The Glenn Beck Program - Best of the Program | Guests: Alan Dershowitz & Rep. Greg Steube | 7/27/23

Episode Date: July 27, 2023

Attorney Alan Dershowitz joins Glenn to discuss the chaotic plea bargain court hearing that ended with Hunter Biden's plea agreement getting postponed. Journalist Julie Kelly joins to look into the claims of a January 6 police officer and whether his claims hold any water. Florida Rep. Greg Steube joins to dive deeper into the legal troubles facing President Biden and Hunter in the aftermath of Hunter's plea deal disaster. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Big program for you today on the podcast. We have Julie Kelly talking a little bit about some new evidence from January 6th that kind of helps the story for the left unravel just a bit. Also, Alan Dershowitz joins me. What happened yesterday with the judge and Hunter Biden? It's good. He said that it was good for the Constitution and a good thing. I said, maybe, I mean, I think there's a chance that maybe, and he said, and they don't get too excited. Don't get too excited. We also talked to Greg Stuby, the congressman from Florida, who is talking about impeachment in the House. And we told you some rather disturbing things that are happening around the country, that people are being silenced, including Jordan Peterson, in a truly 1984 sort of way. All that on today's podcast. Brought to you by sweat block.

Sweat block is this amazing deodorant antiperspirant. It comes in the regular stick that you can use. But if you are really sweaty or you're living in a place like Texas, the fire is a hell right now. And you walk outside and you're instantly sweating. Sweat block wipes are really for you. Sweat block wipes. You just apply them every few days. For me, it lasts about a week.

you wipe one before you go to bed under each arm and you get up in the morning you take a shower you go to work and you don't have to reapply anything for a few days and it is really really good sweatblock try it now sweatblock.com use the promo code back sweatblock.com slash back promo code back you'll save 20% you can also get sweatblock at amazon.com

you're listening to the best of the blend back from Alan Dershowitz is joining us now, Harvard Law School, Professor Emeritus, and the host of The Dershow, and don't forget, the author of Get Trump. Alan Dershowitz, how are you, sir? I am doing great. The judge did the right thing yesterday, and guess who predicted it? I predicted over and over then that he would not accept this plea bargain. Of course, CNN said, of course he has to accept the plea bargain.

What are you talking about? It's Dershowitz again. stain, all kind of things. Well, you know, CNN always gets it wrong because their predictions are based always on wishful thinking. They wanted the judge to accept the plea deal. So they said she would. I'm not any smarter than the people on CNN. I just don't allow my preferences to influence my predictions. My predictions are based on my 60 years of experience with the law. And I saw deep flaws in this plea bargain. And I said, and I said it over and over again, wouldn't and she shouldn't accept this plea bargain and she didn't.

How brave of that was her, was this? Pretty brave. Pretty brave. You know, she gets flack because she was the so-called Trump appointee, but she wasn't a Trump appointee. As you know, the way judges get appointed when you have two senators in the state from a different party, the senators basically make the decision. Now the president can veto it, but she was essentially appointed by the two Democratic senators and Trump alike.

So, you know, she's a young and courageous, a woman. Both sides wanted this deal to go through. The Justice Department wanted their kind of secret deal. We never saw the plea bargain. We never saw what was entail. I just smelled a rat, but we didn't see it. And she said, no, no, wait a minute. Does this plea bargain mean he can't ever be investigated again for other crime?

you know, and we don't know whether the investigation was limited to Delaware, the smallest state in the union. Oh, whether Weiss, David Weiss, was allowed to go to the district of Columbia, allowed to go to Los Angeles, to Ukraine, to China, to follow the money. And if he wasn't, the plea bargain should never be accepted. So she kind of delayed it. She said, until you to clear this up, I'm not going to hear it. But one of the problems I thought she had was there was no adversarial feeling between the two parties. You know, for our system to work, it has to be adversarial. It doesn't mean it needs to be nasty, but adversarial.

