some guy at Starbucks had some interaction with Donald Trump, or McDonald's is probably a better example.

He likes the McD's.

If someone at McDonald's had an interaction with Donald Trump and it was embarrassing for the McDonald's employee, they're not going to include that information.

They're going to redact it because they don't want to, there's no reason to embarrass the McDonald's employee over this.

Now, what's interesting is people were saying, hey, well, Donald Trump, if he wasn't charged with anything, is he a character they're going to black out all the information on?

Barr was very clear.

No, we're not going to redact information about Donald Trump.

He's a public official.

And I think the wording he used was a public elected official.

But there's still a way they can get around that, though, actually.

And this is why I think this is some of the gray area, because they also cannot talk about the current case of Roger Stone because of the gag order.

Yeah, that's another one of them.

So there could be text messages, emails, whatever, specifically between the two of them, the president and Roger Stone.

In theory.

In theory, but that would be completely blacked out.

And correctly

blacked out.

They're in the middle of ongoing proceedings, so they don't want to tip their hand as to necessarily what they have.

They don't want to necessarily close down another string of the investigation that might go from Roger Stone to someone else.

These are...

And

if you listen to actual legal experts on the left and the right, they will tell you these four

categories of redaction are incredibly standard.

They're the boring standard everybody uses in this type of situation.

Now, the left is going to say that Barr is

applying them incorrectly, right?

Like they can say, well, we think he redacted too much.

What you will definitely get is a word count, essentially, as to what percentage of the documents were redacted.

No matter what number that is, they will say it's too high.

They will say they redacted too much information.

And you know what?

Because this is just like, it's like a series, Jason.

It's like when you want to extend people to watch the next episode of Game of Thrones, you give it a little cliffhanger.

And what they'll do here is, well, we saw what they gave us, but you know what's behind those black markers.

That's the real stuff.

And they won't give us that.

They release the whole thing and

they will

stretch this out for another six months.

So that comes out at 11 Eastern, but apparently only on CDs, just to Congress.

Right.

We're still using CD Rob.

And we don't know when the other less redacted version is going to come out.

Yeah, and it will be, I will say, it will be available for download on Dial-Up Modem.

So that's going to be coming up.

I can't wait for that release.

That's going to be exciting.

We'll be back with more here in just a second on the Mueller Report and the press conference right around the corner.

The best of the Glenn Beck program.

Okay, so Glenn is

in this morning.

We're prepping the show, and he just kind of walked out about 30 seconds before the show, not feeling well.

And so he has gone home.

So we are here to give you the breakdown of the Mueller report.

I'm sure he was, it wasn't that he was feeling completely fine and just didn't want to deal with the Mueller report all day.

I'm sure that was not the real situation.

He was like, how many pages?

Yeah.

How many am I assigned?

Not feeling too well at the moment, all of a sudden.

So, I'm here with Jason Buttrell, who joins me.

He's a head researcher, and he's the guy we're going to task with.

I mean, we're all going to read it, but Jason's the one who's going to have to really get nerdy with it.

And

that's why you're here, Jason.

I'm sliding into my X chair.

Here we go.

Got to have the X chair today.

Okay, so I'm going to walk through here for a couple minutes what we just learned from the Mueller Report.

And I will say

Barr's press conference did reveal things that we did not know before

and did give a significant

idea

as to what direction the coverage is going to go on this.

And so let me go through this a little bit.

First of all, kind of walk through the process.

What is happening now is

we have in Congress, there are a bunch of CD burners.

They've bought the last six CD-ROMs from the shelves of Staples, and they are now burning the CD-ROMs with the report, and they're going to drag it over to Congress.

I mean, it's embarrassing.

I do think that if you have a dial-up modem, you may be able to get access to this.

Now, whether you can post it on MySpace, I'm not sure.

But

you can check that, and maybe you can even post it on Friendster.

We'll have to check with that.

I'm not 100% sure.

I mean, it's just embarrassing.

We spent how many millions of dollars on this report?

And then in the end of the day, what we're going to have is a bunch of CD-ROMs being physically brought across.

And, you know, you can make the argument, okay, well, you know, security reasons or whatever, you might not want to put them on the internet.

We're posting it on the internet later today.

Like, this thing, it's 400 pages.

Email the thing.

You know what?

