10/30/17 - Good day for President Trump? (Charlie Sykes & Andy McCarthy join Glenn)

The Blaze Radio Network.

On demand.

Love.

Courage.

Truth.

Glenn Back.

The rumors began circulating earlier this weekend.

Indictments in Robert Mueller's Russia collusion investigation were coming.

About 30 minutes ago, we found out exactly what happened.

Here's a scoop of all scoops.

Pull over to the side of the road because,

whoa, you're going find this one hard to believe paul manafort is a shady guy yeah i know i know hard to wrap your head around paul manafort and one of his former business associates were told to surrender to federal authorities this morning so here's what they nailed him on manafort allegedly set up companies in cyprus to receive payments uh from politicians and business people in eastern europe since 2006 manafort has been known for working with wealthy oligarchs in Russia as well as the now deposed former president in the Ukraine.

The FBI has reportedly been on Manafort's trail since 2014, and it appears they may now have a solid case for tax evasion, money laundering, and failing to disclose his foreign lobbying.

The reason this is no surprise is pretty simple.

We knew about it before he even joined the Trump campaign.

This is what he did for a living.

He, along with people like Roger Stone, have been lobbying and consulting for foreign individuals and governments for decades.

It is one of the reasons why we warned you that Donald Trump could be impeached and Manafort would be at the center of it before he was even elected.

Some of these people, like the former Ukrainian president,

are

a little less than reputable, shall we say.

This is almost literally the tax evasion against Al Capone.

There's probably a lot more guilt to be found, but this is what we're getting.

And they are sending signals that they're going to go after him with absolutely everything, which to me signals

they're looking to flip him.

Why on earth the Trump campaign decided to hire a man with this much baggage to run,

you know, the campaign boggles the mind, but there is something missing from this first indictment.

Collusion.

Get ready for a lot more of this to come.

It's Monday, October 30th.

This is the Glenbeck program.

So, Stu's been looking at what is coming across the wire now

on

what the charges are.

Can you fill us in?

Yeah, Paul J.

Manafort, Jr., 68 of Alexandria, Virginia, and Richard W.

Gates III, 45 of Richmond, Virginia.

He's really seen as like

a pupil, right, of Manafort, like an understudy.

They've been indicted by a federal grand jury in the District of Columbia.

The indictment contains 12 counts.

Conspiracy against the United States.

Holy cow.

Conspiracy to launder money.

Unregistered agent of a foreign principal.

False and releading FARA statements.

That's the foreign agent registration act.

Okay, so that comes from he should have registered as a foreign agent, meaning that he was doing work for a foreign government.

And he didn't do that until after it came out.

And he was like, oh, I forgot.

Yeah,

I didn't file.

Oh, yeah, I remember now.

False statements and seven counts of failure to file reports of foreign bank and financial accounts.

But the first two are pretty big in that conspiracy against the United States and conspiracy to launder money.

The rest of them are okay, so the conspiracy to launder money, I think, is absolutely true.

I mean, he was not

from every indication, he was not reporting the money that he was getting.

In fact, we had to get it from the former Ukrainian

republic, or I guess it is still the republic, but it came out of the files from the former president who was discredited.

His party, somebody went through all the files and found that they were paying him millions and

tens of millions.

Yeah, tens of millions of dollars for his assistant, his assistants, and they never reported it.

And really large financial transactions that are unexplained.

It's all been very, very shady.

Now, if you remember,

this started heating up during the campaign and is essentially why Manafort was fired.

So, you know, he was fired essentially over his ties with these shady dealings with Russia, Ukraine, et cetera.

And now, of course, at the time, they said, oh, we're just doing a restructuring, but everyone understood that as, okay,

we need to get this guy out.

And now the Trump administration wants you to know, I'm sure, that they fired him.

I think

the explanations will be a little bit different today after this comes down, potentially.

But

it really comes down to

whether they can get, you mentioned it in your monologue.

Can you get this guy to flip?

I mean, I think Mueller's trying to get him to

even fight against other people in the campaign.

We need to get Andy McCarthy on because he's a guy who has been following this.

And

I'd like to even know what the conspiracy against the United States.

What do you suppose that is?

Yeah, that's not one you want on your resume.

No,

not one.

No.

No, conspiracy against the United States.

I'm trying to, because I think I know

who Paul Manafort is, and I'm trying to think of, you know, how that plays in.

And unless that is,

unless they have him on something trying to lead that change of policy

toward Russia.

Remember during the campaign, Trump all of a sudden flipped and became very friendly.

I mean, maybe they have something there that showed that he was affecting policy

because of cash.

This goes back to

who Manafort is and who Roger Stone is.

These have been really shady people doing really shady things in Washington for since Reagan.

I mean, it goes all the way.

Since Nixon.

Really, again, since Nixon, right?

Yeah, yeah.

So you go back all that way, and this was essentially Stone.

I mean, by all reports, Stone's influence over Trump because they didn't like Lewandowski, who was the guy at the time.

So they got rid of Lewandowski, brought in Manafort.

Stone had been an ally of Trump's for a long time, but I mean, in a very

loose way.

Like, I mean,

they had tight connections, but Trump wasn't involved in politics, politics, really.

So, you know, it was different.

You know, I think Trump liked the connection to the Washington world that Stone had, but it wasn't.

And Stone was a guy who was trying to convince Donald Trump to run for president.

Forever.

Forever.

Since the 80s.

I mean, he likes people around him who say great things about him.

Right.

And so that's what Stone was doing.

You know, for 20 years, he kept saying, you got to run, you got to run, you got to run.

You're going to be the next president.

Yeah, and Stone created a lobbying firm with Manafort back in the day that was known to be very on the borderlines of legality and ethical behavior,

to be kind,

to be very kind.

They operated a little bit on the fringes at times, and that has happened.

It's got after, because

they started this when they had real influence.

Oh, Francis, is that you?

You were so kind here.

Because, I mean, back in the day, he had real influence, Roger Stone.

He was a real player at one time.

And over time,

he had so many weird scandals and

so many ethical questions that people were started to shy away from him.

And it's even, if you remember, even Trump, who had a long time relationship with him, kind of cast him to the side fairly early.

Now, a lot of people believe that was to give them a...

this sort of a step of separation so that stone could do his work without having to sully Trump, right?

But I mean, whatever, Trump was, and I think Stone were both aware enough to say, I shouldn't be this close to you if you're actually going to win this thing.

But Manafort was the more controlled of

the two, but had all sorts of these dealings going on.

And it took a while until they actually got rid of him.

And that's when Bannon and Kellyanne Conway came in.

But I mean, that's a, it's a long circle there.

And now you have

they went after Manafort.

They raided his home with no warning, took all sorts of evidence.

Who knows what they came up with when they pulled all that stuff out of his house?

So the speculation is: while, sure, Manafort is a pretty big name.

I mean, this is a guy who was the campaign manager for the president of the United States in the most recent election.

It's a pretty big deal.

But the other side of it is,

are they trying to just essentially pressure Manafort to say other things about other people in the campaign?

Conspiracy against the United States of America.

And they said, Manafort said, I'll turn over anything you want, any documents.

They didn't allow him to to turn them over.

He immediately received

a search warrant, and they went in and they took everything,

which is, I believe, them trying to send a message: we're going after you with everything the government has.

We are coming after you.

And

they always try to get one of the big fish first and then flip him.

And you have to remember, there is one

thing that leads you to collusion.

Because, in here, in this, there's no collusion that we know of.

Now, maybe conspiracy against the United States is their way of saying collusion,

but

there's no collusion that we know of here.

But there is one piece of the Manafort story that you don't want to miss.

Let me give you the timeline for Paul Manafort.

In 2006, he began working for a Russian oligarch who has close ties to Vladimir Putin.

Paul Manafort is one degree away from Vladimir Putin.

And this is, I mean,

I said this morning as Paul Manafort, I said, just grab the Paul Manafort file that we have because we were looking at Paul Manafort during the revolution of the Ukraine.

We were looking at Paul Manafort prior to him coming on to Donald Trump.

And when Donald Trump pulled him in, we pulled that file again and said, you have to know who Paul Manafort is.

He is one degree from Vladimir Putin.

And it's really bad.

So he started in 2006 and he was making $10 million a year.

At the same time, he was hired by the pro-Russia political party in the Ukraine.

The guy who became president is a really bad guy, and he helped him become president.

So if you remember the uprising in the Ukraine,

what the revolution was in the Ukraine the people who remember the Soviet Union and they said, get the hell out of our country.

This is Putin trying to take the Ukraine again.

And they were revolting against their president.

And they wanted an end to this presidency because they knew he was taking Russian money.

Well, who was the main hand behind that president?

It was Paul Manafort.

So

they began in 2014.

The FBI investigates Manafort over his consulting work in the Ukraine because they know how close he is to Vladimir Putin.

It was part of that investigation that they got a FISA warrant to wiretap him.

Now, this was discontinued at some point in 2016, but then later renewed.

So they are wiretapping him long before he is part of anything with Donald Trump.

So this is important information that you need to understand.

This is why we warned you.

This guy is real trouble and could lead to real trouble for Donald Trump.

Because he was a bad guy long before he started in with Donald Trump.