One side is pushing for the law. The other one is pushing for the client. And they didn't have this. They got into this deal together. And they should have had a third party, whether it in the form of an, you know, an act. amicus brief, a friend of the court brief, somebody should have said, we're there on behalf of the American people. Justice must not only be done, it must seem to be done. You know, the Bible, in the book of Deuteronomy, instructs judges and says two things to them. Number one, don't take bribes. That's obvious. But that's the second. The first one is Lothakir Panim. That's the Hebrew for don't recognize faces.

Don't do justice on who the person is. That's the origin of the famous statute of justice with the blindfold. It's not Greek literature. It's the Bible that says be blindfolded. Don't look at race. Don't look at class. Don't look at gender. Don't look at politics.

Don't even look at the person. Don't peek under the blindfold. Do justice based only on the law and the facts. It has to be the same justice administered to everybody. And that's a biblical command going back. How many thousands of years? And the judge finally did that. We are so lost.

This actually gave a lot of people a lot of hope. Because unlike CNN, I just assumed from the way things are always going now, that it was going to go through. And it didn't. And that gave me a hope that, wait, there is some independence here. There are some people that understand the rule of law and gave me a great deal of hope. what does it mean going forward? Well, I would say it gave me a little bit of hope. I think you have too much hope.

I think she will ultimately accept the deal. She will eventually accept the deal with a few modifications. What they'll agree to is, no, he can't be prosecuted for any other crimes, unless the evidence was not available now, or he tried to suppress it, or the crimes are very serious. But there'll be an agreement, and I think she'll accept the agreement. I don't think she should, but I think she will. She should call Garland.

She should call Weiss. Put them under oath and say, look, Garland, you say he had the authority to investigate anywhere in the country, including District of Columbia and Los Angeles. He says, no. He was restricted to Delaware. Who is right? I have to know that before I accept the deal. That's what she should do. I suspect she won't do that.

Why? I think she. She's, I think she feels she's done what she has to do. She doesn't have a roving commission to do justice. She has to deal with what are called cases and controversies. And generally, judges just to resolve disputes between the parties. But here, as you said, there are no disputes between the parties. The parties both agree that there should be a plea bargain of this kind, which,

if it involves only these two crimes, is not a sweetheart deal. If you only were late in your taxes and didn't fill out of form properly for guns, yeah, that's the right sentence. But if they didn't investigate Burisma, if they didn't investigate what's going on in China, then it's not an appropriate leave argument. And then it really is a sweetheart deal. So can I ask you? And I'm not asking you, I'm not asking for a legal thing. Always innocent until proven guilty, I get. But I'm not saying that the president is guilty.

I'm saying it looks really bad for the president. If I were just going on these facts, it has to be investigated properly, not some witch hunt. But the evidence that is out is a little overwhelming. It's much more than I think we had on Nixon. It's a little overwhelming. And it's beyond Nixon, to me, Nixon was a break in. it was the cover-up that was the real problem. Here we not only have an extensive cover-up,

but we might also have taking money from foreign adversaries. This is really bad. Am I reading this wrong? You know, you're reading the evidence that's been offered correctly. What we don't know is whether it's true. You know, whistleblowers, just because they're whistleblowers, doesn't mean they're telling you. I know.

And so the issue was Joe Biden sitting next to Hunter Biden when he made that threatening extortionate demand? We have to find that out. Was he on the phone 10 times? Are there recordings? I mean, if I'm the prosecution, I don't tell the other side whether there are any recordings. Let them testify under oath without knowing whether there are recordings. That's the best way of getting the truth. If you don't know whether there's a recording, you're going to tell the truth.

If you know there's no recording, well, you know, you can remember things in an innocent way. You can't do that if you believe this recording. And I don't know whether there's a recording. And I don't know whether or not they think there's a recording on the Biden side. But there's a lot of investment. Would you agree that we are at least, I mean, the New York Times and CNN and everybody else still saying there's nothing here. Why are we even talking about this? I, I, I'm maybe, maybe you're right.

I was like this with Donald Trump. I was willing to investigate. I want to know what happened. I want a real invest, a real investigation there. You would agree that the New York Times and all those guys are wrong by saying, oh, there's nothing here? Yeah, except there's nothing new about that. The New York Times and CNN are these issues.