Post it on Amazon.

Let people buy it if they have to.

But there should be a nice fancy button at some point.

We should pull this up and make sure we're checking for this as we go.

And I'm blabbing here.

When that button comes up, we should be able to download the entire 400-page report and we will start going through it for quotes.

We'll start going through it for understanding an additional perspective on what's actually going on here.

And

Barr came out and did,

you could argue what the Democrats were saying he was going to do, and also, you could argue, exactly what any administration would do.

He's trying to give you perspective so you understand what you're about to read.

So let me give you this breakdown of what he went through.

The Mueller report comes in two different pieces, two different chunks, part one and part two.

Part one is about collusion.

Now, we have heard in the initial letter from Barr that there was not enough evidence.

There was, I believe

it did not rise to the level of criminality.

Trump was saying completely exonerated, and I thought that was a pretty fair

summary of the tone of this letter when it comes to collusion.

They went through and they said, look, there's no collusion here.

And

that's an interesting thing.

Like, when you say that there's no collusion, what does that mean?

It's a summary of all the evidence, right?

You're saying, okay, there may have been things here and there, but we, it didn't rise to any criminal level.

That

was, I think, overthrown in the Barr press conference because what William Barr said was not that there was, you know, some things here and there, but it didn't amount to collusion.

What they said was there was absolutely nothing.

They went so I mean he look if he's wrong on this if he's lying on this I mean I don't see how he can He was quoting Mueller, but they said over and over again that there was absolutely nothing,

not only from Donald Trump, not only from Trump's family, not only from Trump's campaign and all the people surrounding him, all the way down to the Carter pages of the world, who I think maybe like gave Donald Trump a high five once in his life.

Not any of those people, not only them, but no American they were able to find any evidence of.

Yeah, sure, go ahead, Jason.

Put that in context of what that means for the other people that have been charged that surrounded his campaign.

Talk about Papadopoulos.

That was a huge thing, if true.

So, what the heck was that?

Was that all just a made-up story?

Between that ambassador and that weird, or was he just braggadocious?

Remember, he did not get charged with it.

He got charged with lying.

So, is it just that he was lying about it, but in reality, they didn't find anything to that incident?

Right.

That's a big deal.

And again, like,

there was this idea that Trump colluded with Russia.

The letter from Barr came out and everyone kind of realized, okay, it doesn't look like he colluded with Russia.

We are now at the point that, I mean, there's nothing to that claim whatsoever.

Now, we're going to look at this document.

Obviously, there's going to be more in there.

You never know

what you're going to find in there.

There could be something that is, you know, you don't think is distasteful or whatever.

But the way it was worded, and this was worded not by Barr, but by Mueller, that there was, they were unable to identify any evidence, this is a quote, any evidence of collusion with Russia by any American.

Let me give you the three ways they broke this down.

First of all, there was the Internet Research Agency.

If you remember, this is the social media sort of attacks.

They, of course, did come up with charges against the Russians.

And this is another thing that's going to be left by the wayside here, but is incredibly important.

One of the things that this

Mueller report establishes very clearly is that Russia did try

to manipulate our elections.

To me,

and I've said this many times before,

it is not a witch hunt.

The only way this is a witch hunt is if the witch you're going for is Donald Trump.

And of course, the media and the left, that is the witch they're going for.

They want to take Donald Trump down.

So him calling it a witch hunt.

Oh, I can't believe they're doing that.

He's really bad.

It's not a witch hunt, not because of the Trump stuff, but because of the Russia stuff.

The idea that they found and identified not only, I was it, 12 Russians or 13 Russians who were specifically in on this campaign, but also identified the methods and the process of which they, of how they tried to manipulate American elections, is an incredibly valuable.

I mean, it's very if we could have just erased all the nonsensical politics around this and stepped back and said, hey, you know, it would be great if we actually focused on a hostile nation to us and what they're trying to do, the Mueller report would have been fantastic.

And I hope that's what Mueller was trying to do.

You know, I really hope he was.

I'll say this.

He may have had other motives too, but he did do that.

We do know that they did try Russians and there was,

we did

indict Russians, and they're not going to go to jail because they're just going to stay in Russia, obviously.

Or they've been killed already by Vladimir Putin.

So I don't know how much, how jail would be really, I don't know if it would be that effective.

