The Glenn Beck Program - Best of the Program | Guests: Andrew McCarthy & Sean Patrick Flanery | 4/4/23

Episode Date: April 4, 2023

Glenn talks to “reporter” Arthur Bigglesworth, who’s live in a helicopter above Trump Tower. Former Chief Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew McCarthy joins to discuss the Trump indictment and whether Trump can get a fair trial in Manhattan. Actor Sean Patrick Flanery joins to discuss his newest film, "Nefarious," and the power of faith-based movies.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Stu, I think today is probably your best performance on any show in the last several months. You mentioned the performance warranted an Oscar nomination. I thought that was very thankful. It was not your performance. It was somebody else's performance. But you did say those words. I did say those words, just not to you. Well, I heard them.

And I don't know what I... I think your performance as Man in Helicopter reviewing Stormy Daniel movies was probably one of the highlights of the show. Thank you. Thank you. You don't want to miss anything. We have Andy McCarthy on who talks to us all about what is coming up, what the charges may be. By the time you get this podcast, you may know what the charges are, but all of the ramifications. He was fascinating.

All that and more on today's podcast. Now, in the 1960s, 95% of the clothing that Americans bought was made. right here in America. Now 97% is made overseas. That's a complete reversal of the way things used to be in this country, and we've got to change things back. I want to welcome American Giant back as a sponsor this year. American Giant is all about American workers, the factories, and the products that they make. It's about good paying jobs that allow people to take pride in the hard work that they do. It began in 2012 when a clothing factory in North Carolina was going to shut down forever. Well, they worked with the factory to invest in some new machinery and skill development.

It's 10 years later and they make some of the best clothing you'll ever own. The quality American hoodie, quality American sweatshirts with cotton that's grown here America, milled here in America, and cut and sewn right here in America. The name of the company is American Johnson. The American American giant.com. I want you to go to American-dash-giant.com slash glen. Check them out. If you're looking for good quality clothing that means something, American-dash-giant.com slash glen.

Go there now. You're listening to. Today is a day. It's a sad and sobering and sombering kind of day. According to the media, they're very sad, sober, And it's a somber day for them. As we see a president of the United States be indicted on local charges, but a felony, which is weird. But former president Donald Trump is expected to be arraigned today on about 30 charges, according to the mainstream media.

We have no idea what these charges are. We have no idea how many. we have no idea. The indictment remains sealed, so there's no way you could officially know any of the charges. Yeah, in theory, even Donald Trump does not currently know what the charges are. Correct. Until he goes to that room where he will hear them for the first time,

that's when he learns about them. And so it's important to note that everything we know, we quote unquote, know about these charges. We know from mainstream media reporters, right now. So really this could go any number of directions. Now they've been leaking to mainstream media like crazy. So you can believe that some of it probably is accurate. All of those leaks would be felonies. But I'm sure that I'm sure Bragg will be right on top of prosecuting that. He's going to be very concerned about those leaks. We have Arfer Biggelsworth there at the,

do we not? Do we have our, is, is Arfer ready at all? I'm sure. Uh, is Arfer, are you there? Hello. Hello. Hi, Arfer. Where can you hear me? Yes, I can.

I'm currently hovering above Trump Tower. You're above Trump Tower now. Looking down. Yes. With a telescope. Right. And I'm trying to see if Donald Trump is currently on the crapper. Uh, that's not what we ask you.

We're hoping. We cannot get this information to you. Let's see if he's doing number one. Okay, all right, we're not... Arfra, we'll call you, we'll call you when you, when you have something... Yes. East Tickling. Okay.

Thank you, very. He is currently Tinkling. Thank you. All right, thank you. Got it. Okay, thank you. That would be Arfer. Biggelsworth who is up in the Mercury Chopper apparently today.

So we have Donald Trump going in, he will go in and surrender himself today at some point early this morning. And then I think it's at 1 o'clock he's arraigned, one or two o'clock Eastern time. now they are having a a protest Marjorie Taylor Green is hosting a protest with Trump supporters at 1030 which just doesn't seem like

a good idea to me just doesn't you know maybe it's just me but not a good idea does seem like the type of thing

that could go awry perhaps people being baited into stuff and perhaps counter protests that I mean You're mostly peaceful counter protesters may show at this particular event. And not really be mostly peaceful. What?