And there are three, if I can remind you, there are three people that we warned you.

Roger Stone, Paul Manafort, and Steve Bannon.

I throw in Michael Flynn on that as well.

Yeah, Michael Flynn.

Those four, we warned you, really bad guys.

And it's who he's surrounding himself with that's going to cause him real trouble.

So in 2016, he joined the Trump campaign, and he was tasked with wrangling the delegates for the convention.

In the spring of that year, the FBI renewed their investigation on Manafort relating to his business ties, including Russia, to other foreign countries.

On the 19th of May 2016, he's promoted to the campaign chairman.

And here's the one thing you have to remember about Manafort, and I think this is what they're going after.

Manafort was in that meeting at the Trump Tower.

This is the meeting where they say they're going to get dirt on Hillary Clinton as part of the Russians' efforts to help his father win.

If they can flip Manafort and show that there was collusion, that they knew exactly why they were meeting.

Now remember, last week on a chalkboard, we showed you who was in that meeting.

Everybody concentrates on the woman in that meeting.

The woman is important.

The man in that meeting is more important.

There's a guy who used to be part of the GRU, which is their military intelligence.

His job, his former job was to do political disinformation and to wrangle

and

cause all kinds of problems in foreign countries with their politicians.

He was in that meeting.

If they can flip Manafort and show that Trump knew that this was happening,

it will be a quick road.

I'm now looking at the indictment, and

what you're saying is, I think, very true.

In fact,

they have identified

38

individual organizations, companies, holding companies, overseas that they say this money was funneled through.

38 different entities

in this indictment, and then eight pages of financial transactions, individual transactions that go back, I mean, as far as 2008, all the way through 2000, let's see,

again, like nothing during the campaign, which supports exactly what you're saying, all through 2013, 14, 12, 11, but nothing during the actual campaign with Trump.

So, Donald Trump should distance himself from Manafort immediately.

He should say, okay, here's the deal.

We did fire him because we found out some things and we didn't like it and we wanted our distance from him, but he didn't influence everything.

The problem is, if Trump comes out against Manafort,

Manafort has a much better chance of flipping on Donald Trump.

And if they get Manafort, I mean, Manafort's, Manafort's only hope is that Donald Trump, somehow or another, pardons him.

But if Donald Trump pardons a guy with this much bad stuff in his history,

I mean, it's rock and a hard place.

It's a a rock and a hard place, both of them.

They need each other.

Paying off debt can take forever and it piles up really fast, but it doesn't have to be that way.

If you own a home and you have some equity, refinancing can consolidate and pay off that debt and make your life a lot easier.

But what's the right choice for your situation?

Well, a great way to find out is to make a 10-minute call to the salary-based mortgage consultants at American Financing.

Now, these guys have access to every loan in the industry and will only offer refi options if they make sense for your financial goals.

So maybe it's cashing out to pay off the high interest debt.

Maybe it's realizing that you're still paying a few hundred dollars in unnecessary PMI because you've reached the threshold for removal.

Whatever the case, American Financing can review your current mortgage and look at the options that lower your monthly payments or help you achieve a better financial status.

American Financing.

Go to American Financing at 800-906-2440, 800-906-2440 or AmericanFinancing.net.

American Financing Corporation, NMLS 1-82334, www.nmlsconsumeraccess.org.

Glenn back.

Glenn back.

All right.

We want to go deeper into the Paul Manafort as we begin to read this.

This is real trouble for him.

Could be real trouble for the Trump administration.

But let's also not forget what the media is dismissing on Hillary Clinton.

And I want to be really, really clear.

We spent last week on Hillary Clinton and Fusion GPS and Uranium One.

That must be investigated, but this must be two.

Don't cross the streams of these two.

Glenn Beck.

This is the Glenbeck program.

So

Paul Manafort

and a guy who worked for him are having to turn themselves into the FBI today, and they are some serious charges.

So far, it only looks like charges that Paul Manafort

would have had coming toward him anyway.

Doesn't look like,

in reading the indictment, is there anything in there that ties Trump to any of this?

No.

In fact, it's all well before

he was connected to Trump in any way.

Right.

This seems like an overt.

First of all, I think, you know, he did seemingly do a lot of these things.

They have really, well, this is really well documented.

Of course, it needs to be, go through

the system.

But I mean, it's all, it's about 12, there's one charge of about $12 million

that Manafort received spread out over about 38 different entities

that he used for personal items and did not pay taxes on.

The government doesn't tend to really like that sort of stuff all that much.

They're not huge fans.

No.

And so, but all this stuff was sort of speculated about before he was even hired.

One of the reasons why we thought it was not a good move for Trump in the first place.

Well, I didn't know, you know, obviously we didn't know about this.

I didn't.

You know, but we did know that he was part of the opposition bloc party, the Ukrainian political party.

Right.

That was the big, you know, sort of rumored tie.

No one knew how deep it went.

Correct.

But it goes to Vladimir Putin.

We also knew about a couple of the oligarchs that he was helping that had direct ties to Gazprom, which Gazprom is Vladimir Putin.

So we knew these connections and we knew that he was on the wrong side of history, putting the wrong people in at the Ukraine.

And they were very, very, very shady.

We didn't, and I believe at the time we had heard rumors that he had taken, no, we knew that he was taking money and we had heard rumors that there was more, but we didn't know at the time.

Just knew this guy was deeply connected to Vladimir Putin and the worst of the worst.

And he is connected to the Russian lawyer.

that they met with and another guy whose name is Renat something or other.

He's a Russian-American lobbyist, but he's a Soviet-era KGB spy with direct ties to Vladimir Putin.

He knew both of those guys

that were involved in that Trump tower meeting.

So he knew that they were connected to Vladimir Putin.

He knew exactly what that meeting was.

That's the only tie to Donald Trump.

Now,

I believe what they're doing is trying to get him to flip.

They are, I mean, this guy will go to prison forever.

Right?

A long time.

I mean, a long,

long time.

And

he's in his 60s, right?

Yeah, he'll die in prison.

With this, he will die in prison.

And

my guess is they are coming at him with everything.

And it's, if you read it,

they're not trumped-up charges, so to speak.

They are real charges.

Now, the question is, will Donald Trump pardon him?

How does Donald Trump pardon him?

I don't know, but I mean, this is, I mean, Trump

can get away with these things typically.

I don't think this high level.

Yeah, you might be right.

But I think that's the game here, right?

Because obviously Trump and Manafort can't be texting each other right now to plan this stuff out, right?

So it's Trump has to

have a very difficult balancing game.

And again, I'm not saying you could even argue that Manafort's such a bad guy that to get himself out of trouble, he would make things up completely out of whole cloth to bash Donald Trump to get himself free.

Like you could easily make that point.

So I'm not, it's not accusing Trump of doing anything wrong here.

We don't know.

But you have to keep him.

If you come out and just trash Manafort, he might start doing that sort of thing.

He might come up with stuff that did or did not happen that really hurts you.

So you can't come out necessarily and trash him, but if you come out and are just too defensive of him and it winds up, he winds up on the wrong side of this, it hurts you.

If you pardon him, we've seen what happens with past presidents when they've attempted things like that.

It has not worked out well.

So, no, the only thing that Trump has going for him is

the fact that

Hillary Clinton

should be,

and as we spoke to Bill O'Reilly, it's a tough case to make, but they should be looking into Hillary Clinton.

There should be an independent investigation on Hillary Clinton, her campaign, and

the ties between Fusion GPS,

the FBI, and also Uranium One and the White House.

Why did the White House say to the guy who was investigating and

was a

was somebody who could clearly make a case that this uranium should not

go to the Russians

the president gave him a gag order so he wasn't even allowed to testify in front of Congress that should be investigated because what's going to happen is Trump if I'm if you know, knowing Trump, what he's going to do, and it will be accepted by by Trump supporters because it's valid.

Hillary Clinton got away with murder, and you aren't doing anything about it.

And

now you want us to look at him?

It's the Bubba effect.

You're part of the problem.

Yeah, we know Paul Manafort did some bad things.

But you are part of the problem because

you allowed this kind of corruption to go on for how long?

The ultimate Bubba effect is happening and going to happen at the presidential level.

So it is imperative that the FBI and Congress regain its credibility by going after the left as well and do a full investigation on the left.

And if you're wondering what the mainstream media is doing with all this information, they are basically saying the right is bringing up these claims about fusion GPS, about uranium one, to distract knowing that this Mueller stuff is coming out.

So they're trying to basically, they're saying, look, there's nothing to these things on the right.

They're trying to push you and push the Trump people, the Republican people to just think about Hillary Clinton.

Well, look, I don't know.

I think we're all adults here.

I think we can all look at this Manafort thing and we can look at the Clinton stuff at the same time.

We can shoot gum and walk.

And

they're not tied to each other.

As you pointed out, a separate investigation is necessary because these things should be looked into.

If there were crimes committed, I mean, think about this for a moment.

Think about what the media would say if Donald Trump's FBI

was paying

for illicit, salacious material.

about whoever ran against him in 2020.

And the FBI was paying for a dossier that was trying to smear or get all sorts of dirt on the opponent.

Look, you don't need to go.

That is beyond

that.