They may be begging for American jails for where they actually are.

The point, though, is that that is real and that did happen.

And we should note that.

We shouldn't.

That's by far the most important thing that could come out of this:

what is Russia doing?

How do we stop it in the future?

So that's that part.

Internet Research Agency, again, they said they could not identify evidence, could not identify any evidence that any American colluded with Russia with the Internet Research Agency.

Part two was the GRU, they hacked the Democrats.

Now, this is the thing you remember with John Podesta's emails coming out.

You know, a lot of people like to, the Clintons love to blame this as the reason they lost.

Really, what came out?

I mean, step back for a second.

Can you remember anything that came out of the hacks of the Democratic National Committee or Podesta's emails?

I mean, honestly, probably the most memorable thing was it started the Pizzagate conspiracies, right?

Like, I mean, there's really nothing that came out of that.

The only thing was some infighting among Democrats that embarrassed them a little bit.

I mean, it did not turn the election.

It's absurd to think that

it turned the election.

However, they also did not find any evidence.

That's a quote.

Could not find any evidence that anyone.

in the campaign, in the administration, in the Trump family, anyone

did anything to work with Russia when it comes to hacking the Democratic emails.

That's a pretty big deal.

They also talked about the publishing the emails of WikiLeaks.

All this comes down to the end game, which is they could not find anything on this.

And that report was amazing, by the way.

That's another one that I had to read.

But talking about the, was it 25-ish Russians that were indicted in that?

Was it that high?

It was something like that.

I think it was 25.

But like, if you want to know how this worked, read that.

It is so in-depth.

Yeah.

I mean, it's amazing investigative work.

They tracked Bitcoin payments.

They tracked server IP

numbers.

They found out exactly where these people were in the world.

I mean, it's just amazing.

It's so in-depth.

But there's no question at all that Russia was behind this after you've read that.

Yeah.

And we, as thinking members of society, have to step back and not let the media control where these things go.

If all we find out of this is the exact process and identify inner workings of Russian spy activity.

It was worth it, right?

Like, that's a huge thing.

That's the sort of thing that

we should have been doing anyway and may have done anyway in a private sense.

But

it's not the investigation.

It's not the people working and tracking IP addresses and Bitcoin payments.

It's the media and left that have derailed this into basically the only thing that matters about it is how much can we screw Trump over on this thing.

So what I've just given you is part one of the report.

Part one of the report, all about collusion.

They could not find, again, quote, any evidence.

They could not identify any evidence that supported that theory.

And that's why this word right here is going to be the last word you hear about that in the report.

No one's going to care about collusion anymore.

It's all going to be dead from this moment forward because it was so clear and so exonerating for the president on, and not only just the president, everyone in his campaign and everyone in the country.

They could not find any evidence that anyone in the country colluded with Russians on this.

Number one, it's going to be erased and no one's going to care about it anymore.

Collusion, that word goes away.

Number two,

it's encouraging in a lot of ways.

I mean, you know,

I don't put anything past any American.

And we walk into

a, you know, a Walmart or a Starbucks.

You never know.

The next person over, I have no idea what they're going to do.

And they're probably super, super duper creepy.

Joe Biden's like got his hands on everybody's shoulders.

I have very low expectations of people, they could come up and sniff your hair at any time, but at least we're not colluding with Russians.

So, we have that.

We're going to take a one-minute break.

We're going to come back on the other side with the obstruction stuff.

This is going to be the focus of the media.

This is what they're going to care about.

This is the best of the Glenn Beck program.

We have the new Democratic candidate power ratings out.

They are on Glennbeck.com.

You can read the entire list right now.

And the way this works is we, you know, have been working for a few months on putting together an actual sort of model, statistical model, that kind of measures a bunch of different things about campaigns.

They have 30 different categories we go over.

I won't bore you with all the details, but it's stuff like, you know, it's polling in all different areas.

It's, you know, it's everything from social media reach to fundamentals in the campaign.

There's fundraising in there.

There's all sorts of stuff.

About 30 categories measured.

And we're looking to see if we can kind of identify these, make sense of this, because half the freaking country is running for president for the Democrats right now.

So how do you make sense of that?

That's what the Democratic candidate power rankings are doing.

If you're a sports fan, you see this on all the sites.