Yeah. Well, I'm just, I'm just saying. I'm just saying. So we have the indictment coming out and I'm all a tingle. Now, this is kind of a big thing because, again, we're learning today that no one is above the law, especially with a DA Bragg he is he's quite an amazing I mean yes okay in Manhattan

I mean you know felony assault you know is probably a little above above the law or major crime that's up 22% in New York you know last year there was a convicted sex offender who put a man in a coma

and walked from That guy. That guy above the law. So, but this is, I mean, his defining characteristic is letting people off for crimes they committed. That is legitimately the only thing that Alvin Bragg is known for. But doesn't it make sense that you let people off for crimes they committed and you prosecute people for crimes they didn't commit? No, it does not make sense. Why? And we don't know if.

I mean, we have no idea what these 30 felony charges are. 30. I mean, 34, right? That's what was reported to. I mean, that's crazy. I guess, what are they? Every single time it's written down in a piece of paper is a separate count type of thing. Is that what basically what we're doing here?

We're going to find out some of this later today. It just, and right now they're just focused on so many other stupid, sad, sober things. Now, CNN had Wolf Blitzer on yesterday, and still, the hairiest guy on television, and, you know, who doesn't want to see that? America is flocking to the Wolf Blitzer extravaganza every day. But he was on yesterday, and he said, we're getting, I don't know why he always shouts, we're getting new CNN polling, revealing how the American public is reacting to the former president's indictment. Okay. If I asked you now, how are you reacting, Stu, to the indictment?

What would you? Well, I haven't seen it yet, so it would be hard to react to that indictment. I'm kind of pissed because I... I think it's probably BS, but until I see it, I can't be sure. Okay, good, good, good. We went into the field, did you wolf? We went into the field, and we did this new exclusive CNN poll. What a stupid sentence that is.

Conducted by SSRS just after the indictment last Thursday. Okay, so they did this poll last Thursday. We had no information. No information. 64% of Americans approve of the indictment of Donald Trump. 40% disapprove. Wait, what were those numbers again? 60%.

60%. 60%? 40. Yeah. Okay. So wait a minute. Hang on. I just... 60% approve of what?

We don't know. Inditing him. Get him. I mean, really. That's really what it is. I mean, I guess we're no better because we're like, this is hogwash. We don't know until today.

We don't know. We don't know for sure, right? My guess is just from the long and storied and sobering kind of saga that we've gone through with Donald Trump, they always are like, this is it.

Glenn, this is it. This time we're really going to get him. And then you find out, no, not so much. No, uh-uh. So, I mean, judging from past performance, I'd say this one, nope, uh-uh,

not going to do it. But maybe that's just me. 94% of Democrats approve of the indictment. 94% of Democrats. You know what that is? That's Saddam Hussein voting numbers. Right. That's what that is.

94%. Remember we used to say, there's no way that's real. Right. Yeah, it is. Yeah, apparently it is. 94%. Democrats, 94% approve of the indictment that has yet to be released. 62% of independence and 21% of Republicans.

Now, I just want to show you, 21% of Republicans approve and 6% of Democrats. Wait. No, I'm sorry, 94% of Democrats. So 21% of Republicans approve of the indictment. Yeah. That's a higher number than I would have expected.

Right? Yeah. Yeah. A lot higher. A lot higher. Which means we're not all in lockstep, perhaps. Yeah. I mean, you should judge this on the merits. Yes.

You know, and we can't judge it on the merits until we know what it is. But what we know so far, which I would remind you is from mainstream media reporting. So I don't know that it's necessarily reliable. But what we know so far, it seems to be very, very thin. Right. I mean, the idea that we've had multiple other people look at these same charges, all of them also hated Donald Trump, and none of them brought charges on this. Well, so we went out in the field and we did this new exclusive CNN poll, and we further asked respondents whether they believe Donald Trump's payment to Stormy Daniels was illegal, unethical, not illegal, not wrong at all, or not sure.