Okay, all right. From the very beginning. Look, it's one word to generalize about most Americans, Republicans, Democrats, liberals, conservatives, Christians, Jews, Muslims. It's skepticism. Prove it. Show me. I'm not sure.

That's the American way. We don't accept things because somebody said it, whether it's because the President, United States Senator or whistleblower said it. Show me the facts. What we need is special counsel appointed, and it has to be appointed with the coordination of Republicans and Democrats alike. It has to be somebody who is above reproach, perhaps a former Supreme Court justice, a former president of a university, somebody who can really look into this, who doesn't care, has no horse in the race in a particular outcome. And that's what we haven't had up to now.

You're listening to the best of the Glenn Beck program. More on the impeachment of Joe Biden and what happened yesterday with his son Hunter from Representative. Greg Stuby from Florida. We do that coming up in just a second. Stand by first. I want to take you back to January 6th, and the police officer that was brutally beaten. In fact, here are a couple of interviews with him

right after January 6th. I got hurt. I got her. I would do it again if I have to. It's my job. It was very scary. Because I thought I was going to lose my life. When I came in, she wanted to hug me.

And I told her, no. Because I was covered, I was covered in pepper spray. My hands were bleeding still. I couldn't even sleep because I went, took a shower. And instead of helping that re-inflamed the chemicals. It did soak through your clothes? Yes. Took a bath with milk.

That ain't helped. Here's another cut. I, too, was being crushed by the other rioters. I could feel myself losing oxygen and recall thinking to myself, this is how I'm going to die defending this entrance. Stop. That is pretty hard to hear. Pretty hard to hear.

Now, Julie Kelly is a journalist, and she's been given analysis and commentary related to the weaponization. of the U.S. Department of Justice, she writes on a substack, declassified with Julie Kelly. She also is giving us some really unique looks at January 6th and the pending criminal indictments of Donald Trump. And Julie has just tweeted out earlier this week that that story doesn't seem to fit. Do I have that right, Julie? You do have that right, Glenn. And thank you so much for having me on and sharing my work. So Officer Equinino Ginell, who you heard there, his sob story, has been one of what I call January 6th celebrity cop.

So he was one of four police officers, security guard, who testified during the very first January 6th, Select Committee televised hearing. The idea of that hearing was to make it sound like Trump supporters tried to kill police officers that day. And Ginell has been now for two and a half years telling, his sob story, his near-death experience, that he almost died, injuries to his head, his hands, his shoulder, that his foot was crushed. Well, footage that was obtained by Johanaman at Epic Times, I have to credit him. When I was looking at his coverage of what happened, actually happened to Roseanne Boylan, the first person who popped up, in my view, was Officer Gano. And so I zoomed in, it's like, well, I can't believe this is him. And there he is for seven

minutes, as I have in my piece and on Twitter, walking around no indication of any injury, no sign of pain. He's actually kicking things aside with his feet. His hands are visible. There's no bleeding. There's no abrasions on his hands. His shoulders, both shoulders are mobile. He's taking off gear. He's bending up and down. He's moving things around. He's putting on a surgical face mask. No apparent size of pain or injury for. seven minutes. But yet here he has been a key figure in promoting the idea that police were almost killed on January 6th and that he was so grievously injured, Glenn, that he had to take a medical leave for at least a year. And that only went back to partial duty due to his

injuries and surgery. He claimed that he had because of those injuries. What else do you know about him, Julie? I don't know much. I know he is a veteran. I know. He is a veteran. I know. I know. He's an immigrant, I believe, from maybe the Dominican Republic. That's really all that I know. But, Glenn, I also want to underscore his words and his claims are not without consequence. He has been a government witness in trials of January 6 defendants, where he has taken the stand under oath and talked about his injuries that he suffered. He has filed victim impact statements and sentencing hearings for January 6 defendants. talking about these serious injuries that were inflicted by Trump supporters.