You have the NBA power rankings.

They rank the teams one to 30.

And you kind of get a sense of where people think they are.

Well, it's a little bit more scientific than that.

And that we're not just, you know, it's not just my opinion.

It is a lot of data going into this as well.

And so we'll kind of go through this, you know, from worst to first here, and we'll start at number 18, Wayne Messum.

If you don't know, he's running for president, you're not alone.

He's the mayor of Miramar, Florida, and he, I think he was a wide receiver for Florida State in the mid-90s.

That's about

his

chance of winning.

We kind of have a score that this model spits out between 0 and 100.

Wayne Messum in 18th place has a 13 out of 100.

So I don't think there's any way a guy can go from a small town and small city mayor to president of the United States.

But forget that I said that as we get later on in this list because there's some conflicting information.

Marianne Williamson, she's like a spiritual advisor for Oprah Winfrey and Kim Kardashian.

Perhaps if Kim Kardashian like

paints her body with a Marianne Williamson for president sticker and releases a new sex tape, maybe she'd have a chance.

I think that's about it.

It's about her only chance.

She's in 17th place, her score, 17 out of 100.

In 16th place is Eric Swalwell.

You know the Eric Swalwells of the world because there's a certain brand of presidential candidate that's not actually running for president, and that's Eric Swalwell.

Eric Swalwell is under no impression that he can actually win the presidency.

But where's the downside of running for president?

People will start knowing your name.

You'll be able to raise a bunch of money that you can even pull over to your

House campaign later on, or if you want to run for Senate or something in California later on, you're raising your profile.

And, you know, Eric Swalwell continues to be able to raise his profile a little bit over the hundreds of nameless, faceless representatives that we have, and you don't know who they are because he'll go on MSNBC and say really outlandish things for attention.

And that's what this is about.

It's an attention campaign.

Eric Swalwell's 16th place, a score of 20.

John Delaney is next up.

He's a 20.3 is his score, 0 to 100.

He's been a candidate for the 2020 race since you were a small child.

When you got out of kindergarten, that's when John Delaney announced.

He's a very rich guy.

So he's been funding his own campaign, basically.

He's lent himself $16 million to run his campaign.

But the fact that you don't know he was running, and he's been legitimately running since July of 2017.

This has been going on.

He's been everywhere in Iowa.

He's trying to make this a thing.

It doesn't seem like it's turning into a thing, however.

He is, I will say, one of the few candidates on the Democratic side that will stand up against something like Medicare for all.

He's kind of running as a moderate.

He says, you know, capitalism's done some good things, but we need to change it.

There's this moderate wing of the party that's trying to make some noise, and they're almost all at the bottom of this list.

John Delaney in 15th place.

In 14th place, did you know he was running?

Tim Ryan.

Did you know who Tim Ryan was?

You know Paul Ryan.

You know Ryan Gosling.

Do you know Tim Ryan?

No, you don't.

Okay?

Unless you're in Ohio, you probably don't who Tim Ryan is.

He's a representative there.

There's probably some very unlikely path to Tim Ryan being a vice presidential candidate.

I mean, he's from Ohio.

He's, again, running sort of as a moderate in the campaign.

He is.

But doesn't that make it impossible to win in the Democratic Party right now?

If you're running as a moderate in the Democratic Party, unless your name is Joe Biden, and honestly, there's no real evidence that Joe Biden is going to run as a moderate.

Everyone keeps saying that.

But I mean, every time Joe's asked about about it, he's like, I'm the most progressive guy in this campaign.

I mean, he's not running as a moderate, even if you think 30 years ago, he may have been moderate.

He was one of the most progressive candidates running for president in 2008 as a senator.

I mean, this idea that he's a moderate is perplexing to me.

But Tim Ryan comes in in 14th place with a score of 21 out of 100

on the candidate rankings.

By the way, you can get all these again at glennbeck.com.

It's interesting to read through them and see where everyone stands.

In 13th place, Tulsi Gabbard.

She's got a score of 26.

Now, Tulsi is a weird, that's a weird bird, that Tulsi Gabbard.

She's from Hawaii.

She is very, very left.

She's in the Bernie socialist side of the party, which you may have noticed is kind of the only side of the party.

But I digress.

She has a very strange history, though.

She kind of came up as a right-winger.