Wow. So wait, we're asking the American people, what was it again if it was legal, the Trump payment? Now, it should be noted that generally speaking, it's not illegal to pay somebody to keep an affair quiet. It's not illegal. Otherwise, Bill Clinton would have been rotten in prison for a very long time. but this case 37% of the American people said the payment was illegal I'd like to Wolf I'd like to

have a follow-up question what part of it was illegal what made that illegal because I would guess maybe 99% would say I'm not sure I'm not sure they have no idea what they're even talking

about. So, 52% of independence, 52% say, yeah, this was, this is political. Political. Seventy-six percent of all Americans say, yeah, this was just a political-driven event. Only 14% say no. We have Arfer on again. Arfer, Bigglesworth, apparently he is in the helicopter now, yes. Can you hear me? Yes, I can. Oh, sorry to my helicopter out there for a second. My fault.

So I've been doing lots of research on today and all the implications to me. Right. Okay. What have you found? Well, one thing I've done and I've been looking for clues on what exact we went to. How did all of this happen? What was that one? Finally legal seven.

Finally legal seven. Yeah, uh-huh. Dual airbags. That's a, is that an actual movie that Stormy Daniels is it? Dual airbags, okay. Archer will check in with you again on this sad and somber day. Summer day. Those aren't real, are they?

Totally real. Mad Cow Blonde edition. Who that hell would agree to be in that movie? I mean, dual airbags, maybe you could just say, all right, that might, I get what we're going. Mad cow, it's a disease and they're calling you fat. Why would you say yes to that? What was the first one? The first one was, what was it?

Oh, finally legal seven, which I guess she's been legal for a long time. What sort of restrict the society? What do you have a 42-year-old each of a pincet? This is the best of the Glenn Beck program. Annie McCarthy is here with us. Hi, Andrew, how are you, sir? Glenn, I'm doing great. How are you? Ah, good. I mean, if you listen to the press, it's a somber and sad and sobering day.

And it is all of those things. I just don't believe they believe that. Can you give us some idea of what today is going to look like? Well, it's going to look like the beginning of a process that I think is being, misdescribed in the press because we're kind of a step behind. What they're explaining to you, and the reason this is supposed to be a sad and somber day in the theater before us is that this is the beginning of the criminal justice process where someone is brought in and arraigned on a set of formal allegations known as an indictment, and that begins the formal process of a criminal case.

But I think, Glenn, just as Alvin Bragg would be better understood by the public as an elected progressive Democrat than as a law enforcement official, you know, back in the back probably a decade ago, it was still the case, even in Manhattan, that if you were to campaign as someone who was, whose agenda was to, the law enforcement power of the office in the service of a partisan agenda to go after one particular nemesis of the party, that would have been disqualifying. Now it's what's expected in Manhattan. And this process is not really in the end. It's not about whether they can take a trifling case, and it really is trifling.

It's a case where I would never bring against anyone else. But it's not whether they can bring a trifling. set of allegations and prove them and Donald Trump is found guilty or not guilty. This is about making the process the penalty. This is about making this as financially prohibitive, emotionally wrenching and personally humiliating as they can for Trump. And it's kind of the criminal justice system version of the Kavanaugh confirmation hearing.

It's to create an interrorum effect, which conveys to conservatives and Trump supporters and anyone else who opposes this Bolshevik left, that this is what we've got to you if you dare to oppose us. And that's what this is really bad. It's not so much a criminal justice process, which is, you know, we can go through the nuts and bolts of that. But we should acknowledge, I think, which really happened in here. So can you this? Because now, I mean, you. you can indict a ham sandwich, is the old saying,

but it's got to go to a jury and got to go through a trial now. Do you think you can get a fair trial in Manhattan for Donald Trump? We're fair. The answer to that would be yes. I mean, I tried terrorists

in the 1990s in that same little half square mile area of Manhattan only eight blocks away from where they had bombed the World Trade Center and terrorists were very unpopular, obviously, with New York juries. But no one who looked at that case didn't think that we got a fair jury for it. But if the process is rigged, you know, we got a fair jury because the process wasn't rigged.

We had a fair judge. We had a due process of law. The question is, is the court going to be as rigged against Trump as the DA is? If that's the case, then, you know, it's already over. How is this possible? How did this? I mean, it is, it's stunning, I think, to most Americans to see what's happening in Washington, D.C. with our court system. What's happening in New York with our court system.