You don't have to go any further than the Trump Tower meeting.

That's exactly what happened.

The Russian friends said, hey, we have dirt on Hillary Clinton that will bring her down.

Okay, great.

Bring it in.

Well, that's the same thing that happened to Hillary Clinton, but it's dismissed.

Fusion GPS.

Well, that happens all the time.

Well, then it happened over here, too, because they were both from Russia.

Both of these were disinformation campaigns from Russia.

And so they have to be dealt with equally.

Because the problem here is Russia and getting in bed with Russia.

So I want you to know from the get-go,

one,

we're going to deal with both of them.

And I recommend you do the same thing.

Do not dismiss one because of the other.

Don't say, well, they're not doing.

I don't care.

I don't care.

We have to deal.

We do.

We have to look into both of them and urge our government to look into both of them because both of them are wrong.

If we're going to have any credibility at all, we must deal with both of them and let the chips fall where they may.

No sacred cows, period.

Now, here's my guess on what is going to happen.

My guess is what's going to happen is the right is only, you'll hear it on talk radio today.

You will hear it on television today.

They will

talk a little bit about Manafort and then they will turn it all on the stuff that we talked about last week which was fusion GPS and uranium one

you should know about all of that and that is really bad stuff

but this week it's you they should concentrate on Manafort because I believe that the right has not told you what we told you about Paul Manafort for the last four years before he even joined Donald Trump.

What's going to happen in Congress is they are going to hear testimony from Facebook and Twitter.

And Congress is going to try to make this all about fake news from Facebook and Twitter.

And because they really

don't care about Russia, It's clear neither side cares about Russia.

But because

they think you care and they think that you are so uninformed that you will just go along with it, and because fake news is all the rage, let's stop it, they're going to start going down a path of restriction and getting their fingers into the internet and regulating the internet.

Congress is going to not do their duty.

Instead, they will go after another piece, and that is social media.

And they will use this to be able to start the beginnings of regulation of the internet.

Mark my words.

It's weird.

It's like watching a house burn in slow motion and knowing there somebody was going to set a fire.

Oh, they just set the fire.

Well, the firemen are going to be delayed.

Oh, they were delayed.

It's horrible.

On that point, you mentioned the four people that we had really

said a lot of things about that were in Trump's orbit during the campaign.

Flynn, Bannon, Stone, and Manafort.

The four.

What do all four have in common?

All four were dismissed.

Not by us.

By Donald Trump.

Either dismissed or distanced, or I mean, Flynn gone Bannon gone stone gone Manafort gone all of them gone because they were who

they were who we thought they were yes and what's scary is he didn't fire them he just distanced himself from them

in each case he tried to re remain friendly with them right like bannon he fired right i mean by all accounts yeah but i mean again they're they're very closely aligned still texting each other report or talking on the phone reportedly still to this day about this stuff.

I mean, Stone was very early on like that.

They had a public fight about whether they were fired or when he was fired or whether he quit.

But they stayed in close contact that whole time and he brought Manafort back.

You know, these guys are, I mean,

look out.

Yeah,

they're questionable characters from the beginning.

And, you know, if you look past that, this is starting to burn him now, potentially, with this indictment.

Do you want your home sold on time and for the most money without all sorts of excuses?

Well, then there is a place for you, RealEstateAgentsITrust.com.

Real Estate Agents I Trust is a way for you to find a great real estate agent in your town.

We have a thousand agents all over America who are just like you.

They listen to this program.

Their bond is their word.

They share your sensibilities.

And our agents are fully vetted and hand-picked by my team for their knowledge, their skill, and their track record.

We look for people who have a great track record of selling homes, and it really kind of comes down to their marketing plan.

Thousands of families have already put RealEstateAgents ITrust.com to the test, and the results are truly remarkable.

And you can find out all about it.

Just contact RealEstateAgentsITrust.com.

Now, whether you are selling your home because you need to move, you're buying a new home, maybe in some place that you're not really familiar with, or you're selling a home for a loved one or a parent.

Go to realestate agentsitrust.com.

They will really help you and take care of you the way it should be, the way business should be done.

Realestateagents I trust.com.

Get your home sold for the most amount of money and on time,

and have an ease of buying a new home.

Realestateagents I trust.com.

Glenn, back.

Glenn back.

We're going to have a chalkboard tonight on Manafort, and you need to watch it and be up to speed on that.

Also, we begin a series on what is socialism, things on socialism that you never knew.

And

we're taking the attitude that there's going to be people in your family that are going to hear great things about socialism.

And so let's take an honest look at socialism and give it the benefit of the doubt and see if it works.

Has it worked anywhere?

What is the history of it?

Is it that there's just been bad guys running socialist countries?

And what about Sweden?

You know, free college education.

That is going to be, I think on, isn't that on Thursday's broadcast?

We've broken it up into four shows

and watch them with your family

and

learn stuff about socialism that you've never learned before.

That's all this week.

If you're a subscriber to the Blaze, you can download it beginning at five o'clock.

It'll be made available five o'clock today on the Blaze TV,

theblaze.com/slash TV.

Also, coming up, more on Paul Manafort and what what the media has been saying all weekend about

the right.

Also, Kevin Spacey

came out with the worst apology known to mankind.

He has been accused of sexual misconduct,

and so he came out of the closet and said, I'm gay.

Horrible.

It's

a lead balloon coming up.

Glenn, back.

Love.

Courage.

Truth.

Glenn back.

This one made my blood boil this weekend.

First, they came for the statues, now they're coming for the plaques.

A plaque, a plaque honoring George Washington at the church he attended for more than two decades, Christ Church in Alexandria, Virginia, is now being removed because of complaints.

According to the church, the George Washington plaque, along with the Robert E.

Lee plaque, are being removed because the plaques in our sanctuary make some in our presence feel unsafe.

Okay, I just

maybe later this week we'll spend an hour on the difference between uncomfortable and unsafe

because there's a big difference.

One, you should always feel safe.

The other,

there's no guarantee you're not going to be uncomfortable.

Some visitors and guests who worship with us as the church choose not to return because they receive an unintended message from the prominent presence of the plaques.

So how does a plaque make you feel unsafe?

It's an index card side piece of metal.

Most people don't even notice it.

And if you're really offended by the plaques,

maybe you don't understand the lesson of Christ.

Both Washington and Lee attended this church for much of their lives.

The whole reason for the plaques indicating where they used to sit.

But the church leaders have decided to cave in to the...

the new gospel, the gospel of political correctness.

They, I quote, unanimously decided that the plaques create a distraction in our worship space and may create an obstacle to our identity as a welcoming church and an impediment to our growth and full community with our neighbors.

Christchurch, do you really need parishioners who can't focus on what they came to church to do?

You're supposed to be there praising God, teaching God, teaching forgiveness,

teaching that nobody's perfect.

It's how you live your life.

You're not supposed to be thinking about how much you hate certain historic figures that don't have a control over your life unless you give them power.

I think these worshipers should feel more welcome by the plaques.

They represent men who were both deeply religious, but were also men and thus had flaws.

They sinned like everyone else.

These men weren't above seeking counsel from God.

Perhaps, perhaps, you don't like the fact somebody in your church most likely was preaching that slavery was okay.

Is that possible?

We are human, therefore we sin.

But perhaps the church should spend more time.

We can also be forgiven.

We learn from the past

and we try again

the next day.

It's Monday, October 30th.

This is the Glenbeck program.

There's a lot going on in the news today.

Robert Mueller has issued an indictment.

It's not a surprise at all.

It is for Paul Manafort and his

business partner, bad guy.

We've told you that for a long time.

This is putting Donald Trump in a very bad position, and we'll get more on that coming up.

But we also have Charlie Sykes.

Charles Sykes is the author of the book, How the Right Lost Its Mind.

Up until a few years ago, he was the most powerful talk show host in Wisconsin, and he just had to walk away from it because he didn't understand the conservatives anymore.

I think now,

wrongfully,

he is being labeled as know, somebody who has just run over to the left because he's seen on NBC and he's read in the New York Times and everything else.

But that's not who he is.

At least that's not who I think he is.

And we welcome him now,

Charlie Sykes.

Hi, Charlie.

How are you?

Good morning.

Thank you for that, by the way, Glenn.

You're welcome.

So

are we some of those right who have lost their minds?

You mean you and me?

Yeah.

Well, I don't know.

I think that

there are some oases of sanity, but I think that we all need to look in the mirror and go, okay, did we contribute to this?

Did we help create this monster?

And I know that you've gone through this introspection.

And part of what I did after I left my radio show was to sit back and just sort of sit for a little while and go, okay, how did that happen?

What did we miss?

Were there things that were stewing out there that we didn't understand, were our allies, not exactly who they were?

You mentioned that people say, well, you obviously have defected.

It's like, no, I'm actually saying exactly the same things that I have been saying for a very, very long time.

And I'm watching a lot of people that I thought I understood do 100, you know, 180 flips.

And you really have to ask,

what's going on here?

So, Charlie, it's really difficult because we feel the same way that there's a lot of people who say, you know, we've defected, blah, blah, blah.

No, we've stood in place.

We're not going over the cliff with the rest of the party and the rest of humanity.

And I'm more concerned.