And he specifically says Trump supporters. He does not say protesters, rioters, Trump supporters. This has helped judges impose very long, harsh sentences against January 6th defendants. And in fact, in fact, when one federal judge, Trevor McFadden, specifically called out Officer Gnell in his testimony in one trial and said that his testimony about his injury, were not credible and that he did not believe when officer ginell said he had been beaten with a stolen baton so it's not just that he's talking on you know cnn jake's tapper or he's posting this garbage on twitter he is he has said these things under oath uh as i said with with dire consequences for defendants do you know because i know you've been following all of the cases and i would

assume you know some of the attorneys um just by following you know it. Are they looking into retrying their cases? I mean, this is information that the government had and didn't release. That seems like a miscarriage of justice. So well said, Glenn. And this has been a criticism of defendants now for more than two years that this Department of Justice and Capitol Police, by the way, have designated all of this footage as highly sensitive government material. All of it has been under strict protective orders in court. And the government is really only turning over footage to defendants that is case specific. So say in the case where Ginell testified, they only saw footage of the defendant, the security

video of that particular defendant. They didn't turn over or produce the video of Officer Ginell. And this is only one clip that we've seen. I'm sure there's other footage of him walking through the Capitol. And keep in mind, this is around 5 o'clock that day. This isn't before the violence between protesters and police began. This is after it ended. So it's not like he went back to another area of the Capitol and got beaten up by protesters. The building had been evacuated.

The grounds were being evacuated. So, yes, I believe that the two defendants where Officer Ginell testified and filed victim impact statements, they are on appeal. So I'm sure that this footage will be part of their appeal as to what the government was hiding, not just from the public, not just from defendants and their attorneys. Right. So you're following greatly the weaponization of the government hearings that are going on. Do you believe that those move forward into anything of significance?

Not sure, Glenn. I was really hoping that there would be a separate January 6th committee. And we really need one for two reasons. To expose all of the lies and falsehoods that were promoted by the first select committee. And also to tell the American people the truth, to show them this video. I mean, I post this on Twitter and truth social. And I post it obviously in my work. And thanks to interviews like this, it's reaching a broader audience. But they need televised hearings. They need to fight back with what the January 6th Select Committee, because this is the crux of the weaponization of the Department of Justice and this administration. January 6th is ground zero for turning the war on terror that once was against ISIS and al-Qaeda, against conservatives, Republicans, Trump supporters. So you can't talk about weaponizing government without fully exposing this. the truth about January 6th.

What the Department of Justice is doing, concealing evidence, the lies that the Congress has told to the American people, and how the FBI is using its counterterrorism unit to continue, even this week glance, to even minimal participation in the events of January 6th. Unbelievable. Unbelievable. So, Julie, I think you could make a case that this is even more important than the Hunter and Joe Biden selling their country out for, well, their fellow countrymen, I think they got 30 cents ahead for us.

Can you compare the two? I guess, but I would argue that this is more important because everyone sort of knows nothing is really going to happen to Hunter Biden. I think it's extremely useful what James Comer and the Oversight Committee and, of course, the Means Committee and these courageous whistleblowers from the IRS and FBI, are talking about with these investigations. But January 6th is, it's going to be a key issue in the 2024 presidential race, but it is still, the Department of Justice is still collecting victims.

They're still collecting scalp. And so there's no, it is far, in my view, of course, far more important. The American people need to know what is happening, not just Department of Justice, but in this courthouse, which is where Donald Trump's lawyers are today, as Jack Smith is now preparing a multi-count felony criminal indictment against Donald Trump for January 6th and could rope in attorneys, White House officials, and maybe even a few Republican members of the House. This is crazy.

Thank you so much for everything that you do. I appreciate that you have just zeroed in on this and not let it go, Julie. Thank you. Thanks for having me on Glenn. This is the best of the Glenn Beck program. Pat Gray is with us, and we were just talking as we were getting ready for Greg Stuby. I think, Pat, that there is hope that this is not going to end well for the Bidens. I'd like to be able to think that.

I hope that's true. It's just hard to believe. You know, it's hard to believe. Because they've gotten away with this stuff for so long. It's like, okay, they're just, they're bulletproof. There's a different set of standards for them than us. Listen to CNN last night. Here is the in front of the courthouse.