It's one thing for the DA. It's another to have the court system so far gone on politics. Well, it's really a reflection, Glenn, of what's happened in the cult. And the reason I can say that with confidence is in the federal system, judges and district attorneys who are U.S. attorneys in the federal system, they're not elected officials. They're appointed by the president. In theory, the credentials for those kinds of positions are that you will uphold the rule of law without fear or favor. You won't use your power as a partisan weapon. And we have them vetted by the Senate, at least in theory, to make sure that they're the kind of people who won't do that.

That's not what we have in the state system. These positions are elected positions. And at a certain point, the wealth springs of funding on the progressive left, George Soros' name is mentioned all the time, but he's hardly the only figure who's of importance here. But they realize that, you know, in these one-party blue, cities, DA's positions, there virtually was not a campaign at all for them. They were decided by the party bosses, like who would fill the slot. They're not competitive races. They were five-figure campaigns at best and probably in the low five figures. So these guys realized they could come in

with, you know, six, seven figures of funding, blow away the competition, install their own progressive prosecutors into these slots. and that's real power. You know, it's one thing to take over the courts or to take over a legislature. They're kind of slow-moving institutions. But if you're a prosecutor, you have real instant power. You can decide who gets charged, who doesn't get charged, doesn't matter how aggressive the police are. It's up to the prosecutor, what happens to these cases.

So if you get a progressive ideologue in that kind of a position with no effective political check on him, that's real power. that's what's happened in these in these municipalities. So tell me about what you know about the case. I mean, we have heard that this is about Stormy Daniels, but that is something that the FEC passed on, the federal system passed on, the statute of limitations is over, and it's a misdemeanor, and he has made it into a felony charge, and there are 34 felonies. That's what we've heard. What do you think you know? Well, I think he's taking two transactions, which are these hush money arrangements with two women who claims to have had affairs with Trump in around 2006, and who were paid off in different ways in the waning weeks of the 2016 election when their

extortionate leverage was highest to try to get paid off to remain silent about their past interaction with Trump. So this is all seven years old. That's when these non-disclosure arrangements were done. And I think the way they're getting 34 counts out of it, Glenn, is the kind of abuse of prosecutorial authority that they warn against in the Justice Department manual, where they tell you not to stack up counts where it's not necessary. A lot of times rogue prosecutors will try to camouflage with quantity,

the lack of quality of the evidence of their case. And it's easy to do this. You know, if you and I were in a stolen, let's say we're in a stolen property, conspiracy we're going to try to transfer and steal stolen property. I hand it to you to say, Glenn, what do you think this is worth? And you hand it back to me after you've appraised it. And I said, well, take another look. And by the time we've passed it back and forth eight times, each one of the times we hand it from one to the other is a separate felony. Now, no one sensible ever charges it that way. There's just two of us and one set of stolen property.

But you can see the mischief that can be made by if you get hyper-technical about what they say a distribution means. So what I think happened here is, especially with Stormy Daniels, this is the easiest one to explain. Michael Cohen lays out the money, and then they decide they're going to pay Cohen by making it look like he's getting paid legal fees rather than being reimbursed for a loan. So they decide to pay him over 12 installments. They have him submit an invoice, and then Trump or someone in the Trump organization pays him a check. So what I imagine is with each individual payment, there's an invoice, there's a check, and there's some entry on the records.

So just, you know, based on what I, the example I just gave you, you can easily see where we could come up with 36 charges, right? Just from that, even though it's all one scheme. So that's the kind of game they're playing here. And the idea, Glenn, is there's not much evidence here, but it's a subtle way of trying to convey to the jury that this guy must be a terrible guy, because otherwise, why would the state have lodged 34 counts again? Correct. Oh, my God, he must be Nikki Barnes. So, when you look at these charges, first of all,

is it illegal for Donald Trump to pay either of these women off? No. Non-disclosure agreements are a staple of civil litigation in the United States. They happen all the time. And that's not even immoral. I mean, what they were charging may have been immoral, but for him to pay them off, it's not a moral and it's not illegal, it's a business transaction. That happens all the time.