Jimmy Kimmel said this weekend, which I was glad to hear him say.

I don't know if he's tying it to the right

alone, but I said under Barack Obama, you can't let this kind of stuff fester because who's going to come into office next time?

And we have an answer to that.

Now, who follows Donald Trump?

Now is the time to get a hold of ourselves and our principles, or we're in real trouble from both sides.

I completely agree.

And, you know,

Donald Trump, and please don't misunderstand me when I say this, that Donald Trump doesn't shock me or bother me because he is what he is.

You know, he's always been the same thing.

He's not going to change.

What really does bother me is what's happening to the rest of us, the damage to the culture.

I think that his legacy won't be measured simply in policy decisions, you know, including some that I would agree with.

It's going to be measured in the coarsening of our culture, in what

we Americans have decided that we are willing to accept.

Look the other way.

I was actually on a show yesterday morning with somebody that I have deeply admired for more than a decade.

And he was suggesting that, you know, once we get tax reform through, we'll no no longer have to worry about the character of the president.

And I will tell you when I was actually shocked because I said, you know, I'm old enough to remember when conservatives actually thought that things like character and truth and decency,

honesty, all of those things actually did fundamentally matter and maybe were even more important than the day-to-day politics.

Yeah,

it was.

And to me, it still is.

Character, if you don't have character,

you don't have anything.

You don't have a chance of survival without character.

So, Charlie,

how do you repair this?

I don't honestly know.

That's a really, really good question.

I think it is going back to

these first principles.

And, you know,

there was a time where you realize that, okay, we're going to be in the wilderness for a while.

It turns out that the wilderness is a little bit, there are fewer of us in the wilderness than I was perhaps expecting, but the wilderness is a good place to begin rethinking these things.

What is really important?

What is really valuable?

I've lived a life like a lot of conservative talk shows where you go from one election to another, and every single election is the apocalypse.

Every single election, everything is at stake.

And maybe you need to step back and you realize: okay, elections are important.

There's no question about that.

But there are some things that are more important.

So let's go back: you know, what is it that

we care about?

Is it freedom, limited government, constitutionalism, personal responsibility,

respect for the truth, all of those things.

And also, understand that maybe we ought to look around to our fellow Americans.

And rather than be locked into some sort of a zombie-like dogma, you know, ask, what kind of a society do we want to be?

What makes for the good life?

Are we actually treating one another the way that we ought to be treating one another?

And so, you know, in order to get back to it, I think we kind of need to break out of the, you know, the chrysalis of our tribe, maybe mixing the metaphor, and basically look around and go, okay,

we've been engaging in this tribal politics, but look where it has led us.

Look what it has done to us.

And, you know, is this really who we want to be?

So, Charlie, you are somebody who, I mean, I have been out

to Silicon Valley and Hollywood.

I have not gone to Washington and New York.

And I find

at the upper echelon

of both of those, I find people who are Democrats and who are now saying, I'm just as afraid of my side as your side.

There's something bad happening and we have to solve this.

And they fight, I think, like old people do, they fight against this feeling of,

oh, you know, the other side is getting away with X, Y, and Z.

But they have realized this is what has caused the problem is just looking at

the splinter in someone else's eye.

They've missed the beam in their own side.

However, when I do talk to people in the media, and you're probably closer to people in the media than I am,

I don't see that from them.

I don't see a willingness to look at

the beam in their own eye.

Do you?

No, but let me get to a point that you made before.

One of the great shocks for me

has been

this adoption of this moral relativism

across the lines of American politics, that winning is so important that if they did it, we can do it as well.

And to see conservatives adopt that sort of relativistic approach has really been appalling.

But your point on the media is right on.

I mean, one of the things that happened, and I've talked about it

in my book, is I've been a longtime media critic, you know, talking about the bias, the double standards.

I think at some point we had perhaps succeeded in totally delegitimizing the media in the eyes of a lot of folks, which broke down our immunity to fake information and propaganda.

But having said that, I do think that everybody in American politics and the media does need to step back and have this moment of introspection.

I do have a lot of contacts in the media, and I don't sense that kind of introspection that I think is necessary.

Do you understand why so many people believe that you are biased, that you do have the double standards?

Do you understand how you managed to blow all of that credibility?

You created the space for the demagogues and

the folks like Breitbart and

Infowars and all of those folks.

But I don't sense that there is that sort of

looking in the mirror going on.

Do you have time to stay with us for a little while longer?

Sure.

Okay,

Charlie Sykes, the author of How the Right

Lost Its Mind.

And I think I can count them.

I can count them on three fingers, I think.

I think I can count them on three fingers, the people who actually stood, and Charlie was one of them.

In fact,

Charlie kind of just disappeared for a while and said,

I can't do this anymore.

And I have profound respect for him.

And

I have not read the book cover to cover, but I've read enough of the book

to

tell you that he's right

about

how we went awry and how we each of us have to look on both sides of the aisle at our own role and say, what did I propagate, but also what did I accept in my own life?

And we'll continue our conversation and talk a little bit about Mueller and what's going to happen next with Charlie Sykes.

With a recent credit bureau breach, one of the common questions is, should I freeze my credit?

No, no.

Unfortunately, taking this step will not protect you against every identity threat that is out there.

Hackers will get access to social security numbers, birth dates, an unspecified number of driver's license.

Not only can they use this type of personal information to commit crimes and steal from your 401k or your bank account, they can also go on the dark web and sell that information to somebody else who has additional information about you.

And then when they combine those two, you're toast.

And this is going to happen to every single one of us.

Now is the time to get protection.

Sign up for Life Lock Today.

They use proprietary technology to help detect a wide range of identity theft.

And if there is a problem, somebody here in the United States, a restoration specialist, is going to work to fix it.

Nobody can prevent all identity theft or monitor all transactions at all businesses, but Life Lock is the best.

Go to Lifelock.com right now, 1-800-LifeLock.

Use the promo code back.

That's back.

10% off your Life Lock membership if you use the promo code BECK.

Lifelock.com promo code BECK.

Glenn back.

Glenn back.

We want to get to Paul Manafort here with Charlie Sykes in just a second.

Charlie, Glenn and I have been talking about this for a while, and I'm sure you've been doing a lot of thinking of this writing the book.

I think a lot of the people in the talk radio audience want that perfect world.

They want a world where this is about principles.

They want a world where this is about real foundations.

But they see

with the media landscape that if they don't push back against every single thing and fight super hard, nobody's going to do it for them and they're just going to get rolled over.

Do you think that's

where the audience is and why sometimes they might embrace some of the way the media is run now?

Oh, yes, I do.

And in fact, that was me.

Felt said, okay,

I'm on the ramparts, and my job is to push back on this.

If I don't push back on this, who will?

And I do think that that contributed to it.

And I think over the years, it ramped up,

it ramped up in intensity to the point where suddenly you look around you and you go, okay, now, how did I get here?

How did I come all the way this far?

So, Charlie, I've never shared this on the air, but

you would have the brain that could get your arms around this one to see if you think this is valid.

I think what Rush Limbaugh did was absolutely valid and accurate for 1990.

What he did was say a point of view that nobody heard

and nobody had articulated.

And he taught us how to articulate an argument.

But then a couple of things happened.

Our friends stopped listening as soon as they say, Where'd you get that, Rush Limbaugh?

Well, yeah.

So they stopped listening.

But Rush kept giving us the argument for our friends.

The friends over time disappeared, and then people like us populated radio, and we did the Rush Limbaugh model and we weren't saying how to talk to your friends.

We were saying this is what is right.

This is where you go and we just grew further and further apart into our own echo chambers and we didn't listen to one another.

We were no longer trying to make the argument to our friends who we thought were rational because we were really being told that our friends aren't rational and they became irrational as we became irrational.

I do think that you follow that trajectory.

And I started in the early 1990s on radio as well when, you know,

there was a time when actually we had to formulate these arguments when in fact we were, you know, our job was to persuade.

But I think you're absolutely right that as time went on, we really did separate ourselves into what I began calling the alternative reality silos, where, you know, really we did wall ourselves off.

And I think that.

Wait, wait, wait.

I don't think we did.

I mean, I think in some ways we did because we didn't recognize it.

But we were walled off.

The left did its number on us to wall us off.

They stopped.

Yeah.

Oh, no, there's no.

Yeah, no, this goes both ways.

Yeah, it's okay about it.

I mean, I, you know, somebody's got to write multiple volumes of how the left lost its mind.

And by the way, your story about the George Washington plaque would be like chapter one in that.

You know, that's somebody else.

No, we were walled off.

And,

you know, part of the problem that I think folks on on the left and the media ought to recognize is to realize that

they have no idea what conservatives were thinking for many, many years.

They simply didn't read conservative books.

They didn't listen to conservative talk radio.

They had a caricature out there.

And as a result, they did not understand how they looked and how they sounded to conservatives.

And they certainly do not understand what happened over the last several years.

So let me go to Paul Manafort.

What is this going to do?

Well, it's going to put a heck of a lot of pressure on the White House.

I see already that there are some people trying to spin this.

This is a nothing burger because it does not relate directly to the Trump campaign or collusion.

But look,

let's just take a step back here.

This investigation is very much the real deal.

This is just the beginning.