She took positions.

Her dad was a big anti-gay rights activist type of of person.

You know, it was on the gay conversion therapy thing.

She did like appearances

and such for that cause.

So she has like a very anti-if you think about this in a Democratic primary, the idea that you took a stand a few years ago for gay conversion therapy, probably not going to help you in the primary race.

She loves the Bashir al-Assad.

She's like number one in the fan club.

It's her and David Duke.

They're the only two people in the Assad fan club.

She loves him.

She doesn't think he did anything wrong.

And she's just a strange candidate.

She was actually sort of endorsed by David Duke in the past.

Again, this is a Democrat.

We're talking about.

I mean, and if you know anything about history, it might not surprise you that David Duke would endorse a Democrat.

But that's something that would at least shock the media.

Whatever strain of the flu that allows Alex Jones and former socialist presidential candidate and Democratic Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney

to be best friends.

Whatever strain of the flu that is, that's kind of what Tulsi Gabbard has.

It's a weird combination of characteristics and a candidate.

I don't see how she wins the nomination, but she's in 13th place.

In 12th place, the Yang gang makes their appearance.

Andrew Yang, a score of 27 out of 100.

Yang

is interesting in that he's a pretty smart guy.

Like, if you heard his interview with Ben Shapiro, I would highly recommend it every democratic candidate should do these types of interviews we've invited a lot of them on of course they won't show up and talk to glenn or any of us uh they you know yang went on with shapiro and it was smart of him to do so because i think he convinced a lot of people that at least he's not insane um however he has i i think he makes occasional sense which is not not something you can do in the democratic party right now you can't you can't have a sensible take on something he does occasionally do that he also makes a lot of statements that don't make any sense he's big on the universal basic income.

But if you hear his description about why, it kind of comes, flows from almost the,

you know,

conservative libertarian argument for it, which there is one, and it's a little convoluted.

I absolutely encourage you to listen to that Shapiro Yang interview.

It was pretty interesting.

He is the only candidate to outline an anti-circumcision position, which makes him, he's now leading the field in commentary about the private parts of male babies.

And that's something he can just take on his own.

He's the only guy doing that.

We're going through the top 18 candidates here.

This is where they stand at this moment.

In 11th place is Jay Inslee.

He has a score of 30 out of 100.

And Inslee, if you think of Inslee as a candidate, you think of like Lindsey Graham 2016.

If you remember Lindsey Graham and his candidacy, it was essentially a one-issue candidacy.

He wanted to get on stage in the debates and take foreign affairs,

you know, the war on terror, a hawkish foreign policy into

the debate.

People weren't really talking about it.

It was more of a domestic issues election, and he ran for president largely to try to make people talk about foreign policy.

He ran a single-issue campaign in 2016 on hawkish foreign policy, and now Jay Inslee is essentially running one on hawkishly fighting the weather.

Like, he's a big climate guy.

He's the governor of Washington, but he's been talking about the climate incessantly forever.

Maybe he's the type of person who could be in the picture for a vice presidential nod, but he's really in the race to kind of force frontrunners left on the climate.

I don't know if he can stop that burning orb in the sky.

We'll see.

I mean, maybe if we elect him, he will.

He'll turn the whole thing off and everything will be dark, just like we wanted.

John Hickenlooper.

Yeah, he's running too.

By the way, how many so far have you heard that you knew were running for president?

I mean, two?

Maybe?

John Hickenlooper has a score of 32 out of 100

when it comes to quality of Democratic primary chances to win.

We're looking at, you know, not whether they're good candidates or whether we would vote for them.

Certainly, they're all awful on that front.

But do they have the chance to win the Democratic nomination?

Hickenlooper, another former governor,

he has some moderate tendencies, I guess.

He at least is trying to play those up.

Maybe you'd see him as like a,

you know, the type of person who'd get a VP candidacy behind a Corey Booker or a Kamala Harris, somebody like that.

You have to wonder, though, if the Democrats want another

kind of,

you know, whitebread, vanilla, unknown

zilch of a candidate again.

I mean, this is what they tried with Tim Kaine.

I mean, does anyone even remember that Tim Kaine ran for president?

I mean, at least people remember Dan Quayle.

Does anybody even remember Tim Kaine's name?