Right. So what's going on is brag in his mind as a progressive Democrat. He has decided that it can't possibly be that the Democrats ran an atrocious candidate against Trump. It must be that he stole the 2016 election. And the way he did it was by having these dark hush money arrangements, which he didn't disclose before election day, and that's why Mrs. Clinton was defeated. So this has to be pursued as if it were a violation of the campaign finance was. And mind you, Glenn, if it actually was a campaign finance expenditure, which I don't think it was as a matter of law,

Trump wouldn't have had to disclose it even if he considered it one until long after the 2016 election. So this whole thing is like left-wing fantasy land, but that's what we're... So wait a minute. So, but they're trying to get him because... he claimed it was legal, which seems more reasonable to me that it was illegal. You are taking and you are paying somebody and you're having your attorney have them sign a paper. So it's an illegal, it's a legal expense.

In my book, it would be much more than campaign. If he would have made a campaign expenditure, then he's using campaign money for personal stuff. I mean, that would have been worse, wouldn't it? Yeah, they would have gotten them on that. This is not one of these things where there's a way out. There's not. I mean, they get them coming and go. And if he didn't disclose it, it's because he was intentionally violating the campaign finance laws.

If he had disclosed it as a campaign expense, they would have said how outrageous it was that he would use campaign funds for something like this. So, yes, it's Costco. You know, I mean, they just get them whichever way he goes. Giving the other side, the benefit of the doubt, giving the prosecution, and I don't know if you can't, but try, giving them a benefit of the doubt. Is there any way you could make this case make sense without politics? No. Well, no, but, you know, to broaden the lens, Brad's agenda with respect to everyone who's not named Donald Trump is to not prosecute. Correct.

So what we have in New York is we have very serious crimes, which are felonies, which he either pleads down to misdemeanors or just as commonly doesn't prosecute at all. So the thought that anybody in New York would be prosecuted for misdemeanor falsification of records is very hard to take because we have people committing serious crimes here who don't get prosecuted. So it's really hard to take the politics. that list, Glenn, plus, you know, just to go back to the beginning, he's an elected official. He's not an appointed law enforcement official. He got elected promising to leverage his power against Trump. Now, isn't the exact same thing that Donald Trump is accused of doing? Isn't it the same thing that Hillary Clinton was accused and convicted of doing or her campaign?

Well, what he's formally going to be accused, of is falsifying Trump organization business records. And the way they get that into a felony is in New York, the misdemeanor can become a felony if the person was trying to cover up another crime by falsifying the records. So I don't even think they're going to be able to prove if it's a fair proceeding that there's a falsification of records. Because for that, you have to show that the person acted with an intent to defraud. And I don't see any intent to defraud here. There's nobody who was conceivably harmed by the way that they booked this thing.

But it's even more preposterous to say that he concealed another crime, because the crime I think they want to point to is campaign finance violations, the failure to disclose this as a campaign in-kind donation. And not only was it not one, But, you know, more to the point, when the New York statute talks about concealing another crime, what they're obviously talking about is a New York penal crime, not a federal campaign finance crime. So I don't think that Bragg even has jurisdiction to enforce the federal campaign finance laws if there was a violation here, which I don't think there was. But didn't Hillary Clinton, wasn't she charged because of the steel dossier? She marked it down as a legal expense. Isn't that the same, pretty much the same thing?

Yes. In other words, misrepresenting what was an in-kind campaign contribution as legal fees. That's exactly right, yes. Correct. And so she paid a fine, and that's a misdemeanor. Glenn, that's the other thing here. Nobody gets prosecuted for these campaign finance violations. campaign in 2008 had like a record, I don't remember it's like two and a half million dollar

violation. They paid a $300,000 fine. The last person prominently who was prosecuted for one of these things, John Edwards, the case was a disaster. And this is actually an amusing bit because, you know, for Bragg to win, he has to show that Trump not only knew that he had committed a campaign finance violation, but that he acted with that in mind. and falsifying the records. I don't know how he could have known this was a campaign finance violation, putting aside that it wasn't. In the Edwards case, there's two federal bureaucracies that regulate this, the Justice Department and the Federal Election Commission.