It's a rolling investigation.

And I think the Paul Manafort The whole Paul Manafort story for me sort of represents what I call the worst people in the world phenomenon, which is that whatever Donald Trump's personal flaws are, that he also, at various points in his campaign and administration, empowered the people I've called the worst people in the world.

He surrounded himself with some really skeezy folks, whether it's Roger Stone or Paul Manafort.

Here's my other point for conservatives.

Look,

it is one thing to agree with the administration and support them.

on issues where you share your values, you know, the right to life, conservative judges, smaller government, regulatory reform.

But that doesn't mean that you need to defend every single aspect, including if, in fact, the Russians did interfere in our elections, tried to hack our democracy.

This is not something that we should rationalize or look the other way.

Charlie, thank you very much.

Author of the book, How the Right Lost Its Mind, worth a read.

Glenn, back.

This is the Glenn Beck program.

So, I was watching

the media this weekend,

and

they were preparing for

the indictments to come down today.

And the indictment is on Manafort and a guy that worked with him.

And it is stunningly bad.

It is not collusion on Trump's part.

It is just here's a really bad guy who had deep ties to Putin and was laundering money really bad.

That is not the same as collusion.

However, I think the reason why Mueller pulled this is he's looking to flip

Manafort and get him to testify that, yes, they did know exactly who was in that office on Trump Tower, because you have to remember, Manafort was there and he knew who those guys were.

He knew their ties to Putin, he knew their ties to the Kremlin,

etc., etc.

There is no difference between

Clinton hiring and paying Fusion GPS

and getting

information from Fusion from the Kremlin and trying to use that to destroy Donald Trump.

There is no difference between that and what Donald Trump was trying to do in his office.

Now, there are a lot of people that don't believe that he knew anything about it.

I don't believe that for a second.

You could convince me that his son may not have thought it all the way through,

but

the people around his son, and when Manafort walked in, he knew exactly who these guys were, and everybody was on the email, so

they all saw it.

So there was a conversation.

It only makes sense to

go there.

However,

what we have to do as conservatives is we have to stand on the principle.

So we cannot excuse or dismiss this by saying there is no collusion.

No, there isn't.

There isn't.

That's not what the indictment is about.

This is about Paul Manafort.

And anyone in the media trying to make this about collusion at this point is wrong.

To speculate that Mueller is trying to flip him

is

probably pretty accurate.

However, flipping him, does he have any information?

We don't know.

We have to stand there and not become the media and what we hated last week.

I want to play, here is the media and their take on the GPS uranium scandal from last week.

This is GPS

fusion, the fact that the Clinton campaign paid for that.

Then the FBI used that.

They knew this was being paid for by a candidate.

They took that and used it to spy on another candidate.

And if they didn't know that this was also coming from the Kremlin, then they should all be fired.

And they should probably go to jail because they did it, but they should definitely be fired if they didn't know.

That's a pretty big deal.

And the same thing with Uranium One.

But listen how they covered it last week.

The moment that there's an FBI investigation or Senate and House Intelligence Committee investigations into Ukraine and the DNC and the Clinton campaign, I'm happy to discuss it.

But that's not what's going on right now.

Yeah, there's this long-running theory he's been peddling that have been checked out by various fact-checked organizations about her selling some uranium deposits.

It was essentially a transaction that was approved by multiple government agencies during the Obama administration.

It wasn't something controlled by Hillary Clinton herself.

So it's found to not be true.

This is opposition research, Brian.

It's utterly unremarkable.

It happens in every presidential campaign.

So this is distraction, diversion.

Again, you didn't hear the Clinton campaign talk about it or the DNC, and they didn't use it.

So I don't see how it could have influenced last November's elections.

You know, the reality is that this is not a group of people that was pro-Trump early on in the primary, but the president has basically tried to tie this to Hillary Clinton and to Democrats successfully over the last week at least, and that's really muddied the waters as far as the Russia investigation goes, politically speaking.

With all of this news, though, over the last 24 hours, that's going to complicate that message.

And all of the focus is back on Republicans.

back on Trump, and that's not what the White House wants at all.

I would say it's the same baloney they've been peddling for years, and there's been no credible evidence by anyone.

Trump and his allies, including Fox News, are really experts at distraction and diversion.

Okay, so have you heard that statement from Hillary Clinton?

You've heard that same statement from Donald Trump.

That's what they say.

That Hillary Clinton and her mouthpieces at CNN, etc.

We're not getting anywhere with that.

Now, I'm not suggesting that the mainstream media will do what I'm I'm asking you to do and what we are going to do.

We are going to look at fusion.

Here's why fusion GPS matters.

Well, it didn't influence the election.

This was opposition research paid for by a candidate that was then given to the FBI.

And the FBI continued to pay for that information, and they used it to get a FISA order against Donald Trump.

That's significant.

That needs to be looked into.

The other significant part of that is the direct tie to the Kremlin.

This story is really not about Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton.

This story is about how far do the tentacles of Russia go down into both parties.

There's Fusion GPS.

The uranium one story they're right Hillary Clinton was just one of the people however they received three million dollars from uranium one

three

million dollars from uranium one

now that shouldn't be looked into that's not concerning to people who when she was sitting there

helping make the decision

she and her husband and

their

Clinton foundation received $3 million.

Now, that should be looked into, but what's more disturbing had nothing to do with Hillary Clinton.

That there was somebody that was on the inside that was gathering intel on how deep and how corrupt

Uranium-1 was and how they were

bribing government officials, how they were doing all kinds of illegal activity.

This according to the New York Times, all kinds of illegal activity.

And we had a witness, a source on this, and they were gagged

by Barack Obama.

Those that were making the decisions on uranium-1

in the United States, and Congress were not allowed to hear the testimony of a man who had a gag order put on him for some reason by the President of the United States.

They just released that gag order, so now he can testify.

We need to hear what he is going to testify, what he's going to say.

And then we need to ask the president, former president of the United States, why did you issue a gag order on him?

Was this not important?

Remember, the gag order was issued because he had evidence that corruption from the Kremlin flowed directly to Washington.

To whom?

It may have been Paul Manafort and Donald Trump.

We don't know.

It could have been Hillary Clinton.

It could have been a bunch of people that we've never heard of.

But we need to know exactly who.

The most honest person in that montage was Jake Tapper.

He said, I'll talk about this when it becomes an investigation, a congressional investigation.

What we should be talking about as conservatives is this, to all of our friends, especially those across the aisle.

Look, I want you to look into Paul Manafort.

If the president is involved with Russia in any way, we need to know it.

However, No witch hunts here.

You and I both know the Clintons and the Democrats are dirty as well.

So why don't we have two investigations?

And why don't we join together and say, hey, look, we're all Americans.

None of us want corruption.

None of us want to be led around by the nose by the Russians.

So let's do investigations and find out what really happened.

Without all the partisan bickering, let's look into both sides because Vladimir Putin is corrupting both sides.

Sooner or later, your car or truck is going to break down.

And if you're lucky, it happens while you're still under the manufacturer warranty and the repair is covered.

Like my brand new pickup truck, I think I had it in

maybe 90 miles on it.

I don't even know how many miles on it.

Just brand new.

Sensor went out.

I'm like, you've got to be kidding me.

Check engine, check engine.

Really?

So that one was under warranty, but I also, I have a 2009 diesel pickup.

It's got 150,000 miles on it.

And that thing just is, it's just a great, great truck.

But it doesn't have a warranty.

And when those things start to go, there's real trouble.

What happens after the warranty expires like my diesel?

Well, you're out of pocket for thousands of dollars unless you have coverage from CarShield.com.

A new engine or a new transmission, going to cost you five grand, a simple repair to a sensor, trust me, $1,000.

Skip the hassle.

Skip the worry.

If your car is anywhere from three to, I don't even know, 15 years old, CarShield will make the entire process easy.

You select your favorite mechanic or go to the dealership, dealership, doesn't matter, because they get them paid.

You don't have to pay them and then wait for CarShield to pay you.

They automatically get the mechanic paid directly.

It's Car Shield.

Car Shield also has the VIP treatment, 24-7 roadside assistance on your rental car if your car is 3 to 12 years old.

Doesn't mean you have to pay the high repair bills.

Car Shields administrators have already paid out close to $2 billion.

So save yourself the hassle and save yourself the money before it's too late.

Right now, call 800 Car6100.

800 CAR6100.

You mentioned the promo code BEC, and you'll save an additional 10%.

It's carshield.com.

Promo code BECK deductible may apply.

Glenn back.

Glenn back.

So, one of the things that we have to do

is we have decided,

I have decided, that I need to do what I do best, and that's all I should do, is just do what I do best, and that is teach at a chalkboard.

And so, the shows at 5 o'clock are becoming more and more just chalkboard shows.

Today, we're going to do a quick chalkboard on the indictment today to show you exactly what happened.

But then

we are also doing segment one of a four-part series on what is socialism.

And we're really trying to make this so you can watch it at home with your kids and you can all learn something that you just didn't know.

And we're taking on the good, the bad, the ugly of socialism and teaching it in a way you've never seen before.

And that begins tonight only on the Blaze TV, theblaze.com/slash TV.

Sign up and watch it with your family.