I bet 90% of Americans don't remember who ran with Hillary Clinton right now.

That's how much of, that's how little an impact he made.

And I don't know that you go with a guy like Hickenlooper after that experience.

I will say, I find it very hard to believe that President Hickenlooper could be a thing.

I just

doesn't feel like the type of name that would be president of the United States.

And that's not an actual reason to not be president, but it just doesn't feel like you could see Hickenlooper on a bumper sticker like that.

Though I guess it happened in Colorado when he became governor.

Julian Castro comes in ninth place with a 36 score out of 100.

And, you know, there was a time where it looked like Castro could be kind of big.

I mean, he was kind of picked out of the Democratic field, a young up-and-coming Democrat.

He's kind of like a

four-star high school football recruit, gets the big SEC, you know, scholarship, and then he's pretty mediocre, and he's going very late in mock drafts.

That's kind of where he is.

If you remember Willy Wonka, there was the one girl who was really rich, and she had like the entire staff of people going through the Willy Wonka bars to find the golden ticket.

That's what we're doing right now with the Mueller Report.

We have thousands and thousands of people reading it simultaneously.

And we're going to get the highlights of that.

I should tell you that tonight, if you go to blazetv.com slash Glenn, use the promo code Glenn if you're not a subscriber already.

You can watch tonight.

We have an hour-long sort of special right at 5 p.m.

Eastern going through everything we know about the Mueller report, where it stands, where we're going, and we'll get into that in more detail as we get it.

We're kind of in the middle of going through it right now.

We're going to have some nuggets here for you in just a couple of minutes.

And we'll kind of find out where this is going.

We know the media is going to find a way to make this into the story for the next few weeks.

And we want to know where it's going.

We want to know if any of it's true.

We want to know how much of it is a bunch of lie and spin.

And that's how we're going to approach this thing.

Let's see what we can find.

And when we have it, we will

let you in on all of it as well.

You can get the report now online.

You can also get the Democratic primary power rankings here.

We have those right now online at Glenbeck.com.

We're up to number eight on the list.

There's 18 candidates running.

Number eight, Kirsten Gillibrand.

Now, she was initially a moderate,

supposedly, and and then kind of went transformed into someone to the far left.

And now she kind of seems to dabble in whatever news story is sort of popular at the moment.

She became sort of the prominent voice of the Me Too movement when she asked for

Al Franken to resign.

Kind of the problem that she didn't really realize at that moment, though, is that the left has no interest in consistently enforcing these new standards they've come up with.

They don't care about Me Too when it means getting rid of a crappy comedian who votes the way they like.

So the Al Franken thing is actually turning out to be a bad thing for Gillibrand in the primary because Democrats didn't care about what Al Franken did to some woman.

They don't care about that.

What they care about is Al Franken voted for a lot of left-wing socialist things.

That's what they care about.

So, now Gillibrand's support of a woman who told her truth about an alleged series of assaults with photographic evidence, by the way, it's now her Achilles heel in the Democratic primary.

Because you know what?

The old hashtag, believe all women, has its limits.

And she's learning that one.

It kind of was supposed to be Kirsten Gillibrand's time.

You know, now it's kind of hashtag time's up.

And that's kind of how it looks for her right now.

She's in eighth place, a score of 38 out of 100.

If you're just joining us, we have a 0 to 100 scale.

And it's kind of a statistical model to see where these candidates actually stand.

In seventh place, Amy Klobuchar.

Now, Klobuchar has a decent case for a candidacy here.

She's a woman.

She's from the Midwest.

She's outperformed electoral expectations many times.

You know, they made a big deal about Betto O'Rourke.

When O'Rourke's run against Cruz, O'Rourke outperformed generic House Democrats by about four points.

Klobuchar did that and outperformed House Democrats by 13 points.

She's been much more impressive electorally.

than Beto O'Rourke has.

She's probably a top-tier candidate for vice president.

And I say these nice things about her so she doesn't throw something at me because apparently she does that a lot as well.

In sixth place, Elizabeth Warren, a score of 46 out of 100.

You'll notice we haven't had one candidate over

50 on this score here.

And we're all the way up to number six.

Elizabeth Warren, as we know, is not a good candidate.

She is a socialist on policy.

She's basically Bernie.

She gaffes constantly like a Joe Biden.