They disagreed on whether it was a campaign violation. The FEC said no, the Justice Department prosecuted it. And then the judge looked at it and said, well, you know, maybe it is, maybe it isn't. He let it go to the jury, and the jury said no. So who knows what a campaign finance? You're listening to the best of the Glenn Beck program. Execution scheduled for 11 p.m. He's trying to convince us.

He's gone insane. And therefore incapable of being executed. I need you to prove he's faking it. Edward? I'm going to ask you some questions. I'm not Edward. Demons aren't really a thing. We own him.

It's a master manipulator. You have your head so twisted around and you think you're the killer. Not him. And give me something to make me believe you. Prove to me you're a demon. I want to talk to you. The real? Edward. Makes me do bad.

I can't stop him. I need you to see something. You got a fan. Did the same thing with all his victims. Me. I'm trying to, Edward, but you have to answer my questions. You have to tell me the truth. It won't let me.

It can go away. It can go away. Yes? This is a trailer for the movie Nefarious. It premieres tonight. It releases nationwide, April 14th. It is very, very powerful, especially with everything that is going on. I mean, I think evil has swept the country, and most people don't recognize it.

And that's kind of what this story is all about. Sean Patrick Flannery is the guy who plays nefarious And Sean, I just told you this off the air And I mean this sincerely, I don't say this very often You deserve an Oscar for this role. I mean, it is, it's fantastic. Did you see split by any chance to? Okay, remember how great that was and he played it so well

Even better here. And the dynamic range. is remarkable. I mean, this movie pretty much takes place in one room, and you hold the audience riveted for 90 minutes. It's amazing. I really appreciate that. I do. Thank you. So you were in, in case people, you know, don't recognize the name, Boondock Saints. He was in Suicide King, simply irresistible. He was in the strip. He just played gun. powder in the boys, he's on Dexter, and now he's in Steve Dase's film, which is got to be kind of, you have to, wow, I've fallen really way off.

You know, I got to say, you know, in my opinion, you know, these roles, you know, the director, Chuck and Kerry, I worked with them for the first time in 2004, and they're two of the most amazing writers I've ever worked. with. And I told them, after shooting that film, I said, I would do a Fruit Loops commercial with you guys. And they called me a year and a half ago, and they said, we have a Fruit Loops commercial. And I said, I'm in. Put me in, coach. They sent me the script. And to me, these roles are why you get into the business. These are roles are why you move away from home and get a roommate on Craigslist.

That is like a lifetime kind of role, once in a lifetime kind of role, where you are 90 minutes. It's all based on your act. I've never seen. an actor with the entire movie on his back. But that's the way this movie is because it's all about nefarious, which is like the screw tapes letter from C.S. Lewis. And you play a demon-possessed individual. Yeah, yeah. It's, it's, this to me, like I said, is why you move out.

It's, and, you know, it's also a film that I, stand behind. I think it's arguably the most, inarguably, the most important film I've ever done. It's, you know, as a dad, as a father, it's things that I firmly, stoutly believe in. It's really, you know, back in the 70s when I was a kid, we had the exorcist. And, you know, that had a lot of special effects and everything else. And this doesn't have any special effects. And it is as terrifying as that was because it's it's real and what you're doing is you're talking to this guy across the table in the prison before you're executed and he's trying to either prove that you're insane or not and you are as the demon you're excited to tell him all about it and he doesn't believe it he just doesn't believe that demons are real well i i i'm

I think it's a little bit shocking, surprising, and also not surprising, that what the devil would potentially say is that accessible. You know, what he says, you completely understand. And it laid out in the way that they wrote the script, it completely makes sense in pursuit of what you would imagine Satan's goal would be. Right. And he's executing it flawlessly. And it is so when you pop back from the body, the soul of the guy that Nefarious, is taken, and you see the torture that that guy is in and will forever be in is, my gosh, it's just so powerful when you see him, you know, help me, help me, help me, please.

And then back in, the character is kind of let out for just a, you know, I don't know, as a play thing or something. Well, you know, I think there has to be brief glimpses of who the real person is, you know, interspersed with, you know, the display of Satan embodying this person. But it starts in the writing. It honestly does. When things are written that well, it makes the process of acting just easy. Well, what's the filming like?