Here's what they were saying. So the judge said that she could not accept the plea agreement as it was structured. Remember, there was a plea agreement where Hunter Biden would plead guilty to two tax misdemeanors. And then a diversion on a felony gun charge. Well, the judge taking issue with both of them, saying that on the plea agreement related to the tax charges, she was saying that this agreement as structured just had her as what she said a rubber stamp. It did not allow her to weigh in on whether she thought that the plea was acceptable. She had questions about that and wants both sides to brief on that.

Also on the gun diversion, she had questions about how that deal was structured because it inserted her in the process if Hunter Biden breached the terms of this agreement and the government had an issue with it, They wanted the judge to act as a neutral arbiter. Okay, so she goes on and on with this. And there's so much more than that. She, the judge said, it looks like you two are cozy. And I've never seen a plea deal like this. And this washes him clean of everything.

Is that your understanding? The Biden administrations or the Biden lawyers said, uh, yeah, that's our understanding. Department of Defense or Department of Justice said, no, no, I don't think so. So is anything going to happen? We have Representative Greg Stubian on with us now. He is a congressman from Florida, and he is one of the two that are really pushing to get the House to move to impeach Joe Biden. Hi, Greg.

How are you? Hey, good. How are you? Thanks for having me on. You bet. So what is the mood in Congress for these hearings and impeachment? Well, you started to see the speaker actually talk about this, which I think is a great move forward because a lot of us have been clamoring for impeachment for quite some time.

But through these different investigations, all of this evidence now that is mounting evidence after evidence that Joe Biden was involved in the business deals with Hunter Biden, was receiving financial information. Oversight committee did subpoenas on the financial information. We're waiting on some of that. But through some of that, we've been able to ascertain that it's like $20 or $30 million that the Biden family has received through four actions that obviously at the time vice president, but some of these actions he's done while he's been president.

Senator Grassley just released a form from the FBI that showed the $5 million payment related to the Ukraine and Burisma issue. I think there's overwhelming evidence, having been a lawyer myself and been a prosecutor in the JAG Corps. So we're actually drafting our own impeachment resolution specifically on bribery crimes, corruption crimes, because in my opinion, there's overwhelming evidence of that now in the public sphere. And we're still doing these investigations, so there'll probably be more to follow. So, Greg, I am with you. I think there is overwhelming evidence.

the the nixon trials went you know through the first term into the second all of the accusations happened in the first term he was reelected nobody wanted to talk about impeachment the democrats brought the impeachment back up and it was eventually the turning of some of those democrats in the senate that were finally convinced yeah he did do this do you sense any kind of even soft enough of the other side on, yeah, I'm not going to say this out loud, but that looks bad. I don't say, you know, you obviously don't see Democrats going on the news in saying that they think that the president should be impeached. But what you're seeing is, and this is kind of shocking

to me, frankly, is the mainstream media is actually, for the first time actually starting to report about these things. They're starting to report about the 100-bine issues because it's such a pervasive issue now. And it is so evidentiary apparent that this was going to, on that they don't have a choice but to report about it. So it's actually putting Democrats in very difficult positions. You've seen the plea deal with Hunter Biden now fall apart. And that isn't about Hunter Biden. That's about the information that can come from all of that, if that goes to trial through discovery of how Joe Biden's involved in that. You've heard the IRS whistleblowers testify directly. And these are the gentlemen who were part of the team that was investigating Hunter Biden

and their foreign business dealings and all these tax issues that specifically said they had evidence that the big guy and Joe Biden was involved and wanted to issue subpoenas and warrants on information, and the DOJ shut them down. So as this starts to open up and you get more and more facts and evidence, I don't see how you as a Democrat couldn't at least have an open mind to the fact that you have somebody who used his position to enrich himself and his family. I haven't heard any of any Democrats talk about that publicly, but you can certainly see a softening, as you said, from some of the positions that they're taking and them trying to distance themselves from the administration on these issues. What is the ramification of impeachment? You know, Donald Trump was impeached twice, but the last one was, I mean, I don't even think anybody even noticed for the most part except for the mainstream media.

What are the ramifications of you guys pushing this through without control of the Senate? Yeah, here's the political reality that we currently live in. Even if we're able to pass an impeachment resolution on the House floor, it goes to the Senate and you need 60 votes. So that's why I think the way that House leadership and the Republican leadership of the different committees, there's like three different committees because there's so many crimes that are being investigated, have doing the investigation to get the evidence before the American people. to be able to convince 60 senators that this happened. Here's the evidence that it happened.