She is not likable at all.

When she tries to act natural, she fails miserably.

She is,

you know, I mean, if you want to say something positive about her, she's at least one of the only people who are releasing policy plans, but they're things like, I want a wealth tax.

I'm Native American.

You should believe me.

I also want to, you know, nationalize a good chunk of the prescription drug production in America.

These are not things that most people would find appealing, but I guess in the primary, maybe they will.

I just don't think that right now the Democratic Party is about policy.

You'll see this again with a Mueller Report reaction today.

The Democratic Party right now exists to do one thing, and that is to beat Donald Trump.

Get him out of office by any means necessary.

After that, they'll figure out who the next person is they want to get out of office or

their next goal, but they don't care about these policies right now.

Bottom line is: you just can't run Hillary Clinton part two against Donald Trump.

That's a terrible idea, And that's what Elizabeth Warren is.

In fifth place, Corey Booker.

He's got a score of 55.5.

You know, Corey's just an actor.

You know, he's one of these guys.

He's just constantly overacting.

He's trying to figure out, he's on this constant real-time assessment of every audience to figure out what they think he should be.

And,

you know, he overdoes it.

His eyes are bulging all the time.

His arms are flailing.

It's part of his act.

And you can kind of feel him doing it.

When you're a guy who's calling yourself Spartacus in the middle of a hearing, you just know the overacting is there.

And, you know, Corey Booker is not convincing.

You can feel him trying too hard, all the time, trying too hard.

And I think the fact that people will see through that eventually will be his downfall.

And he's not a great guy for vice president, I don't think, either, because he's so attention-hungry.

He really wants people to talk about him, look at him, think about him.

I don't spend much time doing that, but Corey Corey Booker in fifth place on our top 18 candidates as it stands right now for President of the United States on the Democratic nomination side.

Number four, I mean, this is a surprise to me, never thought this would be the thing, but Pete Budigej, a guy who's a mayor from South Bend, Indiana.

And remember, we're looking at this as a snapshot of where we are in this campaign right now, not necessarily where this is going to turn up.

I mean, it's hard for me to believe that the mayor of South Bend, Indiana is going to be, or is it Pawnee?

It's one of those towns in Indiana.

How is that, is that person going to really go from there to president of the United States?

I mean, maybe.

It seems that that's the thing these days.

I don't know.

He is openly gay, and you should know that he's openly gay because you should not be prejudiced against people who are openly gay.

Remember the phrase, openly gay.

We all know you're evil.

You're already listening to the Glenbeck program, so we know you're an evil person.

You need to understand that being openly gay doesn't mean that you aren't capable of governing in an effective manner.

And I know because you're listening to the Glenn Beck program, you're on some talk radio station with evil conservatives, you already think, you know what?

If he's gay, he can't govern.

But no, that's not true.

By the way, also don't just treat him as some boring white guy because that's not true either.

He's historic.

You know what we should do is constantly focus on the fact that he's gay, but also forget that he's gay all the time.

You should just be thinking, is this person openly gay?

Yes, he is.

But on the other hand, you should not factor it into your decision whatsoever.

However, you should factor it into your decision because it's historic.

Remember all of these things at the same time.

That is Pete Budigej.

You know, look, I will say this, and I mentioned this long before he's had this little bump.

The one thing about Budigej that is actually notable is he has internal Obama machine support.

Obama mentioned him before anybody knew who he was.

They like him because he's a military veteran.

He's a Rhodes Scholar, went to Harvard, all that.

So he kind of fits that Obama profile.

Not the military veteran part, but the other parts.

The military veteran part, they think, will appeal to people in the middle of the country.

He's calm.

He's an effective speaker.

He's not going to lose it.

And as Glenn kind of pointed out the other day, running Corey Booker is trying to fight fire with fire with Trump.

Budajej is trying to fight fire with water.

He's the exact opposite of Trump.

He's going to sit back and he's not going to give his arms aren't going to flail.

He's not going to start.

He's not going to make accusations.

He's not going to supposedly call call people names he's trying to do the opposite i will also point this out no one has said a bad word about him yet this is not this campaign is not going to end with pete buttigej winning the nomination without anyone criticizing him and there has been zero

counted zero criticism of pete buttigeg they're not going to allow the other democrats are not going to just give this nomination to him they're going to fight against him they're going to come up with things uh that don't make him look so good they're going to try to put him in positions where he doesn't look so good.