You know, something else I'm looking at today,

and I doubt we'll be able to get to it, is to look at the parallels of what, because you can bet Mueller has done this, on how Watergate was built.

You know, Watergate was

pretty much kind of the same story in some ways.

It was during a re-election or an election.

Nixon was about to be re-elected.

He was up by like 50 points.

It was crazy.

And

they decided that they were going to bug the DNC headquarters.

And so they did.

They broke in and they bugged it, but the microphone went bad.

And so they had to go back and break in again.

So it was June 17th.

These five guys

broke back into the DNC headquarters and they had taped all the locks down and they were in the midst of it, but a guard had spotted them early and caught them red-handed.

Now, they had no connections to the White House at all.

Detectives thought they might because amongst their things was a number that went to the reelection of the president

committee, but it was just a phone number.

Nobody had connections.

What we didn't know until later was President Nixon had given them hush money right after they were arrested,

and he employed the CIA to try to obstruct justice on this investigation.

They arrested several aides

at the White House eventually.

Now, remember, all of this was there's no collusion,

there's no evidence that this connecting to the White House, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

It was the cover-up of the crime that was far worse than the crime itself, the cover-up.

And,

you know, breaking in and putting a microphone in is bad.

Breaking in and then using the CIA to cover it up and pay hush money is really bad.

The president lied repeatedly, but when they started to arrest the

White House members, the people who were in and around the White House, two of them went to jail.

The rest of them plea bargained, and it was Dean who actually came out and they flipped him.

He didn't want to go to jail.

And they flipped him.

And he said, okay, okay, here's what the president knew and here's what was happening.

I believe this is Mueller's strategy because the case that they have against Manafort is huge.

He will die in jail.

He will die in jail.

I mean, if he's guilty, and, you know, all indications are, I mean, it looks like a really buttoned-up case.

And if he's found guilty, he will die in jail.

So will they be able to flip him?

And does he have anything?

Glenn, back.

Love.

Courage.

Truth.

Glenn back.

The woman was not moving.

She lay unconscious.

Her body splayed out on the cold sidewalk as four young men approached her.

They immediately took out their phones.

In the America that I recognized, they took out their phones to call police, but that's not what they did.

They needed to take pictures of their latest victim.

Moments earlier, the woman was just walking down the street when a man rushed up to her, kicked her in the stomach, and sucker-punched her in the face.

This is a game known as the knockout game, and it's happening in our major cities.

Last week, people were knocked out in New York City, Brooklyn, and Pittsburgh.

The goal is to come up to a complete stranger in the street and knock them into unconsciousness.

It's usually played by groups of roving teenagers with nothing better to do with their lives.

Teenagers who lack a future, parental guidance, moral values,

which all leads to a lack of basic human decency.

This is what the deterioration of morality looks like in America.

And it is going to get worse unless we as parents start to teach basic morality in our own homes.

It's Monday, October 30th.

This is the Glembeck program.

Andrew McCarthy, contributing editor, National Review, and Andrew C McCarthy.com.

Andy, can you tell me what is,

can you walk us through the Paul Manafort

story?

Well, to the extent we know it, Glenn, I think what happened is Manafort and this fella that they say is a protege of his, Richard Gates,

worked as political consultants for the the Kremlin-connected Ukrainian regime

from about 2005, 2006,

up until the main guy there, Yanukovych, got ousted and fled to Moscow in

2014.

So

in a nutshell, Andrew, is it too much to say that Paul Manafort played a big role in what led to

the revolution in Ukraine, that they were rising up against the guy he was working for and strengthening.

Yeah,

I would say, Glenn, not wanting to get too far ahead of what we know, the guy that you're talking about certainly did lead to the chaos and worse that we have there now.

And Manafort was obviously working for him.

And if this indictment is

to be believed, they made about $75 million in consulting.

So

I don't think we can say that what he was doing was trivial, let's for sure.

Okay, so he was laundering money and not declaring money from that job.

Yes,

what you're required to do, this is the allegation, what you're required to do if you're an American citizen and you have control over a foreign bank account that has more than $10,000 in it at any point during the year, you have to disclose that.

You don't have to do anything more than disclose it, but you have to disclose it.

And you also have to do something on your tax return in the way of disclosure as well.

So the allegation is that they didn't do that.

Whether the money laundering, the money laundering looks like it's a kind of a rickety count to me.

It may hold up, but the theory behind the money laundering is that they were unregistered foreign agents when they were, as American citizens, required to register under federal law at the time they were making all this money, and they then moved the money.

So the idea is that with money laundering, not to get too far in the weeds, you have to have unlawful proceeds in the first place that you then start to move around through bank accounts and change the form of.

So you've got to prove the challenge for a prosecutor in money laundering case is to prove that the money was illegal in the first place before you started moving it around.

So my question here would be,

it's not illegal to make money even from bad people outside the United States.

What he did wrong here is failing to register as a foreign agent.

To me, that doesn't necessarily mean that the earning of the money was criminal.

It means that his failure to register was criminal.

They're trying to bootstrap those two things together in order to say that these are unlawful proceeds, criminal proceeds, so that when they then start moving the money around, the money laundering laws get triggered.

We'll have to see how that theory plays out.

They're also saying that he didn't pay any taxes on that, but would he have to pay taxes if he left it, if it wasn't repatriated?

He would have to disclose it.

And I think that

the the main allegation here is the failure to disclose, not necessarily the failure to.

I don't see a tax evasion charge here.

I see a failure to disclose charge.

Okay.

Just so people know, Andy McCarthy, former assistant U.S.

Attorney for the Southern District of New York, he's the guy that led the terrorism prosecution

against the blind Shake and 11 other people with a 93 World Trade Center bombing.

Also was instrumental in

bombing of the U.S.

Embassy, actually, the prosecution on the guys who

bombed the embassies of Kenya and Tanzania.

And so he has some real depth in this kind of stuff.

Andy, so I'm looking at this, and

I'm thinking that,

you know, if they could prove all of these, here's a guy who's, what, 68, 69 years old.

He's never leaving prison if they can prove these things and get a jury to go along with it.

Would you agree with that first?

I think that the indictment looks worse than the sentencing guidelines would look like.

Like, for example,

they're talking about a scheme that goes back to 2006, but the federal

statute of limitations on most felonies is only five years, which is why when you look close at this, they're really only charging stuff that goes from 2012 forward, which cuts out a lot of the early lavish money that was involved.

There's also

some sort of

disturbing stacking of counts by Mueller's office.

So, for example, they accused them of, when they belatedly registered as foreign agents, making false statements

on their form.

That's fine.

Congress has a penalty for that.

In the context of foreign agents, they make it a misdemeanor worth up to six months in jail to make a false statement on a foreign agency, a foreign agent registry form.

Mueller, for good measure, throws in a felony five-year false statements count that

prosecutors use all the time.

You're not really supposed to do that when Congress has prescribed a different penalty for the same behavior.

you know, specifically addressing an area like registering as a foreign agent, because you can't commit the one crime without committing the other crime.

So what Mueller has done is taken something that Congress regards as a misdemeanor and turned it into a five and a half year felony.

That kind of stuff, I think when courts look at it, they're not going to like it very much.

So we'll see.

So if you were

if you were Manafort today,

let's start with him.

What would you be thinking looking at this?

The same thing I have been thinking in July when really gratuitously they got a search warrant and convinced a judge to let them break in in the pre-dawn hours with their guns drawn while he's in bed with his wife.

I think they're squeezing me.

And it's clear, I think,

what Mueller is doing here is that either

he has reached an impasse in his investigation,

and he thinks that the only way he can find if there's anything to this collusion business

is that Manafort is the guy who is the key to it, and he has to break them.

Or it may just be that there's nothing there, and this is the chance that

Mueller has to take in order to satisfy himself completely that there's nothing to the collusion thing.

But one way or another,

you know, this is a very heavy-handed investigation.

And to my mind, looking at it, it's a very overcharged set of charges.

I'm not for a moment making the case that Manafort's not guilty.

Looks to me like he's probably guilty of some

not insignificant.

Yeah,

I think he's a really, really bad guy who knew exactly who he was in bed with, you know, over in

the Ukraine and,

you know, is a, is

a knowing ally of Vladimir Putin trying to grab Ukraine.

I think he's a really bad guy.

Yeah, but Glenn, I always, maybe this is because of what I used to do for a living.

I distinguish between

icky national security problem and crime.

I have no doubt that Manafort was completely unsuited to be involved in a presidential campaign.

And I've been as upset as anyone about Trump's

friendly

blandishments back and forth with Putin's regime.

But the question clinically for me, looking at the four corners of an indictment, is, you know, how serious is this case?

It looks to me like it's overcharged.

Okay, so what is the first charge?

Conspiracy against the United States.

That seems like scary as hell.

Sounds terrible, doesn't it?

It does.

When you look at it, yeah, except it's a five-year, it's the five-year catch-all federal conspiracy case,

which always is conspiracy against the United States.

And what it really is, is the

2012 through about

the failure to disclose the foreign bank accounts is the main part of that and the false statements.

Wow, because that just sounds like something you just do not want.

You don't want to wake up on a Monday morning and hear those words.