Here's the specific crimes that were committed and the overwhelming evidence that there were crimes that were committed. And I think that will push members in the Senate to be like, look, regardless of party affiliation, you can't allow somebody to use their position to be bribed that is affecting national security, to be corrupted where they're getting financial benefit from being in office. So hopefully we will do a good enough job in the House laying all this evidence out before the American people and the senators.

And they'll see when we preside our case if we can get it past the House that there were crimes that were committed. And there needs to be ramifications for that crime. I mean, the Democrats impeach Trump for a phone call to a foreign leader. And in my opinion, this goes way beyond Watergate of the things that we have evidence of now. I think this is the most dangerous corruption. I have seen in an Oval Office. And, you know, I know the history of our country and Grant and everything else. And this is the most dangerous because it is not just a cover-up.

It's not a small crime. This is a high crime. If you are selling access to your office as vice president or president, that is a high crime. Plus, with that, you have all kinds of other things. because he has been able to cover this up, he has the Justice Department part of this deal. Now that goes to then all of the weaponization of government. I mean, this is huge and never-ending. Yeah, I mean, you think about, you know, why would Merrick Garland play defense in the Department of Defense,

Director Ray and the FBI by stalling and stonewalling, all of these different investigations, all to protect Joe Biden and the things that have happened. I mean, some of these go back to 2014. Some of these go back to, I'm sure, if you kept digging even more, probably when he was in the U.S. Senate. And as you get more facts and evidence, why would Merrick Garland, Director Ray, why would these other individuals put their lives on the line? and I wholeheartedly believe that both of them are obstructing the administration of justice by not allowing the investigations to move forward the way they should be moving forward.

I mean, if this was Trump or myself or any other Republican member of Congress or any conservative, I'd have been in prison a long time ago if we would have committed these crimes. And so the viability. And I would have been for it, Greg. I mean, if you do this, I mean, I was open to listen to. the case, you know, we did our own homework. And I told my, my staff, I'm not looking to exonerate Donald Trump. I'm looking to find the truth. Because if he did things that he wasn't supposed to, we have to stand for impeachment. The same thing. I, I, we've looked into this with Biden and we have

enough documents, I think, to impeach. We've looked into it. And it wasn't to get him out. It was, let's find out what really happened here. And you have to impeach. Otherwise, you're not asking any honest questions in life. You're just looking for something to guarantee that things continue to roll your way. Yeah, and not just the impeachment, but just take it a step farther, the corruption of the money that was paid by our number one national security threat to the safety and security of American people, the Chinese Communist Party. was paying him off, and he is now the president of the commander-in-chief of the military, and he's making decisions based on the compromising corrupt behavior that he has had in the past,

and why did he let a spy balloon traverse over the entire United States before they shot it down, after it had to collected all the intel at nuclear sites, military bases. You have a corrupt president who we now have evidence that he has received money, and his family has received money from the Chinese Communist Party, and it's affecting the national security of America. So you've got the wall. Let's get an impeachment and then you've got that. You not only have that, you also have Ukraine.

He was wildly corrupt in Rome, Ukraine. Yeah. Yeah. But we're sending billions of dollars and we're talking about going to war. He's compromised. What are we thinking? This is so dangerous. Greg, thank you.

Thank you for standing up for this. Go ahead. Well, I would just say, and we in Congress, especially on the Republican side, have asked for information of where this money to Ukraine has gone, because there is no guardrails when the Democrats were in control, the $100 and I think it's $20 billion that we've sent to Ukraine of where that money is going and the accountability of where that taxpayer dollars have gone. And you can't tell me that the Bidens or some other people or there's corrupt entities that are getting money on that on the back end when they're refusing to have accountability of where that money is being. Of course, of course. I bet you 30% of it, maybe 30% of it actually got to where it was supposed to go. Congressman Greg Stuby, thank you so much. Appreciate it. Thank you. You bet. Greg Stuby from Florida.