And eventually, that's going to take its toll.

Whether he can survive that is really the question of whether he's going to be the Democratic nominee.

In third place, Bob Frank O'Rourke.

You may know him as Robert Francis O'Rourke.

But if you know him as Betto O'Rourke, you're falling for something because you know what?

He's not actually Hispanic.

You can make the argument.

He's more Hispanic than the average white Irishman, I suppose.

But he is not a Hispanic, and he's 0% Hispanic.

You know, he is part of this sort of thing the Democrats are doing now, which is like, hey, what if we run someone who's really famous for losing an election?

This is like a new thing among Democrats.

Oh, Stacey Abrams, she'll be great.

Gillum in Florida, he'll be wonderful.

Taking these candidates that they say impressively lost and running them for higher office is now apparently a Democratic thing.

Now, look, the fundraising is good for Betto.

He's got a lot of people on like now this is YouTube channel that apparently apparently like him.

He loves praising below average quarterbacks that have no business being in the NFL, whether they kneel or not.

His hands, though, flail around like crazy.

I mean, his hands go in places.

I don't understand the hand gesture thing.

They go in odd places, places that even Joe Biden's hands don't go.

And that could be an issue.

He's not a convincing speaker.

I'll say that.

I mean, watching him in the debates here in Texas, You know, he's always jumping up on countertops like he's a cat.

I just, I don't know that Betto's going to be able to do it.

But again, this field is a crappy field.

He's in third place, 62.9.

Second place, Bernie Sanders.

Sanders is,

I mean,

he's the sign of the Democratic campaign right now.

I mean, this is a guy who got zero co-sponsors on his Medicare for All bill in 2013.

Here we are six years later, and every candidate in the field, except for some of the people in like 17th and 18th place, are supporting Medicare for All.

He basically outlawed your right to get a doctor outside of Medicare for all, outlawing private insurance.

It would be illegal.

And every senator that is running for president signed onto that bill.

That is where we are.

This is a guy, you're not going to out-socialist a guy who went to the Soviet Union on his honeymoon.

Like, you're never going to find a place to his left.

And

as the rest of the party moves left, Bernie goes even further left.

I just don't understand.

I mean, do Democrats really want to try this with Bernie Sanders?

Do you really want to take, you're a party that lost with Hillary Clinton in 2016, and you want to try running a guy who's six years older, who's also most famous for losing to Hillary Clinton in 2016.

That does not seem like the path to a victory, but the Democrats may very well attempt that here.

With Bernie Sanders, number two, again, the scores are 1 to 100.

He's at 68.3.

Edging him out at 69.1 for first place right now is Kamala Harris.

Now, Harris has a lot going for her, I think, in the campaign.

She's not ahead in polling as of now.

Bernie's well ahead of her, but polling takes more of a precedent in these models as we get closer to the elections.

She's got a big, big money factory.

She doesn't hide that she wants to take big dollar donations.

You know, Bernie's like, oh, send me $2.

She's like, send me $2 million.

She's got a lot of money.

She's got a lot of big, wealthy power base.

You know, she has a history of

some strict law and order policies, which are not going to help help her in the Democratic campaign.

But the things your opponent leaks against you in a primary are the things you put in your own commercials in the general.

She's not going to be a pushover if she makes it.

She's not a Hillary Clinton.

She's used to dealing with, you know, she's a prosecutor.

She's used to dealing with high-pressure situations, which is what Trump brings to the table.

That being said, she's way too far left to think that she could be nominated as a president of the United States and win an election in America.

I don't know how that happens,

but who knows?

Maybe it can.

She also did have an affair,

and what's interesting about that affair is here we are in the Me Too generation.

Kamala Harris benefited in her career by having an affair at work with a powerful male.

This is like the other side of the Me Too movement.

It's the side where it kind of worked out okay.

I don't know if that's a new hashtag.

Can we do Me Too Part Two?

Sometimes it works out great.

I don't know.

By the way, she had an affair with Willie Brown, who was voted 1984's one of the top 10 sexiest men in the world by Playgirl magazine.

Who could possibly give up such an attractive job opportunity?

The Blaze Radio Network.

On demand.