You know, every caption in a criminal case says United States versus

the name of the person.

And it's intimidating to be prosecuted and to be charged with things like

conspiracy against the United States.

You were good enough to mention my blind shake prosecution.

Judge Muchese, who later became the attorney general, made us call that case, we originally called it United States versus Rahman, and he made us call it United States versus Abdel Rahman because our Arabic-speaking defendants explained that Abdel Rahman meant

soldier of God, whereas Rahman meant God.

So our original indictment said United States versus God.

Yeah,

that's probably something we shouldn't file.

Yeah, I agree to make that a judge.

So can you hang on just a second,

Andrew?

And because I want to now go to, all right,

so if you are, if you're Paul Manafort, do you just say, I'm sitting tight, or do they have enough screws to put to you that you're starting to think if you had anything to offer, you might offer.

And

what are you thinking in the White House?

And

how does Donald Trump send a message

without hurting himself?

We'll get to that here in a second.

First, I want to tell you about our sponsor, and it is Goldline.

I don't know if you saw this,

but what's happening with Catalonia and

Spain is actually,

I think, quite important.

I don't know if anybody else is really paying attention to this, but this is...

This is like, I don't know, California saying, I'm going to break away.

I'm going to break away, and I don't want anything to do with the federal government.

And the federal government of Spain has coming and said, no, you're not breaking away.

And there are all kinds of protests that are happening in the streets.

And Catalonia said, we're going to break away from the monetary system.

This changes everything in Spain, could change things in Europe, could lead to

a really nasty civil war, which would upset all of the markets.

History has proven time and time again that

the one thing that has intrinsic value, nothing else has this, Bitcoin, you might make a lot of money, you could lose everything.

There's one thing that doesn't lose its value, and it has withstood everything that history has thrown at it, and it is gold.

I want you to call Goldline now at 1-866-GoldLine.

Hear about their price guarantee and their specials this month.

866-GoldLine, 1-866-GoldLine or goldline.com.

Glenn back.

Glenn, back.

Andrew McCarthy is joining us.

Andy, let me go two places with you.

First, back to Manafort.

Manafort reportedly sent an email to Deripasca asking if he would like private briefings on the campaign,

which is, you know, kind of unusual.

And then we also have Papadopoulos, who apparently already pleaded guilty and swore out an affidavit.

And Stu, just read the first part of that.

He was a

foreign policy advisor for the president's campaign.

One of the big parts of this is on or about April 26th, it's about a month after the hack happened with Podesta,

this guy, Papadopoulos, met with a professor.

The professor told the defendant, Papadopoulos, that on the trip he learned that the Russians had obtained dirt on then-candidate Clinton.

They told them that the Russians have dirt on her.

The Russians had emails of Clinton.

They have thousands of emails indicating that potentially they knew about this Podesta hack in April of 2016.

And that is something that he's admitted to.

Yeah, and that they were told that it was the Russians who did it.

Is that bad?

Yeah, I think all of this is bad.

Whether it's criminal is a, you know, it's another matter.

Obviously, if there was something criminal about it, they would have charged him with something other than a false statement.

Because from a prosecutor's standpoint, there's nothing better in terms of establishing the crime that you're really trying to prove than to get a cooperating witness to plead guilty to that crime because that establishes that it happened.

They obviously didn't think they had a crime.

So they they got them to admit to false statements.

And look, this goes to something that's been a problem with this whole collusion thing from the beginning.

Collusion with the Russians would be a terrible thing, not just in terms of politics, but in terms of national security.

It's the kind of thing that the framers put impeachment in there for.

And it's the reason why impeachment doesn't necessarily require a violation of the penal law.

Do you believe that there is any collusion?

That this is any indication that there may be collusion.

Well, I've always thought, Glenn, you and I are colluding by having this conversation.

Collusion, it's got a dark connotation to it.

But in the criminal law, we talk about conspiracy because that means you have to specifically violate a criminal statute that we agree to do that.

That's not just collusion.

That's something that you can actually work with as a prosecutor.

So

I think the reason that they talk collusion, you know, from one side, it's that they don't have a crime and they're trying to divert attention from the fact that they don't have it.

But on the other side, collusion with Russia would be bad even if it couldn't be prosecuted.

So

you're Donald Trump today.

How are you feeling?

What are you saying to him?

You're walking walking in and you're saying to him, don't worry, or, Mr.

President, what are you thinking?

Well, I'm thinking that I'm not surprised by this because I had to know something like this was coming back in July when they handled the search warrant on the guy's house the way they did.

But I'm thinking in terms of politics, which would be his major concern right now, he's been told by Comey, apparently, on repeated occasions, that he personally is not a suspect.

And now, finally, there are charges from Mueller, and they don't have anything to do with the 2016 campaign.

So, if I'm the president today, I'm obviously not happy to see Manafort get charged.

But if I'm just thinking about Donald Trump, which I think is what Donald Trump mainly thinks about,

I'm thinking this is a pretty good day.

And are you,

as the president, are you worried that

Manafort

could say something even if it wasn't true, that they could flip him?

How do you deal with Manafort?

I'm not more worried about that than I was yesterday.

Okay.

All right.

I think that's been out there all this time.

I'm less worried about it after reading what Mueller's got.

If there was some allusion to 2016 in here, that would be alarming.

But I take comfort from the fact that this is all Ukrainian stuff that doesn't doesn't have anything to do with the 2016 campaign.

I hate to ask you this, but can I hold you for just a few more minutes?

I just want to ask you

your thoughts on the fusion GPS and Uranium One, because I think

that needs to be looked at as well.

And we need to pop the hood on that.

But they say the same thing: is there any crime there?

Back to it in a sec.

Glenn Beck.

You're listening to the Glenn Beck program.

Andrew McCarthy, contributing editor of the National Review.

And

he's also a guy who was the former assistant U.S.

Attorney for the Southern District of New York that

led the charge on the first World Trade Center bombing

and

is a trusted friend of the program.

So, Andrew,

I want to ask you,

the right is, I'm sorry, the left is dismissing Fusion GPS and Uranium One.

And both of those seem to be really big deals, at least to me.

And

nobody in the news media seems to really care.

Yeah, I think they're very big deals, Glenn,

not only on their own merit, but particularly framed by the debate that we've been having for the last year.

So, for example, just to take Fusion GPS,

if you strip out the middlemen, that is the law firm that the Clinton campaign and the DNC hired, and Steele,

who is the guy who supposedly has these connections, which, if you read his dossier, he says that they are high-level Kremlin-connected people.

What they basically did was get information from Kremlin-connected officials,

which would be damaging to the Trump campaign.

There's no difference in my mind between the Trump meeting, which I think was wrong,

and the fusion GPS, with an exception of that information was laundered, but it's exactly the same, and they knew it.

Yeah, no, that's exactly right.

And it goes to, again,

we keep hitting the same themes, but these things may not be illegal, but they're very unsavory.

It may not be illegal to get damaging information about your campaign opponents from a vile regime, but

it's a terrible thing to do, and it's terrible for American politics.

So

what about Uranium-1?

I am concerned that Uranium-1,

that the president issued a gag order on a guy who was saying all kinds of stuff about how the Russians were involved and bribing all kinds of people.

Yeah,

I'm really concerned about this nondisclosure agreement.

I'm glad that Attorney General Sessions has decided to lift it.

I must say, when I was a prosecutor, I was a prosecutor, Glenn, for almost 20 years.

I never used one.

We always told people that your non-disclosure agreements are not effective against us.

We can still put you in the grand jury.

We can still put you on the witness stand.

So, for the government to tell that to people and at the same time use these kinds of agreements seems inappropriate to me.

But the thing I think is really alarming is not only now that we already knew that when this transmission of uranium assets to what essentially is Russia, this conglomerate Rose Atom is the Kremlin, for all intents and purposes,

they were buying off American officials at the time that was going on.

Now we know that they knew they had an extortion and racketeering case on the American subsidiary of Rose Atom at the very time that this was under consideration, and they elected not to bring the case because if they had brought the case, that would have blown the transaction to Smithereens.

It would never have gone forward.

Do you believe the FBI now?

I mean, the FBI has been using they use this to get a FISA court to spy on Donald Trump.

They knew.

They had to have known.

Well,

I think we have to find out all the facts.

And I know I can I can I'm entitled to be an apologist to the FBI because I worked for them or with them for a long time.

And it's a big institution that's got good and bad, just like

any other big institution.

But

look,

if they wrapped up the dossier and gave it to the Pfizer court, that would be a big problem.

If they mined allegations out of the dossier and then went and independently corroborated them and used what they had corroborated to get a FISA warrant, I don't have a problem with that.

If they had a good faith reason to think that there was connection between the Russian regime and the Trump campaign,

not as a pretext for political spying, but a good faith reason to believe that was going on.

It would have been irresponsible not to investigate it.

Andy, thank you very much.

Appreciate it.

Andrew McCarthy from National Review.

He's at AndrewCmcCarthy.com and on Twitter at Andrew C.

McCarthy.

Another huge Twitter guy is at Pat Unleashed.

I mean, he cannot get enough of Twitter, and you should follow him.

A lot of people call me Mr.

Twitter.

Really?

Yeah,

some people call me the gangster of love, and others call me Maurice.