Was it different than other movies? it was, it was very different. You know, I think we initially had 20, 21 days to shoot it. When we showed up, the first day there was protesters picketing outside about some, presumably some union issues. And so they, really? Protesters for a union issue. Yes, yes, yeah, figure that out. Yeah. And so they shut us down. And we just, I was parked in my hotel for about five, six days. And Chuck and Kerry called. And they said, okay, you know, we're back, we're back up. They had to completely recrue. So they had to fly out a brand, whole new crew. And then we ended up shooting everything that you see there, at least at

the table, I shot in eight days. Wow. And to make it, you know, I, I, you know, they said we can, we can get more days, but it'll push through Christmas. And I said, I have to be home for my family on Christmas. So let's load up the work days. Let's get it done so I can go home for Christmas Eve, I still hadn't bought my wife a present. Oh, jeez. It's kind of, it's kind of a tradition that we go to Ace Hardware on Christmas Eve and get her, her robe and a lot of things. So I couldn't miss that, you know. So we, I mean, I think the first day, we shot 17 pages of all dialogue at a table.

It had to be exhausting, because this is, this is physical, even though you're not, you know, standing up a lot of times, it had to just consume your energy. Yeah. You know, that kind of work does. You know, at the end of the day, memorization is, is, you know, anybody can do it. It just requires homework. You know, a lot of people don't have the discipline to do the homework. But, you know, there's so many aspects to, you know, bringing a character to life realistically. The least you can do, I think, is show up and know the words.

The least. Now, if I believe the words or not, that's, you know, subjective. But at the least I can do is show up and know the words. So it did require some homework on that end. But again, when the information is so relatable, it's easy to process it and make it permanent, for me at least. And everything did make sense. The way that they laid this story out, the way that he conveyed what his goal was, you know, citing scripture, et cetera. It was a relatively easy process for me.

It's interesting because it is a God move. but unlike any God movie you've ever seen. This is just one that pretty much says, wake the hell up, wake up, because this is real and this is happening. And you're being sucked into it and you have absolutely no idea. It's really, really effective. So any thought,

was there any hesitation on taking a Christian film, if you will, on, you know, I mean, you know, you're just in, the boys, not exactly a Christian film. Are you worried about being associated with something like this for your career? Not to the point that would stop me from doing it. At my core, I have to be true to myself. I think it's important film. I think it's one of the proudest.

I'm more proud of this than probably. I appreciate that. The 95% of the other films, I've done. That's an understatement, probably 99. And I have to say that I wouldn't sleep at night if I passed on it for those reasons. But yes, throughout my career, I'm very lucky. I've made a career out of doing films that mostly nobody sees. But I haven't had to get a real job. And, you know, when I was eight years old, I threw papers. I worked for Alice Fan Lines, moving pianos. I worked Church's Fried Chicken.

I literally dug ditches. I put culverts under driveway, so I know what real work is, and this is certainly not real work. But I do understand the ramifications of being attached to a film like this, but it's part of my soul. It's things that I believe in fairly strongly.

And I wish the best for everybody out there. I hope it can potentially steer, people in the right direction. I hope the message is received. And if if the repercussions are, you know, negative on me, then I'll, I'll take them. Deal with it. Yeah, I'll deal with it. Sean, thank you so much. Honestly, just tremendous, tremendous. It is, it was a privilege to watch you. It's rare that you get to see an actor get the right script and then just run with it. And it was convincing and real and beautiful. Just great job.

Well, from my heart. I appreciate that. I really do. Sean Patrick Flannery, he is the actor in Nefarious that plays. Nefarious is the role that you play, right? Yeah, Nefarious. What was the other guy's name that you play? Jordan Belfy is the name of the actor?

No, no, no. The other guy, no, no, no, the other guy that you play. Oh, Edward. Edward. Edward. Yes, sir. Yeah. Nefarious and Edward.

He plays both of them in this. And it's really an amazing performance. Sean Patrick Flannery. Go to get your tickets. It opens up April 14th. Who is nefarious.com? Again, who is nefarious.com? Well worth your time.

Yeah.