All right, okay.

Usually, Mr.

Twitter

or the pompetus of love.

Right.

I go by both.

Okay.

And they both are

and they both relate to the same type of people.

Yes, they do.

Yes, they do.

They do.

Okay, so Pat has a commentary on something we haven't really gotten to today, and that is Kevin Spacey's bizarre

bizarre

apology?

I guess.

There's a 14, well, he was 14 at the time.

Anthony Rapp.

I'm not familiar with this guy.

I guess he stars on Star Trek Discovery, which is a YouTube show.

Anyway, he says when he was 14 years old, Kevin Spacey came on to him

and actually lifted him up in his arms and carried him to his bed and then got on top of him.

And then, so Kevin Spacey had the strangest statement at first.

His first reaction was, well, I choose now to live as a gay man.

First of all, being gay is a choice because I was led to believe something else.

But also,

yeah, well, if you're gay, doesn't that lend a little credibility to what Anthony Rapp is saying?

Or is he saying that,

well, I'm gay, so it's okay.

You know, the only people who can do bad things are straight white guys, And I'm not one.

You know, I think this is the gay community is outraged and should be.

This is.

Wait a minute.

Your excuse is I'm gay?

Wait, that doesn't mean that you're making it with 14-year-old boys.

That's the difference between a pedophile and gay.

Yes.

Isn't this his get out of jail free card essentially, though?

He's trying to make a story

about how he's gay rather than the fact that he was molesting potentially 14-year-old boys.

Like Harvey Weinstein, when he quit, was like, hey, I'm going against.

You know what?

I'm going to stop with this movie business and I'm going against the NRA because we can all agree on that, right, liberals?

Like, it was like so blatantly unusual.

Nice little stab in the dark there.

Yeah.

Did not work for him.

No.

And I don't think it's going to work for Spacey either because he just angered gays on two fronts.

One, you choose.

to live as a gay man, and the other is, well, I'm gay.

Yeah, so it's okay with 14-year-old boys.

No, no, it's not.

no uh and the vast majority of homosexuals I'm sure disagree with you yeah you know so yeah I would think so yeah so now

imagine imagine the insult imagine you're heterosexual everything is reversed and

you were accused of of betting a 14-year-old girl and you were like no I'm straight hey I'm straight

I can't resist 14 year olds what do you what straight man can resist that I mean that's crazy

That is crazy.

I'm a man.

I need it more.

You understand that?

So now here's, may I play devil's advocate?

Okay, so here's the flip side of this.

You have one guy saying something that happened in 1986.

Yep.

He said,

I don't have any recollection of this.

Does that mean he betted so many 14-year-old boys that this one didn't stand out?

Hang on, hang on.

You don't understand.

Okay.

Sort out one of the individuals.

mean, I will tell you that

that does come to mind.

It does enter in.

However, he said, you know, drunken stupor.

I was in drunken stupors at the time, blah, blah, blah.

So, I mean, he could have blacked out.

It's not a good excuse.

It's not something that I necessarily believe.

But look at what's happening now.

One guy says in 1986, this happened to me, and everyone's turning on Kevin Spacey.

We really need to be careful.

Yeah, we do.

We really need to be careful here.

There needs to be.

I don't even know what the, I don't even care what the process is.

I thought we had a legal system to take care of these things, but apparently that's not an option anymore.

But there's not even any process.

We've been mocking colleges because they set up these kangaroo courts where they just like trap people in.

They don't even allow them to have evidence and they're just all guilty and get expelled from school.

We're not even having that anymore.

It's just has one person made an accusation against you, therefore it's guilt.

And probably

most to all of these are completely legitimate.

But you can't allow careers and lives to get to get ruined over

accusation without being aware of that.

But they're not denying so many of them aren't denying it.

They're just kind of accepting.

Yeah, I guess I did that.

I've done so many things.

It's hard to remember now.

But I mean, you got Weinstein, you've got James Toback, who's accused of what, 300?

By 300 women, Ben Affleck, you got Bill Cosby.

Now you had Amazon's Roy Price, who headed up their entertainment division.

And now you got Kevin Spacey.

It might be easier to just find the person who hasn't sexually abused somebody in Hollywood.

Good luck with that.

Pat Gray unleashed following this program.

All right, what's more essential than you protecting your family,

protecting your home?

You know,

without security,

you can't do what you do.

That is the secret of the United States.

That was the compact that we made.

Look, we're going to give up just a little bit so you can protect my home and you can protect my family and you'll catch the g bad guys so I can go and pursue my happiness.

Well, that's getting harder and harder and the police, you know, can't be everywhere.

So, how do you protect your home?

Well, if you want to do it the traditional way with the wires and the, you know, and the, you know, brinks and everything else,

you're going to be locked into a three-year contract.

You're going to spend about $50 a month on it.

You're going to pay for that thing over and over and over and over again.

But if you do it the new way, simply safe, you'll get a totally wireless security system.

There is no long-term contract.

There's no contract.

Your home is protected around the clock, 24-7.

No hidden fees.

It's $15 a month.

That's three times less than the other guys.

And

you keep it.

It's yours.

You pay for it once.

Go to simply safebeck.com.

Get a special 10% discount when you order today.

Now, if you want your security system tonight, you need to go to your local Best Buy.

They carry them there.

But you can set that up and have it, you know, operating by tonight.

Or you can go to simply safebeck.com, wait a couple of days, and you're going to get 10% off.

That's simply safebeck.com.

Go there now.

Glenn back.

Glenn back.

So yesterday, or was it this morning, Elon Musk

tweeted out a picture of his chunnel,

his own little private

tunnel system that he's building under Los Angeles, which is absolutely incredible.

This is, by the way, his hobby.

It's a billion-dollar deal, but no big deal.

It's his hobby.

And he was tired of the congestion.

And so he thought, you know what, if we just build,

you know, some sort of a, like, almost like a maglev,

some sort of a thing that can carry cars and just, you know,

give an exit about every mile back up above ground.

We should be able to move cars at about 150 miles an hour.

And so, strangely, California said, okay,

and he's doing it.

Is he actually doing it?

Or I thought this was just like a.

No, he's doing it.

This is incredible because

take out the left-wing side of Elon Musk that I think, you know, is not necessarily what we would do.

You know, I don't mean the global warming stuff and all that.

But take all that out for a moment and think about just like, this guy's doing the billionaire routine right.

Because this is he's not just a billionaire, he is a genius.

He is a genius, but instead of just like, I don't know, going playing golf every day, he's just thinking of every crazy idea he's ever had as like a teenager and he's just making them all.

Yes, like it's like, I want a bank tube to go across the country, okay?

There it is.

Have you watched him on TED Talks?

Yeah, I think so.

Watch the TED Talk where he is, it's a TED Talk on SpaceX going to Mars and the boring company.

He calls his borer,

he's boring underneath the ground.

So he's called that the boring company.

He's naming all of his companies funny and interesting things, right?

Like, you know, Tesla.

He's just,

it's just,

if there's anyone I could meet today, Elon Musk.

He's the one who's

an hour with anyone today, he would be the guy.

He is really a fascinating guy.

And I just like, there's something about it because I always think to myself, if I was a billionaire, what would I do?

Probably buy like an NFL franchise and just play quarterback.

Screw all you.

I don't care if we go in 16 every year and I throw 94 interceptions.

So what?

Shut up.

It's my team.

That's what I would do with it.

And he's kind of doing the same thing.

He's like, you know what?

I want a spaceship.

There it is.

Like,

I want a giant rocket that goes to the moon.

You watch this TED Talks, and he's the only guy that can pull this off where he's talking and he's talking about, you know, boring underneath Los Angeles, which he's doing.

And he's like, Yeah, it's a billion dollars a mile, but I've cut that in half.

And I think I can cut that in a quarter again, you know, just because, you know, obviously, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

He just starts quoting out all this stuff that, you know, he just expects everybody else to know.

And everybody in the audience is like, oh, yeah, sure.

Yeah.

Of course, that's going to cut it by a quarter again.

And then he's talking about going to space and he says,

yeah, well, we plan on, you know, our company stated goal is 10 years.

And the guy, Ted, is talking to him and he's like, well, but, I mean, that's what you say, but could it take longer?

And he said, well, that's actually not our internal goal.

Our internal goal is five years.

And he just says it like, no, like,

no, like, I know crazy, huh?

He's just like, yeah, we'll probably do it in five.

It's nuts.

It's nuts.

And I believe him.

I believe him.

It's hard to doubt him at this point.

I mean, you know, he, I'm sure, this is the best thing about him is he, he, surely some of these are going to fail miserably, spectacularly, you know, but that's so far.

Well, I mean, I don't know.

I mean, there's certain things that I, you know, I mean, he has some solar projects that haven't been included.

There's been certain things.

But, I mean, again, so what?

Right?

Like, you're a billionaire and it's your money with the exception.

Again,

he's the Edison of our day.

He's the Edison of our day.

I don't think he would.

He started a company called Tesla.

You're calling him the Edison of the day?

Well, that way he would not appreciate that.

Well, he wanted to meet this guy.

Okay, he's the Tesla, but with the success rate of Edison, how's that?

Glenn, back.